Huh? Now I’m completely lost.
[QUOTE=1010011010]
Rather than not searching the cooler, suppose he had instead asked “Do you have a bomb in the undercarriage of your van?”
[/QUOTE]
And if I answered YES, he should have looked? Or not? And if I answered “That’s where I keep my lunch” he should believe me? Or look in the cooler? (“Hhmmmm… Lunch in the undercarriage… Must mean bomb in the cooler!!”) I’m confused.
[QUOTE=1010011010]
The underlying scenario is that the passengers do not know they’re delivering a car bomb. You can’t ask them. You have to search. You can, however, ask them what’s in the cooler.
[/QUOTE]
You can’t ask them, because they may not know, and/or they may lie. So “You have to search.” Agreed. That certainly seems to be the case for the undercarriage, or the interior, or the knapsacks. I’ve said as much every time. My point was, if you’re going to do a search, then by bog, do a search.
Why in blazes should it be different for the cooler? Why should anything I say change the fact that the cooler contains half a dozen cubic feet of unsearched, therefore potentially bomb carrying, space? Because a bomb in the cooler is a cooler bomb, not a car bomb?
Or because you assume that everyone on board is an equivalent dupe, and someone on board must have opened the cooler, and so someone would have discovered the bomb, and we would never have gotten to the gate with it but stopped at a police station to turn it in instead? Maybe I’m not a dupe. I hid the bomb alongside the groceries. I kept it from being discovered by the other passengers. And now I respond to the inspector’s question “What’s in the cooler?” (quite truthfully albeit incompletely) “Lunch”.
No matter how many scenarios we run, and how many generous assumptions we choose to make, failure to inspect a huge closed box is a joke waiting for a punch line. So is the undercarriage “inspection”.
Ever stood in the Florida sun in a parking lot and tried to actually see the undercarriage of a vehicle with one of those mirror thingies? I have-- I walk beside the inspector every time. I tell you from first hand knowledge that, depending on the time of day, at least one third and as much as one half of the underside cannot be seen in the mirror due to glare from the sun. Even if a “device” were spic and span clean and clearly labeled with red letters “BOMB” it would go unnoticed a substantial majority of the time(s). But this bothers the inspectors no more than the closed cooler.
Once again to the basic premise-- a half hearted inspection of the undercarriage and a wave of the hand to other possibilities falls short of “due diligence”. If inspections are important enough to occupy Rangers’ time and the time of the visiting public, then they should be conducted with due diligence. If the inspectors are not expected to exercise due dilligence, then the inspections are merely a PR display. In such a case we should either improve the inspection procedure or eliminate the inconvenience.