I hate to point this out, but the shoe bomber was profiling that worked. (C'mon, who is going to argue that the little, old, non-arab looking, lady in the row behind him got as much attention from the stewardess.)

Racial profiling usually is part of good police work. Only post hoc reasoning makes it a all pervasive sin.

Profiling based on the idea that since 17 of the hijackers were Saudies who were here on worker visas is one thing, it's good police work.

Cops pulling over every balck person who is in a car that cost more than $10,000 is something else. Same goes for profiling every Arab with a rag over their heads as the most likely suspect. It's just dumb. Remember that these terrorists are trying to look western and blend in. That's part of the problem with airport security. These minimum wage earners who couldn't get a job at the Burger King don't get it and will go after the "rag heads." While they may be searching old ladies at random security checks I assure you that (no matter what they claim) anyone who even looks vaguely Arab IS practicaly getting strip searched before being let on the plane.

BTW did you hear about Bin Laden's followers ideas for phase II of the attacks. They were going to go after some other targets and they were activly recruting non-arabs to do carry out phase II since they figured we'd be to busy checking Arabs to notice non-arab hijackers.

Brian, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Now, I am a 17-year-old white female. One of my good friends, a coworker, is a black man in his 20s. We had both just gotten off closing shift at the movie theater, and it was around midnight.

I was going to have to call home for a ride, waking my family. He offered me a ride home. So I go with him.

Now, I live a mile from work. He was pulled over by a cop (white, of course), and was questioned right there. Copper looked at me, asked me something, and I told him the truth.

Now, who was in the wrong here?

My sweet friend, or the racist cop?

Somewhere between "racial profiling" and a witness describing a suspect down to his shoe size, giving his name address, and social security number, is good policework. But in that large in-between area the dividing lines are more blurred. Police can overstep the line, sometimes without noticing (and, yes, sometimes using "I didn't think I'd gone too far" as an excuse).

And sometimes the "public" can claim that the police overstepped when they didn't. [It doesn't make the times when they do OK, but there are times when there is more to the story than the public is aware of.)

I remember an old episode of Dragnet. Friday and Gannon were working out of Public Relations, and a Black couple came in to complain. The words "racial profiling' were never used, probably because the phrase had not yet been thought up, but that was basically their complaint: They were driving home from a friend's when they were pulled over and given a hard time by two white cops for no apparent reason.

After getting the basic information ("Just the facts, Ma'am") [He didn't say it, but I couldn't resist], Gannon got a copy of the incident report. Friday then verified the neighborhood in which they were stopped, the make, model, and color of their car, and the fact that they had a television in the back.

"Yes, but it was ours, I put it in the car so I wouldn't forget to take it to the shop the next day. And the officer didn't mention a thing about it."

At this point, Friday showed them a map of their neighborhood, and pointed out several homes that had had TVs stolen. The suspect was a black man fitting the husband's general description (though maybe somewhat younger), and driving a very similar car. Then the wife wondered why the officers didn't explain this to them, instead of making them feel like it was a crime to be on the streets after dark.

Friday said he didn't know, but he would ask the officers. In the next scene he did that. The officer who had spoken to the couple when he and his partner stopped them said that they were angry and impatient, and so he just wanted to let them go on their way without getting them more upset by detaining them to tell them something they "obviously didn't want to hear anyway.

There were a few more lines with Friday explaining proper proceedure, but the point was made.

Again, I don't excuse the practice called "racial profiling" (and which should be called "racist profiling"), but not all profiling is racial, and not all racial profiling is racist.

Which is why I titled this board "Profiling" instead of "Racial Profiling". I wanted to leave the term open.

So this issue isn't "black and white?" ;>v

Nope.

COMC,

It's true that it happens, but in your instance, you're not providing the reader with enough information to make a judgement call.

What questions did the cop ask you, and what reason did he state for pulling you over? Was a ticket issued? And, if I may be so indelicate, was your friend speeding?

Please clarify.

Let's look at it this way. If your friend was a criminal, then the police officer would haved potentially stopped a crime. If he wasn't, then the investigation would have said so, and he as a man of good characther would have merely been inconvienanced.

Pesti, but the point is I am a 22 year old white male. I have never been pulled over for no reason, even though when I was pulled over for crossing the center line at 3:00 AM the cop let me off with a warning when he saw I had not been drinking. Pesti, I'd wager you are like me and never have ether.

Every black person I know, who is my age or older, has been pulled over at least once (usualy several times) for no reason. What do I mean by no reason? A reason is "did you know you: crossed the centerline/didn't come to a full stop at that stop sign/were going 15 mph over the speed limit/have an expired tag". No reason is pulling someone over, asking for licence & registration for no reason other than they are black.

Every black person you know? How many black women? How many Black Senior citizens? What time of day did this happen? Where did it happen? Because if it was truely racism, they would be pulled over as well. There is a reason why so many black young men are in prison, and it has nonthing to do with rascism. Why are there not amazing amounts of Hispanics and Asians pulled over?

Of course, it can be pointed out that a police officer can pull you over and demand to see your liscense for any reason, or even no reason, as not carring one is a crime. Driving is a privilage, not a right.

There is a reason why so many black young men are in prison, and it has nonthing to do with racism.

What is the reason, Matt?

