Maybe we should just fly naked!

[thefool_wa]

The past couple days have played out the stark reality that is the terrorist laden world we live in. When I first heard (via word of mouth) of the newest break in "the war on terror" and the stiffer security measures that have been enforced, I was leary of the need and angry at the further inconvenience those that would do us harm have forced those that would keep us safe to impose.

However, after some reading and research it seems painfully obvious how truly vulnerable air transportation is to the simplest of devices. It seems now that we are in an ever-escalating race to see what we can bar from air travel faster than the terrorists can come up with ways to use it to take down an airliner. It is now painfully obvious that this race is doing nothing more than creating huge lines and delays all over the world for people who, for the most part, do not give a rat's a$$ about any of the conflicts or differences of ideals that have created the danger.

It is also obvious that, since airplanes are the easiest way to spread massive amounts of panic and terror (the past 2 days are a stunning example, it works even if they don't pull it off), the terrorists are never going to stop trying to attack them.

In the midst of all of this, I have a solution that will all but eliminate the threat AND shorten security lines all over the country (even the world if everyone does this). Its actually quite simple:

You can only fly with the clothes on your back and what's in your pockets.

Everything else gets checked, PERIOD! The airlines would have to loosen weight restrictions a little and insure free beverage service on the planes. You want food? Eat on the concourse before you board. Have work to do? Too bad! People flew without laptops for decades. Medical accommodations can be pre-arranged and will need special screening areas, but the relatively small percentage of those who would need this service should make this only a minor issue.

It really is this simple and, quite frankly, it seems the only way to both eliminate the threat and restore the level of convenience we desire.

[Union Thug]

1. Well, the terrorists have won - and it's not because I fear being blown up

I have decided that I will not travel by air. I simply will not do it. And it is NOT because of the scary terr'ists - the chances of any of us getting blown to bits by a terra'ist plot is miniscule - less than the chance of in an automobile wreck on my way to the store.

I won't be traveling because I simply refuse to put up with the police state security at the airports. I'm tired of the lines, the humiliating searches, the stupid regulations (matches but no lighters, etc.) and all the rest.

[thefool_wa]

37. You do realize that

This solution would eliminate lines.

[jazzjunkysue]

2. Flying naked. Like flying isn't already totally annoying. Ewwwww!!!

[globalvillage]

3. So, how do I get my laptop to my meeting?

I'm certainly not checking it. I've had too many things broken in checked luggage, and have had checked bags lost too many times.
I may be able to fly to my destination without using my laptop, but I'll certainly need it for the week I'm there.
I'm flying Monday, and my laptop is coming with me.

[thefool_wa]

6. Come on, this is 2006

I'm sure the company would pay for Fed Ex. Besides, it is reaching the point where we all need to sacrifice or everyone gets to spend 6 hours in the airport.


on edit: This being the age of high speed broadband, there is no reason to take the lap top with you. You can jump drive your information, everyone has Office anymore, and if worst came to worst you can email your files ahead of time.

[globalvillage]

39. So, I time my flight to coincide with the FedEx delivery?

Maybe all flights should be required to land by 10:30.
If I leave mine at home, whose laptop do I borrow when I get there with my flash drive?
How many more 'freedoms' do I have to give up because bush* has decided he'd rather incite terrorism with his misguided war than control it through diplomacy and law enforcement?
I don't mind sacrifice, I would welcome it for a just cause and policies that had a chance of working.
I'm guessing you're not a frequent business traveler. I hear what you're saying and believe there is some merit to it, but it's not a workable solution, IMO.
I do like what you say downthread about the real problem being our foreign policy, though. Think bush* can get on that by Monday?
Sigh. This should help my productivity. Maybe I should shift some stock from my own company to FedEx.
Or maybe I'll take the train next time. Terrorists can't possibly hurt people on a train.

[thefool_wa]

52. I know its an inconvenience

I traveled for some time installing cat-5 networks for INS. This was pre-9/11 mind you, but I think I thoroughly understand the inconvenience of the solution I am proposing. However, the inconvenience is barred on the need to explore other solutions (that modern technology can easily provide), as opposed to wasted time on queue at the airport for everyone.

I guess my overall point here is that, until the world changes, this type of security is something I can get on board with.

[SemperEadem]

120. Fed Ex just destroyed a $1000 computer I just had

built and shipped to me. They dropped it because when I took it out of the box, the fan on the motherboard was bouncing loose inside the tower. I wouldn't trust them with anything anymore.

UPS destroyed an$800 guitar of mine about 6 months ago.

[seabeyond]

4. fly naked!

would be easier for the gloved hand to check hiding places. assembly line. just the sheep

[tanyev]

5. That's when I stop flying. Period.

There's no reason I shouldn't be able to bring my purse and reading material on to a plane. I've got to know where my passport/id/cash/credit cards are at all times, and I like having chapstick, gum, aspirin, etc. on hand when I want them. And then there are those "special" times of the month that men never have to worry about.

[mcscajun]

7. Oh, they covered that over in the UK.

You get to take only the amount of feminine hygiene products you need for the flight (we *always* know JUST what we're going to need for any given time, right? :sarcasm:) in that transparent baggie. So your private bodily functions are now a public event.

Ugh.

[tanyev]

8. That's just humiliating.

:grr:

[thefool_wa]

14. Why is that humiliating?

It happens to all women, and is nothing to be ashamed of.

It is men who have made you feel embarrassed over it, so don't be.

Lots of people complain, but when someone you loves dies in an airplane because we are playing this "what we should be allowed to take" game while all the bad guys are finding ways to use that against us, you will scream "how was this allowed to happen."

I honestly didn't feel this way before the past couple days, but now I am on board. There is nothing that guarantees us the right to carry anything on board a plane. If we want it to be safe and force the terrorists to stop attacking our airlines then we have to do more than just play the catch up game.

