Stossel backs TSA Profiling [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

Epic

01-04-2010, 01:20 PM

http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/04/profile-away/

In the wake of the "underwear bomber," why is it still politically incorrect to talk about profiling? The TSA makes all of us remove our shoes and surrender our shaving cream. Shouldn't they also keep a profile of what potential terrorists do and aggressively screen people accordingly? Not just obvious things like screening people whose parents have reported them as possible terrorists (DUH.), but also people buying tickets with cash, buying one-way tickets, traveling with little/no luggage (oh, wait, the underwear terrorist did ALL of those things).

I like what David Harsanyi writes:

It is an unavoidable fact that these "bad people" tend to come from certain places and subscribe to a certain religious affiliation. Focus on them.

From the evidence, it is clear that it is impossible to cover every base, but the wasted billions shaking down the average passenger offers little more than psychological comfort.

Discuss...

MRoCkEd

01-04-2010, 01:25 PM

How about each airport handles security itself?

FrankRep

01-04-2010, 01:32 PM

The New American (http://www.TheNewAmerican.com/) just released a Pro-Profiling article too.

Yes, Virginia, the System Didn’t Work and May Never Work (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/sam-blumenfeld/2686-yes-virginia-the-system-didnt-work-and-may-never-work)

Sam Blumenfeld | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
04 January 2010

According to our multicultural state of mind, we are all capable of carrying bombs in our underwear —including business executives, journalists, housewives, and children.

And there were plenty of red flags that should have warned our protectors that an al-Qaida terrorist was on the loose. First, he bought a one-way ticket from Nigeria to Detroit and paid for it in cash. That alone should have set off an alarm. Second, he had no baggage, except a small carry-on. Third, his father, a wealthy Nigerian banker, went to the American embassy to warn them of his son’s extremist behavior. Fourth, the British government denied him a visa to enter Britain. Ironically, Hillary Clinton’s State Department issued Umar a visa, which the authorities in Yemen considered as some sort of approval by the United States government that this potential terrorist was okay and should be allowed into Yemen.
...

What does it take to spot a young extremist Moslem bomb carrier? If you’re wearing multicultural blinders you will never spot him. Indeed, you will not want to spot him, for that would be tantamount to practicing ethnic profiling, which, as we all know, is absolutely forbidden by our government.
...

But there is a much simpler and less costly way of providing airport security. Simply have a psychologist look over the passengers about to board an aircraft, and ask, who among them might want to have sex with 73 virgins in Allah’s paradise? Asking that one question would eliminate much of the idiotic practices that now come under the heading of airport security. Of course, no system is fail-safe. But that one question would get us as close as possible to such a system with the least inconvenience to everyone.

.......

I'm torn on the issue.

Why treat everyone as a potential terrorist when certain groups have a higher percentage of, for example, suicide bombers?

Screw political correctness.

ravedown

01-04-2010, 01:34 PM

make the airlines responsible for their own security-yeah it may cost the passenger more-but hell...can't argue with el al's track record.

Brian4Liberty

01-04-2010, 01:48 PM

If you do not screen each and every single passenger thoroughly and equally, then you should use "profiling" to make the best of limited resources. You would also continue to use some random checks, so that there would never be a completely "safe" profile for a future bomber.

It's about making the most effective and best use of limited resources.

Who should do the screening? The airlines.

There should be competition:

You should have the choice of flying with an airline that gives each passenger a three hour torturous interrogation in combination with x-rays, ultra-sounds and a colonoscopy,

or you can fly with "Just Jump on the Plane" airlines with no screening, no waits and open carry,

or anything in between.

jmdrake

01-04-2010, 01:48 PM

*sigh* As long as we allow the mainstream media to define the war on terror those of us in the liberty movement will continue to lose the war on the war on terror. Our best allies will either be ridiculed (like Ron Paul was by Ben Stein) or they will start sounding more like neocons like Stossel is doing now or like others have (I won't mention names. Not trying to start flame wars).

What nobody seems to want to talk about is holding people in positions of power responsible for what happens at all levels! In this case it means going after the security manager who approved letting the terrorist on the plane without the passport. Was he corrupt? Was he just stupid? And most importantly does he have a good description of the sharp dressed man that demanded the terrorist be allowed to fly without a passport? By now that guy's picture should be all over "Americas most wanted".

