Slashdot Mirror


Senator Blacklisted by No-Fly List

sig writes "Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) was turned down for a flight from Washington, D. C. to Boston because his name turned up on the TSA No-Fly list. He eventually got on a flight, but was again denied on his way back to D.C. It took 3 weeks of calls to Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security for the ordeal to get straightened out. But what are ordinary citizens supposed to do if the Secretary of Homeland Security won't take their calls?" There's also a New York Times story.

1,396 comments

  1. Our gov't at work by AviLazar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe they need to re-evaluate themselves and their standards...(DUH!!!!).

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    1. Re:Our gov't at work by Dogers · · Score: 0, Redundant

      In Soviet America, standards evaluate YOU!

      (POP goes the karma!)

      --
      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
    2. Re:Our gov't at work by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, yes. After implementing any system, you review after a period of time, and correct mistakes/problems.

      Very, very few (if any) are the complex systems put into place with zero bugs. That doesn't automatically mean they shouldn't be tried in the first place. Maybe, maybe not. But that is an entirely different question.

    3. Re:Our gov't at work by zoefff · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least the security system is working VERY visible! I can imagine:

      'Sorry sir, but we can't let you through'
      'Do you know who I am? I AM senator Kennedy!'
      'Even if you were the King of Liechtenstein, we can't let you through'
      'I'll have YOU fired first thing in the morning!'
      'Please do, but could you step out of the line please, sir?'

      Or the old joke
      'Sorry sir, but we can't let you through'
      'Do you know who I am?'
      (Intercom)'Can somebody help this person? He doesn't know who he is...'

    4. Re:Our gov't at work by jbash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh yeah, I'm sure it was a bug. "Kennedy" sounds kind of Middle Eastern, don't you think? Wonder how many other Democrats will run into this kind of "mistake."

      The current White House occupants are shameless. Immediately after 9-11, Prime Minister Cheney ordered Continuity of Government to go into effect. The program calls for the evacuation of government leaders from Washington and the activation of the underground hideaways that shelter bureaucrats trained to keep Uncle Sam in business. The problem was no Democrats were evacuated or kept in the loop. Must have been an oversight.

    5. Re:Our gov't at work by Elvisisdead · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You have got to be kidding me. Ted Kennedy has been involved in so much shady stuff during his life, someone should question his ability to operate without oversight. Just because a person is elected doesn't mean that they're above established protocols or reproach for past deeds. To name a few things, Chappaquiddick, a drunkard, plagiarist, cheater who was expelled from a college he didn't earn his way into, and girlfriend-beater.

      A terrorist, maybe not, but you have to admit that if someone with a name other than Kennedy had the same credentials, that they'd get on the list, too. As they should.

      --

      "Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
    6. Re:Our gov't at work by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      lol!
      While I agree and am very thankful that the people who receive this list are doing their job - a "know your customer" attitude helps.
      People in those positions tend to have ID's that identify themselves. They are also walking around with security gaurds, etc.
      If this was Joe Schmoe local representative for district 12WhoTheFcares, then I would understand - but a US Senator in DC no less...
      By no means do i think this system should be scraped, but it needs to be worked on now, while it is still new.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    7. Re:Our gov't at work by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, yes. After implementing any system, you review after a period of time, and correct mistakes/problems.

      Of course, but you typically do that before you put the system into production. If you can't run the implemented system in a test bed environment, then at the very least you put the system in place and instruct users not to rely on it, and you give them a quick way to report problems. Also, note that there's a big difference between mistakes made in the system and mistakes made by the system. The former may take a while to isolate and correct, but there should be a mechanism to fix the latter quickly.

      Very, very few (if any) are the complex systems put into place with zero bugs.

      That's no excuse. If you have to put a system in place without thorough testing, you think long and hard about the kinds of problems it can cause, and you make damn sure you've got a fast and effective means of dealing with those problems.

    8. Re:Our gov't at work by david.gilbert · · Score: 5, Interesting
      "Kennedy" sounds kind of Middle Eastern, don't you think?

      What makes you think your name needs to sound "kind of Middle Eastern" to make it onto the "no-fly" list? Your predjudices, perhaps?

    9. Re:Our gov't at work by gorbachev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no bug here. It's broken by design.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    10. Re:Our gov't at work by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      SO tell me.. was this homeland security thingy setup for catching ordinary criminals or terrorists?

      If there is somethign wrong with mr. Kennedy, then he should be arrested and brought to justice instead of bothering him when travelling.

      But heh, any excuse to hinder democrats should be valid because it helps those currently in power it seems.

    11. Re:Our gov't at work by jbash · · Score: 4, Funny

      What makes you think your name needs to sound "kind of Middle Eastern" to make it onto the "no-fly" list? Your predjudices, perhaps?

      Good point. Maybe we should ALL change our names to Bin Laden. We know they can ALWAYS get on a plane.

    12. Re:Our gov't at work by MooseByte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Well, yes. After implementing any system, you review after a period of time, and correct mistakes/problems."

      Yes, and BEFORE implementing a system like an inherently error-prone No-Fly list, even some basic design review of error recovery should have been firmly in place, beyond "there's this guy you can call and something might be done, maybe, if you're a senior gov't figure." I'd loved to have been in on the design meeting where that was finalized.

      It took a senior senator 3 WEEKS to get off the list. Think you'd have ANY chance? That's broken by design. And given past abuses (Euro journalists denied entry to US due to their "mistaken" inclusion on The List) I have zero confidence in this not being used as a political tool. Tom DeLay's "missing plane w/ congressmen" false report to the FAA, for example.

      And that's only the painfully obvious list. What about the ones you're never allowed to see?

      Nearly every aspect of this homeland "security" as implemented appears to have come from some underperforming kindergarten class. "And colors! We'll have pretty colors for the national terrorism alert level!"

      Meanwhile actual terrorists, whose plans apparently are NOT drawn up by underperforming kindergartners, will be busy trying to get one of their own put onto the equally poorly thought-out "security express" list that allows previously cleared individuals minimal security review at airports.

      But that's just me talking, some guy who's never benefitted from a terrorist attack, unlike those now supposedly in charge of preventing them.

    13. Re:Our gov't at work by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 0

      It appears you assume that they didn't do any testing...any simulation on this process before implementation. That they just came up with this idea, and tossed it at the airports. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

      Name the major system, ANY major system, that has/had zero bugs after being put into the field. After weeks/months/years of testing. The only thing I can think of that comes close is the Shuttle. Oops...we lost two of those, so thats out.

      Was Sen. Kennedy eventually allowed to fly? Yes. So it appears that the particular problem got worked out.
      What was the nature of the problem? Human, procedural, software? We don't kow. Yet.

    14. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they need to re-evaluate ...

      Or maybe that's no mistake ...

    15. Re:Our gov't at work by black+mariah · · Score: 1, Informative

      More like your total fucking inability to comprehend obvious humor. Watch more Monty Python until you learn.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    16. Re:Our gov't at work by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "As they should"???

      This system is ostensibly a way of preventing terrorist attacks, not keeping "immoral" people off airplanes.

    17. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
      According to MSNBC, "Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects."

      So everyone with a name of T. Kennedy is going to have trouble flying. That seems like a pretty fundamental flaw to me. You had better hope one of the suspects doesn't choose YrWrstNtmr as a alias!

    18. Re:Our gov't at work by NumbThumb · · Score: 1

      Absolutely right.

      Now, where have my mod points gone when I need them?

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this 120 chars is too small to contain.
    19. Re:Our gov't at work by jon787 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Here is another variant:

      A high ranking Admiral drives up to the gate of a naval base. This base has a policy of 100% check of ID cards and there is a new Marine on guard duty at the gate.
      Marine: I need to see your ID.
      Admiral: I don't have time for this nonsense. (to the driver) Go ahead.
      Marine: Don't do that.
      Admiral to driver: You heard me, Drive on.
      Marine draws his sidearm and says: Sir, this is my first time on post. Do I shoot you or your driver?

      --
      X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
    20. Re:Our gov't at work by positroniumman · · Score: 2, Insightful
      yes... now imagine that you are not a white american citizen...

      A system where the errors cannot be reported has absolutely no chance of evolving to its own betterment!

    21. Re:Our gov't at work by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, I agree. How his name got there, and why it took so long for a prominent figure to get off is pretty damn bad. You and I would stand little chance.

      Ok...here's a proposal. Every time we read about this stuff (checking ID's, No-Fly list, whatever) it's immediately bashed as unworkable, and an affront to our rights. And that may well be so.
      How about, instead of mindlessly bashing what they are trying, coming up with something better. Something that won't take decades to bring to fruition ("Don't be so mean to them and cause them to blow stuff up"). This is supposedly a smart group. Let's try to fix the process, instead of jumping up and down, screaming.

