Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 109
  1. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #1  
    how do the civil liberties union and the aclu recommend we defend our airways and subway systems if we can't search people before they board the flight?

    honest to god, people, what the hell do you propose we do to prevent anyone from bombing our airplanes to kingdom come?

    if we are searching 85 year old grandmothers' handbags while letting a group of arab individuals go through unchecked, what's the point? Britain is going about things appropriately - they are profiling - why? because it makes sense. its not to offend people, its to DEFEND them. why can't these people on the left understand that?
    these random checks don't make sense - search the types of people who have been found to be responsible for these attacks - not those who are CLEARLY no threats to us!
    let's go about this with some intelligence! not BLIND luck!
    i'll tell you these civil liberties unions suing to put a stop to routine checks before boarding flights is just maniacally stupid.

    fight for civil liberties if you must, but for the love of god, don't make the terrorists' jobs EASIER! what is wrong with these people?!

    oh no, go ahead, let anyone get onboard with a bomb or a weapon if they want, we can take it right? land of the free and home of the...brave right?

    unbelievable.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  2. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #2  
    what's more, is that these are the same people who call BUSH a moron...!!!

    I mean these are some of the most idiotic moves I've ever heard! especially in a time of war - the act of preventing searches redefines the word stupidity.

    I mean...WOW.
    I gotta have more cowbell
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    these random checks don't make sense - search the types of people who have been found to be responsible for these attacks - not those who are CLEARLY no threats to us!
    let's go about this with some intelligence! not BLIND luck!
    I don't know about the ACLU ...but profiling may actually make us less safer.

    Timothy McVeigh would get through, and so would Nezar Hindawi's pregnant Irish girlfriend, if we profiled just for the terrorist flavor of the month.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by vw2002
    how do the civil liberties union and the aclu recommend we defend our airways and subway systems if we can't search people before they board the flight?

    honest to god, people, what the hell do you propose we do to prevent anyone from bombing our airplanes to kingdom come?

    if we are searching 85 year old grandmothers' handbags while letting a group of arab individuals go through unchecked, what's the point? Britain is going about things appropriately - they are profiling - why? because it makes sense. its not to offend people, its to DEFEND them. why can't these people on the left understand that?
    these random checks don't make sense - search the types of people who have been found to be responsible for these attacks - not those who are CLEARLY no threats to us!
    let's go about this with some intelligence! not BLIND luck!
    i'll tell you these civil liberties unions suing to put a stop to routine checks before boarding flights is just maniacally stupid.

    fight for civil liberties if you must, but for the love of god, don't make the terrorists' jobs EASIER! what is wrong with these people?!

    oh no, go ahead, let anyone get onboard with a bomb or a weapon if they want, we can take it right? land of the free and home of the...brave right?

    unbelievable.

    For starters, what is the "the civil liberties union" versus the "ACLU"???

    Secondly, Chillig is exactly correct. When you remove randomness from searches you have just put a great big hole in it. You think violent male terrorist can't dress up like a little old lady. Come on. THINK!
  5. #5  
    daThomas, Chillig,

    I'm afraid that the study of quality inspection programs doesn't share your opinion.

    Assuming a terrorist to be a defect, you're more likely to find the defect after mathematically narrowing the potential defect population AND applying random inspections on the remaining population. Random inspection on the entire population alone doesn't give you the results you want.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    For starters, what is the "the civil liberties union" versus the "ACLU"???

    Secondly, Chillig is exactly correct. When you remove randomness from searches you have just put a great big hole in it. You think violent male terrorist can't dress up like a little old lady. Come on. THINK!
    For starters, in the news article, the organization suing the city is the NYCLU. I think that is what he was referring to.

    Second, I agree that it's good to keep a random element in searches. However, with limited resources we need to chose where to focus those resources. What percentage of little old ladies are blowing themselves up or driving airplanes into buildings?
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  7. #7  
    Has there been a new lawsuit by ACLU on this?

    Why this outburst by OP?
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    daThomas, Chillig,

    I'm afraid that the study of quality inspection programs doesn't share your opinion.

    Assuming a terrorist to be a defect, you're more likely to find the defect after mathematically narrowing the potential defect population AND applying random inspections on the remaining population. Random inspection on the entire population alone doesn't give you the results you want.
    You're missing the point that your "defect" can figure out what you're trying to zero in on an try to appear something you are not trying to find.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    For starters, in the news article, the organization suing the city is the NYCLU. I think that is what he was referring to.

    Second, I agree that it's good to keep a random element in searches. However, with limited resources we need to chose where to focus those resources. What percentage of little old ladies are blowing themselves up or driving airplanes into buildings?
    My point was if you ignore some appearance stereotype such as "little old lady" then that appearance can be exploited by someone atttempting to disguise themselves in that manner.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You're missing the point that your "defect" can figure out what you're trying to zero in on an try to appear something you are not trying to find.
    Ah but if you eliminate the "known" element by profiling and searching them all, and then using random on the rest you'll actually accomplish more. You get the guys too dumb to use a disguise.

    Besides can 20 something arabs really convincingly pull of pretending to be an 80 year old woman?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  11. #11  
    There seems to be talk that the London explosions may have been set off by cell phone. If so, Terrorists can dupe some poor fooll into taking a backpack of explosives onto a train and detonate it from a remote location.

