If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"No Fly List" - is a net to supress voice??? | Kari Sinhalavan | Air travel | 96 | September 10th, 2004 03:44 AM |
Secret no-fly list had Kennedy on it | George | Air travel | 22 | August 23rd, 2004 12:31 AM |
Are You On Uncle Sam's No Fly List? | jake | Air travel | 52 | February 29th, 2004 04:01 PM |
Are You On Uncle Sam's No Fly List? | jake | USA & Canada | 52 | February 29th, 2004 04:01 PM |