Now, frankly I don't think the security manager is the kingpin and he might not have even been involved. He might have been shown an FBI (or some other agency) badge by the "sharp dressed man". That badge might have been real or fake. But because no pressure is being put on him that part of the story is sliding under the MSM radar. Forcing stories like this to come out is how we win the "war on the war on terrorism". We don't have to go "conspiracy theory" (though this clearly is a conspiracy because we know at least 4 people were involved) but we can let the clearly incorrect main story stand as the "facts" when it clearly is not.

low preference guy

01-04-2010, 01:51 PM

How about each airport handles security itself?

Yes! And without government assistance, unless requested. Couldn't this approach be enforced by appealing to the Second Amendment?

specsaregood

01-04-2010, 02:03 PM

rp08orbust

01-04-2010, 02:07 PM

Let the airlines handle security instead of the government and let them profile people however they want.

Elwar

01-04-2010, 02:08 PM

Brian4Liberty

01-04-2010, 02:17 PM

Since the offical story of the OK city bombing is that a couple of white guys witha trailer bombed it..... I guess those in favor of profiling would support the police pulling over and inspecting any white american males pulling trailers?

Not specific enough. If it is truly and statistically a limiting factor, then yes, it should be included in airline screening. Any profile characteristic that doesn't severely limit the number of people who would fall under it would defeat the purpose (and limit the effectiveness) of a profile.

This is about airlines. You are riding on their plane.

No one is suggesting police road checks for terrorists (although they already get away with checkpoints, which should be unconstitutional).

jmdrake

01-04-2010, 02:44 PM

Not specific enough. If it is truly and statistically a limiting factor, then yes, it should be included in airline screening. Any profile characteristic that doesn't severely limit the number of people who would fall under it would defeat the purpose (and limit the effectiveness) of a profile.

This is about airlines. You are riding on their plane.

No one is suggesting police road checks for terrorists (although they already get away with checkpoints, which should be unconstitutional).

And someone being muslim is? :rolleyes:

Stossel pointed out someone buying tickets with cash. I guess someone carrying around large amounts of cash should be suspect too? Oh wait that was one of us!

A simpler solution is actually holding people in positions of power responsible for their own actions. I don't know why that's so controversial. If some security manager let this guy get on a plane without a passport he should be held accountable. If Dick Cheney said "the order still stands" on 9/11 he should be held accountable. If someone ordered allowing the 9/11 hijackers back in the country after someone tried to block it then he should be held accountable. The justice department lawyers who blocked Colleen Rowley from from asking a judge to let her look at Moussoui's laptop prior to 9/11 should be held accountable. Tort law would be fine for this.

As for "airlines handling their own security" that's not exactly efficient because security doesn't begin and end with the airplane itself. At least the airfield itself must also be secure as well as the air traffic control tower, the radar installations etc. Maybe you're suggesting one airline per airport? I would suspect most airlines would go with some sort of corporate security for the entire airport to take advantage of economies of scale. It doesn't have to be run by the government though. If I remember correctly before 9/11 it wasn't.

BenIsForRon

01-04-2010, 02:57 PM

It's a complicated issue, and you know the average muslim would feel very degraded if he were singled out every time he entered an airport, if profiling were used to the extent some would like to see.

I do think the government needs to get out of security at airports. But how should the airports handle it themselves? I guess the best option would be to use limited profiling, and try not to make any of their passengers feel subhuman because they come from a different place in the world. Things like atypical traveling procedures and whatnot.

.Tom

01-04-2010, 03:01 PM

I wonder if Stossel is trying to appeal to his neo-con crowd now that he's over at Fox?

This really disappoints me.

But yeah, the best solution is to abolish the TSA/FAA/etc and let each airport decide for itself.

FrankRep

01-04-2010, 03:08 PM

Romulus

01-04-2010, 03:14 PM

I agree that it should be airline based security.

If you want the quick cheap lax security airline...then go for it.

If you want to go through an X-ray machine, no carry ons, luggage on a seperate airline, with the knowledge that every other passenger has also gone through the same precautions...then that's an option as well.

The problem with that of course would be that the 'lax' airlines would be targeted for 'terrorism', even false flag style, from those who stand to gain most.

I say we hold those accountable, who failed, whether it be public or private sector.

silverhandorder

01-04-2010, 03:26 PM

The problem with that of course would be that the 'lax' airlines would be targeted for 'terrorism', even false flag style, from those who stand to gain most.

I saw we hold those accountable, who failed, whether it be public or private sector.

Whos fault is it for getting on the unsafe airlines?

dannno

01-04-2010, 03:29 PM

I imagine Stossel backing the ability of private enterprise to screen passengers. I have a hard time seeing Stossel backing anything TSA at all.

