Have we had a lot of people killed by terrorists on airplanes lately? You can not make flying completely safe. Do you want to stand in line and spread your cheeks? They have to walk a line between safety and making you get to the airport a day early for a cavity search. There has been very little trouble. A nut case blew up his shoes and another one set his legs on fire. Hardly necessary to revamp the screening.
When 911 happened the airlines were in charge. They had obsolete or poor screening devices, they did not train their workers much and paid them poorly. Nobody wanted to give them the blame they deserved. Instead we kicked a few million tax payer dollars their way.
The best thing that arises out of this attempt and the “shoe bomber” is that the inherent hapless humor of both situations blunts the edge of the threat, so that it cannot be as efficiently used by the scaremongers.
We will never be able to stop every possible terror plot. We need to absorb this kind of stuff and carry on, and we need to start thinking of terrorism like the actuarial background noise that it is. Only then will we be able to prioritize our resources like adults.
Napolitano is an adult being forced into a childish debate. She will say some things that are untoward, and she will be forced by pragmatism into idipotic maneuvers like the recent “security tightening”, but I am no less glad to have her and her ilk in charge than I was a week ago.
I did not see such a link but very evidently you did not understand the link (nor statistics or economic principles such as the law of diminishing returns, nor cost-benefit analysis).
Lightening can be mitigated, indeed, you can bloody fucking do something about lightening. But at some point “total mitigation” becomes something that has negative net returns. That is the cost of mitigation vastly exceeds the benefit of mitigation.
The same principles apply to airport security measures, in direct costs, and indirects (lost hours - i.e. direct opportunity cost - and reduced economic activity, again, opportunity cost).
As a businessman, I know that for doing a deal, nothing is a substitute for face-to-face. Video conferences are moderately acceptable for people inside your org, but trying to do deals off of videoconferences with folks you have not spent skin time with… well invitation to get fucked.
You blithely assert
Although such machines are of unproven efficacity, and one can trivially think of a way around them (plastic chargers (stuff shoved up your anal cavity) a early 20th century technology).
So you advocate spending massive millions - to make your pissing-pants self feel “safe” (the illusion of safety, Security Theatre) - on an item that is apparently massively expensive and frankly if someone is willing to be uncomfortable (which seems not particularly challenging for a suicide bomber, let alone convicts), easily defeats the machine.
I am no fucking Leftists, but I am bloody well literate in cost-benefit analysis and I am rather attached to protecting my liberties - in particular from ignorant imperial overeach.
Bingo.
Frankly if the US of A wants to impose this on itself domestically, fine. Fuck it. But the Mr. Smashies ignoramuses of the US wish to make it an international standard, just because they are risk management illiterates.
Doubtless the law of Limited Means.
You all are spending billions blowing up Afghan villagers for no particularly rational reason.
The best thing the US Government could do to protect Americans would be abolish your ridiculous TSA and transfer its spend to human intelligence (human spies) spend.
OK, here’s the thing. How do we estimate how many attacks were thwarted or deaths prevented thanks to the measures in place already? How can we put a number on number of hijackings avoided thanks to current measures (ie, intrusive security and air marshals, albeit not enough of either)?
Seems to me that we’ve been pretty safe since your antichrist, Bush, formed DHS and put in place these measures, in response to targeted attacks by Al Qaida. The Christmas incident is Obama’s chance to shine, we’ll see what happens.
I want more air marshals and backscatter at every airport. Thanks for asking.
Negative. I want it for planes flying into the US.
If UK or whoever wants to have different security standards, good for them. I’m sure Israel has some serious security, an armed Shlomo on every corner of every airport… AFAIAC, that’s their call.
Nice try at the threadjack.
We were safe before 9/11, too.
So tell me, how do we enforce rules for planes flying into the U.S. when the departure countries own the airport security?
And do you really think restricting such things to inbound flights really helps?
From my chair, you’re just one of those people who want people to live in fear of the tiny chance they may be affected by
a terrorist attack. You know, just like the Bush administration.
That’s an aspect of all this that puzzles me: the blithering incompetence of terrorist “masterminds”.
Take the 9/11 attacks. If you tried to sell that plot as a Tomclancy, you’d get laughed out of the room, the plot is too ridiculous. And they planned it for months! Sending guys to flight schools to learn how to fly an airplane to the exclusion of learning how to take off or land?
And the cockpit door wasn’t locked! What the fuck? We’ve had airline hijackings for forty years, and the cockpit doors aren’t locked? If the cockpit doors had been locked on the planes in question, we would be laughing about this cockamamie plot. No, maybe not laughing, we probably would have forgotten about it by now!
Then this simpleton Richard Reid and this latest shit-for-brains, an engineering student who doesn’t know as much about the physics of explosives as the average Camp Fire Girl.
