http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/ap_on_re_eu/us_airliner_attackTHE HAGUE, Netherlands – The Netherlands announced Wednesday it will immediately begin using full body scanners for flights heading to the United States, saying that could have stopped the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing.

The U.S. had not wanted these scanners to be used previously because of privacy concerns but now the Obama administration has agreed that "all possible measures will be used on flights to the U.S.," Dutch Interior Minister Guusje Ter Horst told a news conference.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 to Detroit from Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport on Friday carrying undetected explosives, law enforcement authorities said, adding that 23-year-old Nigerian tried but failed to blow up the plane carrying 289 people.

Body scanners that peer underneath clothing have been available for years, but privacy advocates say they are a "virtual strip search" because they display an image of the body onto a computer screen.

Still, a Dutch digital rights group, Bits of Freedom, called the decision a fear-driven overreaction.

"The chance of someone being a victim of a terrorist attack in the air is a lot smaller than the chance of being struck by lightning," the group wrote in an open letter to the Dutch Justice Ministry.And:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/29/rep-king-calls-military-tribunal-abdulmutallab/Rep. King Calls for Military Tribunal for Abdulmutallab

WASHINGTON -- The leading Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee says the Nigerian man accused of attacking an airliner as it approached Detroit should be tried by a military tribunal rather than a civilian court.

Rep. Peter King of New York said Tuesday it will be more difficult for authorities to get useful information from the suspect if he is given the legal rights afforded to defendants in civilian courts, including the right to a lawyer.

The suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, has been charged in federal court with trying to detonate the device as the plane approached Detroit last Friday. The device burst into flames instead, according to authorities, and he was subdued by passengers.

King appeared on NBC's "Today" show.In case anyone is wondering why we're losing the war on terrorism, it's because we have proven to these people that terrorism is the most effective method of regime change.

All it takes is one nutjob jihadist wannabe with a failed explosive, and world governments can't move fast enough to appease the terrorists and crush civil liberties. Why bother to try to defeat us, when you just have to provoke us and we'll do the job for you?

Not only are we going to expand virtual strip searches, but we have top government officials arguing to suspend the constitutional rights to a fair trial for this guy because we all know anyone the government calls a terrorist is automatically bad, and shouldn't be given rights anyway.

And I'm sure this guy is the new hero of the "Republican" party, because it breathes new life to their fear-mongering tactics as we enter a new election season.

/sigh

quote"In case anyone is wondering why we're losing the war on terrorism, it's because we have proven to these people that terrorism is the most effective method of regime change."

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. The early revolutionists in the british colonies in the area now known as the east coast of the United States could in fact be considered just that for their use of tactics with sedition and outright treason. Of course they got a good boost from the Dutch around that time period for another war against Britain.

Remember the mujahdeen at one time were our allies in our proxy war versus Russia. While, Saddam Hussein was not really a traditional terrorists, he was our ally as well following the incidents in Iran when Saddam was seceding from Iran.

quote"All it takes is one nutjob jihadist wannabe with a failed explosive, and world governments can't move fast enough to appease the terrorists and crush civil liberties. Why bother to try to defeat us, when you just have to provoke us and we'll do the job for you?"

Bin Laden himself has been critical of the last fact. His words about Pres. Bush Junior was he was to easy to provoke, and Bin Laden's goal was to bankrupt the United States. Look where that one got us. Aristotle once wrote about the Spartan miltiaristic state. To the extent of Aristotle's works suggested that the Spartan's spent to much time subjecting their helot slaves as well as preparing their forces as the greatest fighting forces of their time, that eventually they became ineffective on all counts.

To compare our culture to other cultures, as the US does resemble the Spartan's of old quite respectively. As well as others such as Ancient Rome, Great Britain. What we have here is another situtation where the US is functioning just as the others did. So, what can we learn from this? One could learn that rather than to crack down and hurt other cultures, thus fueling their rage forcing them to retaliate, and vice versa we retaliate. What else have we learned from such actions? One motivated person can always find a way to circumvent the systems in place.

So, the reason why they are attacking in the first place resides with what exactly? It is not our freedom, they could care less about that. Is it trade? Again, they would happily like to trade goods and services with American cultures. So, exactly why would they want to bomb us? Foreign policy issues is why. As US tends to pull the old British mandate on people, and noses up everywhere. Ok, so sticking our noses in others affairs seems to be an issue why is that?