    22. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, what a fucking apologist you are. Why is it, that when anyone (not thought to be associated with terrorism) who's been flagged on the no-fly list are people involved in liberal politics? I've never heard it reported anywhere that a conservative was prohibited from flying. It's harassment from this adminstration, pure and simple.

    23. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I concur! There are psychotic, murdering, death-obsessed Islamists with Chechen names and Filipino names and Indonesian names and... well hell, they're from all over.

      None of which changes the fact that it's psychotic, murdering, death-obsessed Islamists that we should be watching out for and not the Oklahoma Militia and not the IRA and not the Catholic League for Decency, no matter how much the PC parent up there wants to imply that you're somehow racist by pointing out the fact that the vast majority of the threats to this country right now can be traced back to exactly one ideological source - and that's Islamism.

      And before you get your philosophical panties in a bunch, *yes* I know the difference between being a Muslim and being an Islamist.

      Guess how I know?

      -saeed

    24. Re:Our gov't at work by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      And checking the name "T. Kennedy" is merely the first step. Second level checking (full name, address, etc) would presumably clear all the other "T. Kennedys".

      How would YOU do it, if not by using the name as the first level check?

    25. Re:Our gov't at work by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The nature of the problem was rampant stupidity.

      Anyone that's worked with security, databases or identity management should be well aware of the fact that certain key values occur in populations to the point of being meaningless. This is not simply a problem of testing but of ignoring key principles within a discipline as well as the past mistakes of others.

      This situation is much more comparable Microsoft's policies regarding security.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    26. Re:Our gov't at work by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      it may be easier to get off the list if they think you're actually a threat. The ones you mentiones were alkl political and im sure they got the runaround.

    27. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      honestly. the terrorist plots are pretty kindergartenish.

      9/11 wasnt difficult, or complicated or tricky.
      it was ballsy.

      thats it. pure balls to actually do it.

      poor security obvisousely didnt help.

      terrorists really are not that smart (then again i think that of anyone who buys so deeply into a religion, to that extent)

      they do what is easy. 9/11 was easy for them. this country had 10 years of doing nothing in regards to terrorism. so it was quite easy to do what they planned.

      they actually allowed knives on planes. i will say that again, you could take knives on a plane.

      was is stupid security, or smart terrorists.
      i think its pretty obvious

    28. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of the NYT, which requires an irritating registration, anybody know what happened to BugMeNot? It quit resolving for a couple of days, and now just shows a nearly empty directory page. Was this just a server crash? (Did they lose their database?) Or was there something else at work?

    29. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe your not familiar with the person in question. I don't think you'll find this person standing by a computer, or seen on a Rock Video Station.

      Think of it this way; If this person is in on a list, and you are not on the same list, then you should become very concerned as to why. To coin a phrase, "U.S. Citizenship is 'Advanced Cititzenship'; You got to want it Bad."

      And boy does the above phrase piss off a whole planet full of good kind people!

    30. Re:Our gov't at work by dasmegabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh geez, like a guy who got arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct at a football game and former speed freak -- like our current president?

      Shit, man. I think if a former hard partier like Bush can become president of the country, the law should awknowledge that people can change. Otherwise the whole system is just hypocritical.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    31. Re:Our gov't at work by gorbachev · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yet they seem unable to learn from past mistakes.

      The Florida voter registration records fiasco before the last US presidential election was because of the same reason; removing people from the voter registration list based on names (and not even the whole name, but a few of the first letters, dumber than dumb), and some other criteria that practically ensured multiple people would match the criteria, when only one should.

      Who designs these systems? If I were to design a "matching algorithm" like that at work, my boss would seriously question my competency.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    32. Re:Our gov't at work by Trifthen · · Score: 1

      Yessa massa! Iffun yu flick yo wris' at the lef', dat whip dun work much betta!

      --
      Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
    33. Re:Our gov't at work by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      "Anyone that's worked with security, databases or identity management should be well aware of the fact that certain key values occur in populations to the point of being meaningless."

      You mean as if if the problem was Adulterers not Terrorists, and for some reason the government kept thinking all those "John Smith's" in the hotel registers were real names?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    34. Re:Our gov't at work by WillyElectrix · · Score: 1
      From "Brazil" (1985):

      I assure you, Mrs. Buttle, the Ministry is very scrupulous about following up and eradicating any error. If you have any complaints which you'd like to make, I'd be more than happy to send you the appropriate forms.

    35. Re:Our gov't at work by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Firstly, you talk like there was even a design meeting.

      It was more like "We need a no fly list, think someone can whip it up?" and some poor smuck was stuck working on it in a backroom somewhere.

      Issues like this were never really thought about.

      Though here's a nightmare thought. What happens if you go on a two week trip somewhere far from home and upon trying to board the plane to go home, your stopped because you've been accidentally added to the list. Now, lets just say you've got the same access as the Senator, that means only 3 weeks away from home and job...

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    36. Re:Our gov't at work by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It appears you assume that they didn't do any testing...any simulation on this process before implementation.

      I assume nothing. Whatever testing they did was prima facie insufficient, due to the fact that this problem arose. Any serious test plan should have included many situations where the system produces a false positive result. The system itself should have one or more mechanisms that deal with said false positive, and the testing should determine either that these mechanisms work well, or that they don't. If they didn't, they should have been fixed and tested again.

      It appears that some or all of that didn't happen, as exemplified by the fact that it took three weeks for a US Senator to resolve a problem that the Department of Homeland Security itself says should have never happened.

      Is you position that the system was well tested and this problem was beyond the reach of reasonable testing?

      I'd absolutely agree that any non-trivial system is bound to have bugs upon completion. Such systems should not, however, have huge, glaring, easy to predict bugs whose results take three weeks for anyone to correct, much less the staff of a US Senator. It's not so much the bugs that are the problem, it's when and how you deal with them.

      Note: I'm not saying that senators should get special treatment because of their position; I'm just saying that they usually do, and they certainly have access to all the right people.

    37. Re:Our gov't at work by The+Conductor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The answer is defense in depth. Screen for passengers for weapons, but realize that some will get through any realistic screening, so add layers that lengthen the odds. Investigate suspicious groups before they get to the airport. Put pressure on (or invade if you must) states that support these groups. Put on a bulletproof cockpit door to stop them if they do get on the plane; I would go further and give the cockpit an outside door, so it is inaccessible from the passenger cabin. Give the pilots (or, for that matter, properly qualified passengers) guns so they can fight back. Put remote control lockouts on the aircraft. Fit supertall buildings with anti-aircraft weapons (specially designed for short range so they don't get hijacked).

      Granted, some of these things are being done, but the mindset is still one of looking for the perfect threat detection system, rather than one of minimizing risk for some given cost. We must accept that, whatever we do short of abandoning civilian aviation entirely, there will be a finite risk of hijackings. Any security measure must be judged by risk reduction vs cost, and compared to other, possibly less costly, measures to reduce risk.

    38. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a shit!!!! If a few people are inconvenienced by this then tough! At least it stops homicidal maniacs flying massive passenger aircraft into tall buildings! C'mon people get a grip. What's worse? An atrocity, or a few (thousand) people having their noses put out of joint, what's a few thousand out of the entire population of U.S????

    39. Re:Our gov't at work by geordie_loz · · Score: 1

      Surely it's all a bit crap if you use the name in the first place. I mean if they're using an alias, then what stops them travelling under different names each time.

      If we're talking about ID, say a passport, which would need replacing for each identity, then maybe that's less feasble to change names each time. But then why not use that (i.e. passport number/id identifier) as the identifier?

    40. Re:Our gov't at work by Ryosen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>How would YOU do it, if not by using the name as the first level check?

      I'd probably take my head out of my ass and familiarize myself with the world around me. It's not as if Ted Kennedy is an obscure personality. It's not as though he hasn't been one of the most prominant figures in American politics for the past 42 years. And this happened in Washington D.C. and then again in his home state? How do you excuse that level of ignorance?

      The fact that it took 3 weeks for one of the most powerful politicians in this country to get cleared off of the list, while sweetly ironic, doesn't hold much hope for the rest of us regular schlubs who might also run up against the same problem. I don't know about you but I certainly can't use the excuse that I'm a U.S. Senator to get through airport security. And while it might bring a small measure of comfort to know that the TSA is not making exceptions, it still smacks of the asinine overkill that followed 9/11 when they were scanning children, searching old women and making nursing mothers drink their own breastmilk.

      Of course, using a pattern of "first initial, last name" is not exactly an accurate means of finding a match for terrorists, now, is it?

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    41. Re:Our gov't at work by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Remember that Florida tried to purge Democratic-friendly voters a second time. At first, they refused to turn over a list of the names of the people purged, to prevent the tactic from being discovered until it was to late to counter. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me... won't get fooled again. They got caught working to steal the election.

