Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] Iowa results

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> I really don't accept this kind of argument (or rather the way you are 
> using it).  It now seems to be universally agreed that we could have 
> stopped 9-11 if only the various policing forces could have talked to 
> each other, and if only key people in key places would have acted more 
> forcefully.

Or the President and National Security Advisor (Condoleeza Rice) could 
have taken seriously the warning that Osama bin Laden was poised for a 
major attack on the US.  They could have acted on those warnings instead 
of ignoring them and who knows what would have happened then.


> Also, terrorist attempts HAVE been made since this date, but have been 
> stopped.  An example of this was the attempt a year or so back to put 
> explosives in the form of liquids on trans-atlantic flights.

That was in England and I saw no reason to take it seriously.  I 
especially see no reason to think that those guys would have succeeded in 
taking down a plane if it weren't for the heightened post-9/11 security.


> Obviously we would all like more checks against terrorist attacks.  But 
> just because we are only making a (lets say) 75% effort to stop it, 
> doesn't mean that it is already far better than a 25% effort.

I would just say that no matter how much money and effort is poured into 
security efforts, we will be only marginally more secure.


> One of the assumptions in the article you cite is that terrorists could 
> plant a bomb via a "known shipper."  But this already presents 
> considerable difficulties for the budding terrorist, because they have 
> to discretely figure out which "known shipper" might be willing.

I don't understand this.  Aren't all shippers willing to ship things? 
Just bring them the packaged bomb with an altimeter set to detonate it, 
and they'll ship it.  Why should they even check the box if they don't 
have to?


> And if they get it wrong one time, the shipper they approach might 
> easily talk to the FBI, and help set up an elaborate sting operation.

I think you are assuming there is something underhanded about the shipping 
process.  I don't think so.  It's just ordinary, everyday package 
shipping.  Put a bomb in a box and say that it's a computer, they'll ship 
it, and it will blow up a plane.  After that the company might cease to be 
a "trusted shipper."


> Again, none of us like old ladies being searched at airports, or mothers 
> not being allowed to take milk for their babies on airplanes.  But on 
> the other hand, we just don't know which precautions are going to stop 
> the terrorists, and which are not.

We were allowed to bring milk on the plane.  They tested it for certain 
chemicals and let us carry it on.

Right now I can go to our airport and get past security without buying a 
plane ticket -- I can just print a fake one.  If I wanted to do so, I 
could buy a genuine ticket in someone else's name and use it to board the 
plane (they don't check IDs at boarding).  I don't know what I could sneak 
past security, but I do know that I could get past security many times in 
one day if I wanted to.  Our airport really does not have a serious 
security system, and that's just the way I want it to stay.  Even with 
this lame security system we've had zero attacks ever, as far as I know, 
so why increase precautions?

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion