DescentBB

Will Robinson wrote:Adding scissors and knives etc. to the ban list is not a high cost change in security measures! You already have them screening for guns and hand grenades so just how expensive is it to add knives to the list?!? You are really being silly here!

I meant high cost as in annoyance. It is very annoying to not be able to carry my pocket knife or nail clippers in my pocket. It slows down the lines of people getting in to the airplanes, so there is some actual dollar cost, but most of it is pure annoyance costs, with no benefit. As has already been demonstrated, box knives are not effective against a plane full of people determined to stop you.

Will Robinson wrote:Go ask all those experts you quoted if they think allowing boxcutters on board again is a good idea, an idea that they would promote.

Schneier is considered one of the best in the industry. Bush's government has hired him as a security consultant several times.

http://www.schneier.com/essay-095.html

Two weeks ago, Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone caused a stir by ridiculing airplane security in a public speech. She derided much of post-9/11 airline security, especially the use of plastic knives instead of metal ones, and said “a lot of what we do is to make people feel better as opposed to actually achieve an outcome.”

As a foreigner, I know very little about Australian politics. I don't know anything about Senator Vanstone, her politics, her policies, or her party. I have no idea what she stands for. But as a security technologist, I agree 100% with her comments. Most airplane security is what I call “security theater”: ineffective measures designed to make people feel better about flying.

I get irritated every time I get a plastic knife with my airplane meal. I know it doesn't make me any safer to get plastic. El Al, a company I know takes security seriously, serves in-flight meals with metal cutlery...even in economy class.

Senator Vanstone pointed to wine glasses and HB pencils as potential weapons. She could have gone further. Spend a few minutes on the problem, and you quickly realise that airplanes are awash in potential weapons: belts, dental floss, keys, neckties, hatpins, canes, or the bare hands of someone with the proper training. Snap the extension handle of a wheeled suitcase off in just the right way, and you've got a pretty effective spear. Garrotes can be made of fishing line or dental floss. Shatter a CD or DVD and you'll have a bunch of razor-sharp fragments. Break a bottle and you've got a nasty weapon. Even the most unimaginative terrorist could figure out how to smuggle an 8-inch resin combat knife onto a plane. In my book Beyond Fear, I even explained how to make a knife onboard with a tube of steel epoxy glue.

Maybe people who have watched MacGyver should never be allowed to fly.

The point is not that we can't make air travel safe; the point is that we're missing the point. Yes, the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters and small knives to hijack four airplanes, their attack wasn't about the weapons. The terrorists succeeded because they exploited a flaw in the US response policy. Prior to 9/11, standard procedure was to cooperate fully with the terrorists while the plane was in the air. The goal was to get the plane onto the ground, where you can more easily negotiate. That policy, of course, fails completely when faced with a suicide terrorists.

And more importantly, the attack was a one-time event. We haven't seen the end of airplane hijacking – there was a conventional midair hijacking in Colombia in September – but the aircraft-as-missile tactic required surprise to be successful.

This is not to say that we should give up on airplane security, either. A single cursory screening is worth it, but more extensive screening rapidly reaches the point of diminishing returns. Most criminals are stupid, and are caught by a basic screening system. And just as important, the very act of screening is both a reminder and a deterrent. Terrorists can't guarantee that they will be able to slip a weapon through screening, so they probably won't try.

But screening will never be perfect. We can't keep weapons out of prisons, a much more restrictive and controlled environment. How can we have a hope of keeping them off airplanes? The way to prevent airplane terrorism is not to spend additional resources keeping objects that could fall into the wrong hands off airplanes. The way to improve airplane security is to spend those resources keeping the wrong hands from boarding airplanes in the first place, and to make those hands ineffective if they do.

Exactly two things have made airline travel safer since 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit door, and passengers who now know that they may have to fight back. Everything else – all that extra screening, those massive passenger profiling systems – is security theatre.

If, as Opposition leader Kim Beazley said, Senator Vanstone should be sacked for speaking the truth, then we're all much less secure. And if, as Federal Labor's homeland security spokesman Arch Bevis said, her comments made a mockery of the Howard government's credibility in the area of counter-terrorism, then maybe Howard's government doesn't have any credibility.

We would all be a lot safer if we took all the money we're spending on enhanced passenger screening and applied it to intelligence, investigation, and emergency response. This is how to keep the wrong hands off airplanes and, more importantly, how to make us secure regardless of what the terrorists are planning next – even if it has nothing to do with airplanes.

Kilarin quoting some other purplish person wrote:Exactly two things have made airline travel safer since 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit door, and passengers who now know that they may have to fight back. Everything else – all that extra screening, those massive passenger profiling systems – is security theatre.

And when the writer put pen to paper to offer the foregoing, did he imagine a simple mixture of clear liquids would take down a trans-atlantic jetliner, or ten? I think not. I wonder what would his position be on keeping water bottles and sports-drink containers off of jets today? Mmm... And where was this writer when even Tom Clancy was already imagining and publishing a pre-911 book about terrorists flying jetliners into the White House? Spare me the purpleman. He's no prescient expert.

I note that in response to Lothar's point that your posts offer not much more than sniping without constructive alternative, you offered yet more criticism. Zuruck disqualifies himself every time he posts, but you're more careful than that.

So getting back to the thread, if the purple-man is providing your constructive thesis on how better to conduct homeland security, I have a question for you and the purpleman:

Will you join me in supporting governmental profiling and preferential searches of men and women of the Muslim faith at airports?

Of course you won't. You hold yourself out as a libertarian and that would be antithetical to all that you hold dear, which is your own misperception of the Constitution as a suicide pact.

That, my libertarian friend, is true security theatre.

Testing Your Faith,

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:Will you join me in supporting governmental profiling and preferential searches of men and women of the Muslim faith at airports?

Of course you won't. You hold yourself out as a libertarian and that would be antithetical to all that you hold dear, which is your own misperception of the Constitution as a suicide pact.

That, my libertarian friend, is true security theatre.

You seem to not realize that the terrorists would eventually get wise to this and use people who are not islamic, or at least, not obviously islamic. So, this isn't necessarily a matter of libertarianism, but rather a matter of trying to eliminate narrow, short-sighted and reactive security measures in favor of broader and more intelligent* measures, which has been Kilarin's thesis.

*as in: based on sound intelligence from espionage and tipoffs. Pro-active would've been more appropriate, but I'm loathe to use such cheap buzz-words in a serious discussion, apart from the prior self-referential use.

Shadowfury333 wrote:So, this isn't necessarily a matter of libertarianism, but rather a matter of trying to eliminate narrow, short-sighted and reactive security measures in favor of broader and more intelligent* measures, which has been Kilarin's thesis.

*as in: based on sound intelligence from espionage and tipoffs. Pro-active would've been more appropriate, but I'm loathe to use such cheap buzz-words in a serious discussion, apart from the prior self-referential use.

"Broader and more intelligent measures like espionage and tip offs...'

Hmmm, considering the moaning we saw about Bush for using totally legal means of spying on known al Queda suspects I seriously doubt you would approve of any "espionage".
In fact I call bull shiit on your whole claim that we need spying based on all the whining we hear everytime bush trys to do just that!
You guys aren't in favor of spying, you're just in favor of anything that sounds like an alternative to measures being supported by the Bushies!

