[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: More rules for terrorists (click to view)
Date: December 29, 2009
So the Department of Homeland Security really dropped the ball, and a known flight risk from Nigeria was allowed to board a US-bound plane with a bomb and nearly blow up everyone. He was luckily subdued by the other passengers (as seems to be the case in most of these situations) but the episode has still proved quite embarrassing for Secretary Napolitano and company.

And, as usual, the security establishment's response to their failure to apprehend a known flight risk whose own father had warned the CIA, has been to impose even more stupid rules on law-abiding passengers. In the immediate aftermath of the Christmas Day plot, many Canadian travelers bound for the US were forbidden to bring any carry-on luggage on their flights, while others were forbidden from leaving their seats at any time during the last hour of the trip. These are just stopgap regulations for now, but the thinking is they will gradually congeal into some sort of stricter status quo about what you can and cannot do with the little bags you bring on the plane with you. Likewise, because the Nigerian guy tried to smuggle stuff in his pants, there's been a lot of talk about making those full-body x-ray things more common.

The terrorists are obviously winning on some level, as plane travel is becoming a more and more absurd hassle with each successive attempted attack. Take off your shoes, hand over your nail cutters, throw out all your liquids, don't touch your carry-ons.... More and more people are being punished for the antics of a few, and yet the antics gleefully continue anyway, since, for some bizarre reason, terrorists do not seem to be deterred by stricter laws. I mean, it's been a pretty clear rule for several decades now that bombs are not allowed on planes, and yet some folks still bring them on board anyway. Funny, that.

[martin14]

you are correct, the new rules are a joke, wont accomplish much aside
from making flying even more of a hassle.

It is time to call a spade a spade here, and get some real solutions going.

Solutions that reflect who is doing these things, and where they come from.


Stop the PC bullshit, let Grandma on the plane, and pull a full stop
to this nonsense.


Or enjoy the body scanner, by then the terrorists will have devices
injested for you to deal with.

[ridenrain]

At least his passport photo looked like him.

[CanadianJeff]

JJ freaking nailed it dead on.

It's time we started banning people from flying. If you have a criminal record or terrorist ties too damn bad. No flying for you period.

It's time we stopped pestering the innocent and cracked down on those who honestly deserve it.

[Cernex]

Maybe its just me, but I find it a little bit too "coincidental" that this happens so shortly after president Obama decided to send more tropps to Afghanistan.

Of course, if one thinks "non-conspiracy theory" about it, this seems to be more of an standard attempt of "retaliation" than anything else. A quite moronic and fail one at that, but retaliation nontheless.

Also, great thing to see you back, JJ. I mean it.

El Cernex

[Brenda]

CanadianJeff wrote:

JJ freaking nailed it dead on.

It's time we started banning people from flying. If you have a criminal record or terrorist ties too damn bad. No flying for you period.

It's time we stopped pestering the innocent and cracked down on those who honestly deserve it.

You can't fly when you have a criminal record, no exceptions?

Hmmm, half or maybe even more than half of the population cannot fly anymore then That would make it easier for me to get around!

[ridenrain]

I must have had a Rip Van Winkle moment there.. Wasn't it just yesterday that the whole no-fly list and the "war on terrorism" was just a way for George Chimp/Hitler Bush to control the world through fear? I was sure the whole Obama apology world tour was supposed to have solved this.

Funny how you don't hear of EL Al getting hyjacked.

[Kjorteo]

The security theater really is getting ridiculous these days, but then again, JJ is the only person so far to say anything against it in the form of an intelligent mini-essay that doesn't sound like one of those ridiculous chain e-mails forwarded to me by a distant relative, and probably will remain so until Psudo arrives in this thread.

Is this just one of those issues for which intelligent debate is becoming less and less possible?

[Brenda]

What is there to debate?
The world has changed, and the good suffer.

Personally, I have nothing against a full body scan. I rather have that than a dog sniffing my crotch, or a pat down from someone.

The time of not being on the watch is gone. Isn't it childmolesters, pedophiles or rapist you have to watch out for, it is bombs on planes. This world is not a safe one anymore, so we have to make it as safe as possible, and eliminate the unsafe factors. That that costs me a bit of my freedom, so be it. I rather give some of that up, than end up dead because some asshole blew up the plane.

We have to make some sacrifices, whether it is driving our kids to school at an age that we went by ourselves, or undergo a full body scan at the airport.

If we want the terrorists to be caught, we are all going to be treated as potential terrorists... Its not "innocent until proven guilty anymore", but "guilty until proven innocent". We always were, when it came to visa applications. Now all we have to do is get rid of corruption... Welcome to Utopia...

[Kjorteo]

I have absolutely no idea if you were being sincere or sarcastic or ironic or even what on Earth you just said. I think my point stands.

[JJ]

When I was drawing this, the gun control analogy really struck me.

Gun-rights people always say that gun control laws are pointless, since they will only be respected by the law-abiding majority, and will do nothing to deter criminals, who, by definition do not care about obeying the law. I think the same basic principle applies to airport security. The law-abiding get punished, while the lawless will just try harder to find a way to do whatever.

But lots of politicians stand up for the rights of gun-owners. Is anyone standing up for the rights of passengers? Or is this just becoming some sort of macho game of who can impose more idiot rules.

[xerxes]

Quote:

But lots of politicians stand up for the rights of gun-owners. Is anyone standing up for the rights of passengers? Or is this just becoming some sort of macho game of who can impose more idiot rules.

It's that. Terrorism, or at least the thought of it, inspires logic-crippling fear in the hearts of Americans. As it's been already been beat to death, more inane rules won't solve anything. This latest attempt was purely a failure of people whose job it is to not let people who pay cash for a one-way ticket onto a plane.

[Benn]

xerxes wrote:

It's that. Terrorism, or at least the thought of it, inspires logic-crippling fear in the hearts of Americans.

Exactly. Like the logic that is being missed by so many that this guy never passed through US or Canadian airport security so how it ramping it up going to solve similar attacks? "A" is a security hole so lets ramp up security on "B"

As it stands right now some guy can fly into the US from outside the continent with a gotch bomb just as easy as he could before!!!

"The enemy is breaching the right flank sir!!"
"Quickly captain! Reinforce the left flank!!"

[lostend]

JJ wrote:

When I was drawing this, the gun control analogy really struck me.

Gun-rights people always say that gun control laws are pointless, since they will only be respected by the law-abiding majority, and will do nothing to deter criminals, who, by definition do not care about obeying the law. I think the same basic principle applies to airport security. The law-abiding get punished, while the lawless will just try harder to find a way to do whatever.

But lots of politicians stand up for the rights of gun-owners. Is anyone standing up for the rights of passengers? Or is this just becoming some sort of macho game of who can impose more idiot rules.

Their are bills in the us government that plan too establish the rights of airline passengers after blizzards grounded much of the east coast.

But they will die in committee as a result of airline lobbyists.

[Sucros]

Agree 100%. If security can't keep someone who's they have every reason under the sun to stop from flying, what good is taking our shoes off going to do?