CDG security snafu: Explosives in luggage

On Friday, a routine security check ran afoul...

Security officers inserted some C4 explosives in a randomly chosen piece of
luggage to test explosive detection process.

The dogs did detect the eplosives, but while the officers congratulated the
dog, they forgot to retrieve the luggage from the belt and the luggage made it
to the plane with its explosives still in it.

There were about 90 flights out of CDG during that time period. They had no
clue on which aircraft the luggage went. (perhaps they should take a note of
the luggage flight number before putting explosives in it)

The C4 was not a danger since it had no detonator. However, imagine what would
happen to a passenger landing in the USA and they open his luggage to find C4
explosives. The guys would be sent to Gantanamo or Syria in no time.

Actually, even if the CDG officers had retrieved the C4 before releasing the
luggage back onto the belt, wouldn't there be traces of C4 left in the
suitcase which could cause problems to the passenger ?

Woudl such exercises result in the officers leaving a note in the luggage
indicating that there was a legitimate test of C4 and that the passenger was
not involved ? (in case there are problems at customs for passenger when he lands)

rk wrote:
I see you are off railing on the USA again -- when it was the French police
putting power military explosives into a passenger's luggage without asking
permission. And then losing the explosives.ave

This story has nothing to do with your ****ing country., Stop being pararoid
about all non americans trying to destroy your country. Your country's
problems are of your own doings.

At least in the USA airports, it's a no-no to let any one else have your
luggage much less put explosives in. And it's also a no-no to put explosives
on aircraft

I have news for you. Inserting explosives in luggage is standard practice
around the world for airport security/police when doing tests of the efficacy
of explosives detection and staff training. Procedures always result in the
explosive being removed from luggage before it makes it to plane. This is why
this mistake made worldwide news.

The C4 was not a danger since it had no detonator.

C4 is highly flammable. Troops have used it to heat their coffee
or soup by cutting off small chunks and igniting it below their cup.
It is similar to a product called Sterno (in the USA) in that respect.

However, imagine what would happen to a passenger landing in the
USA and they open his luggage to find C4 explosives. The guys
would be sent to Gantanamo or Syria in no time.

No kidding. The French sure pulled a Keystone Kops routine.

Actually, even if the CDG officers had retrieved the C4 before
releasing the luggage back onto the belt, wouldn't there be traces
of C4 left in the suitcase which could cause problems to the
passenger ?

Yes it would. He could get rid of the C4 traces in his clothes by
washing them, but it is difficult to wash the interior of a suitcase. He
would be well advised to trash the suitcase and any other item that
cannot be washed, or at least never bring them to an airport.


Pete

"nobody" wrote in message
...
On Friday, a routine security check ran afoul...

Security officers inserted some C4 explosives in a randomly chosen piece
of
luggage to test explosive detection process.

The dogs did detect the eplosives, but while the officers congratulated
the
dog, they forgot to retrieve the luggage from the belt and the luggage
made it
to the plane with its explosives still in it.

There were about 90 flights out of CDG during that time period. They had
no
clue on which aircraft the luggage went. (perhaps they should take a note
of
the luggage flight number before putting explosives in it)

The C4 was not a danger since it had no detonator. However, imagine what
would
happen to a passenger landing in the USA

Un. Bee. Leevable. You turned a story about a French screw-up into a rant
against the US. This is something only a pathetic kook with no life outside
of Usenet would do.

I have news for you. Inserting explosives in luggage is standard
practice around the world for airport security/police when doing
tests of the efficacy of explosives detection and staff training.

The hell it is. There is no point in inserting explosives into an innocent
person's luggage. All that is needed to be done is to bring a bag
owned by the security detail and insert the explosives into it. Many
people used to lock their luggage before 9/11 and many still do. It
would be difficult to insert explosives into a locked bag. The French
screwed up big time here.


Pete

"nobody" wrote in message
...
rk wrote:

I have news for you. Inserting explosives in luggage is standard practice
around the world for airport security/police when doing tests of the
efficacy
of explosives detection and staff training. Procedures always result in
the
explosive being removed from luggage before it makes it to plane. This is
why
this mistake made worldwide news.

It's world wide practice to place explosives, drugs, and weapons in luggage.
Luggage which is provided and marked in one way or another. This is the
first I've heard of stuffing Grandma Jones's underwear bag with C-4. We'll
have to add another name on the No-Fly list. The French Security.

"nobody" wrote in message
...
rk wrote:

I have news for you. Inserting explosives in luggage is standard practice
around the world for airport security/police when doing tests of the
efficacy
of explosives detection and staff training. Procedures always result in
the
explosive being removed from luggage before it makes it to plane. This is
why
this mistake made worldwide news.

It's world wide practice to place explosives, drugs, and weapons in luggage.
Luggage which is provided and marked in one way or another. This is the
first I've heard of stuffing Grandma Jones's underwear bag with C-4. We'll
have to add another name on the No-Fly list. The French Security.

nobody wrote:

I have news for you. Inserting explosives in luggage is standard practice
around the world for airport security/police when doing tests of the efficacy
of explosives detection and staff training. Procedures always result in the
explosive being removed from luggage before it makes it to plane.

This isn't the first time, so I guess it really isn't "always" removed.

nobody wrote:

I have news for you. Inserting explosives in luggage is standard practice
around the world for airport security/police when doing tests of the efficacy
of explosives detection and staff training. Procedures always result in the
explosive being removed from luggage before it makes it to plane.

This isn't the first time, so I guess it really isn't "always" removed.

On 06/12/2004, nospam wrote:

I have news for you. Inserting explosives in luggage is standard
practice around the world for airport security/police when doing
tests of the efficacy of explosives detection and staff training.

The hell it is. There is no point in inserting explosives into an
innocent person's luggage. All that is needed to be done is to bring
a bag owned by the security detail and insert the explosives into it.
Many people used to lock their luggage before 9/11 and many still do.
It would be difficult to insert explosives into a locked bag. The
French screwed up big time here.

Israeli security officers seem to make a habit of planting deactivated
handguns in passengers' baggage. This time they lost one:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3517570.stm

"According to Haaretz, security officers sometimes plant replica guns
in passengers' luggage as a way of keeping El Al's baggage-checkers on
their toes."

--
Simon Elliott http://www.ctsn.co.uk