The liquid explosive plot was uncovered by spying on emails, internet use and telephone calls....hmmm, sound familiar?!?
Do you think they had a warrant to listen in on all that?!?

And here's a wake up call for you all, and the purple genius as well.
Just because a plane load of people, who in a post 9/11 world will be more alert... and just because they are theoretically capable of taking down four trained soldiers armed with boxcutters, doesn't mean they will prevail in that situation!
However it's pretty much a given certainty that those alert motivated passengers will have a much better chance of taking down four trained soldiers who are armed with improvised weapons made from luggage handles and broken CD's.

Now is it so important for you to have your boxcutter on a flight that you want to lessen the odds of your fellow vigilantes?
Do you really have that many boxes to cut open when you fly?!?

Last flight I took I could have beat the ★■◆● out of half of the passengers on board, and I'm getting pretty old, slow and fat!
If there had been four soldiers with razor knives coming at me I'm pretty sure me and the only other capable man on board that flight would have ended up in a bloody heap at the feet of the terrorists.

On the other hand if I was faced with four guys who suddenly got up and started cracking their CD's and suitcase handles to improvise weapons I'm pretty sure My chances would be greatly improved! And that's what this is all about, changing the odds!
It's not that we can keep every weapon off but to reduce the arsenal is to reduce the odds.

I've been in more than a few fights in my day and I know how people react when weapons are introduced to a melee. I've been deep in the ★■◆● when a knife was pulled and all of a sudden I was alone just from the sight of the steel!
And that guy who's frantically mixing his epoxy to form a knife?!? Please! Bring him and his soggy mess on instead of a boxcutter anyday!

PS: funny how the purple genius mentions that El Al allows steel cutlery but fails to point out that they also have between 4 and 6 ARMED UNDERCOVER AGENTS spread out among the passengers ON EVERY FLIGHT!!!! Sort of changes hte whole equation a bit don't you think?!? Let me and five friends bring our Colts and Sigs on every flight and I'll welcome a plane load of islamikazi's with a boxcutter in each hand!!!

Just honestly answer this question.
If the terrorists knew that in response to the 9/11 attack we took no new measures to keep knives off of the planes, and instead were waiting on tip offs and espionage to catch them....do you think they would have tried to come up with a new liquid explosive plot or sent in some more boxcutter wielding warriors?

Will Robinson wrote:Hmmm, considering the moaning we saw about Bush for using totally legal means of spying on known al Queda suspects I seriously doubt you would approve of any "espionage".
In fact I call bull shiit on your whole claim that we need spying based on all the whining we hear everytime bush trys to do just that!
You guys aren't in favor of spying, you're just in favor of anything that sounds like an alternative to measures being supported by the Bushies!

Will, I'm in favor of what works. While I do have some issues with allowing the fear to push us into totalitarianism, I also realize that if I voluntarily put myself in a position where I can be watched, i.e. outside of my house, either physically or electronically, then I am liable to be watched.

Will Robinson wrote:The liquid explosive plot was uncovered by spying on emails, internet use and telephone calls....hmmm, sound familiar?!?
Do you think they had a warrant to listen in on all that?!?

When have I personally attacked these measures? I don't care if a third party is listening to my calls, particularily one that doesn't care about them unless I pose a security risk. Assuming that every single phone call and e-mail is tapped by the government(Canadian, in my case), they wouldn't have enough manpower or time to waste* on trivial matters such as my life, as I pose no risk.

*though some would beg to differ

Will Robinson wrote:Just honestly answer this question.
If the terrorists knew that in response to the 9/11 attack we took no new measures to keep knives off of the planes, and instead were waiting on tip offs and espionage to catch them....do you think they would have tried to come up with a new liquid explosive plot or sent in some more boxcutter wielding warriors?

The latter, most likely, although I wouldn't underestimate their imaginations. Besides, assuming that the Air Marshal system has been implemented, now we have a good guy with a gun, and the gun beats the box knife any day.

Shadowfury333 wrote:When have I personally attacked these measures?

sorry, if it doesn't apply to you personally then please ignore it. I'm really speaking toward a much larger audience with most of my comments.

And as I understand it we've never had a marshal on every flight...ever!

Will Robinson wrote:

Shadowfury333 wrote:When have I personally attacked these measures?

sorry, if it doesn't apply to you personally then please ignore it. I'm really speaking toward a much larger audience with most of my comments.

I figured, and I don't take any personal offense, despite what my post may have implied

Shadowfury333 wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:Will you join me in supporting governmental profiling and preferential searches of men and women of the Muslim faith at airports?

Of course you won't. You hold yourself out as a libertarian and that would be antithetical to all that you hold dear, which is your own misperception of the Constitution as a suicide pact.

That, my libertarian friend, is true security theatre.

You seem to not realize that the terrorists would eventually get wise to this and use people who are not islamic, or at least, not obviously islamic. So, this isn't necessarily a matter of libertarianism, but rather a matter of trying to eliminate narrow, short-sighted and reactive security measures in favor of broader and more intelligent* measures, which has been Kilarin's thesis.

*as in: based on sound intelligence from espionage and tipoffs. Pro-active would've been more appropriate, but I'm loathe to use such cheap buzz-words in a serious discussion, apart from the prior self-referential use.

Will correctly points out the illogic in your position. "You seem not to realize" there is no single security measure that cannot be met with an adaptive counter-response. That does not mean you terminate the security measure because it's simply hopeless. So that's not your real issue, otherwise you wouldn't backpedaled right off the ramp when Will called you on it.

Your issue is that ethnic profiling as a means of security is, to you, the moral equivalent of totalitarianism. Invoking the spectre of totalitarianism is, of course, classic hyperbolic, lefty rubbish. Nevertheless, I believe you when you say you would rather see my government expend its security resources by, say, subjecting my frail, 76 year-old Irish-Catholic mother to a random search, whilst permitting the 19-year old, muslim man clutching his Koran and mumbling Allah Akbar to pass through unscrutinized.

Brilliant.

You further suggest that what we need are "roader and more intelligent measures like espionage and tip offs..." Gee, do you think? I wonder if that's occurred to anyone in the gubbament? Gotta end this post so I can write my congressman. Don't worry -- I'll give proper attribution.

The left will get you killed.

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:Will correctly points out the illogic in your position. "You seem not to realize" there is no single security measure that cannot be met with an adaptive counter-response. That does not mean you terminate the security measure because it's simply hopeless. So that's not your real issue, otherwise you wouldn't backpedaled right off the ramp when Will called you on it.

I'm well aware of this, I didn't ask to terminate it, rather, I asked to expand it, so that everyone would be scrutinized.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Your issue is that ethnic profiling as a means of security is, to you, the moral equivalent of totalitarianism. Invoking the spectre of totalitarianism is, of course, classic hyperbolic, lefty rubbish. Nevertheless, I believe you when you say you would rather see my government expend its security resources by, say, subjecting my frail, 76 year-old Irish-Catholic mother to a random search, whilst permitting the 19-year old, muslim man clutching his Koran and mumbling Allah Akbar to pass through unscrutinized.

