I read about this last month and here it pops up again on MSNBC.

Clues to terrorism in passengers’ faces? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20827225/)

I am very uncomfortable with this. I already avoid flying, this doesn't make me want to change that.

It isn't quite thought police but to be arrested because someone doesn't like the cut of your jib is really crossing the line.

The above article makes it look all rosy and great, however.

I suppose it doesn't matter. We love giving up freedom for the illusion of security these days.

AFAIK this is the result of electing Republicans. They're simply more eager to take away your freedom than most of the other parties are, whether they're your sexual, reproductive, expression, who you'll set up housekeeping with, what clubs you join, and now the fleeting look on your face.

Not a lot has changed since McCarthy's day.

AFAIK this is the result of electing Republicans. They're simply more eager to take away your freedom than most of the other parties are, whether they're your sexual, reproductive, expression, who you'll set up housekeeping with, what clubs you join, and now the fleeting look on your face.

Not a lot has changed since McCarthy's day.

And the real irony (or you can use a stronger expression if you prefer) is that they managed to get themselves known as the political party that supports freedom.
And people are saying that marketing does not work ...


Eri

However, screeners, former screeners and consultants say the officers are looking for people traveling without bags, sweating and constantly checking out every person passing by, especially those with badges and guns. People who avoid eye contact or veer away when police approach also draw their attention.In other words, they keep an eye on suspicious-looking people. This isn't exactly a novel law enforcement technique.

Hey in Midnight Express Billy Hayes looks shifty, wears sunglasses, is sweating like a pig, repeatedly does deep-breathing exercises to relax and keeps breaking eye contact with the Turkish cop.

And he's just carrying a few hundred bucks' worth of hash!

Imagine how nervous your mannerisms would be if you're planning to hijack and crash a plane!

They probably won't get many hardened criminals this way. They'll get a lot of false positives and minor miscreants. From the article

The teams have referred more than 40,000 people for extra screening since January 2006. Of those passengers, nearly 300 were arrested on charges including carrying concealed weapons and drug trafficking.

99% is a lot of false positives. On the other hand, all throughout history anyone guarding anything will always have kept an eye on shifty people. This is just fancy dressing on established policy.

I thought you all might like it.

They probably won't get many hardened criminals this way. They'll get a lot of false positives and minor miscreants. From the article



99% is a lot of false positives. On the other hand, all throughout history anyone guarding anything will always have kept an eye on shifty people. This is just fancy dressing on established policy.


And saying "We caught 300 potential terrorists" sounds a lot more impressive if you do not add "while we needlessly inconvenienced 40000 people"

Occasionally I wonder how long before the collective paranoia exceeds our sense propriety and passengers are required to board a plane naked. I mean, a device already exists that can look through our clothes (and apparently it has a high enough image quality that it must fuzz out breast and crotch area) why bother with all the technology if the same effect can be achieved much more cheaply and easily?


Eri

quote"Occasionally I wonder how long before the collective paranoia exceeds our sense propriety and passengers are required to board a plane naked."

I don't know about that part, that girl with the mini skirt a couple weeks ago.....

Unisex body suits and sedation. Then we are packed in like bodies.

Then just get your punk's costume (with pink hair just to be on the save side), and nobody will bother you.

And during this time, nobody mind the quality of the food served in the airplanes (maybee because it can be the last one, yah right !! ;)).

Eridalafar

And saying "We caught 300 potential terrorists" sounds a lot more impressive if you do not add "while we needlessly inconvenienced 40000 people"You're missing the point.

The whole purpose of these security charades is to assuage passengers' fears that a terrorist might blow up the plane -- not to catch terrorists. The threat of a terrorist attack on a plane is negligible compared to the potential economic fallout if people refuse to travel because they think it's unsafe.

The more open, obvious, and inconvenient the security charade is, the more it serves its real (psychological) purpose.

The threat of a terrorist attack on a plane is negligible compared to the potential economic fallout if people refuse to travel because they think it's unsafe.

The threat is there. It does need the correct level of security. It doesn't matter how safe you make the airport look if planes are crashing out of the sky.

I don't know... I think a lot of the security charade is to prove that Republicans take security seriously and that the nation is in crisis and requires the strong on security Republicans to "stay tough" because we're at war and only Republicans know how to deal with war (and make it...).

