Massive attack foiled in England

[Texsox]

So everyone, myself included, accepts that to ride on a plane, one has to consent to a search. How about to attend a sporting event? Shop in a mall? Ride a bus or taxi? Walk down Michigan Avenue? Enter an office building?

 

My point again, is what difference will our rights make if we voluntarily give them away at every turn?

[KipWellsFan]

This is shocking!!!! I am now compelled to do whatever it takes to win the war on terra!!! This is WWIII!!! Where can I sign up!!?! And is there anyway I can help make sure that liberal defeatist Ned Lamont is defeated by the great American patriot Joe Lieberman!?!

Edited August 10, 2006 by KipWellsFan

[kapkomet]

This is shocking!!!! I am now compelled to do whatever it takes to win the war on terra!!! This is WWIII!!! Where can I sign up!!?! And is there anyway I can help make sure that liberal defeatist Ned Lamont is defeated by the great American patriot Joe Lieberman!?!

Yea, cause this is exactly what's happening - why the story broke and when it did. Sometimes I hate ignorance.

[southsider2k5]

Ah, but there is reason for the govenrment to be involved, because of what happens if a plane doesn't take the proper actions. In the event of another attack, who is it who spends the funds to do the cleanup, undertake the investigation, arrest the people responsible, etc.? Those tasks won't be done by the company. And furthermore, the defense of this country is the job of the government as well. So the government does have a real interest in making sure that the appropriate security measures are followed.

 

Hypothetically it depends... If it is criminal in nature, then obviously the government steps in to handle the problems. If it is just something that happens, the company would have to face up to the scrutiny and investigations that any other company/industry would be subject to if their equiptment failed and caused harm, or if the court determines what the reasonable level of security that an airline would have to provide.

 

Now the government interest in making sure things go smoothly is a completely different beast. Of course it is in the best interest for the airlines to move smoothly and safely, but it could be argued that it isn't the place of government to legislate and decide how airlines have to do business.

[Texsox]

Yea, cause this is exactly what's happening - why the story broke and when it did. Sometimes I hate ignorance.

 

sometimes?

[kapkomet]

sometimes?

Yea, sometimes ignorance is excusible. In this reference, it's not.

[Rex Kickass]

This is not WWIII.

[Texsox]

Hypothetically it depends... If it is criminal in nature, then obviously the government steps in to handle the problems. If it is just something that happens, the company would have to face up to the scrutiny and investigations that any other company/industry would be subject to if their equiptment failed and caused harm, or if the court determines what the reasonable level of security that an airline would have to provide.

 

Now the government interest in making sure things go smoothly is a completely different beast. Of course it is in the best interest for the airlines to move smoothly and safely, but it could be argued that it isn't the place of government to legislate and decide how airlines have to do business.

 

Great points to ponder. But then, who should provide air traffic control?

 

Could a case be built that air travel is so important to our economy that it is in the national interest for everyone to have a voice in how it is run, and therefore we should be involved via our government?

 

Isn't this comparable to food safety and law enforcement?

[Balta1701]

Now the government interest in making sure things go smoothly is a completely different beast. Of course it is in the best interest for the airlines to move smoothly and safely, but it could be argued that it isn't the place of government to legislate and decide how airlines have to do business.

This may be where we fundamentally diverge here, but I for one would argue that in many cases, it is the governnment's responsibility to set a mandatory minimum level of safety in many spheres of private industry and life, just because it is the only entity large enough to both recognize a problem and deal with it.

 

For example, automobile safety. The government does not necessarily have to mandate certain levels of safety in automobiles, and there are those who argue that the government shouldn't do so anyway, because autos with fewer safety features would be cheaper and more accessible. However, the government has, and I believe rightly, decided that it is going to be more detrimental to society to have cars on the road which are more of a threat to life than a certain level, so the government has been willing to mandate some level of safety precautions in those cars, thus while some people wind up being unable to afford cars because they'd have to pay for more safety features, as a whole, society benefits, because a great many lives are saved.

 

This is the same deal. The government can judge based on the potential losses (very high, as we've all seen) that a specific standard of safety must be met by all of the airlines. It can enforce that level of safety itself, or it can leave it to the airlines. The last time it was left to the airlines, it failed dramatically. In response, the governmetn took away some control from the airlines, and increased that minimum level of safety required to something that hopefully has a better chance of maintaining security and saving lives, just as the government sometimes increases the safety requirements on cars in response to a new problem/invention.