      It really looks like the TSA simply doesn't care whether innocent civilians are denied the ability to use the nation's airlines. The hassles in air travel now make the choice between driving six hours and buying an airplane ticket or two easy; I drive. I'm looking at a 14 hour drive in October for me and my wife. I am reluctant to try flying. What if my name is on the no-fly list?

    42. Re:Our gov't at work by burns210 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heh. You jest, but one of the 'security'features of traveling within the states(state to state) is having to show valid ids, sometime 2. What I don't understand is, why? If these security features were in answer to 9-11 attacks, and all the attackers had valid ID, why make the rule.

      It is(apparently) not overly hard to get valid ID, a dozen Saudis did it, so what were they trying to accomplish?

    43. Re:Our gov't at work by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      I think it was more like "we need a no fly list. Give this important contributor to my last campaign a no-bid contract to implement it. Make very sure he has enough money left over to contribute to my next campaign. If the list actually improves security, that would be good, too."

    44. Re:Our gov't at work by illtud · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      The Florida voter registration records fiasco before the last US presidential election was because of the same reason; removing people from the voter registration list based on names (and not even the whole name, but a few of the first letters, dumber than dumb), and some other criteria that practically ensured multiple people would match the criteria, when only one should.

      Stupidity or design? You don't have to be a signed up member of the tinfoil brigade to suspect that removing a whole lot of black (highly likely to vote democrat, if they vote) electors from the list could have been the motive.

    45. Re:Our gov't at work by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The point is that the system didn't work like you "presume". Yes, it worked eventually. But "working" or "not working" is not a binary choice here. The speed at which it works is critical. It took 3 weeks for a senator with connections to get his name cleared. How long would it take a normal citizen.

      A better way to implement this would have been to have a test period where the travellers are notified that they're flagged but not stop them from flying. Each flag is then investigate to see if it is a false positive, and how long it took to clear false positives. Only after this trial period, and fixing the bugs, should they actually stop people from flying.

    46. Re:Our gov't at work by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      You're making one critical error in your plan..

      Slashdot is basically the PFJ from the "Life of Brian"

    47. Re:Our gov't at work by strike2867 · · Score: 1

      they actually allowed knives on planes. i will say that again, you could take knives on a plane.

      Big deal. I will say it again, big deal. Most black belts in Kung Fu can pearce your body with their hand. My Sifu had even done it. Some guy was attacking a woman and her child, and my Sifu just walked up and in one hit put his hand through him. His entire hand was inside the man's body(just below the ribs). There is a famous master in China who hits a plate of iron every day for hours. There is now a hole in it. He once punched somebody and killed them in that one hit. A knife would be pretty worthless against someone who knows how to fight. Most masters would probably put that knife through your throat just for a laugh if you attacked them with it.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    48. Re:Our gov't at work by BK425 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that Ted Kennedy would grand stand in order to get the political benefit of TV face-time, but the triggers for this list are extremely well known. If you wanted to get on the list, buying a one way ticket with cash has been on the news...
      And yes, saying that a large federal beuracracy is slow and ineffective is sort of like saying the sky is blue. That's why I'm so excited about improving health care with a federal single payer system ;-)

    49. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So everyone with a name of T. Kennedy is going to have trouble flying. That seems like a pretty fundamental flaw to me. You had better hope one of the suspects doesn't choose YrWrstNtmr as a alias!

      Worse, this seams to mean all terrorists named T. Kennedy will now all get on planes unchecked? Yipes!

      What if thre was a good reason T. Kennedy ws on that list.

    50. Re:Our gov't at work by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a pretty awesome trick the Republicans pulled, getting Democrat precinct officials to deliberately remove potential Democrat voters from the rolls. Those Republican operatives definitely need a raise and a promotion.

      And just in case you don't get it: Voter registration rolls are handled by the local precinct officials.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    51. Re:Our gov't at work by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I'm also driving at this point. I don't care what they say about "random" security checks, but my family and I are ALWAYS flagged. Ok, I'm a born American. My wife is originally from Russia. We've got kids in tow. Yep, we look like your typical terrorists. (NOT!) :-/

      I think the only way to fix this lousy excuse for security is to state that we won't use planes until they fix the problem. For me, that means I'm driving. (Hey, road trips are fun!) For others, it might mean that they build themselves a plane. Others still might go for private charters. Whatever works best for you.

      Of course, we wouldn't NEED this security if everyone carried guns like the founding fathers intended. So a terrorists pulls out his handgun. (Uzis are not the type of thing that a "normal" security scan would allow on the plane as carry on.) Whoop-de-do. Watch as three hundred other passengers pull out handguns, knives, and other assorted weaponry. If that terrorist thinks he's going to last longer than two seconds in a fire-fight, he's got another thing coming. That, my friends, is democracy in action! ;-)

    52. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, now whatever organization (alqueda, etc) the bad T Kennedy was with now knows that this guy is being watched; and will be more careful with jobs they assign him. So in effect the main result is that they just tip off the bad guys about the investigation.

    53. Re:Our gov't at work by BK425 · · Score: 1

      CHANGE?? I voted for him because I thought he still was a "hard partier" ;-)

      (Yes, that was a joke folks. Just move along now...)

    54. Re:Our gov't at work by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course, using a pattern of "first initial, last name" is not exactly an accurate means of finding a match for terrorists, now, is it?


      simple:
      if ($passengerName=~/Kennedy/){$passengerName =~ s/^([Tt]\.)/Terrorist/;}
      There you go, run this on the passenger list and there's no question that T. Kennedy is a terrorist!

      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    55. Re:Our gov't at work by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well if you assume that this is actually expected to increase some amount of security then yes I would assume they did testing.

      However I would assume that they know how easy it is to fake ones identity and that this is just meant to be used to annoy undesirables of the curent administration and appear as if they are increasing security when in reality it can't easily be increased any higher than it already is.

      Afterall, there really has been no need whatsoever to increase airport security. Its just like John Gilmore's note that the entire process of asking for ID at airports came about after an airplane crashed from a mechanical failure that was, for a short time, thought to be terrorism.

      So how does the program of asking for ID prevent mechanical failures? Oh thats right it doesn't. It was yet another attempt to make people FEEL safer in their flights, whether or not the danger was real.

      So was Teddy allowed to fly? Yes he was. The prgram works just fine FOR ANYONE WHO CAN MAKE PERSONAL PHONE CALLS TO TOM RIDGE FOR 3 WEEKS!

      Makes me feel better. Afterall, I know every slashdotter, much like Teddy, keeps Tom Ridge's personal phone number in his cell phone, and talks to him all the time. Right?

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    56. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you babeling about ? Take a deep break, put down the caffine....

    57. Re:Our gov't at work by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd probably take my head out of my ass and familiarize myself with the world around me. It's not as if Ted Kennedy is an obscure personality.

      And if Kerry wins in November, suddenly anyone with the name "G.W. Bush" is going to have trouble flying.

    58. Re:Our gov't at work by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can't win... just the other day was a slashdot story about NOT having to present ID in order to travel...

      People, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. I personally don't think showing ID to travel on a plane is that bad. Comparing it with the former Soviet Union is a joke... you don't get stopped on every road at every state border with people asing for "papers, please".

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    59. Re:Our gov't at work by JayJayEm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because in fact the 9-11 hijackers were already on various watch lists, which, had they been operated properly, combined with proper ID, might have prevented them from boarding the aircraft. It's ALWAYS going to be a good thing to know who someone really is from a security point of view.

    60. Re:Our gov't at work by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Pierce, there is no such word as "pearce" and I think you ought not to believe everything people boast about to you !

    61. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nearly every aspect of this homeland "security" as implemented appears to have come from some underperforming kindergarten class.
      Amen.
    62. Re:Our gov't at work by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually from reading the article it appears that he was allowed to fly every time anyway, he just wanted to get his name off the list to stop the inconvenience of arguing about his right to fly every time.

      This makes an even greater mockery of the system if people on this list are allowed to board planes even though they are identified on the list.

      Overall though I don't know what all this argument concerning the details of this system is about given the enormous stupidity and invasiveness of this system in the first place. Honestly you are now in a situation where you may well have to effectively prove your right to fly where you want in your own country and if your request is denied you then have to spend weeks arguing with some slow moving bureaucracy who may or may not tell you if you are on the list and may or may not tell you why you are on it.

      Does that sound like America to you or does it sound more like communist China and Russia 20 years ago ?

    63. Re:Our gov't at work by BK425 · · Score: 1

      Log in! There's a special filter that prevents you from seeing irony when you're posting as an AC...

