Plane mishap
Surfer E2468
of an explosive. hey made my husband remove his belt because the
buckle kept stopping him from going thru security. guess you have to be
a terrorist to make a flight without security. nothing like being
politicaly correct
cruise lover(~~~~~)
.
Jack Hamilton
wrote:
I'm not sure what you think political correctness has to do with it.
In any case, plane travel is about to become more unpleasant than it
already was. Can't use any kind of electronic gadget on international
flights. Can't read, listen to an iPod equivalent, or go to the
bathroom during the last hour of a flight.
Charles
<j...@acm.org> wrote:
> In any case, plane travel is about to become more unpleasant than it
> already was. Can't use any kind of electronic gadget on international
> flights. Can't read, listen to an iPod equivalent, or go to the
> bathroom during the last hour of a flight.
That sucks. I am not sure I could fly under those conditions. The
bathroom part in particular.
--
Charles
Val Kraut
>
> That sucks. I am not sure I could fly under those conditions. The
> bathroom part in particular.
The real fun will be when flight operations turns the last hour into an
indeterminate time in hold.
I was on a flight from JFL to LAX a few years back. A woman tried to go to
the toilet and was told sit down we're on final approach. So we had our long
usual bouncy approach into LAX from the south. On landing the woman tried
again and was told to sit down we were on an active taxiway. Next the
airplane moved out to a taxiway and stopped. It seems a screening device was
found to be unplugged and LAX was evacuated - all the boarding ramps were
occupied by now empty aircraft. They had to start the screening all over
after a search. This poor woman sat there being told we're on an active
taxiway. When they finally got an empty gate and we docked she shot up from
the seat and made a run for the toilet that would have made a proffesional
athlete feel proud.
I've had similar experiences when we sat on the taxiway at JFK for 3 1/2
hours wating for the Thunderstorms to clear. In one case we actually moved
back and forth as the weather man predicted take-offs would soon start in a
particular direction.
You gotta love this - they keep serving water and juice so you don't get
dehydrated - then deny use of the toilet.
Maybe it's time for a partner to the air sickness bag in the seat back
pouch, and go on low residue food like the Apollo astronauts for the day
before the flight. Travel used to be fun and common sense existed - but
that was many many years ago.
Sue Mullen
The report I heard wasn't clear, is the no bathroom, nothing on your
lap, nothing to read, no electronics etc on "all" flights or only on
international flights?
Will be bad enough sitting with nothing to do, but not using the
bathrooms could be a huge problem. Maybe we all need to wear depends to
fly.
sue
Charles
<kjmu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The report I heard wasn't clear, is the no bathroom, nothing on your
> lap, nothing to read, no electronics etc on "all" flights or only on
> international flights?
>
> Will be bad enough sitting with nothing to do, but not using the
> bathrooms could be a huge problem. Maybe we all need to wear depends to
> fly.
It appears for now that it is international flights. However those and
other measures might be applied randomly to other flights.
--
Charles
Marcia R.
That's why we're driving up to Seattle for our Alaska cruise in June. I
could be very happy if I never had to fly again.
Marcia
Surfer E2468
that might look like a terrorist, And also they are stopping you from
having anything on your lap during flights,no blankets allowed,and they
are even talking about stopping you from having a carry on.
I guess we will have to stop flying. Can see where they
will start losing a lot of cash.
cruise lover(~~~~~)
.
Charles
<Mar...@spamlessinlasvegas.net> wrote:
> That's why we're driving up to Seattle for our Alaska cruise in June. I
> could be very happy if I never had to fly again.
People giving up flying is a victory for the terrorists. But I don't
blame people for giving it up. It has become very unpleasant. Some
airports are suggesting people arrive three hours early. And it is not
just the security. Most airlines suck too. Pay extra for checked bags.
Cram you onto the plane. No food anymore. Not even snacks.
--
Charles
Surfer E2468
On the news they stated all flights will have the same restrictions, If
they stop you from having a carry on,where will you put your
valuables,medications etc.that you will need on a trip.
cruise lover(~~~~~)
.
Charles
> Will be bad enough sitting with nothing to do, but not using the
> bathrooms could be a huge problem. Maybe we all need to wear depends to
> fly.
On the international flights I have been on the last few years it is
the bathroom thing that would be a problem. You were probably jesting
but you know, a lot of people people might have to do that.....wear
depends.
The not reading or using your iPod or other electronic device might not
be as bad as it sounds on international flights since on all the
international flights have been on the last few years, there was an
entertainment system with a screen on the seat back in front where one
could select movies or other entertainment. Virgin Atlantic had 150
movies to choose from.
--
Charles
Charles
E2468 <poco...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Political correctness is they cannot weed out any one kind of person
> that might look like a terrorist,
A terrorist can look like anyone.
--
Charles
Val Kraut
"> are even talking about stopping you from having a carry on.
Let's analyze the logic of carry on:
1) When they loose my luggage I'll have something to wear for the next few
days until they might find it. People just plain don't trust the airline to
get them and their luggage to the same plane. On one of our cruises we were
home 5 days by the time Lufthasa delivered our bags. Luckily it was on the
honebound leg. On another it took forever to get our luggage in Europe - the
baggage delivery system was all blocked up by stuff that should have been in
Scotland - we were in Copenhagen. Maybe they should have to take me to the
local men's store then and there and buy instant replacements, could help to
build responsibility.
2) If I check my cameras or any other expensive device like a laptop. it'll
be sold on the street before we leave the ground.
3) If my Laptop or camera does make it into the cargo hold it will emerge
smashed and unusable.