[thefool_wa]

9. Understandable

But most of that stuff can be carried in your pockets. As far as feminine needs, that seems fair to me, but again it is something that can fit in your pocket.

Books can be carried in your hand and paged through by an attending guard, no issue there. Plus, short of hollowing one out, it seems that it would be near impossible to fabricate an explosive book (though, matches and a single book can make fire which can bring down a plane)

Sorry, no purses.

As far as there seeming to be no reason you can't take them on: it seems to me there is plenty of reason to stop you from taking them on at this point so why not make the whole experience at the airport easy on everyone and not bring it. It will shorten the lines and decrease the stress on everyone.

[mcscajun]

11. Usable Pockets are missing from most of women's attire.

Except for Jackets and Jeans.

Hell, much women's clothing has no pockets at all...spoils the line, doncha know?

[thefool_wa]

15. So, plan ahead and dress to the needs of flying. n/t

[mcscajun]

16. I'll stick with Patrick Smith's take on this rather than cave in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1895276&mesg_id=1895775

And if I can't fly with my big bottle of water, I ain't flyin'.

[thefool_wa]

25. That makes the lines shorter also. n/t

[tanyev]

12. I see your point, but my choice would be to drive instead.

That will shorten the lines for everybody, too.

[thefool_wa]

19. Me too

I like to fly, but too much of a hassle anymore and you get to see more of the world when you drive.

I will still fly when needed (going to DC next year, gotta fly there from Seattle) - but it will be rare.

You can also bet that I will be practicing what I preach: Shirt, pants (deep pockets) - my wallet, no change just cash, my keys, my shuffle and a book. Everything else goes in the suitcase. I will not be part of the hold up.

[Retired AF Dem]

13. I concur

And thank god I'm a man. :) I will be the first to admit I to damn lazy to have to put up with the bodily functions that women have.

[tanyev]

53. Being a woman ain't for sissies.

:)

[thefool_wa]

56. you get my respect

and always will...

[mcscajun]

10. Patrick Smith nailed this one...

Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, and he writes a regular column for Salon.com "Ask the Pilot"

Half a decade after Sept. 11, having spent billions to upgrade air security, we're still needlessly obsessed with hobby knives and silverware, trying to thwart an attack that already happened and is all but certain never to happen again.

(snip)

What we need to get through our terror-addled heads is this: It has been, and it will always be, relatively easy to smuggle a potentially deadly weapon onto an aircraft.

The easily concealable components of the Bojinka microbombs demonstrate the futility of trying to root out every possible terror tool. Knives can be improvised from almost anything. The same for bombs, flammable materials, and other instruments of destruction, large or small.

(snip)

Ultimately, protecting commercial aircraft from terrorism is not the job of airport security, it's a job for police departments, federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The apparent plot at Heathrow Airport was not unraveled by the keen eye of a concourse screener; it was unraveled through careful investigation behind the scenes. By the time any attacker makes it to the metal detector, chances are it's already too late. There are too many ways to outwit that final line of defense.

No matter, here we go initiating yet another absurd crackdown to the detriment of millions of innocent travelers. Just as confiscating corkscrews didn't make us safer after Sept. 11, so banning liquids isn't going to make us safer now. All the while, the true weapon of mass destruction is the imagination and resilience of those who wish to harm us -- a fact we continue to ignore at our own peril.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/08/10/bomb/index.html

[thefool_wa]

26. Man, do I disagree

The extreme simplicity and the potential damage and loss of life necessitate a crack down based on the weapon of choice this time.

This is not taking away fingernail clippers after 9/11 (which, btw, is something I think is ludicrous). The materials they are talking about cannot be screened for and are extremely innocuous looking.

All it takes is a bottle of highly cafienated beverage (say, RockStar) and a plastic thermos with a heavy layer of peroxide paste in the bottom (covered with plastic wrap and a dark liquid) to create a bomb that could cause massive injury and chaos in the cabin, and even down the plane if placed properly.

I seriously think that this time they are on the money.

[mcscajun]

28. And every new weapon will mean another "necessary" crackdown

and before long, there'll be no liberties left.

Benjamin Franklin will be spinning in his grave at about 6400 RPMs.

[thefool_wa]

31. You have no right to carry anything on a plane!

I am not talking about reducing the liberties in your home or on the street. What I am talking about is, instead of slowly taking us to being able to take nothing on a plane, just do it now and save us the headache of slowly whittling it away.

Benjamin Franklin would not object. He would want the american people who need to travel by air to be safe.

[mcscajun]

33. You think it's going to stop at airports? Ha.

You give in if it makes you feel safer. I won't. The terrorists will continue to find ways to beat the system...and we'll keep paying the price for the stupidity of those in charge of our illusion of security.

There are no guarantees in this life, and I refuse to live in fear. The Israelis have the most protectionist, security-driven state in the modern era, and still their citizens, residents and tourists are maimed and killed in terrorist attacks. There is no stopping the attacks; we must attack the root causes. Only then will the world find any peace.

Accomodation is not an option, IMO. I have only those rights I am willing to fight for.

[thefool_wa]

35. Fine

Open it back up and let your family cry when you crash to the ground! I would rather not carry anything on board a plane than have it happen again!

This is not accommodation. Airline security is the one point where I truly believe we need as much re-enforcement as possible. They will always strike there and 30 years of terrorist actions has proven that a hard FACT!

They haven't made energy drinks illegal, and they won't. Fearing that "airports are just the beginning" is just pointless paranoia.

[mcscajun]

38. Energy drinks? Who gives a flying hoot about making energy drinks

illegal?

