Oh look, now we're doing TOO much. Boo-Hoo.
It now looks like the Bush Administration is being criticized for doing too much to stop another 9/11 in the air. I'm sorry, but if we need to cancel flights that are "questionable", then I'm all for that. I do not see how ANYONE can criticize the US for demanding marshals on international flights, and insisting that worrysome flights be canceled during a period of high alert. Can you imagine what would be said if another 9/11 plane attack happened?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/03/na...rint&position=
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/03/na...rint&position=
Comments
(No there won't!)
Hey, who said that?
(Anyway....)
I'll grant them that the list probably has its share of false positives, but that's no reason to dismiss a flight with several of those names on it for example. "Better safe than sorry" will always be a good enough excuse to hold back or delay a flight in my book.
It's just a fact: some people are going to miss flights and business meetings and all the rest. Boo hoo. Life's a bitch. Would you rather risk plummeting into a building / the ground?
"will you be first class, business, tourist, or terror?"
could put the smokers in there too.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It now looks like the Bush Administration is being criticized for doing too much to stop another 9/11 in the air. I'm sorry, but if we need to cancel flights that are "questionable", then I'm all for that. I do not see how ANYONE can criticize the US for demanding marshals on international flights, and insisting that worrysome flights be canceled during a period of high alert. Can you imagine what would be said if another 9/11 plane attack happened?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/03/na...rint&position=
The 9/11 flight was an american one. Before 9/11 the security in internal US flights where very low.
My parents took a plane in Miami, and in the plane there was a bagage lost with no owner. My parents tell the plane staff that it was dangerous to have an unknow baggage in a plane : the staff looked weirdly my parents. At the time (it was before 9/11) my parents where astonished by the lack of security of the companie.
For the air marshals : why not. But he must be a professional. And it's efficient ( ellal have proven it) but it cost money.
Originally posted by Scott
Powerdoc could you remind me where Richard Reid came from and what flight he was on?
Luckily Richard Reid was neutralized.
No security system is 100 % waterproof however.
Just pointed it out, that admin tend to react always after and not before.
US believed that it was a sanctuary. Unluckily it wasn't. It's always hard to discover that your life can be threaten.
Originally posted by SDW2001:
Oh look, now we're doing TOO much. Boo-Hoo.
What's it like living in a world so simplified that it all comes down to "too much" or "too little"? We wouldn't want any troublesome details about too much or too little of what to spoil our opportunity to prop up a straw man insinuation of hypocrisy, now would we?
Yes, it is amazing.
Originally posted by shetline
What's it like living in a world so simplified that it all comes down to "too much" or "too little"? We wouldn't want any troublesome details about too much or too little of what to spoil our opportunity to prop up a straw man insinuation of hypocrisy, now would we?
Yes, it is amazing.
lol...you seem surprised shetline. Haven't you been paying attention?
Originally posted by murbot
They should only stop the flights that are actually full of terrorists.
Annnd... short of actually double-checking and/or interviewing certain people from a suspicious passenger list, they would be able to ascertain that how exactly? Wait until the aircraft slams into the MGM Grand?
Originally posted by Moogs
Annnd... short of actually double-checking and/or interviewing certain people from a suspicious passenger list, they would be able to ascertain that how exactly? Wait until the aircraft slams into the MGM Grand?
Talk to the Israelis. They've never had a problem even though they're probably the biggest target of all. And if you do talk to the Israelis you'll find that they criticize the US policies and practices.
Originally posted by shetline
What's it like living in a world so simplified that it all comes down to "too much" or "too little"? We wouldn't want any troublesome details about too much or too little of what to spoil our opportunity to prop up a straw man insinuation of hypocrisy, now would we?
Yes, it is amazing.
shetline, you are like a tiny god
Originally posted by bunge
Talk to the Israelis. They've never had a problem even though they're probably the biggest target of all. And if you do talk to the Israelis you'll find that they criticize the US policies and practices.
I heard that too somewhere. What are they saying? They are pretty much the biggest target; I wonder why we're not taking their advice.
Originally posted by Whisper
I heard that too somewhere. What are they saying? They are pretty much the biggest target; I wonder why we're not taking their advice.
I honestly don't know, but I'll cast my vote towards the 'Bush is more dangerous to this country than he was to Iraq' pile. Rather than intelligently monitor people flying, the administration tries to control with an iron fist. They're a bit whacky if you ask me.
I think that the angle of the argument. It would be ridiculous to say that the administration is "doing too much" now with regard to flights. If flight cancellations are necessary to check or thwart these sorts of things, sobeit. But people might wonder if the process that decides this is meticulous enough to make that decision reliably.
Originally posted by bunge
I honestly don't know, but I'll cast my vote towards the 'Bush is more dangerous to this country than he was to Iraq' pile. Rather than intelligently monitor people flying, the administration tries to control with an iron fist. They're a bit whacky if you ask me.
Could you please detail the "iron fist" that they use? Or is that just more unintelligent commentary from you?
Originally posted by Scott
Could you please detail the "iron fist" that they use? Or is that just more unintelligent commentary from you?
If you look at in in regard to what he was saying isreal does... Actually, I am not entirely sure I would want an isreali system working here. Civil liberties are a hallmark of the US, and Isreal can tramp all over those of the palestinians because, well, they are a homogenous state to a large degree. The US hears something and blocks the flight, while this is a somewhat blind and retarded way of doing it, it doesnt unnecessarily single out a group of people (except airline travellers).
Originally posted by billybobsky
If you look at in in regard to what he was saying isreal does... Actually, I am not entirely sure I would want an isreali system working here. Civil liberties are a hallmark of the US, and Isreal can tramp all over those of the palestinians because, well, they are a homogenous state to a large degree. The US hears something and blocks the flight, while this is a somewhat blind and retarded way of doing it, it doesnt unnecessarily single out a group of people (except airline travellers).
So let me get this straight: Israel's security procedures are due to the Palestinian conflict? Please. It's much larger than that. And you assume that their security violates civil liberties, which is an unsupported notion (and more on that point, the notion that there has been mass assault on civil liberties in this country since 9/11 is also unsupported).
As far as the US "hearing something and blocking the flight"....why is it, as you put it, "retarded"? So we hear rumors (from whatever source) that there may a problem, and we DO NOTHING? Isn't that what the problem was leading up to 9/11? Isn't that what the Left has been literally screaming about....that Bush knew...or should have known due to the intelligence presented to him? In this day and age, we MUST cancel or resecure any flight that is even supsected. It's the only prudent thing to do. What the hell would you do? Don't call something retarded without presenting an alternative.
As far as your last comment, you again are assuming that Israel's security is only to "single out" a group of people...presumably the Palestinians. I'd have to disagree and say that it seems to me it's to single out TERRORISTS.