4) We carry toiletries on carry on so they don't get smashed and spilled all
over our cloths. Not to mention trying to replace spray deodorant in France
some years back. (It's in the perfume counter at the department store).
So now we'll end up in some foreign city with the cloths we're wearing, some
cash and our credit cards.
I've been using the Amtrak Acella to Washington from NYC for business -
cheaper and a really better experience. At the end of 2008, we took Amtrak
to New Orlens - got a sleeper, a bit pricy but a really plesant experience
as opposed to putting up with JFK or LGA.
Sue Mullen
Thanks, just about what I thought. Flying is getting to be harder and
harder now.
sue
Sue Mullen
We will be flying from NJ to Tampa in Jan. and there is no way we can
drive there. We are also talking about visiting our son in Portland,
Oregon in the spring, way too far to drive.
sue
Sue Mullen
Surfer E2468 wrote:
> SUE:
> On the news they stated all flights will have the same restrictions, If
> they stop you from having a carry on,where will you put your
> valuables,medications etc.that you will need on a trip.
I haven't heard anything about not allowing a carry on yet. If it does
happen, I cancel my cruise from Tampa and rebook one from NY or NJ.
sue
Val Kraut
"> entertainment system with a screen on the seat back in front where one
> could select movies or other entertainment. Virgin Atlantic had 150
The the person in front of you reclines the seat so far back you can't move
and would need eyeballs in you belly button to see the little screen. Maybe
the seats weren't designed to be that close?
Surfer E2468
from a port near your home you can drive to,and they are upping the cost
of parking at the ports. Last time we cruised out of baltimore they were
charging $10 a day for parking,now it is $17
With the new restrictions on airlines they will start charging a lot
more.
cruise lover(~~~~~)
.
Charles
> The the person in front of you reclines the seat so far back you can't
> move
> and would need eyeballs in you belly button to see the little screen.
> Maybe
> the seats weren't designed to be that close?
The screen pivots so that is not a problem on VA. Even in the cheap
seats.
--
Charles
frijoli
Jack Hamilton
wrote:
>We will be flying from NJ to Tampa in Jan. and there is no way we can
>drive there. We are also talking about visiting our son in Portland,
>Oregon in the spring, way too far to drive.
Could you drive to Virginia and take the AutoTrain down?
To get to Portland, Oregon, you could take a train to Toronto, across
Canada to Vancouver on The Canadian, and then a bus and train down to
Portland. It would take a while, but it would be a pleasant trip.
After my recent trip across the country I can no longer recommend Amtrak
for long distance east-west travel. The Coast Starlight is probably
still OK.
Jack Hamilton
wrote:
>Political correctness is they cannot weed out any one kind of person
>that might look like a terrorist,
You are misinformed. They can and they do. There's no question that
the system could have worked, but didn't, in this particular case.
But they can't stop everyone who might possibly be a terrorist. No one
would be allowed to fly.
Gettamulla Tupya
travel naked.
frijoli
I may an effort to be on some others. Miami for spring break
for instance.
Charles
Tupya <gettamu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What this will eventually lead to is no hand luggage and passengers
> will be required to travel naked.
More likely they will drug everyone and stack passengers in the plane.
That way the airlines could carry more passengers per plane too.....
--
Charles
Marcia R.
And the sad part is that it will be harder and harder for the average
passenger, but somehow the terrorists will still be able to get bad
stuff through security.
Marcia
Val Kraut
> Thanks, just about what I thought. Flying is getting to be harder and
> harder now.
>
> sue
Yes, it's getting harder and harder for the avergage traveler - Maybe it's
about time we forget political correctness and make it harder for the
terrorists.
Sue Mullen
Jack Hamilton wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:04:28 -0500, Sue Mullen <kjmu...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> We will be flying from NJ to Tampa in Jan. and there is no way we can
>> drive there. We are also talking about visiting our son in Portland,
>> Oregon in the spring, way too far to drive.
>
> Could you drive to Virginia and take the AutoTrain down?
>
> To get to Portland, Oregon, you could take a train to Toronto, across
> Canada to Vancouver on The Canadian, and then a bus and train down to
> Portland. It would take a while, but it would be a pleasant trip.
Train doesn't work for us for many reasons and that includes the fact
that Kevin is still working full time and the train would take much
longer then a plane.
sue
Surfer E2468
security and even on the plane.
cruise lover(~~~~~)
.
Jack Hamilton
wrote:
>This man WAS ON THE RESTRICTED LIST,so how come he was allowed thru
>security and even on the plane.
There were lots of problems with the security. The article I read said
that there were several security checks that would have found the stuff
he was carrying, but the Amsterdam airport didn't do any of them.
There are various forms of restricted lists, and he was on the least
stringent of them. Even so, there is no excuse for not putting him
through at least as many safety checks as we had flying to Europe last
month.
Jack Hamilton
wrote:
Why do you think there was any aspect of political correctness involved
in this? Nothing I've read has said that he got any form of special
treatment. Everyone on that plane should have gone through bomb
screening, and no one did.
Thumper
You are missing the point. How many people per flight do you think
fits your description of a terrorist?
Thumper
Charles
E2468 <poco...@webtv.net> wrote:
> This man WAS ON THE RESTRICTED LIST,so how come he was allowed thru
> security and even on the plane.
What is the restricted list? There are several lists. He was not on a
no-fly list. Nor was he on the "selectee" list. (the selectee list
calls for mandatory secondary screening) He was allowed on the plane
because he was not on the no-fly list.
--
Charles
Charles
<j...@acm.org> wrote:
> Why do you think there was any aspect of political correctness involved
I wonder what they think that means? Do they think anyone who is not
white, anglo-saxon origin, and US born should be suspect?
--
Charles
Charles
<jayl...@comcast.net> wrote:
Everyone....
--
Charles
Val Kraut
> Why do you think there was any aspect of political correctness involved
> in this?
Bottom line is in the political correct world we treat everyone as equal -
but should be profiling. If there's a rabid dog in the neighborhood you
don't go checking out all the parakeets and hamsters - you concentrate on
the dogs. There was even info the guy was a danger - but it was ignored. Our
government is too preoccupied with correctness. I'd like to see the
supervisors who handled the data on this guy being interviewed on the
unemployeement line this monday.
Kurt Ullman
poco...@webtv.net (Surfer E2468) wrote:
> This man WAS ON THE RESTRICTED LIST,so how come he was allowed thru
> security and even on the plane.
>
No, he wasn't. He was on a watch list, but not one that restricted
his flying.
--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
Kurt Ullman
>
> Why do you think there was any aspect of political correctness involved
> in this? Nothing I've read has said that he got any form of special
> treatment. Everyone on that plane should have gone through bomb
> screening, and no one did.
The PC part is that you can't lose ethnicity, etc., as even ONE of many
part of a profile w/o having people yell about it.
Val Kraut
> I wonder what they think that means? Do they think anyone who is not
> white, anglo-saxon origin, and US born should be suspect?
OK - so lets try an example - It's pre World War II and you're looking for
Nazis Spies - you can concentarte on the local Bunde or stakeout the local
synagogue - where would you spend the taxpayers money? These guys follow a
fairly striaght forward profile that we choose to ignore.
Bert Hyman
poco...@webtv.net (Surfer E2468) wrote:
> Was wondering how a restricted passenger got on a plane with the
> makings of an explosive.
I suspect that security at the airport in Nigeria where the person's
flight originated is either non-existent or was bypassed by the
traveler.
Then, security for people changing planes in Amsterdam's Schiphol isn't
very good.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Val Kraut
"> What is the restricted list? There are several lists. He was not on a
> no-fly list. Nor was he on the "selectee" list. (the selectee list
> calls for mandatory secondary screening) He was allowed on the plane
> because he was not on the no-fly list.
So when I see 90% chance of rain I carry an umbrella, when I see 10% chance
of rain I carry an Umbrella - but in the authorities view if he's low
probablility we decide to give him a chance and won't inconvienience him -
HOW MANY LIVES WERE INVOLVED HERE THAT A LOW PROBILITY WAS ACCEPTABLE?
Val Kraut
"> Then, security for people changing planes in Amsterdam's Schiphol isn't
> very good.
So this should be the point where the Home Land Security people do something
useful and say - Flights from Schipool into the US are unacceptable - go
land someplace else. All Homeland Security seems to be able to do is spend
money on projects that don't bear fruit.
Jack Hamilton
wrote:
>
Screen everyone thoroughly, and make the door to the cockpit
sufficiently secure than even someone with a crowbar can't get in. Then
it doesn't really matter who you let on.
Charles
<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Then, security for people changing planes in Amsterdam's Schiphol isn't
> very good.
Here is an account of the airport security for that flight by a
passenger on the flight, Roey Rosenblith.
"At 6 a.m. CET, I had arrived in Amsterdam. It's a beautiful airport,
just as you would imagine the Dutch would design it, boxy and metallic
architecture, silver roofs and granite floors with bright yellow signs
marking the terminals extending from central hubs in every direction.
Orderly and calm, the opposite of my chaotic life in Uganda. At
Amsterdam we went through security, and what seemed like the time was
good security. At the gate everyone was interviewed by a team of around
10 personal screeners, who asked us a battery of questions in quick
succession. This was something I had only experienced at Tel-Aviv
airports and it came as quite a surprise, but one that I welcomed.
After personal screening we passed through metal detectors and a
baggage X-ray. Even though I had all the change out of my pockets, cell
phones, and belt removed I still set off the detector (perhaps the
rivets in my jeans). As soon as that happened I was frisked so
thoroughly by the young Dutch security guard that I began to wonder if
he was enjoying himself. Later on when I read the news reports I
realized that if Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab had the explosives stashed
in his underwear, even if he had been thoroughly frisked the only way
the guard would have noticed anything is if he literally put his hands
down the guys pants, and searched his groin."
--
Charles
Val Kraut
>
> Screen everyone thoroughly, and make the door to the cockpit
> sufficiently secure than even someone with a crowbar can't get in. Then
> it doesn't really matter who you let on.
Doesn't stop explosives from blowing a hole in the cabin. Prior to World
War II the FBI kept files on foreign nationals and involvement with foreign
nationals. As a result not one act of overt sabotage was successfully
commited on US soil. There's a message there. These terrorists have common
contacts etc and can be tracked. Now and then there's a loner - but signs
still may alert the authorities. We tie our own hands in these manners.
Charles
<mar...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Now and then there's a loner - but signs still may alert the
> authorities. We tie our own hands in these manners.
In what manners are hands tied? Terrorists are tracked. Terrorists
organizations are infiltrated. And despite what you think profiling is
done. There is no fraking way to stop every terrorist.
--
Charles
Kurt Ullman
Jack Hamilton <j...@acm.org> wrote:
The door to the cockpit is already secure. You can't screen
sufficiently, because the time, money, and more importantly the
technology doesn't exitst.
Val Kraut
". There is no fraking way to stop every terrorist.
Not the way we're doing it A news quote from Homeland security below.
Everything happened that should have? - the guy got the explosives on the
plane, the explosives malfunctioned, and a passenger subdued him. This is a
major screwup and the government is in denial - Napolitano should be on the
unemployment line after making a statement like this.
From the Yahoo News:
"Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano hastened to assure people that
flying is "very, very safe."
She said the suspect in Friday's attack "was stopped before any damage could
be done. I think the important thing to recognize here is that once this
incident occurred, everything happened that should have."
Jack Hamilton
wrote:
>> Screen everyone thoroughly, and make the door to the cockpit
>> sufficiently secure than even someone with a crowbar can't get in. Then
>> it doesn't really matter who you let on.
>
> Doesn't stop explosives from blowing a hole in the cabin.
That's covered by "screen everyone thoroughly". No explosives or other
weapons get on the plane. And to do that you have to screen *everyone*,
including the crew, every time.
Jack Hamilton
Aren't there other ways to detect explosives? Nitrogen based ones, I
think, have a molecular signature that can be detected. I don't know
about non-nitrogen based explosives.
Charles
Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The door to the cockpit is already secure. You can't screen
> sufficiently, because the time, money, and more importantly the
> technology doesn't exitst.
Body scans are coming that would catch an explosive strapped to a body
surface. However they would not catch an explosive hidden in a body
cavity. That would take a powerful scanner that besides being very
expensive now would have health concerns.
--
Charles
Charles
<mar...@optonline.net> wrote:
> This is a major screwup and the government is in denial
The government is not in denial. A review is taking place.
> "Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano hastened to assure
> people that flying is "very, very safe."
You think she should say flying is unsafe?
> She said the suspect in Friday's attack "was stopped before any
> damage could be done. I think the important thing to recognize here
> is that once this incident occurred, everything happened that should
> have.
The terrorist attack was a failure. Except that it will now mean more
hassles to the public.
--
Charles
Charles
<j...@acm.org> wrote:
> Aren't there other ways to detect explosives? Nitrogen based ones, I
> think, have a molecular signature that can be detected. I don't know
> about non-nitrogen based explosives.
If it was PETN that was used, which is suspected but not confirmed,
there is a swab often used in secondary screening that would have
detected PETN.
--
Charles
frijoli
I don't know what terrorist can look like, but I know what
they typically look like in recent history, and that IS the
point. If the plane is full of what typically constitutes
the look of past terrorists, I want them checked a little more.
Clay
frijoli
So randomly check the ones that can possibly be terrorists,
and check the ones that look like recent, possible,
terrorists more often.
It's not really a racial thing, it's a safety measure.
Obviously you wont catch everyone that is, but at least make
them effort to do it right.
Clay
Nonny
"Charles" <fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote in message
news:271220091531265232%fo...@his.com.remove.invalid...
> In article <3mffj5dhlg0e75r6j...@4ax.com>, Jack
> Hamilton
> <j...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>> In any case, plane travel is about to become more unpleasant
>> than it
>> already was. Can't use any kind of electronic gadget on
>> international
>> flights. Can't read, listen to an iPod equivalent, or go to
>> the
>> bathroom during the last hour of a flight.
>
> That sucks. I am not sure I could fly under those conditions.
> The
> bathroom part in particular.
>
> --
> Charles
They have to search grandmothers and infants so that when they
spot some terrorist type of creep, they can also search him. Just
keep those contributions coming in to the ACLU.
--
Nonny
ELOQUIDIOT (n) A highly educated, sophisticated,
and articulate person who has absolutely no clue
concerning what they are talking about.
The person is typically a media commentator or politician.
Jack Hamilton
>They have to search grandmothers and infants so that when they
>spot some terrorist type of creep, they can also search him.
No, they search the grandmothers and infants because they too can carry
bombs - as with the pregnant English woman whose "lover" hid a bomb in
her luggage. You wouldn't suspect her, and in a sense she was innocent,
but she nevertheless had a bomb.
>Just
>keep those contributions coming in to the ACLU.
I do.
Brian K
a new meaning to the word was in the process of being born? Or, maybe
the posters simply didn't know the meaning of the words. So here it is
direct from en.wiktionary.org
Political Correctness:
not objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense based on
race, gender, religion, ideology or any other social grouping such as
disability
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/politically_correct
<http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/politically_correct&ei=EFM4S9y9BsK9lAfUyNGmBw&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&cd=1&ved=0CAkQpAMoAQ&usg=AFQjCNH9GGtprBOyfJo6oyMNCrcpyY4slQ>
---
________
To email me, Edit "blog" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"The poor dog is the firmest of friends, the first to welcome the foremost to defend" - Lord Byron
View My Web Pages: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951
My Shutterfly Page http://photosbybrianmk.shutterfly.com/
Brian K
> In article <m10gj513v8di6lpts...@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hamilton <j...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Why do you think there was any aspect of political correctness involved
>> in this? Nothing I've read has said that he got any form of special
>> treatment. Everyone on that plane should have gone through bomb
>> screening, and no one did.
>>
>
> The PC part is that you can't lose ethnicity, etc., as even ONE of many
> part of a profile w/o having people yell about it.
>
>
not objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense based on
race, gender, religion, ideology or any other social grouping such as
disability
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/politically_correct
<http://www.google.com/url?q=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/politically_correct&ei=EFM4S9y9BsK9lAfUyNGmBw&sa=X&oi=define&ct=&cd=1&ved=0CAkQpAMoAQ&usg=AFQjCNH9GGtprBOyfJo6oyMNCrcpyY4slQ>
--
Brian K
> Jack Hamilton <j...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Why do you think there was any aspect of political correctness involved
>> in this? Nothing I've read has said that he got any form of special
>> treatment. Everyone on that plane should have gone through bomb
>> screening, and no one did.