And you're not paranoid in BushWorld, where they really are after us. They ramp up these fears. This capability of liquid explosives is years old. Not a new thing at all. The plot exposed this week was probably quite real, but not much of a surprise to authorities. BushCo loves a good exposed plot in time for elections, though. They cannot keep you safe; but they can keep you fearful.

Oh, and the big difference here is that you believe that your actions will help keep you safe, while I believe all they will provide is the Illusion of Security. That is all this administration can give to you.

[thefool_wa]

54. No illusion here

I think my proposal makes it as difficult as possible. Unless you are willing to make a c-4 but plug, I think this makes the airlines a far cry more secure than allowing anyone to bring anything they like on board an airplane. A proclivity for action has been demonstrated and must be responded to.

Timing does not matter, foreknowledge does not matter. We know now, and even you admit to its legitimacy. I merely suggest we stop pussy-footing around and make planes as secure as possible.

We need to stop bickering about how we got to this f***ed up world we live in and start waking up to the reality of these peoples intentions! Security is a necessity at airports in todays worldand, if you don't think that is the case, you are a danger to those around you because you would rather someone be able to blow the whole thing up than be inconvenienced getting from one place to another.

If you need a bag to carry it: check it or leave it at home.

Make the world easier (if not safer) on all of us!

(clarification) Energy Drinks: one of the devices proposed uses cafeine from an energy drink and peroxide paste. It makes a high energy CO2 bomb when enclosed (from what I can find). Simple and easy to hide, energetic enough to depressurize the cabin, or worse with enough of it put in the right place (bathroom toilet hole, emergency exit seat). I was saying that trying to prevent this from happening on a plane and making them illegal on the whole are a far cry different in response to the idea that "it starts with the airports".

[mcscajun]

57. You go right on putting thoughts in other people's heads, words

in other people's mouths.

You think your proposal makes it as difficult as possible...yet there is still plenty of room for terrorists to smuggle something on board, until they start patting down and strip-searching each and every passenger regardless of age, gender, or appearance. Determination is their most powerful weapon, our fear their most potent ally.

Many of us would rather correct this fucked up world we live in, rather than cave in to terrorists, fascists, or fear-mongers. We retain our right to freedom of movement, or we may as well cower in caves at home. A packet of chewing gum, a bottle of water, and a magazine does not make me dangerous to anyone. When my sinuses and ears explode, I dehydrate, and I'm mumbling to myself on a trans-Atlantic flight, I could be.

Bottom line: Neither you nor I are going to get through to the other. We have diametrically opposed opinions on what safety is, how to achieve it, and how to deal with not having it.

[thefool_wa]

58. You can't change the world tomorrow

You can change what is allowed on board an airplane today. That makes all of this the right thing to do. And even more completely justifiable.

Don't like it? Don't fly. That makes the lines shorter too.

aside: I haven't put thoughts in heads or words in mouths, merely observing the world around us. The skies will not be safe until drastic policy change is in effect here in the US, and we all know how quickly that happens. Until then all we can do is make it as hard as possible for them to do what they want to do, kill airline passengers.

I have a hard time believing you want it to be easy for them....

[mcscajun]

67. As I said...thoughts and words.

I don't want it to be easy for them.

Nothing we stop carrying on board closes the doors to terrorism. You want to be completely safe? Stay home.

[thefool_wa]

76. I see what you are saying

My last statement is a little presumptuous of your intentions and I appologize.

You are right: don't like it? don't fly.

[pitohui]

49. uh, yeah, cuz ben franklin was all about the craven begging to be safe

my ben franklin was a courageous man who played w. a kite in an electric storm -- he took a risk of death for the very pleasure of learning

sorry to hear about your mr. franklin

[thefool_wa]

59. I think that any sane person

Doesn't want to increase the risk of dying on an airplane, especially at the hands of people who have proven, for decades, that airplanes are their favorite target.

and I say again, nothing Ben Franklin, or anyone else put into our constitution guarantees you the right to laptops, ipods, or even a bottle of water on any flight. They aren't taking away rights, there are no rights here to be revoked.

Safety in the air should be everyone's first priority, especially in light of widespread plots to do harm there. The best thing about my idea is the reduction in screening lines. That's increased safety and convenience all in one.

And if all that still doesn't do it for you, don't fly. That guarantees your safety and makes the lines shorter too.

peace

[mrfocus]

43. Making America safe from Hair Gel

This latest round of 'security measures' is patently absurd. If screening alone (or confiscation of 'dangerous items' and 'contraband') were actually effective against a determined individual, then there would be no drugs and weapons in supermax prison facilities. But guess what, there are. And if you treat every airline passenger like a prisoner, then the terrorists have truly won.

This ludicrous latest hassle is just another reason to fly as little as possible. Screw the airlines, the idiot sheeple herders seem hell bent on letting the terrorist scumbags win anyway.

Ack.

By the way, I had the pleasure of flying from JFK to SFO on Thursday.

[thefool_wa]

61. That bites

That had to be long, confusing, and more than a little scary.

AS to treating everyone like a criminal, the absence of a need to search anything more than a travelers immediate person does away with all that. You empty your pockets, pass through the metal detector, turn on your phone and play your mp3 player then go. No scrutiny, no singling out of anyone, and the lines go back to moving almost like they did before the days of x-ray machines.

I really think this is the answer, at least until the world shifts back to a more peaceful mode and these people don't want to inflict this kind of damage anymore. My fear is that day is a long way off and we need to protect ourselves in the skies as much as possible until then.

[pitohui]

48. cars kill 40,000 americans every year -- year after year

if you drive a car, then you are a complete and total hypocrite

cowards die a thousand deaths, must suck to be you

[thefool_wa]

62. Off the subject, and more than a little rude

I think I'm done talking to you.

peace.

[treestar]

17. Is business travel necessity going down?

With conference calls and the internet and the possibility of virtual meetings, one would think business travel will start to get outdated. Not completely eliminated, but necessary in considerably fewer situations.

