I fly virtually every week, often twice a week, and the enhanced security measures will definitely adversely affect me ... so what? So I have to spend an extra 10-15 minutes checking in, which will of course annoy me ... it's a frustrating exercise.
But if it means that I feel more at ease when my wife or son or daughter travel, then I'm all for it. Leroy may put his point across more extremely than some would wish but he is right.
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]When middle aged, white, women or toddlers start trying to smuggle explosives on board maybe we'd need to rethink but at the moment, I think the question is, why are we not putting our resources into doing more to target those higher risk profiles for additional security procedures rather than adopting a 'one size fits all' approach?
I can't see the problem here, I really can't. If it makes air travel safer then so be it. However, the whole airport 'experience' has to be examined so as to make travelling a more enjoyable experience. In my experience the worst airports are travel into/out of are those in the UK. Overcrowding, poor facilities, not enough facilities, unhelpful staff etc. Compare that to Australian airports, for example. Another thing is, and I don't know much about this, is that you need to avoid having screening whereby men can perve over naked women etc or do the images not come through like that ?
Finally, airport security is poor anyway and although this will help there are other issues they need to address. For example, I am an insulin dependant diabetic. I regularly travel with needles, pens and of course insulin. I have NEVER been asked to explain what I am carrying and why, although of numerous occasions I have been asked to remove shoes, surrending shampoo etc. It may surprise you to know that if I filled a syringe or pen full of insulin and managed to get near the pilot and inject him then he'd be in a coma within minutes. Inject the co-pilot too and you'd all be in trouble.
Large, I suspect you'd have trouble getting into the flight cabin with injections.
Does anyone else think it's mildly odd that this idea comes up a few months ago, hits a storm of contoversy; then a complete jackass moulds a load of plastic explosive to his balls before merrily wandering through traditional scanners in Lagos and Amsterdam and then - having gone to all this trouble - decides not to attempt to set this thing off until the plane is safely on the deck in the most public way imaginable, but is stopped, unharmed and is shipped off to jail?
The public now "understands" that naked scanners are needed and we're off. I reckon they should put a bit more effort into these things. The liquids thing was a complete crock. If liquids are potentially bombs how come you're allowed to have a few (potential) small bombs? You could even take your 100ml bombs through scanning and pour them into a bigger bottle in the bogs, but they're not worried about that. Why might that be?
Just to be clear, I'm not against increased security, I'm against the authorities feeling that they need to invent stupid stories to introduce them largely because the US public - pre 2001 - got used to getting on planes, because US airlines opposed any kind of security measures that might discourage air travel - without anyone checking anything, which is why a bunch of blokes boarded planes with stanley knives.
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]Actually, you know what? I've thought of a better solution! It works! It won't exactly do much for global warming (but then, of course, that's all a myth dreamed up by liberal wooly jumper wearers and runw ith by neo-conservative oligarchs intent on raking more money out of the taxpayers, so that doesn't matter)
What we do is - wait for it here, wait for it... have TWO flights to each destination every time instead of one. That way, everybody who wants to have the convenience of not being searched can board instantly - but take the chance that some loon with a brain the size of a walnut but cojones the size of watermelons will stroll on with an improvised explosive device and drop them into the mid-Atlantic. The sane, sensible people can take the inconvenience of the security measures and be safe in the knowledge that no imbecile will be likely to target them because there are other, lower-hanging fruit to pick on.
I'm a genius.
I shall ignore the insulting and arrogant manner in which Leroy writes his posts and try to be objective. The so-called 'sane, sensible' people would not be 'safe' because this is being based on CURRENT security measures. These current security measures are totally unreliable.
Take into account what Large says. He is allowed to board an aircraft with a lethal injection. He is not asked for medical papers and his injections are not supervised. I think this backs up my arguments pretty well.