Hint, before you get upset, Matt forgot to insert the SARCASM tags for the sarcasm impaired.

I wonder if that last was the real Pesti at all. It reads like someone who's trying to make him seem like even more of a "cracker" than he sometimes manages to make himself seem. I've known him to make some outrageous statements before, but they are usually defensible, given his position. This (even taken as sarcasm) is over the top.

Every black person you know?
I guess I should have said "that I know WELL". I can't speak for the people I don't know that well.

How many black women? How many Black Senior citizens?
Frankly I don't know that many black senior citizens very well.

What time of day did this happen? Where did it happen? Because if it was truely racism, they would be pulled over as well.

It happened to my friend Angie in broad daylight when she was driving to the mall.

Of course, it can be pointed out that a police officer can pull you over and demand to see your liscense for any reason, or even no reason, as not carring one is a crime.

How many white guys do you know who have ever been pulled over in such a way for literaly NO reason? How many black guys?

Folks, I realize that this is board is of a sensitive issue but Pesti (whether the real one or an imposter), please refrain from making such insensitive racial comments. They're against the rules, they don't belong here, and I won't tolerate them.

I am white. I have been stopped "because I look like a suspect" twice. (Once I had to lay face down and put my hands on my head. Fortunately it wasn't raining.) Cops, in the end, are normal. There are some, how do I say this without getting censored, um, wastes of oxygen. Some of the problem lies with what they have to work with. If someone robs a convenience store (they'll never rob a donut shop) the vague description will usually indicated race. In fact that will often be the only specific they immediately have to go on. (He was a black man between 3 and 7 feet with a medium build between 90 and 300 pounds, and wearing jeans.)

Brian Fitzgerald: an IP check is inconclusive; it shows "Matt Pesti" posting under several IP addresses.

Matt, you might log in with your moderator password and settle if that post is yours; if it's not, it can be Dumped or deleted.

How many white guys do you know who have ever been pulled over in such a way for literaly NO reason?

Me, driving through Canada with Virginia license plates.

All men are kleptomanics, but that is off the subject. That post is not mine. There should be only three adresses. My apartment, my Library, and my home Compuserve account. Oddly, I was sleeping at that time. I cannot access my Moderator status, as I have forgotton my password. In any case, if it happens again, just shoot us both.


The reason is because young black men who are in jail are criminals! They are in there because they have comitted crimes.

A study once showed that one in 12 prison inmates is innocent of the crime they were convicted for Pesti. It never ceases to amaze me the unwavering faith that Conservatives have in the legal system despite such obvious flaws. Anymore it's not a matter of who's guilty and who's innocent. It's game of "Who Has The Better Lawyer!"

Oh wait, I think I got wrong. The 1 in 12 is for Death Row inmates and Life w/o Parolers, 1 in SIX is for the general population (people who are going to get out eventually).

I heard this on NPR last July.

I forgot to add the following line to that post whilst I was editing.

"I'm going off of my less than perfect memory so please don't quote me on that statistic. I'm pretty sure it's close give or take."

Brian,

"There is no justice in or out of the courts." -- Clarence Darrow. (I'm going of memory too.)

If anyone wonders why the password post, just testing.

Moved the message in question to the Dump. I will contact Phil about the post, and report its IP.

Brian: What is the basis of this report? When the justice system convicts a man, then evindence comes through that they were innocent, and they are released, is that not the system working? Do appeals not count as a part of the law? And that still means the 91% of the of the people in prison are a guilty as sin. Sounds pretty good to me. Oh, wait there's this key called "overwrite." It's normally very annoying, but hitting it can delete previous work. It's 83% for your second statistic. Next we will work on "delete" What do you really expect from a jury of your peers (Who are the real ones to blame, btw)? Lawyers? Sorry, most cases, outside of OJ, are rather unambigious affairs. Sorry, the constitution only guarantees a defense, not nessicastily a good one. To be honest, I fear that social workers with manical ideological delusions of a peaceful and just society of their creation to be worse than any Prosecuter, Judge, or police offier, who enforce laws written by people we elect.

Can you name one person since the 1970's who has been executed, then latter a court found them innocent.

Mark, I've deleted that post now.

Posted by Matt Pesti on "Statement from U.S. Veterans to Israeli Troops": Jew-Arab bi-racial couples? Since when a Jews a race? Since when are Arabs a race? They are both Semetic Cacuasians the last time I checked.

So than how do we know who to profile.

Elaborate.

First you say that profiling Arabs on the basis of race is simply good detective work, than on another board you say that the Arabs are not a race.

Arabs were checkered cloths on their heads and look like they haven't shaved in three days. Don't you read political cartoons?

So your argument if Arabs are not a race, we can't profile them? Where the heck did you get the idea that all members of a race look alike? And where the heck did you get the idea that peoples located in the melting pot of the middle east are going to maintain racial purity? The Sims?

Looked like they haven't shaved in three days Actually, that's true.

Great article on this subject, not from NRO either.

Arabs were checkered cloths on their heads and look like they haven't shaved in three days. Don't you read political cartoons?

Find the terrorist in your neighborhood! (Shockwave required)

Al Gore was searched at least twice recently at airports.

Obviously Bush hasn't forgotten that little "lawsuit incident" from Nov/Dec 2000!

