"No Fly List" - is a net to supress voice???

"Kari Sinhalavan" wrote

Matt, typical stupid republican.

Kari, typical unsupported attack.

TSA is maintained by US and asked other nations to follow.

TSA is not maintained by the US, it is part of the US government. The no
fly list you mention may or may not even exist and I'm betting you have no
evidence at all that the US asked any other nation to follow it.

Even last month US special forces trained secretly Sri
Lankan forces to kill Tamils.

It's so secret that you know all about it, right?

If Sri Lankan government have asked US to put somebody then US ought have
checked thoroughly.

Here's a clue. The US isn't allowed to check thoroughly. If Sri Lanka says
put them on the list, they go on the list unless there's reason to believe
the name does not belong there. Note, it's a name, not a person, that's on
the list. If you don't like that, talk to Sri Lanka. Don't blame the US
for something you don't even know the source of.

Lee

"Kari Sinhalavan" wrote

Matt, typical stupid republican.

Kari, typical unsupported attack.

TSA is maintained by US and asked other nations to follow.

TSA is not maintained by the US, it is part of the US government. The no
fly list you mention may or may not even exist and I'm betting you have no
evidence at all that the US asked any other nation to follow it.

Even last month US special forces trained secretly Sri
Lankan forces to kill Tamils.

It's so secret that you know all about it, right?

If Sri Lankan government have asked US to put somebody then US ought have
checked thoroughly.

Here's a clue. The US isn't allowed to check thoroughly. If Sri Lanka says
put them on the list, they go on the list unless there's reason to believe
the name does not belong there. Note, it's a name, not a person, that's on
the list. If you don't like that, talk to Sri Lanka. Don't blame the US
for something you don't even know the source of.

Lee

"Kari Sinhalavan" wrote

Matt, typical stupid republican.

Kari, typical unsupported attack.

TSA is maintained by US and asked other nations to follow.

TSA is not maintained by the US, it is part of the US government. The no
fly list you mention may or may not even exist and I'm betting you have no
evidence at all that the US asked any other nation to follow it.

Even last month US special forces trained secretly Sri
Lankan forces to kill Tamils.

It's so secret that you know all about it, right?

If Sri Lankan government have asked US to put somebody then US ought have
checked thoroughly.

Here's a clue. The US isn't allowed to check thoroughly. If Sri Lanka says
put them on the list, they go on the list unless there's reason to believe
the name does not belong there. Note, it's a name, not a person, that's on
the list. If you don't like that, talk to Sri Lanka. Don't blame the US
for something you don't even know the source of.

Lee

Matt wrote:

I think if the list actually stopped a hijacking then you're right,

If Joe Hijack's name is on the list, and the real Joe Hijack steps up
to the ticket counter and is told he can't fly (and minutes later he
is hustled away by authorities) then have we just stopped a
hijacking? Does it matter? I don't think so. If the above were to
happen, then, like I said, the Bush admin would be spreading the news
that a *wanted* terrorist was captured due to their skillful
leadership in this post-911 era. The fact that this hasn't happened
tells me that either

1) the NFL is designed to placate the insurance industry re airline
liability, or

2) the NFL is a smoke screen, designed to be well known to the flying
public (and potential bad guys) and keep bad guys away from airplanes
(rather than catch them at the ticket counter). Like gate security
screening was once largely a smoke screen (to make most people,
including bad guys, believe that since carry-on screening and metaol
detector arches exist then they must be effective). If this is the
reason, then that would explain why the list is never published -
because it *doesn't* contain the names of any real terrorists, but it
does contain just enough names to trip up a few people who we find out
about through the media. And to kick it up a notch, they make it so
that even Ted Kennedy gets tripped up by the list. The intent here is
to send a message to "bad guys" that the list is very tough and
unbiased. The Kennedy incident garantees that the NFL gets broad
media exposure so most potential bad guys now know it exists.

Ok, let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You're on
a flight sitting in seat 15A, and you wouldn't mind if a terrorist
sat down next to you in 15B?? Is that really what you are saying?

