TSA Wants You To Keep Your Seat, and Your Hands In Sight 888
An anonymous reader excerpts from an AP story as carried by Yahoo News about changes stemming from yesterday's foiled bombing attempt of a Northwest Airlines flight: "Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing. The regulations are a response to a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day. Air Canada said in a statement that new rules imposed by the Transportation Security Administration limit on-board activities by passengers and crew in US airspace. ... Flight attendants on some domestic flights are informing passengers of similar rules. Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn't have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows." The TSA's list of prohibited items doesn't seem to have changed in the last day, though.
Is this a new gimmick from Ryanair? (Score:5, Insightful)
How ridiculous can flying become? Just say "F**K YOU" to terrorists, and fly as if nothing had happened. Otherwise they've won.
They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:4, Insightful)
How about not allowing direct flight from Nigeria? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously. Make every passenger from Nigeria go out through security in Amsterdam, then back in. And while you are at it if some guy in Nigeria goes to the US embassy and says look out for my son here is his name then bloody look out for that name in visa requests and think twice before granting it.
Oh and another thing. US security seems to focus on detaining the bad guys after they have landed in the US. We have heard of this happening to plenty of people. How about recognising that they can get up to bad stuff while still in the air over Detroit, and trying to keep the bad guys from even getting on the plane.
Prohibited Items (Score:3, Insightful)
The TSA's list of prohibited items doesn't seem to have changed in the last day, though.
Explosive devices aren't already listed?
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. It's the streisand effect of terrorism... 9/11 could have been at most a minor annoyance but instead it became the rallying cry for numerous restrictions on freedom with questionable results at best.
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree with you. An hour? There's a lot of flights where I'd never have a chance to visit the lavatory.
And we wonder why the airlines are having so much trouble making a profit today?
I've been avoiding flying because of the TSA for ages now. First you have to go through massive amounts of trouble at the checkpoints, worry about your luggage, now you're even going to be interfered with on the flight itself.
My fear that eventually travelers will all have to fly wearing issued paper-tissue gowns and be sedated during the flight approaches...
Re:Boy, flying just keeps getting better! (Score:5, Insightful)
Impacting our day to day to lives = terrorism has succeeded.
Its psychological warfare. The mind is infinitely more powerful than any bomb.
One hour? Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because apparently the only possible time to detonate something and bring down an airplane is in the last hour before landing. So THAT is why the shoe bomber failed....he did it too early!
How about we have a reasoned response to this instead of just blindly making shit up based on the last attack?
Yesterday's "foiled" bombing attempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Congrats TSA/Al Queda (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's that in response to this sliver of a threat, you're guaranteeing that I'll spend twice the time in line, and the flight will be as miserable as you can make it. This will cost literally billions of dollars (at 300 million hours, about 450 lifetimes) of productive passenger time per year. And all because some twat might set his crotch on fire-- good thing you don't allow us to have water anymore.
Alright. Fine. Let the airlines go out of business; this nation of cowards deserves it. I suppose we'll need another bailout, to pay the airlines to leave their aircraft on the tarmac.
Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for imaginary security are assholes.
Re:Prohibited Items (Score:5, Insightful)
Fireworks in specific are banned too! And he was in his seat.
Basically there should be no rules because of this, because everything he did was already sufficiently covered.
Any policy changes because of this are 100% "Looking like your doing something" and/or fear.
This is kind of rediculous (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for security but now this all nonsensical. Instead of actually making actual changes they just impose extremely annoying rules that have no actual security improvement. What does it matter whether or not it is the last hour...can't the terrorist just set off a bomb...I dunno before the last hour. I don't understand what the actual point of this rule is.
So if I want to pee, read a book, put something away, or so much as even flinch I'm gonna be threatened with an arrest. Simply inconveniencing people isn't gonna make security any better...
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:1, Insightful)
With all due respect on the aisle thing, if I'm on a long-ish flight, fall asleep after eating whatever...
Or even just if the pilot keeps the "fasten seat belt" sign on for all but 20 minutes of a five hour flight and somehow expects that will be adequate for 100+ economy class passengers all sharing two bathrooms at the back of the plane. Is it really too much to ask that the airlines provide a reasonable opportunity for people to deal with their basic needs (e.g. going to the bathroom)?
But what really puzzles me is that I watch the news and get the impression that most people are OK with this. The news announcers discuss the new policies as if they were routine common sense measures - and then the news shows a few clips of "ordinary" people saying something to the effect that they understand the need for the new policies.
Where is the outrage?
When I drive down the freeway on my way to the airport I see all kinds of people driving recklessly: tailgating, abrupt lane changes, passing at high speed way over in the slowest lane - all while holding a cell phone to the ear. So it can't be that other people somehow generally value human life (or even just their own) much more than me. And it can't really be about legacy "He was a dumbass who got himself killed driving recklessly on the freeway." isn't really any better than "He was a good man who was, through no fault of his own, killed tragically before his time in a senseless terrorist attack." Maybe it's that there's a culture where if you can somehow find a way to be the victim then you can justify being mean to other people (e.g. taking a bigger slice of the pie for yourself) all in the name of "self defense".
But, anyway, I'm left puzzled: terrorist attacks aren't scary to me because I afraid of the terrorists, terrorists attacks are scary to me because they highlight just how little I have in common with my fellow Americans. At least on Slashdot, I find a few people who seem to be thinking roughly the same things I am.