My issue isn't totalitarianism, although I don't like that either, my issue is with simply assuming that all muslims want to kill us and all non-muslims don't, which would lead to some huge security holes, as I'm sure many non-muslims wouldn't mind killing us. I would hope that the security guards would use their uncommon sense and check both of them.

Bold Deceiver wrote:You further suggest that what we need are "roader and more intelligent measures like espionage and tip offs..." Gee, do you think? I wonder if that's occurred to anyone in the gubbament? Gotta end this post so I can write my congressman. Don't worry -- I'll give proper attribution.

The left will get you killed.

Of course our governments know that, the problem is with the bleeding heart liberals who can't seem to get their priorities straight when it comes to criminal behaviour. They want to ensure the criminal's rights, while making it look like the victim's fault, under the humanist pretense that the criminal(in this case, a terrorist) was just having a bad day, or happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time(with an explosive device), but that he isn't really evil. Because of that flawed logic, they can't accept the efforts of various espionage agencies to find and stop terrorists, and these hippies feel that it is their sacred anti-establishmentarian duty to being any espionage measure into light.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Will correctly points out the illogic in your position. "You seem not to realize" there is no single security measure that cannot be met with an adaptive counter-response. That does not mean you terminate the security measure because it's simply hopeless. So that's not your real issue, otherwise you wouldn't backpedaled right off the ramp when Will called you on it.

Shadowfury333 wrote:I'm well aware of this, I didn't ask to terminate it, rather, I asked to expand it, so that everyone would be scrutinized.

Sigh. As a matter of clarity, you are incorrect. You said you favored "eliminat(ing) narrow, short-sighted and reactive security measures (such as Muslim profiling) in favor of broader and more intelligent measures . . . .", which is your version of the position held by Kilarin. Did I miss something? Or have you hit the end of the ramp yet?

Shadowfury333 wrote:My issue isn't totalitarianism . . .

Hmm... I could have sworn you said in response to Will: ". . . I do have some issues with allowing the fear to push us into totalitarianism . . . ." I don't think Will brought it up. Maybe you were referring to something else.

Shadowfury333 wrote:(My) issue is with simply assuming that all muslims want to kill us and all non-muslims don't, which would lead to some huge security holes, as I'm sure many non-muslims wouldn't mind killing us. I would hope that the security guards would use their uncommon sense and check both of them.

I haven't seen anyone here argue that we focus security on Muslims to the exclusion of everyone else, as you suggest. Isn't that a misleading, specious argument to make, if no one else has even suggested it? Or am I mistaken, and someone else posted something to that effect?

In my opinon, doctrinal fealty to certain aspects of libertarianism can be just as dangerous as the dogmatic beliefs of the bleeding heart liberals.

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:Sigh. As a matter of clarity, you are incorrect. You said you favored "eliminat(ing) narrow, short-sighted and reactive security measures (such as Muslim profiling) in favor of broader and more intelligent measures . . . .", which is your version of the position held by Kilarin. Did I miss something? Or have you hit the end of the ramp yet?

IF you don't pick apart the exact wording, and instead focus on the whole phrase, you would see that I was refering to replacing narrow security measures with broad ones, not simply terminating narrow ones and leaving it at that, which you seem to have inferred.

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Shadowfury333 wrote:My issue isn't totalitarianism . . .

Hmm... I could have sworn you said in response to Will: ". . . I do have some issues with allowing the fear to push us into totalitarianism . . . ." I don't think Will brought it up. Maybe you were referring to something else.

I meant that my issue with ethnic prolifing doesn't stem from a fear of totalitarianism.

Bold Deceiver wrote:I haven't seen anyone here argue that we focus security on Muslims to the exclusion of everyone else, as you suggest. Isn't that a misleading, specious argument to make, if no one else has even suggested it? Or am I mistaken, and someone else posted something to that effect?

No one said anything about focusing security exclusively on Muslims, but you did mention something to that effect.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Will you join me in supporting governmental profiling and preferential searches of men and women of the Muslim faith at airports?

Bold Deceiver wrote:In my opinon, doctrinal fealty to certain aspects of libertarianism can be just as dangerous as the dogmatic beliefs of the bleeding heart liberals.

BD

True, but I'm only in favor of what works, anyhting else is subordinate.

*quotes fixed by Lothar

psst. forgot the quote marks around the originator.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Sigh. As a matter of clarity, you are incorrect. You said you favored "eliminat(ing) narrow, short-sighted and reactive security measures (such as Muslim profiling) in favor of broader and more intelligent measures . . . .", which is your version of the position held by Kilarin. Did I miss something? Or have you hit the end of the ramp yet?

Shadowfury333 wrote:IF you don't pick apart the exact wording, and instead focus on the whole phrase, you would see that I was refering to replacing narrow security measures with broad ones, not simply terminating narrow ones and leaving it at that, which you seem to have inferred.

You used the word "terminating" in the context of profiling Muslims, not I. I think we have no disagreement about what was said. The difference is, that I believe the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. You do.

If you believe that a U.S. security program contemplating closer scrutiny of Muslims than others is poor policy (PROFILING), please have the Testiculese to defend your position.

Bold Deceiver wrote:I haven't seen anyone here argue that we focus security on Muslims to the exclusion of everyone else, as you suggest. Isn't that a misleading, specious argument to make, if no one else has even suggested it? Or am I mistaken, and someone else posted something to that effect?

Shadowfury333 wrote:No one said anything about focusing security exclusively on Muslims, but you did mention something to that effect.

Here, we have a disagreement about what was said. Kindly point me to my assertion that we should focus on Muslims to the exclusion of all others.

Of course, you cannot. Your assertion appears to be either mistaken or just plain dishonest. Your view?

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:And when the writer put pen to paper to offer the foregoing, did he imagine a simple mixture of clear liquids would take down a trans-atlantic jetliner, or ten? I think not.

But that's the point. Security needs to address generalized threats because it's hard to predict exactly what the next threat will be. Banning pocket knives mainly disarms the people on the plane who might need to fight the terrorists, it doesn't HELP anything. Putting strong and secure doors on the cockpit protects against a broad range of threats. THAT makes SENSE!

Bold Deceiver wrote:Spare me the purpleman. He's no prescient expert.

Ha! No he's not. But he is one of the worlds formost security experts. Google "Bruce Schneier". George Bush has hired him on several occasions. Doesn't mean he can't make mistakes, but dismissing him out of hand is not wise.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Will you join me in supporting governmental profiling and preferential searches of men and women of the Muslim faith at airports?

As Shadowfury333 pointed out, Characteristic based profiling is very easy to get around.
Also, would you support governmental profiling and preferential searches of white males since they are the VAST majority of mass murderers here in the US?

I'm not entirely opposed to characteristic based profiling, but in general it has more negative consequences than positive ones. AND, it's easy to get around.

Will Robinson wrote:considering the moaning we saw about Bush for using totally legal means of spying on known al Queda suspects I seriously doubt you would approve of any "espionage".

As I said, this is not about "anti-Bush". I am opposed to ILLEGAL espionage.

