Well, if you believe the Bush rhetoric that democrats are all terrorists, or at least terrorist sympathizers, then perhaps the "no-fly" list is working. Or maybe not
The stupidity of it is amazing, if the terrorists want to bring down a plane they could just sit outside of the airport with a stinger missile and shoot down a fully loaded jumbo full of fuel as it takes off. There's no need to board the plane.
Governments think in cliches, because the public thinks in cliches (and terrorists, admittedly, do so for the same reasons). We all have that image of an Arab looking bloke with dynamite strapped to his chest (spring-curled wiring and a clock with big red digits counting down, of course), but that is not at all how real terrorism works. They are managing to move beyond cliches now.
I believe that the no fly does in fact improve safety in the sense that a terrorist hijacking an airplane is less likely. It may not be the prefect solution to the problem but I do feel that it does help improve the safety marginally. A small improvement is better than no improvement. In regards to a terrorist sitting outside an airport with a stinger missile- I'm not certain, but I do believe many airports have security around their perimeter. L J
Doesn't work for me, I'm afraid. Apart from the fact that terrorists have the propensity to travel under false identity, it is really quite hard to pin the right person down by name alone. Just look in your local phone directory and you'll see what I mean. Moreover, Gitmo and Iraqi jails are full of people whose guilt is at best doubtful. How many people are on the no-fly list who really deserve to be on it? The stinger is a marvel of military engineering. With a length of 5 feet (1.5 meters) and a diameter of 2.75 inches (7 cm) it easily fits in the boot of an ordinary family-sized car. Weight with launcher is 34.5 pounds (15.2 kg) so it is not all that heavy either. It carries 6 pounds of explosives; enough to do some real damage. Target acquisition is by passive infra-red and takes seconds. It travels at 1,500 mph (2,400 kph, Mach 2) so you don't really see it coming on any surveillance and cannot intercept or evade it. Altitude range is approximately 11,000 feet (3 km) and distance range is approximately 5 miles (8 km) --well beyond the security perimeter of any airport. The ease of use of a Stinger means that a terrorist can drive up to the end of a runway, take the launcher out of the trunk, take down a plane and be back in the car and on the highway before people quite literally knew what hit them. He'd even have time to take some footage for the next Al Quaeda promotional video. Here comes the kicker: the CIA helped supply nearly 500 Stingers (some sources claim 1500) to the mujahideen guerrillas fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Osama Bin Laden is likely to have some practical experience with one... Also, as part of its effort to overthrow Angola's government, the Reagan administration provided Stingers to UNITA anti-communist fighters in the late 1980s. In both cases, efforts to recover missiles after the end of hostilities proved incomplete. There has been speculation that the reason the Stinger has not been used in further attacks is because the batteries that are needed for the launcher to function (and which are a bit sensitive to abuse and neglect) have expired. However it only takes one moderately bright engineer to manufacture a replacement. Do not put your faith in simplistic, highly visible mediapathic solutions like no-fly lists, high fences and bans on hand luggage. That's just to reassure us lot. Real terrorism works very differently, and so does real national security.
my cousin's name is on the no-fly list (no, it's not her, just a similar name). it was an ordeal to get her cleared to fly to england so that she could intern for a mp. i think it's a bad idea really. if they are planning to do something, would they really use their real names? common criminals use aliases all the time. bin-laden could be going by "george w. bush" for all we know....
So Nexxo, you propose that it would be better to stop our attempts to improve safety? I have had no trouble with the no fly list- it does match a person based upon name and date of birth, I would assume there is probably more information on that list as well. As far as the stinger missile goes, you must first find a person who can get a stinger missile from another country to the US mainland- that would be quite a difficult task. Next, it would seem illogical to use that missile on any random plane at any airport. You also state the range of the stinger missile is 5miles- according to wikipedia the FIM-92 "stinger" missile has a range of 4,800 meters, or about 3 miles. Next, wikipedia brings up a good point that the infa red sensors have to be cooled in order for them to work properly- this is accomplished by having the battery spray argon onto the sensors. The batteries appear to be somewhat complex and I think whether or not someone can easily reproduce those batteries is questionable. Even if the missiles could be transported to within range of an airport, and provided that functional batteries were obtained, it would seem to me that these missiles would be too valuable to waste on consumer airplanes, but that is simply my opinion. L J
Here's the problems I have with the "no fly" list... 1. It's secret. I could be on it, you could be on it. Appearently someone named Loretta Sanchez is on it, but the government can't confirm that. It's pretty much a gaurentee that some of the people on the list don't belong on that list, but it's pretty much impossible to get off said list. Also, we have no idea what the criteria for inclusion on trhat list is because that's also secret. 2. It's extra-judicial. The "no-fly" list was originally promulgated after 9-11. That was over 5 years ago now. Appearently these people, and we don't of course know who is on the list, are so dangerous that they can't be allowed on an airplane. Ok, so why haven't they been arrested? Well, because they haven't comitted any crime, we just think they might some day. Let me repeat that, most of the people on the no-fly list have not comitted any crime and are not wanted by the government. 3. It's not contestable. Lets say your name ends up on the list. Who do you go to to get it off the list? I don't know either. It sounds like you have to get ahold of your congress-critter and even then it takes a year or more. In any other case where the government takes action against someone that person has both a right and a process to appeal that action. This right is enshrined in the constitution as the right to due process and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievences. 4. There is no public oversight. In any other government action there is some form of public oversight. Even highly secret intelligence matters become public when they are published in the media. THis is as it should be. Those are our tax dollars they're spending and the public, as well as the government, has a duty to demand thatthose dollars are being used wisely. It's not at all clear what agency is responsible for the "no-fly" list or how they are held accountable for their actions and expenditures. 5. Where are the safegaurds? Have you ever noticed that you never see articles about this happening to republican congress-critters? Maybe it's because they're all white men with American-sounding names. On the other hand, how do we know that this "no-fly" list isn't being used to inconvienience or punish people who disagree with the administration or the program? The answer? We don't. Any time someone asks for evidence that the program is being used fairly and in a responsible manner, they get "It's secret, trust us". So basically this program creates a number of serious civil rights headaches for what most would agree is at best a small increase in security. I won't speak for Nexxo, but for my own perspective, any attempt to improve safety should have the same democratic safeguards built in as any other program. The criteria for inclusion on the list must be made public, there must be a method to challenge inclusion on the list, and the operations of the program must be open to oversight. At the end of the day this is a government program funded by the taxpayers for the public benefit and those who run the program should be answerable to the public for both methods and results.
I always argue with my colleagues that no research is better than poor research. At least with no rsearch you know that you don't know. With poor research you think you do, while in fact, you don't. With national security the same principle applies. No security measures is (marginally) better than poor security measures. In the first case, at least you know you are vulnerable. In the latter, you have a false sense of safety. The same goes for biometric passports, "secure" encrypted boarding passes etc. If they do not work (and due to cost-cutting and poor application of technology, they don't), all you get is a false sense of security. You put blind faith in measures that are unreliable and will betray you. Of course, good security measures are better than none, and I do not propose that we stop our attempts to improve safety, but that we do so scientifically, thoroughly and regardless of expense, rather than going with empty mediapathic gestures. Such measures may reassure the masses, but terrorists just laugh at them. As far as the no-fly list goes, what information can it really contain that you can verify with a person standing in front of you? Think about it. There are name and date of birth, which need to be verified by (forgeable) passport. There is description of physical appearance, which can be altered quite easily. I doubt that more distinguishing, unforgeable data like dental records and DNA are included, but even if they are, how are you going to check these details right there at the airport? In theory, it is quite easy to get a Stinger to South America, and from there across the Mexican border into the US. I could even ship it to a remote harbour in Hawaii or Alaska, and then move it to the mainland States in internal freight. Beware of that false sense of security... Any plane spotter can tell you that it is quite easy to identify and track the passenger plane of your choice. But even a random plane will do nicely. I'll get back to that below... Second, the Stinger has undergone five upgrades since its inception, with the most recent 1996 onward Block II versions doing 8000 metres, or 5 miles, just by upgrading the IR sensors... But five miles or three miles, my point stands. And planes fly lower than its 3800m ceiling over my place of work on approach to the local airport, 10 miles away. And if you think no-one can re-engineer those batteries, you don't know the geeks I know. I mean, here we are, worrying that terrorists may obtain and use nuclear technology (at least, that's why we're giving Iran a hard time). I think they can manage a gas-powered battery then. That is your opinion, but not necessarily the terrorist's. Consider the psychological impact of taking down a random plane. A terrorist's aim is to create terror, right? Imagine how the American public would feel knowing that any plane, any plane at all, could be taken down a few seconds after take-off or minutes before landing, at any time, at any airport, by a terrorist with something that fits in the boot of his car. They would not even have to hit the plane --just have a good shot at it-- and that would incapacitate air travel and have security running around like headless chickens. Do not underestimate the terrorising impact of such random acts of violence.
