yamtx73 0 #101 January 2, 2006 Quote Anthrax is a red herring. Do they test every bit of white powder going through airports? Every can of talc in case it's anthrax? No. The reason for the harrassment of this woman was the use of condoms. TSA is being used as an arm of the DEA instead of concentrating on security. It doesn't surprise me that the fascists on this forum support more government interference in our lives, though. Us "fascists" as you so eloquently put it, do not support more government interference in our lives. We do however feel that the authorities did the correct thing by detaining the young lady when thier field tests proved positive for a controlled substance. IF you took the time to read what I had posted you would also note that stated this test was flawed. I'll stop there, since I refuse to stoop to your level and resort to name calling.The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LuvToFly 0 #102 January 2, 2006 QuoteIt doesn't surprise me that the fascists on this forum support more government interference in our lives, though. Dude, now you are attacking people on the forum just because they don't see things in the same way that you do? Someone could easily get the impression that you don't like living in the US at all unless it is arranged the way you want it. A nice idea, but not in touch with reality. Telling well-meaning people on the forum that they are fascists degrades a lot of people here, and I think you owe folks an apology. "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #103 January 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt doesn't surprise me that the fascists on this forum support more government interference in our lives, though. Dude, now you are attacking people on the forum just because they don't see things in the same way that you do? Someone could easily get the impression that you don't like living in the US at all unless it is arranged the way you want it. A nice idea, but not in touch with reality. Telling well-meaning people on the forum that they are fascists degrades a lot of people here, and I think you owe folks an apology. Anyone that supports the Transportation Security Authority, sold to Congress and paid for by taxpayers to help prevent terrorist attacks, acting as a surrogate for the DEA clearly supports more government intrusion in our lives. These are the exact same people that think the government should spy on its citizens without warrant. "Fascist"? - if it walks like a duck....... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #104 January 2, 2006 QuoteAnyone that supports the Transportation Security Authority, sold to Congress and paid for by taxpayers to help prevent terrorist attacks, acting as a surrogate for the DEA clearly supports more government intrusion in our lives. Laughable. So the TSA should ignore illegal drugs they find on people, and just let them on through? Or maybe we need two checkpoints at every airport -- one for weapons, one for drugs. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #105 January 2, 2006 By your reasoning I suppose DEA should automatically release any engineering student who was detected transporting a dummy explosive vest with wires protruding out of it through a US border crossing where the initial screening indicated that traces of explosive residue were on the vest because security isn’t DEA’s raison d etre. Some of us would prefer to have the authorities check her out even if this meant lawfully detaining her for a reasonable period of time pending investigation and ultimately the vest had been constructed as a frosh engineering dorm joke in self-parody fashion. QuoteThese are the exact same people that think the government should spy on its citizens without warrant. Not true in at least one person's case. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #106 January 2, 2006 >I suppose DEA should automatically release any engineering >student who was detected transporting a dummy explosive vest with > wires protruding out of it through a US border crossing where the > initial screening indicated that traces of explosive residue were on > the vest because security isn’t DEA’s raison d etre. A better question should be - should the DEA arrest and detain someone who is seen at a US border crossing with a computer program? After all, some programs are illegal to export (and can even pose a security risk!) and the DEA can't tell one program from another. So why take the chance? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #107 January 2, 2006 Well, the United States is supposed to be a Constitutional Democracy. Two of the definitive characteristcs of a constitutional democracy are: 1.Constitutional Democracy is the antithesis of arbitrary rule and law enforcement. 2.Majority rule and minority Rights. Although "the majority rules," the fundamental rights of individuals in the minority are protected. The Journal of the American Medical Association did a study to determine the accuracy of drug testing facilities/ tests. They discovered that 27.7% of positive drug tests results were in fact false positives. If the drug test is arbitrarily wrong 1/3 to 1/4 of the time; that certainly suggests an arbitrary application of law. Citizens are entitled to a civil justice (monetary compensation) when their government/ Law enforcement is wrong and caused them harm."Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #108 January 2, 2006 QuoteCitizens are entitled to a civil justice (monetary compensation) when their government/ Law enforcement is wrong and caused them harm. Agree, and I hope the young lady wins her case. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #109 January 2, 2006 QuoteA better question should be - should the DEA arrest and detain someone who is seen at a US border crossing with a computer program? After all, some programs are illegal to export (and can even pose a security risk!) and the DEA can't tell one program from another. So why take the chance? How is it better? An intangible item such as a computer program wouldn’t ordinarily present itself in a validly suspicious configuration unlike with the tangible white powder-filled condom and wired vest examples. The heightened security scrutiny that would be required to parse out illegal contraband from amongst innumerable legitimate items could not be narrowly tailored to address a legitimate government law enforcement concern in respect of computer software absent the presence of other compelling factors whereas obviously an acceptable discrimination _can_ be accomplished with white powder-filled condoms and wired vests given the availability of minimally invasive COTS tests and dogs. Care to elaborate why you believe your example of an intangible computer program is somehow more analogous to tangible cocaine stored in condoms, apparent or actual, than my example of an explosive vest with wires protruding out of it, apparent or actual? Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #110 January 2, 2006 >An intangible item such as a computer program wouldn’t ordinarily > present itself in a validly suspicious configuration . . . . What do you mean? It could be an easy to identify CD that had a suspicious hand-written label on it, like ENCRYPTED DATA or NEW ALGORITHM (or even MP3 RIPS, which strongly suggests illegal material!) >unlike with the tangible white powder-filled condom and wired vest >examples. Those two have nothing to do with each other. An explosive vest is an imminent safety threat to everyone in the area. White powder in a bag some distance from the owner is zero threat - like a suspicious CD. (At least, I've never heard of a terrorist whipping out blank CD's and killing people!) >Care to elaborate why you believe your example of an intangible >computer program is somehow more analogous to tangible cocaine > stored in condoms, apparent or actual . .. . You cannot tell what sort of powder is in the condom without expert analysis. You cannot tell what sort of code is on a CD without expert analysis. You CAN tell an explosive vest such as the one you describe from a down vest. Condoms are often used for drug transport, but almost never as a way to pack them in luggage. CD's are often used for transport of illegal/restricted code, but are generally not put in people's checked luggage. Explosive vests are used almost exclusively by terrorists for acts of terror. A condom with white powder in it is not a safety threat to a screener or to other passengers. A CD is not a safety threat to a screener or to other passengers. An explosive vest is an imminent threat to both. Neither a condom with powder in it nor a CD can be used to hijack an airplane. An explosive vest can be used to hijack an airplane. Both condoms and CD's can _sometimes_ contain illegal material, but 99.9% of the time, they do not. Explosive vests almost always do contain restricted/illegal/banned material. An explosive vest simply has nothing to do with the example given. Sorry. It's like comparing being shot for handing a book to an undercover cop, as opposed to being shot for pointing a gun at a cop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LuvToFly 0 #111 January 2, 2006 ***Neither a condom with powder in it nor a CD can be used to hijack an airplane...Quote If you mean what you said above literally, then I'm not sure I could agree with you. Condoms filled with Calcium Carbide could easily be made into an explosive mixture with just the addition of water, something readily available on-board. If that mixture was then contained in a screw-top container and ignited, it would make quite a blast. It may not be able to blow up a plane, but if the highjacker convinced the people that this was just a "mild" example of what he could do, I think it's highly possible someone could make an attempt to seize control, and at the very least, cause a lot of people a lot of trauma and expense to deal with 'em. The TSA likely could not tell what powders are benign, drugs, etc. So they probably have to check everything out. As I mentioned, I'd have no problem with them looking over anything I'd be carrying - then again, I don't carry any suspicious looking (at least to them) compounds stuffed in condoms. Invasion of privacy? Sort of, but we knew things were going to change after 9/11. And even though some say that was just an excuse to tighten the grip of the invasive government, the fact is that 3,000 people died that day because practices were loose on many security fronts, - something that was allowed to drift long before there was a GWB. The game changed. They came to our soil, killed our people, and if someone has a better plan to protect us, let's hear it. All I've heard from those against so far, is just that. Against, with no alternate, doable plan. "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,151 #112 January 2, 2006 Quote By your reasoning I suppose DEA should automatically release any engineering student who was detected transporting a dummy explosive vest with wires protruding out of it through a US border crossing where the initial screening indicated that traces of explosive residue were on the vest because security isn’t DEA’s raison d etre. Some of us would prefer to have the authorities check her out even if this meant lawfully detaining her for a reasonable period of time pending investigation and ultimately the vest had been constructed as a frosh engineering dorm joke in self-parody fashion. QuoteThese are the exact same people that think the government should spy on its citizens without warrant. Not true in at least one person's case. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Explosive vests, real or fake, are security risks and are exactly what TSA is supposed to detect. Flour filled condoms are not a security risk nor are they even a simulated security risk. Very poor analogy, Senator. Since when did the TSA become the DEA?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #113 January 2, 2006 >Condoms filled with Calcium Carbide could easily be made into >an explosive mixture with just the addition of water . . . Agreed. Heck, _water_ can be made into an explosive with the addition of some electricity, which is readily available on many aircraft. But said powder is not a threat if contained in sealed containers in one's checked luggage. >The game changed. They came to our soil, killed our people, and >if someone has a better plan to protect us, let's hear it. How about this: We stop living in fear, and protect those liberties that our forefathers fought and died for. Will terrorists strike again? Yep. Can we prevent most attacks? Yep. Can we prevent _all_ attacks? No; that's not possible no matter how many people you throw in prison, no matter how many arabs you kill, no matter how many phones you tap. So what do we do? We keep the constitution intact and be as vigilant as we can reasonably be. 9/11 will never happen here again - not because of anything we have done with airport security, but because US air travelers will not allow anyone to hijack an aircraft again. It took only an hour or so for the passengers of Flight 93 to realize the rules had changed; they then stopped the hijackers without any guns, security procedures, arrests or wiretaps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Scoop 0 #114 January 2, 2006 Yes but as law enforcement officials they cannot turn a blind eye and just say... 'not my problem' "Officer will you help me, ive fallen off my bike and im hurt" "Sorry no, call 911 and ask for a medical technician, I dont do blood and bones and stuff. Have a nice day now, hope the bleeding stops" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,151 #115 January 2, 2006 QuoteYes but as law enforcement officials they cannot turn a blind eye and just say... 'not my problem' "Officer will you help me, ive fallen off my bike and im hurt" "Sorry no, call 911 and ask for a medical technician, I dont do blood and bones and stuff. Have a nice day now, hope the bleeding stops" "To Serve and Protect" - mission of Chicago Police Department. And once again, flour filled condoms are not illegal, neither are they a security risk, neither are they even a pretend security risk.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #116 January 2, 2006 QuoteYes but as law enforcement officials they cannot turn a blind eye and just say... 'not my problem' You just identified the reason Kallend's whole argument is built on a foundation of sand. Don't expect him to address it. Edited to add: See what I mean? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites LuvToFly 0 #117 January 2, 2006 Agreed to the first part Bill. You'd only need a battery actually to produce the hydrogen necessary to cause a small explosion. But can't agree with the principals you laid out. Principals, adherance to the constitution, rights to privacy are all good things, but that is not a plan. Neither is relying on the good deeds of the passenger. Everyone on flight 93 is dead, and although admirable, I bet you mostly all their surviving husbands, wives, mothers or fathers wouldn't mind a little bit of intrusiveness to have their loved ones back again. The flight 93 model you referred to is not a plan, nor a strategy. By the time that model comes into play, it's already too late. Proactive security is necessary. How to implement that is the question. "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #118 January 2, 2006 QuoteYes but as law enforcement officials they cannot turn a blind eye and just say... 'not my problem' "Officer will you help me, ive fallen off my bike and im hurt" "Sorry no, call 911 and ask for a medical technician, I dont do blood and bones and stuff. Have a nice day now, hope the bleeding stops" Well...now that you mention it.... I was driving down Biscayne one day, and right before I got to Flightline, a car tailgated and then passed me at a high rate of speed. Then the driver began to play with the wheel, rolling the car three times across the road. It landed on the driver's side in front of Gilbert Propane. Teenagers. Three were able to get out. The driver was hurt (minor injuries) and could not get out. I stopped and called 911. Shortly thereafter, the Sheriff's Department showed up, but the deputies did absolutely nothing. They were waiting for DeLand PD, because the airport is not their jurisdiction. Well and so. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,151 #119 January 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteYes but as law enforcement officials they cannot turn a blind eye and just say... 'not my problem' You just identified the reason Kallend's whole argument is built on a foundation of sand. Don't expect him to address it. Edited to add: See what I mean? This case shows very clearly that they SHOULD stick to what they're trained for. Fucked up royally doing someone else's job, didn't they?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Sen.Blutarsky 0 #120 January 2, 2006 QuoteWhat do you mean? It could be an easy to identify CD that had a suspicious hand-written label on it, like ENCRYPTED DATA or NEW ALGORITHM (or even MP3 RIPS, which strongly suggests illegal material!) If you claim these things are suspicious in view of their commonplace nature, especially in comparison with powder-filled condoms, then either your sense of humor is on display as I suspect or we disagree at a fundamental level on common sense. Quote>unlike with the tangible white powder-filled condom and wired vest >examples. Those two have nothing to do with each other. An explosive vest is an imminent safety threat to everyone in the area. You’ll note upon re-reading my post that the choice of words was “wired vest” as in the innocuous frosh dorm example I gave which screened positive for explosives initially and not an “explosive vest” as you have stated. QuoteWhite powder in a bag some distance from the owner is zero threat - like a suspicious CD. (At least, I've never heard of a terrorist whipping out blank CD's and killing people!) A mixture of powdered zirconium and aluminum might appear as a white powder. Paired with an embedded timed or radio-controlled detonator a bag containing white powder of this type does not present “zero threat” as it can kill and burn many innocent bystanders and security personnel should it go off. Arguably anthrax and other “white powder” toxins such as ricin could pose similar dangers. Quote>Care to elaborate why you believe your example of an intangible >computer program is somehow more analogous to tangible cocaine > stored in condoms, apparent or actual . .. . You cannot tell what sort of powder is in the condom without expert analysis. You can certainly tell for preliminary screening purposes whether a powder in a condom tests positive for cocaine, heroin or some other known types of contraband. In the event of a positive test and retest you submit the powder to your expert for, hopefully, definitive analysis. QuoteYou cannot tell what sort of code is on a CD without expert analysis. You CAN tell an explosive vest such as the one you describe from a down vest. Even with “expert” analysis you probably cannot tell what sort of code is on a CD if a skilled person encodes the material. And as you state it is indeed possible to preliminarily screen an explosive vest from a down vest just as it’s possible to preliminarily screen a cocaine-filled condom from one filled with flour. So, again, why did you feel that your CD example was better? QuoteCondoms are often used for drug transport, but almost never as a way to pack them in luggage. Sometimes mules are duped into carrying contraband in easily detected form as a tactic to distract law enforcement personnel from another mule. Nervous people get stupid sometimes, it’s not inconceivable that a nervous mule might pack contraband in an obvious place. QuoteCD's are often used for transport of illegal/restricted code, but are generally not put in people's checked luggage. Explosive vests are used almost exclusively by terrorists for acts of terror. Okay. QuoteA condom with white powder in it is not a safety threat to a screener or to other passengers. We disagree, see above. Moreover not all contraband is an immediate security threat to a screener or passengers, although ultimately illicit drugs may kill these people if they are addicts which is one reason we have drugs laws. QuoteA CD is not a safety threat to a screener or to other passengers. Probably not but possibly so. QuoteAn explosive vest is an imminent threat to both. A down vest is not an imminent threat however, and non-invasive preliminary screening tests are readily available to differentiate as between the two types. QuoteNeither a condom with powder in it nor a CD can be used to hijack an airplane. I disagree in respect of the former, see above, possibly agree in respect of the latter. I’d bet that Al Queda is able to engineer a CD which conceals a blade or other weapon that could in trained hands be useful for hijacking a plane. QuoteAn explosive vest can be used to hijack an airplane. Only if it’s allowed on the airplane. Not if it’s screened out as in the case with illegal drugs and other contraband. QuoteBoth condoms and CD's can _sometimes_ contain illegal material, but 99.9% of the time, they do not. Explosive vests almost always do contain restricted/illegal/banned material. 99.9% of down vests never contain restricted/illegal/banned material, however, or so I hear. QuoteAn explosive vest simply has nothing to do with the example given. Sorry. It's like comparing being shot for handing a book to an undercover cop, as opposed to being shot for pointing a gun at a cop. Actually I’ve shown quite clearly, with some assistance from you here, that a wired vest which initially registers positive for explosive residue is more likely to contain contraband than was your intial proffered example of 99.9% CDs not containing illegal material. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Scoop 0 #121 January 2, 2006 Quote the airport is not their jurisdiction. That probably means they had no powers to take action in that area, but it sounds like they raised aa PD who could. Although probably appeared ridiculous they wouldnt have had any more powers than you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,151 #122 January 2, 2006 Excessively lengthy post snipped for brevity. White powder is carried in every can of talc, in most women's make-up kits and many men carry talc too. Why don't you advocate anthrax and explosive testing of every make-up bag going through the airports? Your argument is just absurd. The people have allowed this government to run roughshod over the Constitution, and many of you cheer them on as they do it. Just like 1931. PS, have you EVER seen Zirconia/aluminum thermite? It doesn't look remotely like flour.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #123 January 2, 2006 QuoteQuote the airport is not their jurisdiction. That probably means they had no powers to take action in that area, but it sounds like they raised aa PD who could. Although probably appeared ridiculous they wouldnt have had any more powers than you. But isn't this almost exactly the example you used? They failed to render assistance in an emergency. And isn't jurisdiction one of the issues in this thread anyway? rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skydyvr 0 #124 January 2, 2006 QuoteThis case shows very clearly that they SHOULD stick to what they're trained for. Fucked up royally doing someone else's job, didn't they? I beileve the whole justice system fucked up, not just the TSA. Again, I hope the young lady cleans house on this case. Also, if the field tester is found to have faked any results, he'll need a good spanking. But none of that has anything to do with how the TSA should react when they find suspicious, drug-like substances in suitcases. Got any theories on that? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Sen.Blutarsky 0 #125 January 2, 2006 QuoteWhite powder is carried in every can of talc, in most women's make-up kits and many men carry talc too. Of course! That's where you should expect to find white powder in airline bags. Not many people other than drug mules carry white powder in condoms, however. QuoteWhy don't you advocate anthrax and explosive testing of every make-up bag going through the airports? See above (for brevity's sake). QuoteYour argument is just absurd. You are entitled to express your opinion, unlike in 1931. This attempted comparison itself is therefore absurd. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 of 14 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kallend 2,151 #112 January 2, 2006 Quote By your reasoning I suppose DEA should automatically release any engineering student who was detected transporting a dummy explosive vest with wires protruding out of it through a US border crossing where the initial screening indicated that traces of explosive residue were on the vest because security isn’t DEA’s raison d etre. Some of us would prefer to have the authorities check her out even if this meant lawfully detaining her for a reasonable period of time pending investigation and ultimately the vest had been constructed as a frosh engineering dorm joke in self-parody fashion. QuoteThese are the exact same people that think the government should spy on its citizens without warrant. Not true in at least one person's case. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Explosive vests, real or fake, are security risks and are exactly what TSA is supposed to detect. Flour filled condoms are not a security risk nor are they even a simulated security risk. Very poor analogy, Senator. Since when did the TSA become the DEA?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #113 January 2, 2006 >Condoms filled with Calcium Carbide could easily be made into >an explosive mixture with just the addition of water . . . Agreed. Heck, _water_ can be made into an explosive with the addition of some electricity, which is readily available on many aircraft. But said powder is not a threat if contained in sealed containers in one's checked luggage. >The game changed. They came to our soil, killed our people, and >if someone has a better plan to protect us, let's hear it. How about this: We stop living in fear, and protect those liberties that our forefathers fought and died for. Will terrorists strike again? Yep. Can we prevent most attacks? Yep. Can we prevent _all_ attacks? No; that's not possible no matter how many people you throw in prison, no matter how many arabs you kill, no matter how many phones you tap. So what do we do? We keep the constitution intact and be as vigilant as we can reasonably be. 9/11 will never happen here again - not because of anything we have done with airport security, but because US air travelers will not allow anyone to hijack an aircraft again. It took only an hour or so for the passengers of Flight 93 to realize the rules had changed; they then stopped the hijackers without any guns, security procedures, arrests or wiretaps. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #114 January 2, 2006 Yes but as law enforcement officials they cannot turn a blind eye and just say... 'not my problem' "Officer will you help me, ive fallen off my bike and im hurt" "Sorry no, call 911 and ask for a medical technician, I dont do blood and bones and stuff. Have a nice day now, hope the bleeding stops" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #115 January 2, 2006 QuoteYes but as law enforcement officials they cannot turn a blind eye and just say... 