Terrororist 'No fly list'...

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

...Has just been hijacked into the Twin Towers of Sanity & Reason.

What a vivid metaphor.

As reported by Yahoo.com's front page, three more terrorist scumbags have been removed from airplanes for the good of America; a three year old, an defender of the law, and a man who risked his life for this country. Please note, that last man is still allowed to fly commercial planes, and he is still allowed to carry a motherfucking gun onto a plane, he just can't, you know, ride one. Because he's a terrorist.

Oh, and if that's not good enough, it turns out you can get around that little "government ban" by bribing the fucking airport with cash. Good news for retired war heroes, good news for the actual terrorists who need a way to get on the plane, good, amazing, wondiferous fucking news for everyone.

Anyone who still supports this thing is blind, period. Government security protocols failed MISERABLY on 9/11, and so their response was to take even MORE control in airport security, at the expense of the free market. Add another reason why we should never ever let the government do anything that could have negative consequences if fucked up, and why we should leave it to the free market.

You know what, fuck it, don't vote for Ron Paul, you don't have to. As long as the government continues on this path of pseudo-socialism, America is going to be a wasteland in 20 years. Then he can just get some raggety ass army and proclaim himself ruler, like some shitty sci-fi movie.

[hrb5711]

Next time link the story and not yahoo.com .

[penis-plant]

DOWN WITH THE GOVERNMENT!!!!!

[Saruman200]

I agree with you accept the last paragraph. What does not allowing people to get on a plane have to do with socialism or Ron Paul?

[Proteas]

At 8/21/08 04:21 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Government security protocols failed MISERABLY on 9/11, and so their response was to take even MORE control in airport security, at the expense of the free market.

Because that's what the public demanded, remember? More acountability, more security measures, always remember and never forget what happened on 9/11, all because 11 guys with fake passports and boxcutters took down 4 planes, no we can't carry nail clippers in our carry-ons and we have to take our shoes off before going through the metal detectors.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/21/08 04:39 PM, hrb5711 wrote: Next time link the story and not yahoo.com .

I'm sorry, what would you like me to do? Come to your house, go to yahoo, find the link, and click it so the pop-up video player box shows up?

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/21/08 05:51 PM, Proteas wrote:

Because that's what the public demanded, remember? More acountability

Which we never got. More accountability would be the government saying "Gee, you guys, sorry our BS regulations failed to prevent an attack, I guess we sorta assumed the FBI would do it's job... well, again, we're sorry", not "Gee, our regulations completely failed to prevent a basic attack, and 3,000 Americans are dead because of us... but we don't want to admit error, so we'll just take control over airline security, hence endangering MORE lives". I mean, I know what you're saying though. Anytime the government grows, it's the peoples faults for embracing it.

[hrb5711]

At 8/21/08 06:59 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: I'm sorry, what would you like me to do? Come to your house, go to yahoo, find the link, and click it so the pop-up video player box shows up?

:Yes actually if you wouldn't mind!

Which we never got. More accountability would be the government saying "Gee, you guys, sorry our BS regulations failed to prevent an attack, I guess we sorta assumed the FBI would do it's job... well, again, we're sorry",

:Wasn't it the CIA who "failed" on 9/11, and didn't they release some big report about all their mistakes? Like how they didn't communicate with the FBI?

not "Gee, our regulations completely failed to prevent a basic attack,

:Just because they used planes and box-cutters doesn't qualify it as a "basic" attack.

and 3,000 Americans are dead because of us...

:I could have sworn it was some crazy muslims in those plans....I mean if your going to say the government failed, how about the people who trained these guys to fly? The airport security guy who didn't find the box cutters?

but we don't want to admit error, so we'll just take control over airline security, hence endangering MORE lives".

Because sooo many Americans have died in terrorist attacks since than......wait no they haven't.

This is about the watch list isn't it though?

Yes people are on there who shouldn't be. Bad luck has given them the same name as someone suspected of being a terrorist. One thing you didn't mention is people can be removed from the watch list.

[hrb5711]

At 8/21/08 06:59 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: I'm sorry, what would you like me to do? Come to your house, go to yahoo, find the link, and click it so the pop-up video player box shows up?

:Yes actually if you wouldn't mind!

Which we never got. More accountability would be the government saying "Gee, you guys, sorry our BS regulations failed to prevent an attack, I guess we sorta assumed the FBI would do it's job... well, again, we're sorry",

:Wasn't it the CIA who "failed" on 9/11, and didn't they release some big report about all their mistakes? Like how they didn't communicate with the FBI?

not "Gee, our regulations completely failed to prevent a basic attack,

:Just because they used planes and box-cutters doesn't qualify it as a "basic" attack.

and 3,000 Americans are dead because of us...

