TSA - Pathetic, really
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 30 Dec 2009 14:33 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:16:30 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.12.30.19.05.20.420364(a)e86.GTS... >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:56 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2009.12.30.18.20.30.461227(a)e86.GTS... >>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:12:57 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.15.44.41.820757(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:43:07 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.12.42.02.404488(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:54:54 -0800, edspyhill01 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid ? known more infamously as >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> shoe bomber ? failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound jet >>>>>>>>> using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than four months >>>>>>>>> after September 11, there already were deep concerns about a >>>>>>>>> potential attack during the upcoming holiday break. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wow. Eight years ago. Think of all the technology that has been >>>>>>>> developed and not applied since then. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No new technology will solve the problem at hand. You know that. >>>>>>> Your news >>>>>>> source has explained this many times since 2001. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Not really. Just today they were talking about machines that could >>>>>> identify certain materials. They also mentioned there's a rumour >>>>>> that Bin Laden's followers have one. >>>>>> >>>>>> WE don't, because the Broken Record currently occupying the WH is >>>>>> stuck on health care...health care...health care... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why obsess about machines when the safest airport on earth uses a >>>>> better, cheaper method which apparently works well based on its track >>>>> record of completely preventing attacks? >>>> >>>> Because people like YOU will NEVER allow that kind of system. >>> >>> You never saw me say I objected to such a system. I'm not even sure you >>> even know what "system" I'm talking about. >> >> I know full well what system you're talking about. They put up with it >> because they've been subjected to terrorism for decades and also because >> the system works. > > We've been subjected to terrorism for decades. > > > >> But the limp-wristed Libs, the Goody Goodies and the ACLU would never >> allow such a system, and you know it. > > > How do you know? The idea has never been seriously proposed. Furthermore, > it's not unconstitutional in any way, shape or form. We have no right to > fly in airplanes, just as we have no right to drive cars. Customs agents > already grill people crossing the border. You've never heard the ACLU or > any other organization complaining about that. I think I can tell you, such a system will NEVER be approved under THIS administration, or THIS Congress. Never. > > The only objections would come from the airlines, in the form of massive > propaganda, just as corporations are behind much of the static regarding > health care reform. Too bad. But don't expect Obungler to do it. > > > >>>> You don't even like going through the machines. >>> >>> You never saw me say or even remotely imply that I have a problem with >>> any airport screening method. You will now attempt to disagree, and you >>> will fail. >> >> Then why bring it up? you know it's never going to happen. >> >> So, we need to do something else. > > If a totally machine-based approach was the best way, the Israelis > would've done it already. They haven't done it, and they won't.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 30 Dec 2009 14:38 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:16:30 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.12.30.19.05.20.420364(a)e86.GTS... >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:56 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2009.12.30.18.20.30.461227(a)e86.GTS... >>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:12:57 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.15.44.41.820757(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:43:07 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.12.42.02.404488(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:54:54 -0800, edspyhill01 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid ? known more infamously as >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> shoe bomber ? failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound jet >>>>>>>>> using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than four months >>>>>>>>> after September 11, there already were deep concerns about a >>>>>>>>> potential attack during the upcoming holiday break. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wow. Eight years ago. Think of all the technology that has been >>>>>>>> developed and not applied since then. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No new technology will solve the problem at hand. You know that. >>>>>>> Your news >>>>>>> source has explained this many times since 2001. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Not really. Just today they were talking about machines that could >>>>>> identify certain materials. They also mentioned there's a rumour >>>>>> that Bin Laden's followers have one. >>>>>> >>>>>> WE don't, because the Broken Record currently occupying the WH is >>>>>> stuck on health care...health care...health care... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why obsess about machines when the safest airport on earth uses a >>>>> better, cheaper method which apparently works well based on its track >>>>> record of completely preventing attacks? >>>> >>>> Because people like YOU will NEVER allow that kind of system. >>> >>> You never saw me say I objected to such a system. I'm not even sure you >>> even know what "system" I'm talking about. >> >> I know full well what system you're talking about. They put up with it >> because they've been subjected to terrorism for decades and also because >> the system works. > > We've been subjected to terrorism for decades. > > > >> But the limp-wristed Libs, the Goody Goodies and the ACLU would never >> allow such a system, and you know it. > > > How do you know? The idea has never been seriously proposed. Furthermore, > it's not unconstitutional in any way, shape or form. We have no right to > fly in airplanes, just as we have no right to drive cars. Customs agents > already grill people crossing the border. You've never heard the ACLU or > any other organization complaining about that. > > The only objections would come from the airlines, in the form of massive > propaganda, just as corporations are behind much of the static regarding > health care reform. > > > >>>> You don't even like going through the machines. >>> >>> You never saw me say or even remotely imply that I have a problem with >>> any airport screening method. You will now attempt to disagree, and you >>> will fail. >> >> Then why bring it up? you know it's never going to happen. >> >> So, we need to do something else. > > If a totally machine-based approach was the best way, the Israelis > would've done it already. They haven't done it, and they won't. Right here is the number 1 reason this system will NOT be allowed in the US: "security at El Al and Ben Gurion depends on intelligence and intuition -- what Rafi Ron, the former director of security at Ben Gurion, calls the human factor." "Israeli airport security, much of it invisible to the untrained eye, begins before passengers even enter the terminal. Officials constantly monitor behavior, alert to clues that may hint at danger: bulky clothing, say, or a nervous manner. Profilers -- that's what they're called -- make a point of interviewing travelers, sometimes at length." "But because federal policy still bans ethnic or religious profiling, US passengers continue to be singled out for special scrutiny mostly on a random basis. Countless hours have been spent patting down elderly women in wheelchairs, toddlers with pacifiers, even former US vice presidents -- time that could have been used instead to concentrate on passengers with a greater likelihood of being terrorists."