I don't know... I think a lot of the security charade is to prove that Republicans take security seriously and that the nation is in crisis and requires the strong on security Republicans to "stay tough" because we're at war and only Republicans know how to deal with war (and make it...).


Cute, of course more democrat presidents have gotten us into more wars than republicans for the past 160 years. The Mexican American War, The Spanish American War, the occupation of Haiti, The Occupation of the Dominican Republic, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. And of course, Clinton was no stranger to the use of Cruise Missile strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The threat is there. It does need the correct level of security. It doesn't matter how safe you make the airport look if planes are crashing out of the sky.Krispy Kreme doughnuts are far more of a threat to Americans than are terrorists blowing up planes. Yes, another terrorist might try to blow up another plane, but given the practical security measures taken (excluding these charades at the airport), it's not a significant threat to the people.

Fear, however, is a real and very dangerous threat, as is economic stagnation resulting from fear. The fear from the 9/11 incident is the real injury, not a few buildings falling down. These airport nuisance laws are there to fight fear, and make people feel comfortable and safe. To be effective, they must be obvious and annoying.

Yes, another terrorist might try to blow up another plane, but given the practical security measures taken (excluding these charades at the airport), it's not a significant threat to the people.

That is your judgement and I don't trust it. There will be future Al Qaida attacks on the US and it's no use being satisfied with preventing the last attack (whatever that was). We need to prevent the next one.

That is your judgement and I don't trust it. There will be future Al Qaida attacks on the US and it's no use being satisfied with preventing the last attack (whatever that was). We need to prevent the next one.Since the last attack that killed 3,000 people, tobacco has killed 2,610,000 people and junk food has killed 2,190,000 people. That's over three times the population of all of Manhattan.

And there has still been no other attack, or even a foiled attack attempt despite all the paranoid measures.

You are deluded if you think terrorists blowing up a plane is a significant physical threat to our population. I'm far more likely to be shot by a stray bullet while walking down the street than to be blown up in a plane by a terrorist.

You are deluded if you think terrorists blowing up a plane is a significant physical threat to our population.

You're calling 9/11 insignificant? A lot of people might disagree with you there.

You're calling 9/11 insignificant? A lot of people might disagree with you there.That's not what I said, but if you really want to go there, yes, it's relatively insignificant when you look at the physical damage. It's only the drama and fear that make it significant to the population.

If 3,000 smokers had died of lung cancer and the world trade center had been condemned on account of an uncorrectable structural flaw, no one would really care, even though it would amount to the same physical damage.

That's not what I said, but if you really want to go there, yes, it's relatively insignificant when you look at the physical damage. It's only the drama and fear that make it significant to the population.

If 3,000 smokers had died of lung cancer and the world trade center had been condemned on account of an uncorrectable structural flaw, no one would really care, even though it would amount to the same physical damage.


Except smokers made the choice to smoke knowing it was unhealthy. At least it's been common knowledge as long as I have been alive. I seriously doubt the 3000 that died on 9/11 decided that morning that they wanted to become murder victims in a terrorist attack.

Except smokers made the choice to smoke knowing it was unhealthy.Whatever. Two and a half million people die in the United States each year, and a large number of them never "asked for it." Any way you look at it, the physical damage from the 9/11 incident is insignificant -- drama, fear, and paranoia aside.

I'm sure most smokers never asked for lung cancer. But, Most smokers in the last 40 years certainly know the risk. So, in large part it's due to a risk that they knowingly took. On the other hand investment brokers generally aren't expecting to be killed while at the office. That's what makes it more tragic. There is a pretty big difference between people dying due to poor choices in life like smoking and people being murdered. Why is it some can't seem to comprehend that?

On the other hand investment brokers generally aren't expecting to be killed while at the office. That's what makes it more tragic.They also don't expect to be killed driving or walking down the street, but it's still the #1 cause of death for ages 1 through 44. And we don't give a **** when they die. They don't get medals, ceremonies, or burials with flags, and their families don't get special handouts.

People die in painful or horrible ways all the time, but no one really gives a ****. Because it's not dramatic or interesting, just same old, same old.

But being blown up by terrorists makes a great headline, so suddenly the death of this small handful of victims is the most tragic event in history. Even though, in reality, the pain of death or loss to the families of these people is no greater than that of countless other people who die every day without a headline.