I'd rather have 15C.

The question is not whether I'd like to have a terrorist sitting next
to me. The question is whether having a NFL in it's current
(arbitrary, hiddeous, in-flexible) form is either effective or a good
trade-off in security vs inconveinence for those who are falsely
identified. I put the odds at vanishingly close to zero that the list
actually works at intercepting wood-be hijackers. The logic that to
stop using the list means that on the very next flight there will be a
hijacker sitting beside me is absurd, and panders to the same sort of
fear-making machine that the Bush admin has used to blanket the US in
since 9-11.

First of all, what do you want them to recommend passengers do
in the case of a hijacking?

What would you want your fellow passengers to do? Sit quietly while 1
(or more) bad guys storm around the plane, hammering on the cockpit
door? Hasn't the premis changed from "obey the hijacker and you will
live" to "combat the hijacker(s) if you want to live" ?

9-11 happened BECAUSE the prevailing impression (among passengers AND
crew) was that you obey the hijacker. It was never assumed that a
hijacker was intent on suicide or marterdom or use the plane to make a
statement in a dramatic manner like crashing it.

If 9-11 situations are to be prevented in the future, then the
prevailing impression MUST BE that hijackers are ALWAYS confronted /
combated - no exceptions. That impression must be announced if not
reinforced by policymakers and authorities such as the FAA/TSA. Those
authorities (cowards) have remained silent on this issue.

Second of all, do you really need, or want, the government
to tell you what to do in that kind of situation?

If one or more hijackers got out of their seats and attempted to take
over a plane, and you wanted to combat them with the help of fellow
passengers, but no other passengers were willing - because "the gov't
didn't tell them they should combat hijackers" - what would you think
then?

The gov't tells you to put your seat in it's upright and locked
position, raise your tray table, stow your carry-on, tells you to
remain in your seat if you're flying to DCA. The gov't tells you A
LOT of things when you're on a plane. How to you feel about that?


You can't train passengers how to handle a hijacking
situation with a 30 second presentation from the
flight attendants or a pamphlet stuffed in the seat
back pocket.

You're right. And I was also thinking that maybe passengers seated
next to emergency exits could possibly open exit doors themselves if
given a pre-flight explanation by the flight attendents. Na- that's a
silly idea. I was also thinking that maybe the flight attendents
would tell people what they might have to do in the case of a crash -
like what to do with those funny plastic bags that might fall from the
overhead console, or that their seats can be used as a flotation aid.
Na, that's way too much information for pax to digest.

Your right. A sentence like "you may be called upon by the crew or
fellow passengers to subdue anyone threatenting the safety and
security of the plane" is clearly too confusing and fails to convey or
re-inforce the idea that hijackers are to be confronted. Yea, the
very mention of that sentence on each and every flight wouldn't do
much to deter future hijackers who would be hearing that on every test
flight they take.

Matt wrote:

I think if the list actually stopped a hijacking then you're right,

If Joe Hijack's name is on the list, and the real Joe Hijack steps up
to the ticket counter and is told he can't fly (and minutes later he
is hustled away by authorities) then have we just stopped a
hijacking? Does it matter? I don't think so. If the above were to
happen, then, like I said, the Bush admin would be spreading the news
that a *wanted* terrorist was captured due to their skillful
leadership in this post-911 era. The fact that this hasn't happened
tells me that either

1) the NFL is designed to placate the insurance industry re airline
liability, or

2) the NFL is a smoke screen, designed to be well known to the flying
public (and potential bad guys) and keep bad guys away from airplanes
(rather than catch them at the ticket counter). Like gate security
screening was once largely a smoke screen (to make most people,
including bad guys, believe that since carry-on screening and metaol
detector arches exist then they must be effective). If this is the
reason, then that would explain why the list is never published -
because it *doesn't* contain the names of any real terrorists, but it
does contain just enough names to trip up a few people who we find out
about through the media. And to kick it up a notch, they make it so
that even Ted Kennedy gets tripped up by the list. The intent here is
to send a message to "bad guys" that the list is very tough and
unbiased. The Kennedy incident garantees that the NFL gets broad
media exposure so most potential bad guys now know it exists.