Typical cop response (Score:5, Insightful)
You beat terrorists by raising a middle finger in their direction, mocking them mercilessly and accepting casualties once in a while. You kiss terrorist arse when you pull this kind of crap. What's next, handcuff passengers to their seats and have police strutting up and down the aisles during flights? Give me an effin' break!
Re:This is kind of rediculous (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for security but now this all nonsensical.
Ok, I'm game. What's been implemented post-9/11 that's made us more secure?
Instead of actually making actual changes they just impose extremely annoying rules that have no actual security improvement. What does it matter whether or not it is the last hour...can't the terrorist just set off a bomb...I dunno before the last hour. I don't understand what the actual point of this rule is.
To make stupid people feel more secure by appearing to do something.
So if I want to pee, read a book, put something away, or so much as even flinch I'm gonna be threatened with an arrest. Simply inconveniencing people isn't gonna make security any better...
You're assuming that's their goal.... and it SHOULD be. I ask you this: do you feel more secure now?
Re:Prohibited Items (Score:5, Insightful)
Well duh. If you're already hopelessly worthless at enforcing the rules you've always had, well just make more rules!
Re:This makes perfect sense (Score:3, Insightful)
So what's the point of the new rules?
Human nature. When something bad happens, we try to prevent it from happening again.
It's easy to harshly judge these guys, but if they did nothing and another attempt was successful I would not want to be in their shoes. Not that I want to be in their shoes anyway. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Insightful)
As much as I agree that the response to terrorism is often irrational, try to maintain some perspective. Thousands of people dying cannot reasonably be described as a "minor annoyance."
Re:This is kind of rediculous (Score:2, Insightful)
Question (Score:5, Insightful)
So, during this time when you aren't allowed to get out of your seat, aren't allowed to use the bathroom (explicitly mentioned in an article I read):
What happens if you have to crap? Like really have to? I have a feeling if someone started yelling about how they were gonna shit their pants, a flight attendant would let them to the bathroom, although I think if you're at the point where passengers are having to yell about needing to take a crap (in front of dozens of passengers), you are opening yourself up to a lawsuit.
Re:This makes perfect sense (Score:2, Insightful)
It's easy to harshly judge these guys, but if they did nothing and another attempt was successful I would not want to be in their shoes.
Abdulmutallab's failure was due to his own ineptitude, not the TSA's myriad rules & procedures.
If the TSA did nothing, they would not be any less effective.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
As the parent of a 1 year old. I say good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
I have trouble keeping my son in his high chair with his hands in plain site in a high chair. Good luck getting infants to sit still.
I don't know who's stupider: The idiots at the TSA who come up with the rules, the politicians that give them this power, or the dickheads that allow the politicians to be elected.
I'll stay well out of your country. I only wish your fucked up rules didn't get copied by our own government and idiotic organisations. We just had some ridiculous security restrictions lifted in Australia. What's the bet that all gets reversed thanks to you crazy as fuck yanks?
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand where you're coming from but it's neither the fault of the flight attendants nor the cleaning crew that your country has such shitty regulations, but they're the only people who will suffer from your protest...
That's the "they are just doing their job" cop-out. If they aren't happy with the consequences of working for an organization that denies people their basic human dignities, then they should be looking for a new job. To give them a pass because they are just little people in the machinery of a big faceless organization is to give the big faceless organization a pass.
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:2, Insightful)
I can understand where you're coming from but it's neither the fault of the flight attendants nor the cleaning crew that your country has such shitty regulations, but they're the only people who will suffer from your protest...
That's the "they are just doing their job" cop-out. If they aren't happy with the consequences of working for an organization that denies people their basic human dignities, then they should be looking for a new job. To give them a pass because they are just little people in the machinery of a big faceless organization is to give the big faceless organization a pass.
No, you can punish the big faceless organisation by not purchasing tickets from them in the first place, but urinating on the floor of the plane will only punish the FAs who already have a very hard and sometimes dangerous job, and might not be in a position to "look for a new job".
The cop-out is you claiming that you can treat people in such a disgusting manner because of your assumption that they're able find a less degrading job at their whim.
OK, this is stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's stupid not because it's exaggerated, but because it's ineffective. It's BS. I went to a conference in the US at the end of November, and was reminded just how bad it is to fly to and from the US. I have also flown to and from Israel, a country very much in the crosshairs of terrorists, and the security procedure was MUCH more humane, both on the flights and at boarding. (in fact, I didn't even need a visa for Israel, while I need to go through an incredibly complicated and expensive procedure to get a US visa... but this is a different story (or is it?)) The Israelis do have some security processes in place, but they are mostly stealth and unobtrusive. Well, in any case, they must be doing something right, because there has not been a hijacked or otherwise terror-affected flight to or from Israel in decades now.
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:3, Insightful)
Or mandatory diapers. Why beat around the bush when their real objective is to regress everyone into infants that constantly need help with everything?
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
4 babies born per second... 5760 per day.
I don't understand this math.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:3, Insightful)
Every life is important. Just because it's not possible to prevent deaths everywhere , doesn't mean you should be ok with unnecessary slaughter of innocent people.
Their loved ones still lost them and that still causes them pain , not matter whether they got 'replaced' or not .