Shortly after world war 2, when setting up Israel as a 50/50 state, did not quite work to well. By 1967, Israel was nowhere near that ratio. Many international mandates for the Palestinians have been ignored by Israel, in regards to Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem and so on. Apparently been vocally critical of the situtation is typically seen as anti semitic, which isn't always the case. And because we support Israel, and indirectly their occupation of the above areas, while failing to get Israel to abide by the original conditions of the agreement in setting up Israel, and all the messy things along the way.

That is why they want to bomb the United States, because of foreign policy issues that could be changed.

And because we support Israel, and indirectly their occupation of the above areas, while failing to get Israel to abide by the original conditions of the agreement in setting up Israel, and all the messy things along the way.That has nothing to do with it. Palestinians are just pawns for the other Muslim countries; no one really cares about them, they just use them as an excuse.

I guess it would be best if clothes and hand luggage of all kinds are prohibited on international flights from now on.

It would be more effective, cheaper and far more honest towards the passengers.


Eri

Fly Naked! :)

Not safe for work. But, here is a link with a disclaimer. A naked air flight.

In fact don't bother to click it...... that should solve that problem. I will understand if I have to take the link down, which I will in a day or so.

edit took down link.

Fly Naked! :)That still leaves some hiding places (especially for Americans).

Plus, what are you going to do about teenagers? By our sex offender policy, we'd have to execute every adult male who looks at them.

We need to invent bomb-proof stasis chambers, where everyone is neurologically restrained and any explosions can be self-contained.

Then, finally, we will prevent failed explosions.

They let this guy on without a passport, he was on the terrorist watch list already, and turned away by a British airport. And his own father let authorities know that he thought his son was on a suicide mission.

Someone filmed him in flight during the event and a second man was detained despite the FBI lying and saying there was no one else for 4 days as bomb sniffing dogs flagged that mans luggage. Jesus Christ people are stupid to fall for this **** over and over. Guess who wants to attack Yemin now.

quote"Plus, what are you going to do about teenagers? By our sex offender policy, we'd have to execute every adult male who looks at them"

Nah, it is not illegal to look at naked teenagers provided the format is not in photograph form, or some sort of film. In alot of places, definately not the south, provided you are conducting yourself in casual manner, you can be naked in public, provided you are doing nothing truly obsene. Like twirling around your penis, or letting guys motor boat your breasts in public.

quote"And his own father let authorities know that he thought his son was on a suicide mission."

No offense but, who doesn't delete the emails from the Nigerian bankers.

quote"Guess who wants to attack Yemin now."

Cheney wanted to ignore Pakistan's sovereignty completely and invade Pakistan. Cheney wanted to attack Iran. People still want to invade cuba, North Korea, China, there is always an excuse to invade another country.

quote"We need to invent bomb-proof stasis chambers, where everyone is neurologically restrained and any explosions can be self-contained"

Leeloo Dallas Multipass! MULTIPASS! They have a few similar in nature on Japanese flights I think. With the small bedding area. Except in The Fifth Element, they put you to sleep. Well, except Ruby Rod, and Priest Vito.

Nah, it is not illegal to look at naked teenagers provided the format is not in photograph form, or some sort of film.It is if someone can claim you were thinking about sex.In alot of places, definately not the south, provided you are conducting yourself in casual manner, you can be naked in public, provided you are doing nothing truly obsene.In Berkeley, you MIGHT get away with that, but even in San Francisco you'd probably be harassed by police unless you were on a nude beach, or an attractive female, or part of a spectacle (like the Bay to Breakers race, although they have cracked down on nudity there too).

I can't even imagine someone trying to pull that off in the "real America".

It is if someone can claim you were thinking about sex.

We are talking about conservative America here. They will believe you are thinking about sex if you look at the grass grow ...


Eri

quote"It is if someone can claim you were thinking about sex."

I did not know thought crime was chargeable. Reminds me of this book series the Test of the Twins, a fantasy genre, where the church theocracy was eliminating all things evil and went around using mind reading, so they thought evil thoughts brought evil deeds. So, they were walking around one day while a young mother who was slightly irratated dressing her baby thought while she was dressing her baby grimly considered killing her own child. So, when they hauled her off to be executed after taking her baby away from her, she was screaming because she did not want to be executed and she did not want to be seperated from her child. But, she didn't actually do anything wrong, just a natural emotional state.

Do you really want to know how many times I considered the possibility with an attractive 16 year old, that I never acted upon? Let's be honest here last I heard typically a male thinks about intercourse in a variety of ways once every 5 seconds. Never heard about women though, in my exprience they are as bad as the guys, or I just hang with alot of slutty women.