Will Robinson wrote:The liquid explosive plot was uncovered by spying on emails, internet use and telephone calls....hmmm, sound familiar?!? Do you think they had a warrant to listen in on all that?!?

And, as far as I can tell, they had warrants, if they needed warrants. The broad based net that the NSA was throwing with the warrantless domestic wiretapping is very subject to abuse, and HIGHLY unlikely to produce results. I have not heard anything indicating that this catch came from any such spying campaign. Also note, that while I was not happy with the NSA warrantless wiretapping, I blame Congress much more than Bush. He NOTIFIED them.

Will Robinson wrote:Now is it so important for you to have your box cutter on a flight that you want to lessen the odds of your fellow vigilantes?

Again, removing pocket knives primarily disarms the vigilantes.

Will Robinson wrote: If the terrorists knew that in response to the 9/11 attack we took no new measures to keep knives off of the planes, and instead were waiting on tip offs and espionage to catch them....do you think they would have tried to come up with a new liquid explosive plot or sent in some more box cutter wielding warriors?

This wasn't a plot to take over a plane. They know that kind of plot won't work anymore, knives or not. It was a plot to BLOW UP planes. For that kind of plot, knives wouldn't help them.

Bold Deceiver wrote:"You seem not to realize" there is no single security measure that cannot be met with an adaptive counter-response. That does not mean you terminate the security measure because it's simply hopeless.

<sigh> Thats why you take security measures that are BROAD and EFFECTIVE instead of security measures that are narrow and ineffective. See the cockpit door point above.

Bold Deceiver wrote:you would rather see my government expend its security resources by, say, subjecting my frail, 76 year-old Irish-Catholic mother to a random search, whilst permitting the 19-year old, muslim man clutching his Koran and mumbling Allah Akbar to pass through unscrutinized.

Do some research. Honest! I mean that. Look it up. Random searches are better at catching terrorist. When you have specific profiles, the terrorists can plan on ways to slip through them. Random searches means they can't take any counter measures other than hoping to luck.

Today's Day By Day Comic...

What bothers me is the focus on the \"warrantless\" cell phone intercepts as being a threat on our civil liberties. As I understand the matter, cell phone calls are \"spied\" upon only when they involve foreign calls with suspected terrorists. Something wrong here that I should be worried my calls to the local bookie will be listened in on? The FBI ran Carnivore / Echelon and I didn't hear a peep from the left. Course that was back when their boy was sitting in the white house.
Now we have a Federali judge (Anna Diggs Taylor) in Detroit ruling the wiretaps are illegal as complainants such as REPORTERS may have their foreign sources compromised by such listening in. Heavens forbid a journalist rights to information take precedent over another mass killing (I could take the jaundice view and think the real reason reporters don't want such sources compromised is they secretly hope another disaster occurs and they can be johnny on the spot to report it...but I won't).
So I wonder when the next Big One occurs, will people like Murtha/Boxer/Kennedy/Reid/Clinton all get up on the Capitol steps and sing God Bless America? Will they proclaim how they will now support a real war on terrorism all the while holding a hand behind their back with fingers crossed?

woodchip wrote:...So I wonder when the next Big One occurs, will people like Murtha/Boxer/Kennedy/Reid/Clinton all get up on the Capitol steps and sing God Bless America? Will they proclaim how they will now support a real war on terrorism all the while holding a hand behind their back with fingers crossed?

The next hit is inevitable and when it comes Joe Sixpack will rememeber all the steps those lefties took to allow it to happen unchallenged.
The left is suffering from delusions, they don't see the threat of islamofacsism as anything that can hurt us. To them, Bush's reaction to it is the only thing they want to address and by address I really mean they want to limit their involvement in the issue to critisism only. They don't offer a different way to stop the nutbags because they are in a state of denial.
So while they try to spin their opposition to his methods as a platform on which to run for re-election he's going to retire and al Queda is going to hit us again somewhere which will leave them with absolutely nothing of substance to stand upon!
Watching the democrats is like watching a junkie. You know where they are going to end up but at some point your concern turns to apathy and then you just mutter good riddance to yourself and hope they don't take out anyone you care about when they finally check out.

Woodchip wrote:The FBI ran Carnivore / Echelon and I didn't hear a peep from the left.

Oh, they peeped, and still do.

Woodchip wrote:Now we have a Federali judge (Anna Diggs Taylor) in Detroit ruling the wiretaps are illegal

And I'm not convinced she's right. The MAIN thing I'm convinced on with the NSA wiretapping is that they should have been able to GET the warrants pretty easily, which would have eliminated all of these questions. It does not seem to be an issue of was what they did inherently illegal, but of whether they followed the proper procedures to make it legal. Had they chosen to follow the procedures, almost certainly FISA would have granted them the warrants. Bush INFORMED congress, congress is as much to blame as Bush.

Now whether the searches are very USEFUL is yet another question, and again, one I'm not yet completely convinced on either way, although there have been some interesting arguments made that the net is simply too broad to get very useful results.

Will Robinson wrote:he's going to retire and al Queda is going to hit us again somewhere which will leave them with absolutely nothing of substance to stand upon!

If al Queda hits us before Bush retires, the Democrats will blame Bush. If al Queda hits us after Bush retires, the Democrats will STILL blame Bush. And while some of their arguments will be based on fact, it will generally be by accident. Substance has never been important to either the Democrats or the Republicans.

Kilarin wrote: If al Queda hits us after Bush retires, the Democrats will STILL blame Bush.

By this logic the Dems should have been condemning themselves for 9/11 as Clinton was in charge prior to 9/11 ( also remember the Dems fighting Bush's win which meant Bush was delayed in getting his cabinet set up)

woodchip wrote:By this logic the Dems should have been condemning themselves for 9/11 as Clinton was in charge prior to 9/11

No, it means the REPUBLICANS should have been blaming Clinton for 911, and they did. They happened to have some good facts on their side, but they would have blamed Clinton anyway.

Neither the republicans nor the democrats are overly interested in facts. They are interested in politics.

Kilarin wrote: If al Queda hits us before Bush retires, the Democrats will blame Bush. If al Queda hits us after Bush retires, the Democrats will STILL blame Bush...

It doesn't matter who the democrats blame. It does matter who Joe Sixpack blames.
Right after 9/11 there was a great big collective "We need to go kick some ass!!!" and if we take another hit today the collective reaction is going to favor the Bushies and leave the lefties on the wrong side of the conflict.

Where rational people might right now be thinking neither the right or the left is doing all they can to address the issue correctly and be willing to consider alternative viewpoints once we're freshly bloodied *a second time* the average Joe will feel he's in a fight and he'll instinctively make a choice between his two options.
It won't be an intellectual dissection of facts that consider all the sublties of foriegn policy and long term geo political ramifications. It will be a raw gut check kind of "Who's got the balls to go get some!"
In that instant the lefties lose bigtime!

Shadowfury333 wrote:You seem to not realize that the terrorists would eventually get wise to this and use people who are not islamic, or at least, not obviously islamic.

First, all security measures are possible to defeat by a sufficiently determined enemy. And, conversely, any given enemy can be frustrated by a sufficiently determined defense. This is warfare; there is no such thing as an impregnable fortress or an irresistable force. There are only forces sufficient to overwhelm given defenses and defenses sufficient to frustrate given threats.

When I secure my house at night, I lock the doors and the windows. I feel secure doing so, despite the fact that the system is possible to circumvent--break a window. Nonetheless, the system is sufficient to keep out the local hoodlems. When my work secures a building, they lock heavy-duty doors, stand an active patrol, activate alarms, etc. This system, too, is possible to circumvent by a small military assault. But it keeps out the sort of criminals who might be after the high-value equipment and information the building stores. I don't know what the marines do to secure a building against small military assaults, but I'm willing to bet that those measures wouldn't keep out an army.

Successful security doesn't have to be undefeatable by any enemy or under any circumstances. It just has to stop the threats you're going to face.

Second, security measures don't have completely stop the enemy. Forcing him to expend effort to overcome them is worthwhile.

Witness cyclone fencing: There's a security system that anyone--even a kid--can defeat with a little time and effort! But it keeps people from just walking in, it slows them down, it forces them to prepare, it delays them while they're acting--increasing the chances that they'll be caught.

The windows on my house do the same thing. Anyone could smash one and get in. But that takes effort and preparation, it's a little dangerous, it makes noise, and cleaning up enough to get in safely still takes time. The security measure isn't impregnable to the enemy, it simply slows him down and forces him to expend effort. In so doing, it protects me against all of the enemies who aren't willing to expend the effort, and who might be caught while breaking in.

Successful security doesn't have to be undefeatable by the enemy. Sometimes it's enough just to slow him down.

I contend that the sort of targeting Bold Deceiver is advocating is effective, not in the sense that it couldn't be defeated, but in the sense that it is an effective response to the enemy's current tactics, and ultimately slows him down. It's certainly the former. The attackers we've seen generally do fit a certain profile - if we started using that against them, we would gain at least a temporary tactical advantage while the enemy was forced to adapt.

Thinking long-term, could the enemy circumvent the system by recruiting old folks, kids, women, or white people? Of course - but then he'll have a harder time recruiting, won't he? For same the effort it takes to get fifty young arab-Islamic guys suicidal and deadly, I wonder how many young asian men with absolutely no overt associations with Islam you could get - perhaps ten? How about 11-year-old boys native to Mississipi? Maybe you could scare up a few? Good luck on the training thing... How about 60-year-old native american grandmothers? I'm going to go out on a limb and bet you couldn't get any.

And that's the point right there - denying the enemy an abundant resource, and forcing him to expend effort. If he has to launch assaults with fewer men or less training, or if he has to massively scale up his recruiting efforts or expose himself to intelligence gathering... then the system has succeeded.

Kilarin wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:you would rather see my government expend its security resources by, say, subjecting my frail, 76 year-old Irish-Catholic mother to a random search, whilst permitting the 19-year old, muslim man clutching his Koran and mumbling Allah Akbar to pass through unscrutinized.

Do some research. Honest! I mean that. Look it up. Random searches are better at catching terrorist. When you have specific profiles, the terrorists can plan on ways to slip through them. Random searches means they can't take any counter measures other than hoping to luck.

This is a better argument, but I don't buy it. I may be wrong (If you have numbers, link them - I'm not doing your legwork for you), but this seems implausible to me. We aren't dealing with an enemy that spends years creating a tiny handful of Perfect Operatives and can't tolerate the risk of one of them getting caught in a random search. We're dealing with an enemy that is perfecly happy to launch an attack with 50 guys and have 30 get caught and 20 blow up planes. Random searches are going to target what - one in twenty passangers, tops? I'm betting more targeted searching would stop way more than a few percent of the bad guys - either via more search hits or the aforementioned increased recruiting effort to circumvent the system.

Shadowfury called such targeted searching "short-sighted and reactive" -- in opposition to "boarder and more intelligent* measures" "*as in: based on sound intelligence from espionage and tipoffs." The thing is, it isn't an either-or; it's a both-and. The latter doesn't work well without the former. Intelligence-gathering relies on the fact that what the enemy is trying to pull off is difficult, and requires time, money, training, supplies, etc. - things that can be tracked. And making the problem difficult is what "short-sighted and reactive" systems do. You can't rely on the sound of breaking glass to alert you to the enemy if you don't lock your doors.

Drakona wrote:

Shadowfury333 wrote:You seem to not realize that the terrorists would eventually get wise to this and use people who are not islamic, or at least, not obviously islamic.

First, all security measures are possible to defeat by a sufficiently determined enemy. And, conversely, any given enemy can be frustrated by a sufficiently determined defense. This is warfare; there is no such thing as an impregnable fortress or an irresistable force. There are only forces sufficient to overwhelm given defenses and defenses sufficient to frustrate given threats.

When I secure my house at night, I lock the doors and the windows. I feel secure doing so, despite the fact that the system is possible to circumvent--break a window. Nonetheless, the system is sufficient to keep out the local hoodlems. When my work secures a building, they lock heavy-duty doors, stand an active patrol, activate alarms, etc. This system, too, is possible to circumvent by a small military assault. But it keeps out the sort of criminals who might be after the high-value equipment and information the building stores. I don't know what the marines do to secure a building against small military assaults, but I'm willing to bet that those measures wouldn't keep out an army.

Successful security doesn't have to be undefeatable by any enemy or under any circumstances. It just has to stop the threats you're going to face.

Second, security measures don't have completely stop the enemy. Forcing him to expend effort to overcome them is worthwhile.

Witness cyclone fencing: There's a security system that anyone--even a kid--can defeat with a little time and effort! But it keeps people from just walking in, it slows them down, it forces them to prepare, it delays them while they're acting--increasing the chances that they'll be caught.

The windows on my house do the same thing. Anyone could smash one and get in. But that takes effort and preparation, it's a little dangerous, it makes noise, and cleaning up enough to get in safely still takes time. The security measure isn't impregnable to the enemy, it simply slows him down and forces him to expend effort. In so doing, it protects me against all of the enemies who aren't willing to expend the effort, and who might be caught while breaking in.

Successful security doesn't have to be undefeatable by the enemy. Sometimes it's enough just to slow him down.

I contend that the sort of targeting Bold Deceiver is advocating is effective, not in the sense that it couldn't be defeated, but in the sense that it is an effective response to the enemy's current tactics, and ultimately slows him down. It's certainly the former. The attackers we've seen generally do fit a certain profile - if we started using that against them, we would gain at least a temporary tactical advantage while the enemy was forced to adapt.

Thinking long-term, could the enemy circumvent the system by recruiting old folks, kids, women, or white people? Of course - but then he'll have a harder time recruiting, won't he? For same the effort it takes to get fifty young arab-Islamic guys suicidal and deadly, I wonder how many young asian men with absolutely no overt associations with Islam you could get - perhaps ten? How about 11-year-old boys native to Mississipi? Maybe you could scare up a few? Good luck on the training thing... How about 60-year-old native american grandmothers? I'm going to go out on a limb and bet you couldn't get any.

