Editor's Blog1 min ago
Is it obviously ineffective?
So, after 8 years of airport security clampdowns, with the daily inconvenience, delays, and humiliation of millions of air travellers, billions in increased "security" activity, and the only successes at preventing serious incidents have been achieved by either good fortune or civilian intervention.
The syringe bomber was apparently on at least two different lists of terrorist suspects, his parents had reported him as an extremist, he had been refused entry to the UK, he was living in the Yemen, he paid cash for a one way ticket to the US carrying no luggage, and he managed to not only get on the plane, but smuggle explosives and a syringe on as well. So what is the point of all the idiotic focus on ageing Auntie Ethel's belt, lipstick, tweezers and toothpaste?
Isn't it time to focus harder on the people who are likely terrorists, and back off a bit on those who are obviously not radical extremists? They have loads of advance information about every air passenger, so surely the most basic check would eliminate 99% of travellers from suspicion. A middle aged salesman from Cheshire, on a flight from Manchester to Copenhagen, who does the same flight every month or so, should not be routinely subjected to the same level of check as the guy described above on the Detroit flight. So is it time to stop pandering to the PC/HR people and concentrate on the travellers who are most likely to be terrorists?
The syringe bomber was apparently on at least two different lists of terrorist suspects, his parents had reported him as an extremist, he had been refused entry to the UK, he was living in the Yemen, he paid cash for a one way ticket to the US carrying no luggage, and he managed to not only get on the plane, but smuggle explosives and a syringe on as well. So what is the point of all the idiotic focus on ageing Auntie Ethel's belt, lipstick, tweezers and toothpaste?
Isn't it time to focus harder on the people who are likely terrorists, and back off a bit on those who are obviously not radical extremists? They have loads of advance information about every air passenger, so surely the most basic check would eliminate 99% of travellers from suspicion. A middle aged salesman from Cheshire, on a flight from Manchester to Copenhagen, who does the same flight every month or so, should not be routinely subjected to the same level of check as the guy described above on the Detroit flight. So is it time to stop pandering to the PC/HR people and concentrate on the travellers who are most likely to be terrorists?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by BenDToy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
airport security is awful, I would not mind it at all if it worked however when I worked at an Airport I went thro the scanner with 3 screwdrivers and a swiss army knife in my handbag, I forgot they were there, but the security did not pick them up, I hadnt even passed my full security clearance at that point and was only temping there
-- answer removed --
Zacsmaster, I think Ben's point is that we've had all this security checking for most of a decade and it hasn't worked. I don't recollect that any would-be bomber has been caught by security checks; the first time one shows up, he sails through security and is caught by a suspicious fellow passenger.
Just what has the world's burgeoning security industry achieved since 2001? Not an awful lot, by the look of it. So the daily inconvenience etc isn't an alternative to death as you suggest.
Just what has the world's burgeoning security industry achieved since 2001? Not an awful lot, by the look of it. So the daily inconvenience etc isn't an alternative to death as you suggest.
Hang on - how many planes have been blown up due to terrorism since 2001?
To say that the security services have failed is ludicrous. It's up there with the supposition that the Y2K bug was scaremongering because it didn't cause global catastropies.
This would-be terrorist managed to circumvent airport security because he and his supporters developed a solution which had not yet been anticipated.
Every time defences are put in place, those wishing to breach them will develop alternative ways to by-pass them.
To say that the security services have failed is ludicrous. It's up there with the supposition that the Y2K bug was scaremongering because it didn't cause global catastropies.
This would-be terrorist managed to circumvent airport security because he and his supporters developed a solution which had not yet been anticipated.
Every time defences are put in place, those wishing to breach them will develop alternative ways to by-pass them.
not many, sp1814. This could be because the security services have foiled lots of would-be bombers. But in that case I'd expect to read all about the arrests - the services would hardly be shy about trumpeting their successes - and maybe even come to trial. But I just don't recall it happening until now.
The other alternative is that there haven't been any attempts and the security services haven't had any great effect. It could be that their mere presence has deterred bombers - but they didn't deter this one, and he waltzed past them. I'm not sure he was a new sort of attacker; the plan sounded pretty much like the shoe bomber. This really does sound like a massive security failure, and you can only wonder if there would have been more faiures if anyone had tried to beat the checks.
The other alternative is that there haven't been any attempts and the security services haven't had any great effect. It could be that their mere presence has deterred bombers - but they didn't deter this one, and he waltzed past them. I'm not sure he was a new sort of attacker; the plan sounded pretty much like the shoe bomber. This really does sound like a massive security failure, and you can only wonder if there would have been more faiures if anyone had tried to beat the checks.
-- answer removed --