Just the thought of terrorism though, as in this case, yes, they probably should have searched him, and his plan would have worked if he hadn't goofed up.

I did not know thought crime was chargeable.Are you kidding? America is a world leader in sex thoughtcrime.

For example, in California, if you tap a 13-year-old child on the shoulder and you're thinking about sex, you can be imprisoned for eight years, as long as someone can call it lewd.

If you send a 17-year-old a link with any sexual content, and you are thinking about sex, you can also go to prison, even if you did not really know your "victim" was under 18.

And it goes without saying that when you get out, you'll be GPS tagged for life, you won't be able to live just about anywhere other than remote rural areas, and you'll be publicly portrayed as a serial baby rapist.

And California is hardly a bastion of conservative thought.

I've previously posted about the guy who was being charged with child põrn, just because he Photoshopped a nude picture for his own amusement. That's pure thoughtcrime. And then there was the student who, in the anti-violence paranoia after one of the school bombings, was arrested for writing a violent essay.

We LOVE thoughtcrime, and terrorizing thoughtcriminals. It's the American way.

They let this guy on without a passport, he was on the terrorist watch list already, and turned away by a British airport. And his own father let authorities know that he thought his son was on a suicide mission.

Someone filmed him in flight during the event and a second man was detained despite the FBI lying and saying there was no one else for 4 days as bomb sniffing dogs flagged that mans luggage. Jesus Christ people are stupid to fall for this **** over and over. Guess who wants to attack Yemin now.

Dick Cheney?


Eri
(p.s. but do not attribute to malice what can be easily explained by incompetence)

That still leaves some hiding places (especially for Americans).


As somebody pointed out yesterday: About 2 billion people fly each year. And about 2 billion people have no other intention than getting to their destination.

The amount of surveillance and invasive search procedures that are accepted casually for passengers would cause a huge outcry if they were applied to e.g. the audience of the superbowl or a pop concert. Even though those are attractive targets for terrorists too.

There is little doubt that terrorist organisations are already looking for ways to smuggle explosives past these new body scanners (the term butt bomb was already coined ...) and there is equally little doubt that sooner or later they will succeed. Already the terrorists started recruiting in circles that are just outside the scope of the usual suspects for counter terrorism units around the world, as this failed attempt showed.

It is impossible to make flights absolutely safe, and attempting to do so will only result in a police state. Already we are way over the line that only a few decades ago was the stuff of 1984 nightmares, and there is no end in sight to how much of our democratic freedom we are willing to sign away in the name of the illusion of safety.

Just maybe it would be better to, instead of spending millions on invasive search machines that will become yet another obsolete and time consuming procedure in a year, try to find out why people become terrorists. And not to futilely chase the unreachable goal of absolute safety.


Eri

It is impossible to make flights absolutely safe, and attempting to do so will only result in a police state.
Yep. Besides, we passed the point of diminishing returns on our airline security efforts/spending long before the 9/11 attacks. Hardening the cockpit doors and giving training to the flight staff to cover suicide attacks would have been a much more reasonable and proportional response. If people are really so keen on saving lives perhaps they should consider supporting the efforts to improve our health-care system. They'll get a far better return on their money spent/lives saved.

If people are really so keen on saving lives perhaps they should consider supporting the efforts to improve our health-care system.They're not interested in saving lives. They're interested in controlling lives.

Fear is a powerful tool for control. Compassion is not.

If you look at all the anti-terrorism nonsense on a pure cost/benefit level, it is one of the worst investments in all of human history.

In response to the destruction of a pair of buildings worth $3 billion and 2,750 people (even under the extraordinarily generous "willingness to pay" model, worth less than $20 billion, and in reality, worth far, far less), we've spent trillions, and continue to spend even more.

We've also sacrificed thousands of trained military personnel, far more than have died as a result of the incident that started the whole thing. Soldiers that were trained and deployed at an enormous expense to the taxpayers (each soldier costs an average of $1 million per year).

And that's not counting the enormous, unquantifiable loss to our civil liberties.

By comparison to this "investment," Bernie Madoff's schemes look like an investment goldmine.

Already the terrorists started recruiting in circles that are just outside the scope of the usual suspects for counter terrorism units around the world, as this failed attempt showed.Somehow I doubt they'll ever convince any significant number of non-Muslims to blow themselves up in the name of "god".Already we are way over the line that only a few decades ago was the stuff of 1984 nightmares, and there is no end in sight to how much of our democratic freedom we are willing to sign away in the name of the illusion of safety.They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1775

You're not the first to try to (futilely) explain this basic point to the herd.Just maybe it would be better to, instead of spending millions on invasive search machines that will become yet another obsolete and time consuming procedure in a year, try to find out why people become terrorists.That's simple.