Drama, fear, and paranoia aside, the 9/11 incident didn't really cause us that much damage.

They also don't expect to be killed driving or walking down the street, but it's still the #1 cause of death for ages 1 through 44. And we don't give a **** when they die. They don't get medals, ceremonies, or burials with flags, and their families don't get special handouts.
Not on a national level, but you are wrong here. I often see makeshift shrines at the side of the road where someone is hit by a car. Whenever something happens like this it's very common to see a public outcry for more policing of the area, tougher drunk driving laws, etc to make sure it doesn't happen again. Just because it doesn't merit national attention doesn't mean tragic deaths aren't felt.


People die in painful or horrible ways all the time, but no one really gives a ****. Because it's not dramatic or interesting, just same old, same old.

But being blown up by terrorists makes a great headline, so suddenly the death of this small handful of victims is the most tragic event in history. Even though, in reality, the pain of death or loss to the families of these people is no greater than that of countless other people who die every day without a headline.


3000 people died due to a single action. An action that was an attack on the public by people that tell us directly they will do it again, and again. While someone getting hit by a car is tragic, and sad, it doesn't hold the same implications. Not in the slightest. While a kid getting run over by a car in an accident is every bit as tragic as any individual that died on 9/11, the fact is the kids death wasn't an intentional attack on the nation in general.



Drama, fear, and paranoia aside,
When we are talking about a terrorist attack excecuted to instill drama, fear and paranoia on the public? Now, what's wrong with that picture?

the 9/11 incident didn't really cause us that much damage.
Other than money, lives, a sizable hit on the economy, widening the already large political gaps, and the general anxiety that still haunts many. Sure, if you are just counting lives and the cost of the towers, you're right. It's nothing compared to the cost of a lot of things, but if we start looking just that, we've lost sight of something that has nothing to do with 9/11.

Cute, of course more democrat presidents have gotten us into more wars than republicans for the past 160 years. The Mexican American War, The Spanish American War, the occupation of Haiti, The Occupation of the Dominican Republic, WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. And of course, Clinton was no stranger to the use of Cruise Missile strikes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Tea...face the facts, the GOP has shown itself to be morally, ethically, and intellectual corrupt; devoid of even the most basic levels of any of those criteria.

You support a cadre of misbegotten madmen who had, at some point, convinced a sizable portion of America that they weren't snake-oil shucksters who's sole purpose in life was to make their corporate masters more money.

Sure, as long as you completely ignore everything that happens on both sides of the isle. The Wifi Scandal, Bribe taking, etc. I'm not now, or never claiming that there isn't corruption in the republican party. I'm just saying that the corruption is systemic to the entire political system and I get quite annoyed when liberals seem to think their side embodies some sort of utopian ideal. Snide comments about republicans knowing how to get into wars is an example. It's also clearly incorrect and one only needs to look at history to see that.

3000 people died due to a single action. An action that was an attack on the public by people that tell us directly they will do it again, and again. While someone getting hit by a car is tragic, and sad, it doesn't hold the same implications. Not in the slightest.So 3000 people getting killed at around the same time in different ways is less tragic than 3000 people getting killed at the same time? Interesting.While a kid getting run over by a car in an accident is every bit as tragic as any individual that died on 9/11, the fact is the kids death wasn't an intentional attack on the nation in general.Whether you're murdered for the $5 in your wallet, or you're murdered as a statement against the United States, the physical injury is the same: you're dead.Other than money, lives, a sizable hit on the economy, widening the already large political gaps, and the general anxiety that still haunts many.Only the first one -- money -- is a direct injury, namely the cost of rebuilding. The others are just products of drama, fear, and paranoia. Rebuilding alone would probably help the economy.Sure, if you are just counting lives and the cost of the towers, you're right. It's nothing compared to the cost of a lot of things,That's what I'm saying. If you look at this objectively, it's insignificant. It only becomes significant if you attach extra psychological value to it.

The untold billions we spend allegedly to stop terrorism could be far more effectively spent elsewhere, with better results for our nation. And it wouldn't hurt to have a break now and again from the raping of our civil liberties.