Ok, let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You're on
a flight sitting in seat 15A, and you wouldn't mind if a terrorist
sat down next to you in 15B?? Is that really what you are saying?

I'd rather have 15C.

The question is not whether I'd like to have a terrorist sitting next
to me. The question is whether having a NFL in it's current
(arbitrary, hiddeous, in-flexible) form is either effective or a good
trade-off in security vs inconveinence for those who are falsely
identified. I put the odds at vanishingly close to zero that the list
actually works at intercepting wood-be hijackers. The logic that to
stop using the list means that on the very next flight there will be a
hijacker sitting beside me is absurd, and panders to the same sort of
fear-making machine that the Bush admin has used to blanket the US in
since 9-11.

First of all, what do you want them to recommend passengers do
in the case of a hijacking?

What would you want your fellow passengers to do? Sit quietly while 1
(or more) bad guys storm around the plane, hammering on the cockpit
door? Hasn't the premis changed from "obey the hijacker and you will
live" to "combat the hijacker(s) if you want to live" ?

9-11 happened BECAUSE the prevailing impression (among passengers AND
crew) was that you obey the hijacker. It was never assumed that a
hijacker was intent on suicide or marterdom or use the plane to make a
statement in a dramatic manner like crashing it.

If 9-11 situations are to be prevented in the future, then the
prevailing impression MUST BE that hijackers are ALWAYS confronted /
combated - no exceptions. That impression must be announced if not
reinforced by policymakers and authorities such as the FAA/TSA. Those
authorities (cowards) have remained silent on this issue.

Second of all, do you really need, or want, the government
to tell you what to do in that kind of situation?

If one or more hijackers got out of their seats and attempted to take
over a plane, and you wanted to combat them with the help of fellow
passengers, but no other passengers were willing - because "the gov't
didn't tell them they should combat hijackers" - what would you think
then?

The gov't tells you to put your seat in it's upright and locked
position, raise your tray table, stow your carry-on, tells you to
remain in your seat if you're flying to DCA. The gov't tells you A
LOT of things when you're on a plane. How to you feel about that?


You can't train passengers how to handle a hijacking
situation with a 30 second presentation from the
flight attendants or a pamphlet stuffed in the seat
back pocket.

You're right. And I was also thinking that maybe passengers seated
next to emergency exits could possibly open exit doors themselves if
given a pre-flight explanation by the flight attendents. Na- that's a
silly idea. I was also thinking that maybe the flight attendents
would tell people what they might have to do in the case of a crash -
like what to do with those funny plastic bags that might fall from the
overhead console, or that their seats can be used as a flotation aid.
Na, that's way too much information for pax to digest.

Your right. A sentence like "you may be called upon by the crew or
fellow passengers to subdue anyone threatenting the safety and
security of the plane" is clearly too confusing and fails to convey or
re-inforce the idea that hijackers are to be confronted. Yea, the
very mention of that sentence on each and every flight wouldn't do
much to deter future hijackers who would be hearing that on every test
flight they take.

Matt wrote:
snip

Even with today's level of security, I don't think it would be that hard to
sneak a crude weapon on to a plane. Somehow I doubt the FBI and other
agencies would not be severely criticized if a known or suspected terrorist
took over plane because passenger names weren't being screened.

Matt

It's not the screening so much as the incompetent way in which it is
being done. In this day of IT the concept that they cannot manage to
identify regular hits which have been cleared is ludicrous. Bothering
an individual more that once or twice is unacceptable.

Let them protect us but require that they be competent.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:

In this day of IT the concept that they cannot manage to identify
regular hits which have been cleared is ludicrous. Bothering
an individual more that once or twice is unacceptable.

Let them protect us but require that they be competent.

The real value of the NFL is to repel would-be hijackers and add one
more layer of complexity for them to think about when (or if) they
plan to commit some act against or on a plane. That's in addition to
baggage screening and the now ultra-sensitive gate screening. If a
would-be hijacker knows there is such a thing as a NFL, and it makes
him/them think twice about their ability to pull it off - to the point
he/they abort the attempt - then the list has accomplished it's job -
and it did so without actually being functional and/or knowing the
real or fake names of the would-be hijacker(s).

The NFL doesn't have to work, or be legit, or have a
"customer-service" mechanism and staff behind it. It just has to be
known to exist by the public at large. Throw in a few big fish that
get tripped up by it (like Ted Kennedy) to insure the existance of the
list gets wide media exposure.

It's a smoke screen - like gate screening was prior to 9-11. Now why
it has to complicate the lives of so many flyers with false positives,
that's clearly not necessary unless the powers that be are not yet
convinced that there is wide public knowledge of the NFL and they need
more media stories about the list before they alter the list to reduce
the false positives.

It's a common tactic to make the enemy believe you have some
capability when you really don't. Like the urban legends that there
are anti-aircraft batteries on the roof of gov't buildings like the
whitehouse or pentagon, or like the NSA has the ability to intercept,
decode, filter, and understand all manner of public and private
electronic communications. The no fly list is another example of such
a false capability.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:

In this day of IT the concept that they cannot manage to identify
regular hits which have been cleared is ludicrous. Bothering
an individual more that once or twice is unacceptable.

Let them protect us but require that they be competent.

The real value of the NFL is to repel would-be hijackers and add one
more layer of complexity for them to think about when (or if) they
plan to commit some act against or on a plane. That's in addition to
baggage screening and the now ultra-sensitive gate screening. If a
would-be hijacker knows there is such a thing as a NFL, and it makes
him/them think twice about their ability to pull it off - to the point
he/they abort the attempt - then the list has accomplished it's job -
and it did so without actually being functional and/or knowing the
real or fake names of the would-be hijacker(s).

The NFL doesn't have to work, or be legit, or have a
"customer-service" mechanism and staff behind it. It just has to be
known to exist by the public at large. Throw in a few big fish that
get tripped up by it (like Ted Kennedy) to insure the existance of the
list gets wide media exposure.

It's a smoke screen - like gate screening was prior to 9-11. Now why
it has to complicate the lives of so many flyers with false positives,
that's clearly not necessary unless the powers that be are not yet
convinced that there is wide public knowledge of the NFL and they need
more media stories about the list before they alter the list to reduce
the false positives.

It's a common tactic to make the enemy believe you have some
capability when you really don't. Like the urban legends that there
are anti-aircraft batteries on the roof of gov't buildings like the
whitehouse or pentagon, or like the NSA has the ability to intercept,
decode, filter, and understand all manner of public and private
electronic communications. The no fly list is another example of such
a false capability.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...
Matt wrote:
snip

Even with today's level of security, I don't think it would be that hard
to
sneak a crude weapon on to a plane. Somehow I doubt the FBI and other
agencies would not be severely criticized if a known or suspected
terrorist
took over plane because passenger names weren't being screened.

Matt

It's not the screening so much as the incompetent way in which it is
being done. In this day of IT the concept that they cannot manage to
identify regular hits which have been cleared is ludicrous. Bothering
an individual more that once or twice is unacceptable.


I agree completely. I like the general idea of having a no-fly list, but
they need to fix it so innocent people aren't unfairly harassed.

Matt

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...
Matt wrote:
snip

Even with today's level of security, I don't think it would be that hard
to
sneak a crude weapon on to a plane. Somehow I doubt the FBI and other
agencies would not be severely criticized if a known or suspected
terrorist
took over plane because passenger names weren't being screened.

Matt

It's not the screening so much as the incompetent way in which it is
being done. In this day of IT the concept that they cannot manage to
identify regular hits which have been cleared is ludicrous. Bothering
an individual more that once or twice is unacceptable.


I agree completely. I like the general idea of having a no-fly list, but
they need to fix it so innocent people aren't unfairly harassed.

Matt