"Naked" X-Ray Scans At The Airport.. Your Thoughts?

[robinb]

And some more happy news about the 'feel-good' airport security:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security

Thanks for the link. I know Bruce Schneier (the security expert in the article) and it was an interesting read.

If you want to read more about "TSA Security Theater" here is his website:
http://www.schneier.com/

 

[FireDancer]

I skipped from page 22 to ask a question...

If these scanners were in place on Christmas day and you can either choose to go through it or have a pat down, and the would-be-bomber chose the pat down...tell me again just what exactly would have it prevented? (using the assumption that they chose the crotch location to beat a pat-down.)

As an option they wouldn't have stopped the attack for the reason you mentioned. If they were mandatory the stuff sewed into the underwear might have been seen and might not have. It is impossible to say either way.

The machines will not in isolation stop all attacks and might not have stopped this one. They should be part of an overall security plan which uses technology like the scanners, bag x-ray machines, and metal detectors along with human counter measures like profiling and police dogs. Do it all, not just some and when a new technology is invented implement that one as well.

 

[shrubber]

With the proper planning, many members of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations (and non-affiliated terrorists) could get such a permit.

No citizen has ever tried to bring down an airliner, (that I know of)

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Well, certainly not.
However, the realization that there are likely to be many people aboard the plane other than yourself that are armed, rather than the scenario that we have now, certainly makes things extraordinarily more difficult for a would be terrorist, doesn't it?

Not at all, because there is a mental distinction. Those who seek to harm, do not value life, even their own. Suicide terrorists wouldn't care that others are armed, their intent is to suceed and if having a gun would help, even at risk someone else would, they would try. Those who are there with no malintent are out to protect, protect themselves (they do not want to die) and those around them. This gives the terrorist the unfair advantage.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

No citizen has ever tried to bring down an airliner, (that I know of)

There have been US born citizens that have "hijacked" an airplane before though, which is not that disimilar to actually crashing one, now you just want to give them the ability to conceal a weapon, legally.

 

[sbell111]

A conceal carry permit is issued as a right protected by the second admendment as a citizen of the US.

By default, none of these terrorists could even apply.

When was the last time you heard of an American hijacking or attempting to blow up an airplane?

Seriously? You are not aware of Americans ever hijacking an airplane? You are not aware of Americans ever exploding bombs which terrorized other Americans? You are not aware of any Americans who have been found to have links with terrorist organizations, such as Al-Qaeda? You are not aware that people actually immigrate to America and become citizens?

 

[sbell111]

I skipped from page 22 to ask a question...

If these scanners were in place on Christmas day and you can either choose to go through it or have a pat down, and the would-be-bomber chose the pat down...tell me again just what exactly would have it prevented? (using the assumption that they chose the crotch location to beat a pat-down.)

No, but it is my understanding that when these go fully operational, people will not be able to choose one over the other.

OK Bombing and these terrorist attacks are apples and oranges.

No, they are the exact same thing.

 

[shrubber]

Not at all, because there is a mental distinction. Those who seek to harm, do not value life, even their own. Suicide terrorists wouldn't care that others are armed, their intent is to suceed and if having a gun would help, even at risk someone else would, they would try. Those who are there with no malintent are out to protect, protect themselves (they do not want to die) and those around them. This gives the terrorist the unfair advantage.

I believe you are missing the point. Why is it that these Jihadists have specifically chosen our airliners to carry out these attacks? It is precisely because they know that no one on the plane is able to defend themselves.
The effort to arm pilots has been defunded, the chances of their being an air marshall aboard your flight are miniscule at best.
So far their record is 4 to 2? Even with all of these security measures in place. Not bad odds.
I say instead of creating a scenerio in which we darn near insure that the Jihadist meets no resistance, we create a scenerio in which he very well may.

 

[sbell111]

Well, certainly not.
However, the realization that there are likely to be many people aboard the plane other than yourself that are armed, rather than the scenario that we have now, certainly makes things extraordinarily more difficult for a would be terrorist, doesn't it?

I can think of few scarier scenarios than having many citizens and terrorists armed onboard an airliner in flight. Do you honestly believe that once the bullets started flying that there would be anything but mass chaos? Bullets would fly in every direction. Loads of civilians would be dead or injured. The aircraft may or may not be destroyed.