>>
>
> The PC part is that you can't lose ethnicity, etc., as even ONE of many
> part of a profile w/o having people yell about it.
>
>
Adjective
politically correct (comparative more politically correct, superlative
most politically correct)
Positive - politically correct Comparative - more politically correct
literally incorrect, in the context of 18th century US politics
1793, U.S. Supreme Court, Chisholm v State of GA, 2 US 419 (1793)
Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our
common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? �The United
States�, instead of the �People of the United States�, is the toast
given. This is not politically correct.
(of language) not objectionable, especially in terms of avoiding offense
based on race, gender, religion, ideology or any other social grouping
such as disability
Usage notes
While "politically correct" frequently refers to a linguistic
phenomenon, it is sometimes extended to cover political ideology and
behavior, curriculum content, and many areas affected by law,
regulation, and public pressure, and is often used pejoratively.
Brian K
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:37:17 -0500, poco...@webtv.net (Surfer E2468)
> wrote:
>
>
>> Political correctness is they cannot weed out any one kind of person
>> that might look like a terrorist,
>>
>
> the system could have worked, but didn't, in this particular case.
>
> But they can't stop everyone who might possibly be a terrorist. No one
> would be allowed to fly.
>
>
I think the correct term is profiling. (see below)
Brian K
> This man WAS ON THE RESTRICTED LIST,so how come he was allowed thru
> security and even on the plane.
>
>
>
>
According to a statement from Homeland Security on CNN, the perpetrator
was not on the "No Fly" list. He was on a minor list of individuals
expressing support in spoken words as regards terrorists in the Middle
East. It related to statements he made while a college student.
During the Viet Nam war era, making a statement like "I can see why the
Viet Cong want to eliminate Western influences and corruption from their
country.", could land you on a similar minor list with the FBI. It's
not quite the same as being linked to Angela Davis, Joanne Chesimard, or
members of the Weathermen.
During that time the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) argued
successfully that maintaining such a list of US Citizens who made
statements sympathetic of the enemy, was unconstitutional. As a
result, individuals could gain access to any file kept by the FBI about
them and have it expunged.
It is a tightrope that must be tread between protecting our country from
terrorism and the Constitutionally guaranteed right of "Freedom of
Speech". That in my thinking is why Homeland Security placed him on a
minor watch list. It has nothing to do with being politically correct.
It has to do with not abridging the right to free speech.
In a similar matter, profiling was ruled unconstitutional. That is why
TSA searches are of everyone or random. The weakness in current
security is that no means of detecting the makings of a bomb are in
place other then checking for TNT/Gunpowder residue. This is about to
change. As a result of introducing more screening technology, passing
through security checkpoints will take longer.
As I heard it on CNN, you will still be allowed to bring on carry-ons.
You just can't have access to them during the flight. The bathroom
thing of no Number 1 or Number 2 visits during flights is limited to
international flights and certain domestic flights. Which domestic
flights was not specified.
Brian K
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:31:44 -0500, poco...@webtv.net (Surfer E2468) wrote:
>
>
>> Was wondering how a restricted passenger got on a plane with the makings
>> buckle kept stopping him from going thru security. guess you have to be
>> a terrorist to make a flight without security. nothing like being
>> politicaly correct
>>
>
> What this will eventually lead to is no hand luggage and passengers will be required to
> travel naked.
>
>
At least that's a good thing for nudists. ;) They won't have to charter
special naked flights anymore.
Brian K
> In article <a5rfj5lbook15cjik...@4ax.com>, Gettamulla
> Tupya <gettamu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> What this will eventually lead to is no hand luggage and passengers
>> will be required to travel naked.
>>
>
> That way the airlines could carry more passengers per plane too.....
>
>
Surrealistically funny, but not very likely due to certain
constitutional rights.
Cruise Crazy
about it. How good is the security system? Now this incident is causing
even more hassle at airports. No wonder we like cruising so much more
than flying. Even rude people are better than terrorists.
~~DORIS~~
________ / /___/ /___/ /_________
\::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1-23-2010 Sailing the Regent Navigator to Central America
Kurt Ullman
Charles <fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
Will they be available in sufficient numbers any time soon to do
EVERYBODY? Are they quick enough to do everybody and still not hold up
traffic (even more than now?)
Val Kraut
> No, they search the grandmothers and infants because they too can carry
> bombs - as with the pregnant English woman whose "lover" hid a bomb in
> her luggage. You wouldn't suspect her, and in a sense she was innocent,
> but she nevertheless had a bomb.
You've got this one backwards - the El Al folks did do profiling and
Pregnant women in general didn't fly alone to Israel - so they searched her.
Charles
Crazy <Dor...@webtv.net> wrote:
> They had been warned about this guy by his own father and did nothing
> about it. How good is the security system? Now this incident is causing
> even more hassle at airports. No wonder we like cruising so much more
> than flying. Even rude people are better than terrorists.
Because of the fathers warning he should have been put on the selectee
list for additional screening. Why that did not happen needs to be
reviewed and corrected.
Terrorists are the ultimate rude people.
--
Charles
Charles
Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Will they be available in sufficient numbers any time soon to do
> EVERYBODY? Are they quick enough to do everybody and still not hold up
> traffic (even more than now?)
They are being deployed but more money would have to be spent to deploy
them for everybody faster. They will take a second longer than walking
through the metal detector but they say it won't hold up traffic. To
start out before full deployment they can do some simple profiling.
Like all males between 18 and 40. That is the prime age group and
gender for terrorists. And then expand to everyone else.
--
Charles
Charles
<brian1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> t is a tightrope that must be tread between protecting our country from
> terrorism and the Constitutionally guaranteed right of "Freedom of
> Speech". That in my thinking is why Homeland Security placed him on a
> minor watch list. It has nothing to do with being politically correct.