Romulus

01-04-2010, 03:31 PM

Whos fault is it for getting on the unsafe airlines?

Yours. lol.. then the airlines. But as it is now, the intel failed (for whatever shady reason) yet nothing is ever done about it against those who are at fault.

It needs to be in the hands of the airlines, period.

Romulus

01-04-2010, 03:32 PM

I imagine Stossel backing the ability of private enterprise to screen passengers. I have a hard time seeing Stossel backing anything TSA at all.

If its a private company, the legally can not profile. So I'm not sure where he's coming from, other than he's on fox now and is a neocon sock puppet?

silverhandorder

01-04-2010, 03:57 PM

I imagine Stossel backing the ability of private enterprise to screen passengers. I have a hard time seeing Stossel backing anything TSA at all.

Stossel is one of those libertarians that basically spends his time criticizing big government. He rarely gives libertarian solutions.

All he last shows were pretty much "if you want big government to do it you are going about it the wrong way".

Yours. lol.. then the airlines. But as it is now, the intel failed (for whatever shady reason) yet nothing is ever done about it against those who are at fault.

It needs to be in the hands of the airlines, period.

I would prefer it in the hands of airlines also. Government is not capable of always protecting us. I don't think they even want to at times.

If its a private company, the legally can not profile. So I'm not sure where he's coming from, other than he's on fox now and is a neocon sock puppet?
Wouldn't you agree that they should be able to legally profile tho?

Epic

01-04-2010, 04:06 PM

Let the airlines handle security instead of the government and let them profile people however they want.

thread winner

constituent

01-04-2010, 04:10 PM

Screw political correctness.

Civil liberties and the presumption of innocence too! F* em, this is America dammit!

The constitution is a contract not a suicide pact!

Danke

01-04-2010, 04:12 PM

Civil liberties and the presumption of innocence too! F* em, this is America dammit!

The constitution is a contract not a suicide pact!

We are talking about a private company, no?

mczerone

01-04-2010, 04:25 PM

How about each airport handles security itself?

I stopped reading the thread here, as this post wins.

Ever better would be to allow each airline to handle its own boarding procedures, so even at a single airport, a consumer has the option to choose varying types of security.

If the airlines found it cost efficient to have a single security gate with a one-size-fits-all, it would at least still be part of the profit and loss structure of each airline.

Romulus

01-04-2010, 04:45 PM

Wouldn't you agree that they should be able to legally profile tho?

I think so. No one should tell a private business how to conduct their practice. As harsh as it could be, they have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Brian4Liberty

01-04-2010, 05:54 PM

And someone being muslim is? :rolleyes:

Stossel pointed out someone buying tickets with cash. I guess someone carrying around large amounts of cash should be suspect too? Oh wait that was one of us!

A simpler solution is actually holding people in positions of power responsible for their own actions. I don't know why that's so controversial. If some security manager let this guy get on a plane without a passport he should be held accountable. If Dick Cheney said "the order still stands" on 9/11 he should be held accountable. If someone ordered allowing the 9/11 hijackers back in the country after someone tried to block it then he should be held accountable. The justice department lawyers who blocked Colleen Rowley from from asking a judge to let her look at Moussoui's laptop prior to 9/11 should be held accountable. Tort law would be fine for this.

As for "airlines handling their own security" that's not exactly efficient because security doesn't begin and end with the airplane itself. At least the airfield itself must also be secure as well as the air traffic control tower, the radar installations etc. Maybe you're suggesting one airline per airport? I would suspect most airlines would go with some sort of corporate security for the entire airport to take advantage of economies of scale. It doesn't have to be run by the government though. If I remember correctly before 9/11 it wasn't.

Yeah, I know. "Profiling" has become another word that can't be used.

Can we agree that being "checked out" when getting on an airplane owned by an airline is different than being harassed while driving down the street in your own car?

There are reasons to screen one person more than another. That is part of profiling. Obviously it needs to be effective. Let's call it "airline screening criteria", since the politically correct police have effectively eliminated any proper use of the term "profile". Buying a one-way ticket with cash is valid reason for extra scrutiny. Coming from a "terrorist" country would be reason for extra scrutiny. And yes, being the only Muslim on a primarily non-Muslim load of people would be valid (not sure how you would know that, is it on Passports?).

