I’m not as relaxed as El_Kabong, but unless he is being sarcastic, then I agree, I have no aversion to heavy security on aircraft. But I am used to it anyway :-}
The timing question is a bit of a poser, letting out the real reason is probably unwise, since it might frighten the birds.
However, I’ve a vague feeling that Blair would have preferred to be in London, photographed in a statesmanlike pose rather than being pictured in Bermuda shorts, so I don’t think the American ‘leak’ holds water.
I fully agree with Orbifold, this looks like a very neat bit of work, especially neat as there was not even a whisper. With those six guys in custody for a year, they had to be getting some serious information.
It is a real shame that 'phone taps cannot be used as evidence, although I somehow doubt that there will be many trials - best plead guilty and cut a deal, since it will be let out that the guys turned informant, their only rational course is to inform.
Hmm, why the quotation marks around “freedoms?” I’m just askin’.
I propose security appropriate and proportional, note that I say proportional, to the actual risks. I did not propose doing nothing. In fact all sorts of things are already being done, as I’m sure you would agree. I am simply pointing out that every humiliating search I have gone through over the past several years, every silly item confiscated from my carry-on, every suspicion-laden question directed at me, has been in a real sense a complete waste of time, effort and money. I may have to put up with all this crap, and I do put up with it without holding up the line or verbally abusing the minions of the Security State, but I don’t have to like it, and I don’t.
I have been under the impression that I have been speaking in plain English in my posts to this thread. Judging from some of the responses here, I apparently am wrong in thinking so. Really, I have nothing further to add to this subject.
What to do? Well, for starters I would stop scaring people. I would also conduct an educational campaign that there is a real danger and we have to expect an occasional act of terror to be successful in spite of anything we can do.
I would beef up the police intelligence gathering capability; recruit informants and foster close coorindation with military, CIA and foreign police intelligence.
I would not create a vast bureaucracy in the spur of the moment for the purpose of conducting an examination of every person traveling by air and then not bother to examine freight that rides along. I would make the examination of travelers as sensible as possible. For example, I believe I would pay attention to the many tests that show that the system doesn’t work and do something about that. Testing agents seem to get things through the airport security whenever a test is made.
I would also, as a matter of improving the system discipline, follow the FISA law and the Constitution on the matter of telephone and other surveillance. It seems to me that going around them to do surveillance allows the anti-terrorist people to cast such a wide net that they gather so much information they can’t examine it for what it means. If I have to have solid grounds for the surveillance I will be forced to develop reasonably solid information on my target in advance. I believe this would make what I do more effective. I realise that an occasional bad guy will be missed by this approach and that’s why I would tell people to expect an occasional success on the part of terrorists. After all, despite our best auto and road safety efforts and traffic laws and cops we still manage to kill several thousand by traffic accidents each year.
You misunderstand me. I was not asking what additional steps from where we are now should be taken, but whether we should be doig anything at all. Here is the original statement from El_Kabong that caught my attention:
…which caused me to ask this (Post 90):
He still hasn’t answered the question. The question is: in the effort to prevent another terrorist attack, what restrictions on our liberties are warranted? What curtailment of our liberties would he (or you, if you’d like) deem reasonable? He still hasn’t answered. He just dismissively pooh-poohs the current efforts as silly. And now he runs away instead of explaining himself.
You can follow the exchange that began in Post #90 on Page 3.
The question is what curtailments of our liberties would you deem approprate and reasonable? Any? Would you have any restrictions on travel? Or what can be brought onto a plane? Please read the back and forth with El_Kabong and respond to what was asked, if you would like.
Sure, I accept some restrictions on what can be brought on planes. There always have been restriction, such as weapons, and it’s the screening process that is new. I also have no objection to a pre-boarding screening. My objection is to the hasty drawing up of procedures and the rigidity with which they are maintained. Nail clippers with the fingernail file for example. By no stretch of the imagination can that be converted into a weapon that would allow three or four people to take over an airplane. A single glance at a pair of shoes should show a trained agent whether or not they are dangerous. Holding a family for hours because an infant in arms happened to have a name that was on the no-fly list. These are the sorts of restrictions and actions that are bad because they breed comtempt for the whole process.
I argue for sensible screening procedures, constantly monitoring the procedures for effectiveness and the acceptance of some risk in the interest of not spending ourselves and the airlines into deep financial holes seeking perfect safety.
As to what freedoms I would give up? None of the basic freedoms whatever. I think that all people should be free of unreasonable serches and seizures at all times. Airport screening is not unreasonable unless it is a hastily devised process taken in response to a single act and aimed only a preventing that variety of attack from happening again.
Damned if I know how that last sentence got included. I started to add something and then changed my mind and didn’t delete it. That’s the kind of thing that our airport screening process designers do.
Bullshit. I have answered your question clearly and succinctly, just not in a way you would like. And I have not run away, I’m still here reading this thread.