Well, Al Gore does have that beard. Hey, Adam, any news on what Gore was carrying? (Three bombs a pistol, a copy of Earth in the Balance, and a hideously dangerous pair of nail clippers.)

a copy of Earth in the Balance

Wasn't that a bomb?

I heard some say on one of these board that George Carlin had somekinda altercation involving airport security. Does anyone know what happened, or knows of a website with details.

PS first post.

January 2002 - going to Arizona to visit the 'rents. Sitting at the gate, staring off into space, trying to stay awake. Reading on occasion. Was the first one to get my carryons searched, and my person run over with that metal detector wand. I was mostly amused, especially since that ensured that I was the first one on the plane. No fighting the crowd for me!

Uneventful return trip, though.

The first person on the plane, it seems, is a frequent candidate to get searched, as it's happened to me twice. This, to me, is a rather $tupid idea, for as soon as any terrorists figure it out, all they have to do to avoid it is go second. Anyway, my search history:

October 2001- Dallas/Ft. Worth, flying to Albuquerque. Pulled out of line at the gate for random bag check (although this time I wasn't first in line).

October 2001 (the return trip)- Chicago Midway. Pulled out, again, this time the first one in line. Also, this time around they decide not to let me take my half-inch screwdriver that's on my keyring. Figures.

January 2002- Cincinnati to Toledo. Again, first in line, and searched. This time they have me take off my shoes. Also, the person in charge of the screening is a trainee, so I have not just him but a supervisor rummaging through my bag.

April 2002- Albuquerque airport. Given the wand at the security check. Surprisingly painless... although they had another trainee on the case.

In my case, I'm always a bit concerned when they check me, not because of the C4 I carry around, but because of the fact that, as a diabetic, I normally carry a great deal of syringes around with me. So far no one has been to stingy about this, but one of these days it'll probably happen. Alls I know is anyone who tries to separate me from my medical equipment is going to catch all kinds of hell.

Dude, you'd better get a doctor's note... Airport security personnel are not noted for their intelligence and common sense regarding medical equipment.

COMPLAIN, COMPLAIN. Just be thankful no yabos can whip out their nail file on their nail clippers.

CCabe,

I think they are relating to an old (pre 9/11) bit by Carlin about the "improved" (pre 9/11) security because of the three questions:

1)Did you pack yor bags yourself? (No. I invited Martha Stewart and Carrot Top over for a night of wild packing.)
2)Where you in posession of your bags the whole time? (No. The night before a flight I like to leave them on the curb to be blessed by the light of the moon.)
3)Did anyone you don't know handle your bags?(Does anyone really know anyone? Akbar and Mohammed seemed to know each other very well; to the point where they seemed to be able to interpret eachothers sly smiles...)

I am misquoting him on purpose because this is a family board. I am misquoting by accident because I am going off of memory.

Getting serious here. Anyone want to argue the pro and con of arming pilots? (I'll have to be "pro" as I can't think of any "con.")

con - unless they have special ammo, they can puncture 1) the windshield, 2) the plane's fuselage.

Sky Marshals (and other security personnel -- such as El Al's guards) use special ammo that won't pierce the plane.

I have it worse, Sparrow. I have a curved spine, and a few years ago I underwent corrective surgery. I now have metal rods in my back. It's *fun* when I go to D.C. or an airport. I had a doctor's letter this time, though.


We had to check our bags (subject to search) (if your skin is brown), with repeated P.A. announcements saying "Any person is subject to have their person searched." Yeah, anyone non-Anglo-Saxon, that is. I had to resist the overwhelming urge to go into George Carlin mode.

If Mark will allow it, I'll post Carlin's rant about airport security. Tis a brilliant, funny man with excellent points.

ScottN,

Yeah, I probably should, but for now I'm going to cling to the fact that I have a Medical Alert chain that says "DIABETES. INSULIN DEPENDENT" along with a fanny pack full of medical gear be my doctor's note.

CC,

You are, of course, noted for your cynicism, but I think I should point out that skin color can't really be the overriding factor in who gets searched, seeing as though I'm about as white as they come. I hope they let you post Carlin's rant!

I actually hope MarkN will not allow it. Carlin is funny but uses many terms (not just the 4 letter words) that can be considered, um, inappropriate for a family board. When my children go online this site is not on the list of places they can go. (Yes, I know that it is ultimately a parent’s responsibility. If my son is on-line playing a game on Toonami.com before he looks info on snakes of Bolivia I think I can leave him alone when my daughter needs me to untangle Barbie hair and the toaster [don't ask]. Some other parent will assume nit central is safe while Johnny looks up production snafus in Star Trek, he'll wander here and get CC posting Carlin. Yes, I know they hear that at the playground. That is different than reading it from someone Daddy has "posted" with. No, I'm not "pro-censorship". CC can post it on her web site or e-mail everyone she knows anything. I am "pro-truth-in-labeling". If this site is truly family friendly it should stay G (or really PG-13) rated.)

ScottN,

I know we are talking about Washington D.C., but trust the pilots to know something about aircraft.

Let's look at the alternatives:

1) Air Marshals are good, but susceptible to attacks in waves. (Americans don't think like that but true believers are willing to die for the cause.)

2) An armored cockpit door is good to slow the terrorists down. With enough time anyone can demolish anything. Hijacking a Boston to NY flight is it probably enough. Boston to London? I don't know.

