American Security goes OTT?

[The Guvnor]

Check out this article: Homeland Insecurity (http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2001-10-25/cover.asp)

Comments?

[sanjosebaz]

Amazing - clearly, aiports have become more "twitchy", but all I have seen is smiles from the guardsmen and police (at least in SJC, DFW and TUS), but then I have not been aiming a camera at them! This sounds like a one-off, given the background of the guy this reporter wound up. Certainly hope so.

[ 30 October 2001: Message edited by: sanjosebaz ]

[Cyclic Hotline]

“Do you have press credentials?” he asked.

Uh-oh. I’m a freelance writer. I don’t even carry a business card, just my California Driver’s License, my Social Security card, and a bunch of credit cards. For all they knew, I was Joe Q. Ticketed Passenger walking around the terminal taking notes and photographs, which, I was still 99 percent certain, was completely within my rights. “I don’t need press credentials to be in an airport,” I declared. “Give me back my notebook.”


Doesn't talk to anyone, tell them what's going on, then bitches about getting questioned as to the motives.

Thankfully some people are smart emough to intervene when someone is behaving strangely (in these strange times) and ask them what it is they are doing. I would expect absolutely nothing less..........

Wouldn't have been much of a story if this hadn't happened would it? Think about it.

And from the same writer's article of October 4 2001. http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2001-10-04/news.asp

In the long run, though, training and drills can only take you so far. There’s no substitute for actual experience. “In an actual incident, you’re going to find a lot of weak spots in the system,” Chong said. That’s the nature of the “new war” the United States is currently embroiled in. It’s difficult to prepare for the unexpected. But everyone interviewed for this story agreed that it’s a task that must be undertaken.

“I think there’s going to be a lot of changes because of what happened in New York,” Wagner said. “A lot of people who didn’t take this seriously before are taking it seriously now.”



Prophetic words?!

[ 31 October 2001: Message edited by: Cyclic Hotline ]

[Indiana Jones]

For years at Gatwick we have asked people to not take photographs at check-in and def not security,........so this is nothing new to us, but we would not have taken the film unless the guy was of a suspicious nature.
This is to avoid any potential terrorist gleaming pictures of sensitive areas within the airport as a result of the attacks on Rome and Vienna some years ago.

[VBO]

Don't go prawl'n overhead the nuke sites in the USA or your retina may be filled with AA rockets!

!FDC 1/1763 FDC PART 1 OF 6 TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS OVER NUCLEAR SITES. FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL NOVEMBER 07, 2001 0500 UTC. PURSUANT TO TITLE 14 CFR SECTIONS 91.139, EMERGENCY AIR TRAFFIC RULES AND 99.7 SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS. ALL GENERAL AVIATION FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED WITHIN A 10 NAUTICAL MILES RADIUS OF AND BELOW 18000 FEET MSL OVER THE BELOW LISTED NUCLEAR SITES EXCEPT FOR MEDEVAC,LAW ENFORCEMENT,RESCUE/RECOVERY, EMERGENCY EVACUATION AND FIRE FIGHTING OPERATIONS WHEN AUTHORIZED BY ATC:

[Notso Fantastic]

GUVNERD goes OTT! I see you have FOUR posts initiated on page one alone, plus heaven knows how many posts in each thread telling us all how to do it in aviation! From a 'highly successful' (NOT!!!!) entrepreneur such as you, even this is definitely OTT! Instead of boring us all to death, please consider the forum members as you rush headlong to your 4000th. post (yes- 4000 posts from this 'Freddie Laker' of the skies (not!))

[Twin 1]

Could the guy not have shown a bit of politeness and asked the guards if he could take their pictures, as a journalist?

They over-reacted but this did not need to happen.

:confused:

[Squawk 8888]

No surprises, I'm afraid. I read about one guy who got turned back by security last week because they didn't like the cover of the novel he had in his carry-on bag. This level of stupidity will do nothing to enhance security but will wipe out the industry as paying pax get fed up and stay on the ground.