'not my problem' "Officer will you help me, ive fallen off my bike and im hurt" "Sorry no, call 911 and ask for a medical technician, I dont do blood and bones and stuff. Have a nice day now, hope the bleeding stops" "To Serve and Protect" - mission of Chicago Police Department. And once again, flour filled condoms are not illegal, neither are they a security risk, neither are they even a pretend security risk.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #116 January 2, 2006 QuoteYes but as law enforcement officials they cannot turn a blind eye and just say... 'not my problem' You just identified the reason Kallend's whole argument is built on a foundation of sand. Don't expect him to address it. Edited to add: See what I mean? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LuvToFly 0 #117 January 2, 2006 Agreed to the first part Bill. You'd only need a battery actually to produce the hydrogen necessary to cause a small explosion. But can't agree with the principals you laid out. Principals, adherance to the constitution, rights to privacy are all good things, but that is not a plan. Neither is relying on the good deeds of the passenger. Everyone on flight 93 is dead, and although admirable, I bet you mostly all their surviving husbands, wives, mothers or fathers wouldn't mind a little bit of intrusiveness to have their loved ones back again. The flight 93 model you referred to is not a plan, nor a strategy. By the time that model comes into play, it's already too late. Proactive security is necessary. How to implement that is the question. "The helicopter approaches closer than any other to fulfillment of mankind's ancient dreams of a magic carpet" - Igor Sikorsky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #118 January 2, 2006 QuoteYes but as law enforcement officials they cannot turn a blind eye and just say... 'not my problem' "Officer will you help me, ive fallen off my bike and im hurt" "Sorry no, call 911 and ask for a medical technician, I dont do blood and bones and stuff. Have a nice day now, hope the bleeding stops" Well...now that you mention it.... I was driving down Biscayne one day, and right before I got to Flightline, a car tailgated and then passed me at a high rate of speed. Then the driver began to play with the wheel, rolling the car three times across the road. It landed on the driver's side in front of Gilbert Propane. Teenagers. Three were able to get out. The driver was hurt (minor injuries) and could not get out. I stopped and called 911. Shortly thereafter, the Sheriff's Department showed up, but the deputies did absolutely nothing. They were waiting for DeLand PD, because the airport is not their jurisdiction. Well and so. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #119 January 2, 2006 QuoteQuoteYes but as law enforcement officials they cannot turn a blind eye and just say... 'not my problem' You just identified the reason Kallend's whole argument is built on a foundation of sand. Don't expect him to address it. Edited to add: See what I mean? This case shows very clearly that they SHOULD stick to what they're trained for. Fucked up royally doing someone else's job, didn't they?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #120 January 2, 2006 QuoteWhat do you mean? It could be an easy to identify CD that had a suspicious hand-written label on it, like ENCRYPTED DATA or NEW ALGORITHM (or even MP3 RIPS, which strongly suggests illegal material!) If you claim these things are suspicious in view of their commonplace nature, especially in comparison with powder-filled condoms, then either your sense of humor is on display as I suspect or we disagree at a fundamental level on common sense. Quote>unlike with the tangible white powder-filled condom and wired vest >examples. Those two have nothing to do with each other. An explosive vest is an imminent safety threat to everyone in the area. You’ll note upon re-reading my post that the choice of words was “wired vest” as in the innocuous frosh dorm example I gave which screened positive for explosives initially and not an “explosive vest” as you have stated. QuoteWhite powder in a bag some distance from the owner is zero threat - like a suspicious CD. (At least, I've never heard of a terrorist whipping out blank CD's and killing people!) A mixture of powdered zirconium and aluminum might appear as a white powder. Paired with an embedded timed or radio-controlled detonator a bag containing white powder of this type does not present “zero threat” as it can kill and burn many innocent bystanders and security personnel should it go off. Arguably anthrax and other “white powder” toxins such as ricin could pose similar dangers. Quote>Care to elaborate why you believe your example of an intangible >computer program is somehow more analogous to tangible cocaine > stored in condoms, apparent or actual . .. . You cannot tell what sort of powder is in the condom without expert analysis. You can certainly tell for preliminary screening purposes whether a powder in a condom tests positive for cocaine, heroin or some other known types of contraband. In the event of a positive test and retest you submit the powder to your expert for, hopefully, definitive analysis. QuoteYou cannot tell what sort of code is on a CD without expert analysis. You CAN tell an explosive vest such as the