:I could have sworn it was some crazy muslims in those plans....I mean if your going to say the government failed, how about the people who trained these guys to fly? The airport security guy who didn't find the box cutters?

but we don't want to admit error, so we'll just take control over airline security, hence endangering MORE lives".

Because sooo many Americans have died in terrorist attacks since than......wait no they haven't.

This is about the watch list isn't it though?

Yes people are on there who shouldn't be. Bad luck has given them the same name as someone suspected of being a terrorist. One thing you didn't mention is people can be removed from the watch list.

[Gunter45]

At 8/21/08 07:41 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

Just because they used planes and box-cutters doesn't qualify it as a "basic" attack.

Pretty much. The reason why they got away with it is because the regulations basically tell the flight crew to do what the terrorists want until they can get the plane on the ground. Hijackers tend to rig planes with bombs and so the safety of the passengers come first. You make the terrorists nice and happy so they don't kill everyone and then you hit them like a tornado right when they land. It's all pretty damn effective, except when they don't plan on landing. It really left everyone flat footed because nobody's ever dealt with a situation like that before.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 8/21/08 07:52 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 8/21/08 07:41 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

Just because they used planes and box-cutters doesn't qualify it as a "basic" attack.

Pretty much. The reason why they got away with it is because the regulations basically tell the flight crew to do what the terrorists want until they can get the plane on the ground. Hijackers tend to rig planes with bombs and so the safety of the passengers come first. You make the terrorists nice and happy so they don't kill everyone and then you hit them like a tornado right when they land. It's all pretty damn effective, except when they don't plan on landing. It really left everyone flat footed because nobody's ever dealt with a situation like that before.

I agree, if the people on the planes knew that the hijackers were planning on using the plane as a suicide weapon they likely would have tried to subdue the terrorists like in the case of flight 93.

[Saruman200]

I think that the government has been succesful in preventing 9/11, but some of the people who are on their lists could easily be eliminated by common sense, such as Nelson Mandela.

[TonyTostieno]

At 8/21/08 04:21 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: You know what, fuck it, don't vote for Ron Paul, you don't have to. As long as the government continues on this path of pseudo-socialism, America is going to be a wasteland in 20 years. Then he can just get some raggety ass army and proclaim himself ruler, like some shitty sci-fi movie.

Fuck as long as there's gonna be zombies and shit I'm in.

But no, I agree, the regulations on what you can bring on an airplane are friggin ridiculous. "OMFG HE'S GOT TOENAIL CLIPPERS GET HIM!"

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/21/08 07:41 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

Wasn't it the CIA who "failed" on 9/11, and didn't they release some big report about all their mistakes? Like how they didn't communicate with the FBI?

It was also the government policies that didn't think to ban Box Cutters on airplanes. Airport security did it's job, did everything the government told it. They did EXACTLY what they where told. The government just didn't tell them enough.

:Just because they used planes and box-cutters doesn't qualify it as a "basic" attack.

No, it REALLY does mean that. BASIC government preparedness would have foiled it.

I could have sworn it was some crazy muslims in those plans....I mean if your going to say the government failed, how about the people who trained these guys to fly? The airport security guy who didn't find the box cutters?

Again, blaming the Airport security for the government's failure.

THOSE BOX CUTTERS WHERE ALLOWED. It doesn't surprise me that you don't know this; the government conveniently forgets to mention that fact when blaming airlines.

Let's say you have an electrician teaching an apprentice. The apprentice is ordered to do EVERYTHING, step by step, that the master says. And he does, perfectly. But the master is so incompetent that he gives the guy wrong instructions, tells him to do the wrong thing, and the job gets botched.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel too comfortable if that technician then said "No no, you did it all wrong, let ME do it"

Because sooo many Americans have died in terrorist attacks since than......wait no they haven't.

Because terrorist attacks where so common before 9/11. Wait, no they weren't. The last two foreign terror attacks on U.S soil where 10 years apart, and before 1991 foreign terror attacks where virtually unheard of.

In other words; don't thank the government for no terror attacks.

This is about the watch list isn't it though?

Sure.

Yes people are on there who shouldn't be. Bad luck has given them the same name as someone suspected of being a terrorist. One thing you didn't mention is people can be removed from the watch list.

Look at the video. They specifically explain that, no, you can't.

