As of 2005, the TSA aimed to have air marshals on 3% of domestic flights, but usually didn’t due to undermanning. The number of air marshals was actually shrinking at the time, so I’d be awfully surprised if coverage is even that good now.
There’s some sort of internet law about satire of extremism being indistinguishable from extremism itself, isn’t there?
Of course it is.
So? Lots of them support teaching creationism in schools. Lots of them support torture? So what?
What doesn’t sit well with them? The imaginary poll results you just mentioned in the post I quoted and have never mentioned before? How do you know? And where does the tofu fit in?
Vast majorities of Americans are as dumb as rocks and will agree to anything that purports to make them safer, whether effective or not.
I don’t like chardonnay, sailboats or tofu. Or crowds, for that matter. Do I have to turn in my liberal card?
You know what the most dangerous thing to an airline pilot is?
A stewardess with a chipped tooth.
Gigo, if the lack of air marshals and backscatter at Schiphol is our choice and not theirs, then I will back off my comments.
I agree that those big-time scanners are, to a large extent, being held up in America due to the “privacy factor”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34614797/ns/travel-news
and while to some extent we’re always fighting the last war, I think that given how big a deal airline terrorism is to our country, we need to suck it up and go with that, despite the desires of the always-helpful ACLU.
RNATB, yes banning cars would be safer for all of us. Good luck with that. Give me a call when you have something to add.
wmfel, I already linked to that. Big difference though: we can’t do much about lighting strikes, but we can about airport security if we’re serious enough.
Lightnin’, you’ve actually raised a good point in my opinion, before you got all sarcastic. There is some cost/benefit breakdown to be considered. I think putting these in every airport would be a good investment in safety. Obviously opinions vary.
(Warning: all you squishy panty-wearing lefties look away, knuckledragging mouthbreather dumbfuckistan comment coming)
Until L3 can build enough of them, I’d profile passengers and run the high-percentage people through first, including arab and african young males who buy one-way tickets with cash the day before, especially when the guy’s dad, who isn’t some whackjob but is actually the CEO of his country’s version of Bank of America, tells us his son is up to no good.
Government bureaucracies exist to defend, perpetuate and expand themselves. Including the ones that are supposed to be all-concerned with our national security (yep, including FEMA, the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, etc.)
Once you understand that, Napolitano’s initial response makes perfect sense.
Airline terrorism isn’t a big deal to our country. It is perceived as being a big deal.
I have added plenty, thank you.
Frankly, banning private automobile ownership doesn’t seem any less plausible than violating our treaty obligations by putting armed plainclothes law enforcement personnel in foreign airports and on foreign flag air carriers when we can’t afford to put one on more than one twentieth of domestic flights anyway.
apparently a lack of a sense of humor is also de rigeur for acceptance into liberal status on this board.
Or as I’ve seen stated before, joining the hive mind.
I suppose you won’t be joining us, then.
Well, having lived overseas, I would say that vast majorities of people are dumb as rocks, but otherwise, spot on.
wmfellows, I agree that we should stop being so afraid of everything. Also, Fucking Bloody Balls would be an awesome band name!
OK, that’s the crux of it: why can’t we afford that? why can’t we put a scanner in every airport and make them mandatory? who decided that?
If your figures are right, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, it was bad in 2005 and still bad now. This is happening on both Bush’s and Obama’s watch. Democratic and Republican congresses.
I’m going to predict that this incident will raise the issue in the public consciousness, and get TSA off their collective asses and start doing something that actually protects Americans. Unless they get distracted by the holidays or the new American idol and pushes this issue out of the 24 hr news cycle.
But that never happens.
Nor do I. You’re only one tax bracket away from Dom Perignon, yachts, and Beluga, i.e., Republicanism.
“Hive mind!”
I’ve got a Bingo! I win! The rest of you put your cards down.
I thought I had a winner with with “tofu”, but that’s only because I was expecting an ensuing “arrugula.”
I was picking tofu out of my teeth befoe I took my next sip of chardonnay when I read this quote. Can I ask for a cite please? Exactly when and how has the ACLU impeded security on airlines?
It’s not that very hard to understand all this. People don’t want to be blown up, but they don’t want to be inconvenienced or have their privacy invaded any further than necessary. The current procedures already annoy the shit out of most people, few people believe they’re effective, and have (to my undying amazement) made commercial air travel an even more unpleasant experience than it was 10 years ago. You can imagine what happens next if security is “improved” some more with full body scans or mandatory pat-downs or some such.
Congress.
And spending a shit ton of money on better scanning or putting significant numbers of air marshalls on airline flights is not a sensible way of protecting Americans (or anyone else, for that matter).
How many air terror incidents have we had in the last decade? Less than a dozen. How many people were killed? A couple of thousand, and nobody since 2001 - and of course baggage scanning would not have done much good in 2001.
This “issue” was already ridiculously high in the public consciousness, and this incident is going to do nothing but push it even higher than it should be.
No, it doesn’t. But in order to achieve the level of suspension of disbelief required to believe that pretty much means I need to shut down all brain activity. So the lack of pain is more a side effect than anything else.
Clearly, today that mission also includes dealing with terrorists.
AFAIK it seems that the system in place is that Amsterdam does follow what we recommend.
Well, the ACLU is not mentioned in the quoted article, it is true that the ACLU does not like the screen machines; but the latest actions of the ACLU show that they concentrate on the abuses of the screeners, the ACLU considers it to be OK to search for weapons or explosives, but not for other items unrelated to their mission:
Based on what I have seen in the past, it is not the ACLU the ones that complain the most, but the well to do. Repeat (usually rich) fliers got to enjoy sooner than everyone else the benefits of relaxations of security. One thing forgotten by many on the right is that the terrorists on 9/11 used to their advantage the more relaxed treatment that very well to do passengers got. It would not surprise me that in the most recent case we got a repeat of a terrorist being barely frisked because he was in first class or had other benefits that his wealth allowed.
I’m not overly impressed with TSA either, but I think the stats quoted in Post #71 tell me I shouldn’t be overly concerned by your Chicken Littleism as well.
You have failed to convince me, and numerous others, apparently, that major changes to the current security system are as urgently needed as you seem to think they are. You are welcome to keep hammering on the same tired points if you like, but unless you come up with a more persuasive argument, I think I’ve heard everything you’re likely to say on this subject.