    64. Re:Our gov't at work by harrkev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps, but I still wonder why it should be necessary...

      It is not WHO you are, but what you take on the plane with you. Even if Osama himself is on the plane, what is he going to do if he cannot even get his hands on a knitting needle?

      You have to make a choice: Reduce your chance of dying by 0.000000000001% vs a 100% chance of loosing some liberties.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    65. Re:Our gov't at work by killjoe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      " Oh, I agree. How his name got there, and why it took so long for a prominent figure to get off is pretty damn bad. "

      Mmmm. Maybe because he is a prominent democrat and the homeland security director is a prominent republican? After all how many terrorists are named Kennedy?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    66. Re:Our gov't at work by DrJacko · · Score: 1

      Its not about the bugs, its about how you handle the bugs and your turn-around time.

      The government is notoriously bad when it comes to rectifying problems. Try having an immigration problem, thats the dead letter office of the new centuty.

      Always have an exit strategy.
      Dr. Jacko

    67. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad there wasn't a "No Drive" list during the "Chappaquiddick" era of Kennedy's career...

    68. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't resist a dig at Microsoft, you fucking slashdot dittohead clod?

    69. Re:Our gov't at work by killjoe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      An even worse scenario.

      What if you were on vacation far away and you were put on some terrorist list. Then on your way back you were held for a while, shipped over to lebanon where people beat you on your way to a syrian prison (presumably because the US and the syrian governements have signed a "please torture our prisoners because it's illegal in our country" treaty) . Once at the syrian prison what if you were tortured daily for 10 months. And then mysteriously let go.

      It could happen

      --
      evil is as evil does
    70. Re:Our gov't at work by bigpat · · Score: 1

      "We must accept that, whatever we do short of abandoning civilian aviation entirely, there will be a finite risk of hijackings."

      Airplane hijakings, that is. ships and ground transport would still be up for grabs. The only real solution to prevent the possiblity of hijakings is to not have any vehicles that transport large numbers of people at all. That would thwart al qaeda terrorists and their mass transit loving eco terrorist friends alike.

    71. Re:Our gov't at work by n9mdh · · Score: 0

      Except that the list has never resulted in a terrorist being arrested. For that matter, it has never resulted in anyone at all being arrested.

      Think it through logically. A terrorist wants to get on a flight. They invent a new alias. They get on the flight without a problem, thanks to a nifty fake drivers license they whipped together in no time at all. Next time? New alias for the flight. The no-fly list will only catch extremely stupid terrorists, of whom logic says should be simple enough to catch without it.

    72. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to make a choice: Reduce your chance of dying by 0.000000000001% vs a 100% chance of loosing some liberties.

      Idiot.

    73. Re:Our gov't at work by FriendComputer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point isn't that showing an ID is that bad. The point is that the system should be secure enough that anyone could be on the airplane, and it wouldn't make any difference. The problem we have right now is that the people are being harrassed by the government, and things aren't much safer than before.

      --
      ----- Rooting out Commie Mutant Traitors since 1984
    74. Re:Our gov't at work by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      If the analogy fits, why not use it?

      Microsoft failed to learn from the Morris Worm and the TSA failed to learn from anyone that ever had the shocking realization that a large portion of their customers are from Afghantistan.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    75. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just imagine how much trouble people named Hugh Jass or Jack Mehoff are running into everyday.

    76. Re:Our gov't at work by strike2867 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      There were witnesses. He appeared in court and the case was dismissed. The guy who was hit can't even walk straight now. I also talked to some people who saw my Sifu take out four black belts. He got a huge trophy for it too, I see it nearly every day. He starred in a Chinese Kung Fu movie. I saw it(it wasn't that good but interesting), it's called Eagle Claw. A black belt in Mantis Kung Fu needs to be able to pierce most parts of the opponents body with his finger. I'm studying with him now.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    77. Re:Our gov't at work by tsm_sf · · Score: 2, Informative

      The 'felon list' is handled by the state. Since both Google and personal memory appear to not work on your end (or just in case you don't get it):

      http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/01/florida. elections/

      http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_sc raps_felon_.shtml

      http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,64182,00.ht ml

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    78. Re:Our gov't at work by Lord+Dimwit+Flathead · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...asinine overkill that followed 9/11 when they were scanning children, searching old women and making nursing mothers drink their own breastmilk

      The breastmilk-drinking bit was certainly asinine and a violation of the woman's rights. However, the refusal to exempt old women and children from searches was actually a good security decision. When certain classes of people are systematically excluded from searches, a smart attacker will exploit that exclusion to carry out his attack. Even if he can't recruit an old woman or a child to his cause directly, he probably can get one to carry something through the checkpoint for him, whether knowingly or not. An effective search campaign must include random target selection, preferably in combination with targeted selection based on risk factors.

      That having been said, I agree with your main point, that Senator Kennedy's troubles with the no-fly list do not bode well for the average citizen who happens to find himself so listed.

    79. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you're joking about the nursing mothers having to drink their own breast milk

    80. Re:Our gov't at work by JoeWalsh · · Score: 1

      Voter registration rolls are handled by the local precinct officials.

      Yes, but local precinct officials are subordinate to the state election officials, though, as pointed out in this article, for example: 'In the months leading up to the November 2000 presidential election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, in coordination with Governor Jeb Bush, ordered local election supervisors to purge 57,700 voters from the registries, supposedly ex-cons not allowed to vote in Florida. At least 90.2 percent of those on this "scrub" list, targeted to lose their civil rights, are innocent.'

      It wasn't the local officials who decided to make the purge; it was Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush, both Republicans and both working for the G.W. Bush campaign.

    81. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Fit supertall buildings with anti-aircraft weapons (specially designed for short range so they don't get hijacked). That's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. You're going to shoot something flying directly towards you at 600mph with a short range weapon? Better hope you don't miss with that one shot! And where are most "supertall" buildings located? In the middle of large cities! So shooting an airplane down from the building itself will only result in scattering flaming debris over dozens of other densly populated buildings - what a great solution!

    82. Re:Our gov't at work by Cramer · · Score: 1

      This isn't a bug, exactly. Some dumbass put "T. Kennedy" on the list. What fscking idiot puts wildcards into a terrorist database?

      "I'm sorry, your name contains the letter e. You'll have to come back next Tuesday between 4:31am and 5:17am to get on a flight."

    83. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you assume that they didn't do any testing

      They denied a 70-year old SENATOR from boarding a plane because he might be a Middle-Eastern Terrorist.

      Doesn't sound like they did any QA at all....

    84. Re:Our gov't at work by illtud · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a pretty awesome trick the Republicans pulled, getting Democrat precinct officials to deliberately remove potential Democrat voters from the rolls. Those Republican operatives definitely need a raise and a promotion.

      And just in case you don't get it: Voter registration rolls are handled by the local precinct officials.


      Yes, it was the precinct officals who received the list, prepared by Database Technologies (on a $4M contract - nice money for shoddy work) of people to be excluded from the roll. What's their political inclinations got to do with this? The felon list contract was awarded by Katherine Harris, a republican. What were the county supervisors to do, throw it away? (well, one did: - Emogene Stegall).

      Explain to me what the precinct officals (Democrat or not) should have done with the list given to them.

    85. Re:Our gov't at work by Mmm_Coco · · Score: 1

      yea, and then someone de-pressurizes the plane by shooting a hole in the cabin

    86. Re:Our gov't at work by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I'll bet he has a huge trophy, but you shouldn't let him show it to you *every* day. There are laws against that kind of behaviour in most places now you know.

    87. Re:Our gov't at work by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      Comparing it with the former Soviet Union is a joke... you don't get stopped on every road at every state border with people asing for "papers, please".

      "At least it's not as bad as in [USSR | China | Iran | N. Korea | Nazi Germany]" Ah, yes. The eternal cry of the optimist.

      If you're driving on a public road within the US, the cops can pull you over and check your papers whenever they feel like it, you don't even have to cross any state borders. As far as I know, you can still travel anonymously by train or bus, but how long do you think that'll last?

    88. Re:Our gov't at work by colanut · · Score: 1

      Hey,if its a good enough system for striping people of their right to vote, it is certainly good enough to stop people from flying in an airplane. Nice.

    89. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, first we have to define our goal(s). Is it:

      Eliminate terrorism.
      If we are going to work for the impossible, I am will to accept the risk of terrorism if we put all of those resource to the Natalie Portman Clone Project.

      Prevent commercial airplanes from being used as a bomb.
      Intensive commercial pilot investigations, similar to Secret Service agent screening. Steel cockpit doors. Armed Air Marshalls.

      Reduce terrorism so the the risks are within are tolerance for normal activities ie. auto accidents.
      We are already there.

      Prevent terrorism from crippling the populace with fear.
      Education.