Again; watch the full video. Including the parts where they mention that they refuse to let them off of the list unless they offer a cash bribe to airport staff to ignore it.

[Proteas]

At 8/21/08 07:02 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: I mean, I know what you're saying though. Anytime the government grows, it's the peoples faults for embracing it.

And yet, if this was a topic about gun control, you would be one of the many calling for more regulations and the expansion of the government instead government accountability for not enforcing it's own laws and regulations in the first place.

That's irony, miss Morissette.

[aninjaman]

At 8/21/08 08:47 PM, Saruman200 wrote: I think that the government has been succesful in preventing 9/11, but some of the people who are on their lists could easily be eliminated by common sense, such as Nelson Mandela.

I agree with the last statement but your going to have to explain the first one to me. You refer to 9/11 in the present tense and you say the government prevented it. Explain where the 9/11 that I say about 7 years ago fits in?

[hrb5711]

At 8/21/08 08:52 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: It was also the government policies that didn't think to ban Box Cutters on airplanes. Airport security did it's job, did everything the government told it. They did EXACTLY what they where told. The government just didn't tell them enough.

:So the government needs to be more involved? Aren't you saying that's a bad thing?
:I am not going to sit here and debate 9/11 though, there are enough threads about that.

This is about the watch list isn't it though?

Sure.

Yes people are on there who shouldn't be. Bad luck has given them the same name as someone suspected of being a terrorist. One thing you didn't mention is people can be removed from the watch list.

Look at the video. They specifically explain that, no, you can't.

:What video? There is no video on yahoo.com . Now do you see why I said link it and not yahoo.com , because guess what, yahoo updates and now when I look under videos and "no fly list" a bunch of them come up, so which one is it?

:And you can argue it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg i?f=/c/a/2008/08/19/BA2212DEQU.DTL&feed=
rss.bayarea
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/200 80820-ruling-says-federal-courts-can-hea r-no-fly-lawsuits.html

Again; watch the full video. Including the parts where they mention that they refuse to let them off of the list unless they offer a cash bribe to airport staff to ignore it.

I can't find this video, because you didn't link it, so I hope I understand this. Someone is on the watch list and bribes airport staff to get on the plane?

The AIRPORT staff takes the bribe. So the airport is the ones who let someone on the watch list on the plan....
So how does allowing the airport to take over security with no government help sound like a good idea to you?

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/21/08 09:18 PM, Proteas wrote:

And yet, if this was a topic about gun control, you would be one of the many calling for more regulations and the expansion of the government instead government accountability for not enforcing it's own laws and regulations in the first place.

My gun control policies are to ban Grenade Launchers and Fixed Blade Bayonets.

Although I have since withdrawn my objection to Bayonets.

Swing + Miss = failure.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/21/08 09:31 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

So the government needs to be more involved? Aren't you saying that's a bad thing?
I am not going to sit here and debate 9/11 though, there are enough threads about that.

No. The government was involved at the perfect level before 9/11.

They just failed miserably when they where involved.

A parent shouldn't be over-involved in their teenagers life, but when the parent IS involved they still need to be a good parent.

What video? There is no video on yahoo.com . Now do you see why I said link it and not yahoo.com , because guess what, yahoo updates and now when I look under videos and "no fly list" a bunch of them come up, so which one is it?

I already told you it's a pop up video, which you can not link too. Again, what do you want me to do, click on the link for you? I can accomplish this if you live near San Fransisco, otherwise you're going to have to do this yourself. You cannot link to a certain part of an animated web page, which is what Yahoo uses. Go to the front, and on the tab click on video's. I'll give you a picture so you can do it, I should have provided one in the first place, that's my bad.

And you can argue it.

You'll see when you watch the video. They appeal, they do everything they can... and they get ignored.

I can't find this video, because you didn't link it, so I hope I understand this. Someone is on the watch list and bribes airport staff to get on the plane?
The AIRPORT staff takes the bribe. So the airport is the ones who let someone on the watch list on the plan....
So how does allowing the airport to take over security with no government help sound like a good idea to you?

Airport security is now government run. Before 9/11, it wasn't; it just had to follow government regulations.

[Proteas]

At 8/21/08 09:35 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: My gun control policies are to ban Grenade Launchers and Fixed Blade Bayonets.

Yes, because they are just so widely used in gun crimes.

*eye rollie*

[hrb5711]

At 8/21/08 09:51 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Airport security is now government run. Before 9/11, it wasn't; it just had to follow government regulations.