And that's the point right there - denying the enemy an abundant resource, and forcing him to expend effort. If he has to launch assaults with fewer men or less training, or if he has to massively scale up his recruiting efforts or expose himself to intelligence gathering... then the system has succeeded.

However the system also slows down civillians a lot more, too. That's where the main problem lies.

TIGERassault wrote:However the system also slows down civillians a lot more, too.

Why is this relevant?

Drakona wrote: You can't rely on the sound of breaking glass to alert you to the enemy if you don't lock your doors.

Well said and nice sum-up.

(yes I did read the whole post.)

Tiger.. they don't CARE. They (terrorists) are happy with ANY collateral damage; be it, fear, inconvinience, economical collaps, a BUILDING collaps. If they can disrupt us in any way, they consider themselves sucessful to some extent. Drak made a good point, the resources here in the US are not at prevelent in the way of people as they are abroad in most oriental nations (the middle east is concidered "oriental"). You can be sure they are trying here, but it isn't an easy go to be sure.

Drakona wrote:Random searches are going to target what - one in twenty passangers, tops? I'm betting more targeted searching would stop way more than a few percent of the bad guys - either via more search hits or the aforementioned increased recruiting effort to circumvent the system.

I was going off of a study by MIT. The concept is that characteristic targeting profiling specifically gives the terrorists a list of what will NOT be searched.

"the purple guy", Bruce Schneier, says that random searches are probably better than profiling, but he really doesn't like random searches either. He has some good points.

Another article by Mr. Schneier

Drakona wrote:I contend that the sort of targeting Bold Deceiver is advocating is effective, not in the sense that it couldn't be defeated, but in the sense that it is an effective response to the enemy's current tactics, and ultimately slows him down.

What do you target on? Race? I've got a friend from India who was beaten up after 911 because some redneck mistook him for an Arab. I've seen Hispanics who could pass for Arabic and vise versa. And, of course, Muslims are by no means all Arabic. We have a fairly large community of Black Muslims here in America.

Either we come up with a racial profiling system that catches EVERYONE who might possibly be Muslim, or we come up with a system that primarily defines what kind of people a terrorist needs to pretend to be to NOT get profiled. They do NOT have to recruit little old white ladies, they just have to pretend they are from Argentina.

But RACIAL profiling is NOT what Bold Deceiver is demanding.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Will you join me in supporting governmental profiling and preferential searches of men and women of the Muslim faith at airports?

This is a completely different animal. A FAITH BASED profiling system. So, how do we deal with this one?

Perhaps we could have a national registry and require all Muslims to sign up? Or we could use tests, you either have to declare yourself to be Muslim, or stomp on a Koran to prove you aren't, before they let you on the plane?

Of course, whatever kind of system we come up with to identify Muslims, we really shouldn't stop there, should we? We need to include the Aum Shinrikyo cult, obviously. I would assume Branch Davidians and the various Aryan "Christian identity movement" churches should really be watched. And the list could grow MUCH longer.

A national registry for people who have "dangerous" faith associations is something that seems quite unthinkable to me.

TIGERassault:However the system also slows down civillians a lot more, too.
Lothar:Why is this relevant?

Because "how much inconvenience am I willing to trade for more safety" is a valid question. It's one we deal with every single day in real life. Cars could be made much safer than they currently are, but some of the improvements would have prohibitive costs and would be inconvenient. We decide the trade off isn't worth it and do without.

Drakona wrote:Successful security doesn't have to be undefeatable by the enemy. Sometimes it's enough just to slow him down.

Shadowfury called such targeted searching "short-sighted and reactive" -- in opposition to "boarder and more intelligent* measures" "*as in: based on sound intelligence from espionage and tipoffs." The thing is, it isn't an either-or; it's a both-and. The latter doesn't work well without the former. Intelligence-gathering relies on the fact that what the enemy is trying to pull off is difficult, and requires time, money, training, supplies, etc. - things that can be tracked. And making the problem difficult is what "short-sighted and reactive" systems do. You can't rely on the sound of breaking glass to alert you to the enemy if you don't lock your doors.

You know what, you are right. I suppose I'm still quite young and haven't quite gotten to grips with the idea of overwhelming force or security being unnecessary for success. Thanks for clearing this up for me.

Kilarin wrote:The concept is that characteristic targeting profiling specifically gives the terrorists a list of what will NOT be searched.

Who says you can't have both random AND characteristic-based parts of your security? There are multiple levels. Maybe profiling at the airport isn't the best method, but profiling elsewhere -- say, when the police are looking for groups to infiltrate -- might be.

What do you target on? Race? I've got a friend from India who was beaten up after 911 because some redneck mistook him for an Arab.

If your main security system is "some redneck" then you've got a lot more to worry about than not being able to profile effectively.

Either we come up with a racial profiling system that catches EVERYONE who might possibly be Muslim, or we come up with a system that primarily defines what kind of people a terrorist needs to pretend to be to NOT get profiled.

Why not come up with a racial profiling system that works most of the time, and then count on other systems (specific intel, random searches, etc.) to fill in the gaps?

Just because [system X] doesn't completely fill the need for security doesn't mean [system X] is useless. You just have to view [system X] as it interacts with the other systems in place.

Racial profiling of the most likely groups to spawn terrorists is useful as long as you don't focus completely on such profiling. You use it as a PART of a larger system. Similarly, random searches are useful as long as you don't focus completely on random searches (if they can send 50 terrorists and get 25 of them through and 25 others caught, they will.) And so on.

TIGERassault: However the system also slows down civillians a lot more, too.
Lothar: Why is this relevant?
Kilarin: Because "how much inconvenience am I willing to trade for more safety" is a valid question.... Cars could be made much safer than they currently are, but some of the improvements would have prohibitive costs and would be inconvenient.

That's not exactly "the main problem", though. "The main problem" is how the system can be circumvented, not that it slows normal people down.

We have locks on our doors. They slow us down getting inside, but are worthwhile. We have searches and such at the airport. They slow us down, but are worthwhile.

The main point of such systems is that they slow down the bad guys a lot MORE than they slow down normal people, because normal people aren't looking to break in / sneak past them. They make the bad guys expend so much effort that they become easier to catch in the planning or early execution of their plan.

Right now, NONE of the systems in place is a ridiculous inconvenience, except to people who don't plan ahead and aren't smooth enough to pack their "prohibited" items in checked luggage.

Kilarin wrote:
Either we come up with a racial profiling system that catches EVERYONE who might possibly be Muslim, or we come up with a system that primarily defines what kind of people a terrorist needs to pretend to be to NOT get profiled. They do NOT have to recruit little old white ladies, they just have to pretend they are from Argentina.

But RACIAL profiling is NOT what Bold Deceiver is demanding.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Will you join me in supporting governmental profiling and preferential searches of men and women of the Muslim faith at airports?

Sorry I wasn't clear. Ethnic profiling is precisely what I was demanding. Lest I be accused of being imprecise, let me give some examples. If that means the color of one's skin and eyes are an indicator, use it. If your threat is from Ku Klux Klansmen, start with the white guys and work your way out. If your threat is Sinn Féin, keep an eye on the fair-haired boys with the Irish lilt. If your threat is Muslim, watch out for young men with brown skin between the ages of 16 and 32.