> It has to do with not abridging the right to free speech.
That would make sense if it was an anonymous call or you calling up and
saying Joe Blow needs to be screened. If Joe Blows father says he needs
to be screened and even visits the embassy, well duh......Joe Blow
should be listed for more thorough screening.
--
Charles
Susette
> In article <3mffj5dhlg0e75r6jceh2ti31vtdv1q...@4ax.com>, Jack Hamilton
>
> <j...@acm.org> wrote:
> > In any case, plane travel is about to become more unpleasant than it
> > already was. �Can't use any kind of electronic gadget on international
> > flights. �Can't read, listen to an iPod equivalent, or go to the
> > bathroom during the last hour of a flight.
>
> That sucks. I am not sure I could fly under those conditions. The
> bathroom part in particular.
>
> --
> Charles
don't drink to much fluids you be ok
John Sisker
We received this information and/or press release from the trades/Frommer's
and thought it may be of interest to this newsgroup as well.
http://www.frommers.com/articles/6532.html
Smooth sailing to all...
John Sisker - SHIP-TO-SHORE CRUISE AGENCY�
(714) 536-3850 or toll-free at (800) 724-6644 & (Agency ID: 714.536.3850)
www.shiptoshorecruise.com
Supplemental Information to this post...
Stay Seated? What You Need to Know About Flying This Week
"Flyers should arrive at airports hours in advance and expect slow,
confusing security arrangements while the government sorts things out in the
wake of a passenger's attempt to light an incendiary device aboard a
Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Detroit."
Source:
* Frommer's
* By Sascha Segan
* December 2009
- http://www.frommers.com/articles/6532.html
Susette
> In article <7pq1lrFna...@mid.individual.net>, Sue Mullen
>
> <kjmul...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > The report I heard wasn't clear, is the no bathroom, nothing on your
> > lap, nothing to read, no electronics etc on "all" flights or only on
> > international flights?
>
> > Will be bad enough sitting with nothing to do, but not using the
> > bathrooms could be a huge problem. Maybe we all need to wear depends to
> > fly.
>
> It appears for now that it is international flights. However those and
> other measures might be applied randomly to other flights.
>
> --
> Charles
GREAT and Bob leaves for Teneriffe in a few weeks
Jeff Gersten
In article <7pq1lr...@mid.individual.net>, Sue Mullen
<kjmu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>The report I heard wasn't clear, is the no
>>bathroom, nothing on your lap, nothing to
>>read, no electronics etc on "all" flights or only
>>on international flights?
>>Will be bad enough sitting with nothing to do,
>>but not using the bathrooms could be a huge
>>problem. Maybe we all need to wear
>>depends to fly.
>It appears for now that it is international flights.
>However those and other measures might be
>applied randomly to other flights.
None of these measures make any sense.
Why the last hour? Is it any better if an international flight is blown
up over the ocean? And until now have been told by the airlines to get
up and walk to avoid deep vein thrombosis, and now they'll be telling
you to sit at least the last hour. And of course sometimes you really,
really need the bathroom.
My wife heard on the news that Continental Airlines was ending its in
flight progress map so passengers would not know when the flight was
near its destination. Tell me how this makes sense! You can't figure how
long the flight is scheduled for and how long you have flown and know
you are nearing your destination? You can't look out the window and see
land instead of the ocean? When they announce it's the last hour so you
cannot leave your seat, wouldn't that tell you that you have about an
hour's flying time left? When they make the announcement for the flight
attendants to take their seats, wouldn't that let you know that the
landing is very soon?
All these measures will do is make air travel even more of a hassle than
it is now.
peter
3a9e160c-ead9-443c...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com, "Susette"
<cruise...@aol.com> wrote:
The FDA, TSA, CIA, IRS, NHS and your doctor recommend that you drink lots of
liquids while flying to reduce the risk of dehydration.
Bert Hyman
<fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
> In article <Xns9CEEC3F77B8...@216.250.188.141>, Bert Hyman
><be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
>> Then, security for people changing planes in Amsterdam's Schiphol
>> isn't very good.
>
> Here is an account of the airport security for that flight by a
> passenger on the flight, Roey Rosenblith.
This account is quite different from my own experience when changing
planes on both arrival and departure through Schiphol, although the last
time was two years ago.
After arriving in Schiphol, we went through passport control for a
cursory examination of our documents, then into an absolutely chaotic
security screening area. The total screening involved running the
carryon bags through X-Ray and the passengers through metal detectors. I
suppose there might have been more going on that we didn't see.
On our return to the US from Schiphol, there was an additional security
screen done in the departure lounge which involved the personal
interviews, not unlike what was described below, and another pass
through metal detectors. We were then directed to a separate "sterile"
departure lounge, not accessible from the rest of the airport. There
were no individual searches or pat-downs. I don't know if the additional
security was airline policy (KLM) or was standard practice for all
US-destined flights.
I guess things have been upgraded in the past two years, but apparently
not quite enough.
> "At 6 a.m. CET, I had arrived in Amsterdam. It's a beautiful airport,
> just as you would imagine the Dutch would design it, boxy and metallic
> architecture, silver roofs and granite floors with bright yellow signs
> marking the terminals extending from central hubs in every direction.