[mcscajun]

18. It already has gone way down, that's part of the reason the

airlines are hurting.

[Gormy Cuss]

20. While you're flying naked, there's an explosive device in the cargo hold .

Enjoy your flight.

The new security measures are still following the model of making a visible change to allay the fear of passengers whilst distracting them from the gaping holes in cargo screening and ground security.

[tanyev]

21. Yeah. Paying customers are being inordinately inconvenienced

by the charade they carry out to make us think we are safer. Meanwhile, many other legitimate worries are not being dealt with.

[thefool_wa]

29. Why is everyone so eager to think they aren't trying to make things safe?

The reason this is such a pain is because everyone is under the misconception that we somehow have the right to carry things onto a plane. We do not!

They play this catch up game to placate those who think this is somehow an attempt to "enforce a police state" or "generate an illusion of safety" - that is a fallacy. I really think they are trying to make things as safe as possible without generating panic, its just not working. They only try to make things safer once there is a reason to panic, and that only makes the panic greater.

The only real solution is take the final step and get rid of carry on items that won't fit in your pocket and carry out a normal, pre-9/11 metal detector, empty your pockets, turn on your cell-phone, ipod, etc. type of security screenings they have always done.

I will concede, however, that even my extreme idea is an insufficient band-aid on the real problem. If we really want to make the skies safer, then maybe we should analyze and change the things about or government, foriegn policy, and domestic energy consumption that are making these people angry in the first place. Unfortunately the vast majority of us have insufficient influence over those things.

[tanyev]

42. It's not merely about the right to carry things on a plane.

It's about the airlines offering me a service. They are a business. If they want my money, they need to convince me that using their service will be superior to any other options I have. At this point, I have a lot more freedom and choice and control of my trip by driving there. If I am willing to pay extra in time rather than in money, then that is my choice.

[thefool_wa]

63. Go for it

I agree with you 100% here, they are a business and need to make their service as attractive as possible.

I guess to me that just means making it as absolutely hard as possible for a person (for any reason, really) to take that plane down.

And as I have said before in this thread, driving means less people in line at the airport as well :)

[pitohui]

50. because of the baby milk exception and the fact a plotter had a baby

the restrictions are obviously NOT intended to make us safe, i have just a report that one of the plotters was a mom w. a baby -- hoping to get more info abt this soon but i'm hearing it rumored that the child was 6 mo. old

yet the new restrictions specifically state that baby's milk will be allowed

the restrictions are not to make anybody safer, they are to impress stupid people that something is being done

i take it as a free IQ test to look around and see who fell for it

linky:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_re_eu/britain_terror_plot_90

At least one was reportedly a woman with a small child ... Imtiaz Qadir, of the Waltham Forest Islamic Association, said one of the suspects was a woman in her 20s who had a 6-month-old child. "They have taken the child too, because it needs to be with its mother."

[thefool_wa]

77. You and I can both agree

That nothing is 100% safe. That's just a fact. And you cannot keep medical or infant needs off of a plane. Of course, the real solution to the problem you present is to breast feed your baby :)

(please don't respond to that, I was sarcastically jabbing at conversation I had with you last weekend. No offense intended)

My overall point is that:

1) 95%-99% is better than 0%
2) Security checks are killing the ability to travel on airplanes and the airline industry
3) Every time they come up with something and we react it causes panic and terror, thereby achieving their objective (even without downing a single plane)

Why not draw a final, immovable line and tell everyone in the world that, beyond this measure, when you fly you take your life into your own hands (which is true no matter what).

It not only will make traveling less of a pain for those who choose or need to do so, but it also gives us the strength of not needing to respond to any further threats by changing the way we do things at airports.

It doesn't need to be permanent, just until the terrorists no longer hate us.

[RamboLiberal]

78. Good point - idiots at TSA just opened a hole in their security

They are allowing baby formula - and I just heard on CNN baby food. I read this weekend that the terrorists can use dye to make their expolsive look like baby food.

Does no one think that a terrorist would not take their own baby or a kidnapped baby aboard and suicide the kid with themselves in order to smuggle aboard an explosive?

But guess the wimps at TSA can't stand all those protesting moms with wailing babies in hand. I say let's ban babies from flying. Sure would make it more peaceful aboard for the rest of us. :sarcasm:

Want to be completely safe. Fly naked, and the airlines should fly a 2nd passengerless plane to our destination with all our luggage aboard.

[thefool_wa]

83. see, you get my point...

Let's fly naked!

[Divine Discontent]

23. that's the KEY!

who cares if we're naked - the cargo hold could easily have liquid explosives or some kind of new technology that explodes, who gives a shit about the yoo-hoo we carry on! and of course, our EYE is off the ball, since we're in Iraq instead of focusing on world terrorism and annhilating the cells who cause real terror... and unfortunately we're spending a billion a day on DLUJROI#WU%$)#JN#OIJOI

sorry, just pisses me off

[thefool_wa]

32. If they could get it into a cargo hold...

They would have by now. Fearing the cargo hold is useless paranoia - they stopped trying that over 20 years ago.

[thefool_wa]

27. I feel pretty safe in that regard

And I would not say that checked baggage is a hole in security, in fact quite the opposite. It would have been exploited by now if it were.

SeaTac airport has installed a massive amount of new checked baggage screening equipment in the past 5 years. I think that the holes are not as big as you think.

If a bomb could be insinuated into the hold easily, they wouldn't be making carry-on bombs.

[Gormy Cuss]

30. Not just checked baggage, all cargo

SeaTac may be screening every bag but that's hardly the standard and even with that not all cargo flying under your seat has been screened.