Here, I’ll anwer you again, and for the last time. I do not deem any restrictions on my personal liberties to be warranted, in this case. Why? Because I am not a terrorist. That some people feel that my civil liberties must be restricted is solely due a systemic failure to identify terrorists by any other means. I accept that this is so, but I am not so stupid as to believe that my (not someone elses, but my) carrying of toothpaste onto a plane materially degrades anyone’s safety.
Oh, yeah, and according to the news this morning, apparently the authorities of the Security State seem to agree:
There. I’ve really feel I’ve exhausted this subject. You want to call it “running away”, no problem.
Sorry, I thought you had bowed out. But it is not bullshit. You STILL haven’t answered the question. Here is what you call your answer:
But the question was not what do you think should not be done, BUT WHAT STEPS DO YOU THINK WOULD BE WISE AND REASONABLE EVEN IF THEY INFRINGED ON SOME OF YOUR LIBERTIES? I had even restricted the question to air travel. See how what you typed does not address the question? It appears to me that your answer is “absolutely none”. Is that correct? Is so, why won’t you state it If not, please ANSWER THE QUESTION. You’re in charge, it is up to you, would you advise any poicies that would limit some of our freedoms?
You can runa way if you want. I’d prefer you answer a legitimate question that was asked of you. I suggest you reread our exchange in this thread. You registered an opinion pooh-poohing our efforts to prevent another terrorist attack and I questioned what you though what, if any, restrictions would be reasonable. You seem intent on rambling on with more criticism of current efforts but not offering what you would deem reasonable. If the answer is that you would take no steps to prevent a terorist attack that might encroach at all on our liberties, than say so. Step up, man.
Please stop shouting at me. I’ve already addressed this at least twice. No infringement on my civil liberties is warranted, if they are sourced on the assumption that I am a terrorist. I have likewise already said more than once that I tolerate, but object to, those restrictions that are already in place.
What would be wise and reasonable is that after I, and other persons who are not in fact terrorists, not be subjected to humiliating treatment every time we get aboard a plane. If that means a national database of persons vetted to fly without repeated, pointless and unnecessary screenings, that’s fine with me.
Now kindly read the article I linked to. It would seem one must agree that either the authorities have decided that the additional restrictions recently imposed are not necessary, that they are unrewarding for the degree of risk involved, or that the authorities are simply bending under airline pressure and thus being cavalier with passenger safety. Your call.
Okay, it appears your answer is, in fact, “none”. You would take no steps that would infringe on your civil liberties. But that’s only IF they’re sourced on the assumption that you are a terrorist. Well, that’s a clear answer to my question asking what you **would **do. Unless you consider a vetted national database as something you would do that would infringe on your liberties. But then, the answerisn’t “none” is it? Very confusing.
By the way, are you John Kerry? Shouldn’t you be dealing with that construction project and not not answering questions on a message board?
What if they are ‘sourced’ not on the assumption that you are a terrorist, but upon the recognition that, like a thief, it isn’t possible to know for sure what a terrorist looks like, and therefore the prudent thing to do is simply to make sure you aren’t one?
Using the same logic, why should an innocent person tortured to extract information hold anything against his torturers? After all, why take offense where none is intended?
I would also like to point out to *magellan01 that his assumption that I arguing a specifically, ideological point, apparently on behalf of the Democratic party, is somewhat off the mark. While I’m at it I would also like to apologize to anyone who might have gotten pissed off at my posts here. I really haven’t been trying to be difficult, I just feel that I’m allowed to complain about the arbitrary laying on and withdrawal of increasingly hysterical security rules without necessarily having a comprehensive plan to revamp the national secuity apparatus. In fact, the ability to complain about blind bureaucracy without punishment is one of the things I most cherish about being an American.
Connects the upper and lower Pennisulas. And is a pretty bridge.
The story says it was triggered by some arabic types buying large quantities of cell phones. What does a 1000 phones do for explosives that one or two won’t do.?
Their claim is they buy for 20 and take out of package and can sell for 38. I do not know how that is done . I suspend my opinion til further info becomes available.
The bridge might be symbolic and would photograph well. But it is huge. Will they simultaneously throw cell phones at it and bring it dpwn.
Than why don’t you start a pit thread or open one in IMHO? In GD people usually back up thier opinions are willing to explain themselves. And don’t make it sound like an unfair burden has been put upon you asking you to have a “comprhensive plan”. That’s bullshit. You cavalierly pooh-poohed steps that have been taken and I asked what YOU would find reasonable by way of steps that might infringe on liberties.
Your “answer”, as much sense as I can make out of it anyway, seems to be squat. Which is not what I would have guessed. But since it is, I now know how much credence to give your thoughts on our security. Here’s a hint: it ends the first sentence of this paragraph.
Hm. The article said the batteries were removed from the phones and stored seperately.
You can use batteries in interesting ways. Don’t know what it is being suggested as being planned, but I can think of at least two ways to take out a bridge with a thousand phone batteries.