By your logic , you would be ok with having your entire family killed , as they will be replaced inside an hour ?
People are more than statistics.
Re:NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
If he had spent that long just trying to set it up, why didn't he also try to set it off while still in the toilet?
Also, what kind of brainwashing and delusions of thinking is going on that causes these people to think that blowing up a plane and themselves is the answer to anything? That is the real issue. What is it that's causing some people to go against every programmed instinct of human nature to try to do such things? And is there any way to intervene in that process, before it even gets to be a threat?
Re:NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially because the terrorist in question remained in his seat the whole time.
In fact, the only person who seems to have left his seat is the guy who got up to stop the attack. So, should he have remained seated instead?
Exactly - how on earth did the TSA come up with such seemingly braindead directive? Makes you think that either there's someone incredibly cunning, or a sufficiently large group of utterly unimaginative and obtuse individuals work for the TSA.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Every life is important. Just because it's not possible to prevent deaths everywhere , doesn't mean you should be ok with unnecessary slaughter of innocent people.
In the real world, resources are limited. If spending 50 billion dollars on anti-terrorism saves 4000 lives, and spending 50 billion dollars on food aid saves 1 million lives, then the latter is clearly a better decision, notwithstanding the fact that every life is important.
Of course, in the real world, what we actually ended up doing is spending 1 trillion dollars fighting two deadly wars with heavy civilian casualties.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Thousands of thousands of people die each day outside the US in wars that appear to be a 'minor' annoyance to the US. 4000 people died under the terror campaign by the IRA in Ireland - supported by most in the US.
Every year 15 million children die of hunger alone.
Perspective - it's a great thing. I also don't believe most democratic elections are won via terrorist attacks at home or abroad. And we still have not really made up our mind whether the US/UK invasion of Iraq was legal.
The 9/11 attacks were a tragedy. However by turning such a tragedy into an excuse to attack and govern another nation or not even disclose the full details on the attacks of that day then the event was not a 'minor annoyance' to the US at all - it was a convenient opportunity!
Re:Congrats TSA/Al Queda (Score:3, Insightful)
Alright, I'll bite - you canceled your vacation because you may have to spend an extra, what, hour in line?
I've seen my fair share of spectacular delays (hey, I used to fly Aeroflot), but the extra time spent just on the security circus? I can only recall a few times where I spent more than 30 minutes in a security line. I know people will come back with their horror stories, but we're talking average added time here.
And the flight itself can be a pretty miserable experience, but how exactly is the security circus adding to that?
Don't get me wrong, I hate the Security Theater as much as anyone, on an aesthetic level, but let's not pretend that it's the fucking Spanish Inquisition, ok?
Oh yeah, and now you also have to plan ahead enough so you don't shit your pants during the last hour - yeah, it just doesn't sound like you were all that invested in your vacation.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
The death of one man is a tragedy — the death of a million is a statistic.
The "Terrorists" win again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Go "BOO" enough times and the US will spend itself into financial ruin. Wait -- that's happening NOW!
Of course they're listed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Scroll down -- there's a clearly-labeled section detailing which kinds of explosive are allowed and which aren't.
But see, this is one truly moronic result of security theater -- first, the explicit list of specific stuff you can't bring is also an implicit list of stuff you can. If I were an aspiring terrorist, I'd be reading through that thinking, "Hmm, a golf club would be really useful, but they're banned... I'll just bring a stick of rebar instead." That's the problem with security theater in general -- you're preparing for specific attacks, and by publicly preparing for those, you guarantee that the terrorists won't use that attack -- they'll use something else.
The second problem is that the list in itself is a list of ideas if you can manage to sneak that stuff past security. "Hmm, a spillable battery -- that's a good idea. I just have to put it in a wheelchair and pretend to be disabled..."
Re:Typical cop response (Score:4, Insightful)
Whats next? Mandatory sedation. Sure a few people won't wake up, but thats a small* price to pay to stop someone from trying to blow up the plane they are on.
* For point of reference, a medical report I found rates anesthesia to result in 10 to 100 times more deaths than air travel per hour of exposure. So the small price is 10 to 100 flights worth of passengers killed per fractional flight loss prevented, fractional since the vast majority of flight loss are not from internal terrorism.
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, and as there's obviously no way this guy could have spent 20 minutes in the bathroom 61 minutes before landing, this new policy by the TSA is surly just another feather in the cap of the worlds most effective security organization.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
The exact point of terrorism is to disrupt the target country. Now look at the situation - not only have the USA ruined their image over two wars, they (and everyone else) spend lots of money on harrassing innocent travellers in a way that doesn't even do anything, breeding contempt all the while. A few thousand deaths in an act that is extremely unlikely to ever be successfully repeated again should not be enough to let the most well-armed country in the world tumble head-first into raging paranoia against anyone and everyone, including its own citizens.
Regardless of the "if we don't X the terrorists have already won" rhethoric, the government of the States has done exactly what the terrorists wanted and it's still continuing to do so. The terrorists have already won and they keep wining because at the moment they and the government are working in the same direction: Away form the citizens towards ever greater surveillance and power concentration at the top. They're essentially using each other as PR agencies.
This rule murders people (Score:5, Insightful)
After this rule more people will die from blood clots.
Sane airlines actually encourage people to get up from their seats at regular intervals.