You can never prove a negative. The "untold billions" spent "allegedly to stop terrorism" could very well have successfully prevented many other terrorist attacks, including perhaps some involving nuclear or biological agents which could have caused incalculable damage to the United States. How do you know it hasn't? It's complete sophistry to argue that since the equivalent of 9-11 hasn't occurred again in the US since 9-11-2001 it follows that we've wasted whatever money has been spent expressedly to prevent a recurrence of this act of terrorism.

But your reasoning here is quite consistent with a mindset which would equate the death of 3000 civilians in a terrorist act of war against our country with 3000 random people dying of lung cancer or being hit by cars while crossing the street. /boggle

World War I was triggered, whether morally justified or not, by the terroristic murder of just two people. The U.S. entry into WWII against Japan was precipitated by the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor which killed about 2000 people, almost all military. (A heinous act, to be sure, but if one can wrap one's mind around comparing atrocities killing 3000+civilians is probably more "atrocious" than 2000+ soldiers.) This led to America spending far more than 5 billion dollars (effectively adjusted for inflation, TRILLIONS of current dollars) and four long years fighting an enemy which probably harbored less inherently malicious intent against the US than Al Qaeda and its ilk do.

I'm taking a wild guess that you'd have been an isolationist during WW2...

The "untold billions" spent "allegedly to stop terrorism" could very well have successfully prevented many other terrorist attacks, including perhaps some involving nuclear or biological agents which could have caused incalculable damage to the United States.Do you have any evidence that it has? Like, terrorists caught trying to do it?

If you're justifying these outrageous measures, it's your burden to prove they're worthwhile because, as you said, you can't prove a negative.It's complete sophistry to argue that since the equivalent of 9-11 hasn't occurred again in the US since 9-11-2001 it follows that we've wasted whatever money has been spent expressedly to prevent a recurrence of this act of terrorism.Actually, it's the default position that it does nothing, unless you prove that it does something. Pretty basic statistical and logical reasoning.But your reasoning here is quite consistent with a mindset which would equate the death of 3000 civilians in a terrorist act of war against our country with 3000 random people dying of lung cancer or being hit by cars while crossing the street. /boggleIt's the same 3,000 people. Unless you're arguing that the 3,000 killed in the 9/11 incident were more valuable than the average 3,000, and therefore we should mourn them more.World War I was triggered, whether morally justified or not, by the terroristic murder of just two people. The U.S. entry into WWII against Japan was precipitated by the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor which killed about 2000 people, almost all military.Except that it wasn't just one incident, but rather an actual declaration of war, with real soldiers and bombs headed our way if we didn't strike back.

Sure, as long as you completely ignore everything that happens on both sides of the isle. The Wifi Scandal, Bribe taking, etc. I'm not now, or never claiming that there isn't corruption in the republican party. I'm just saying that the corruption is systemic to the entire political system and I get quite annoyed when liberals seem to think their side embodies some sort of utopian ideal. Snide comments about republicans knowing how to get into wars is an example. It's also clearly incorrect and one only needs to look at history to see that.

Of course, before the civil rights movement, the ideological precursors to todays GOP were in the DNC...and vice versa.

The best of the historic GOP would be Dems today.

The biggest difference, however, in corruption is that the biggest Democrat scandal in the past 20 years seems to have been the President getting a blowjob...whereas the GOP has gotten us in an unecessary war for the express purpose of making certain people filthy rich..oh and literally stole the 2000 election (and arguably the 2004 election considering how many Ohio precincts had more votes for Bush than there were registered voters, it seems)...oh and have allowed their petroleum masters to collude in price gouging at an unfathomable level...oh and have broken a myriad of federal laws and the ignored the constitution with regard illegal surveillance of US citizens...oh and completely ignored constitutional protections such as the right to counsel, the right to confront your accusor, or the right to a jury trial for US citizens...and the list goes on and on and on.

Yeah..the Dems have congressman Jefferson and we have Marion Barry. You folks, on the other hand, have striven to single-handedly destroy all that the nation is supposed to stand for and trampled upon the most basic of American rights.

The two parties, at this time, are not comparable.

Hmmm... I think the idealogical predecessor to the GOP is the Federalists. And they've come back with a vengeance in the last 7 years. In particular the notion that, "The people who own the country should govern it".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party_(United_States)

Hmmm... I think the idealogical predecessor to the GOP is the Federalists. And they've come back with a vengeance in the last 7 years. In particular the notion that, "The people who own the country should govern it".