> Orderly and calm, the opposite of my chaotic life in Uganda. At
> Amsterdam we went through security, and what seemed like the time was
> good security. At the gate everyone was interviewed by a team of
> around 10 personal screeners, who asked us a battery of questions in
> quick succession. This was something I had only experienced at
> Tel-Aviv airports and it came as quite a surprise, but one that I
> welcomed. After personal screening we passed through metal detectors
> and a baggage X-ray. Even though I had all the change out of my
> pockets, cell phones, and belt removed I still set off the detector
> (perhaps the rivets in my jeans). As soon as that happened I was
> frisked so thoroughly by the young Dutch security guard that I began
> to wonder if he was enjoying himself. Later on when I read the news
> reports I realized that if Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab had the
> explosives stashed in his underwear, even if he had been thoroughly
> frisked the only way the guard would have noticed anything is if he
> literally put his hands down the guys pants, and searched his groin."
>
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Sue Mullen
Jeff Gersten wrote:
> And of course sometimes you really,
> really need the bathroom.
On the news they said if you have an emergency need for the bathroom,
you can be escorted there by a flight attendant.
sue
Bert Hyman
<kjmu...@comcast.net> wrote:
Just hope that it's a very slow moving emergency.
Charles
<be...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> I guess things have been upgraded in the past two years, but apparently
> not quite enough.
He should have had a body scan, it is reported they do have some of
those machines at that airport, and the swab test. He paid cash and had
no checked bags so even without out him being on a no fly list or
"selectee" list the airport had, cash and no checked bags should have
been a flag or profile if you want to call it that.
--
Charles
Wilf
--
Wilf
Thumper
<mar...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>"> What is the restricted list? There are several lists. He was not on a
>> no-fly list. Nor was he on the "selectee" list. (the selectee list
>> calls for mandatory secondary screening) He was allowed on the plane
>> because he was not on the no-fly list.
>
>So when I see 90% chance of rain I carry an umbrella, when I see 10% chance
>of rain I carry an Umbrella - but in the authorities view if he's low
>probablility we decide to give him a chance and won't inconvienience him -
>HOW MANY LIVES WERE INVOLVED HERE THAT A LOW PROBILITY WAS ACCEPTABLE?
>
Only a true dope would carry an umbrella with a 10% chance of rain.
Thumper
Thumper
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:18:52 -0500, "Val Kraut" <mar...@optonline.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"> What is the restricted list? There are several lists. He was not on a
>>> no-fly list. Nor was he on the "selectee" list. (the selectee list
>>> calls for mandatory secondary screening) He was allowed on the plane
>>> because he was not on the no-fly list.
>>
>>So when I see 90% chance of rain I carry an umbrella, when I see 10% chance
>>of rain I carry an Umbrella - but in the authorities view if he's low
>>probablility we decide to give him a chance and won't inconvienience him -
>>HOW MANY LIVES WERE INVOLVED HERE THAT A LOW PROBILITY WAS ACCEPTABLE?
>
>Screen everyone thoroughly, and make the door to the cockpit
>sufficiently secure than even someone with a crowbar can't get in. Then
>it doesn't really matter who you let on.
>
What do you mean by thoroughly, a strip search? This guy had a few
ounces of powder sewn into his underwear.
Thumper
Thumper
<mar...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Screen everyone thoroughly, and make the door to the cockpit
>> sufficiently secure than even someone with a crowbar can't get in. Then
>> it doesn't really matter who you let on.
>
> Doesn't stop explosives from blowing a hole in the cabin. Prior to World
>War II the FBI kept files on foreign nationals and involvement with foreign
>nationals. As a result not one act of overt sabotage was successfully
>commited on US soil. There's a message there. These terrorists have common
>contacts etc and can be tracked. Now and then there's a loner - but signs
>still may alert the authorities. We tie our own hands in these manners.
>
The USA also interred thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry. I
suppose you think that was just dandy.
Thumper
Thumper
<fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
>In article <4b380f88$0$31272$607e...@cv.net>, Val Kraut
><mar...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Now and then there's a loner - but signs still may alert the
>> authorities. We tie our own hands in these manners.
>
>In what manners are hands tied? Terrorists are tracked. Terrorists
>organizations are infiltrated. And despite what you think profiling is
>done. There is no fraking way to stop every terrorist.
I agree.
Thumper
Thumper
<mar...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>". There is no fraking way to stop every terrorist.
>
> Not the way we're doing it A news quote from Homeland security below.
>Everything happened that should have? - the guy got the explosives on the
>plane, the explosives malfunctioned, and a passenger subdued him. This is a
>major screwup and the government is in denial - Napolitano should be on the
>unemployment line after making a statement like this.
>
Baloney
>From the Yahoo News:
>"Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano hastened to assure people that
>flying is "very, very safe."
>
It is.
>She said the suspect in Friday's attack "was stopped before any damage could
>be done. I think the important thing to recognize here is that once this
>incident occurred, everything happened that should have."
>
LOL. You really are a twit.
Thumper
>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 20:53:17 -0500, "Val Kraut" <mar...@optonline.net>
>wrote:
>
>>> Screen everyone thoroughly, and make the door to the cockpit
>>> sufficiently secure than even someone with a crowbar can't get in. Then
>>> it doesn't really matter who you let on.
>>
>> Doesn't stop explosives from blowing a hole in the cabin.
>
>That's covered by "screen everyone thoroughly". No explosives or other
>weapons get on the plane. And to do that you have to screen *everyone*,
>including the crew, every time.
HOW!
Thumper
Thumper
<mar...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> I wonder what they think that means? Do they think anyone who is not
>> white, anglo-saxon origin, and US born should be suspect?
>
> OK - so lets try an example - It's pre World War II and you're looking for
>Nazis Spies - you can concentarte on the local Bunde or stakeout the local
>synagogue - where would you spend the taxpayers money? These guys follow a
>fairly striaght forward profile that we choose to ignore.
>
You have no idea what you're talking about.