They become terrorists because terrorism is the most effective means of waging war when you don't have the might to do it directly.

We have proven that to the terrorists over the past ten years. Terrorism pays handsome rewards, so come terrorize us. (Please. You're doing us a political favor.)

If we stopped rewarding them for acts of terrorism, they would stop becoming terrorists. And the "Republican" party would probably have to disband.

Somehow I doubt they'll ever convince any significant number of non-Muslims to blow themselves up in the name of "god".

Who said the next wave of suicide bombers has to be Muslim? Every year there are several people (usually men) who want to affirm their existence by killing as many as they can before either committing suicide or planning to be shot themselves. If you can find one of those ahead of time you can groom him to carry a bomb for you.
Who said they even have to be aware of the fact they are suicide bombers? Just tell them they will be smuggling drugs and instead feed them something that will react explosively after 10 or so hours.
And why bother going through passengers when all it takes is somebody who can add a bomb to the luggage after it has gone through a security check. Or one who does the security checks?
Or put somebody with a missile launcher at the start of the landing strip.

Already they found one impressionable young man who, because of his father's reputation, was not considered enough of a threat to deny him access to planes.



They become terrorists because terrorism is the most effective means of waging war when you don't have the might to do it directly.

Actually that is guerilla warfare. Terrorism is not at all an effective means to fight a war. Terrorism is not about trying to defeat your enemy military, and history has shown time and again that it will not break your enemy's spirit either. The german bombing of London only strengthened the British desire to resist, and the allied carpet bombing of German or Japanese cities did not bring about the end of that war any closer. Throughout history humans have done pretty horrific things to each other to stop them from doing something, and it has never worked.
While I have some doubts about the brainpower of the grunts doing the actual bombing and dying, I am inclined to think that the people really running the show are fully aware of this fact. So we are back to the question: Why do people turn to terrorism? Not as grunt but as organiser?
Why did the European and Japanese terrorist organisations of the early 70s fade away again while those in the middle east are still gaining ground? Religion is not the cause, it is the justification (because those European terrorists were every bit as zealously devoted to their Marxist ideology as Al Queda is to their Islamic one).

Plus, we (that is: the CIA) really have to stop using one bunch of fanatics to fight another bunch of fanatics in a remote country. It did not work with Iraq, not in Afghanistan and not in Pakistan. And it also will backfire in Yemen.


Eri

If we stopped rewarding them for acts of terrorism, they would stop becoming terrorists. And the "Republican" party would probably have to disband.
Yeah, like they disbanded after the Cold War. :p Naw, they just took credit for it.

Terrorism is not at all an effective means to fight a war.It's extremely effective. Look at how much power the terrorist organizations, and radical Islam in general, have gained in the past years as a direct result of our efforts.

War isn't strictly about territorial conquest, and we've proven to the Islamic world that terrorism gives you enormous return on a relatively tiny investment.

That's why they do it, and will keep doing it, until we stop rewarding them.Every year there are several people (usually men) who want to affirm their existence by killing as many as they can before either committing suicide or planning to be shot themselves. If you can find one of those ahead of time you can groom him to carry a bomb for you.Those people aren't motivated to do it for a radical Islamic organization, though.
Who said they even have to be aware of the fact they are suicide bombers? Just tell them they will be smuggling drugs and instead feed them something that will react explosively after 10 or so hours.Do you really think some drug courier is going to take a suitcase from a Muslim on a plane with no questions asked?

Not to mention, the explosive devices that operate automatically would be caught by existing detection methods.

It's extremely effective. Look at how much power the terrorist organizations, and radical Islam in general, have gained in the past years as a direct result of our efforts.

Actually, they have lost power not gained. The problem seems to be that you define 'power' here as the ability to attempt a terrorist attack. I am defining power as the ability to influence or force people towards your goals. I strongly doubt that Al Queda has the goal of making the western government spend more money on airport security. The USA is still in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is still supporting Israel. The royal family of Saudi Arabia is still in power and the extreme 9th century interpretation of Islam is no more popular now than it was 10 years ago (quite the contrary I might add). Those are things these terrorists want to change but they have no more power to do so today than they had in 2001.


War isn't strictly about territorial conquest, and we've proven to the Islamic world that terrorism gives you enormous return on a relatively tiny investment.


