Your War on Terror: The Terrorists Are Winning

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Jan 15, 2010.

  1. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    Exactly, better act before it happens, dont you agree ?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    You won't catch me in a stadium, that's for sure. We have too many sports fans anyway.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    Sure you will be caught, there is all kind of nice technology already existing, lets just throw few billions on the matter !

    On the other hand, if you are right, then all the precautions you mentioned are futile ? That doesnt worry you ? We must do something about that !
    Maybe we should write to our congressmans ?
    We need our sport stadiums to be safe !
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    (Insert Title Here)

    Well, as much as I criticize Israel, I think it would be worth looking at their airport security measures in the context of whether the Constitution allows us to do the same:

    Despite facing dozens of potential threats each day, the security set-up at Israel's largest hub, Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport, has not been breached since 2002, when a passenger mistakenly carried a handgun onto a flight. How do they manage that?

    "The first thing you do is to look at who is coming into your airport," said Sela.

    The first layer of actual security that greets travellers at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport is a roadside check. All drivers are stopped and asked two questions: How are you? Where are you coming from?

    "Two benign questions. The questions aren't important. The way people act when they answer them is," Sela said.

    Officers are looking for nervousness or other signs of "distress" — behavioural profiling. Sela rejects the argument that profiling is discriminatory.

    "The word 'profiling' is a political invention by people who don't want to do security," he said. "To us, it doesn't matter if he's black, white, young or old. It's just his behaviour. So what kind of privacy am I really stepping on when I'm doing this?"

    Once you've parked your car or gotten off your bus, you pass through the second and third security perimeters.

    Armed guards outside the terminal are trained to observe passengers as they move toward the doors, again looking for odd behaviour. At Ben Gurion's half-dozen entrances, another layer of security are watching. At this point, some travellers will be randomly taken aside, and their person and their luggage run through a magnometer.

    "This is to see that you don't have heavy metals on you or something that looks suspicious," said Sela.

    You are now in the terminal. As you approach your airline check-in desk, a trained interviewer takes your passport and ticket. They ask a series of questions: Who packed your luggage? Has it left your side?

    "The whole time, they are looking into your eyes — which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds," said Sela.

    Lines are staggered. People are not allowed to bunch up into inviting targets for a bomber who has gotten this far.

    At the check-in desk, your luggage is scanned immediately in a purpose-built area. Sela plays devil's advocate — what if you have escaped the attention of the first four layers of security, and now try to pass a bag with a bomb in it?

    "I once put this question to Jacques Duchesneau (the former head of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority): say there is a bag with play-doh in it and two pens stuck in the play-doh. That is 'Bombs 101' to a screener. I asked Ducheneau, 'What would you do?' And he said, 'Evacuate the terminal.' And I said, 'Oh. My. God.'

    "Take Pearson. Do you know how many people are in the terminal at all times? Many thousands. Let's say I'm (doing an evacuation) without panic — which will never happen. But let's say this is the case. How long will it take? Nobody thought about it. I said, 'Two days.'"


    Additionally, Ben-Gurion Airport features at least two security tools absent in many, if not most American airports:

    First, the screening area is surrounded by contoured, blast-proof glass that can contain the detonation of up to 100 kilos of plastic explosive. Only the few dozen people within the screening area need be removed, and only to a point a few metres away.

    Second, all the screening areas contain 'bomb boxes'. If a screener spots a suspect bag, he/she is trained to pick it up and place it in the box, which is blast proof. A bomb squad arrives shortly and wheels the box away for further investigation.

    In all, the Ben-Gurion process is comprised of six security layers, and is intended "to move fliers from the parking lot to the airport lounge in a maximum of 25 minutes".

    It's worth looking into, procedurally. But it doesn't put as much money into the private sector compared to 1,800 full-body scanners at an acquisition cost of $234-$306 million.

    Maybe it won't work within constitutional constraints, but the question is worth exploring.

    I suppose that's an adequate rebuttal. I wasn't aware that Chertoff took no compensation or profit whatsoever from the private consulting company he founded. That's very nice of him, since the Chertoff group isn't non-profit.

    Of course, the rebuttal doesn't actually say Chertoff takes no compensation from the company. However, that is the inference if the rebuttal is to have any real credibility. But, you know, he's a law enforcement type, and a Republican, so we must necessarily presume that he is the most fair and just and would never participate in cronyism such as hiring a bunch of his former staffers from Homeland Security to his company and representing as a client the technology company that got the contract for the body scanners he advocates.

    Being a Republican, a law enforcement official, and a CEO means he is immune to any appearance of conflict of interest. Especially when he advocates the more expensive and less efficient security measures that profit a paying client. Is that about right?


    Kelly, Cathal. "The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother". The Toronto Star. December 30, 2009. January 10, 2012.
  8. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Not sure where you live but this has been happening at sports events and concerts for a long time, though its usually pretty light and no stripping is involved.
  9. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    Yeah, I know, thats the problem, its pretty much useless, we need to get
    top of things, like TSA. Take no chances, grab those motherfuckers by the balls, literally.

    Fight Terror with Terror !
  10. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Are you suggesting that there is no threat from terrorists? Or that a certain number of our dead are acceptable losses?
  11. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    No. That is your imagination working now.

    We need to get serious, hmmm, maybe I can join the TSA myself !

    "A career at TSA offers more than just rewarding work. We are Federal employees so we enjoy those benefits. But more than that, a career at TSA includes benefits you may not be aware of. From Career Coaching, development and training to a Model Workplace – people are our most valuable resource, and we strive to be the best. Find out what you may be missing standing on the sidelines!"

    Yeah, sounds promising !
  12. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    You either must not live here or you must not watch the news. Do you realize that several potential plots have already been stopped with the increased security?

    In my book if it even saves one persons life then a little groping/x-rays is worth it. If it bothers you so dam much then don't fucking fly. It's just that simple.
  13. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    Hey, no need to be rude, I just want more security !
    I´m just adjusting to new normal...
  14. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    If you're for it then why argue for so many posts? Arguing for arguments sake makes you an ass.
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Discussion of the multi-layers.

    Here's a better write up:

    So everyone is stopped and interviewed who simply goes to the airport, which is a LOT more people than just the travelers and that's just before you get to security. (Consider Atlanta alone handles 90 million passengers per year to see the issue this causes)

    Then passengers get to the terminal where once again all are interviewed:

    Then comes the screening:

    By fucking hand.

    Read the travelers reviews?

    We pay for the scanners because they are fast and efficient.

    Our security is efficient and security times are now below 10 minutes on average.

    No you came up with a decidedly more onerous and intrusive system.

    So again, I ask you, what's your solution?
  16. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    I´m starting to get it, you know, that we are not safe. I´m worried now,
    have we done enough ? Its all or nothing, halfway there isnt enough if
    we want to win the war !
  17. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    No that's you evading the question because you don't have an actual answer.

    All hat, no cattle.
  18. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    I answered NO.
    Now, is that really so hard to understand ?
    Or do you just want to poke me ?
  19. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Alright cool. I think that we are generally safe now. I agree that we should add buses to the search list, but anything above and beyond that is too much. We can only stand it so far. Searching each car as it crosses state lines is next and nobody is ok with that, at least as far as I know.

    However, doesn't this already happen in California? I believe its an invasive species thing rather then checking for weapons and drugs (I.E. FDA not TSA).
  20. eyeswideshut Registered Senior Member

    Too much ? There cant be too much safety !
    It doesnt matter if you are ok with that or not, it hasnt been issue so far so why should it be in the future, it doesnt matter what you think.
    We sure need our subways safe too, remember the subway sarin gas attack in Japan years ago, we dont want that kind of happening.
    Also as Arthur pointed out with Madrid train bombings, we need to secure train stations too !
    After all, its war !
  21. Diode-Man Awesome User Title Registered Senior Member

    I'm with Baron Max on this one.
  22. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Whoa, pulling out the Baron Max quote!
  23. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Because just saying NO to his question doesn't address the issue of what is reasonable security.

    You say your answer is NO to these two questions:

    Then what is your solution?

Share This Page