      Use terrorism to cripple the populace with fear.
      Education.

      Provoke an apocalyptic war between Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
      You are on your own for this one, but for the uncreative partisans in the audience here are your talking points.
      Democrats - reelect Bush
      Republicans - appease terrorists

      Create a CYA illusion of safety.
      No fly list.

      Create an uniformed and fearful populace that can be easily manipulated.
      Create and use one way propaganda words like terrorists, homeland security and WMD.

      Significantly reduce the ability of a single person to damage others or property.
      Classify most information that exists above a fourth grade education. Intellectual purge.

      As you can see, we first have to decide upon a goal before we can come up with something better. For all we know the goal(s) are being implemented with surgical precision.

    90. Re:Our gov't at work by Ikari+Gendo · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty awesome trick you pulled, telling a lie as if it were informative and true. You definitely need a raise and promotion.

      And just in case you don't get it, confirming the validity of the voter purge list was never done at the state level, and was impossible to do at the local level (no funding).

      All counties were handed a purge list. Since it is illegal to knowingly permit Florida felons to vote, and since such a purge list arguably counts as sufficient information, county officials were faced with the choice of ignoring the list in whole or in part (thus facing censure, prosecution, or political fallout), or using the entire purge list.

      It's not particularly amazing what you can get people to do when you point a loaded weapon at them, so the Republican operatives don't deserve a raise.

    91. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't a joke. Here is an article about it.

    92. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch as three hundred other passengers pull out handguns, knives, and other assorted weaponry. If that terrorist thinks he's going to last longer than two seconds in a fire-fight, he's got another thing coming.

      "So, Abdul, this is the plan. Wait until the airline reaches 30,000 feet then jump up and declare 'This is a hijacking!'. Those Americans will blow so many holes in that airplane that you don't even need to carry explosives. You will be rewarded with 40 doe-eyed virgins!"

    93. Re:Our gov't at work by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Then there's the "only ticketed passengers allowed past security". HELLO! The 9/11 guys had tickets!

      I guess, though, that it's a QoS issue. If there's a 3 hour backup with ticket passengers only, it would be 6 hours if they let anyone into the terminal...

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    94. Re:Our gov't at work by fredklein · · Score: 1

      ...and before someone talks out their ass about "explosive decpmoression", it wouldn't happen.

      And not all the passengers would be armed. And not all would shoot. And it you use the right bullets, they won't pierce the plane's skin.

      But enough people probably _would_ carry onboard to make any attempted hijacking unsuccessful.

    95. Re:Our gov't at work by JayBat · · Score: 3, Interesting
      How would YOU do it, if not by using the name as the first level check?

      I would ignore names and ID's. This approach is stupid. Trivial to fake. I am very angry that my government is wasting my money and time on this utter BS. If you really want air transport security, you:

      Massively increase spending on physical search of people and baggage. 3X-5X would probably be a minimum. This means everybody, including maintenance, food service and airport staff gets screened, every time, fast.

      100% air marshall coverage on commercial passenger flights with max gross over X,000 lbs. (you decide how big you want X to be...).

      100% security screen on bizjet flights over X,000 lbs max gross (yes, Carly, Steve, and Larry, that means you).

      This is very expensive. If you do it right, security screener and air marshall become well-paid, prestigious, sought-after jobs.

      You don't do it (like the current situation), then you're just pretending you want security and (willfully or not) hoping that the bad guys and the public at large are too fscking stupid to notice.

      BTW, this isn't even starting on truck/train/ship/air freight security. If you're gonna be scared about something, be scared about that.

      FWIW, I don't think you should be scared about terrorist threats at all; they want you to be scared. (Figuring out who "they" are left as an exercise for the reader. Hint: there's more than one. :-)

    96. Re:Our gov't at work by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      This isn't about bugs. This is about bug-brained bureaucrats.

      Don't you think a REAL terrorist, as opposed to the typical moron the Dept. of Bureaucratic Stupidity imagines, is going to do a dry run using test names and identities to make sure they're clear of this pathetic little system BEFORE they act? This kind of prevention is like that little hook and chain most people have on their front doors. It makes them feel good but it's not going to protect them in a real emergency. Same with making folks take their shoes off. You don't suppose any terrorists are ever going to try that again, do you? This is like the military always fighting the last war. It's called "reaction," and it's the root of the word "reactionary," which is all these fools can ever be. That's because they have neither the intelligence nor the creativity to actually plan ahead, so they make everyone else's life miserable shutting the barn door after the Bin Ladens have already flown home. Perhaps there should be a minimum IQ for government employees. Or maybe just give them a test to see if they can think their way out of a paper bag.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    97. Re:Our gov't at work by JamesP · · Score: 1

      I wonder if someone called Osama B. Laden is going to get flagged...

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    98. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be a sort of sick ironic justice, since this is not the only "liberal" who has been denied access to the nations airways in the last 4 years (dont have access to the approximatley 200 links I have collected right now).

    99. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How do you build a short ranged anti-aircraft weapon system capable of taking out a transoceanic aircraft moving at high subsonic speeds?

      I'd say you can't. The Navy's CIWS fires 20mm-ish bullets out to a range of a mile or more for example.. very useful against... say.. armored bank cars.

      Now, I saw on the History channel, that New York city is supplied with water by only 2 large tunnels from the Catskills. (May have seen the 3rd being build in 'Die Hard 3') Tunnel 1 is about 125 year old and has never once been shut down for inspection or repair... Story goes the city water engineers tried sometime back and the valves wouldn't close and there was a awful noise, or something and they stopped trying to close the pipe) My point.. destroy 1 of the 2 pipes feeding NYC and presto.. 4 million people who are crammed into a small space are with out water... riots, mass panic, etc. Exploding airplanes is just all flash.

      But no one would ever put AAA on a building, so my reply is only academic, and kind of pointless. :-)

    100. Re:Our gov't at work by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      I used to work in a closed lab (clearance and access list required, or escorted only).

      Anyways, to make a long story short, the president of the company came by for a tour, and was challenged by my officemate, since he wasn't on the list, and didn't have an escort.

      My officemate got a commendation for it.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    101. Re:Our gov't at work by DavidTC · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And if the system did work, if they do get barred from actual flying, at any point in time, no matter that name they use...hey, look, the terrorists just learned who they shouldn't bring along they next time they feel like hijacking a plane.

      See, I'm having real problems figuring out how a No Fly list would keep terrorists from hijacking planes even if it magically worked perfectly at barring whoever we wanted from flying. I mean, even if we magically had the DNA of everyone in existence, including terrorists, and checked it against everyone flying...it only takes X people who aren't on the list to hijack the plane. And they'll know exactly who they are, because we let them fly and stopped everyone else!

      The only way a no-fly list works is if we magically know who every single terrorist is...and if we know that we should just arrest them!

      It's like searches. If they keep searching a guy before letting him on the plane...well, you know who not to give the weapons to. In fact, let's get fifty of those guys on one flight, and have the fifty-first, the one not on the list, carrying all the razor blades inside his laptop's CD-ROM compartment. They'll spend all their time searching the other 50 guys, and the laptop guy can just hide the razor blades in the bathroom and let the other fifty guys pick them up one at a time.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    102. Re:Our gov't at work by fredklein · · Score: 1

      1) That was supposed to be "explosive decompression"

      2) I was 3 minutes late

      3) Like i said, ED wouldn't happen, for several reasons.

      4) I thought it was 72 virgins.

    103. Re:Our gov't at work by CristalShandaLear · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd probably take my head out of my ass and familiarize myself with the world around me. It's not as if Ted Kennedy is an obscure personality. It's not as though he hasn't been one of the most prominant figures in American politics for the past 42 years. And this happened in Washington D.C. and then again in his home state? How do you excuse that level of ignorance?

      Probably wasn't ignorance. Maybe he's just pissed off the wrong person and this is D.C version of being Punk'd.

      Senator A: Ted still won't get on board fella's.

      Senator B: *giggling like a school girl* Wait 'til he finds out he's on the no-fly list until he rolls over!

      Senator A: Dude?! You didn't?

      Senator B: Totally.

      Senator A: Sweet.

    104. Re:Our gov't at work by KjetilK · · Score: 1
      Actually, Arne Næss sr. and Jens Bjørneboe got into the main NATO headquarters at Kolsås in Norway some time in the 1950-ties with something like this tactic. Long story short: They wanted a bottle of wine, and figured with all the big shots at Kolsås, they should have a fine bottle of wine... So they walked up to the main gate and fooled the guards that they were some kind of big shots themselves.

      Well, in reality they were one of the most famous academics and authors in the country at the time, but what the heck...

      So, they got in, but in the search for wine, they bumped into a real admiral, who wondered what these guys where doing in there, and how they got in...