one you describe from a down vest. Even with “expert” analysis you probably cannot tell what sort of code is on a CD if a skilled person encodes the material. And as you state it is indeed possible to preliminarily screen an explosive vest from a down vest just as it’s possible to preliminarily screen a cocaine-filled condom from one filled with flour. So, again, why did you feel that your CD example was better? QuoteCondoms are often used for drug transport, but almost never as a way to pack them in luggage. Sometimes mules are duped into carrying contraband in easily detected form as a tactic to distract law enforcement personnel from another mule. Nervous people get stupid sometimes, it’s not inconceivable that a nervous mule might pack contraband in an obvious place. QuoteCD's are often used for transport of illegal/restricted code, but are generally not put in people's checked luggage. Explosive vests are used almost exclusively by terrorists for acts of terror. Okay. QuoteA condom with white powder in it is not a safety threat to a screener or to other passengers. We disagree, see above. Moreover not all contraband is an immediate security threat to a screener or passengers, although ultimately illicit drugs may kill these people if they are addicts which is one reason we have drugs laws. QuoteA CD is not a safety threat to a screener or to other passengers. Probably not but possibly so. QuoteAn explosive vest is an imminent threat to both. A down vest is not an imminent threat however, and non-invasive preliminary screening tests are readily available to differentiate as between the two types. QuoteNeither a condom with powder in it nor a CD can be used to hijack an airplane. I disagree in respect of the former, see above, possibly agree in respect of the latter. I’d bet that Al Queda is able to engineer a CD which conceals a blade or other weapon that could in trained hands be useful for hijacking a plane. QuoteAn explosive vest can be used to hijack an airplane. Only if it’s allowed on the airplane. Not if it’s screened out as in the case with illegal drugs and other contraband. QuoteBoth condoms and CD's can _sometimes_ contain illegal material, but 99.9% of the time, they do not. Explosive vests almost always do contain restricted/illegal/banned material. 99.9% of down vests never contain restricted/illegal/banned material, however, or so I hear. QuoteAn explosive vest simply has nothing to do with the example given. Sorry. It's like comparing being shot for handing a book to an undercover cop, as opposed to being shot for pointing a gun at a cop. Actually I’ve shown quite clearly, with some assistance from you here, that a wired vest which initially registers positive for explosive residue is more likely to contain contraband than was your intial proffered example of 99.9% CDs not containing illegal material. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #121 January 2, 2006 Quote the airport is not their jurisdiction. That probably means they had no powers to take action in that area, but it sounds like they raised aa PD who could. Although probably appeared ridiculous they wouldnt have had any more powers than you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #122 January 2, 2006 Excessively lengthy post snipped for brevity. White powder is carried in every can of talc, in most women's make-up kits and many men carry talc too. Why don't you advocate anthrax and explosive testing of every make-up bag going through the airports? Your argument is just absurd. The people have allowed this government to run roughshod over the Constitution, and many of you cheer them on as they do it. Just like 1931. PS, have you EVER seen Zirconia/aluminum thermite? It doesn't look remotely like flour.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #123 January 2, 2006 QuoteQuote the airport is not their jurisdiction. That probably means they had no powers to take action in that area, but it sounds like they raised aa PD who could. Although probably appeared ridiculous they wouldnt have had any more powers than you. But isn't this almost exactly the example you used? They failed to render assistance in an emergency. And isn't jurisdiction one of the issues in this thread anyway? rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #124 January 2, 2006 QuoteThis case shows very clearly that they SHOULD stick to what they're trained for. Fucked up royally doing someone else's job, didn't they? I beileve the whole justice system fucked up, not just the TSA. Again, I hope the young lady cleans house on this case. Also, if the field tester is found to have faked any results, he'll need a good spanking. But none of that has anything to do with how the TSA should react when they find suspicious, drug-like substances in suitcases. Got any theories on that? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #125 January 2, 2006 QuoteWhite powder is carried in every can of talc, in most women's make-up kits and many men carry talc too. Of course! That's where you should expect to find white powder in airline bags. Not many people other than drug mules carry white powder in condoms, however. QuoteWhy don't you advocate anthrax and explosive testing of every make-up bag going through the airports? See above (for brevity's sake). QuoteYour argument is just absurd. You are entitled to express your opinion, unlike in 1931. This attempted comparison itself is therefore absurd. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