 

This is not WWIII.

More like, World War IV.

[WCSox]

It is applicable in an abstract way. How does our society change if we allow invasive searches to get on an airplane (for example). We are accepting that we can not have the freedoms our parents had. I don't see any turning back. We can't eliminate terrorism. Our freedoms are not just about the government and what they can do, but also about what we will allow each other to do. It doesn't matter of the government can't search your person 24/7 if we allow employers, airlines, buses, retail stores, etc. to make the same searches.

 

That's a good point. I agree that we're not going to have the freedoms that our parents did because we don't live in the same world that they did. Like I said, we can't have it both ways. The challenge ahead of us will be balancing security with "unprotected" freedoms and not infriging on Constitutionally-protected freedoms. It's going to be difficult, but we're going to have to face it.

 

Neither driving, nor flying (whether as pilot or passenger) has ever been legally recognized as any sort of right. They are priviledges.

 

You have the RIGHT to move about by whatever methods you have access to. Walking, biking, riding public transit, etc. are free access. You have a right to choose to travel, but if you choose flying or driving, you can only do so under certain restrictions.

 

IMO, you give up your right to complete privacy whenever you elect to take any form of public- or private-sector transportation (bus, train, plane, taxi, etc.) and your privacy is somewhat limited while driving a vehicle (subject to police searches if probable cause applies).

[NorthSideSox72]

How about to attend a sporting event?

 

Stadiums, owned by private interests or government entities, always have the right to conduct security, charge for entrance and admit/reject anyone. So yeah.

 

Shop in a mall?

Private property - their call. But probably won't happen, for financial reasons.

 

Ride a bus

Grey area, given its public transit.

 

or taxi?

Up to the cab company, which again, is private.

 

Walk down Michigan Avenue?

Public street, so no, no searches.

 

Enter an office building?

Private property, so if they choose, yes.

 

My point again, is what difference will our rights make if we voluntarily give them away at every turn?

Of these, only walking down Michigan Avenue could really be construed as a right.

[southsider2k5]

This may be where we fundamentally diverge here, but I for one would argue that in many cases, it is the governnment's responsibility to set a mandatory minimum level of safety in many spheres of private industry and life, just because it is the only entity large enough to both recognize a problem and deal with it.

 

For example, automobile safety. The government does not necessarily have to mandate certain levels of safety in automobiles, and there are those who argue that the government shouldn't do so anyway, because autos with fewer safety features would be cheaper and more accessible. However, the government has, and I believe rightly, decided that it is going to be more detrimental to society to have cars on the road which are more of a threat to life than a certain level, so the government has been willing to mandate some level of safety precautions in those cars, thus while some people wind up being unable to afford cars because they'd have to pay for more safety features, as a whole, society benefits, because a great many lives are saved.

 

This is the same deal. The government can judge based on the potential losses (very high, as we've all seen) that a specific standard of safety must be met by all of the airlines. It can enforce that level of safety itself, or it can leave it to the airlines. The last time it was left to the airlines, it failed dramatically. In response, the governmetn took away some control from the airlines, and increased that minimum level of safety required to something that hopefully has a better chance of maintaining security and saving lives, just as the government sometimes increases the safety requirements on cars in response to a new problem/invention.

 

The funny part is I haven't actually said what I believe yet, mostly I am just making a case for another side of the coin that has not been pondered yet. One of the issues that has been addressed was personal freedoms, but no one really mentioned the rights of airlines to run their business how they see fit.

 

Also the answer to the potential shortcomings is easy. If their product sucks, they could either fly another airline or drive, the same answer as any other industry.

[Soxbadger]

Texsox,

 

I think I understand where some of the confusion is coming from here.

 

1) You have a right to interstate travel, but this does not mean that you have the right to travel however you want. The majority of the time this type of conflict occurs when a state passes a law, that would prohibit people from traveling through it, (ie snow tires).

 

2) The commerce clause, which prevents the states from putting restrictions on interstate travel.

 

What this means is that it is entirely within the federal govt's power to regulate air travel. Because air travel is not a fundemental right, all laws in regards to air travel are "rational basis" standard, meaning that unless a person can show there is no rational basis for the law, the law is constitutional.

 

It is clear there is a govt interest in the safety of people flying in airplanes, therefore they can make flying on an airplane contingent on being searched. Private airlines could not evade this law, as they would have no legal argument why it was unconstitutional.

 

If you do not want to be searched, you dont have to take airplanes, trains, or other forms of public transportation. You can walk, ride your bike, or take your own car.

[NorthSideSox72]

Texsox,

 

I think I understand where some of the confusion is coming from here.

 

1) You have a right to interstate travel, but this does not mean that you have the right to travel however you want. The majority of the time this type of conflict occurs when a state passes a law, that would prohibit people from traveling through it, (ie snow tires).

 

2) The commerce clause, which prevents the states from putting restrictions on interstate travel.

 

What this means is that it is entirely within the federal govt's power to regulate air travel. Because air travel is not a fundemental right, all laws in regards to air travel are "rational basis" standard, meaning that unless a person can show there is no rational basis for the law, the law is constitutional.

 

It is clear there is a govt interest in the safety of people flying in airplanes, therefore they can make flying on an airplane contingent on being searched. Private airlines could not evade this law, as they would have no legal argument why it was unconstitutional.

 

If you do not want to be searched, you dont have to take airplanes, trains, or other forms of public transportation. You can walk, ride your bike, or take your own car.

 

I'm pretty proud of myself. I pretty much said the exact things the lawyer said.

[kapkomet]

I'm pretty proud of myself. I pretty much said the exact things the lawyer said.

Oh noes.......

[whitesoxfan101]

I can't begin to speculate which chemicals are involved, but if these people are truly determined to kill others and are willing to die for their cause, why not injest the material? Think of a situation closely resembling that featured within "Maria Full of Grace." Or wear clothing items which allow pockets where liquid items may be stored? I'm not saying anything new here, really. It's just tough to imagine complete security from persons transporting undectable (aside from trained dogs) liquids.

 

Great post. I was thinking the exact same thing when I saw the specifics of this story, I mean with chemicals/liquid involved here, it's like you said, they could swallow stuff or put it in their pockets or something crazy since they are going to die anyways. It's almost like you can't really defend against this kind of attack on a plane. Terrifying thought.

[Heads22]

Thank God the terrorists didn't have snakes. Snakes + Planes = WWIII

[southsider2k5]

I'm pretty proud of myself. I pretty much said the exact things the lawyer said.

 

I don't know that I would be proud of that

[Mplssoxfan]

In most airports, after you clear security, there are many shops that sell, among other things, newspapers, magazines and water. Are those stores going to be shuttered? I imagine there will be lots of people on every plane who won't react well to someone pulling a bottle of water out of their bag. I honestly cannot remember the last time I got on a flight without a bottle of water. I only fly 3-4 times a year, but I bet it's been at least 10 years since I've flown without a bottle of water.

[whitesoxfan101]

Thank God the terrorists didn't have snakes. Snakes + Planes = WWIII

 

WWIV >>> WWIII

[kapkomet]

That movie looks like the worst movie EVER. I mean, really.

[southsider2k5]

That movie looks like the worst movie EVER. I mean, really.

 

That's the whole point actually.

 

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

 

More details are leaking out about the attack...

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/0...sive_gel_t.html

[mr_genius]

WWIV >>> WWIII

 

totally

[whitesoxfan101]

totally

 

Hooray, somebody got it!! (I think...)

[My Dixie Normus]

I travel 48 weeks a year. I live at O'Hare. I have been in every state in the union within the last 18 months. I really look forward to a long flight. It is a great opportunity to catch up on e-mail. I can not imagine what it would be like to not have my lap top on a plane... much less my s***ter kit. They do not allow lighters on the plane by the way but the metal in the lighter is so small that if you keep it in your pocket, the detector doesn't go off. They will allow two books of matches however.

 

Interesting thing I read was that the Brits became aware of this by doing much the same things that Bush is getting racked over the coals for, monitoring electronic communications and such. Don't have all the specifics but it seems to work. I wonder if this will put any egg on the face of the nay sayers. Mmmm, nah, probably not.