      The scene must have been absolutely monty pythonian, "you broke into NATO HQ for a bottle of wine?" and "of course we came through the main gate, have you seen all the barbed wire out there!?!"

      They didn't write this story up before much later, I read it a couple of years ago.

      On the serious side: Getting on a list, being watched and getting no information as to how you got there is extremely annoying, there is more than a little essential freedom that has been lost here.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    105. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. But the milk was in a bottle at the time.

    106. Re:Our gov't at work by Bearpaw · · Score: 5, Funny
      And if Kerry wins in November, suddenly anyone with the name "G.W. Bush" is going to have trouble flying.

      It wouldn't be the first time someone with the name "G. W. Bush" has had trouble flying ...

    107. Re:Our gov't at work by BlueTooth · · Score: 1

      Of course, if someone flys and blows up a plane during this test period, there would be an investigation. That investigation would show that the pasanger had been flagged, but not stopped. The system's implementors would loose credability and an even more draconian system would take its place.

      --
      SPAM
    108. Re:Our gov't at work by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think airplane hijackings are a thing of the past.

      Pre 9/11 it was "don't be a hero" usually involving flying the plane somewhere and trying to get someone freed and no one got hurt. Now with the potential fact that they may want to fly the plane into building/ground/etc. most people would take the risk of getting injured rather than being sheep led to the slaughter.

    109. Re:Our gov't at work by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      Watch as three hundred other passengers pull out handguns, knives, and other assorted weaponry.

      Oh yeah, that's what I want - dozens of yahoos with guns on a flying tin can full of jet fuel.

      A more likely scenario: watch as a couple of drunk passengers get into a fight, pull out their handguns and start shooting at each other in the middle of a crowded plane.

    110. Re:Our gov't at work by fredklein · · Score: 1

      How about, instead of mindlessly bashing what they are trying, coming up with something better.

      Idea 1) Take the names of government officials (like, say, SENATORS) OFF THE LIST.

      Idea 2) Allow passengers to carry guns or other weapons onboard planes. [If you're going to mention Explosive Decompression, don't bother replying!]

    111. Re:Our gov't at work by CristalShandaLear · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. People should be persecuted for wearing a tin foil hat.

    112. Re:Our gov't at work by johnnyb · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think this should be implemented more widely. If we get all of our congressmen labelled as terrorists, perhaps it will prevent them from going to Washington, DC and making idiotic laws.

    113. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shooting an airplane down from the building itself will only result in scattering flaming debris over dozens of other densly populated buildings - what a great solution!

      I'd rather have minor damage to a lot of buildings (from falling debris) than have the World Trade Towers knocked down. (And, incidently, have damage to nearby buildings, too!)

    114. Re:Our gov't at work by iocat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      One of the big reasons they need to know who you are before you get on a plane -- the airline, not the TSA -- is so that if it crashes, they have an accurate list of who died. This prevents notifying the wrong people, etc. It's kind of morbid, but it makes a lot of sense.

      One of the reasons the TSA checks IDs everyday is so that if there's ever a time when they need to be checking IDs to make it tougher for someone to travel under a false name, they don't have to suddenly invent the procedure.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    115. Re:Our gov't at work by chaoticset · · Score: 1
      Funny, I could've sworn fascism was tried a few times already as a security measure. Seems to have failed before, too.


      Do we have even the tiniest expectation that our leaders will attempt to learn from history?

      --

      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
    116. Re:Our gov't at work by demachina · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid in this case its pretty well established the TSA's no fly list is being used as a tool to punish political opponents of the current administration. They have pretty much banned less well known anti war activists from flying for some time now and they have no recourse to get their names cleared.

      I'm wagering someone in the Bush administration thought it would be funny to punish Sen. Kennedy for his outspoken and harsh criticism of the Bush administration on a number of fronts, since they've already been doing it to less well known activists so the precedent is already set. The message being you better shut up because we have the power now and we can make your life a living hell if we want to and you can't stop us.

      It might come back to haunt them since now they've pissed off someone with enough power to punish, or at least raise awareness, of no fly list abuses, along with the many other abuses of power by the current administration.

      That aside it is insane to have a system which is punishing people based on nothing but names since it is inevitable there will be more than one person with that name in the world, and that a real terrorist will probably be using aliases at this point anyway. It is a system designed to punish the innocent and indicative of the insane measures the current government is implementing to create a facade of safety to hide their incompetence. I've said this before, if the TSA wanted to prevent another 9/11 put armored cockpit doors on all airplanes which I think they've done. It doesn't cost much, no more 9/11's and at a fraction of the cost of current TSA measures, no intrusion of personal liberties, no damage to the economic health of airlines.

      --
      @de_machina
    117. Re:Our gov't at work by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      Too bad there aren't any Senators named A. Smith. I bet that's a favorite of the terrorists. Personally, if I were going to make up a name to get on an airplane, I think I'd use G. W. Bush. Now there's someone Ridge wouldn't screw with.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    118. Re:Our gov't at work by demachina · · Score: 1

      Uh....its not like its a hard problem. Put armored cockpit doors on all airliners...I think already done....improve screening for explosives, the technology does exist.

      Maybe terrorists will still be able to attack passengers in an airplane, or crash one at worst, but there won't be any more hijackings, or targeted crashngs, it doesn't cost much, is pretty foolproof and no abuse of civil liberties.

      --
      @de_machina
    119. Re:Our gov't at work by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      Because this isn't about actually preventing anything. It's to maintain the level of "terror" so W will have a prayer in Hell of getting reelected. This is political theater. It's not reality.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    120. Re:Our gov't at work by crabpeople · · Score: 1
      or instead of all that fear based "defense" maybe you could use that money to make sure all the other countries in the world have a better standard of living. in this way you can eliminate terror (or greatly reduce the support of it) and also make the USA out to be something other than an evil empire.

      An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cures

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    121. Re:Our gov't at work by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Yes a good irish name like Kennedy, who would be named that. I don't know how about McVeigh?

    122. Re:Our gov't at work by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Take the names of government officials (like, say, SENATORS) OFF THE LIST.

      So anybody using the alias "Tom Daschle" or "John McCain" is automatically cleared to fly. COOL!

      Allow passengers to carry guns or other weapons onboard planes.

      Bad idea.
      How many people actually carry on a daily basis? Concealed or open. I've seen stats that point to maybe 2% (in those places where you can). On a 100 person flight, that gives you 2 people. 3, if you include the Sky Marshal. 3 people, unknown to each other, uncoordinated in methods, and of unknown skill. All the bad guy has to do is load up a particular flight with 6 of his own. An automatic 2-1 advantage. Add in timing, practice, choice of seating, and you have a HUGE advantage for the attackers.
      Station 2 sleepers at the rear of the cabin. As soon as your two regular passengers identify themselves, shoot them from behind. They can then carry on with their mission.

      The criminals will always use the maximum armament needed to complete their mission. Allow firearms in the general flying public, and they'll use those. If everybody carried a weapon, I'd agree with you. But they don't.

    123. Re:Our gov't at work by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 1

      "I certainly can't use the excuse that I'm a U.S. Senator to get through airport security."

      So now which name do you think the terrorists will know is NOT being checked? If you can answer that one you will be qualified to be Director of Homeland Security and get a free pass to all White House weenie roasts.

      Let's face it. These characters couldn't find their way out of a Texas whore.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    124. Re:Our gov't at work by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing about stopping sharp objects from being taken on the plane always sounds pretty dumb to me. In something that has lots of internal metal parts (say, a laptop), hiding a flat nondescript piece of razor sharp metal shouldn't even be a challenge. Other things - say, glass or ceramic - aren't sharp initially, but when you break them, they become sharp. What is to stop a terrorist from, say, bringing a picture frame in his carry on and shattering it on board? Sharp objects are just too easy to come by.

      --
      No matter how kind you are, German children are kinder.
    125. Re:Our gov't at work by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      And I agree with you there. We shouldn't have to argue with people about our right to move about our own country, which means we shouldn't have our government putting out these lists like this.

      They should either have enough evidenc eon an individual where they tell the airlines "if this guy tries to fly, let us know so we can come arrest him", or they should be not releasing their name to anyone.

      Basically, unless you rputting their name on a wanted poster, you shouldn'[t be releasing their names anywhere.

      But beyond that, I have a problem with systems that don't work as intended. They can't hope to actually acomplish the task that they intend to using systems like this. This has no hope whatsoever of increasing airport security. Hence, it is unfit for its intended task, and should be dismantled on that point alone.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    126. Re:Our gov't at work by hopethishelps · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How would YOU do it, if not by using the name as the first level check?

      I wouldn't do it at all. The whole concept of depriving people of the right to travel just because they are vaguely "suspected" of something stinks.