THumper
Thumper
<fo...@his.com.remove.invalid> wrote:
>In article <og7gj5dpk8uht70n2...@4ax.com>, Jack Hamilton
><j...@acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Aren't there other ways to detect explosives? Nitrogen based ones, I
>> think, have a molecular signature that can be detected. I don't know
>> about non-nitrogen based explosives.
>
>If it was PETN that was used, which is suspected but not confirmed,
>there is a swab often used in secondary screening that would have
>detected PETN.
You seriously advocate swabbing everyone? Why bother living in a free
country?
Thumper
Thumper
>Thumper wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:02:13 -0500, frijoli <c...@dud.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles wrote:
>>>> In article <29105-4B3...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net>, Surfer
>>>> E2468 <poco...@webtv.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Political correctness is they cannot weed out any one kind of person
>>>>> that might look like a terrorist,
>>>> A terrorist can look like anyone.
>>>>
>>> True, they can, but they usually don't.
>>
>>
>> You are missing the point. How many people per flight do you think
>> fits your description of a terrorist?
>> Thumper
>
>I don't know what terrorist can look like, but I know what
>they typically look like in recent history, and that IS the
>point. If the plane is full of what typically constitutes
>the look of past terrorists, I want them checked a little more.
>
>Clay
If you have seen any pictures of this guy you would know that he
doesn't look like he's from the middle east. He looks like any other
black person. You must not fly much if you don't think that well over
half the passengers on an international flight could fit the
description of looking like a middle easterner or being black. The
point is that of the MILLIONS of fliers since 911. How many that you
think look like terrorists have flown without trying to blow up a
plane?
For Christ's sake, we could cut violent crime by 80% if we just
declared martial law and shot on sight everyone seen out between dusk
and dawn. I suppose that's the way you would like to live.
Thumper
Thumper
wrote:
>They had been warned about this guy by his own father and did nothing
>about it.
Not true. He was put on the list which is automatically cross
referenced to other lists in which he or someone that could be him
would pop up. When will you get it through your head that there is
absolutely no way to absolutely protect you from being blown out of
the sky besides grounding all planes?
Thumper
Thumper
Charles
<jayl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> You seriously advocate swabbing everyone? Why bother living in a free
> country?
I don't think everyone should be swabbed. I am answering the question
as to whether there was a way to detect the explosive.
--
Charles
Ray Goldenberg
wrote:
>Not true. He was put on the list which is automatically cross
>referenced to other lists in which he or someone that could be him
>would pop up. When will you get it through your head that there is
>absolutely no way to absolutely protect you from being blown out of
>the sky besides grounding all planes?
Hi,
He was on a "watch" list. He purchased a one-way ticket. He paid
cash for his ticket. He was traveling without luggage. Hello, anyone
home?
--
Ray Goldenberg 800-719-9917 or 805-566-3905
Lighthouse Travel http://www.lighthousetravel.com
Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/lighthousetravl
Follow us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/ray.goldenberg
Ray Goldenberg
wrote:
>Not true. He was put on the list which is automatically cross
>referenced to other lists in which he or someone that could be him
>would pop up. When will you get it through your head that there is
>absolutely no way to absolutely protect you from being blown out of
>the sky besides grounding all planes?
Hi,
He was on a "watch" list. He purchased a one-way ticket. He paid
cash for his ticket. He was traveling without luggage. Two other
things if the above were not enough. His dad had reported him as
someone the US government should be aware of due to his radicalism and
he was traveling from a country that has where there are known
terrorist operatives. Hello, anyone home?
Val Kraut
Unfortunately it's you who who have no idea what I'm talking about.
Idealism is great but not to the point where loss of innocent life is
involved.
Warren
>I realized that if Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab had the explosives stashed
> in his underwear, even if he had been thoroughly frisked the only way
> the guard would have noticed anything is if he literally put his hands
> down the guys pants, and searched his groin."
Shortly after 9/11 I flew somewhere during the period of time when
there was "random" screening at JFK at the gate as passengers were
boarding. I was selected for the screening. I was taken behind a (not
very private)privacy curtain. After I was frisked and wanded I was
asked to unbutton my pants and slightly pull down my underwear.
So it's not inconceivable for what was described in the quoted text to
actually happen.
Warren
Kurt Ullman
Ray Goldenberg <r...@lighthousetravel.com> wrote:
> O
>
> He was on a "watch" list. He purchased a one-way ticket. He paid
> cash for his ticket. He was traveling without luggage. Two other
> things if the above were not enough. His dad had reported him as
> someone the US government should be aware of due to his radicalism and
> he was traveling from a country that has where there are known
> terrorist operatives. Hello, anyone home?
>
If he had been in the US, TSA and DEA would have both been salivating
over this dude...
--
To find that place where the rats don't race
and the phones don't ring at all.
If once, you've slept on an island.
Scott Kirby "If once you've slept on an island"
Sue Mullen
Ray Goldenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:51:25 -0500, Thumper <jayl...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Not true. He was put on the list which is automatically cross
>> referenced to other lists in which he or someone that could be him
>> would pop up. When will you get it through your head that there is
>> absolutely no way to absolutely protect you from being blown out of
>> the sky besides grounding all planes?
>
> Hi,
>
> He was on a "watch" list. He purchased a one-way ticket. He paid
> cash for his ticket. He was traveling without luggage. Hello, anyone
> home?
Also his father was trying to warn officials that he was becoming more
of a threat.
sue
Surfer E2468
bathroom breaks. Or on medication that causes frequent bathroom
breaks
cruise lover(~~~~~)
.
Surfer E2468
cruise lover(~~~~~)
.