U.S. plays world bully with airline measures

Daily Bruin (U. California-Los Angeles) ^ | 1/13/04 | Rosamund de Sybel

[Maigrey]

I wonder if this child realizes that another terrorist crash and mass death will change America, and cause a massive collapse of most of the airline industry in America? Probably not.

Besides, some of us have a game simulator at home where there is a hostage situation and you're a marshall on a plane, and have to "plink" the baddies. It's quite a challenge.

[JETDRVR]

"C-5 often leaks so much that blankets put into the gap are often sucked out."

Heheh reminds me of the leaky door seals on G2/3s , used to have the F/A place wet rags on the seal. we would kid em bout getting sucked out;0).

[Kay Soze]

He goes on to state his feeling "panicky" for the 11 hour flight!

Which is it unneeded or needed security?

He does not consider that the saftey is not only for the passengers but for people on the ground.

Entering an aircraft is like entering a resaturant.

If you don't like the way your treated... dont go back!

[brazucausa]

The unilateralist U.S. administration is once again exporting its policies and deciding how the world is to be policed.

Don't want to be rude however I find this offending and selfish and against us. We have no other choice. We have to protect our self after all we do not go and put suicide people on airplanes and try to kill innocent people. This person should appreciate security precaution being taken by our government.

[nothingnew]

Myth Busters showed that a bullet is not going to cause explosive decompression, even if it goes through a window.

Obviously, Ms. Rosamund has a tape loop of the plane scene where fat Goldfinger gets sucked out the window, embedded in her small mind.

FMCDH

[GSWarrior]

The only problem I see with this is demanding that foreign air carriers place sky marshals aboard, while not placing them on our domestic flights....and not pushing for armed pilots.

Hello?

[witnesstothefall]

Memo to Euro-commies, anti-American Americans and knuckle-draggers on the right, Air Marshalls are not meant to reassure the public. They are meant to deter, frighten, apprehend and kill terrorists.

[TheDon]

"Like many others, I find the concept of plainclothes, gun-carrying officers aboard aircrafts more alarming than reassuring."

Yeah, it is rather hard to understand, isn't it...

[luvbach1]

"Liberalism is a mental illness." - Michael Savage

[luvbach1]

These "progressive" mental defectives need to be ignored!!!

[ArrogantBustard]

Like many others idiots, I find the concept of plainclothes, gun-carrying officers aboard aircrafts more alarming than reassuring.

There. Fixed it for him.

[Blueflag]

As long as we're being technical ...

Air pressure inside the plane pushes the rags/blankets out the cracks. The atmosphere does not suck stuff out of airplanes.

But no matter, the author's fears are irrational and are not based in fact. A perfect position for a liberal to hold.

[flitton]

Absolutely right. I had to land at Miami airport twice as a transit passenger going from London to Costa Rica and back at the end of December and the beginning of January this year. I hold a British passport and am also the owner of a recognizably Muslim name. I was reassured by the level of scrutiny (involving a security check by the airline I was transferring to. I also found all the staff I dealt with perfectly polite and professional.
Being British I am well used to having my bags checked and being hand scanned after various zips keys and shoes have set off an alarm designed to detect IRA bombs, and while it is an inconvenience I know that having been close enough to 4 bombs to hear them go off it is unfortunately a necessity.
By the time of my return journey the fingerprinting had started and the few people I saw being photographed etc didn't seem to be at all put out by it.
All systems will have their problems but it is a price we all have to pay.

[capt. norm]

This same idiot would be against having a gun at home for protection.

Must have lead an extremely sheltered life so far and is oblivious to any possible danger.

Oblivious = liberal.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>>Last Friday I was again reminded of how
many ignorant, liberal morons I attended UCLA with during my time at that august LIBERAL arts school. People like this need to be attacked more often during their overpriveleged childhoods. That way they figure out early on that the world is a pretty nasty place and that bad people tend to do bad things for much the same reason that a dog licks his genitals. Because they can.