Libertarians align with democrats on this one -- see, e.g., the panicky cries that terrorists will merely change their tactics so why profile at all? It's logical fabrication calculated to avoid what most people call "common sense." What? Pay closer scrutiny to young Arabic men than that 85-year old grandmother? Madness!!

The other fabrication is that it's either one or the other. It's not. That's an argument made up by civil libertarians and the left.

Your anecdotal stories about people being abused for their ethnic makeup is just that -- anecdotal. No one on this board thinks it's nice when people are abused by irrationals. Idiots will act like idiots regardless of whether the government pays attention the obvious -- the ethnic makeup of those who wish to do us harm.

Finally, the "Study by MIT" isn't quite that, now is it? From my reading, it's paper written by a couple of MIT grad students for a graduate course, working with algorithms. And even PurpleMan questioned their assumptions.

OH and and by the way this PurpleMan writes for the ACLU, and seems to have some very strong feelings about privacy concerns: PurpleMan's ACLU BLOG Piece on "The Value of Privacy" In fact, the page you give for PurpleMan actually has a link to the "The Citizens Guide to Refusing New York Subway Searches". He's actually a pretty famous cryptographer. (One page I found, recites the following story: "Bruce Schneier obtained his legendary cryptoanalytic skills through a deal with the devil. He then proceeded to encrypt the devil's personal information and barter the plaintext for his soul.")

The picture of him on Wikipedia is nice, but at his age he needs to let the pony-tail go.

BD

the problem with racial profiling is that its easy to use prejudice as the filter, rather than basic physical appearance.

There is nothing stoping some one from expanding the search for arab men to say, blacks or latinos, since blacks can be muslim, and latinos have the same skin shades as arabs.

Racial profiling works only if you spend some time looking at someone, if given only a split second, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between An indian, a dark haired Russian, or a bulgarian - and the burden of being right all the time is too much to place upon the average patrol officer.

Bold Deceiver wrote:The other fabrication is that it's either one or the other. It's not. That's an argument made up by civil libertarians and the left.

So that's why you kept saying I was a doctrinal leftie/libertarian. Well, by your reasoning you were right in saying that, but thankfully Drakona pulled the wool away from my eyes on the either/or argument.

Flabby Chick wrote:http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europ ... index.html

Interesting article. I wonder what their behavior was that made the passengers nervous.

Bold Deciever wrote:Sorry I wasn't clear. Ethnic profiling is precisely what I was demanding.

Thank you for clearing that up. I'm not happy with Ethnic profiling, (not entirely opposed either), but its orders of magnitude safer than "faith based" profiling.

Bold Deciever wrote:No one on this board thinks it's nice when people are abused by irrationals.

The only point of the story was that Ethnic profiling is not as simple as people think. Your net WILL catch a lot of people you did not intend to. Even when you get the correct ethnic profile, you will always hit more "good guys" than "bad guys" because the good guys outnumber the bad guys by a fantastically wide margin.

And, again, just to make certain everyone is understanding the full implications. This WILL mean we need to profile Black Americans.
The Beltway snipers were African American Muslims.
The "shoe bomber" was the British-born son of an English mother and a Jamaican father.
The 2003 March grenade attack in Iraq was made by an African American Muslim.
One of the London Underground bombers was black (From Jamaica).
At least two of the four man team who planned to attack National Guard facilities, the Israeli Consulate and several synagogues in the Los Angeles area were African American Muslims.
James Ujaama, African American Muslim, has confessed to aiding Al Qaeda.

Are we prepared to racialy profile all Black Americans as potential terrorists? Even though the VAST majority of those caught in the net will probably be Baptists who would prefer that we nuke the entire Middle East? I'm not convinced this profiling would add any level of safety, but even if it would, would it be worth the hostility it would cause?

Bold Deciever wrote:OH and and by the way this PurpleMan writes for the ACLU, and seems to have some very strong feelings about privacy concerns

Mr. Scheiner writes for LOTS of people. The ACLU among them. And yes, he has a LOT of privacy concerns. He's a security expert. Dealing with the ballance between security and privacy is an issue that any security expert has to deal with.

Bold Deciever wrote:He's actually a pretty famous cryptographer.

Indeed.

Lothar wrote:We have locks on our doors. They slow us down getting inside, but are worthwhile. We have searches and such at the airport. They slow us down, but are worthwhile.

And perhaps I've not been clear on this issue. I'm not opposed to having reasonable searches at airports. We do want to keep people from getting guns into the cabins. I'm opposed to silly things like banning pocket knives and nail scissors. It's not just that it's inconvieniant and doesn't help, it's that it disarms the very people who are in the best position to defend the plane.

I am a bit confused why the conservatives who normally argue so hard about how we are all safer if citizens have the right to bare arms, switch sides on this issue and feel that all the honest citizens should be completely dissarmed whenever they fly. I don't want guns on planes because a shootout at crusing altitude is a VERY BAD IDEA. But banning pocket knives and nail scissors is just like gun control laws. It ONLY disarms the honest people.

Just to give an example of why adding little security measures does NOT always improve the security of your system.

I work on a bunch of large mainframe computers that are also networked in with a large LAN. Users need to have one password that lets them access both the mainframe and the Lan, and on the mainframe, passwords are max 8 characters long and can't be lengthened without causing a bunch of serious backwards comparability issue. This really worries the security people, because in todays world, and 8 character password doesn't quite have the safety margin you would like.

So, they came up with an obvious and intuitive solution. All passwords must be the full max 8 characters, they must have mixed case, and contain at least one number or symbol. For a while the rule was that they had to contain a number AND a symbol, but they eventually backed off on that. AND, your password had to be changed frequently (every few months)

Now these rules make SENSE, on the surface. The new passwords are harder for hackers to crack because the keyspace is so much larger. BUT, how did it work out in practice? Idiot users couldn't keep track of their passwords anymore. As a result, the wrote them down, sometimes even putting them on their monitor with a little yellow sticky. OR, they forgot them frequently and had to call the help desk to have the passwords reset. The help desk was now spending the majority of its time reseting passwords. They had to hire new staff just to deal with the increased work-load. And the expense was getting so big that they developed a new system on the web that would let anyone reset their own password. All you had to do is know your birthday and answer a few questions such as "what is your favorite restaurant" and "what is your favorite kind of car" and you could reset your password.

So, end result? We went from a system where if a hacker wanted to break into someones account they had to try and guess their password, to a system where all they had to do was search that employees cube after hours for where they had written down their password or, if they knew the employee fairly well, they have a pretty decent chance of guessing the right answers to the questions on the web page and could reset their password anytime they wanted.

Sometimes something that sounds on the surface like it will increase security actually lowers it.

Kilarin wrote:I am a bit confused why the conservatives who normally argue so hard about how we are all safer if citizens have the right to bare arms, switch sides on this issue and feel that all the honest citizens should be completely dissarmed whenever they fly. I don't want guns on planes because a shootout at crusing altitude is a VERY BAD IDEA. But banning pocket knives and nail scissors is just like gun control laws. It ONLY disarms the honest people.