I am not against airport security searches at all. I am simply asking for it to be thought out properly and not to be a form of harassment. I quote from Times magazine January 11 2010 'The Lessons of Flight 253':
The 23-year-old son of a banker from Nigeria should have tripped every alarm in the global aviation-security system put in place after 9/11: He bought a $2,831 ticket for flights from Lagos to Amsterdam to Detroit and paid for it in cash. He left no contact information with the airline. He checked no bags. Seven months earlier, he had earned himself a spot on a security watch list in Britain after applying for a visa to attend a dubious English university. And when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab broke off contact with his family in October to join the war on the West, his own father reported him as a possible threat at the U.S. embassy in Abuja, where he met with a CIA officer. (Terrorism on Flight 253: Does It Fit al-Qaeda's Pattern?)
But American officials either missed all these warnings or failed to act on them.
Airport searches should be the last final check on global aviation security but they're not. They are treated as the only means, and so they are completely over the top and frankly out of line.
I agree with airport searches but I ask for consistency and decency.
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite
T I reckon they should put a bit more effort into these things. The liquids thing was a complete crock. If liquids are potentially bombs how come you're allowed to have a few (potential) small bombs? You could even take your 100ml bombs through scanning and pour them into a bigger bottle in the bogs, but they're not worried about that. Why might that be?
.
Exactly. And why does no-one ever question who makes the deliveries of all those bottles of mineral water to the airport which are purchased beyond the searches?
There far too many examples of the hypocrisy of airport searches to mention.
Leroy, you can stay at home, no one is forcing you onto a flight, most people dont mind a few minutes delay to make it more difficult for muslim terrorists to blow them up, they also dont mind if you stay at home whinging about your human rights if it means they are safer.
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]When middle aged, white, women or toddlers start trying to smuggle explosives on board maybe we'd need to rethink but at the moment, I think the question is, why are we not putting our resources into doing more to target those higher risk profiles for additional security procedures rather than adopting a 'one size fits all' approach?
Hmm, I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest with examples of one woman in Cechnya and a bunch of crazy French workers in an industrial dispute and of course not every terrorist is going to fit the stereotypical description but I stand by the view that, in addition to normal, appropriate security measures the airline industry would benefit greatly if it carried out better profiling (and unfortunately race/religion is a factor whether we like it or not). Regretably, not every airport in the world, or even the UK, is going to be able to afford the latest technology, however it should be within the means of most to identify higher risk passengers for additional checks. It's horrible to have to do it of course but I'd rather security staff were concentrating on thier primary goal rather than feeling under pressure to make sure everyone gets processed as quickly as possible because mistakes will happen in that situation.
While we're in the business of linking to other articles I saw this yesterday, which made interesting reading...
On further reflection, although my sentiments earlier in this thread were heartfelt, and I in no way retract any of them, I realise that I may not have made my position crystal clear. I was in no way having a go at people who are pissed off with the situation - people have every right to be aggrieved that they are being put out by the extra security checks that are, sadly, becoming a way of life for air travellers. I sympathise wholeheartedly with them and - in common with Chunes - I get pissed off waiting thirty seconds for a train to depart, so understand people's frustrations.
However, I don't retract anything else I've said. Everyone with half a brain knows that if there are people willing to top themselves for a cause, there is precious little you can, in reality, do about it in any highly effective manner. All you can do is try your damnedest to stop it happening - and anyone who is a bit miffed at having their cases or person searched in an attempt to do just that is losing the plot.
Jimmy - I can't decide whether you're on a wind-up here or not. If you are, it's genius - I've heard of 'the long con', but this would be one of the longest, most drawn-out trolls ever. If not, then you must surely be going a little bit loopy. Are you seriously suggesting that every bottle of mineral water that gets delivered airside is tested on the offchance that there is an Al Qaeda sleeper cell working for Evian?