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 30 Dec 2009 19:49 "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.12.30.19.38.17.301850(a)e86.GTS... > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:16:30 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:pan.2009.12.30.19.05.20.420364(a)e86.GTS... >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:56 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>> >>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.18.20.30.461227(a)e86.GTS... >>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:12:57 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.15.44.41.820757(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:43:07 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.12.42.02.404488(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:54:54 -0800, edspyhill01 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid ? known more infamously as >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> shoe bomber ? failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound jet >>>>>>>>>> using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than four months >>>>>>>>>> after September 11, there already were deep concerns about a >>>>>>>>>> potential attack during the upcoming holiday break. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wow. Eight years ago. Think of all the technology that has been >>>>>>>>> developed and not applied since then. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No new technology will solve the problem at hand. You know that. >>>>>>>> Your news >>>>>>>> source has explained this many times since 2001. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not really. Just today they were talking about machines that could >>>>>>> identify certain materials. They also mentioned there's a rumour >>>>>>> that Bin Laden's followers have one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WE don't, because the Broken Record currently occupying the WH is >>>>>>> stuck on health care...health care...health care... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why obsess about machines when the safest airport on earth uses a >>>>>> better, cheaper method which apparently works well based on its track >>>>>> record of completely preventing attacks? >>>>> >>>>> Because people like YOU will NEVER allow that kind of system. >>>> >>>> You never saw me say I objected to such a system. I'm not even sure you >>>> even know what "system" I'm talking about. >>> >>> I know full well what system you're talking about. They put up with it >>> because they've been subjected to terrorism for decades and also because >>> the system works. >> >> We've been subjected to terrorism for decades. >> >> >> >>> But the limp-wristed Libs, the Goody Goodies and the ACLU would never >>> allow such a system, and you know it. >> >> >> How do you know? The idea has never been seriously proposed. Furthermore, >> it's not unconstitutional in any way, shape or form. We have no right to >> fly in airplanes, just as we have no right to drive cars. Customs agents >> already grill people crossing the border. You've never heard the ACLU or >> any other organization complaining about that. >> >> The only objections would come from the airlines, in the form of massive >> propaganda, just as corporations are behind much of the static regarding >> health care reform. >> >> >> >>>>> You don't even like going through the machines. >>>> >>>> You never saw me say or even remotely imply that I have a problem with >>>> any airport screening method. You will now attempt to disagree, and you >>>> will fail. >>> >>> Then why bring it up? you know it's never going to happen. >>> >>> So, we need to do something else. >> >> If a totally machine-based approach was the best way, the Israelis >> would've done it already. They haven't done it, and they won't. > > Right here is the number 1 reason this system will NOT be allowed in the > US: > > "security at El Al and Ben Gurion depends on intelligence and intuition -- > what Rafi Ron, the former director of security at Ben Gurion, calls the > human factor." > > "Israeli airport security, much of it invisible to the untrained eye, > begins before passengers even enter the terminal. Officials constantly > monitor behavior, alert to clues that may hint at danger: bulky clothing, > say, or a nervous manner. Profilers -- that's what they're called -- make > a point of interviewing travelers, sometimes at length." > > "But because federal policy still bans ethnic or religious profiling, US > passengers continue to be singled out for special scrutiny mostly on a > random basis. Countless hours have been spent patting down elderly women > in wheelchairs, toddlers with pacifiers, even former US vice presidents -- > time that could have been used instead to concentrate on passengers with a > greater likelihood of being terrorists." Then it shouldn't be a federal policy. Airlines should be forced to adopt uniform screening methods, or face some sort of sanctions. This way, the screening methods are BUSINESS RULES, no different than "No shirt, no shoes? No service." If Muslims don't like United's rules, they can try JetBlue, which will have the exact same rules. Force the same rules on cruise ship operators.