3) Give the Pilots Tasers. NYC police use them, right? Tasers only work on one person for a short time. While the person is stunned the cop is supposed to handcuff him. If there is more than one the cop will be too busy and the stunned person get up and enters the fracas.

4) Let the pilots bring their own guns (with bird shot, ScottN). The pilot knows the Air Marshall(s) are dead, and hears them breaking down the door. When the door gives way he must cover an area of what 4' by 7'? (Yes, the terrorist can use a machine gun as soon as they break down the door. They can also use the nuclear bomb they smuggled onto the plane.) If there enough volunteer to meet Allah, the flight is doomed, but by arming the pilots there must be what six more terrorists? How many guys can you sneak on the plane? (If each has a 5% chance of being uncovered, 20 blows the mission.)

Hannah's welcome to post any links for Carlin routines. That's in keeping with the rules and saves on space and download times for those with slow connections, too.

(If each has a 5% chance of being uncovered, 20 blows the mission.)

Math nit: All the separate probabilities do not add up. They're not dependent on each other.

Ah, a link. An eloquent solution if e'er there was one! Okay, true enough, I had not considered the "family" interests of the board.

If my son is on-line playing a game on Toonami.com before he looks info on snakes of Bolivia I think I can leave him alone when my daughter needs me to untangle Barbie hair and the toasterBerry

Uh, Berry, once again I think you're leaving important clauses (or at least words) out of your sentences. Naughty, naughty, naughty!

Now, it's true that, even with twenty terrorists, each individual terrorist still has only a 5% chance of being uncovered, the larger group still leaves them vulnerable. If they are boarding a plane with 100 total passengers, and each passenger has an equal chance of being searched (assuming also that they will search five people total), then each individual has a 5/100 chance of being picked, or 5%. Now, if there are five terrorists, it will be more unlikely that one will be searched (I'm guessing, but wouldn't the odds of a search be 1/10 in this case?), but if there are twenty terrorists, the odds go way up (another guess: 1/4?). I think.

Given 20 terrorists, and a 5% chance of detection, the probability of success is .95²⁰, that is the cumulative probability that each terrorist will go undetected.

This is a 36% chance of success (or, to be more precise 35.848592240854223435741044044495%). This is still a better than one in three chance of success for the mission.

If there are only 10 terrorists, the probability of success jumps to 60% (.95¹⁰).

ScottN,

I thought you just multplied the number by the percent chance. The number is a factor? (I'm probably using the wrong terms, the superscript number is what I mean by factor.) If the number is smaller than 1 and you multiply it by itself, doesn't it get smaller?

Exactly. Take the old stand-by example of a coin toss.

One toss has 50% odds of being heads

Two tosses has 50% times 50% or 25% chance of both being heads (the other possibilities are 1)both tails, 2) the first heads, the second tails, and 3)the first tails, the second heads) the chance does get smaller

But was Scott was multiplying was the chance that none of the terrorists would get caught. As that continues to go down, the total for all the other choices (any choice in which at least one terrorist is caught) goes up.

Blue, look at it this way. You can't do it the way you thought... Example:

5% chance of getting caught. 30 terrorists. If we just add up the probabilities, there's a probability of 150% of a terrorist getting caught.

By definition, probability must be between 0% and 100%.

TomM and ScottN,

Thanks.

I eventually figured it out on my own. Since multiplying decimals by decimals makes it smaller with each factor you must calculate the chance of success, not the chance of failure. The formula apparently is (chance as decimal^{number that increases})(100 to make it back into a percent).

Oh, thanks me.

Basically, yes. There's probably a way to calculate the probability of failure without first getting the probability of success... but, as in most questions about probability, it's four hundred times easier to calculate one first and then subtract it from 1 (or 100, if you insist on percentages) to get the other.

Odds are a whole different matter. I hate probability until the day I die. (Note that mathematical opinions expressed at 4:30 in the morning may not have any bearing on reality.)

There are two different kinds of odds:

1)"Fair" odds which are calculated direct from the probability:

Odds in favor = (Chance of success)/(Chance of failure)

Odds against = (Chance of failure)/(Chance of success)

(Going back to the coin toss, the odds are 3:1 against tossing two heads, or 1:3 in favor)

These are called "fair" odds because in a fair game (Not rigged, and using fair odds as payoff odds), everyone (in the long run, at least) should go home with the same amount of money they came with, excepting true "lucky streaks" or "slumps."

2) Payoff odds are set by the "house" They start with fair odds, and then "tweak" them slightly so that the amount coming in in bets is a little more than the amount going out in payoffs. The difference is the house's "edge" or profit.

Argh, "odds" are completely irrelevant to Real Probability.

Josh G.,

"Real Probability" is completely irrelevant to odds.

True enough.

I went traveling the week of the 4th of July, taking a total of 5 different flights. I was pulled aside for the old randon bag search at 3 of them. What amazed me was that in each case, it was the computer that was tagging me. I would give the attendant my boarding pass, she'd run it under a scanner, and it would beep like I was stealing the crown jewels. I have to wonder how it is that the computer doesn't realize, hey, we stopped this guy already.

BTW. I'm white. Skin color had nothing to do with it.

The computer beeping is just a ruse. You look suspicious, KRW. Besides you coul've cleverly hidden a bomb in your layover airport (we can put that beyond you, Mr. Suspicious.)