[fionan]

While the NG man clearly overreacted (what do you expect with 2 days training)the journalist got exactly what he wanted... a story to sell.He had described himself as whiteknuckled with fear of an attack before he created his ordeal.
Yet he had no problem disputing rights etc. with the very people designed to protect him from such an attack.He is also no doubt aware that it is a felony with a 90 sentence to interfere with or make a false declaration (even a joke) to airport security.
:rolleyes:
I think our friends across the water (and some on this side also) need to understand that a terrorist's main weapon is not guns,semtex or hijackers.......it is the Media! :eek: :eek:

[TimeisShort]

NotSoFantastic.

You list your interests as " Enjoying life " .
This must be a mighty task with your pronounced lack of positive attributes .
If you harbor such grudges to the Person mentioned in your reply, why bother clicking on the Topic in the first place ??
Wouldn't it be logical to only read the Threads that interest you ??
Or do you really feel your applauded by such an immature blurt ??

Instead of boring the majority of us until we're semi-comatose with your ( seen it all before ) whining , please consider the forum members as you rush headlong into your 381 st. Post.


--------------------------------------

Between the Optimist and the Pessimist , the difference is droll .
The Optimist sees the Doughnut , the Pessimist the hole . :D

[bugg smasher]

Quite so, westman, but the suppression of the media is not a viable option, any moves in that direction would play into terrorist hands. In the dark little world they envision, no one has the right to free speech. I think more of our efforts should be directed at the media of those countries where terrorism easily takes root. Egypt, for example, has come under scrutiny recently. According to a Washington Post editorial, its leader “props himself up with $2 billion a year in U.S. aid while encouraging state-controlled clerics and the media to promote the anti-Western propaganda of the Islamic extremists”.

The extremists appear to understand the value of money quite well; that amount could be leveraged to useful advantage I should think.

[fionan]

Bugg Smasher I tend to agree.I was not however suggesting suppressing the media,God (or Allah) forbid.But I think a lot of the sensationalism that follows an event such as 11/9 is often very irresponsible and creates the terrorists dream...a fear chainreaction.I.E a fallout disproportionate to the original attrocity.
What I think you referred to by way of away forward was really education.That applies to educating the supporters of these nutcases and to those who carelessly propagate the stories in which they need to feel successful. :( :(
The message that should always be sent to terrorists is that no matter how low they are willing to go...we will always go on as before and they will never succeed. :p

[The Guvnor]

Westman - don't forget that the British government instituted a media blackout on carrying the voices of IRA members. This resulted in vido footage of the likes of Gerry Adams dubbed with an actor's voice repeating his words.

What did that achieve? B*gger all.

The problem is that if you try to censor someone's voice or block their views from being published, your own people tend to think you have something to hide. It worked well - for a while - in the Eastern Bloc but as soon as more and more people could listen to Western radio and have contact with Westerners so the decay and subsequent collapse of communism was expedited.

I'd argue that it's precisely because the voices of people like Gerry Adams etc were finally listened to and understood that we have arrived at the situation we're in today in terms of the ongoing peace process.

An awful lot of people in the world have a lot of bones to pick with the West - and at the moment, we are not listening to them. If we block those voices, then all that will happen is that both sides will demonise each other and grow further apart.

And that has to be bad news for us all.

[GeofJ]

I think this thread misses the whole point.

1. No one should be detained for "acting suspicious unless a clear and credible threat can be articulated. For the police/security to hide behind operational security is crap. If they truly told the man they did not know what he was doing but to stop doing it is shows that have no grasp on reality. If I were told that I might fall down laughing.

2. For an airline to deny access to flights based on unspecified "suspicious acts" with no further detail is at best poor business practices and at worst nearing discrimination. Of course they have the right to deny service to anyone but they should exercise restraint or they may not have anyone to exercise the right upon!

3. Freedom is a precious thing and should not be compromised at all. Our "protectors" should keep this in mind as they do their jobs. It is a difficult job with hard decisions to make but remember the basis of what America was founded on.

[fionan]

I apologise if I have not made myself clear.My point was not about censorship but about sensationalism,and the damage done by the latter. :confused:

[widgeon]

just read the revised NOTAM , jolly nice of them to publish the exact location of every Nuclear plant in the USA.