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 30 Dec 2009 15:00 On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:49:28 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.12.30.19.38.17.301850(a)e86.GTS... >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:16:30 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:pan.2009.12.30.19.05.20.420364(a)e86.GTS... >>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:56 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.18.20.30.461227(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:12:57 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.15.44.41.820757(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:43:07 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.12.42.02.404488(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:54:54 -0800, edspyhill01 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid ? known more infamously >>>>>>>>>>> as the >>>>>>>>>>> shoe bomber ? failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound >>>>>>>>>>> jet using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than four >>>>>>>>>>> months after September 11, there already were deep concerns >>>>>>>>>>> about a potential attack during the upcoming holiday break. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wow. Eight years ago. Think of all the technology that has been >>>>>>>>>> developed and not applied since then. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No new technology will solve the problem at hand. You know that. >>>>>>>>> Your news >>>>>>>>> source has explained this many times since 2001. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not really. Just today they were talking about machines that could >>>>>>>> identify certain materials. They also mentioned there's a rumour >>>>>>>> that Bin Laden's followers have one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WE don't, because the Broken Record currently occupying the WH is >>>>>>>> stuck on health care...health care...health care... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why obsess about machines when the safest airport on earth uses a >>>>>>> better, cheaper method which apparently works well based on its >>>>>>> track record of completely preventing attacks? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because people like YOU will NEVER allow that kind of system. >>>>> >>>>> You never saw me say I objected to such a system. I'm not even sure >>>>> you even know what "system" I'm talking about. >>>> >>>> I know full well what system you're talking about. They put up with it >>>> because they've been subjected to terrorism for decades and also >>>> because the system works. >>> >>> We've been subjected to terrorism for decades. >>> >>> >>> >>>> But the limp-wristed Libs, the Goody Goodies and the ACLU would never >>>> allow such a system, and you know it. >>> >>> >>> How do you know? The idea has never been seriously proposed. >>> Furthermore, it's not unconstitutional in any way, shape or form. We >>> have no right to fly in airplanes, just as we have no right to drive >>> cars. Customs agents already grill people crossing the border. You've >>> never heard the ACLU or any other organization complaining about that. >>> >>> The only objections would come from the airlines, in the form of >>> massive propaganda, just as corporations are behind much of the static >>> regarding health care reform. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> You don't even like going through the machines. >>>>> >>>>> You never saw me say or even remotely imply that I have a problem >>>>> with any airport screening method. You will now attempt to disagree, >>>>> and you will fail. >>>> >>>> Then why bring it up? you know it's never going to happen. >>>> >>>> So, we need to do something else. >>> >>> If a totally machine-based approach was the best way, the Israelis >>> would've done it already. They haven't done it, and they won't. >> >> Right here is the number 1 reason this system will NOT be allowed in the >> US: >> >> "security at El Al and Ben Gurion depends on intelligence and intuition >> -- what Rafi Ron, the former director of security at Ben Gurion, calls >> the human factor." >> >> "Israeli airport security, much of it invisible to the untrained eye, >> begins before passengers even enter the terminal. Officials constantly >> monitor behavior, alert to clues that may hint at danger: bulky >> clothing, say, or a nervous manner. Profilers -- that's what they're >> called -- make a point of interviewing travelers, sometimes at length." >> >> "But because federal policy still bans ethnic or religious profiling, US >> passengers continue to be singled out for special scrutiny mostly on a >> random basis. Countless hours have been spent patting down elderly women >> in wheelchairs, toddlers with pacifiers, even former US vice presidents >> -- time that could have been used instead to concentrate on passengers >> with a greater likelihood of being terrorists." > > > Then it shouldn't be a federal policy. Airlines should be forced to adopt > uniform screening methods, or face some sort of sanctions. This way, the > screening methods are BUSINESS RULES, no different than "No shirt, no > shoes? No service." If Muslims don't like United's rules, they can try > JetBlue, which will have the exact same rules. Force the same rules on > cruise ship operators. The article I quoted was from 2006, and was aimed at the Bush administration...
