On 13 Jun 2005 16:04:18 -0700, wrote:



Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 5 Jun 2005 15:41:50 -0700, wrote:

...


Ok, checked baggage rather than carry-on. IIRC she was told it was a
gift she was to give someone in the US. Otherwise like I thought--
the girfriend was European, right?

I probably had confabulated that story with this one:

In 1986 a bomb was found in a false bottomed bag a pregnant
Irish woman was trying to carry onto a flight in London:

http://www.rosenblit.com/ADC_letter.htm
... hen Hindawi was arrested he revealed that he was
a paid agent for Syria and claimed that he had been
specifically instructed by Syria to romance and then
impregnate a naive woman who could be utilized as a
completely unwitting human bomb and thereby more likely
avoid detection by airport security (who then operated
according to standardized terrorist profiles). ...


... OK, and then how does body-searching middle-aged white males, aging
grandmothers or grandfathers help solve this? Pre-screening baggage for
explosives and carrry-on resolves the entire issue you are discussing above
-- and that is, theoretically, already done and has been the norm for
years. The highly personal, invasive searches of people who are highly
unlikely to be terrorists is the issue and appears to be a significant
waste of resources (i.e. tax dollars and time), drives people away from
that mode of transportation (I *will not* fly unless I absolutely have no
choice, and I'm not alone in that attitude), and does nothing to solve the
problem. All this in the name of attempting to show no bias despite the
fact that the most likely perpetrators match a specific profile.


My personal opinion is that invasive searches of people who do not
trigger the metal detector are unnecessary to prevent hijackings
regardless of whom is searched. One security measure, (recommended
by a panel chaired by Al Gore and originally scheduled to go into
effect in the Spring of 2001) requires that cockpit doors be closed
and locked befor takeoff and in general kept that way during flight.
That, coupled with the the sort of response to a hijacking attempt
one expects today from fight attendants and passengers is sufficient
to prevent a hijacking using the same sorts of weapons that were used
on September 11.

I suspect two other reasons for the invasive searches. One, for show
like sending national guardsmen to the airports in the days just
after September 11. The other is for the WOD.

However, a person could conceivably smuggle a bomb onto a plane on
his/her person even as the 'shoe bomber' did.

In that regard, you seem to have missed three important facts from the
hen Hindawi case:

1) Hen Hindawi deliberately chose a person who did not fit the
expected profile.

2) The person carrying the bomb did not know she was carrying a bomb.


Your information above indicates that it was in a bag she was carrying.

3) The attempt was thwarted because a passenger NOT matching a profile
was searched.


The attempt was thwarted because the bag she was carrying was searched as
is all carry-on -- that attempt should have been caught by the x-ray or
random explosive swipe of the luggage (not the person).


No, you seem to have missed my point. No invasive search of the pregnant
woman was needed to find the device being placed on board the plane, that
should have been identified and found in the normal search to which *all*
carry-on items subjected. You can argue that a person could unwittingly
be duped into somehow actually carrying a bomb on their person that could
only be detected by invasive search, but that is a huge stretch. i.e, the
point is that screening of all carry-on precludes the introduction of
problems by unwitting passengers, the invasive search of *people* not
matching a specific profile is a waste of resources.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+