Certainly we should hold employees accountable if they violate the safety criteria. At the same time, do you want to put those same employees under pressure to not check people out? You will end up with a bunch of airline employees who just don't give a damn because they are being yanked at both ends.

There's nothing wrong with the Airport having a screening process, in addition to each Airline having their own screening. That's how some airlines already work already.

dannno

01-04-2010, 06:05 PM

I don't believe the government or any government agency has the right to "profile" American citizens because there is nothing in the Constitution that gives them the authority to do any activities that require that American citizens be profiled.

Southron

01-04-2010, 06:07 PM

Since the offical story of the OK city bombing is that a couple of white guys witha trailer bombed it..... I guess those in favor of profiling would support the police pulling over and inspecting any white american males pulling trailers?

This kind of made me think. If you think our way of life changed after 9/11 just wait until these terrorists get some brains.

Imagine if they just used tractor trailers to blow things up. I mean literally everything comes to the stores in a truck. All it would take is a 53ft trailer on the George Washington bridge loaded with explosives and your life would truly change.

Sorry, kinda got off topic.

FrankRep

01-04-2010, 06:08 PM

Civil liberties and the presumption of innocence too! F* em, this is America dammit!

The constitution is a contract not a suicide pact!
Privatize and Profile. This doesn't violate the Constitution.

Danke

01-04-2010, 06:15 PM

Certainly we should hold employees accountable if they violate the safety criteria. At the same time, do you want to put those same employees under pressure to not check people out? You will end up with a bunch of airline employees who just don't give a damn because they are being yanked at both ends.

You bring up an important point.

There is a long standing concept (written in regulations, actually) of "Captain's Authority." The Captain is the final decision maker as to whether a particular flight is considered safe to accept, or continue if already airborne. Many outside forces work against this. Airline management especially, but also passengers, maintenance supervisors, and even governmental regulators.

The benefit is the Captain has his own butt on the line (unlike a doctor, who can bury his mistakes).

Do we really want to expose the Captain to firing and/or lawsuits because of decisions that may not be PC or involve inconveniencing some passengers?

If you take this critical decision making away from the Captain and his/her crew, you are opening up a world of hurt, and I for one would not want to fly on that aircraft.

It is the reason we currently have the world's safest air travel. Nearly all safety improvements were because of a vocal and strong lobbying effort from the pilots, not managers interested in the bottom line of cheap operating cost. It has been a constant battle against the ATA (management lobbying group with virtually unlimited resources).

jmdrake

01-04-2010, 06:29 PM

Yeah, I know. "Profiling" has become another word that can't be used.

Obviously not. You're using it aren't you?

Can we agree that being "checked out" when getting on an airplane owned by an airline is different than being harassed while driving down the street in your own car?

Can we agree that the difference is superficial? Can we agree that if we "sacrifice liberty for security" on the air it's only a matter of time before we'll be asked to sacrifice it on the ground? Can we agree that any real terrorist group would have gone to "soft targets" by now (truck bombs at intersections in rush hour traffic etc) and using "security" measures against such attacks would only work if we were willing to accept a society that most of us find unacceptable? They just want to get you used to "accepting" this for flying which is why the "terrorist" concentrate on airplanes. They aren't stupid.

There are reasons to screen one person more than another. That is part of profiling. Obviously it needs to be effective. Let's call it "airline screening criteria", since the politically correct police have effectively eliminated any proper use of the term "profile". Buying a one-way ticket with cash is valid reason for extra scrutiny. Coming from a "terrorist" country would be reason for extra scrutiny. And yes, being the only Muslim on a primarily non-Muslim load of people would be valid (not sure how you would know that, is it on Passports?).

You're missing the obvious. The guy got on the plane WITHOUT a passport! He got on WITHOUT ANY FREAKING IDENTIFICATION AT ALL! Don't say CRAP to me about profiling or "checking people out" or looking at people who buy tickets with cash when the MOST BASIC AND NON INTRUSIVE CHECK WAS OVERLOOKED! If anything this incident should prove to everybody once and for all why these so called "security measures" aren't worth spit! If somebody can talk to a manager and get someone on a plane without a passport he can talk to a manager and get someone on a plane who bought his ticket with cash.

Certainly we should hold employees accountable if they violate the safety criteria. At the same time, do you want to put those same employees under pressure to not check people out? You will end up with a bunch of airline employees who just don't give a damn because they are being yanked at both ends.

Pull your head out of the sand and think. He was let on the plane without a passport! Common sense dictates that if someone isn't enforcing this most BASIC security measure, imposing even more "checks" for the employee to do is NOT fixing the problem!