The holes in security are not just a matter of my opinion, they're well documented.

on edit: if you haven't done so, read the comments attached to Patrick Smith's opinion piece. My own experiences with airport security lapses echo some of the stories posted there. For example, just a few months ago I witnessed distracted checkpoint staff let as many as four bags in a row go through the X-ray without even a casual glance. Last year the contractor/TSA substitute at SFO was caught using surveillance cameras to game the quality control checks by alerting the security point just prior to the arrival of a supposedly anonymous inspector.
Pardon me if I don't have much confidence in the window dressing.

[thefool_wa]

34. The cargo hold is fine.

By now, even without the upgrades of the past 5 years, it would have been exploited. They would not be trying to carry on stuff if it were that simple.

I am confident the cargo hold is safe and that terrorists stopped trying long ago to exploit any weakness there.

[globalvillage]

41. You're confident?

I'm not sure the TSA is. These from today:

Airports across the world are scrambling to close security holes after revelations this week of an alleged terror plot to blow up airliners.
But San Francisco International Airport is ahead of the pack in closing one critical loophole: the lack of security screening of the commercial cargo carried on passenger planes.
In October, SFO is expected to become the first airport in the nation to check all commercial cargo for explosives on commercial flights.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/15259152.htm

The TSA has the technology to inspect small objects shipped as air cargo, but does not have the capacity to do so uniformly. Some objects shipped as cargo are too big to scan, although they can be visually inspected. But usually they are not.

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060812/WIRE/208120319/1117/news

[thefool_wa]

55. Not so much anymore...

But, I say agian, safer is better and desiring anything less makes you dangerous to those around you.

Just because there are holes doesn't mean they shouldn't be closed.

[RamboLiberal]

80. If you think the cargo hold is secure - then you are the fool

That's probably Plan C in the terrorist manual. They are going back in their playbook. Damn, their Bojinka plot was busted now, time for the replay of Pan Am 103. Remember it's the Bushies who wanted to cut from the explosive detection equipment budget.

Or they may be going forward to shoulder fired missiles.

Or perhaps they just move Plan B on to another mode of transportation.

[thefool_wa]

84. Nothing is truly safe

By why let things be un-neccesarily un-safe?

Draw the line deep, don't move it again, and everyone who flies knows the risk they take in today's world.

That's really all I propose.

[Not Me]

22. Or, sleeping gas.

Get all the passengers seated, then before the plane takes off, seal the cockpit, and gas the cabin. Wake 'em us up when we get there. :)

[seabeyond]

24. not me, wink

and there will be some that will embrace, be very comfortable with and advocate this, i am sure

[thefool_wa]

36. I'm on board!

Or NoS, that would cool!

There are probably medical ramifications though, might not be feasible.

[Patiod]

40. You don't fly for a living, do you?

Not doing a lot of coast-to-coast travel, are you? Your solution is one that I've heard pretty often lately from "armchair philosphers". Might even work for the vacation/vist-Grandma traveler.

Not going to work for those of us who travel for business, though.

I could give up my laptop and electronics if necessary (although I know that's heresy) if the airlines could figure out a way to securely transport them (some way that would protect us from theft & damage). Could travel pretty light if I had to.

But why should get on 6-hour flights without reports, papers, books, magazines, pads and pens? What will that help?

[Disturbed]

44. Good thing that concieling things in the anus

wasn't mentioned, eh? How many would fly if anal search was mandatory?

"Terrorists can't possibly hurt people on a train."

That must have been a joke, right?

[thefool_wa]

65. There has to be a line

All I'm trying to do is draw it. The goal is to make things as difficult as possible on the terrorists (you will never make it impossible) and as convenient as possible for the traveler (i.e shortest security lines possible).

I think this solution meets both needs. Then we need only fear the C4 butt-plug.

[thefool_wa]

64. Magazines, books, etc can be excepted

or put on the plane. Its easy enough for the attending guard to pick up the one book you toss in the bucket to insure it isn't hollow. Its any types of luggage or containers that need to be stopped. It really would be better that way.

And I have traveled for work (installed CAT-5 networks all over the country for INS), but honestly not since 9/11. In todays world I would do all of it again without anything on my person on the plane.

Ultimately, beyond increased security, that is an enormous amount of stuff that you don't need to spend time having screened.

This doesn't have to be permanent, just until islamic extremists no longer want to kill other people using airplanes.

[RamboLiberal]

81. Hah - just read that paper can be impregnated with explosive

There goes the books and papers.

[thefool_wa]

85. Ironically

until thursday you could get onto a plane no questions asked with a book and a book of matches. Sounds like a dangerous combination to me.

This is an example of how ludicrously compromised and complicated the screening process currently is. Simplification and risk acceptance are the keys.

[MrCoffee]

45. As long as I can keep DUing naked.

[thefool_wa]

66. Always! nt

[savemefromdumbya]

46. nudist beaches and now nakey planes (empty bladders though)

[pitohui]

47. i wish for you all the freedom and comfort you wish for me

i hope to god you just forgot the :sarcasm: plug but if by some chance you are serious, you have forfeited my respect and that of any thinking american

to those w. even a tiny, teeny brain, it is well known that prisoners, naked, still manage to smuggle in dangerous drugs and weapons

what do you suppose they use?

do you a propose a ban on mouths, anuses, and vaginas? do you suppose that every mouth, anus, and vagina will always be searched "thoroughly" when it isn't even done "thoroughly" in a prison setting -- this is an unpleasant job and unpleasant job invariably aren't always done "thoroughly" because people are human and try to scant distasteful tasks

the person who wants to go thru life w. a guarantee of perfect safety should shoot themselves now, the only perfect peace and safety is that of the grave -- life is risk

[NNN0LHI]

51. I ain't that proud n/t

[greatauntoftriplets]

60. Don't give them any ideas....

They might just take you up on it.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

68. horsehockey...

I fly about 200K miles a year...there is no way that I could do my job in your 'safe skies' world. But hey, screw everyone else, right. Forget the people that need to make a living and part of that living includes necessary air travel. Maybe it would just make sense to stop all travel...that would be a truckload safer.

How about this : We stop harassing grandma and the kids and the pregnant women unless they set off some sort of metal detector or the bomb sniffing pooches get wind of something and concentrate on the fact that all of these air-based terror attempts are being carried out by males aged 18-40 traveling without their families. Those are the people we should be targeting with our searches. And what would be wrong with a 'trusted-traveler' program to speed the lines along for EVERYONE since some of us KNOW THE GATE AGENTS AND TSA PERSONNEL BY NAME! "How are your girls, Charlie?"

You cannot make the air 100% safe. The Federal Building in OK was brought down with a panel truck full of fertilizer and diesel fuel...should we stop letting those drive too close to buildings? Would that be OK in your world?

Face it, if the terrorist is willing to exchange his life for yours, there is almost no way that he can't eventually hit you. It might take him 20 tries...but eventually he will get there...and BOOM ...you are toast.

sP

[mcscajun]

69. Thank you! Your last paragraph says it all.

Their determination is key.

JFK knew it in '63. We know it today.

PS: Your subject line is killer, too. :rofl:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

71. too much time watching M*A*S*H, I suppose

but hey...whatchagonnado?

I just listen to people like this, scared of their own shadow, and think, "My God, that fifteen hour flight to Singapore is going to be boring when people like this get control of the world."

And unfortunately, people like our Fool here are more than willing to trade ANYTHING just so they don't have to be afraid.

BLAH...

sP

[thefool_wa]

72. And people like you

Will be the death of us all.

thank your for such kind input.

on edit: I am not afraid of my own shadow, I am afraid of psycho islamic extremists who are hell bent on killing people with airliners.

[RamboLiberal]

87. And what are the odds of you getting killed by one

of those extremists? You probably have a better chance of winning the lottery. I'm growing more afraid of the quarter pounder with cheese.

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

Heart Disease: 685,089

Cancer: 556,902

Stroke: 157,689

Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 126,382

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 109,277

Diabetes: 74,219

Influenza/Pneumonia: 65,163

Alzheimer's disease: 63,457

Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,453

Septicemia: 34,069

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

[thefool_wa]

95. Who cares what the odds are

There is no reason to make it as easy as possible for them to do what they want to do!

Just because we can't make it 100% doesn't mean it should be 0%!

If we do nothing, the odds of dying in a terrorist strike will beat anything on your chart, you can bet on that!

[ProdigalJunkMail]

100. show me where we are doing NOTHING...

wow...talk about crazy hyperbole. But hey...that is all you got...so keep spittin' it like it ain't no thang...

sP

[thefool_wa]

101. And you can keep burying your head in the sand

Then pull it out to watch people die.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

106. I am not the one running scared here...

so, please tell me where I am putting MY head in the sand...

sP

[thefool_wa]

111. Because you are ignoring the danger

At least I am saying we should do everything we can to mitigate it.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

99. yeah...ok

brilliant response...I will be the death of us all.

How about suggesting something that WILL protect someone...rather than your assinine ramblings about what can and cannot be allowed onto the passenger cabin of a plane...maybe cargo? Maybe private flights ought be banned. Perhaps those big ole trucks...or trains can be bad too. Better close all the ports...you can get really nasty stuff into the country on one of those container ships.

sP

[thefool_wa]

102. It seems obvious

You prefer convenience to safety. And that is dangerous no matter how you spin it.

95% safe is better than 0% - that is just a plain fact.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

105. nope...I prefer liberty to PERCEIVED safety n/t

[thefool_wa]

114. then you truly are

a danger to everyone around you.


peace.

[thefool_wa]

73. There is no need to make it easy

An no need to risk everyone's lives for a few's convienice.

[thefool_wa]

75. You'll pardon me if I am tired

Of anyone's "business needs" getting in the way of the safety and security of the people of this nation. The oil company's and Haliburton's needs come first so we create the terrorists and then the "business needs" of the air traveler have to come first so we all get to die at their hands.

"Business needs" is a statement that is destroying every aspect of our lives in this country, so you will pardon me if I don't give a rat's a$$ about your business needs.

also:

How about this : We stop harassing grandma and the kids and the pregnant women unless they set off some sort of metal detector or the bomb sniffing pooches get wind of something and concentrate on the fact that all of these air-based terror attempts are being carried out by males aged 18-40 traveling without their families"

So you are saying that we should only be searching the people who are a threat? Why not say what you want to say and ask why we aren't just searching those of Arabic descent? The answer is because we treat everyone equally in this country and until the threat goes away then we need to take it to a common denominator of zero!

aside: I did not attack anyone, especially not you, personally in my original or any other post to this thread, I have only tried to stimulate some conversation. Your repeated personal attacks in this thread are not appreciated.

[globalvillage]

89. Oh, well that's nice

You complain about incivility of other posters, yet you don't give a rat's ass about my 24 years of employment, or if I get to continue 'putting food on my family'?
Maybe, at 47 years of age, I should just look for a new job that doesn't require air travel. You know, it's not all about Halliburton. Some of us are just poor schmucks trying to get by.
I was beginning to think that, although I certainly don't agree with you, at least you're able to carry on a discussion without becoming snide or sanctimonious. I even agree with you on some points.
But get real. We're not 'all going to die'. Sheesh.
I have to pack. I have a flight tomorrow. Good luck with your quest to limit my freedom and piss on my career choice.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

[thefool_wa]

92. On Airplanes I do not desire liberty

I desire safety and short lines. I have made no statements that I desire both liberty and safety when it comes to air travel. Safety is my only concern. Given your statement, I would say that Freedom is your only concern, and that freedom comes at the risk of every other life on that plane. To me, that is unacceptable.