The point about hypodermic needles is a valid one - but, by the same rationale, you can make a shank out of a toothbrush if you want - pop that in someone's jugular and you'd take them out pretty effectively. The counter-argument about not being easy to get onto the flightdeck kind of kyboshes that though in any case - you'd need a whole lot of bods to get into the flightdeck now and, if a gang of geezers armed with little pointed objects tried to bumrush the cabin nowadays they'd get the ever-loving shit tarred out of them by the general public. The one thing that 9-11 opened the world's eyes to regarding hijacked airliners is that there ain't gonna be any question now of people 'riding it out' on the ground - as soon as there's a whiff of a hijacking attempt, people know that, in all likelihood, they're dead if the loons get in the cockpit so they'll band up and start dishing out the slaps as best they can to try and stop it happening (witness what happened at Detroit at xmas)
The only way to get consistency and decency at airports regarding searches, is to search absolutely everyone in the same manner. Personally, I have no trouble with that - but some people on here obviously would.
Threat profiling is a horrible thing - imagine how you'd feel if the tables were turned and it was white English people who were predisopsed to being indoctrinated into religious fanaticism and prone to blowing themselves up for a cause. I'd imagine having hundreds of people looking at you suspiciously, accusatorily or in fear would make you a bit pissed off. However, I'd agree that, in the present climate, there doesn't really seem to be any more effective method. Despite Abdulmutallab and Richard Reid not fitting the profile, they were isolated cases, and, obviously, the vast majority of fundamentalists in this country are of arab/asian origin. I'm not comfortable with the idea of targeting people based on their ethnicity - not just on because of the questionable ethics in doing so, but because if history has taught us one thing, it's that the surefire way to antagonise people who already feel (rightly or wrongly) alienated and oppressed is to trample all over what they perceive as their rights and perpetuate their sense of injustice. However, I do agree that, in the present climate - short of getting everyone to submit to full, time-consuming searches, there isn't much of an alternative - and the number one priority should always be the safety of air travellers. If targeted threat profiling helps - then it has to be done.
Finally, the point about Jerusalem airport was not made flippantly. I used to date an Israeli girl. She knew how to look after herself. Certainly the only female I've ever dated who spent eighteen months firing machine guns, learning how to kill people with her bare hands and stripping down a bloody bazooka. Because they have lived with the threat of suicide bombers for decades, they have learned, however unsavoury it may seem, to see EVERY arab as a potential terrorist. There are plenty of Israelis who don't like feeling that way, but it has just become a necessity of life for them. That's what I was getting at when I said about their being hundreds of thousands of armed people in Jerusalem all in a permanent state of alertness. That isn't racism - it's self-preservationism.
I do think there is something persevsely wrong with the fact that you could take in through security ten small bottles of a liquid but couldn't take in a 500ml bottle of Evian. Once past security any self respecting terrorist could stroll into WHSmith, buy himself a 500ml bottle of Evian and then proceed to drink it and then refill it with the ten small bottles of liquid he legally brought through security and then hey presto a bomb. If you are going to ban bringing liquids through then fine but ban all liquids, however small the quantity. If you do this however you must then ensure that once past security things like water, baby food etc are readily available to purchase at non rip-off prices and without having to queue for a week. If you are going to inconvenience passengers further you need to ensure that their whole airport experience isn't a thoroughly unpleasant one.
Thank-you Leroy for getting back to your better non-'loopy' posts. I actually agree with a lot of what you say here, especially paragraph 7 (as I am not in fact a fascist).
I'd just like to comment on this bit though:
[cite]Posted By: Leroy Ambrose[/cite]
Jimmy - I can't decide whether you're on a wind-up here or not. If you are, it's genius - I've heard of 'the long con', but this would be one of the longest, most drawn-out trolls ever. If not, then you must surely be going a little bit loopy. Are you seriously suggesting that every bottle of mineral water that gets delivered airside is tested on the offchance that there is an Al Qaeda sleeper cell working for Evian?
Neither am I on a wind-up and neither do I think I am loopy.