Heh

And I thought that was exactly what the neocons were working towards ... The more of the country you own the more you get to decide who governs it for you.

Maybe we should do away with this notion of democracy and change the system into an economocracy: one dollar, one vote.


Eri

Won't that set us up for a nice bit of revolution.

one dollar, one vote.We're almost there. You'd be a fool to think that money doesn't determine who gets into office and who doesn't.

Here's the FBI director's multi-page list of terrorist-related activities stopped by the FBI in 2006:

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress07/mueller011107.htm#domestic

Of course, if your kneejerk response is to malign the source consider that as an ordinary American citizen it would be rather hard for me personally to confirm specific terrorist activities successfully prevented by the government making use of whatever billions of dollars have been budgeted for this purpose.

It's a logical truism, and ultimately of zero informational value, to state that 3000 people killed due to "Cause A" is logically the same concept as 3000 people who died due to "Cause B." What makes the two sets of deaths different in an interesting and informative way lies in the nature of the differences between "Cause A" and "Cause B" AND HOW WE RESPOND TO THOSE DIFFERENCES.

3000 Americans dying of cancer is tragic but it's part of the fabric of modern life and it's a tragedy which society is already responding to by research into finding methods of preventing or curing cancer. It's statistically predictable and not an event which in the short term cries for a specific response by society.

3000 people dying because a foreign power sends its soldiers secretly into our country, hijacks several planes and then crashes them into two great buildings in the nation's biggest city is an act of war comparable to the most aggressive in recorded history.

It isn't a question of how much we should mourn for each set of 3000 people who died. IT'S HOW WE SHOULD RESPOND TO THE CAUSES BEHIND THEIR DEATHS.

Truly, if you don't understand the difference it's a waste of time to discuss it further with you.

On Democrat vs Republicans on the subject of corruption anyone who thinks one party is inherently more moral than the other is simply betraying their own naivete or their own political prejudices. They're all politicians, which is an inherently corrupt occupation; the two parties jointly control the country and work very hard to deny access to real power by any third party.

Here's the FBI director's multi-page list of terrorist-related activities stopped by the FBI in 2006:

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress07/mueller011107.htm#domesticI only see mention of a couple "terrorists" stopped, and they had nothing to do with blowing up planes, like a prison gang that staged armed robberies in Los Angeles. These aren't "terrorists," they're common thugs.

These ridiculous security measures were marketed to us as necessary to prevent more terrorists from flying planes into buildings and blowing them up. Prove to me that they've actually prevented such a thing from reoccurring.Of course, if your kneejerk response is to malign the source consider that as an ordinary American citizen it would be rather hard for me personally to confirm specific terrorist activities successfully prevented by the government making use of whatever billions of dollars have been budgeted for this purpose.I needn't bother maligning the source, because even the source admits they haven't really caught a terrorist who was going to blow up a plane.

All these billions of dollars (e.g., $46 billion per year for Homeland Security) have gotten us nothing. It's one of the biggest wastes of my taxpayer dollars next to the Iraq reconstruction.3000 Americans dying of cancer is tragic but it's part of the fabric of modern life and it's a tragedy which society is already responding to by research into finding methods of preventing or curing cancer. It's statistically predictable and not an event which in the short term cries for a specific response by society.So you're saying, greedy corporations who deliberately manipulate and poison millions of people to line corporate pockets isn't important, because they've been getting away with it for a long time, and we're used to it?

Are you kidding me?

You're proving my point, really. Although tobacco, Krispy Kreme doughnuts, and alcohol abuse are true threats to our nation, and terrorism isn't, they're just not dramatic enough to merit media attention, and, by extension, the attention of the media's zombie audience.3000 people dying because a foreign power sends its soldiers secretly into our country, hijacks several planes and then crashes them into two great buildings in the nation's biggest city is an act of war comparable to the most aggressive in recorded history.If you think blowing up two buildings and killing 3,000 people is the most aggressive act in recorded history, you really need to read more history. Start with World War II, which makes the 9/11 incident look like a hangnail by comparison.It isn't a question of how much we should mourn for each set of 3000 people who died. IT'S HOW WE SHOULD RESPOND TO THE CAUSES BEHIND THEIR DEATHS.We should respond in a manner that logically addresses the cause without putting us in an even worse position than when we started.