From: JoeSpareBedroom on 30 Dec 2009 20:10
"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message news:pan.2009.12.30.20.00.47.701191(a)e86.GTS... > On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:49:28 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: > >> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >> news:pan.2009.12.30.19.38.17.301850(a)e86.GTS... >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:16:30 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>> >>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.19.05.20.420364(a)e86.GTS... >>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:26:56 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.18.20.30.461227(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:12:57 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.15.44.41.820757(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 08:43:07 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2009.12.30.12.42.02.404488(a)e86.GTS... >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:54:54 -0800, edspyhill01 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid ? known more infamously >>>>>>>>>>>> as the >>>>>>>>>>>> shoe bomber ? failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound >>>>>>>>>>>> jet using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than four >>>>>>>>>>>> months after September 11, there already were deep concerns >>>>>>>>>>>> about a potential attack during the upcoming holiday break. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Wow. Eight years ago. Think of all the technology that has been >>>>>>>>>>> developed and not applied since then. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No new technology will solve the problem at hand. You know that. >>>>>>>>>> Your news >>>>>>>>>> source has explained this many times since 2001. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not really. Just today they were talking about machines that could >>>>>>>>> identify certain materials. They also mentioned there's a rumour >>>>>>>>> that Bin Laden's followers have one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WE don't, because the Broken Record currently occupying the WH is >>>>>>>>> stuck on health care...health care...health care... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why obsess about machines when the safest airport on earth uses a >>>>>>>> better, cheaper method which apparently works well based on its >>>>>>>> track record of completely preventing attacks? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because people like YOU will NEVER allow that kind of system. >>>>>> >>>>>> You never saw me say I objected to such a system. I'm not even sure >>>>>> you even know what "system" I'm talking about. >>>>> >>>>> I know full well what system you're talking about. They put up with it >>>>> because they've been subjected to terrorism for decades and also >>>>> because the system works. >>>> >>>> We've been subjected to terrorism for decades. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> But the limp-wristed Libs, the Goody Goodies and the ACLU would never >>>>> allow such a system, and you know it. >>>> >>>> >>>> How do you know? The idea has never been seriously proposed. >>>> Furthermore, it's not unconstitutional in any way, shape or form. We >>>> have no right to fly in airplanes, just as we have no right to drive >>>> cars. Customs agents already grill people crossing the border. You've >>>> never heard the ACLU or any other organization complaining about that. >>>> >>>> The only objections would come from the airlines, in the form of >>>> massive propaganda, just as corporations are behind much of the static >>>> regarding health care reform. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>> You don't even like going through the machines. >>>>>> >>>>>> You never saw me say or even remotely imply that I have a problem >>>>>> with any airport screening method. You will now attempt to disagree, >>>>>> and you will fail. >>>>> >>>>> Then why bring it up? you know it's never going to happen. >>>>> >>>>> So, we need to do something else. >>>> >>>> If a totally machine-based approach was the best way, the Israelis >>>> would've done it already. They haven't done it, and they won't. >>> >>> Right here is the number 1 reason this system will NOT be allowed in the >>> US: >>> >>> "security at El Al and Ben Gurion depends on intelligence and intuition >>> -- what Rafi Ron, the former director of security at Ben Gurion, calls >>> the human factor." >>> >>> "Israeli airport security, much of it invisible to the untrained eye, >>> begins before passengers even enter the terminal. Officials constantly >>> monitor behavior, alert to clues that may hint at danger: bulky >>> clothing, say, or a nervous manner. Profilers -- that's what they're >>> called -- make a point of interviewing travelers, sometimes at length." >>> >>> "But because federal policy still bans ethnic or religious profiling, US >>> passengers continue to be singled out for special scrutiny mostly on a >>> random basis. Countless hours have been spent patting down elderly women >>> in wheelchairs, toddlers with pacifiers, even former US vice presidents >>> -- time that could have been used instead to concentrate on passengers >>> with a greater likelihood of being terrorists." >> >> >> Then it shouldn't be a federal policy. Airlines should be forced to adopt >> uniform screening methods, or face some sort of sanctions. This way, the >> screening methods are BUSINESS RULES, no different than "No shirt, no >> shoes? No service." If Muslims don't like United's rules, they can try >> JetBlue, which will have the exact same rules. Force the same rules on >> cruise ship operators. > > The article I quoted was from 2006, and was aimed at the Bush > administration... ....which of course has no bearing on my suggestion that we adopt Israel's common sense methods. Apparently, terrorists don't even bother showing up at their airports. |