Protecting us from Terrorist attack?

No, I'm safer because you and your buddies can't take your pocket knives along with the shoe bomb you would use to blow open the cockpit door.

 

I think you're half right ... prior to 9/11, security was an illusion, at least against the type of attacks we had on 9/11. The security that was present was designed to help against the lone nutcase who wanted to get media attention and fly to Cuba. Suicide bombings weren't on the landscape then, with the only terrorist bombing of an airplane in most of our conciousnesses being Pan Am 104 over Scotland (a girlfriend was taking a bomb on board without knowing it). It was unconcievable that someone would take over the controls and fly the plane into a building.

Security is much better now. Much better. Nothing is 100%, but the move toward complete x-raying of all luggage is substantial in itself. None was x-rayed before. Even one of the links above, lamenting the "breakdowns" in the system, was a breakdown that occured because a few hundred bags bypassed the x-ray machines for expediencies sake. That day, even with that "breakdown", most flights had 100% of the luggage x-rayed. Some flights did not. That is better security than pre 9/11, when none of the luggage (except carry-on) was xrayed.

I have an employee who has a name that has been used by someone on the no-fly list. She is screened multiple times every time she goes to the airport. I have another business acquaintance who is screened every time also, because of an irregularity on her passport, even if she doesn't present her passport at the airport. Her name is on a list, and she gets screened.

There will always be "holes" in security systems, but part of the strategy is to keep increasing the use of technology, intelligence and training to spot our enemies. Pointing out that there are holes in the system, and then concluding that we are "no better off" is allowing cynicism to rule over logic.

 

They must be crazy. Our elected officials will make a grave mistake if they let Arabs take over our ports. And I would not let ANYONE else take over our ports. With the exception of England and maybe a couple other nations everyone seems to hate us for a whole list of reasons. They owe We The People far better than what we've been getting.

I believe national security is in extreme danger.

 

Well, I'm not making up facts to fit my arguement. Indeed, I went straight to the source, the GAO (General Accounting Office):

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d031173.pdf

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06374t.pdf

 

Well, the first article is from September 2003, nearly 2 1/2 years ago, and points out in the opening sentence:

The second one is a recent report, from just this month, and outlines the start up problems with the "Secure Flight" program. This is an advanced pre-screening program to match terrorist profiles and names with the millions of passengers out there before they get into the security lines (or even to the airport). Do we assume from this that GAO couldn't find fault with the screening procedures while in the lines at the airport from the prior report you picked? That would be premature; I suspect you just picked up on "concerns" and didn't mean to try and link these very strikingly different programs together. These reports aren't linked, but the fact that you picked one that is far, far more advanced than anything ever attempted pre-9/11 is a telling fact.

Congress is overseeing the progress, and the various factions that are at work to see that their agenda is represented ... such as the civil libertarians who don't want the advanced technology that can "see" the bodies underneath the clothing to detect the presence of ceramic knives and the like (to mention just one concern) ... are also being heard. The second report outlines the prior program's demise ... CAPS II ... due to "privacy concerns". If you remember the controversy over that program, some airlines responded to the TSA's request for complete passenger information, and included some obviously private details such as credit card numbers.

I don't see how anyone can say security is a farce, or that we are no more secure than before 9/11 after reading these reports. They are evidence that much is being done. The fact that problems remain, and are being identified, cataloged, and solutions proposed shows that the work continues.

 

For those of you who think Arabs should be excluded from purchasing the ports,
you really need to read THIS EYE OPENING REPORT!

 

Anyway, it's good to see that Bush is on the case. He's ready to wield his veto:

You may have to read that twice.

Presumably there's some massive kickback going on here. His business connections with the Saudis are well known, and it's quite possible that they extend to the UAE.

It's really funny watching Bush's footsoldiers trying to defend this with a straight face. Can you imagine their reaction if Clinton was doing this...

 

And there I thought the congress *was* part of the government. Silly me.

 

Please tell me you aren't watching Bill Maher for "Real Time" breaking news. :huh:

As far as your other choices for breaking news . . . I think it may have taken that long for the Democrat party decide "this is something we can use against the Republicans" and to give those "news" outlets the "scoop" that this will become the next big news item as soon as they are finished beating into the ground the "Britney's baby is already driving" story.