E.g. Edelweiss Air used to show a video explaining the issue (I haven't flown with them in a while so I don't know about the current situation), Emirates has some pictures on how to keep circulation intact etc.
Re:Yesterday's "foiled" bombing attempt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What this incident proved... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is notable that the person who reportedly subdued the suspect individual was NOT an American. He was Dutch.
ok, @#$% this (Score:4, Insightful)
The TSA losers failed to prevent him from getting on the plane with a firecracker.
Now they are saying "well we need to treat you all like prisoners now."
You know what, the terrorists just won, with a @#$%ing firecracker.
"But..." (Score:3, Insightful)
"I have to PEE!"
"Please remain seated, sir."
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:4, Insightful)
I was planning a vacation to the USA in 2010, as I did in 2006, 7 and 8. Entering America was already a royal pain in the neck (standing in line for 2 hours in Miami was really a joy, so was secondary screening in DC followed by a canceled flight), but these new measures make it increasingly unlikely I will go forward with my plans. There is a limit to what I will acccept. This notion that everything in society has to defer to security is insane.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Insightful)
When I Retire... (Score:2, Insightful)
and have the extra TIME to travel, I'll be driving more places, for sure. So what if it takes me 3 1/2 days to get to LA from Virginia? They'll at least be pleasant, I'll get to see a lotta scenery, maybe take a few pictures, and bypass the BS. If they ever get the high speed rail working, I might take that... if there's no security BS to put up with (pointless in a train - the terrorists just blow up the tracks..)
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of brainwashing and delusions made him think he could take down an airliner with a bag of stuff he regurgitated and cooked up in a plane toilet? This guy was a clown.
His own father had warned the US authorities about his extremism already, but they had basically opened a file then ignored him. Perhaps they made a realistic assessment that this guy was only a threat to his own trousers?
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorist attacks in Europe or Israel have taken far many more lives than they have in the US.. The planes flying into buildings happened, sure.. but "9/11" was created in the mind of the world by the US response to it.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand your thoughts, and I myself remember where I was on that day. I remember the discussions I had on that day.
BUT... What about all of those people that died in Spain? Or how about the ones in London? Have the Europeans decided to lock down all of their train stations and require body cavity searches?
Those people lost lives as much as anybody else, yet all we remember is 9/11. All we talk about is 9/11. All we have to endure are the endless lines of security searches, of taking off our shoes, belts, and what have you. Of me personally being searched for 45 minutes because Jolt decided it would be cute to introduce a brand new novel can of pop.
http://imstartintofeelit.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/jolt-blue-raspberry.jpg [wordpress.com]
Yes it was my mistake for taking fluids in my backpack. But was it my mistake that the TSA thought it was a brand new device? I am not blaming the TSA because they are doing their jobs. I am blaming the paranoia going through the American society...
Want to know what gets me even more, where are the twin towers V2? Want to know how inept parts of American society has become, just look at what has been built after the 9/11 attacks, NOTHING, NADA, ZIP! That is the tragedy. Think of it as follows, your enemy blows up your bridge, and yet nearly a decade later you still can't rebuild it. Who is weak I ask!!! (If it were up to me I would be forcing a mandate through to build a new set of towers to show them one is not weak...)
Re:ok, @#$% this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh, look! (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you determine someone is innocent? Innocent of what?
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
And the lives of cancer victims, who are losing out on funding that instead goes to the war on terror, are just as important. Giving them medical treatment happens to save vastly more lives per dollar than antiterrorism.
Re:Is this a new gimmick from Ryanair? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's time to face the fact that the terrorist have won instead of pretending that the issue is unresolved.
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
If he had set it off in the toilet, then the restrictions introduced would probably be worse. They would probably have banned the use of the toilet on planes.
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Sacrificing your quality of life for morality can be difficult. But sacrificing morality for quality of life is EVIL. It doesn't matter that these people are doing it on a small scale, they should be looked down on just like corrupt politicians.
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Either way, "the terrorists win."
Terrorists are just spoiled children. They throw very big and dangerous tantrums for attention. Their acts and our responses are all attention.
Terrorists, like spoiled children, are best discouraged by ignoring them. Will there always be spoiled children? Yes. It's a fact of life. Can't stop life.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:3, Insightful)
9/11 could have been at most a minor annoyance
The collapse of twin 110 story mega structures in Manhattan cannot be classed as a minor annoyance.
The hijackers struck the Pentagon. They made a serious attempt to reach the Capitol Building or the White House.
The geek needs to keep a little better grip on realty. When Yamamoto struck at Pearl Harbor, he knew exactly what the response would be.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Congrats TSA/Al Queda (Score:5, Insightful)
oh, right, when restrictions come in small amounts, people will get used to them. just like you have.
if i have to arrive an hour early for a 30 minute flight and waste half an hour of that on ridiculous procedures like taking off my boots (which is annoying as hell in winter, as i have to spend a minute to get them back on), walk over dirty floor in my socks, take out my belt, very often be touched by some man in uniform all over.
i had nail clippers taken from me. the pointy part was ~ 5 or 6 millimeters long. i had hunted for ones i like for several years and found them on lithuanian market - i still haven't found a replacement that's as good. fucking plastic forks they give out on the flight are more dangerous.