These are the dreaded terrorists that should pucker our collective assholes with fear and trembling? Huh?
Will say one thing. A guy who is willing to set his dick on fire for his cause is a man of resolute determination. I guess we should be grateful that vicious and violent is so commonly stupid.
Um… what? You care to revise and extend your remarks?
Extremely easy; we make it a requirement for landing rights. Same way we have security requirements for cargo shipped from int’l ports, which is checked OCONUS by CBP or TSA. Happens all the time - I even worked on a project that did oversight of that work at one point, when I was at a non-profit federal contractor.
yes. How can it not? Be specific, please.
Quite the opposite.
Well there was Lockerbie on Bush I’s watch, but AFAIR, no blowing up of passenger planes during Clinton’s time. So it seems we were pretty safe in the skies before Bush II did all his homeland safe-making.
It’s a very real possibility that a small tube worm or species of polynuclear myxomycetes might have done as much to secure our safety in the air as did president G W Bush.
That’s such how hypothetical logic works, you know.
you honestly believe that?
I’m trying to use reasonable assumptions here. If I put a lock on my door, it’s likely that my home is safer than without one. With a security system it’s safer still. With an armed guard at the front all night, even safer.
Yes, even if my home wasn’t robbed before I put the lock on it, if I hear that there’s a new gang out there trying to steal stuff/hurt my family, isn’t it reasonable to step up the protection?
Unless you are going to try to sell us that air marshals and backscatter machines make us less safe somehow, I’m not sure you thought out your argument.
You keep bringing up air marshals like they’re some panacea for any terrorist incident that might happen on a plane, while continuing to ignore the fact that an air marshal wouldn’t have made any difference in this latest incident. It’s not like terrorists are smuggling guns onto planes and we need someone to duke it out with them in a shootout. If security fails to find a bomb before someone gets on a plane, an armed air marshal isn’t going to help, unless he’s Robocop and has sci-fi optical technology.
No those are probably ok, but I have concerns about the backscatter stuff.
In any case you know the fuckers in charge can’t just stop at reasonable. If they did, then we wouldn’t have had bullshit like the “no liquids” or “no pen knives” policies.
Not if your house was never under threat, or under a very small one. If the threat is minor enough, your security measures may have impoverished you far more than any plausible chain of burglars ever could.
Throwing money at something that doesn’t need money thrown at it, such as increased airport security theatre, is a waste of taxpayer dollars, and an imposition on the valuable time of our nation’s citizens. Cowards will never feel safe, no matter how much money we throw at the problem, so we have to ask ourselves how much money and resources is it reasonable for the rest of us to waste coddling their insecurities.
If they’re scared to fly let em take the bus, and leave the air free for the rest of us.
What exactly is an air marshal going to do that the passengers arround terrorist X can’t do? I really would not want some copper attempting to shoot a handgun at a terrorist at any distance outside point-blank range given the amount of space between airline passengers in coach class.
air marshals are good for hijackings
i’m not so sure they have any special use in preventing suicide bombers
OK let me be clear then.
They are not a panacea.
They are not foolproof.
They are not the be-all/end-all to airplane security for Americans.
But I firmly believe that we are way safer with them on board than not. And they don’t cost much money, relatively speaking (FY09 budget 820m out of $43b DHS budget, give or take).
No, a marshal didn’t affect a solution in this case (because the limp-wristers in Amsterdam don’t let them? jury still out on that I suppose 
). But the argument that some of the more emotional have tried to pitch here today is that they don’t make any difference. That Americans aren’t any safer with them than without them. I say, in as respectful a tone as I can muster, “Bullshit”.
I’d even go so far as to say that having the threat of an air marshal on every flight, without an actual marshal, has a large deterrent effect. But actually having them on every plane is even better.
I’d love to see a poll as to the American’s public’s take on the Air Marshal program. Based on my own peer group (the Brownshirts, of course, if I’m not on your side), I’d say it’s massively in favor of having more not less.
Not really - more than likely the only thing that has changed has been your perception of your safety. which I understand is easy for security dads to conflate.
let me guess. you just finished watching WGN’s 2-days-before-new-years-eve double feature of Passenger 57 and Executive Decision? I was tempted to watch, but alas, I opted out.
Whoa, here’s a good idea, straight from your side of the political spectrum. Let’s let everyone carry guns on planes. That way, when a terrorist strikes, everyone will be packin heat and he’ll totally not start some shit.
I’ve not seen either movie yet.
Pass.
OK, so here we are then, Rumor.
You are saying that locks (or security measures in general, to keep the analogy going) don’t make one safer from robbery, attack, or other bad outcomes. It only makes me feel safer.
That’s your story, and you’re sticking to it?