Colleen,This is what you wrote:"Canada dosen't need to send more men and women out to fight a war that has nothing to do with us"Obviously you feel that Canada isn't affected by what's going on in the world. So just watch the war and complain about it. "We are fighting for a country that dosen't even like us"Not really sure how you can make this judgement; exactly how many people from the "country that doesn't even like us" do you know?"Why should we send more men and women out to die"Whether you send Canadians to war to die, or not, if Canadians stick their heads in the stand with the "it's them, not us" mentality, they will die on their own soil from the effects of this war, it's only a matter of time.Maybe YOU need to "go" back and read what you AND I wrote.
-
Can't bring liquids on planes.
-
great posts StrapingYoungLad.
-
yeah, i hate terrorists. i wanna kick em in the nuts.
-
Putting aside any racial concerns and implications thereof to profiling...Admittedly I'm no security expert but the proposition of profiling that your "guy on TV" put forth would be in actual practice rather ineffective, I would think. When profiling, a set of markers are constructed and then those makers are watched for. Someone wishing to pass security simply needs to know what those markers are and avoid them. If security is looking for young males then use old. If security is looking at people with small amounts of baggage bring lots of baggage etc., etc., etc. It seems to me, profiling is kinda paradoxical the more refined it is the more accurate and easier it is for the screener to implement but conversely it becomes easier for the "watched" to get around. While I don't completely discount profiling, it seems that it would be too easy to get around, to be on the starting line of defence anyway.Several years ago (10 or more), I believe I heard it on NPR and maybe 60 Minutes, state police and highway patrol departments in the southern states started using profiling to catch mules of drug traffickers. I don't remember them all, but some of the markers law enforcement officials were watching for were single occupant rented four door cars driving at or just below the speed limit and only on certain highways. While I know no statistics of just how effective the program was, I do remember one mule, turned snitch, laughing that while law enforcement caught his buddy in the rented Lincoln with a couple of kilos of coke, he sped by them in moving van with a ton of coke. Plus, as soon as the traffickers figured out what law enforcement was looking for they changed their appearance. The long and short of it was, as I remember, the program was effective only in the very short run but then would fail dramatically and need to be reassessed and resulted with constantly changing, overlapping and multiple profiles being issued to law enforcement. Thus, loosing any arguable effectiveness it had as a precision tool for law enforcement. When talking about dirty bombs and chemical attacks I don't think any method should be considered where dramatic failure has been a demonstrated outcome of previous implementations.Don't get me wrong, I think some bit of profiling has limited merit but its profound short comings must be recognized and addressed. My conjecture is that principal among these is the very human proclivity to look for the concrete rather than the abstract, especially when the fatigue and boredom of routine sets in. That is to say, if screeners and law enforcement are told to be on the lookout for certain markers, many of them by the end of their shift are more apt to be looking for the described markers rather than suspicious activities in general. I don't think that's so much the fault of the individual but just the prejudice (not meant in racial sense) of the human mind and how it works.While I'm not advocating complete amendment of profiling I think it should not be anywhere near the emphasis of a security system, which is what I read your "guy on TV" to be purposing.
-
What is the totality of Israeli airport security and how much of that is made up of profiling? I certainly don't know. If they have found a way of avoiding the inherent pitfalls and are using it in a manner that actually works, great. What I question is the method. If your looking for a wasp in line of tens-of-thousands of bugs, one right after the other, when you see the hornet will you still recognize it as dangerous? My guess would be that your going to be too busy looking for back and yellow to recognize the danger in the rust color of the hornet. It's a simple analogy but demonstrates the point, I think. Given that the circumstance were very different, the only evidence I have any knowledge of, which I sited in my previous post, reached a similar conclusion. I make no claim that this is the final word on the subject if there is evidence to the contrary I'm ready to hear it or in this case read it?It just seems illogical to me to make profiling such a integral bureaucratized part of your security apparatus. It seems that if your busy checking every possible person who fits a vague profile your taking away much needed resources from checking everyone else, who are no less capable and in some case just as inclined to commit horrible acts, sometimes for the same reasons as those you are actively profiling.
-
>> "Canada dosen't need to send more men and women out to fight a war that has nothing to do with us"
> Obviously you feel that Canada isn't affected by what's going on in the world. So just watch the war and complain about it.
How does that justify the invasion of, war in, and occupation of, Iraq?
>> "We are fighting for a country that dosen't even like us"
> Not really sure how you can make this judgment; exactly how many people from the "country that doesn't even like us" do you know?
Read the news, and you will find polls of Iraqi's attitudes. You will find that the U.S. is very unpopular, and getting progressively less so.
USA Today, April 2004:
In reply to:
Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
It's also sad how much U.S.'s image has slipped in the world (Pew Research Center). That can't be good for the U.S.'s strategic interests.
>> "Why should we send more men and women out to die"
> Whether you send Canadians to war to die, or not, if Canadians stick their heads in the stand with the "it's them, not us" mentality, they will die on their own soil from the effects of this war, it's only a matter of time.
So then you assume any action, no matter how misguided or ineffective, is necessary in order to get the terrorists attention? We've made a lot of enemies during the occupation of Iraq. The pipeline of terrorists is getting longer. We are in much graver danger now than we were two years ago.
The sad thing is that the invasion of Afghanistan actually was justified, but the U.S. got distracted in Iraq and didn't finish the job; they did not secure the country outside of Kabul. The Taliban is having a resurgence, and much of the country is run by war lords. Afghanistan has become a huge source of opium.
"Just doing something" is not a good strategy for fighting terrorism. Shooting yourself in the foot does not advance your interests.
-
In reply to: When profiling, a set of markers are constructed and then those makers are watched for. Someone wishing to pass security simply needs to know what those markers are and avoid them. If security is looking for young males then use old. If security is looking at people with small amounts of baggage bring lots of baggage etc., etc., etc. It seems to me, profiling is kinda paradoxical the more refined it is the more accurate and easier it is for the screener to implement but conversely it becomes easier for the "watched" to get around. While I don't completely discount profiling, it seems that it would be too easy to get around, to be on the starting line of defence anyway. There are indeed various pitfalls, but no security system is perfect. Whats more there certain things that are very hard to hide, such as nervousness. That may sound a little abstract, but the fellow on TV said it boiled down to training, he said that it was done in other parts of the world with success and there was no reason why it couldnt work over here. As for Israel, you cant really judge their security on how many terrorist success there are, but how many terrorist failures there are. More than any nation on earth they are under threat of terrorism but their people are still relatively safe.Whats more profiling is only one part of what can be done, it doesnt have to be the be-all-and-end-all of security, its just for allowing air travel to still actualy be feasable while still as secure as possible. We cant let the air industry be destroyed by placing too much of a security burden apon customers, profiling is a way round this that works in other parts of the world. Some terrorists will at times still get through. Oh well. Terrorist can learn the profiling methods and may well use that to their advantage, but as the majority of them has been seen to be young asian men, they will have a harder time finding eligable fellows who can get past security, and even then theres no gurentee as those that primarily fall under the profiling are only more likely to be searched, thats not to say a forty yearold white man wont ever be searched.Its also importnat to note that you offer no alternative. Now I dont pretend that profiling is by any means perfect, but it is an improvement and worth experimenting with.
-
I was abroad when it all happened. We were told we could not take any hand luggage but were given plastic bags to put essentials in i.e passport/tickets/medication as long as we had a certificate for meds. Electronic car keys/cameras/lighters/mobiles etc had to go in the suitcase. By the time I flew home on Monday they had relaxed it a bit although we weren't allowed any liquids or lighters and even though we were in Greece each case was scanned and opened and a full body search was done. It caused massive queues but I would rather that to be honest than anything happen. It was annoying having to buy drinks on board at ridiculous prices but at the end of the day it is for our benefit I think so I was pretty happy about it all.
-
They should have cut back on the plane drinks prices considering the situation.
-
It was funny in a way. I asked for one of those tiny bottles of red wine. Stewardess said would I like to buy two for a special price of £5.00. I asked how much it was for one bottle and she said £2.50!!You had to laugh and I do agree they shouldhave cut their prices due to the situation.