i'm not allowed to take any drinks with me that i like. more specifically, i'm not allowed to take beer back from germany :)
i'm not allowed to take photos of taking off or landing (which was just fine for decades before, and those times are when you are most likely to get a nice photo). i'm not allowed to FUCKING LISTED TO MUSIC. i've had flight attendants wake me up if i just as much as have headphones on my ears with the player off. i don't like being waken up unless necessary.
my girlfriend was denied a blanket because "we are taking off". the plane was awfully cold, even i might have preferred a blanket - and i'm the person who wears shorts at zero degrees.
now that's all europe only. for usa, so i hear, i have to fill forms where required level of stupidity to create them just is not comprehensible to me (do you plan to commit acts of terrorism ?), give fingerprints, subject oneself to arrogant and rude questioning, possibly give out all passwords for any it related devices and maybe even have them confiscated, without any compensation.
i don't know firsthand, as i have refused to travel to usa several times in recent past because of this.
i suppose it all goes down to what level dignity you expect to have. unfortunately, that seems to be way low for too many people.
now let's see what all these measures help, if any. let's look at the plastic already inside the airplane - i'm sure most of it could be melted with a lighter to create damn efficient knife.
talking about what improvised weapons one could bring on the airplane - let's see, it should be trivial to make legs of the glasses very sturdy and with pointy ends to create a very nice weapon.
let's look at camera tripods. they already have decent diameter tube. take off the plastic/rubber cap, make the ending a bit sharper, replace the cap - that's an awfully scary weapon, it has a shallow ending to increase bleeding.
i'm sure slashdot crowd could come up with ways to transform majority of everyday items into weapons, and i'm sure skeery terrirists aren't as dumb and stone age as your media might want to portray them. there has to be some reason why every flight is not terrorised by some whacko with handmade pointy thing.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
9/11 had such a profound impact on the U.S. because it was spectacular, it was unprecedented, and it happened here. And, thanks to the 24/7 cable news cycle, we watched it unfolding, live, from our living rooms.
Anytime you have a large number of fatalities occurring from a single spectacular event, it will have a stronger emotional impact than a much higher cumulative tally of deaths over time. That's why airliner crashes, for example, are newsworthy and annual statistics are not -- those 100, 200, 300 deaths may be statistically a drop in the bucket compared to the annual deaths from car crashes, cancer, or whatever, but they occurred in a single, dramatic event.
The notion of using airplanes, and civilian airliners at that, as flying bombs was also not a possibility that was in the popular consciousness, not even as a plot element in an action movie. (How many people commented, on 9/11 and in the days following, that it all seemed unreal, like watching a movie and not reality?) And crash those planes into three of the most well-known, high-profile buildings in the world (the two WTC towers and the Pentagon), with a fourth crash into the White House or the Capitol (depending on who you believe) prematurely thwarted, and you have the ingredients for a real-life spectacular that will have a profound impact, regardless of how the numbers stack up statistically.
And it happened on U.S. soil. Prior to 9/11, with the possible exception of the OKC bombing, large scale terrorist attacks were something that happened in those "other" countries around the world. And with the perpetrators being "foreigners" (as opposed to a domestic malcontent like McVeigh and whatever conspirators he may or may not have had, depending on what you believe), and it's not hard to fathom the almost immediate adoption of the "America is under attack" and "we are at war" memes that were so adroitly exploited by the government.
Finally, the smug xenophobia and self-centeredness of Americans played a role. Why do you think a domestic plane crash, even a smaller commuter plane with fewer than 100 souls on board, gets hours of constant, live coverage on CNN while a jumbo jet with hundreds aboard crashing halfway around the world merits but a sentence or two at the hourly update? Think of the impact Hurricane Katrina had while killing fewer than 2000, compared to the Asian tsunami that killed 250,000 five years ago. Now consider how much attention, concern, and TV time were devoted to both. Sure, the Pacific tsunami did get some screen time, especially now that the ubiquitous presence of video cameras in average people's hands gave us some shaky, dramatic, horrifying footage to see. (Though I strongly suspect that if there had been no video at all, the event would have been even more marginalized on U.S. media.) But with the exception of a handful of Western tourists caught up in the disaster, those quarter million souls are "other" people..."fer'iners"...you know, them people that dress weird and talk funny and don't look like us. On the scale of emotional involvement, a couple thousand American lives merits an "OMG, this is horrible, something must be done" while 250,000 Indonesians, Sri Lankans, Thais, et. al. elicits an almost Seinfeldesque "Ah, that's a shame....wonder what's on HBO right now..."
So, it's not sheer numbers that determine what impact death has on a culture; it's all about context. Who got killed, where, how and why.
The art of copmpromise (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly - how on earth did the TSA come up with such seemingly braindead directive?
Sounds like they put the problem to a committee (I won't use the traditional metaphor becase it is a baseless slander against the noble camel).
Stopping people from going to the toilet or having stuff on their lap for the whole flight might actually help with the problem, but would be unworkable for other reasons (anybody want to invent a pants-mouted bomb detonated by urine?) So they reach for the political compromise: a time limit. Completey defeats the object, but hey, they're seen to be doing something - whereas pointing out that what we really have here is more evidence of the inefficacy of amateur binary explosives would be totally unacceptable.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:1, Insightful)
"And we still have not really made up our mind whether the US/UK invasion of Iraq was legal."
Really? Our minds have little to do with matters of law. US and UK politicians putting their fingers in there ears and singing "la,la, ll, la la" doesn't change the legal facts of he matter.
Their authority via coercion (political or military) allows them to tell the story how they wish and write history as they see fit.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, he knew Japan would be attacked. He didn't expect the US to attack its own citizens.
So why is the Government attacking its own citizens?
Contact the TSA/airlines/Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
We all make grandiose statements about "security theater," how worthless new rules are going to be, vowing never to fly again, etc. etc etc...but how many of us take our comments beyond a Slashdot post? How many comments about knee-jerk reactions are knee-jerk posts? I'll admit to the same, having sworn off flying if at all possible and driving to my desired destinations.
I'm not saying "quit whining." Far from it--what is being said needs to be said, but it needs to be said in the proper forum. Contact the TSA, the airlines, and your Congressional representation. Tell them the same things (with a dash of proper grammar and spelling and a certain amount of decor, of course) that, as the flying (or former flying) public, you object to tax dollars being wasted on what is perceived to be ineffective security measures. Make it a voting issue when the next election comes rolling around. Let those who make the rules know that they are having an effect--a negative effect. Tell the airline about that road trip you took and how much more enjoyable it was without having to submit to a bunch of BS screening.
I'll grant you that the most you can hope for, as an individual, is some sort of form-letter response from your Congressional representation. The airlines won't care because, frankly, if you don't buy the ticket, somebody else will. The TSA won't care because, well, they don't have to care. (Yes, I'm a little cynical.) En masse, however, somebody, somewhere, might start to pay attention.
I'll take my own advice right now, and after reading up on the actual event and the ensuing rules changes, make it clear to my representation my position, and what I expect to be done about it. I ask direct questions, in hopes of getting something other than a form-letter response. That way if I get a canned response that doesn't address the question, I have a reason to ask it again.
My deep thought for the day.
I thought it was Bush? (Score:3, Insightful)
Somehow I thought it was all bad Bush policies and things were going to be paradise now.
I guess that it is just the nature of big government to want power for those in charge at the expense of liberty and doesn't truly depend on who it actually it is.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. (Score:5, Insightful)
by the time it was 9/12, every person who died there, was replaced.
no matter how much you tell yourself that 'thousands' of dead is important, it simply isn't.
The 2500 who died at the WTC weren't infants or elders. They were firemen.
They were men and women in their most productive years. In the rarefied business of investment banking and world trade.
Death is universal. But Death is also particular.
Hit hard enough, your city, your world, can be wounded beyond all hope of recovery.
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:3, Insightful)
I was planning a vacation to the USA in 2010, as I did in 2006, 7 and 8. Entering America was already a royal pain in the neck (standing in line for 2 hours in Miami was really a joy, so was secondary screening in DC followed by a canceled flight), but these new measures make it increasingly unlikely I will go forward with my plans. There is a limit to what I will acccept. This notion that everything in society has to defer to security is insane.
I kept deferring my plan for another vacation in the US until the security theatre calmed down, looks like I'll have to wait for another few years. That is if they ultimately allow anybody in at all by then.
Re:Congrats TSA/Al Queda (Score:4, Insightful)
Or in other words, the terrorists have won. If their goal was to make the lives of Americans more miserable, it seems they succeeded.
But worse yet, if air travel gets much worse, perhaps the airlines will need a bailout? We've seen how 'well' it worked for the financial institutions.
The question is, is the solution to this problem more security, or is it trying to find the root cause of why things like this happens?
Re:ok, @#$% this (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Typical cop response (Score:3, Insightful)
Today a man was arrested after setting fire to his trousers on a plane while attempting to detonate an explosive device. During interrogation, he claimed to be working for Al Quaeda, a group whose operatives last year blew themselves up in an aeroplane toilet in a similar attempt.
Would your reaction be terror? Mine would be to laugh. When you hear the name of a terrorist group and immediately laugh at the memory of their ineffectual attempts, then you can say that they've lost: They have failed to inspire terror.
it was leftover from their November 2001 playbook (Score:2, Insightful)
As folks who travel in and out of Washington, D.C. may remember http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/american-aadvantage/149256-no-standing-up-first-30-minutes.html [flyertalk.com] when Reagan National Airport (DCA) finally re-opened the FAA imposed restrictions on inbound flights to Washington National that prohibited getting out of your seats during the last 30 minutes of flight and imposed restrictions on outbound flights from Washington National that prohibited getting out of year seats during the first 30 minutes of flight.
Eventually some TSA brainiac is going to remember the other half of the rule and ask the aircrew to impose the 1 hour prohibitions on flights outbound from the US.
I say "ask the aircrew to impose" because on-board an in-air flight the FAA's own rules say even the Air Marshal cannot force the pilot do to anything so if you're prevented from going to the bathroom then it's the aircrew's fault and not TSA's. Nuremberg Principle IV is unambiguous in stating that "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right - dismantling your own democracy as a response to terrorists is definitely not the right response. Particularly when the countermeasures are so stupid. Worth noting that there *is* an effective way of combating terrorists however. Remove their community support. They don't come from nowhere and they don't arrange all these plans and have these beliefs without some friends and neighbours wondering. But a people that see occupations of their countries or US support for regimes like the Saudis are a people that are angry enough that they become less willing to stop such individuals themselves. And these communities are the best defense against terrorists.
Re:NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
Religious extremism.
[Note: I added the word "extremism" to the above because it's the day after Christmas and in the spirit of the season I thought I would extend the hand of brotherhood to any superstitious readers of Slashdot who might be reading this on this Sunday morning before going off to church to pray to whichever murdering psychopathic deity you choose to worship.]
Re:NO! (Score:1, Insightful)
If you look at the most common profile of people committing acts of terrorism over the last 40 years (young, male, radical islamic), I wouldn't hold my breath on any sensible self-reformation during the next several generations.
I think it was Golda Mier who said, "We shall have peace when they love their children more than they hate us" (or love killing us)...
Re:NO! (Score:1, Insightful)
Perhaps if we didn't have such an imperialistic international policy we wouldn't have this problem. How many international terrorist attacks have there been in Canada, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland?
Perhaps if we didn't feel compelled to try and tell people how they are supposed to live their lives and beholden to us they wouldn't be so pissed off all the time.
Many years ago this nation was based on what was termed Liberal Ideology where all men are free to choose how to live their lives. This meant freedom to fail as well as freedom to succeed. We have lost that ideology on several fronts.
The term Liberal has been turned around. Yesterdays Liberal is now Libertarian and Yesterdays Marxism is now Liberal Democracy. Republicans are pretty much out to lunch. Dispersion of resources through the government (tax the rich, subsidize the poor) is a corner stone of Marxist Doctrine.
If I fail, the government feels compelled to bail me out from my bad decisions. In effect, this encourages bad decisions because there is no real risk realized. If I succeed, the government feels compelled to tax me for my good decisions. This deters me from taking the risks necessary to succeed because the reward is not realized. The government encourages bad behavior.
As I fail, regulations are put into effect to prevent me from failing again. This also hinders my ability to succeed. Instead of using resources for building a successful company which makes money, hires people, and sells goods. My money is burned on worthless paper to show compliance to regulations that don't improve profit, employment, goods.
Overseas we assume we are the great protector of the world and are ever vigilant against the next Hitler of the world. Noble ideals, but who are we to decide what is right and wrong in this world? We claim the Chinese have poor human rights practices but there's no mention of that anymore. We are selective on whom we assault. Darfur can go to hell and we don't care. But we invade Iraq based on alleged photos that add up to nothing. We have an exit plan for Afghanistan, but when are we leaving Iraq?
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
American funded Irish republican terrorists murdered two innocent children on that day.
If we'd done our foreign policy then the way we and the US do now, we'd have responded by sending the troops into Mexico to force regime change...
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Congrats TSA/Al Queda (Score:4, Insightful)
I flew from Las Vegas to LA today so I have yet to see these tightened up rules.
The reason you have yet to see these tightened up rules is because they only appear to apply to international flights entering the US. Missing that detail is a forgivable mistake though, seeing as it makes no fucking sense.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The "Terrorists" win again... (Score:1, Insightful)
All a would-be "terrorist" have to do is go, "BOO", to get the US to spend billions of dollars
At the top of the power pyramid, the objective is to spend the taxpayer's money. It hardly matters what you spend it on, or whether it succeeds or fails. In the business of government, as long as the money passes through your hands, you win.
Still don't get it? Let's put this into perspective: a 10 billion dollar project to flush taxpayer money down the toilet would still be a win for the business of government, as long as that money passes through your hands.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's true in the short term, but as long as you do the feeding in a responsible, adult, non-attention-seeking, non-empire-building, humanitarian way, then the long term results will differ considerably.
The reasons America is targeted by the terrorists is solely because of some, less than ideal policies regarding regime change. No-one cares what the Canadians (for example) do, they're not targeted for destruction by Al Quaeda, but then they never went charging in places shouting loudly that the locals had to change their political ways, and buy more coca cola.
If you fed the world's poor, there would be far fewer young men so ready to accept the brainwashing propaganda from the terrorist leaders (you know, the ones who don't do the suicide bombings themselves). If America could free itself from the self-made shackles of oil consumption and global corporate profiteering, the world would be a far better place.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
Which 4,000 vs. which 1 million? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NO! (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, that's probably the case. "We can't rescind a policy! People might start thinking we don't know what the hell we're doing!" Of course, most people *already* think they don't know what the hell they're doing.
Hilariously sad (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny and sad that these regulations meant to address the Christmas Day incident wouldn't have prevented it. He was seated, and didn't have anything in his lap. I think this goes to show you that they wanted to push these regulations through but didn't think they would be tolerated, so they were just waiting for an "incident" as an excuse.
Re:Shoot him (Score:3, Insightful)
You seriously believe that the possibility of being shot is going to deter someone from attempting to blow himself up?
-Mike
Re:Oh, look! (Score:4, Insightful)
That depends on your perspective - more Americans died in car crashes in September 2001 than died in the attacks. What about them?
Where's the fiery indignation for those deaths?
No one is claiming that individual lives are insignificant, but the response to 9/11 has just been silly.
So you lost some buildings and some citizens in a terrorist attack. The buildings are nothing - rebuild them, as we've been doing in Europe for decades in the face of terrorism on multiple fronts. The people clearly cannot be replaced and it is tragic, but the response to 9/11 really isn't the way you want to remember/avenge/retaliate in their memory.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:5, Insightful)
When Yamamoto struck at Pearl Harbor, he knew exactly what the response would be.