Well my work computer sucks so I can't watch the video. I did find this article which I think is basically the video.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/19/tsa.wat ch.list/index.html?iref=newssearch

As far as bribing the TSA
"Denise Robinson says she tells the skycaps her son is on the list, tips heavily and is given boarding passes. "
She did it to the skycaps, who work for the airlines.

The TSA has also said
"We told the airlines we would allow them, if someone gave a birth date, to exclude that person from the list,"

And the watch list isn't saying those people are terrorist. They merely share the same name as someone on it. It is going to happen, we don't each have unique names.

I would rather have a little bit of problems checking into a flight than have one person who should be on the list get by. It's a work in progress and they are working on fixing it. From what I read no one was denied boarding a flight, they just had to do it at the ticket counter. It's annoying but not that big of a deal.

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/customer/re dress/index.shtm

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/21/08 09:54 PM, Proteas wrote:

Yes, because they are just so widely used in gun crimes.

*eye rollie*

Yeah, but I mean come ON, there is like, ZERO reason for a guy to be able to own a grenade launcher, unless it's specially designed to only fire non-lethal types; if I'm not mistaken, those things SWAT'S use can only fire flash's and smokes, which is fine for civilian use.

Sure, no one uses explosive grenade launchers in crime. I still don't want them around.

[KeithHybrid]

At 8/21/08 05:51 PM, Proteas wrote: Because that's what the public demanded, remember?

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Indeed. "He who exchanges freedom for security deserves neither."

[Saruman200]

At 8/21/08 09:26 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 8/21/08 08:47 PM, Saruman200 wrote: I think that the government has been succesful in preventing 9/11, but some of the people who are on their lists could easily be eliminated by common sense, such as Nelson Mandela.

I agree with the last statement but your going to have to explain the first one to me. You refer to 9/11 in the present tense and you say the government prevented it. Explain where the 9/11 that I say about 7 years ago fits in?

I'm sorry I ment to say "I think the government has been sucesful in preventing another 9/11." Very sorry, left out a word there.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/21/08 10:23 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

She did it to the skycaps, who work for the airlines.

You are right, my bad. But I think if the government terrorist-hot-air list was actually taken seriously, by anyone, as opposed to being bureaucratic nonsense, they would be a little bit less likely to take those bribes.

The TSA has also said
"We told the airlines we would allow them, if someone gave a birth date, to exclude that person from the list,"

This is where the video comes in; they mention that exact line, then go on to explain that doesn't actually happen; all 4 of the people (including the reporter, who's banned from flying) mentioned went through all the official channels AGES ago, and the powers at be refused to take them off the list.

And the watch list isn't saying those people are terrorist. They merely share the same name as someone on it. It is going to happen, we don't each have unique names.

But we do have other unique features we could use. Instead of banning all "Josh Bush"'s, why not ban all Josh Bush's of a certain skin color, with a certain height and age range? Stuff like that.

I would rather have a little bit of problems checking into a flight than have one person who should be on the list get by. It's a work in progress and they are working on fixing it. From what I read no one was denied boarding a flight, they just had to do it at the ticket counter. It's annoying but not that big of a deal.

Many of them get outright denied. Many on that list have been detained. It's a big deal.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/21/08 11:08 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

I'm sorry I ment to say "I think the government has been sucesful in preventing another 9/11." Very sorry, left out a word there.

Look at this logically.

It took 225 years for the first '9/11'. 225 looooong years. Just because the 7 years proceeding 9/11 weren't marked with extreme violence doesn't mean there where prevented attacks.

[hrb5711]

At 8/21/08 11:47 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: You are right, my bad. But I think if the government terrorist-hot-air list was actually taken seriously, by anyone, as opposed to being bureaucratic nonsense, they would be a little bit less likely to take those bribes.

:So because air line workers don't enforce regulations and rules we need to drop them? Instead of trying to fix it like they are now.

This is where the video comes in; they mention that exact line, then go on to explain that doesn't actually happen; all 4 of the people (including the reporter, who's banned from flying) mentioned went through all the official channels AGES ago, and the powers at be refused to take them off the list.

:Again I am sorry for this but I can't get the video to work. So if the video says something different than me please correct it. Were any of these people (other than the reprter) actually stopped from flying? The article didn't mention that anywhere.

But we do have other unique features we could use. Instead of banning all "Josh Bush"'s, why not ban all Josh Bush's of a certain skin color, with a certain height and age range? Stuff like that.

:I agree with that. The "no fly list" already has much of that info on there. The problem is with TSA and the airlines, for some reason they can't communicate this information. Who knows, it could be because the TSA doesn't want some random airline worker to start throwing names and info at the system to see if someone is on there.
I think that is where my only problem with the list comes in. Personal privacy, I mean we know not all the people on the list are terrorist, but the list is kind of like the sex offenders websites. You know where you can see if any of them live in your area. Think about if people started doing that with the watch list and started labeling random people terrorist in their area.
So I guess the problem is giving the airlines enough info to stop people from boarding, but not so much as they can find out where they live, where they work, etc.

Many of them get outright denied. Many on that list have been detained. It's a big deal.

I did find this, which I think happened after the video.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08 /watch-listed--1.html

And I agree with that. The list isn't a "this guy is a terrorist list," it is suspected ones who are thought to be to dangerous to fly. I don't think these people should be detained, like the article said, the list isn't a warrant.

So I will agree that yes there are problems with the list and TSA. I still think it is safer, even though a little more of a hassle, now to fly. I feel bad for these people this is happening to, but like someone else said, America asked for security and that is what they got.

[adanac]

The real terrorists are the U.S., who dominate nations, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at this and see who are the real terrorists.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/22/08 12:28 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

So because air line workers don't enforce regulations and rules we need to drop them? Instead of trying to fix it like they are now.

Exactly. When your regulation is failing so miserably that people point blank are not following it, you need to redo it. If the regulations where effective and still not being followed, then it's time to arrest the people not following them (like if, for example you find out the Skycaps can be bribed to let you bring a gun on the plane). But in the meantime, since the goal is safety of the passengers, we need to make sure that the rules make them safer, and that the rules are being followed. If one (or both) of those qualifiers do not apply, then we need to change.

Again I am sorry for this but I can't get the video to work. So if the video says something different than me please correct it. Were any of these people (other than the reprter) actually stopped from flying? The article didn't mention that anywhere.

Yes, they where. However, they found nice little tricks to getting past the list; bribing airport staff, and giving variations of their name worked.

Again, that would be good, if it wasn't for the fact that a terrorist could follow those two steps, too. It seems like the list is juuuuuuuust good enough to fuck someone over who wants to fly, but can't do a damn thing to stop anyone who REALLY wants to fly.

So I guess the problem is giving the airlines enough info to stop people from boarding, but not so much as they can find out where they live, where they work, etc.

But, come on. A three year old? I say no address or anything, just an age and race. Hell, maybe a photo. Nothing you can really dig around with, but enough to narrow it down.

So I will agree that yes there are problems with the list and TSA. I still think it is safer, even though a little more of a hassle, now to fly. I feel bad for these people this is happening to, but like someone else said, America asked for security and that is what they got.

We got "security" from the same group who's massive failure to keep us safe caused 9/11.

[hrb5711]

At 8/22/08 06:39 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Exactly. When your regulation is failing so miserably that people point blank are not following it, you need to redo it. If the regulations where effective and still not being followed, then it's time to arrest the people not following them (like if, for example you find out the Skycaps can be bribed to let you bring a gun on the plane). But in the meantime, since the goal is safety of the passengers, we need to make sure that the rules make them safer, and that the rules are being followed. If one (or both) of those qualifiers do not apply, then we need to change.

:I agree with changing it, I just don't agree with totally dropping it. I mean if air line personal are already breaking federal laws what is going to stop them from breaking air line rules? Pre 9/11 the air lines rules and federal rules weren't good enough and now the rules are more than enough and they still aren't working. I agree with the proper level of government interaction with the airlines, I think that is the goal of the TSA. I do agree with the no fly list, though it does need changes.

Yes, they where. However, they found nice little tricks to getting past the list; bribing airport staff, and giving variations of their name worked.

:Good to know.

Again, that would be good, if it wasn't for the fact that a terrorist could follow those two steps, too. It seems like the list is juuuuuuuust good enough to fuck someone over who wants to fly, but can't do a damn thing to stop anyone who REALLY wants to fly.

:Exactly why I am saying it needs to be changed, but not dropped completely. It's a good idea that needs the kinks worked out.

But, come on. A three year old? I say no address or anything, just an age and race. Hell, maybe a photo. Nothing you can really dig around with, but enough to narrow it down.

:Obviously I would never suspect a three yr old of being a security threat. But yes a picture and age/race/biometric info I agree with.

We got "security" from the same group who's massive failure to keep us safe caused 9/11.

I am not going to say we weren't failed on 9/11, we obviously were. I just can't stand it when people act like 9/11 was such an easy thing to pull off. There were many failures and we learned from them. We are still learning what works and doesn't. You are expecting to much for it to be perfect.