|
How to feel safe on a US plane
|
|
Topic Started: Jan 10 2008, 02:52 PM (593 Views)
|
|
ds9074
|
Jan 10 2008, 02:52 PM
Post #1
|
Admiral
- Posts:
- 9,449
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- August 27, 2003
|
- Quote:
-
Posted by Francisca Kellett on 10 Jan 2008 at 19:28 So you think our airport security is bad? Cha! You don’t know you’re born! Just listen to poor little Matthew Gardner’s story. Matthew Gardner, you see, is an American. Matthew Gardner was detained at Sea-Tac Airport by security staff. Matthew Gardner is on the USA’s no-fly list – a list of criminals and terrorist suspects who you really don’t want to have on your plane. Matthew Gardner is also five years old. Not only was he detained, but when his mother gave him a hug to comfort him, security guards told her that she was forbidden from touching him because he was a “security risk”. She was then searched, just in case little Matthew had sneakily passed her any incriminating evidence. What did they think he’d sneak in to her pockets? A packet of sweets, or heaven forbid, a cuddly toy? The reason he was detained, of course, is that he has the same name as someone on the US’s no-fly list. He’s not alone. There are, according to CBS news, a total of 44,000 names on the list of suspected terrorists – that’s up from 16 names before 9/11. Some of the people on that list have in the past included Senator Ted Kennedy, who had to wait three weeks for his name to be removed from the list, and Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia. At least they’re grown-ups, I suppose. Far more worrying is who is missing from the list. According to CBS, the British subjects that were charged last year with plotting to blow up ten airlines with liquid explosives could, if they so wished, have flown in the US – despite being under investigation for over a year. Splendid. That’s what we want. Detain kindergarten kids and presidents; wave through suspected terror suspects. Now, don’t we all feel safer? http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/travel/franci.../ussecurity.htm
Sound like the bureaucratic mentality has taken hold at US airport security.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Jan 10 2008, 03:14 PM
Post #2
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
Better too many names than too many omissions...
Take it from someone who was on the no-fly list and couldn't perform and e-check in.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Jan 10 2008, 03:35 PM
Post #3
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Jan 10 2008, 03:14 PM
Better too many names than too many omissions...
Take it from someone who was on the no-fly list and couldn't perform and e-check in.
- Quote:
-
Far more worrying is who is missing from the list. According to CBS, the British subjects that were charged last year with plotting to blow up ten airlines with liquid explosives could, if they so wished, have flown in the US – despite being under investigation for over a year.
So much for the theory that there are too many names on the list. Sounds like it is just plain messed up to me.
|
|
|
| |
|
8247
|
Jan 10 2008, 03:47 PM
Post #4
|
Apparently we look like this now
- Posts:
- 16,246
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #75
- Joined:
- October 14, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Jan 10 2008, 03:35 PM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Jan 10 2008, 03:14 PM
Better too many names than too many omissions...
Take it from someone who was on the no-fly list and couldn't perform and e-check in.
- Quote:
-
Far more worrying is who is missing from the list. According to CBS, the British subjects that were charged last year with plotting to blow up ten airlines with liquid explosives could, if they so wished, have flown in the US – despite being under investigation for over a year.
So much for the theory that there are too many names on the list. Sounds like it is just plain messed up to me.
Or, just plane messed up. There is an air of frustration involved for anyone who might wrongly be on the list, but as ABG said, Better too many than not enough.
|
|
|
| |
|
Data's Cat's Sister
|
Jan 10 2008, 04:02 PM
Post #5
|
Commodore
- Posts:
- 4,646
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #107
- Joined:
- February 6, 2004
|
I think in the case of the five year old boy, the officials were wrong. You'd expect people to use their common sense and realise that the kid could not be the person in question.
The system as it stands would probably work fine if the officials were more sensible about it.
|
|
|
| |
|
8247
|
Jan 10 2008, 04:04 PM
Post #6
|
Apparently we look like this now
- Posts:
- 16,246
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #75
- Joined:
- October 14, 2003
|
- Data's Cat's Sister
- Jan 10 2008, 04:02 PM
I think in the case of the five year old boy, the officials were wrong. You'd expect people to use their common sense and realise that the kid could not be the person in question.