There is simply more chance of a terrorist Muslim working for one of the delivery companies than couples with their own (identity proven) children wanting to blow up a plane. So if the airports really want to subject mothers and fathers with their own children to extreme searches such as those which are endured at the moment, then yes I think the answer to your last question should also be 'yes'.
It is of course loopy but it highlights how loopy the current searches are.
By the way, Large is beginning to see the light with regards to the water issue. Around the same time that they started confiscating water in airports they also got rid of cold water taps in the toilets thus forcing people to buy water in the shops. It's a great money-maker for the airports.
[cite]Posted By: Bournemouth Addick[/cite]When middle aged, white, women or toddlers start trying to smuggle explosives on board maybe we'd need to rethink but at the moment, I think the question is, why are we not putting our resources into doing more to target those higher risk profiles for additional security procedures rather than adopting a 'one size fits all' approach?
Hmm, I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest with examples of one woman in Cechnya and a bunch of crazy French workers in an industrial dispute and of course noteveryterrorist is going to fit the stereotypical description but I stand by the view that,inaddition to normal, appropriate security measuresthe airline industry would benefit greatly if it carried out better profiling (and unfortunately race/religion is a factor whether we like it or not). Regretably, not every airport in the world, or even the UK, is going to be able to afford the latest technology, however it should be within the means of most to identify higher risk passengers for additional checks. It's horrible to have to do it of course but I'd rather security staff were concentrating on thier primary goal rather than feeling under pressure to make sure everyone gets processed as quickly as possible because mistakes will happen in that situation.
While we're in the business of linking to other articles I saw this yesterday, which made interesting reading...
The lack of comment with those links was in case I was barking up the wrong tree!
Although I am not against race & religious profiling, especially when it comes to subjects such as knife crime, I believe that everyone should be subjected to the same high level of security screening and agree with other posters that at the moment the screening isn't good enough. It should cause as least disruption as possible, these full body scanners look like a step closer to that.
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]By the way, Large is beginning to see the light with regards to the water issue. Around the same time that they started confiscating water in airports they also got rid of cold water taps in the toilets thus forcing people to buy water in the shops. It's a great money-maker for the airports.
Apparently the body scanners cannot presently detect black people which rather defeats the presumed object. It maybe that "Obama" shade of black people also cannot be seen which would include Arabs and Asians who make up the majority of the funamentalist Muslim lobby.
Not racist a statement of fact before the forum police start!
I agree with Leroy that all ethnicities have to be treated equally - there are plenty of reasons why this has to be the case (Leroy pointed out a couple of the best and most obvious ones).
I agree with Jimmy that airport checks are over the top, and, in my opinion, are bordering on a minor violation of human rights.
Why should me wanting to travel by plane mean I have to walk through a machine that effectively removes all my clothes? The airlines are responding to pressure from the government in introducing these scanner measures, so the 'airlines can ask of us what they want' argument doesn't wash with me.
And it does make me laugh how many people have mentioned being 'blown up on a plane'. In the history of mass passenger air travel in the Western world, spanning 50 years, how many planes have been 'blown up' etc? Hardly any - certainly far fewer than cars, trains, buses, etc. The threat is over-hyped, the security measures disproportionate, and the whole Daily Mail-inspired fear factor is being bought by the masses. Incredible.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]airport checks .... are bordering on a minor violation of human rights.
Surely that's a contradiction in terms.
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]There is simply more chance of a terrorist Muslim working for one of the delivery companies than couples with their own (identity proven) children wanting to blow up a plane.
There's nothing simple about it. You've said that as if it's a fact, but it's nothing more than your opinion. Sure, once someone has got a job at the airport they may well have opportunities - probably more opportunities than someone who is passing through. And of course there's a risk that because they are there every day people will become complacent about them. But that doesn't make them more likely to be terrorists. You have to consider the sheer weight of numbers. There are thousands of people working at our major airports, but millions of people using them. So on a numbers game, the chances are greater that terrorists will be passengers rather than staff.