Actually, it was the penguin that he was carrying. Penguins are known to explode at 5 o'clock.

You know, everyone is a "potential" criminal. You either decide to do it, or you don't do it. Free will. How the HELL does...?

Sorry, CC. Like I said, Welcome to H*ll.

UPDATE: I actually managed to get to college without being searched! And it appears that Southwest has stopped its practice of "randomly" selecting the first person in line to get searched, as neither of my flights had this happen. Good call, Southwest!

Here's an interesting article from New Scientist: Terror warning over electronic equipment.

"Airliners could be brought down by terrorists using modified versions of almost any personal electronic equipment, a security expert has warned. He says passengers should be barred from carrying any electronic gadgets onto aircraft until planes are able to detect them."

Hannah,

where is your link to this article?

electron: you can modify anything to cause damage, esp. in a full plane with lots of delicate stuff and thin skin. If terrorists want to kill the pilots or use some chemicals to make them unconscious, then the terrorists don't need weapons. That's what they show people in those survival and military training courses, how to make weapons from commonplace materials and how to fight with your hands and feet like karate (which you can use to kill sb., too).

It all comes back to the fact that absolute security is an illusion (like many other things, such as controlling technology, making technology fool- and error-proof and so on.), that doesn't work in real life.

Constanze,

Damned if I can find it online. I have to type it out as I listen to the MP3.

And I've just been busy with a lot of stuff lately...

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0210/gilmore.html

Anyone else frightened by "secret" government rules?

Well they got the right whistle-blower... note the man's age!

Old news, Blue.

It's from July at the latest.

It sounds to me like the airline employees were trying to pass the buck by saying that the government was requireing it when the government said it's up to the airlines.

I don't have a probelm with the government making such a rule (if they just put it in the published rulebook) after all I have to buy booze or get into a club (even my underaged friends have to show their fake IDs for the same reason)

And if my job requires me to travel, yet I don't have a drivers license?

Well, I went to visit my boyfriend this weekend, and I got back today.

I had my doctor's note (as noted above), and was still searched at every stop; I almost missed my flight out of Baltimore.

More to be posted later...

ScottN,

New to here. (I think.)

It will be easy to get an ID. Just go into your local KGB, um, homeland security office and ask to be finger printed and, heck, while your there get a retinal scan (or a rectal exam - I'm not sure which.)

And if my job requires me to travel, yet I don't have a drivers license?

What if my job requires me to go to a bar/club where you have to be 18/21 to get in? (leasure time reviewer for a local paper perhaps) You can get a (non-driver's licence) ID card at the DMV. If you don't have a licence and want to buy beer or goto most clubs you have to get one as well.

In Germany, long before Sept. 11th, the law says you have to carry ID on you all the time. For most germans its not the drivers license, but the Personal ID, issued by the local authorities. For leaving the country, you need a passport, too. With the EU, we can travel inside the EU using only Personal ID, but outside we still need a passport. Both of these IDs have to be renewed regularly (they expire after 4 and 7 years), which always costs quite a fee (at the moment I think its around 15 $ for the Personal ID and 20 $ for the passport, but I'm not sure, the fee regularly changes.) Since I have no drivers license yet, I do not know if its a legally accepted form of ID over here, but I think only the 2 are really accepted.

With the new law passed a few years ago - ostensably to look for people illegaly crossing borders from outside the EU to inside, esp. criminals - people can be stopped 50 or 100 km from the border and have their car and so on searched by the police, without any obvious or real suspicion. They can also start a special sort of investigation, where they comb the databases to look for persons fitting a certain profile.

Even before the new law, the police can always stop you on the street and demand to see your ID. If you do not want or aren't able to show it, they can take you to the police office to check up on you.

The Gestapo asked papers please. The homeland security people ask ID please. Please explain the difference to me.

Blue Berry,

I wasn't commenting on whether this is a better or worse system than elsewhere, I first of all posted it just for comparison.

I don't know who exactly the homeland security people are. And the gestapo didn't stop with asking papers; they were secret police (gestapo means geheime staats-polizei=secret state police), like the CIA, and were considered above the law. E.g. taking people without arrest warrants, holding them secretly, without access to lawyers, without seeing judge after 48 hrs., using torture to get information...

All of these things are of course forbidden to the normal police today in most european countries, and in germany. What the secret agencies do, is a different kettle of fish (?).

There are reports about that the intelligence agencies do not stick to the laws when investigating, even in germany, and many reports about the illegal stuff the CIA and FBI did. But when they get caught, its currently illegal.

My fear is of course, that with many people afraid of terrorism, more laws will be pushed through the parlaments allowing "special measures in special cases" or in other words, whenever we see fit to apply. Big Brother is coming closer again.

constanze, the CIA are forbidden by law to conduct operations within the US.

The Gestapo asked papers please. The homeland security people ask ID please. Please explain the difference to me.

I'm not saying you should have to carry ID everywhere in public or to cross state lines or anything like that, just that of you want to board a plane you have to show some proof that you are who you claim to be, just like if you get a job they have the right to make sure you are who you say you are. Don't forget that several of the 19 were either on expired visas or had arrest warrents out for them.