Also, there is no right to carry anything you desire on an airplane, sorry. It is sadly the domain of corporate america and not subject to any of the guarantees that we get walking the streets.

I was not being "sanctimonious" (though the subject of business needs is a touchy one for me, I retract at least my tone) I was merely pointing out that your individual need is not the need of the majority of airplane fliers.

All I really want is for the chaos to end and for us to stop knee-jerking that chaos into existence every time we find a group of terrorists with a plan. If we draw the line deep, don't change what is allowed anymore, then accept the existing threat beyond that we have actually won because they can no longer spread terror in the skies.

I do not really want this as a permanent fixture in travel (flying would be sooooooooo boring), but the world we live in gets worse every day and we need to protect ourselves as much as we can.

I am curious what exactly it is about what you do that makes this such a difficult proposal. (I'm not being confrontational, just curious)

[ProdigalJunkMail]

107. your desire for liberty is not the question...

simply, should it be denied to others based on your fears? and I would wager 'no'. I should not have to live based on your fears...especially since the screening that you are betting your life on is ridiculous. Did you hear about the cell phone on the BA flight to Kennedy today? Sounds like that screening is doing a great job...keep betting your life on it whilst denying everyone else the right travel with necessities of that travel.

sP

[ProdigalJunkMail]

98. you have no basis to believe that we will be

safer by this policy...but rant against those of us who have to work all you want. Business keeps this country going ... it doesn't EXIST withouth businesses that provide you the very pipeline along which you are spouting your vitriol.

It just makes me laugh to believe that there are people so afraid out there that they will gladly give up their lives to be 'safe'. Remember those truck bombs...you better stay off the freeway.

And where have I attacked YOU? Other than to state that you are afraid (which you are).

sP

[thefool_wa]

104. Yes, I do

being attacked: I was referring to your statement about "people like this" - it looks like it has been removed. Talking about me while taking to me is rude in a thread I started.

First off, I do have reason to believe this will be safer than allowing anything anyone wants to bring onto a plane. If you cannot carry a case with anything in it on board, it is infinitely harder to sneak an explosive device onto a plane.

I do not understand why you don't see this as a fact, it is.

The fact of the matter is also that there is very little requirement for those who travel to do anything on the plane that can't be done elsewhere. Yes, I am tired of hearing about the needs of business, because the needs of business are not superior to the safety of the other travelers in the air (who are the majority of travelers).

Am I afraid: yeah! Do I have reason to be: Also yes! Will this proposal completely eliminate the threat: no, but it will mitigate it to a point that becomes immovable and allows us to fly with the lowest level of acceptable risk possible and will shorten screening lines all over the country.

There is no need for this to be permanent! But today's world necessitates this type of action.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

109. nope...no safer

too many ways to bring down a plane. Do you honestly believe that they will not find a way around your desired no-carryon rule? And, no, shortening lines is not about baggage...it is about not wasting time screening people the way we do...but I have offered up the idea of a trusted-traveller program...what do you say to that?

And hey...I didn't put fool in your name...but you can call it a personal attack if you wish. And yes...it is 'people like' you. You are dangerous...maybe not to the flying public...but to liberty in general.

sP

[thefool_wa]

112. Whatever...

You, again, are ignoring the fact that you have no rights on an airplane!


and are apparently more foolish than I for thinking that we should just do nothing.

on edit: I may have chosen the screen name, you are the one who chose to childishly attack it instead of discussing the subject in a mature fashion.

Trusted traveler: Talk about making the holes bigger!! You don't think Mohamed Atta couldn't have spent some of the time he was in this country ptior to 9/11 getting that type of pass? What about "homegrown" terrorists like the ones in the UK or Miami who have no previous criminal reccord?


peace.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

116. i didn't say do nothing...

but you fail to see that...head in the sand? hmmmm and it also sounds like you have no real concept of trusted-traveller...

sP

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

110. You know what Benjamin Franklin said on the subject...

"those who want chapstick confiscated at airports because they're chickenshit over something they heard on the news deserve to get their asses blown up by terrorists."

Or something to that effect.

[thefool_wa]

113. nice, get a clue

ok, I didn't say they were on track for banning chapstick, only that we should reduce what you can take on to what will fit in your pockets plus one book, magazine or newspaper.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

117. no...you said we should fly naked...

or at least that was the gist of your OP. Hey...where does it stop? Apparently YOU know...

sP

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thefool_wa]

74. Thank you again

for your positive, productive input.

[RamboLiberal]

79. I think you're arguing with one of the sheep

Baa Baa Baa! Buys in to this crap the Bush Admin is feeding us.

I figure I'm more at risk from cancer, clogged arteries, bad drivers, wet floors, lightning, crime, etc., than being blown up in the sky.

[thefool_wa]

82. Then you are deaf, blind...

and a danger to us all. We cannot ignore their target of choice unless we give it up altogether.

Do some research. Islamic terrorists are VERY REAL, VERY intent on our demise, and, in some cases, they have VERY good reason to be (and its all the Bush family's fault). All they need is time and opportunity and they will strike again. I say we give them as little opportunity as possible.


aside: you can present a counterpoint without insult. Thank you.

[RamboLiberal]

86. I rarely insult someone here on DU - but I stick by this one

Baa Baa Baa, and you are the greatest threat. You are all too willing to give up freedom for "false" security.

Oh the terrorists are real, and they will find a way to strike us again. But it will be good intelligence and law enforcement, not some willy-nilly TSA security that will catch them. And if you did the research you'd see that the Bush Admin loves this stuff since it keeps the sheep voting for them and their Republican friends. But in the background they are doing all they can to circumvent the security by cutting funds, putting unqualified cronies in charge, cutting ME linquists just cause they're gay, not to mention the blowback they are creating all over the world, etc.