[steve-b]

the combination of a pressurized cabin and a gun

Close your eyes, sit in a lotus position, and listen to a relaxation tape of a soothing voice explaining over and over, "Goldfinger is a work of fiction, not a documentary". You'll feel better when the message sinks in.

I would prefer to see my flight cancelled if there were a specific threat than allow it to go ahead if a sky marshal was deployed.

terrorists, if they are indeed on the flight, are bottled A rational policy is: 1)cancel a flight if there is a known specific threat (preferably in such a way that the up and caught) and 2)place sky marshals on enough flights to provide a backup line of defense if the "known specific threat" is not detected in time. (I'd add: and 3)encourage known trustworthy passengers to provide for their own self-defense, but I wouldn't want to cause Ms de Sybel to suffer an attack of the vapors.)

sky marshals threaten the authority of pilots

I've never heard of a sky marshal threatening a pilot. You'd think an incident like that would have made the news....

I can see little that can be achieved by having an armed person aboard a plane.

One armed person on each of the three planes would have stopped the 9-11 Massacre (hell, unarmed people on one of the planes managed to stop part of it).

Similarly there have been countless incidents of police officers' guns being used against them on the ground, a situation which could just as easily arise in the air. A more sensible option would be to introduce tighter checks on baggage and passengers on the ground.

Two sentences, two basic fallacies.

The first fallacy is the notion that any security measure that can (however rarely) fail catastrophically is worse than nothing. By this reasoning, the police should be completely unarmed (not even nightsticks). Indeed, by this reasoning, police should not approach criminals at all, because it creates the possibility of a worst-case scenario in which the police officer is captured and held hostage by the criminal.

The second fallacy is the notion that the two are either-or, when in fact they are both-and. Effective security should be designed in layers, with the understanding that any given layer might be evaded or overcome.

Publicizing the threats against Air France and British Airways justified somewhat suspect policies. It allowed the United States to decide how the world was to be policed and to ensure that their policies were accepted on a global scale.

No, it allowed the United States to prevent inadequately secured flights from entering United States airspace. Flights between Elbonia and Nerdo-Crombezia, provided that they do not enter American airspace, are free to allow passengers to board with an Uzi in one hand and a copy of Osama's latest postumous manifesto in the other.

U.S. demands for the introduction of sky marshals only add to the burgeoning fears and anxieties arising from President Bush's "war on terror." The U.S. administration has harangued countries into its version of "protecting" the world, one from which we may in fact need protection.

Ghu knows, the Bush Administration has generated enough asinine and abusive policies in the name of the War on Terror. Insisting that flights in American airspace shall be (at least on a spot-check basis) guarded by armed law enforcement agents is not one of them.

[Hat-Trick]

I do not, however, find the fingerprint and photograph policy nearly as threatening as the combination of a pressurized cabin and a gun.

I'd wager my next paycheck that Rosemund doesn't own any firearms, and am really tempted to wager that he/she has never fired one.

Similarly there have been countless incidents of police officers' guns being used against them on the ground,

Countless? Really? Countless? What Rosemund really meant to say was:

"Similarly I have watched countless fictional Hollywood depictions of police officers' guns being used against them on the ground,".

Amazing what can be published as "fact" in today's college campus newpapers

[Hat-Trick]

Rosemund = Rosamund

[steve-b]

Da Silva told The Guardian that the decision was "absolutely brutal, threatening human rights, violating human dignity, xenophobic and worthy of the worst horrors committed by the Nazis."

Oh, puh-leeze. Identifying visitors to check whether they are on a terrorist watch list is not comparable to Nazi atrocities. Targeting visitors from the United States for fingerprinting as part of an infantile tantrum is less defensible, but still not comparable to Nazi atrocities. Even extending border security into a range of Big Brother snooping (which will happen as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow morning) is (all together now) not comparable to Nazi atrocities (though one might reasonbly compare that last item to some of the early stages of the Nazi regime).

And they pay this guy to hand down judgements? With actual money?

[steve-b]

Dunno how that happened -- the second reply point should begin:

A rational policy is: 1)cancel a flight if there is a known specific threat (preferably in such a way that the terrorists, if they are indeed on the flight, are bottled up and caught)