I still think you should be let through with sealed liquids/baby food. If it's in the same condition as when it was bought, then there should be no problem with it, unless there are issues with glass or something like that.
My reason is that if someone can re-seal these things with explosives in them instead (or whatever is being smuggled onto the plane), that's a much bigger terrorist threat in and of itself than whether they want to blow up a plane or not. Imagine if a huge amount of bottles of evian were spiked with cyanide or something, or jars of baby food. It doesn't bear thinking about.
[cite]Posted By: Si[/cite]airport checks .... are bordering on a minor violation of human rights.
Surely that's a contradiction in terms.
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]There is simply more chance of a terrorist Muslim working for one of the delivery companies than couples with their own (identity proven) children wanting to blow up a plane.
There's nothing simple about it. You've said that as if it's a fact, but it's nothing more than your opinion. Sure, once someone has got a job at the airport they may well have opportunities - probably more opportunities than someone who is passing through. And of course there's a risk that because they are there every day people will become complacent about them. But that doesn't make them more likely to be terrorists. You have to consider the sheer weight of numbers. There are thousands of people working at our major airports, but millions of people using them. So on a numbers game, the chances are greater that terrorists will be passengers rather than staff.
I'm basing this on the belief that there are ZERO people in the world prepared to kill their own children. Ok, that may not be true - there have been cases of people committing suicide with their children, that's true. But I think you're missing my point. You're saying that 'the chances are greater that terrorists will be passengers rather than staff'. I'm saying that the chances are greater that terrorists will be staff than parents will kill their own children.
Getting back to body scanners: I think people are missing the point.
They are very very likely a health risk.
I will believe arguments to the contrary with the some scepticism that I hold for mobile phone companies who dispute health risks for their products. The difference is that I don't have to use a mobile phone to make a phone call but I would have to go through an X-ray scanner no matter who I fly with.
There are felons operating security checkpints at most US airports. A close friend of mine works at JFK and they have to meet ethnic/linguistic/religious quotas set by Federal Government. The only way to meet these is to employ people with criminal records from some groups.
A far greater risk than searching my cousin, who was put in a perspex bomb proof box and swabbed in front of a queue of passengers despite, or probably because he was in his Vicars get up en route to a conference
The problem I've got with profiling is that it focuses on a certain group of people - Asians/Arabs etc who fit the profile. But not all muslims are Arabic or Asian looking. The Detroit plane bomber was African, should we therefore include all Africans?
What about white muslims?
Much better to make all muslims wear a clearly identifiable symbol - say a green crescent armband and in case they take that off they should get a tattoo as well.
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]Getting back to body scanners: I think people are missing the point.
They are very very likely a health risk.
I will believe arguments to the contrary with the some scepticism that I hold for mobile phone companies who dispute health risks for their products. The difference is that I don't have to use a mobile phone to make a phone call but I would have to go through an X-ray scanner no matter who I fly with.
Tin hat time. Do you still believe that the MMR vaccine makes your child autistic? No - because the 'study' that 'proved' a link was proven to be absolute, utter bollocks. Why, then, do you not believe the - quiter literally - thousands of entirely independent studies that have proven there is no link between mobile phones and health problems?
Not everything is a massive X-Files-style government/corporate conspiracy. On what basis do you believe that the all-over body scanners are a health risk?
It doesnt have to be simply suspected Muslim profiling does it? But how many millions of obviously innocent peopoe have been inconvenienced in every airport all around the world by these few murdering demented gits? Why should a family with three children boarding a flight in Iquitos bound for Manaus be treated like criminals becasue of Lockerbie (the innocent man thanfully being released) or 9/11?
[cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]The problem I've got with profiling is that it focuses on a certain group of people - Asians/Arabs etc who fit the profile. But not all muslims are Arabic or Asian looking. The Detroit plane bomber was African, should we therefore include all Africans?