I can already think of a number of ways airport security in it's current configuration today could be circumvented to sneak an explosive aboard as have been pointed out by many including me in this thread. If I can think of it, why couldn't the terrorists?

Glad you feel secure that 99.99999% of us have to put up with this crap because of a few terrorists.

[thefool_wa]

91. 99.999999% don't use airplanes

And I would appreciate it if you would back off on the insults. Its childish and demeaning. Lets try having this as a mature, adult conversation.

The easier we make it to circumvent, the more they will exploit it. If attacks and attempts are fewer and farther between its because of crackdowns, not turning a blind eye as you propose.

I don't question that they (bushies) love this stuff, its why they do the slowly roll back what's allowed every time something is hatched. If we draw the line deep and accept all risks after that then we take away the threat of "terror" on the airlines because it becomes significantly more difficult to get anything on a plane.

I also don't question that the bush administration has little to no real ambition to make airline travel safer in any way.

I am not a sheep, I'm just tired of the global panic every time we figure out someone is exploiting the huge holes we are leaving. Make the holes small and the threat will go away (at least in the air).

If wanting to be as safe as possible when flying makes me a sheep or a fool, so what. At least I'm not saying "open the doors and if they want to kill people let them" - which sounds alot like what you (and others in this thread) have said.

No thanks. We are guaranteed no rights on airplanes by any of the tenets of our government. Airplanes are the domain of the corporations that control them and they can forbid anything they like. You don't like it or don't want to die at the hands of terrorists - don't fly.

[RamboLiberal]

93. I'm talking about 99.9999999% of the flying public

And I still say Baa, Baa, Baa. And if you've noticed they haven't decreased their attacks. Bali Disco, Spanish Trains, British Trains. Read the stats, terrorism attacks are at their highest level.

Probably only reason they haven't hit us here since 9-11 is not because of the increased security it's because they want to out-do themselves on 9-11 which many terrorism experts say was a success beyond even the terrorists imagination.

Actually IMHO if the terrorists wanted to bring this country to it's knees it would've had a lot of smaller scale attacks on places that affect our everyday lives like shopping malls, commuter trains, movie theaters, restaurants.

I'm not flying unless I have to not because I'm in fear but I'm getting sick of all the crap I have to go through to get on a plane because of a few idiots.

[thefool_wa]

96. All I am saying is make it as difficult on them as possible

And thanks for keeping this mature.

[RamboLiberal]

88. Uh Oh - Looks Like Rover and Kitty Kat can't fly either

<snip>

In laying out other fiendish scenarios, I once raised the possibility of terrorists sewing explosives into the living bodies of pets, which could then be shipped in a plane's cargo hold. The point was never to be gruesome but, rather, to illustrate the limitless tools saboteurs will always have at their disposal.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/08/10/bomb/index.html

Remember some fiendish drug smugglers already tried this dogs - so why not the terrorists!

On edit here's the drug smuggling story from CNN:

A two-year investigation into a Colombian heroin ring netted more than 65 pounds of drugs, resulted in the arrests of more than 20 people and saved the lives of some drug-smuggling Labrador retrievers, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said Wednesday.

Ten wayward pups were found during a raid on a Colombian farm in 2005, and six of them were carrying more than 3 kilograms (6.6 pounds) of liquid heroin in their stomachs, said DEA spokesman Rusty Payne.

Puppy smuggling is another take on the human "mule," or "swallower" in DEA parlance -- someone who ingests packets of drugs and transport them in their stomachs.

In the case of the puppies found during the 2005 raid, the dogs' bellies had been cut open, and heroin packets were stitched into their stomachs, Payne said. The pups, mostly purebred Labrador retrievers, were sewn back up and prepared for shipment to the United States, he added.



http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/02/01/drug.pups/

[thefool_wa]

94. That's just plain wrong!

Poor animals, that's just cruel and unusual.

Who knows where this will end up (hence my original subject line).

[RamboLiberal]

90. Some interesing info from Time and Newsweek I posted

in another thread that is interesting reading.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1901669

[BigMeanieHead]

97. We should fly and live naked.

Nudists are generally less stressed, more easy going, friendlier people. Noone trying to impress or intimidate each other with $3000 suits and dresses and designer labels. Noone sizing each other up by the size of their bank account.

[sendero]

103. To be honest...

.. when I look around at the physique of the average American, I'm thankful that they are wearing clothes. :evilgrin:

[Bassic]

108. Does anyone realize that all this bending over backwards simply means

that although no planes blew up, the terrorists succeeded? They are playing us like a fiddle.

[thefool_wa]

115. I believe I made that point

in my original post. Its one of the reasons I believe in the measure I propsed in that post. If we draw the line at a final, deep point then we never have to knee-jerk to the whims of the terrorists again.

[Bassic]

118. Indeed you did.

But I felt that a lot of people needed to read it plainly said. Sorry for the confusion.

[SemperEadem]

119. please. God. no.

think of the children LOL

[Matariki]

121. So, your post isn't sarcastic, huh?

[Matariki]

122. My experience of flying this weekend

Airline lost my luggage with all my grooming products and makeup. Fortunately for me it was on the flight home. It would have sucked a whole, whole lot on my trip where i needed all that stuff. I'm sure that happened to plenty of people though.

Your solution to this problem is just a surrender to the ever increasing chipping away of our freedom and dignity. Good luck with that attitude.

[Matariki]

123. Say, you don't happen to secretly be Ed Schultz by any chance?

he was saying the same thing on his show today. Blech.

you keep saying: "you don't have any rights on an airplane", which is utter nonsense. Besides it's not the airlines imposing these draconian rules. I got this distinct impression they were as annoyed as their customers.