Maybe you need to reassess your choices in who delivers "real" news in "real" time.
FOX NEWS had broadcast the UAE/port story the day before Godiva broke it here in FHOP. It was an Associated Press story. (Does this mean Godiva is a closet Fox News watcher? :lol: )
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184599,00.html

 

So despite reports that state otherwise, you state we're more secure. Ok.

http://www.washtimes.com/business/20040422-102242-3576r.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...land-usat_x.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/st...d=316582&page=1

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...&type=printable

Of course, it's easy to see why the person hired to *improve* TSA was fired for voicing concerns of incompetent management, clueless unionized workers, stoned Federal Air Marshals (Remember that case a week ago of the Federal Air Marshals busted for being drug dealers?), and baggage not properly screened.

 

I heard the "runner up" was a company from Singapore.

Not sure who runs the other ports in the country, but the British were running these previously. We do have laws restricting the ownership of US airlines, and there's talk of extending that to port management services. I personally think that's a mistake, but I understand the anti-Arab sentiment at work here.

 

I haven't piled through these, but I suspect they are more of the same kind of reports. Problems with new and improved techiques are not proof that those new and improved techiques do not exist. Rather, they are proof that we are continually working toward resolution with active debate, improved procedures and yes, that means we are safer.

If we increased Air Marshalls by 400%, with hundreds more on the job, but 10 of them turn out to be drug dealers are stoned, are we less safe or more safe? That's STILL hundreds more on the job, and we are more safe.

 

I guess I wasn’t clear enough. I’m in a bit of a rush, off for a week on a business trip starting tomorrow. So I’ll try again:

What I note is the institutional behavior that appears to have one priority above all others: ridiculing, discounting, and generally dismissing problems or outright failures, especially those of Management and the Bureaucracy.

That is perhaps the most important reason Homeland Security Department Inspector General Clark Kent Ervin was let go: he actually DID HIS JOB. He sniffed out problems, exposed potentially FATAL weaknesses in the TSA structure.

As a result, he wasn’t a “team player,†he “made waves.†Quite frankly, I could care less if you describe to me a similar situation in government or the private sector, as I’ve worked in both and the same outcome occurs.

When you think about it, it’s a highly contradictory position to be in: a person is charged with rooting out systemic failures, and in the process of doing so they encounter a bloated, incompetent, deranged bureaucracy that seeks to quash all mention of systemic problems. You quite frankly have to drag it out of them, kicking and screaming.

I learned a long time ago, in Organizational Behavior, of something called “Defensive Avoidance.†It’s self-explanatory and was theorized by Dr. I.L Janis and Dr. L. Mann, calling it the “Janis-Mann Conflict Model of Decision Making Theory.â€

In a nutshell, it’s “groupthink.†Organizations – especially large bloated top-heavy ones – act like slow and pigheaded individuals. They only present data that supports their position, justifies their job, or is at least neutral. Negative data or data that counters their position is discarded.

There is a systemic issue at work here. You claim we’re safer. I claim that with so much at stake, even one person who screws up can cause a disaster, a true catastrophe.

So I don’t feel particularly safe traveling anymore, certainly not looking forward to that long international flight tomorrow.

 

With the onging brouhaha about the UAE, one can dig out interesting facts about our so called friend, a few of these are:
1. The UAE does not recognize the state of Israel, an argument always used against other not so friendly Arab countries
2. The UAE was one of the 3 countries officially recognizing the Taliban
3. The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia
4. After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts
5. Dubai ports are known to be the easiest to ship whatever, hence the popularity among shady dealers worldwide

I think the whole debate about this is very valid and anybody who just wants to dismiss it certainly doesn't give a damn about the security of our nation and blindly follows the corrupt ones, the ones who secure big influences.

 

So if there's any chance of a mishap, we are no safer than before? If just one person gets through, to one plane, and we lose 300+ people, that is just as bad as the level of security that allowed 5 airplanes to be highjacked on the same day?

The issues you point out are the very reasons I didn't want to see security federalized in the first place. But I don't see the screeners napping at the x-ray machine, and I don't hear things like "Ah don' look none for weapons, ah'm lookin' for the guns" (Logan airport, in the 80's.)

Is it perfect? Of course not. Can it get better? Absolutely. But is it better than before? Yes, I think so.

 

The debate is valid. I never said it wasn't. We can even pass laws like we do for US airlines that say we can't have foreign ownership or management of ports, but I don't think that will improve security or the operations of the ports. It will probably make them worse.

I would appreciate valid points in this valid debate, and not the insinuation that, because I disagree with you, I don't give a damn about security, or that I'm in bed with "corrupt ones." Am I unpatriotic too? Perhaps a traitor?

 

Not sure what your point is as I neither was talking to you nor I said anything about you