The other problem is once we start bundling asian males into back rooms and let white people stroll through, are terrorist organisations really going to send people who fit that description to execute attacks? You would think in their detailed study of security measures to get past, they would realise they can bypass most of them by sending a white muslim.
Comments
But if it means that I feel more at ease when my wife or son or daughter travel, then I'm all for it. Leroy may put his point across more extremely than some would wish but he is right.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5858343/Laid-off-French-workers-threaten-to-blow-up-factory-for-redundancy-pay.html
Finally, airport security is poor anyway and although this will help there are other issues they need to address. For example, I am an insulin dependant diabetic. I regularly travel with needles, pens and of course insulin. I have NEVER been asked to explain what I am carrying and why, although of numerous occasions I have been asked to remove shoes, surrending shampoo etc. It may surprise you to know that if I filled a syringe or pen full of insulin and managed to get near the pilot and inject him then he'd be in a coma within minutes. Inject the co-pilot too and you'd all be in trouble.
Something wrong here methinks ?
Does anyone else think it's mildly odd that this idea comes up a few months ago, hits a storm of contoversy; then a complete jackass moulds a load of plastic explosive to his balls before merrily wandering through traditional scanners in Lagos and Amsterdam and then - having gone to all this trouble - decides not to attempt to set this thing off until the plane is safely on the deck in the most public way imaginable, but is stopped, unharmed and is shipped off to jail?
The public now "understands" that naked scanners are needed and we're off. I reckon they should put a bit more effort into these things. The liquids thing was a complete crock. If liquids are potentially bombs how come you're allowed to have a few (potential) small bombs? You could even take your 100ml bombs through scanning and pour them into a bigger bottle in the bogs, but they're not worried about that. Why might that be?
Just to be clear, I'm not against increased security, I'm against the authorities feeling that they need to invent stupid stories to introduce them largely because the US public - pre 2001 - got used to getting on planes, because US airlines opposed any kind of security measures that might discourage air travel - without anyone checking anything, which is why a bunch of blokes boarded planes with stanley knives.
I shall ignore the insulting and arrogant manner in which Leroy writes his posts and try to be objective. The so-called 'sane, sensible' people would not be 'safe' because this is being based on CURRENT security measures. These current security measures are totally unreliable.
Take into account what Large says. He is allowed to board an aircraft with a lethal injection. He is not asked for medical papers and his injections are not supervised. I think this backs up my arguments pretty well.
I am not against airport security searches at all. I am simply asking for it to be thought out properly and not to be a form of harassment. I quote from Times magazine January 11 2010 'The Lessons of Flight 253':
The 23-year-old son of a banker from Nigeria should have tripped every alarm in the global aviation-security system put in place after 9/11: He bought a $2,831 ticket for flights from Lagos to Amsterdam to Detroit and paid for it in cash. He left no contact information with the airline. He checked no bags. Seven months earlier, he had earned himself a spot on a security watch list in Britain after applying for a visa to attend a dubious English university. And when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab broke off contact with his family in October to join the war on the West, his own father reported him as a possible threat at the U.S. embassy in Abuja, where he met with a CIA officer. (Terrorism on Flight 253: Does It Fit al-Qaeda's Pattern?)
But American officials either missed all these warnings or failed to act on them.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1950579,00.html#ixzz0bdzYrEPM
Airport searches should be the last final check on global aviation security but they're not. They are treated as the only means, and so they are completely over the top and frankly out of line.
I agree with airport searches but I ask for consistency and decency.
Exactly. And why does no-one ever question who makes the deliveries of all those bottles of mineral water to the airport which are purchased beyond the searches?
There far too many examples of the hypocrisy of airport searches to mention.
Do we? I don't.