There's nothing wrong with the Airport having a screening process, in addition to each Airline having their own screening. That's how some airlines already work already.

There is plenty wrong with an airport having an ADDITIONAL screening process when they didn't even do the BASIC screening of making sure everybody had ID! It's nonsense like this that got us the unPatriot Act.

ClayTrainor

01-04-2010, 06:29 PM

jmdrake

01-04-2010, 06:30 PM

Privatize and Profile. This doesn't violate the Constitution.

Or just do the basic check of making sure everybody has ID before adding "additional screening".

Brian4Liberty

01-04-2010, 07:00 PM

Obviously not. You're using it aren't you?

The OP used it. I continued to use it. I am not a fan of eliminating words from the language just because someone wants to turn it into a "bad" word.

Can we agree that the difference is superficial? Can we agree that if we "sacrifice liberty for security" on the air it's only a matter of time before we'll be asked to sacrifice it on the ground? Can we agree that any real terrorist group would have gone to "soft targets" by now (truck bombs at intersections in rush hour traffic etc) and using "security" measures against such attacks would only work if we were willing to accept a society that most of us find unacceptable? They just want to get you used to "accepting" this for flying which is why the "terrorist" concentrate on airplanes. They aren't stupid.

Yes, there is a danger of it being a slippery slope. I think we must be at least half-way down that run by now. :(

At risk of repeating myself, I believe an Airline should have the right to spend as much or as little as it wants to on security measures. And if that includes screening criteria, so be it.

You're missing the obvious. The guy got on the plane WITHOUT a passport! He got on WITHOUT ANY FREAKING IDENTIFICATION AT ALL! Don't say CRAP to me about profiling or "checking people out" or looking at people who buy tickets with cash when the MOST BASIC AND NON INTRUSIVE CHECK WAS OVERLOOKED! If anything this incident should prove to everybody once and for all why these so called "security measures" aren't worth spit! If somebody can talk to a manager and get someone on a plane without a passport he can talk to a manager and get someone on a plane who bought his ticket with cash.

Pull your head out of the sand and think. He was let on the plane without a passport! Common sense dictates that if someone isn't enforcing this most BASIC security measure, imposing even more "checks" for the employee to do is NOT fixing the problem!

I agree. I don't think I ever disputed that. A valid passport should be number one on the list of things to check. I would say that eliminating useless checks would be more appropriate than additional useless ones.

I said "Certainly we should hold employees accountable if they violate the safety criteria." To be more clear, I mean fire him. Isn't that what you have been advocating?

There is plenty wrong with an airport having an ADDITIONAL screening process when they didn't even do the BASIC screening of making sure everybody had ID! It's nonsense like this that got us the unPatriot Act.

Once again, I am in full agreement that most security measures and government spending related to them are a complete waste of money. That's what is wrong with government trying to do these things. If a government agency does not perform the mission it was created for in the first place, it's time to cut it back (or out entirely), and fire the people who didn't do their jobs.

I don't see how checking passports at both the Airport entrance and the Airline entrance would be bad. Then you would need two different people to mess up and let someone without a passport through. Just a double check.

jmdrake

01-04-2010, 07:21 PM

The OP used it. I continued to use it. I am not a fan of eliminating words from the language just because someone wants to turn it into a "bad" word.

I don't know if you're trying to be funny but I never said you couldn't use the word. I just don't agree that the idea is a good one. No need to be sarcastic if that's what you're doing.

Yes, there is a danger of it being a slippery slope. I think we must be at least half-way down that run by now. :(

At risk of repeating myself, I believe an Airline should have the right to spend as much or as little as it wants to on security measures. And if that includes screening criteria, so be it.

The airline has a right to say no Ron Paul supporters can fly on it. That doesn't make that the right thing to do. Members of a "liberty movement" should not, in my opinion, encourage airlines to take measures that are a violation of the principles of liberty just because they are legal especially when less obtrusive measures weren't used in this particular case.

I agree. I don't think I ever disputed that. A valid passport should be number one on the list of things to check. I would say that eliminating useless checks would be more appropriate than additional useless ones.

And whether someone used cash to buy a ticket shouldn't be on the list at all.

I said "Certainly we should hold employees accountable if they violate the safety criteria." To be more clear, I mean fire him. Isn't that what you have been advocating?