I never said that it was. War essentially is applying enough force to stop your enemy from being able to resist you, either by taking away their armies or their supply or support structure. But you are still subscribing to the idea coined by Cheney e.a. that you can fight a 'war' against terrorists. You can not because terrorists are not interestes in any of the above. They are trying to cause enough fear in the population that it will stop opposing them. History has shown time and again that that will not work. People will become more determined instead of less. Terrorists strike targets of opportunity, and they are not very successful at causing fear either (e.g. would you consider stopping to fly because of the less than once a year attempt?). The idea of waging war at this is the same as fighting a war against e.g. burglars


That's why they do it, and will keep doing it, until we stop rewarding them.


ost likely the original attacks in 2001 were because support for Al Queda in the middle east was rapidly dropping and Osame Bin Laden felt he had to make a grand gesture to proof to his wavering followers that his organisation was still powerful and still capable of making a bold strike.
Attacks since have been lacking a certain coordination. It is more like the separate chapters are running on autopilot, doing what they have been doing before.


Those people aren't motivated to do it for a radical Islamic organization, though. Do you really think some drug courier is going to take a suitcase from a Muslim on a plane with no questions asked?

Please read again what I wrote.
I never said anything about them doing something like that for terrorists. The first was a category of youths that wanted to do something violent and fear inducing. The terrorists do not have to tell them who they are, they just have to provide these boys with the materials to go out with a bang, and claim the responsibility afterwards.
The second is a group of people that already is determined to smuggle something aboard a plane. The terrorists would -tell- them it is drugs, but in reality would feed them high explosives.


Not to mention, the explosive devices that operate automatically would be caught by existing detection methods.

I have no idea if it is chemically possible but maybe there are two components that only become unstable when mixed. Add stomach acid to it to eat away the separation?
The point is not if this is actually possible, but simply that as we screen more and more against specific threats the terrorists will simply find different ways to attack and other groups of people who do not immediately raise suspicion from airport security. As they did in this case. The reason why this man got through all those checks was because despite the warnings he was outside the scope of 'usual' radicals. The people who have to judge the likely risk of terrorism suspects looked at his education, the fact that his father was rich and powerful, and thought that he would not want to blow himself up.
All this proofs is that absolute safety is impossible, but that people rather belief in it than accept that they are not invulnerable, and that they are willing to agree with any measure as long as it restores that feeling of invulnerability.


Eri

They are trying to cause enough fear in the population that it will stop opposing them.
Is that really their goal? I have little doubt that it is the goal of those that indirectly support the terrorists but I think the terrorists themselves have their own goals. They're motivated by a desire to inflict as much damage as possible on those they oppose irrespective of the cost to themselves. Their interpretation of jihad involves fighting the enemies of their god as long as they exist, not just until they stop opposing them (unless "stop opposing them" is defined as die or convert to their brand of fundamentalism).

The reason that these guys are anything more than an isolated cult is that the US made them that way. With all of our arrogant tough talk and the disastrously disproportionate response to 9/11, we elevated their status in the eyes of everyone who hates us. The more we talk about them and change our way of life to respond to their antics, the more we elevate them and validate them. If a team of experts were to try to craft the worst possible response to the 9/11 attacks, they'd have their work cut out for them if they wanted to beat what Bush came up with.

Does terrorism work? That depends entirely on how you measure success. If you look at the influence the US has in the world now compared to before 9/11, I think we've taken a big hit. The influence of Al Qaeda (et al), on the other hand, has greatly increased and they are now the go-to organization for fundamentalists who want to strike a blow against the US. If the goal of the terrorists is to destroy their enemy rather than get it to stop opposing them, they are better situated now than they were 8 years ago.

Full body scanners may break child p0rnography laws (http://tinyurl.com/ycpmv5q)

The full body scanners being introduced to Britain's airports risk breaking child protection laws against making indecent images of children, campaign groups have claimed.

By Heidi Blake
Published: 8:00AM GMT 05 Jan 2010

The pictures created by the scanners are so graphic they are tantamount to "virtual strip searching", according to privacy campaigners who oppose the use of the security devices.

inisters may be forced to consider making under-18s exempt from the scans and civil liberties campaigners are demanding measures to ensure the images, which will include those of celebrities, are not leaked onto the internet.

Airport officials say the images from the £80,000 scanners are only seen by a single security officer in a remote location before it is deleted.

But a 12-month trial at Manchester airport of scanners which reveal naked images of passengers only went ahead last month after children were exempted.

[More... (http://tinyurl.com/ycpmv5q)]

Ministers may be forced to consider making under-18s exempt from the scans and civil liberties campaigners are demanding measures to ensure the images, which will include those of celebrities, are not leaked onto the internet.Oh, the ironies when ultraconservative paranoias collide.

Actually, they have lost power not gained.Really? How many people had heard of al Qaeda on September 10, 2001?

Power isn't necessarily about the conquest of territory or the ability to blow things up, as you say. It's also about influence. (Why do you think men instinctively want power in the first place?)

And we have shown them that for the price of a cheap bomb and one brainwashed sexually frustrated teen boy, they can gain enormous influence.But you are still subscribing to the idea coined by Cheney e.a. that you can fight a 'war' against terrorists.Huh? I'm the one saying we shouldn't have done anything.

And you can fight a war on terrorists, it's just not one we have the balls to initiate. We haven't had a real war in 65 years and no one really wants to risk one.I never said anything about them doing something like that for terrorists. The first was a category of youths that wanted to do something violent and fear inducing. The terrorists do not have to tell them who they are, they just have to provide these boys with the materials to go out with a bang, and claim the responsibility afterwards.You really think some white socially inept kid is going to take a secret box from some dark-skinned Muslim with an accent and go on a plane without asking questions?The second is a group of people that already is determined to smuggle something aboard a plane. The terrorists would -tell- them it is drugs, but in reality would feed them high explosives.Again, do you really think any drug courier is going to be this stupid?

If you were a terrorist recruiter and an American agreed to either of your scenarios, would YOU even trust him, or think it's a setup?

Oh, the ironies when ultraconservative paranoias collide.
:lol: :beerchug:

Now, I had a friend who years ago worked on one of these scanners and I heard they added "noise" so that you could make out things like nipples and genital details. Have they removed the "noise"?

When you use the bathroom on a plane now, you had better leave the door unlocked, or maybe even open. Or else they might scramble military jets, divert the plane, and charge you with a federal felony.

(Especially if your name is Muhammad.)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/08/MNT41BFNFF.DTL&tsp=1Unruly man in jet loo brings military response

(01-08) 21:01 PST COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO. -- A San Francisco-bound AirTran Airways plane was diverted with a military F-16 escort to Colorado on Friday after a belligerent passenger locked himself in the plane's bathroom, officials said.

En route, the male passenger refused to follow crew instructions to return to his seat and locked himself in the rear lavatory, according to AirTran officials. They said he apparently was drunk. The FBI identified the passenger as Muhammad Abu Tahir, 46, of Virginia, according to the Associated Press.

The AirTran pilot diverted the plane to Colorado Springs. Two F-16s were launched by the North American Aerospace Defense Command Region to intercept and escort the plane.

Local law enforcement and FBI officials met the AirTran plane at Colorado Springs Municipal Airport just before noon MST and detained Tahir. Security officers then used dogs to search the plane.

Tahir was being held at the El Paso County jail, the FBI said. Federal charges for interference with a flight crew were expected to be filed Monday, the Associated Press reported.Maybe they should remove the bathroom doors. All adult males can be blindfolded if anyone under age 18 goes, to prevent any possible thoughtcrime.

When you use the bathroom on a plane now, you had better leave the door unlocked, or maybe even open. Or else they might scramble military jets, divert the plane, and charge you with a federal felony.

(Especially if your name is Muhammad.)
I'll see your Muhammad and raise you a dumbass. The zero tolerance that brought us expulsions for aspirin in public schools is now being applied to flight security.

Ore. man accused in disruption of flight to Hawaii (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/81046722.html)

Story Updated: Jan 8, 2010 at 9:27 PM PST

Portland, Ore. -- A 56-year-old Salem man, whose behavior on Hawaiian Airlines Flight 39 caused it to return to Portland International Airport, will be charged with a felony, said acting U.S. Attorney Kent Robinson on Friday.

Joseph H. Johnson will be charged with ""interference with a flight crew" which holds a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, Robinson said.

Hawaiian Flight 39 returned to Portland International Airport at about 1:15 p.m. Wednesday after the pilot and the flight crew became concerned about the man's behavior.

The plane had been in the air for about an hour and a half when the pilot made the decision to return to Portland. The plane was escorted back to Portland International Airport by two F-15s.

Investigators with the FBI and the Port of Portland questioned Johnson and his companion - who was later identified as his girlfriend - and released them at that time and referred the matter to the United States Attorney's office for further review.

The U.S. Attorney's office alleged Friday that Johnson became upset that a flight attendant would not allow him to place his bag underneath his seat. Prosecutors also said Johnson handed a comment card to a flight attendant who then gave it to the captain. The FBI said he calmed down for the duration of the flight and even joked with flight attendants. But then he filled out the comment card.