      If the government wants to penalize somebody in such a major way, it should have to:

      1. Tell that person what he/she is accused of
      2. Give the person an opportunity to confront his/her accusers in court and rebut the evidence
      3. Have a judge or jury consider the evidence in public
      Most of us thought we had that right. Too many people seem willing to give it up, in return for an illusory feeling of "security". The chance of your being injured by a terrorist in the next year is considerably less than the chance of your being injured by a non-terrorist driving an automobile. There are risks in life, get used to it. Giving up essential liberties, which took centuries of struggle and sacrifice to get, just to possibly reduce some already-tiny risk, is irresponsible, short-sighted, and extremely stupid.
    127. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in my days as a reservist, I was on an exercise, middle of the night, stuck in a trench guarding the HQ for our service battallion. Not a glamorous job, I assure you.

      Anyway, we knew the drill for challenging anyone approaching the HQ, but the first step was to tell the person to stop. The problem was, the generator was right beside us, and we could barely make ourselves heard above the noise.

      I had a couple people get waayyy too close before hearing me shouting at them to stop. Then we had a captain that figured he could just ignore the whole protocol anyway, and he just pretended he didn't hear me. I had to open fire on him (with blanks of course). That was the only time I got to fire my weapon on the whole exercise, but it was worth all the trouble it caused. Apparently I wasn't the only one to do it either.

    128. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, for a mod point right now!

    129. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obvious proposal.

      Attach a jpeg immage to the names on the no-fly list. If it isn't a picture of the guy standing in front of you, then let the guy on the plane.

      Frankly, screw the names all together. Use facial recognition software. If you are going to violate our rights anyway, at least make it effective.

    130. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or instead of all that fear based "defense" maybe you could use that money to make sure all the other countries in the world have a better standard of living. in this way you can eliminate terror (or greatly reduce the support of it) and also make the USA out to be something other than an evil empire.

      If standard of living eliminates terrorism, then why is Osama Bin Laden a terrorist even though he is worth millions?

    131. Re:Our gov't at work by sjames · · Score: 1

      And checking the name "T. Kennedy" is merely the first step. Second level checking (full name, address, etc) would presumably clear all the other "T. Kennedys".

      Considering the problems Sen. Kennedy had, I have to conclude there IS no second level check. Otherwise, as you said, the second level check would have cleared him for boarding.

      The first thing I would do is actually HAVE a second level check that happens BEFORE harassing the person who is probably NOT the correct person (simple math, one T. Kennedy was suspected, with any first initial and last name combination, there will be many simple coincidences and only one true identity.)

    132. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even worse. Terorists could use this period to check and see if their aliases were comprimised and make changes accordingly.

      "What? My name is on the no fly list? How about my, um, friend Bob Smith?"

    133. Re:Our gov't at work by apparently · · Score: 0

      How would they lose credibility if it was policy that the system was in a test state? If the system was in a production state and a flagged individual wasn't pulled, -that- would cause loss of credibility.

    134. Re:Our gov't at work by papageorgio02 · · Score: 1

      "One of the big reasons they need to know who you are before you get on a plane -- the airline, not the TSA -- is so that if it crashes, they have an accurate list of who died. This prevents notifying the wrong people, etc. It's kind of morbid, but it makes a lot of sense."

      Showing an ID when checking in, before going through security, and again before getting on the plane, that is a little crazy.

      How is some 60 year old lady checking ID's and tickets going to stop a terrorist that has a valid ID and a valid ticket?

      They won't!!!

      But atleast they will have had their id looked at 3 times! And that makes it safe for everyone to fly!

      --
      -- I stole your sig!
    135. Re:Our gov't at work by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's add guns so weapons don't need to be smuggled. Let's add lockouts so someone can take *that* system over without even being on a plane. Let's add anti-aircraft weaponry on buildings so all of *that* has to be secured in a million places. Yup, the answer sure is adding more weapons...

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    136. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A more likely scenario: watch as a couple of drunk passengers get into a fight, pull out their handguns and start shooting at each other in the middle of a crowded plane

      So stop serving drinks on planes.

      I always thought that was stupid- they have bars in airports, but won't let you on the plane drunk. But then they give you liquor onboard. huh?

    137. Re:Our gov't at work by malelder · · Score: 1

      And what if the T. Kennedy in question actually turned out to be a terrorist?

      You got a better idea? Let us know...

      --


      Yuma, AZ...You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
    138. Re:Our gov't at work by ManxStef · · Score: 1

      Parent - Score: +5, Insightful
      Well said, crabpeople, that's more like it!

      The biggest problem with the grandparent post is that it's all about prevention of EFFECT rather than prevention of CAUSE; it seems like it was leading on to, "...barcode all citizens at birth, track all movements, kill anyone that breaks the law, rewrite history. Freedom is slavery, war is peace, ignorance is strength!" (or 'Freedom is a privilege, not a right!')

      I thought America was supposed to be a fairly liberal society, but it really does seem that essential liberty has been lost to (perceived) temporary safety, and that the public is too apathetic - or scared - to recind these restrictions. But I suppose they've fallen for the classic pacifier: pretend to be in a constant state of war so the public is too scared to pay attention to those small problems like domestic issues and taxes; remember that we're at war, people! And if that doesn't fool them, brand them as unpatriotic! Now give me your papers, please...

    139. Re:Our gov't at work by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Funny
      How do you excuse that level of ignorance?

      What makes you think it was ignorance? Maybe there's somebody named Kopechne who does data entry for the list?

    140. Re:Our gov't at work by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      Actually, when you think about it, this part of it is good. People know that exceptions won't be made. However, corrections to the system need to be possible, and that's where it all falls down right now.

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    141. Re:Our gov't at work by mangu · · Score: 1
      make sure all the other countries in the world have a better standard of living


      Considering that most of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, which is THE richest country in the world, how high should that "better" standard of living go to avoid terrorism?

    142. Re:Our gov't at work by Obfuscant · · Score: 0
      Yes, there ought to be a "-1 Gratuitous Political Deception" moderation category.

      Remember that Florida tried to purge Democratic-friendly voters a second time.

      I refuse to remember fictitious "history". On the other hand, I remember quite clearly Gore trying to purge every absentee ballot from three counties, after they had been counted and found to be favoring Bush. The courtroom sessions were televised and were a wonderful lesson in democrat politics. In one county, the reason being used was that the Democratic committee chairman in the county was too stupid to put correct data on the absentee applications (and the Republican one had).

      A lot of those ballots were from US military personnel serving overseas. Gore desperately wanted to be CIC, but didn't want his minions able to vote.

      I'm looking at a 14 hour drive in October for me and my wife. I am reluctant to try flying. What if my name is on the no-fly list?

      If you are that paranoid, you ought to drive. And the fewer people flying, the better. I remember the days when planes often had empty seats and travel was a lot more comfortable, even in the tiny seats.

    143. Re:Our gov't at work by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      No, it was the federal law that required convicted felons be removed from voter registration lists. Did you actually read the article you linked?

      The names were scrubbed by a computer database matching names with known convicted felons.

      Of course, in your tinfoil hat world. Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris personally programmed this database so that it would only exclude blacks who would vote Democrat.

      I grant that particular factoid is hard to dig out from the racist ranting that fills the article, but it is there.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    144. Re:Our gov't at work by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would be a real shame if some terror suspect started using the alias O. Hatch.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    145. Re:Our gov't at work by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      I've worked with large volumes of demographic data. The names we use are almost useless on thier own. Name and DOB together are pretty good, but not great with very common surnames. Our SSN is our de facto unique ID number (which isn't actually unique, which is a problem). People get bent out of shape and yell "I am a human being, not a number". If you want any of your data to be right, you need to get used to being a number.

      -B

    146. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can give me some information on those few things that were named, from unbiased sources (Rush Limbaugh and the tabloids do not count), I'd like to see them. Otherwise, let's just be reasonable here, and not judgemental. Thanks.

    147. Re:Our gov't at work by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      I assume nothing. Whatever testing they did was prima facie insufficient, due to the fact that this problem arose.

      Let's see, to prevent this someone would have had to predict that 1) a terrorist would use the name of a major political office holder that is instantly recognizable by anyone over the age of 20, and 2) this rich, famous, instantly recognizable super-human member of the species would actually want to fly on a bargain-rate airline instead of in the family jet.

      Yep, they ought to have guessed this ahead of time. I hope they learned from this and removed "Jesus", "Mother Teresa" and "Gandi" from the list already. I wouldn't want to be delayed while trying to prove who I am.

    148. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a bug. If a terrorist goes by the name "Ted", "Teddy", "T. M.", "The Tedster", "Terrible Ted" and "Theodore" Kennedy; it'd be positively insane to only suspect people who are going by the name "Edward Moore Kennedy".