The system as it stands would probably work fine if the officials were more sensible about it.
I don't know...The word 'terrorism' could be used to describe a kid's temper tantrums.
|
|
|
| |
|
Hoss
|
Jan 10 2008, 04:07 PM
Post #7
|
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
- Posts:
- 19,893
- Group:
- Validating
- Member
- #29
- Joined:
- August 28, 2003
|
- Data's Cat's Sister
- Jan 10 2008, 04:02 PM
I think in the case of the five year old boy, the officials were wrong. You'd expect people to use their common sense and realise that the kid could not be the person in question.
The system as it stands would probably work fine if the officials were more sensible about it.
We are talking about bureaucrats. They are not allowed to think, only follow the rules.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Jan 10 2008, 04:51 PM
Post #8
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
I question the validity of this article, the actions decried taken by the air port security seem non-sensual to the extreme. I don’t doubt that the mother and boy where detained because the boy’s name is on the no fly list, I am sure their stay with security was pleasant if not a bit annoying until the situation was cleared up and not at all as described in this article.
- Quote:
-
Not only was he detained, but when his mother gave him a hug to comfort him, security guards told her that she was forbidden from touching him because he was a “security risk”.
Pleas :rolleyes:
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Jan 10 2008, 08:13 PM
Post #9
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Dandandat
- Jan 10 2008, 04:51 PM
I question the validity of this article, the actions decried taken by the air port security seem non-sensual to the extreme. I don’t doubt that the mother and boy where detained because the boy’s name is on the no fly list, I am sure their stay with security was pleasant if not a bit annoying until the situation was cleared up and not at all as described in this article. - Quote:
-
Not only was he detained, but when his mother gave him a hug to comfort him, security guards told her that she was forbidden from touching him because he was a “security risk”.
Pleas :rolleyes:
You can question all you want but unless you provide proof to the contrary all we have to go on is this article.
By the way this is not the first time I heard this report. I think the incident with the 5 year old happened a while back, unless this is a second and different incident in which case I would definitely be more inclined to believe it.
8247 - I agree with the sentiment that it is better too many are on the list then not enough. My concern is quite clearly that there are not enough on the list if known terrorists were left off of it. That is what I meant by messed up.
|
|
|
| |
|
whitestar
|
Jan 10 2008, 10:56 PM
Post #10
|
Captain
- Posts:
- 1,469
- Group:
- Senior Officer
- Member
- #122
- Joined:
- February 23, 2004
|
- Data's Cat's Sister
- Jan 10 2008, 04:02 PM
I think in the case of the five year old boy, the officials were wrong. You'd expect people to use their common sense and realise that the kid could not be the person in question.
The system as it stands would probably work fine if the officials were more sensible about it.
Simple, a case of mistaken identity... even bureacrats have a brain and should not put a mother and child through that ordeal. If they put their job above that scenerio instead of making an obvious decision then just where do they draw the line? If I was forcibly seperated from my five year old child, I personally would be after somebody's scalp, somebody must be accountable!!
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Jan 11 2008, 02:15 AM
Post #11
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Jan 10 2008, 08:13 PM
- Dandandat
- Jan 10 2008, 04:51 PM
I question the validity of this article, the actions decried taken by the air port security seem non-sensual to the extreme. I don’t doubt that the mother and boy where detained because the boy’s name is on the no fly list, I am sure their stay with security was pleasant if not a bit annoying until the situation was cleared up and not at all as described in this article. - Quote:
-
Not only was he detained, but when his mother gave him a hug to comfort him, security guards told her that she was forbidden from touching him because he was a “security risk”.
Pleas :rolleyes:
You can question all you want but unless you provide proof to the contrary all we have to go on is this article. By the way this is not the first time I heard this report. I think the incident with the 5 year old happened a while back, unless this is a second and different incident in which case I would definitely be more inclined to believe it. 8247 - I agree with the sentiment that it is better too many are on the list then not enough. My concern is quite clearly that there are not enough on the list if known terrorists were left off of it. That is what I meant by messed up.
All I have to go on is this article? No I also have common sense to go on. This article however offers no proof what so ever, and flies in the face of common sense. This article is what has to prove its far fetched story, I don’t need to buy simply because it was served to me. Its not even an artical its a blog.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Jan 11 2008, 02:18 AM
Post #12
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- whitestar
- Jan 10 2008, 10:56 PM
Simple, a case of mistaken identity... even bureacrats have a brain and should not put a mother and child through that ordeal. If they put their job above that scenerio instead of making an obvious decision then just where do they draw the line? If I was forceably seperated from my five year old child, I personally would be after somebody's scalp, somebody must be accountable!!
I highly doubt anyone was removed from their child. It just doesn’t make any sense. Sounds more like the article writer was going for shook value and embellished the story.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Jan 11 2008, 10:07 AM
Post #13
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Dandandat
- Jan 11 2008, 02:15 AM
- Minuet
- Jan 10 2008, 08:13 PM
- Dandandat
- Jan 10 2008, 04:51 PM
I question the validity of this article, the actions decried taken by the air port security seem non-sensual to the extreme. I don’t doubt that the mother and boy where detained because the boy’s name is on the no fly list, I am sure their stay with security was pleasant if not a bit annoying until the situation was cleared up and not at all as described in this article. - Quote:
-
Not only was he detained, but when his mother gave him a hug to comfort him, security guards told her that she was forbidden from touching him because he was a “security risk”.
Pleas :rolleyes:
You can question all you want but unless you provide proof to the contrary all we have to go on is this article. By the way this is not the first time I heard this report. I think the incident with the 5 year old happened a while back, unless this is a second and different incident in which case I would definitely be more inclined to believe it. 8247 - I agree with the sentiment that it is better too many are on the list then not enough. My concern is quite clearly that there are not enough on the list if known terrorists were left off of it. That is what I meant by messed up.
All I have to go on is this article? No I also have common sense to go on. This article however offers no proof what so ever, and flies in the face of common sense. This article is what has to prove its far fetched story, I don’t need to buy simply because it was served to me. Its not even an artical its a blog.
Actually if you link on the article it contains a link to a video of the original news report on the story. It is reported in a pretty matter of fact way and seems pretty real to me.
Here is the link
http://www.king5.com/video/featured-index....id=206446&shu=1
|
|
|
| |
|
somerled
|
Jan 11 2008, 11:51 AM
Post #14
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
- Posts:
- 19,451
- Group:
- Banned
- Member
- #62
- Joined:
- September 24, 2003
|
- whitestar
- Jan 11 2008, 01:56 PM
- Data's Cat's Sister
- Jan 10 2008, 04:02 PM
I think in the case of the five year old boy, the officials were wrong. You'd expect people to use their common sense and realise that the kid could not be the person in question.
The system as it stands would probably work fine if the officials were more sensible about it.
Simple, a case of mistaken identity... even bureacrats have a brain and should not put a mother and child through that ordeal. If they put their job above that scenerio instead of making an obvious decision then just where do they draw the line? If I was forcibly seperated from my five year old child, I personally would be after somebody's scalp, somebody must be accountable!!
Not the ones I've encountered .... I believe they leave their brains in the car park when they report for work .... least that's the impression I get.
This whole story is all just a bit sad .... the americans are too paranoid.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Jan 11 2008, 12:17 PM
Post #15
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- somerled
- Jan 11 2008, 11:51 AM
- whitestar
- Jan 11 2008, 01:56 PM
- Data's Cat's Sister
- Jan 10 2008, 04:02 PM
I think in the case of the five year old boy, the officials were wrong. You'd expect people to use their common sense and realise that the kid could not be the person in question.
The system as it stands would probably work fine if the officials were more sensible about it.
Simple, a case of mistaken identity... even bureacrats have a brain and should not put a mother and child through that ordeal. If they put their job above that scenerio instead of making an obvious decision then just where do they draw the line? If I was forcibly seperated from my five year old child, I personally would be after somebody's scalp, somebody must be accountable!!
Not the ones I've encountered .... I believe they leave their brains in the car park when they report for work .... least that's the impression I get. This whole story is all just a bit sad .... the americans are too paranoid.
When have you encountered American beaurocrats?
You are basing your comments on your impressions of Australian beaurocrats and yet have the gall to declare all Americans paranoid. It sounds to me like it is Australians who are paranoid.
|
|
|
| |