[More...] (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/81046722.html)

I read a book review in my newspaper today. The book was about the middle east region and the not very hopeful outlook it has, both because of the internal social pressures and the way how the rest of the world keeps responding in all the wrong ways.

The key issue, according to the authors, is that the social structure of the middle east countries is strongly patriarchic and authocractic. It leads to a culture where one leader rules absolutely and no questioning of leadership is accepted.
Schooling would normally be a way out of such situations but these countries generally have a tradition of valuing conformity and literal repetition. The students do not learn to think for themselves, only to repeat what an authority figure wants them to know.
These (borderline) tyrannical governments have wiped out (often with enthusiastic support of the CIA) left wing and even moderate media, the fledgling middle classes, and have left only the mosques as places where people can congregate and where alternative support structures to the government can exist. It is not too surprising that a fundamentalist interpretation of the Islam gains ground because those organisations understood that helping people (no matter how selfish their reasons are) is the way to win the hearts of the population who can only expect suppression and rigid control from their governments.
Fear for these extremists has made western governments (not just the USA, though they are the most outspoken and active) side with the dictators (even Libya's Ghadaffi is acceptable again these days as long as he is willing to sell oil and buy weapons to suppress the radical Islam in his country). This put them, in the eye of the population as part of the suppression and thus the enemy. A viewpoint that is exploited by the fundamentalists to foster a strong us versus them sentiment.
Siding, or even simply dialogue, with the fundamentalists is not going to help though. They come from the same authoritarian tradition as the current governments and are not going to behave any differently should they come to power as can be seen in Iran.

But mindlessly continuing to support dictators just because we are afraid of 'the Islam' is not going to help anybody.



And interesting, if rather scary, is how in a few days of simplification the failed attempt of an unstable young man has first become caused by an entire country (Yemen), then an entire region (the Middle East) and finally of an entire religion (over 1 billion people most of whom not even live in the region). Already President Obama has forgotten about his speech to reach out to the Muslims in the world, and is contemplating (or giving in to pressure) to give weapons to a deeply unpopular dictator so he can use it to wipe out the most unruly part of his population.


Eri

I'll see your Muhammad and raise you a dumbass. The zero tolerance that brought us expulsions for aspirin in public schools is now being applied to flight security.Right, because a terrorist planning to blow up the plane is clearly going to telegraph his thoughts of suicide to the captain ahead of time.

I feel more secure already.

I read a book review in my newspaper today. The book was about the middle east region and the not very hopeful outlook it has, both because of the internal social pressures and the way how the rest of the world keeps responding in all the wrong ways.Here's an idea, let's just stop buying their oil.

Then we really won't care.

Can't say goodbye to your girlfriend anymore either, unless you want to end up in jail.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/01/07/national/a104147S55.DTLFriends: Suspect meant no harm at Newark airport

(01-09) 14:27 PST Piscataway, N.J. (AP) --

Friends described the man charged with breaching security at Newark Liberty International Airport as a romantic who just wanted to see his girlfriend off properly.

Jiang, who is Chinese, is a doctoral student in a joint molecular biosciences program at Rutgers and has been in the U.S. since 2004. He faces a defiant trespassing charge and a fine of up to $500, and he's scheduled to be arraigned this coming week, but a hearing date has not yet been scheduled.

Authorities say that when Jiang breached security Jan. 3, it triggered the shutdown of a busy terminal that led to snarled flights worldwide.

The breach led the Transportation Security Administration to shut down one of Newark's three terminals for six hours last Sunday, stranding thousands of passengers and contributing to long delays. The TSA worker who allegedly left his post has been on administrative leave since Tuesday.

On a surveillance video released Thursday by the TSA and the Port Authority, the guard is seen sitting at a security podium in an exit lane as passengers stream past on their way out of the terminal.

A man wearing a light-colored jacket stands inside a rope barrier, and the guard approaches the man, apparently telling him to move behind the rope.

Within a minute, the guard leaves the podium again and disappears into the crowd. A woman in a long white coat approaches the podium from inside the terminal; the man sees her and ducks under the security rope, and the two walk past, arm in arm.

The man was seen on a separate surveillance camera leaving the terminal about 20 minutes later, according to the TSA.

