It's amazing how much press a story can be given, without much intelligent analysis being put before the public. The better part of a decade since 9-11, our airplane security is still effective only at making it inconvenient and difficult to fly, especially for the disabled and Arabic.
The bottom-line is that the full-body scanners are just common sense, and are (unfortunately) needed to prevent more planes being blown up. The fact is that U.S. intervention, really, was most all keeping Amsterdam from having had such scanners in place(which most experts DO agree would have easily detected the bomb;) They already had them and will soon be scanning all passengers.
See, the scanners are necessary because it's easier to make sure weapons of terrorism don't get on a plane than to figure out what's in every passenger's gray matter; The world is full of fanatical and violent groups, most of them non-Arabic, that might turn to Kamikaze tactics.
The new U.S. executive plan does not include universal scans. Should this omission lead to another passenger plane being blown up, I hope people will remember who warned them... and who didn't.
Comments
maddan | January 5, 2010 - 23:54
The bottom-line is that the full-body scanners are ... needed to prevent more planes being blown up
More than what? You start the piece with a reference to the "decade since 9-11." A period during which no planes have been blown up.
You've failed to make your argument.
(the line about "most experts" is distinctly suspect too - most passive-wave-scanner salesmen maybe)
seannelson | January 6, 2010 - 20:43
Maddan, you're correct that no U.S. planes have been blown up since 9-11. What the recent incident shows, however, is that it's because there have been few sophisticated attempts... that the Arab world is not as full of fanatics as some think.
That doesn't change the fact that we ought to take steps to keep explosives from getting on planes. This is running as a letter-to-the-editor in a cosmopolitan newspaper, and will be part of the controversial process of seeing to it that the next Jihadist actually encounters some security.
seannelson | January 6, 2010 - 20:49
"Policeman," you intimidate me so little I don't think you're worth explaining why. I will point out that just on this one website, I've had 270,000 reads. I'm a real person accomplishing things in the real world.
seannelson | January 7, 2010 - 02:35
"Policeman" is an anonymous phantom, hiding behind a key-pad. I'd typed up a reply in kind, except that it was more clever and I'm a lot tougher than his kind of scum(if he is a policeman, he's a disgrace to the profession.) I get along just fine with the police in my community, actually helped a couple of them toward getting an old man back his property not long ago. I ain't afraid of no ghost.
As a law-abiding member of this community, I've reported this "Policeman" and his threat of violence to the administrators. I can't be sure they'll do anything(and a ghost with no writings can just re-create himself.) But I do my part to keep this as civilized and peaceful a community as it can be.