Anyone that's flying on Wednesday.

[hooplala]

In the spirit of being responsible for myself, my safety, and being competent with a baton, I see nothing wrong with Hoopla's idea.

LMNO: I support this.  A tumbler full of whiskey, a stick raised in anger, and a rousing chorus of "William Zanzinger" with my fellow fliers after we senselessly beat anyone doing odd things with their shoes.

To play the jerk card, would this extend only to passenger body screening?  Would luggage / carry one still be scanned?

I'm still surprised nobody ever beat William Zanzinger to death.

The only thing one could do with their luggage would be to blow up the plane, which as Nigel points out, my idea wouldn't protect from anyway, so I will say no.  No luggage scans.  

[Cuddlefish]

Terrorizing ourselves to protect ourselves from terrorism.

Is this what "counter-terrorism" s'posed to mean?

[Don Coyote]

Is this what "counter-terrorism" s'posed to mean?

I thought that was when your folks do it in the kitchen.

[Jasper]

I think that's just normal terrorism.  At least in my case.

[Don Coyote]

I think that's just normal terrorism.  At least in my case.

So your counters aren't terrified?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Word on the street is that this Wednesday, the 24 of November, is "Opt-out" day for people travelling out of the airports. The idea is that everyone should opt-out of the body scan, and take the much longer to accomplish pat-down procedure, to slow down the airports to a crawl as a form of protest.

Sure, it sounds a lot like picking a day to not but gas for your car to put the "screws" into the big oil companies, and it may not accomplish anything, but I figured I'd pass the word.

My mother's side of the family are all from Boston. Basically I travel from West Roxbury to Hyde Park this year.
My father's side of the family are all Europeans.

Doktor Blight,
Having mom drive me for about 12 minutes. 

[Suu]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/23/georgia.tsa.employee/index.html?eref=rss_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_latest+(RSS:+Most+Recent)

[Cuddlefish]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/23/georgia.tsa.employee/index.html?eref=rss_latest&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_latest+(RSS:+Most+Recent)

What can be said? We're in good hands...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Security guards with delusions of grandeur...

[Triple Zero]

Nowhere did I say that I'm not willing to listen to statistics.  I mean, I am a professional evaluator.  I understand completely the statistics.  I also understand completely the lay of the land right now and that the statistics don't matter.  That doesn't mean you discount them or get rid of them.  It just means you have to think of different ways to get at the masses to effect change.  

For the record, they do matter. Whether people in general listen or not. If for some reason the statistics would have showed any significant sort of danger with regards to terrorism, not only would my assessment of the situation be different, I'm pretty sure the entire situation would be different.

But yes, the people won't listen.

When I said that I was talking about America, not me as an individual.

Okay, my apologizes for the misunderstanding then, because when you said

"We want to be open and free while also being safe and secure.  I'm not sure it is possible to have both."

I take that to mean that indeed the first sentence is speaking as "we America", therefore if you contrast that with the second sentence in the first person I'm going to assume that is your actual personal opinion.

But you intended that too as the opinion of the American People in general, because you yourself know it to be nonsense since you are not afraid to look the statistics in the eye.

It is not possible to with 100% certainty and success, protect America from another terrorist attack.  It WILL happen again.  Now, on an individual level, that next terrorist attack is very unlikely to happen in Maine.  So, sure, I'm pretty safe.  Though, that doesn't mean the ripple effects won't get to me.  (economy, Patriot Act, etc.)

For the individual, yes.  I'm not arguing that.

Maybe you need to read Cain's "history longer than 5 minutes ago" thread again. Apparently in the 80s there were bunches of terrorist attacks in Europe*, without any "ripple effects" as bad as what you're saying.

So that shows you do NOT in fact need very much protection from terrorist attacks**, since the individual risk is insignificant compared to taking part in ground traffic. And the attacks in the 80s show that it is NOT the terrorist attacks that causes the ripple effects, but your government, the TSA, etc.

So, if you want more protection from the negative effects of terrorist attacks, you need protection from your government and protection from the TSA, and all that.

Which, IRONICALLY, also happens to increase your freedom.

Really, that is what I was trying to say.

At least, as long as I am talking to RWHN making the statement of "I don't think we can both be secure from terrorist attacks and be free", on a personal account.

If I had known I was talking to RWHN re-voicing the opinions and "thoughts" of the American People in General, I would probably not have bothered.

(*and I lived there, but being born in 1980, I don't remember much from that decade except Tchernobyl and the fall of the Wall)

(**I'm still all for the education of passengers, as Schneier suggested, because it is actually a freedom increasing precaution)

Statistics won't help, no matter how true they are.

Yeah and I still disagree with that, on principle, but it's not really important.

[Jenne]

This man is awesome.

That man is a true Patriot.  Damn, we need more like him.

[Cain]

It's impossible to protect against EVERY POSSIBLE CONTINGENCY. We should be taking REASONABLE precautions, not spending billions and making people miserable to MAYBE BUT NOT REALLY prevent something that's less likely than the wings icing up. FFS.

Al-Qaeda in Yemen's grand strategy is based around this approach to security.  Find a flaw.  Send a small bomb through the flaw.  It either blows up, or it doesn't.  Either way, countries spend millions securing the flaw.  Find another flaw.  Repeat.  For the cost of a few thousand they are going to run foreign nations into the ground.

[Remington]

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/tsa-administrative-directive-opt-outters-to-be-considered-domestic-extremists_11242010




Non-confirmed, but it fits with the TSA.

[Sir Squid Diddimus]

If I manage to properly hide a garden weasel in my pance, I will take the scanner.

[Jasper]

Remington's article is very grave news.  Anybody who opts out, ever, can be considered a domestic "extremist", aka terrorist.  Says the PRESIDENT.