Hmm, I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest with examples of one woman in Cechnya and a bunch of crazy French workers in an industrial dispute and of course not every terrorist is going to fit the stereotypical description but I stand by the view that, in addition to normal, appropriate security measures the airline industry would benefit greatly if it carried out better profiling (and unfortunately race/religion is a factor whether we like it or not). Regretably, not every airport in the world, or even the UK, is going to be able to afford the latest technology, however it should be within the means of most to identify higher risk passengers for additional checks. It's horrible to have to do it of course but I'd rather security staff were concentrating on thier primary goal rather than feeling under pressure to make sure everyone gets processed as quickly as possible because mistakes will happen in that situation.
While we're in the business of linking to other articles I saw this yesterday, which made interesting reading...
Not just me that thinks this.
However, I don't retract anything else I've said. Everyone with half a brain knows that if there are people willing to top themselves for a cause, there is precious little you can, in reality, do about it in any highly effective manner. All you can do is try your damnedest to stop it happening - and anyone who is a bit miffed at having their cases or person searched in an attempt to do just that is losing the plot.
Jimmy - I can't decide whether you're on a wind-up here or not. If you are, it's genius - I've heard of 'the long con', but this would be one of the longest, most drawn-out trolls ever. If not, then you must surely be going a little bit loopy. Are you seriously suggesting that every bottle of mineral water that gets delivered airside is tested on the offchance that there is an Al Qaeda sleeper cell working for Evian?
The point about hypodermic needles is a valid one - but, by the same rationale, you can make a shank out of a toothbrush if you want - pop that in someone's jugular and you'd take them out pretty effectively. The counter-argument about not being easy to get onto the flightdeck kind of kyboshes that though in any case - you'd need a whole lot of bods to get into the flightdeck now and, if a gang of geezers armed with little pointed objects tried to bumrush the cabin nowadays they'd get the ever-loving shit tarred out of them by the general public. The one thing that 9-11 opened the world's eyes to regarding hijacked airliners is that there ain't gonna be any question now of people 'riding it out' on the ground - as soon as there's a whiff of a hijacking attempt, people know that, in all likelihood, they're dead if the loons get in the cockpit so they'll band up and start dishing out the slaps as best they can to try and stop it happening (witness what happened at Detroit at xmas)
The only way to get consistency and decency at airports regarding searches, is to search absolutely everyone in the same manner. Personally, I have no trouble with that - but some people on here obviously would.
Threat profiling is a horrible thing - imagine how you'd feel if the tables were turned and it was white English people who were predisopsed to being indoctrinated into religious fanaticism and prone to blowing themselves up for a cause. I'd imagine having hundreds of people looking at you suspiciously, accusatorily or in fear would make you a bit pissed off. However, I'd agree that, in the present climate, there doesn't really seem to be any more effective method. Despite Abdulmutallab and Richard Reid not fitting the profile, they were isolated cases, and, obviously, the vast majority of fundamentalists in this country are of arab/asian origin. I'm not comfortable with the idea of targeting people based on their ethnicity - not just on because of the questionable ethics in doing so, but because if history has taught us one thing, it's that the surefire way to antagonise people who already feel (rightly or wrongly) alienated and oppressed is to trample all over what they perceive as their rights and perpetuate their sense of injustice. However, I do agree that, in the present climate - short of getting everyone to submit to full, time-consuming searches, there isn't much of an alternative - and the number one priority should always be the safety of air travellers. If targeted threat profiling helps - then it has to be done.
Finally, the point about Jerusalem airport was not made flippantly. I used to date an Israeli girl. She knew how to look after herself. Certainly the only female I've ever dated who spent eighteen months firing machine guns, learning how to kill people with her bare hands and stripping down a bloody bazooka. Because they have lived with the threat of suicide bombers for decades, they have learned, however unsavoury it may seem, to see EVERY arab as a potential terrorist. There are plenty of Israelis who don't like feeling that way, but it has just become a necessity of life for them. That's what I was getting at when I said about their being hundreds of thousands of armed people in Jerusalem all in a permanent state of alertness. That isn't racism - it's self-preservationism.
I'd just like to comment on this bit though:
Neither am I on a wind-up and neither do I think I am loopy.