A bystander waiting for an arriving passenger noticed the breach and told the guard. TSA officials then discovered that security checkpoint surveillance cameras had not recorded the breach, and they were forced to consult backup security cameras operated by Continental Airlines.I don't know what's sadder. That we're pissing away our tax dollars on nonsense criminal charges, or that the TSA is so utterly incompetent that they can't even get a camera working properly or employ a security guard who actually pays attention.

Boy, this sure makes me feel safe.

Newsweek: Don’t Panic (http://www.newsweek.com/id/229996)
How our frenzied response to terrorism only feeds it.

Published Jan 9, 2010

In responding to the attempted bombing of an airliner on Christmas Day, Sen. Dianne Feinstein voiced the feelings of many when she said that to prevent such situations, "I'd rather…overreact than underreact." This now appears to be the consensus view in Washington, but it is quite wrong. In fact, precisely the opposite is true. The purpose of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction. Its real aim is not to kill the hundreds of people directly targeted but to sow fear in the rest of the population. Terrorism is an unusual military tactic in that it depends on the response of the onlookers. If we are not terrorized, then the attack didn't work. Alas, this one worked very well.

The attempted bombing says more about Al Qaeda's weakened state than its strength. In the eight years before 9/11, Al Qaeda was able to launch large-scale terrorist attacks on several continents. It targeted important symbols of American power—embassies in Africa; a naval destroyer, the USS Cole; and, of course, the World Trade Center. The operations were complex—a simultaneous bombing of two embassies in different countries—and involved dozens of people of different nationalities who trained around the world, moved significant sums of money around, and coordinated their efforts over months, sometimes years. And every attack succeeded.

On Christmas a Qaeda affiliate launched an operation using one person, with no special target, and a failed technique tried eight years ago by "shoe bomber" Richard Reid. The plot seems to have been an opportunity that the group seized rather than the result of a well-considered strategic plan. A Nigerian fanatic with (what appeared to be) a clean background volunteered for service; he was wired up with a makeshift explosive and put on a plane. His mission failed entirely, killing not a single person. The suicide bomber was not even able to commit suicide. But Al Qaeda succeeded in its real aim, which was to throw the American system into turmoil. That's why the terror group proudly boasted about the success of its mission.

[More... (http://www.newsweek.com/id/229996)]

And the lunacy continues, unabated:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100118/ap_on_re_us/us_jfk_security_breachAttorney: Man in JFK breach just used 'wrong door'

NEW YORK – A man returning from Haiti who walked through a restricted door and set off an alarm that led to the evacuation of a terminal at John F. Kennedy International Airport simply went the wrong way, his attorney said Sunday.

"He just walked through the wrong door," said defense attorney Scott Dufault, who declined to comment further when reached by phone at his office following his client's arraignment.

The security breach on Saturday afternoon delayed dozens of flights and caused headaches for hundreds of travelers who had to exit the terminal and wait for hours while police swept through the building. Passengers were then re-screened by Transportation Security Administration officers. The incident came less than two weeks after a security breach at nearby Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.

The man, Jules Paul Bouloute, told police he went through the door by mistake, an official familiar with the investigation into the security breach told The Associated Press on Sunday. The official was not authorized to comment publicly on the case against the Brooklyn man and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.

Bouloute, 57, was arraigned Sunday on charges including first-degree criminal tampering and third-degree criminal trespass, said Helen Peterson, a spokeswoman for the Queens district attorney. He didn't enter a plea and was released without bail. He faces up to seven years in prison if convicted on the most serious charge.

Prosecutors allege that he went through a door that was clearly marked as restricted.So the guy just opens the wrong door, and they shut down the airport, annoy the hell out of everyone, waste millions in taxpayer dollars, and arrest this guy on nonsense charges.

If it's really a restricted door, shouldn't it be, uh, LOCKED, to prevent people from accidentally opening it? How secure should we feel about UNlocked doors that supposedly lead to sensitive areas of the airport?

They should put whatever security guard failed to lock the door on trial, not the guy who accidentally opened it. Most likely there was no real security breach anyway, and this is all just for show, to justify these guys' salaries, because they're apparently too incompetent to catch any real wannabe terrorists.

This would all make for a great dark comedy, if it weren't so frighteningly real.

In all honesty, you can spoof a boarding pass to take your girlfriend to her flight. It is how people get by the security when they are busy and spoof the no fly list anyways. I seen a couple weeks ago about this 8 month old child that was on the no fly list, because they still use names, They do not go by gender, birth dates, or other information. Like Robert Smith.........

I would be guessing that door for the other guy had the sign saying exit above it, but, was probably a fire door. The internal stuff usually had key codes, and/or unmarked. That stuff happens all the time in various areas.