I'm one of those and I'll tell you why.
I can't bring my weapon on board so I don't want anyone to bring theirs either...simple.
I don't consider letting me have my nail clippers or a cafeteria butter knife with an inch and a half of semi-sharp serations the same thing as allowing me to arm myself.
I used to be able to board a plane with the knife I carry daily, it's a locking folder with 3 1/2 inches of usually very sharp steel. after reading about the 9/11 hijackers I don't feel like that's enough because how do I know anyone else on board will also be armed the same way? How do I know I won't be the only guy with a pocket knife to step up and try to do something? I've been there done that and been repeatedly disapointed at a room full, or a sidewalk full, of people, many of them capable of combat, just doing nothing but watching as the perpetrator/s get away with physical assault.
Let me assure you it isn't fun being outnumbered in a real street fight.
So your whole premise that sparing you from the horror of inconvenience having to check your nailclippers is somehow going to 'arm the good guys' is kind of weak!

Put a few armed guards on board every flight like the Israeli's do and let us board with the usual sharp objects or else make everyone check the stuff.

Also it's pretty clear that letting you keep your scissors and knitting needles won't stop them from bringing a quart of gasoline on board so since we obviously need to do a better job about restricting all sorts of carry on items anyway so you're not really adding to screening process too much to include knife-like implements.

Another thing regarding profiling being abused, just because the system *could* be abused is no reason to refuse to use it. Everything *could* be abused from the policemans gun right up to the supreme court...
Certainly not recognizing who the past hijackers were and paying special attention to their narrow range of ethnicity/nationality/gender/age is a much more serious abuse than allowing a system to be put in place that *might* be abused!

You don't seem to recognize the abuse you want the majority of the passengers to endure by not profiling and screening more rigorously in order to spare the feelings of a subset of the group!

I'll be damned if I'll stand by and let political correctness turn domestic air travel into the equivalent of the Israeli / Palestinian conflict where a few dead here and there is considered the best we can do because the solution to the problem is kind of a messy burden!
You can bet al Queda will be willing to accept those conditions though!

So now we come full circle. Profiling is a bad word and shouldb;t be condoned. The term \"Other Means\" to thwart terrorists has been bandied about yet when NSA wire taps are used (yes... even without FISAL court approval) the left gets bent out of shape. When certain bank tracking means are used the NYT's has to run front page news about it to warn the terrorists how their funds are monitored. during the Clinton era it was all right to use Echelon yet the idea of using less than pristine characters for infiltrating terrorists groups was outlawed. Jamie Gorelik saw to it that NSA/FBI/CIA were not allowed to share information (and some would say this was a major reason for 9/11). Profiling is just another example of the hamstring process the left would use to make America more indefensible. So, as I have oft said before, how many more attacks on America will it take before all these little concerns are thrown out the window? How many of the 9/11 families would have traded the precious little loss in civil liberties these maligned proggy's would generate in exchange to have their loved one back?
During WW2, lots of civil liberties were suspended yet after the war was over things were brought back to normal and we didn't wind up as a police state. Why do some assume we won't correct any loss of liberies after the threat of Islamnofascism is eradicated? Try correcting the loss of ones liberties when some Immam is sitting in the White House and is using the Koran to determine what your rights are.

Will Robinson wrote:I've been there done that and been repeatedly disapointed at a room full, or a sidewalk full, of people, many of them capable of combat, just doing nothing but watching as the perpetrator/s get away with physical assault.

Not denying that this is a problem in the US, but I think flight 93 proved that passengers WILL fight if another terrorist threatens.

Will Robinson wrote:So your whole premise that sparing you from the horror of inconvenience having to check your nailclippers is somehow going to 'arm the good guys' is kind of weak!

If having nail clippers doesn't arm the good guys, then it doesn't arm the bad guys either.

Come on, can't we at least agree that the entire nail clippers thing is just silly? Even if you disagree with me about pocket knives, surely we can agree that nail clippers are no threat?

Will Robinson wrote:Put a few armed guards on board every flight like the Israeli's do and let us board with the usual sharp objects...

Sounds like a reasonable plan to me.

Will Robinson wrote:You don't seem to recognize the abuse you want the majority of the passengers to endure by not profiling and screening more rigorously in order to spare the feelings of a subset of the group!

If its valid to say we shouldn't abuse the majority because of the minority, then doesn't that apply to the groups being racially profiled? The percentage of actual terrorists in the Black and Arabic populations are tiny. The vast majority, actually, in all likelihood almost ALL of those who will be humiliated and abused by racial profiling will be completely innocent victims.

Again, it seems easy in America right now to abuse those of Arabic decent. Lets bring it home. Do you support racially profiling Black Americans for extra scrutiny and searches when boarding airlines?

Woodchip wrote:The term "Other Means" to thwart terrorists has been bandied about yet when NSA wire taps are used (yes... even without FISAL court approval) the left gets bent out of shape.

Please note, my only arguments so far have been that we don't need to banish box knives, pocket knives, and nail clippers, or have special shoe searches. I don't think we need any special security around cell phones. And I'm not very happy about racial profiling (and I don't think its actually very effective)

I have NOT opposed scanning passengers getting on to airlines. I think Bush made a mistake in the way he handled the NSA wiretapping, but I'm not yet convinced whether it was or was not legal.

I was listening to National Socialist Radio this afternoon and a guy brought up an interesting point. There has NEVER been a single leak about a program that got a FISA warrant. (and there have been LOTS of them) People who are convinced that what they are doing is legal are less likely to run to the press and blow the whistle. This, of course, has NOTHING to do with the question of whether the president had authority to do the wiretapping, but I do think it's a practical point.

Woodchip wrote:Why do some assume we won't correct any loss of liberies after the threat of Islamnofascism is eradicated?

And how do you think that threat will be eliminated short of genocide?

Woodchip wrote:how many more attacks on America will it take before all these little concerns are thrown out the window?

Unfortunately, I agree with you. Already the majority of Americans say they are willing to give up civil liberties for security. A few more successful hits and I imagine that number will increase drastically. The only thing we disagree on about this is whether or not its a good thing.

(sorry, I really goofed up the formating of this posts, thats what happens when you don't preview. fixed now)

Kilarin wrote:...Already the majority of Americans say they are willing to give up civil liberties for security....

I never heard anyone say that. I do hear some people saying we need to tweak the controls of liberties we long ago had granted our government to regulate.
In fact I'll bet we never were able to fly on a commercial airline without giving up some freedom in the form of security and safety measures!

But if hyperbole is your reality then stick with your interpretation

Lets see if I can do this post better than the last one.

Kilarin wrote:...Already the majority of Americans say they are willing to give up civil liberties for security....

Will Robinson wrote:I never heard anyone say that.

http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/civil/
"a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll conducted in July of 2005 revealed that when asked to decide what they think is more important, protecting your civil liberties and privacy from being invaded or protecting your safety and surroundings from terrorism, 65% choose "safety" as compared to 13% that choose "privacy" and 20% that choose "both.""

Problem is, whenever we give up something, we NEVER get it back, and it's increasing rapidly.