I'd go further than just firing him. I want to know why he made the allowance. Was he shown intelligence agency credentials, real or fake? Can he identify the "sharp dressed man"? Was he bribed to let the passenger on? Was he just incompetent? Should he be fined? You seem willing to advocate for greater scrutiny of innocent people based on a flimsy official story that hasn't even been finalized yet.

Once again, I am in full agreement that most security measures and government spending related to them are a complete waste of money. That's what is wrong with government trying to do these things. If a government agency does not perform the mission it was created for in the first place, it's time to cut it back (or out entirely), and fire the people who didn't do their jobs.

I agree. But I don't think that the measures you are taking are ones a private company should take either. If they did they would not get my business. Sure a private company could write on the side of their planes "We hate Ron Paul" too. And they wouldn't get my business either.

I don't see how checking passports at both the Airport entrance and the Airline entrance would be bad. Then you would need two different people to mess up and let someone without a passport through. Just a double check.

I agree with your last point.

Brian4Liberty

01-04-2010, 07:55 PM

I don't know if you're trying to be funny but I never said you couldn't use the word.

Just a misunderstanding. I thought in the previous post you were inferring it shouldn't be used (the word that is!). ;)

The airline has a right to say no Ron Paul supporters can fly on it. That doesn't make that the right thing to do. Members of a "liberty movement" should not, in my opinion, encourage airlines to take measures that are a violation of the principles of liberty just because they are legal especially when less obtrusive measures weren't used in this particular case.

Agreed. They wouldn't get my business either.

And whether someone used cash to buy a ticket shouldn't be on the list at all.

Any known measure will eventually be circumvented. Right now using cash might be an indicator. Obviously they would just use credit cards if cash was a big flag.

I'd go further than just firing him. I want to know why he made the allowance. Was he shown intelligence agency credentials, real or fake? Can he identify the "sharp dressed man"? Was he bribed to let the passenger on? Was he just incompetent? Should he be fined? You seem willing to advocate for greater scrutiny of innocent people based on a flimsy official story that hasn't even been finalized yet.

The only final thing on this story is that we (the general public) will never know all of the truth about it...

I agree. But I don't think that the measures you are taking are ones a private company should take either. If they did they would not get my business. Sure a private company could write on the side of their planes "We hate Ron Paul" too. And they wouldn't get my business either.

In theory they would lose enough business to not think that was a good idea. Here's the business opportunity: Ron Paul Airlines, no clothes removal required, no extensive scrutiny or xrays, must go through "sniffer" machine for explosives, open and concealed carry of arms shall not be infringed. :D

pacelli

01-04-2010, 08:03 PM

You're missing the obvious. The guy got on the plane WITHOUT a passport! He got on WITHOUT ANY FREAKING IDENTIFICATION AT ALL! Don't say CRAP to me about profiling or "checking people out" or looking at people who buy tickets with cash when the MOST BASIC AND NON INTRUSIVE CHECK WAS OVERLOOKED! If anything this incident should prove to everybody once and for all why these so called "security measures" aren't worth spit! If somebody can talk to a manager and get someone on a plane without a passport he can talk to a manager and get someone on a plane who bought his ticket with cash.
[/b]

Yes! I'd like to add the other obvious detail that this occurred IN ANOTHER COUNTRY!!!!! The guy didn't even get on the friggin' plane in the UNITED STATES! So why in the hell does the TSA need to do anything different?

As far as I'm concerned, this was an attempted terrorist attack by the Netherlands. The staff on the ground there obviously are responsible for this guy being on the plane, because he was boarding an international flight and was 'waved on' (for whatever reason) from the normal procedures.

How come we're being told Yemen??? Did this guy even go through the TSA in Amsterdam?

jmdrake

01-04-2010, 09:12 PM

Yes! I'd like to add the other obvious detail that this occurred IN ANOTHER COUNTRY!!!!! The guy didn't even get on the friggin' plane in the UNITED STATES! So why in the hell does the TSA need to do anything different?

As far as I'm concerned, this was an attempted terrorist attack by the Netherlands. The staff on the ground there obviously are responsible for this guy being on the plane, because he was boarding an international flight and was 'waved on' (for whatever reason) from the normal procedures.

How come we're being told Yemen??? Did this guy even go through the TSA in Amsterdam?

I meant to mention that and forgot. You are right. Using this to change procedures in America is like putting up checkpoints in Los Angeles because of a truck bombing in Baghdad. Maybe they're trying to get us used to the whole "global governance" thing? Think globally and act every place on the planet as a result? But what do you expect from a group of people who's motto is "Don't let any good crisis go to waste"?