It basically sounds like a very successful Al-Qaeda operation.

 

[shrubber]

No, they are the exact same thing.

Of course they are not. Timothy McVeigh was no Jihadist.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

I believe you are missing the point. Why is it that these Jihadists have specifically chosen our airliners to carry out these attacks? It is precisely because they know that no one on the plane is able to defend themselves.
The effort to arm pilots has been defunded, the chances of their being an air marshall aboard your flight are miniscule at best.
So far their record is 4 to 2? Even with all of these security measures in place. Not bad odds.
I say instead of creating a scenerio in which we darn near insure that the Jihadist meets no resistance, we create a scenerio in which he very well may.

I disagree. They choose the planes because they are a controlled environment and can cause a lot of damage without a lot of "baggage" in terms of carrying supplies. A plane is like a missle, it doesn't just kill people on board, but it can also be pointed in a direction and hit something else.

Additionally a plane has a large volume of people in a small space, completing a similar event else where, with the same casualty count would require more supplies (bombs, etc.) and would be harder to stay under the radar.

 

[sbell111]

Of course they are not. Timothy McVeigh was no Jihadist.

The reasons for ther actions don't mean anything. Their objectives and effect were exactly the same.

At worst, it's a tangerine/clementine comparison.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Of course they are not. Timothy McVeigh was no Jihadist.

But he was a terrorist. Lets not forget terrorists don't come in one form, and one form doesn't just use one form of targets. Hijackers have come from all over the world. Followers come from many nationalities and citizenships.

A terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what belief they follow.

 

[shrubber]

I can think of few scarier scenarios than having many citizens and terrorists armed onboard an airliner in flight. Do you honestly believe that once the bullets started flying that there would be anything but mass chaos? Bullets would fly in every direction. Loads of civilians would be dead or injured. The aircraft may or may not be destroyed.

It basically sounds like a very successful Al-Qaeda operation.

How are the terrorists armed in this scenario? In order to get a CC permit, you must be a citizen. All of these terrorists are foriegn nationals.
Bullets flying in all directions? That's not the way a gun works,.
Loads of civilians dead or injured? And what we cope with now with no recourse is different how?

 

[robinb]

The reasons for ther actions don't mean anything. Their objectives and effect were exactly the same.

At worst, it's a tangerine/clementine comparison.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

How are the terrorists armed in this scenario? In order to get a CC permit, you must be a citizen. All of these terrorists are foriegn nationals.

No they are not! They have successfully recruited US Citizens, even members of our armed forces.

 

[shrubber]

But he was a terrorist. Lets not forget terrorists don't come in one form, and one form doesn't just use one form of targets. Hijackers have come from all over the world. Followers come from many nationalities and citizenships.

A terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what belief they follow.

But we are dealing with one specific type of terrorist here arn't we?
If PETA or Earth First start trying to down aircraft you might have a point.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

But we are dealing with one specific type of terrorist here arn't we?
If PETA or Earth First start trying to down aircraft you might have a point.

Oy, no, Al Queda has succesfully recruited US born citizens to their camp, they have trained them and they will eventually probably try to harm their own country at some point.

This is a fact, the US Government has even admitted that they have.

 

[shrubber]

No they are not! They have successfully recruited US Citizens, even members of our armed forces.

You are correct. We could go along way to help ourselves by carefully screening people with names like Nidal Malik Hasan before they get on planes.

 

[sbell111]

How are the terrorists armed in this scenario? In order to get a CC permit, you must be a citizen. All of these terrorists are foriegn nationals.

It is not useful to overlay your scenario onto the events of nine years ago and assume that conditions will never change.

Bullets flying in all directions? That's not the way a gun works,.

That's the way multiple guns in the hands of multiple marginally trained people exchanging fire with numerous bad guys 'work'.

Loads of civilians dead or injured? And what we cope with now with no recourse is different how?

Any solution that doesn't offer a better outcome should be automtically discarded.

But we are dealing with one specific type of terrorist here arn't we?
If PETA or Earth First start trying to down aircraft you might have a point.

We are not dealing with 'one specific type of terrorist'. We are dealing with any future terrorist, criminal, or mentally deranged person.