I'm not saying you should have to carry ID everywhere in public or to cross state lines or anything like that, just that of you want to board a plane you have to show some proof that you are who you claim to be, just like if you get a job they have the right to make sure you are who you say you are.

Why? For a job, yes. There are tax issues (but that's a whole 'nuther discussion), so they need to verify your identity.

But. I'm getting on a plane to go from Point A to Point B. Why do I have to prove that I am who I claim to be? All the 19 had valid ID, and most of them were NOT on watch lists.

Besides, the ID thing was instituted after OKC. How did checking ID at airports keep one from taking a Ryder truck filled with fertilizer and blowing it up?

The fact is none of the procedures implemented at the airports after September 11th would have done anything to prevent it from happening. There are two reasons for the increased security measures:

1. To make the public feel more secure... to give the illusion that something is being done to prevent it.

2. As a deterrent... some people may think twice about doing it if they feel that they're going to be caught.

While I agree that these two things are important, I also think that more action needs to be taken at the motivational level... what prompts people to sacrifice their lives for a cause? What conditions were imposed on them to make them feel they had no other choice than to kill and be killed in order to be heard?

If we don't start addressing these things, all the security screens in the world won't help us to prevent another tragedy like September 11th. It's only a matter of time before suicide bombers of the type seen in the Middle East make their way to the U.S. What are we going to do then?

Yes, Darth, absolutely right.

That people have to show their ID when crossing state borders or at the airport won't stop those sleepers with a clean record or those who have access to high-quality forged papers. It only stops the small fry, gives people the feeling that the government is doing its job, and gives the government agencies a lot of data on everybody.

Its not a new problem, either: the word "Assassins" comes from a sect in the middle ages who brain-washed their believers into doing suicide missions.

Even the most strictest regimes and dictatorships, which controlled people at every step and had drastic measures against terrorism and sabotage, couldn't stop it 100%. They might have lowered the level, but the restrictions imposed on the general population to achieve a small drop were quite severe. And those innocent people caught up in the wheels had no chance at all.

Security is the same as everything: a 100% can't be achieved. Its not realistic.

E.g. to compare to another topic: as soon as the governments pays money - it doesn't matter for what - there will be frauds. The only question is: how high is the percentage - 50% or 5%? If its 50%, sth. should be done, e.g. more controling. But if its 5%, more controlling would only be a harrassment of the honest 95%. There has to be a rationality of how much energy and time is spent to achieve sth., and how many people are unnecessarily affected by it.

Some years ago, a study was done in germany's big cities, about what people felt threatened of. Interestengly enough, people feared most what was least likely to happen, e.g. being robbed at gunpoint in the subway or on dark streets. I think they mentioned about 8 cases in one year in my city. Things like break-ins or car accidents, which occured much more often (a 100 or 1000 times more) weren't that threating. Partly this shifting of reality has to do with the way the media, esp. the yellow press, exploits some cases to influence people (sadly, it seems to have worked). Its the famous thing with the headline "Foreigner in a knife-fight..." but when a german does the same thing, its a small message on side 3 "knife-fight..." so people think that foreigners are dangerous. And if the people feel unsafe on the street, they don't think about what the government is doing to their personal rights and real freedom.

One result of this study was not only stricter laws, once again limiting personal rights and freedom, but also that more private police patrols the subways in my town - not because sth. happens, but to give people the feeling of security.

ScottN,

how much has the CIA adhered to this law?

I mean, didn't the CIA and army admit to conducting tests on humans in the 60s and 70s about drugs and chemical weapons without getting their permission or even telling them about it? (Mostly blacks, homeless and crazy people from institutions.) I don't remember them showing remorse; it was "well, we had to win the cold war by whatever means possible"

the general impression it got about this agency is that results matter, not the ways used (or the rights broken in between). You can use military or FBI.

The CIA has been under much tighter scrutiny since the late '60s/early '70s. I do recall the uproar about testing (drugs only -- specifically LSD, not chem weapons), but don't recall if it was CIA, DoD or someone else.

constanze,

My comment about the Gestappo was aimed at BF's post not yours.

BF,

So you say we should limit the Gestappo to airports... care to explain yourself further?

So you say we should limit the Gestappo to airports... care to explain yourself further?

It seems to me that the airports have a right to make sure that wanted fellons and people travaling under assumed identitys aren't getting onto their million dollar craft, where they can cause damage. Just like credit companies have the right to make sure they aren't giving a card to someone who's already $100,000 in debt, or employers have the right to make sure they aren't going to hire a theif to manage money, or stores and resturants can make sure they aren't selling booze to a 15 year old.

BF,

You are missing a key point about airports. Every airport in the US is currently government owned. (Yes, that guy in Chicago want to build a private one but that does not exist yet.) All you examples are privately owned. A bank or restaurant can jump off a bridge for all I care, but the government in a representative republic represents me (alledgedly).

1) Doing it will not really do anything. (It may help foster the illusion of saftey, but I'd rather see the perillous gorge I am crossing on an old rope bridge than the safe illusion of being in my living room. With the illusion I don't see the rope fraying as I casually reach for the remote for the TV.)