    "Look, we've got $100,000 worth of Meth in this backpack. Take the train to Union Station, your contact will be awaiting. Once the transaction is complete, you will receive $10,000 for your work..."

    Fooll thinks he's off to make a quick buck, and ends up splattered all over a tunnel.

    Profiling wouldn't do much good in this case.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  12. #12  
    even though profiling maybe done in the name of national security (after all who can argue against that?) - the data could be shared by several agencies (since we supposedly have greater integration of intel) and have greater potential to be misused. This could be a concern from a civil liberties point of view.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  13. #13  
    Once you get blown up by a suicide bomber, you have no rights or liberty. I don't care if my bags get checked.
  14. #14  
    Profiling is a must, otherwise you are reduced to random searches. Race, appearance etc should be one of the factors in selecting the search targets. Others could be tips, behavior, a gut feeling that cannot be described etc etc.

    My tolerance to getting profiled depends on the consequence. If it means 5 minutes spent going through my bags at the airport or subway, I'd go along as a part of adjusting to terrorism in an open society.

    If it means arrest and imprisonment for 3 years while they get to my case (like it happened with hundreds of folks from selected countries who were rounded up after 911, and turned out to be totally unrelated to any terrorism whatsoever), then profiling on race and appearance alone would be bad.

    A knee in the back and a gun jammed into my kidneys world be unacceptable too :-)
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  15. #15  
    I heard an interview with one of the ACLU attorneys about their lawsuits against various important issues that happen due to national security. It was on my satellite radio, I think it was O'Rielly (which I disagree with or at least question as least as much as a agree with). Bill did not let up on him for one minute while the ACLU attorney tried to dodge all the questions and NEVER would he give a answer....just wiggle around to another topic.

    I missed the first part talking about the NYC lawsuit because they are doing random searches, but he was against it. Bill then started addressing all the legal action that the ACLU has done and is currently doing for the Illegal Aliens. Bill stated that there were 19 MILLION Illegal Aliens in the US right now that we have no clue about who they are, what they are doing here, and who they have contacts with and undeniably pose a threat to our national security as our borders are totally open. He asked him no less than 6 times if he thought that 16 Millions unidentified Illegal Aliens was a security risk that needed to addressed. The ACLU attorney wouldn't even acknowledge that the were illegal! And never would answer the question as he admitted they represent that population by up holding their legal rights by being here illegally.

    I personally think that profiling needs to be COMPONENT of the national security. Not the only method, but a resource. Profiling is also an adaptive process to change with the threat that is presented. Physical assets and nationality may be considered, but there is more than race, color, and nationality in profiling. A large part of profiling is also behavior. Sweaty, eyes dashing about, quick or nervous movements, demeanor, etc... There is also tone of voice, how confident they answer questions, innuendoes with possible anti-west meanings, ect......all together is profiling, again with common physical traits only being a part of it.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/04/2005 at 09:14 PM.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You're missing the point that your "defect" can figure out what you're trying to zero in on an try to appear something you are not trying to find.
    Not missing that at all. What I am saying is that you need to start with the known and also keep an eye out for the unknown. Random searches alone make "could happen" and "have happened" equal. "Have happened" is the best place to start looking while understanding that "could happen" is always out there.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  17. #17  
    None of the suspected terrorists so far (911, 119, London) were illegally in the country they targeted.

    There are plenty of good reasons to reform immigration. I went through a lot of hassle and expense to emigrate to the US legally, and as such, I'm against anyone who short-circuits the system. But, I think the crackdown on migrant workers because of terrorism is misplaced. We can NEVER secure our huge borders with Mexico, Canada (and the coastline) and keep out a determined terrorist. They don't have to risk crossing the border illegally. There are plenty of ways to enter US legally, under the radar, especially if they recruit non-obvious types (shoebomber?) with clean records.

    What you describe is profiling, which is the right way to profile. Profiling is essential. The most effective way of profiling is vital. Intelligence and observation by trained professionals will do a lot more for security and frisking 90 year old grandmas. Any parent can tell when a child is lying.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  18. #18  
    I was simply sharing a perspective on the ACLU's mentality of not even recognizing that it does poses a threat to have 19 Million people in our country that entered illegally, nothing more....there is a whole other thread with this topic:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=91053
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/04/2005 at 09:22 PM.
  19. #19  
    I am always concerned when we treat one group of individuals differently than another. I am more in favor of xray'ing every single person before they board a plane.

    I know I have read some posters who don't care if they get searched because its necessary or because they havent done anything wrong...but the problem I see with that approach is that if it was YOU being searched every single time when others werent, then you might not feel the same.

    Just my .02
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  20. vw2002's Avatar
    Posts
    904 Posts
    Global Posts
    939 Global Posts
       #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I am always concerned when we treat one group of individuals differently than another. I am more in favor of xray'ing every single person before they board a plane.

    I know I have read some posters who don't care if they get searched because its necessary or because they havent done anything wrong...but the problem I see with that approach is that if it was YOU being searched every single time when others werent, then you might not feel the same.

    Just my .02
    i would feel much better about boarding a flight if i knew EACH and EVERY person was searched, particularly those who fit the descriptions of the types who flew planes into our buildings and bombed london. If I was searched EVERY single time, i would be perfectly at ease with that.. why? because then i would know security is serious about the job.

    I dont mind if i am to be searched every time, as long as i see that security is being intelligent about who else they are focusing attention on as well.

    its the price you pay for national security after an incident like 9/11.
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions