>Plenty of airports that allow transit from domestic flights without another security check. The terrorists will just board there.
For some reason I am having trouble understanding the first sentence.
You're saying there are airports in the US that you can stopover at (with starting point also in the US) that don't put you through a second security check for a leg that leaves the US? I thought they all did that.
> Harmonize security and those travel times fall in line right quick.
The security differential in the US is based in large part on the fact that airplanes can (a) be diverted by hijackers to alternate destinations, and (b) be used as weapons against arbitrary targets.
Since the risks aren't the same, why would you aim to harmonize security, except as a pure subsidy to the airline industry?
> There are many other high-human density targets for terrorism (buses, trains, buildings, etc.) none of which require security checks. Why are airports / flying any different?
Because airplanes are giant 600mph flying bombs that can destroy large portions of major urban centers.
I am as dismayed by the disaster that is the TSA as you or anyone, but let's not totally lose sight of the plot here.
> 2. Notwithstanding #1, there have been zero successful terrorist attack on aircraft in the U.S. since 9-11.
How much is due to the TSA, as opposed to civilian and military intelligence work at home and abroad and simple measures such as having air marshals and preventing any access to the cockpit during flight?
>Did he get on their soil though? Usually, you stay in the international zone when between flights
for example, when US agents capture people outside US and load them on a plane to bring in to US they actually formally arrest and charge them only when the plane enters US airspace.
Airlines really do not want an entire aircraft refused landing because of one person. All the pre-departure paperwork procedures exist to prevent this from happening. Airlines won't go along with "just board them anyways" schemes unless forced to do so under threat. If they do cooperate (or are forced to) it gives the destination country cause to void that airline's licenses without risk of reciprocal sanctions against its own airlines. Dragging commercial airlines into a political dispute like this won't work.
> I don't personally think I should be punished for trying to move my explosives via an aeroplane
Are we talking about a passenger airplane, or a specifically chartered flight to move said explosives where everyone onboard has consented to the risk?
Because if it's the former, then your views are insane.
> I never hear about TSA thwarting terrorist attempts. Either they keep it under wraps or nobody is trying because they perceive the security to be too high. Or they get caught before they try.
One more possibility: the TSA is horribly incompetent and have a low detection rate for true-positives.
> The fact that they let them continue on to their flight tells me that they didn't perceive them to be a security risk at the end of the process.
I’m having a bit of trouble understanding the rationale allowing continued travel, but not allowing continued travel with the laptop. Can anyone here shed a bit of light on this?
> why is profiling bad in context of airplane security?
Why is airplane security different than other contexts?
> 100% of airplane terrorist attacks are carried out by people of X country (Xians), and 0% of airplane terrorist attacks are carried out by people from Y country
That's not the real world. There have been white terrorists, christian terrorists, etc. There have been muslim terrorists from most countries. Sometimes they don't look culturally muslim at a glance - maybe we should bring back Fumi-e?
> I say profile the heck out of Xians. Stop and frisk 100% of Xians and 0% of Yians.
As an islamic terrorist, you just gave me a fantastic idea about how to beat your security. I won't go into detail, don't want to make it too easy in case some other terror group also figures out how to look like a WASP.
>I'm not sure if the goal is solely to stop "truly bad guys" who want to bring down a plane from getting on it, but rather make a note of anyone who might be traveling under false pretenses for any number of reasons.
This is what I'm afraid of. Is travel on a plane now squarely reserved for the honest or those with nothing to hide? There are plenty of very legitimate reasons to travel under false pretenses, including it would seem, hiding from one's own government because of some irrational administrator who decides to use air travel restrictions to carry out a grudge. The restriction on travel, especially within the US as applied to US citizens is very disturbing as it represents a fundamental erosion of our freedoms. Take a look at this case as just one example:
> But really, if someone wants to destroy a plane, they're going to be able to destroy a plane.
Unless we have measures to prevent them from getting on the plane in the first place, and since no bombs have been going off on a plane for quite a while, isn't that a sign that the security measures are working?
This is a Malaysia Airlines flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing... why is this a matter for US counterterrorism officials?
reply