When Yamamoto struck Pearl Harbor, he was flying a Japanese flag on a Japanese warship made in Japan. It's pretty easy to find the bud and nip it.
When the hijackers attacked, most of them were from Saudi Arabia, all from the middle east, all had proper Visas, all had been in the country for at least weeks if not months or years. They did not fly any flag and did not represent any country. They used box cutters and airplanes as weapons.
Both groups knew the effect of their attacks. I can promise you that bin Laden got exactly what he wanted. A cosmic war of Good and Evil, with Bush even saying as much on television, between Islam and the West. He got us to give up the liberty we fought and won over hundreds of years in less than two hours, with the loss of a lot property and 3,000 lives.
Imagine if instead of torturing people and invading two countries and starting two wars we had produced evidence, fought hard to extradite bin Laden from Afghanistan, tried him at the world court, and locked him up for the rest of his life. We would have said that the West is not barbaric, fundamentalist religious fanatics are. We are constitutionalists - we believe in the rule of law, equally applied to everyone. We may not achieve perfection, but we're the closest thing the world has got. We are genuinely here to make the world a better place, and we have learned from the mistakes of former world super powers.
Everyone says if you want to change the world, start with yourself. How about reminding everyone that freedom isn't free, not because you have to invade and sacrifice the lives of soldiers, but because sometimes you have to obey laws that your enemy does not. Sometimes you have to recognize that liberty and security are mutually exclusive.
If you let emotion and hate dictate your actions, not only do the terrorists get a recruiting tool to attract more followers, they remove the moral high ground where you once stood. Then it's just two barbarians at each other's throat, one with satellite guided weapons and tanks, and the other with suicide bombers and IEDs.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorists don't attack the US because the US cause X deaths a year...they attack us because we dropped a bomb on their sister. Or tortured their cousin.
Hate is not statistical. Anger is not statistical. Terrorists causes are not statistical. They are personal.
Sure, people like bin Laden will stand up and list of a lot of vague, impersonal reasons designed to make people sympathized with them, which does somewhat work. If people think they're fighting evil, those people will be able to overlook some of their evil.
But that just gets people to the 'I won't turn in that guy I know' stage of terrorism support, it doesn't make them get on an airplane with a bomb and destroy their life...only personal loss makes people do that.
Oh, and let's not confuse the people who are fighting to stop the US from occupying their country with 'terrorists'. Terrorism is a tactic, not a goal. Someone picking up a gun and shooting at people in the military is not terrorism...at worse, it's an insurrection.
Re:They now need a "pee fee" - not what you think (Score:3, Insightful)
If they aren't happy with the consequences of working for an organization that denies people their basic human dignities, then they should be looking for a new job.
Amen. Small-scale wrongness just requires some asshole. But ugliness in the large requires not just an asshole at the top, but a lot of compliant "just-doing-my-job" zombies at the bottom. We will never completely get rid of the assholes, but there's no reason to help them make the world worse. Even if it does come with a steady paycheck.
Re:Which 4,000 vs. which 1 million? (Score:3, Insightful)
...Now I've read your post a few times, and I'm unsure if you think this is the correct response, or if you are pointing out how the grossly disproportional response we force on common people (in the form of wars or imposed security at the loss of freedom) to make those that generate wealth more comfortable.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:2, Insightful)
> of terrorism in Europe, but you may want to look to
> them to see an alternative method of dealing with attacks.
Or look at Israel. They're the target of easily more terrorism than any other country (perhaps all other countries combined), so anything that's above and beyond the measures Israel takes is probably excessive.
Does Israel stop plane passengers from leaving their seats during the last hour of the flight? Do they confiscate bottled water? If they don't, then I'm betting we don't need to either.
Re:Oh, look! (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, 3rd world nations don't just "allow" these people to be here. When rich nations like the US and UK cannot wipe a few simple terrorist organisations like the KKK or IRA from existence what chance does a dirt poor 3rd world nation have?
Secondly, you make it sound if the locals have a choice in the matter, this contradicts your first (wrong) point in saying that the camps are government sanctioned, meaning that the locals do not have a choice on weather they trade with the camps or not. But in either case the locals don't have much of a choice, in most of the 3rd world (the ME especially) each area is a fiefdom run by a warlord, this person has the guns and makes the decisions for everyone. So Ahkmal the local store owner hasn't much of a choice, especially when it comes down to feeding his family or ending up against a wall.
If 3rd world nations attack these groups you either end up in tribal warfare like Somalia or fighting them for decades like Colombia and FARC.
You miss a giant point in all of this, did we blame the average Japanese person for the actions of the Imperials, did we blame the average German for the atrocities of the Nazi's. No of course we didn't because we make a huge distinction between a leader who gave the order and someone who had no direct involvement. I don't blame the average USian for the abuses of your previous government because I know that you didn't issue the orders yourselves. Leaders are responsible, civilians often don't get a say in the matter.
Re:OK, this is stupid. (re: Israel) (Score:1, Insightful)
The interview is the major part of Israeli security - they have algorithms, and they _work_. In Israel they're allowed to profile without being jumped on, and they do it to great effect. Read "Unsafe at Any Altitude" (http://www.amazon.com/Unsafe-Any-Altitude-Exposing-Illusion/dp/1586421360).