Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: We will never stop the bombers while we treat all passengers as terrorists

  1. #1
    `│´ 1312019132512912292038191221 Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Vulpix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    in my head, in ur brains
    Meta-Ethnicity
    North Germanic
    Ethnicity
    northern barbarian
    Country
    Sweden
    Taxonomy
    frosty & bloodthirsty
    Politics
    savaging and pillaging
    Religion
    catheist & evil cat propagandist
    Gender
    Posts
    5,871
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 101
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default We will never stop the bombers while we treat all passengers as terrorists

    America has 600,000 names on its terror watchlist – but didn’t spot the syringe bomber.


    By Tarique Ghaffur

    DMail: On the face of it, few people on the planet should have triggered more airport alarm bells than the Christmas Day syringe bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
    The 23-year-old Nigerian was, after all, already a known threat. Last May he was refused entry to Britain and placed on a security list after he applied for a visa to study at a bogus college.
    In November his father, a one-time government minister and former head of First Bank of Nigeria, warned the CIA his son had been converted to radical Islam and wanted to wage war on the West.

    But aside from specific intelligence, the airport security system should have picked up something peculiar about the bomber the moment he bought his ticket, nine days before he boarded his flight.
    The fact that he paid £1,775 in cash in Ghana, gave precious little information to the airline, boarded in Lagos, Nigeria, and carried little or no luggage for a supposed two-week stay in America should, in itself, have been seen as suspicious.

    So why, eight years after the September 11 attacks and more than 20 years after Lockerbie, and despite an unprecedented increase in airline security, can a suspected terrorist carrying a bomb be allowed to board a plane bound for the United States?

    President Barack Obama was right last week when he acknowledged that this lucky escape was not a simple case of human error, but a failure of the entire airport security system. More importantly, this attempted bombing outrage has revealed ‘airport security’ to be an ill co-ordinated collection of piecemeal measures that vary wildly in effectiveness around the world.
    We’ve heard much criticism of intelligence failures, poor screening and of the importance of high-tech scanners. All these played a part in allowing Abdulmutallab to board Flight 253 to Detroit, but none provide a solution on their own.

    It is probably easier to examine what went wrong than what went right. The first problem was the failure by America to highlight Abdulmutallab as a security risk.
    We have been assured that after being refused a British visa, he would never have been allowed to fly to this country because he was on a watchlist run by the UK Border Agency – though he has apparently never been linked with terrorism here.

    However, it is uncertain whether this was ever circulated to the Americans or, if it was, in what form. Reports from America suggest that Abdulmutallab was on the US Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) list – which contains the identities of everyone American intelligence has ever, even remotely, connected with terrorism.

    However, the list is said to contain more than 600,000 names. This is clearly unworkable and inclusion appears to count for little. Indeed, the bomber’s US visa was not rescinded.
    Next in the American hierarchy of databases is the Terrorist Screening Database – the TSD. There are a mere 400,000 on this list and most of them would be allowed to fly unhindered to Detroit.
    It is only when suspects graduate to two sub-groups within the TSD that alarms begin to sound.

    The first is comprised of 14,000 people who are permitted to fly to the US subject to extra security procedures. The second, with about 3,400 members, is a ‘no-fly’ list of those banned from flying to the US.
    The problem in America is exacerbated by the fact that Washington tried to take security out of the hands of airlines by introducing a new state-run system in 2006. But it is discretionary and hugely expensive for the airlines. So far only 18 of the 80 American commercial carriers have switched over, with 27 others still testing it.

    Another problem, of course, is that the bomber first boarded a Dutch KLM plane in Lagos, thousands of miles from the US.
    In most countries governments leave security to the airport authorities, who subcontract to security firms submitting the lowest tender. So it is clear that the worldwide airport security system is in a state of disarray, with little information-sharing and patchy procedures.
    As a former Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, whose duties included overseeing the safety of Heathrow Airport, I believe that we need global reform.

    A suitable model might be the international air traffic control system. Countries that want to be part of the international air network have to install professional air traffic control systems to agreed international standards.
    Airport security also needs to be run by professionals with clearly agreed international duties, simple lines of command and fast, efficient ways of raising concerns – an efficient local system with robust international links. Unfortunately, rather than this systemic approach, our response to previous terrorist attacks has been little more than a series of knee-jerk reactions.

    After Richard Reid hid explosives in his shoes, passengers were required to take off their footwear for pre-flight security checks. Similarly, after a plot was uncovered to blow up airlines with explosives in liquid containers, passengers were banned from carrying drinks on board.
    So it was no surprise to me that the first response to the Christmas Day bomb attempt was to spend millions on new scanning equipment without checking whether it will be effective.

    Experts say the metal detectors of Schiphol would have been useless against the underwear bomb, as would the newly developed device designed to ‘sniff’ the air for explosives. We are told the £100,000 devices now planned for British airports ‘probably’ would have been effective, as would the similarly expensive backscatter X-ray scanners.
    But after all the expense of installing these machines, what happens when a new ‘undetectable’ device is invented?

    It would be better, then, to design a robust, worldwide security system in which all security, safety and emergency systems are run from one central control room in each airport, integrated with security controls in other airports as well as national security networks.

    Finally, we need to abandon our ‘one-size fits all’ approach. For reasons of political correctness, authorities in Britain, and in many other countries, insist on treating ALL passengers as presenting the same terrorist threat. Clearly it is ludicrous, and massively wasteful, to subject an 80-year-old grandmother or a businessman who flies 20 times a month to the same level of security as, say, single passengers with little or no luggage who purchase last-minute one-way tickets for cash.

    Critics of this ‘profiling’ technique say it is little more than an ethnic witch-hunt, violates privacy and will fail to prevent terrorism, but sophisticated profiling operates on several levels, ranging from the coincidence of a number of travel factors to behaviour pattern recognition.
    In fact, transatlantic flights to the US are obliged to profile passengers, but clearly Abdulmutallab was given little more than a cursory glance.

    Screeners should be trained not to rely on, say, skin colour – ten per cent of British muslims are white and both Richard Reid and the Christmas Day bomber are black – but to pick up crucial details. Passengers seen to have a ‘high-risk’ profile, as Abdulmutallab did, should receive the highest levels of security check.

    If this bomb attempt does anything it should be to remind us that we all have a vested interest in ensuring that air transport remains safe. Therefore we have a collective responsibility to introduce a proper, integrated worldwide security system.


  2. #2
    Apricity Supporter Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"

    Lenny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    07-28-2011 @ 11:09 AM
    Location
    Nearby
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Scandogermania
    Country
    United States
    Taxonomy
    Gracile CM
    Politics
    "Ethnocultural-continuity"
    Religion
    Mit dem Schwan
    Gender
    Posts
    1,067
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 24
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    Finally, we need to abandon our ‘one-size fits all’ approach. For reasons of political correctness, authorities in Britain, and in many other countries, insist on treating ALL passengers as presenting the same terrorist threat. Clearly it is ludicrous, and massively wasteful, to subject an 80-year-old grandmother or a businessman who flies 20 times a month to the same level of security as, say, single passengers with little or no luggage who purchase last-minute one-way tickets for cash.
    The "ringleader" Mohammed Atta bought his tickets on the morning of Sept.11th. I recall around 2002, the man who sold him the tickets at the airport said "If this guy didn't look like the picture of a terrorist, I don't know who did." (paraphrased). But politically-correct protocol forbade him from refusing Atta and co the tickets. [If the airline employee had done so, thereby averting "9/11", Atta and co could've sued him for racial discrimination and "denying their rights". Easily they'd have won millions from any U.S. court ]

    8 years on, nothing's changed.
    Hail to You

  3. #3
    Senior Member Rudy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Online
    11-28-2018 @ 02:19 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    NW Europe
    Ethnicity
    American
    Country
    United States
    Politics
    Blue Collar
    Religion
    agnostic
    Gender
    Posts
    362
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 8
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    IMO
    We will never stop the bombers, and we will treat all passengers as terrorists, as long as there is the element of human error involved.

    Their system should have already worked.
    If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
    – James Madison
    Money Masters
    European Y DNA Haplogroups
    US Debt
    http://www.zasucks.com/?p=6151
    War Is A Racket

  4. #4
    Junior Member Maleficarum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    08-21-2014 @ 01:13 PM
    Location
    East Anglia
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Anglo-Saxon
    Ethnicity
    White English
    Country
    England
    Gender
    Posts
    36
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    0 Not allowed!

    Default

    As soon as you shut down one avenue another will be used. We'll still be arguing over the rights and wrongs of the body scanners when they are planning their next atrocities then more of our rights will be eroded in the name of 'anti terror laws'.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •