j p o wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
j p o wrote:
big kahuna wrote:
klehner wrote:
Quote:
“Based on how the program is run now, most of what the air marshals do is just security theater — it serves absolutely no purpose other than showing that they are doing something,” said Robert MacLean, an air marshal who was fired by T.S.A. in 2006 after disclosing to an MSNBC reporter that the agency was planning to reduce the number of air marshals on overnight flights. He was rehired after a nearly 10-year battle that reached the Supreme Court.
?
Been saying this for years. A lot of aviation security is mostly feel-good appearance-type stuff. There are some really effective measures, but air marshals? Not that jazzed about their efficacy.
Isn't that the case with most security? Every office building has key card access and security guards. It doesn't actually do anything. My wife's building you can get in the building but have to scan in the elevator to get to a floor. But the elevators are usually full so anyone can piggyback on to the floor.
The only thing the security guards in our building would be good for is a human shield. I could pick the one old guy up and throw him at the attackers.
In the US, the bad guys don't want to hijack the plane anymore (the reinforced and locked flight deck door, plus the aggressiveness of passengers since 9/11 have put a stop to that). What they want to do is blow up a plane -- preferably one full of passengers and cargo -- over a large American city. If they can do that with suicide bombers and laptop or other electronic devices containing a plastic or similar explosive, all well and good. But they'll take what they can get, and if they can get IEDs or the like into a plane's cargo compartments, that's great.
In Europe, the major threat to transportation is actually coming from their interlinked rail system. Lots of intelligence says that's what they'd like to hit, especially because that would be easier to carry off than attempting to sneak a bomb onboard a commercial airliner at Heathrow or Amsterdam's Schipol airports, even with airport insider assistance. Those very effective security measures I mentioned come into play in this regard.
I was going to mention that the biggest change to in air security is that people now react when there is a hijacking. Used to be, you went along, got an unplanned trip to Cuba, then went home. Now you know that the goal isn't to go somewhere, it is to crash it.
There are so many soft targets around. I don't really understand the fetish terrorists have with planes.
Commercial air transportation is the crown Jewel of the US transportation system, and if they can crash a plane and undermine confidence in that system they believe they can undermine confidence in the US as a whole.. They believed that during 9/11 (though they we're also interested in tearing down the US and even global financial system by the attack on the World Trade Center) and they haven't changed their beliefs since.
Blowing a plane out of the sky, with hundreds of men women and children on it, they believe will send shock waves throughout US air transportation. Plus, it would send a message to the rest of the world that they can reach out and do it.
Personally, I believe they underestimate the resiliency of Western democracies and their populations when it comes to these sorts of terrorist attacks, but try convincing them of that.
"Politics is just show business for ugly people."