2) If you do do it there is nothing to prevent me using the same arguement for someone on the street. If he has felony convictions I don't want him looking at the booze and cigarettes while I buy gum or perhaps he is planning to run fertilizer into a nuclear power plant! A valid drivers liscence can protect us all if we just give up a little freedom. After all ID isn't that hard to get. Any officer should be able to ask "Papers, please." It won't be used against anyone it shouldn't. The FBI files of Republicans won't end up in the Clinton White House. The Denver Police Department won't track the Colorado Libertarian Party as a possible threat. No siree, only bad guys like ACLU members and other terrorists will be prevented from walking our streets to vital areas like airports and nuclear power plants!

Go Blue Berry go. You are a true believer.

"A society that is willing to give up a little liberty for a little order will lose both and
deserve neither" Thomas Jefferson

Incorrect. According to Bartleby, referring to Bartlett's, it's by Franklin, and the correct phrasing is:

---

Quote:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

---

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom — go from us in peace. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you." – Sam Adams

Sorry my source had it differently. I like the way this one flows. Oh well thats the internet and a free society.

Carnival Booth: An Algorithm for Defeating the Computer-Assisted Passenger Screening System

http://www.onion.com/onion3838/faa_passenger_ban.html

Dave Barry is probably our best political analyst. (And George Carlin is our best theologian.)

yet another Dave Barry column

An aquaintance travelling out of Washington DC was told that because of "new FAA and TSA regulations" she had to leave her baggage unlocked.

Result: her baggage arrive ransacked, with many, many items stolen.

Her point: if you can't trust these weasels not to take stuff out of your bags, how can you trust them not to put a bomb in your bags?

Sophie,

Tell you friend she should not carry luggage.

Not really airport security but advice for Americans abroad

This story is currently getting some media attention in .de and many people already compare it with the "warm welcome" at the former GDR's borders:
Land Of The Free?
Turned away at border

You gotta read this to believe it.

This is hardly a surprise Luigi. The son of a Denver based reporter had ytoruble getting to Bosotn to look at colleges because his anme was letter for letter the same as someone on Britian's watch list.

After what NEARLY happened today with the planned airplane explosions, I cannot help but wonder if Bush still thinks that Islam is a "peaceful religion".

I don't see why today would have any bearing on it. There are always extremists.

Islam is as peaceful as those who practice it, much as with Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion. What happened yesterday was not engineered by a "religion." It was engineered by fanatics who practiced it in a fanatical manner.

Did you mean "was NOT engineered by a religion"?

ACK! Thanks, I've fixed it. I've also moved these last few posts to the appropriate board.

John, for future reference, please put such posts on the proper board. Thanks.

I wasn't sure where to put it. Sorry.

If they are not allowing liquids onto planes, does this mean the only way someone could get water on a plane is to buy a bottle of it?

I understand, John, but try to look through the topics to see which one is most closely applicable. The subject is obviously pertinent to the 9/11 and related Subjects subtopic, and more specifically to Airport Security, rather than Bush, who didn't really figure into this story.

Watch FOX. They are trying to credit the Bush Administration for Britain's efforts.

Opponents of Blair are saying that the terrorism findings and arrests were staged to help Blair in the polls.

Is chapstick not permitted on airplanes anymore?

I don't think so, unless it is prescribed to the ticket holder. The TSA says they cannot detect whether any substance like a liquid or gel is an explosive so they cannot allow them past security.

But isn't lip balm a solid?

Usually they are fairly solid(I know of one brand that is like a gel) but I think they are disallowing any types of medicines like that. I may try to poke around the net to see if I can get some specifics on that.

Copied this from the TSA's website:

Make Up and Personal Items

Body creams and lotions
Bubble baths
Bubble bath balls (gels)
Eye drops / gels
Gel caps
Gel deodorants
Hair detangler
Hair sprays / aerosol bottles
Hair styling gels
Hand sanitizers
Lip gels (Carmex in tubes, etc)
Lip glosses/liquids (solid lip glosses and blushes are allowed)
Liquid foundations
Liquid medications (non-essential)
Liquid Soaps
Make up removers / facial cleansers
Mascaras
Mosquito sprays
Mouthwashes
Nail polish and removers
Neosporin like cremes
Ointments
Perfumes / colognes
Saline Solutions
Shampoos and conditioners
Shaving creams and gels
Toothpastes
Topical creams

Ah it does seem that solid lip balm is allowed. I find that weird- couldn't someone disguise an explosive as a solid lip balm?

There was a story about a woman who "could absolutely not travel without her lip balm". How dependent on that do you need to be, anyway? Apparently she smuggled it in a candy wrapper. Maybe she didn't have to.

I'd hate to think of making a trip without a bottle of water, and only getting the 4 ounces of soda or whatever that they tend to give you on the plane. I'd probably also have to switch from contacts to glasses because I'd definitely need my eye drops.

I'm flying (for business) on Sunday (9/10). I shudder to think what security would be like on Monday.

Scottn: Do you take your shoes off? Have you drink your water? At Tinneman square in China, we had to throw away our water bottles.

and they served no lunch or dinner either on the airplanes now.

And they served no lunch or dinner either on the airplanes now.

I flew Aer Lingus from New York to Paris (with a stopover at Dublin) with my girlfriend last April, and we were well fed on the NY-Dublin loop. There was food available on the short hop as well, but it was at extra cost.
And, I took my shoes off. And jacket. And, emptied my pockets. Four times.