There is simply more chance of a terrorist Muslim working for one of the delivery companies than couples with their own (identity proven) children wanting to blow up a plane. So if the airports really want to subject mothers and fathers with their own children to extreme searches such as those which are endured at the moment, then yes I think the answer to your last question should also be 'yes'.
It is of course loopy but it highlights how loopy the current searches are.
Although I am not against race & religious profiling, especially when it comes to subjects such as knife crime, I believe that everyone should be subjected to the same high level of security screening and agree with other posters that at the moment the screening isn't good enough. It should cause as least disruption as possible, these full body scanners look like a step closer to that.
Not racist a statement of fact before the forum police start!
http://www.in-city-news.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2742&Itemid=112&ed=38
I agree with Jimmy that airport checks are over the top, and, in my opinion, are bordering on a minor violation of human rights.
Why should me wanting to travel by plane mean I have to walk through a machine that effectively removes all my clothes? The airlines are responding to pressure from the government in introducing these scanner measures, so the 'airlines can ask of us what they want' argument doesn't wash with me.
And it does make me laugh how many people have mentioned being 'blown up on a plane'. In the history of mass passenger air travel in the Western world, spanning 50 years, how many planes have been 'blown up' etc? Hardly any - certainly far fewer than cars, trains, buses, etc. The threat is over-hyped, the security measures disproportionate, and the whole Daily Mail-inspired fear factor is being bought by the masses. Incredible.
There's nothing simple about it. You've said that as if it's a fact, but it's nothing more than your opinion. Sure, once someone has got a job at the airport they may well have opportunities - probably more opportunities than someone who is passing through. And of course there's a risk that because they are there every day people will become complacent about them. But that doesn't make them more likely to be terrorists. You have to consider the sheer weight of numbers. There are thousands of people working at our major airports, but millions of people using them. So on a numbers game, the chances are greater that terrorists will be passengers rather than staff.
My reason is that if someone can re-seal these things with explosives in them instead (or whatever is being smuggled onto the plane), that's a much bigger terrorist threat in and of itself than whether they want to blow up a plane or not. Imagine if a huge amount of bottles of evian were spiked with cyanide or something, or jars of baby food. It doesn't bear thinking about.
I'm basing this on the belief that there are ZERO people in the world prepared to kill their own children. Ok, that may not be true - there have been cases of people committing suicide with their children, that's true. But I think you're missing my point. You're saying that 'the chances are greater that terrorists will be passengers rather than staff'. I'm saying that the chances are greater that terrorists will be staff than parents will kill their own children.
They are very very likely a health risk.
I will believe arguments to the contrary with the some scepticism that I hold for mobile phone companies who dispute health risks for their products. The difference is that I don't have to use a mobile phone to make a phone call but I would have to go through an X-ray scanner no matter who I fly with.
A close friend of mine works at JFK and they have to meet ethnic/linguistic/religious quotas set by Federal Government.
The only way to meet these is to employ people with criminal records from some groups.
A far greater risk than searching my cousin, who was put in a perspex bomb proof box and swabbed in front of a queue of passengers despite, or probably because he was in his Vicars get up en route to a conference
Profiling is the only answer
What about white muslims?
Much better to make all muslims wear a clearly identifiable symbol - say a green crescent armband and in case they take that off they should get a tattoo as well.
Not everything is a massive X-Files-style government/corporate conspiracy. On what basis do you believe that the all-over body scanners are a health risk?
But how many millions of obviously innocent peopoe have been inconvenienced in every airport all around the world by these few murdering demented gits?
Why should a family with three children boarding a flight in Iquitos bound for Manaus be treated like criminals becasue of Lockerbie (the innocent man thanfully being released) or 9/11?
The other problem is once we start bundling asian males into back rooms and let white people stroll through, are terrorist organisations really going to send people who fit that description to execute attacks? You would think in their detailed study of security measures to get past, they would realise they can bypass most of them by sending a white muslim.