My cousin and her boyfriend are visiting from Italy for a couple of weeks, beginning on September 16. I was thinking similar things about what they're going through. My cousin is actually a security checkpoint person at the airport in Italy where she works; I wonder if this will give her some clout.

they busted a high up person in the dept homeland security for child porn or something didn't they? Given how even the top ranking people fail at things, I doubt she'd get any clout.

Well, the served free 7-up or sodas on the way to China and back.They chose us (5th or 6th) for security checks.Both times. One airport thought we were aliens (not the Trek kind)in China.


they even moved our car at Sfo. They had no key no way, to start the motor but they did.


also, our bags were out in the Lost and Found department, 20 minutes after we landed.They were out on another flight from China.


Nice trip.

Re: moving the car. Unlikely. There's no way to link that car to you. I suspect that you guys just forgot where you parked.

Scottn- please read They drive me crazy.

What does the ticket in SF have to do with your car being allegedly moved at SFO?

geez, I mean the parking pay stub.Someone moved the car after 5 days.They towed us,probably.You should name yourself the Doubting ScottN. Do I have to email you our pay stub??
It took us 2 hours to find the car in a driving rainstorm.

Adam- I'll go on your airline to Disney world.

I'll take Mickey Mouse any day.And have Duck for Lunch.Sorry, Donold or aflac.

Of course, it can be pointed out that a police officer can pull you over and demand to see your liscense for any reason, or even no reason, as not carring one is a crime. Driving is a privilage, not a right.

Well, from a "could it happen" standpoint, a police officer can pull you over and demand to see your driver's license for any reason. However, from a U.S. Constitutional standpoint, it's an unreasonable seizure prohibited by the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and any evidence acquired by the police as a result of that seizure is subject to being supressed at some point in the court proceedings, provided you (the defendant) file the appropriate motion and prevail in a hearing on the motion. If you prevail on such a motion (not a hard thing to do), then if the matter goes to trial, the court never gets to hear how after the officer pulled you over, he learned that you didn't have a valid driver's license, or had a bag of weed in your center console, or had a body in the trunk.

When you get your licence you agree to present it to a police office at any time they ask to see it if you are driving a car at the time. As they said driving is a privilage, not a right. As for unreasonable search and seizure that applies to searching your car. You don't have to let them do that without probable cause, even if you are getting arrested you don't have to let the, you can designate someone to pick up your car or a tow truck to tow it.

When you get your licence you agree to present it to a police office at any time they ask to see it if you are driving a car at the time. As they said driving is a privilage, not a right. As for unreasonable search and seizure that applies to searching your car. You don't have to let them do that without probable cause, even if you are getting arrested you don't have to let the, you can designate someone to pick up your car or a tow truck to tow it.

You are wrong on whether or not a traffic stop constitutes a seizure under the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The stop is not a search, but it is a seizure (of the person). And in order for the police to lawfully initiate a traffic stop, the seizure must pass constitutional muster. An illustrative supporting U.S. Supreme Court case (decided 8-1) is Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979). This constitutionality requirement is generally satisfied if the officer has reasonable grounds (probably cause) to believe that either the driver or a passenger in the vehicle is violating a law or has just recently violated a law. An officer's observation of a traffic violation, or response to the scene of a traffic accident will satisfy this requirement. An exception to the reasonable grounds requirement would be in the case of a roadside safety check, assuming proper notice to the public has been given, and the police are stopping vehicles at a constant frequency interval, usually not greater than every 2nd or 3rd vehicle, depending on traffic flow through the checkpoint. Another exception to the reasonable grounds requirement is if one or more of the occupants of the vehicle has an outstanding warrant for his or her arrest. Another exception is when an officer is fulfilling a community caretaking function, such as a motorist assist on a roadway, or trying to determine if a driver found asleep at the wheel in a running vehicle is okay to drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right. However, the privileged status of driving in the U.S. does not supercede the 4th Amendment Constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The officer cannot lawfully stop a vehicle on the road for the sole reason that the officer just wanted to see if the driver had a valid driver's license. That is a classic case of a traffic stop which gets quashed by the judge at court, for lack of probable cause to stop the vehicle, in a hearing on a defense motion to quash the stop and suppress evidence. The exclusionary rule (barring "fruit of the poisonous tree") then prevents the prosecutor from introducing any evidence against the defendant obtained as a result of the unlawful stop (in this case, the defendant’s status as an unlicensed driver). And if necessary prosecution evidence is barred, the prosecutor can't prove the case if it goes to trial.

As for whether or not a driver under arrest following a traffic stop must consent to a vehicle search, the answer is, no. However, assuming the arrest is lawful, the police may lawfully search the interior of the vehicle in the area within the driver's immediate control (e.g. center console, glove compartment) without consent of the driver, as a search incident to a lawful arrest. The police may also lawfully look at any other part of the vehicle in plain view (viewable without opening compartments, the hood, the trunk, containers, etc.), and the police may recover any illegal items or evidence of criminal violations found through such means. In some situations, the police may lawfully impound the vehicle, in which case, the driver doesn't have the option of designating someone else to drive the vehicle away from the scene of the traffic stop, or designating a tow truck to remove the vehicle from the scene. And if the police impound the vehicle, a vehicle inventory will generally be done, which will cover the plain view search and the search incident to a lawful arrest.

100 full body scan pix released on Net.