    149. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's ALWAYS going to be a good thing to know who someone really is from a security point of view.

      The problem is, Sen Kennedy's experience shows that the current system doesn't show who someone really is. Nor will that be enough.

      The fact of the matter is our airport security is paranoid but without the possiblity of a solid perimeter which can be used to prevent an attack on our own response. The only thing we have to be thankful for today is that those who wish our country harm haven't figured this out or have decided that such attacks don't fit their ends well. All one really needs to do today is to create *the appearance* of a security threat to cause real damage to American business and commerce. One does *not* have to show ID to effectively do this because one can effectively do this sort of thing in lobbies, baggage claims, public restrooms, and the like. In this regard US airport security is extremely brittle.

      I have traveled to many countries which have had a longer history of having to deal with security issues than the US. For example Ecuador has a multi-layer security system which effectively protects them against their threats. But their threats are simply narco-traffickers who are not aimed at causing damage to Ecuador's businesses.

      But take a look at Indonesia. Not too long ago, a bomb exploded in a KFC at the airport outside their security perimeter. (Indonesia uses a system similar to that of Ecuador but does allow public areas inside the airport buildings but outside the security perimeter.) I think only two people were injured in what seemed to me to be an ad-hoc attack related to a trial of an alleged terrorist. But if such had been a coordinated attack and in the US, do you think US airspace would still be open (even if nobody was injured)?

      IMO, the real solution is the development of a multi-layered security infrastructure. Yes, this includes reinforced doors in aircraft and the development of uniform security plans across airlines with regard to common threats. I think it also will eventually require an open and public discussion of the security of general infrastructure in this country as well as what is most critical to the operations of basic services and commerce. We must have confidence that we can fix flaws found before terrorists can do the necessary recon, etc. to actually carry out an attack. Analyzing the pattern of Al Qaeda attacks, I suspect that these take them *years* of planning. We should look seriously at how we can improve the speed at which we respond to weaknesses in our security infrastructure. I.e. we don't have years to impliment that new security procedure.

      Finally, such security needs to be robust enough that we don't really have to worry about who is on the airplanes.

      There will always be "soft targets" but we MUST work to minimize the global impact of attacks on them.

    150. Re:Our gov't at work by BC+Guy · · Score: 1
      How about, instead of mindlessly bashing what they are trying, coming up with something better.

      Ok, sure. But this is only even slightly appropriate if 'they' are fired for incompetence and their salary distributed amongst everyone who comes up with an idea. This isn't some group-think college exercise! 'They' are serious, expensive people sitting around in a room, dreaming up policies that screw the general population, and 'they' are not accountable to anyone.

      I (and the rest of the US) are being oppressed and inconvenienced; the price of our freedom and dignity should not be that we help our oppressors more efficiently 'manage' us like cattle.

      What is the best way to 'help'?? Vote. EVERY one of you. VOTE GODDAMNIT. If you're unsure of a good choice in a certain election, embrace mutation theory and pick the most obscure candidate.

    151. Re:Our gov't at work by ElForesto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you can't run the implemented system in a test bed environment, then at the very least you put the system in place and instruct users not to rely on it, and you give them a quick way to report problems.

      Tell that to the dot-com I used to work for.

      --
      There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
    152. Re:Our gov't at work by Holi · · Score: 1

      Nah that probably raise a lot of questions (like why would GWB be flying on a commercial plane), I would use J. Bush. No one wants to mess with the prez's brother.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    153. Re:Our gov't at work by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I don't care about any articles. Federal law does not require that convicted felons be removed from voting lists. That is decided on a state-by-state basis. Most states allow felons to vote.

    154. Re:Our gov't at work by horza · · Score: 1

      Investigate suspicious groups before they get to the airport.

      You mean run the passenger list through Google? Personally I would start with this guy, he seems to protest a little too much.

      Phillip.

    155. Re:Our gov't at work by guyjr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uhm, they _had_ ID, and it _was_ checked. The ID checking requirement went into effect after TWA 800 went down in 1996, 5 years before 9-11.

      And as is plainly evident given 9-11, ID checking does absolutely NO good whatsoever. Facial recognition, on the other hand, or some other biometric way of postively identifying someone (maybe a DNA scanner in the not too distant future?) could perhaps be a vaild deterrant, but the system we have now punishes nobody but the innocent.

    156. Re:Our gov't at work by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      I have a coworker whose last name is Laden (LAY-dehn), first initial is "B". She has to go through all sorts of fuss because of "B. Laden" every time she flies. I mean, we're talking about someone who doesn't even match the respective terrorist in -gender-, nor does her name actually match the pattern in question (first initial and last name should be "O. Bin Laden").

      Caucasian female, works at a major computer company, with a last name that bears only slight resemblance to "Bin Laden"... oh yeah, that just screams terrorist... maybe to some high school dropout who only knows how to read the words "restricted" on a computer screen without bothering to apply any common sense. Anyone with even half the intelligence of a fruit fly should know better.

      I mean, all it takes is somebody asking for a little bit of personal information and recording it, and any semi-competently-written database should never flag her again, but it keeps doing so. Do you folks really think that the duly-appointed government morons who were involved in setting up that database are smart enough to actually check something like address or phone number? Yeah. Right. I've seen turnips who are smarter than these people... although they don't speak much because we all know that vegetables are kind of shy. ;-)

      I'm just glad to see that it is occasionally biting high-profile public officials in the same way that it bites normal people (-regularly-). Maybe after the November election overthrows the Bush-Cheney regime, the newly-elected President will rip out this joke of a system and replace it with software that actually does something useful... like combining a watch list with nationality comparisons, face recognition, and instant background checks, for starters. But that will require a President who can spell "recognition"....

      Here's to the most "intelligent" government the world has seen since the inbred European monarchs of a few centuries past. *sigh*

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    157. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose that would be a first example of the terrorist watch list being used correctly.

      NR

    158. Re:Our gov't at work by burns210 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are right, my mistake. So my point would then become, why the hell did they begin to require ID checks in response to a mechanical failure in a plane?

    159. Re:Our gov't at work by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      Even worse. Terorists [sic] could use this period to check and see if their aliases were comprimised and make changes accordingly.

      Um, they can do that now. It doesn't depend on whether they actually get to fly or not.

    160. Re:Our gov't at work by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      The system's implementors would loose credability...

      By that argument, any system should be implemented immediately and bugs be damned. Any testing of systems takes time and any terrorists acts during that time would lead to this same problem. It's not an excuse to bypass proper testing.

    161. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean a feature!

    162. Re:Our gov't at work by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      People, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. I personally don't think showing ID to travel on a plane is that bad. Comparing it with the former Soviet Union is a joke... you don't get stopped on every road at every state border with people asing for "papers, please".

      Yet.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    163. Re:Our gov't at work by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Good answer...

      A terrorist can do any number of things without any weapons at all (like open one of the doors at 30,000 feet). It's important to look at both. I don't see where not showing ID is an essential liberty (the famous quote, of course, refers to essential liberties).

      On the other hand, if there were no other possibilities of doing that kind of damage, then I might agree - the reinforced cockpit door is good enough for me (as is the question of wether or not the pilots are armed themselves). Not that I don't want passengers protected, too, but the firm position of not dealing with terrorists at all would mean that they can kill all the passengers and rest of the crew without being able to take over the plane... frankly, that's good enough for me. Life is inherently risky, so is flying in general (so is walking and even watching TV, what're you going to do?).

      I'd rather have a terrorist kill me then "win", which might result in the deaths of numerous others.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    164. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no. If that fat fuck Kennedy didn't take up 5 seats they would have let him on.

    165. Re:Our gov't at work by dynamo · · Score: 1

      Well yeah.
      Mod parent up!

      Our defense budget could probably feed MOST third world nations on earth if re-allocated. Gee, do you think that might reduce the amount of moral-outrage based attacks on our country, compared to asserting the right to ignore every other country and pre-emptively attack anyone who might ever be able to threaten us? (think this is fiction? read bush's national insecurity strategy (PDF from http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html) )

    166. Re:Our gov't at work by GSloop · · Score: 1

      Oh, he had no trouble flying - that crack, I mean cocaine (rich trash) had him higher than a kite!

      He just gave up one kind of flying for another. And the NG had the temerity to take exception to that! Humpf!

      They should have given him the bronze spoon for his valor! (Or is it the powdered star?)

      Cheers

    167. Re:Our gov't at work by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Quoth the parent

      "Very, very few (if any) are the complex systems put into place with zero bugs"

      Now I do agree with the parent poster 110% but at the same time why would you take the risk of putting a system that can effect so many people in complete control without a fall back?

      Would you test pilot a plane with out at least a parachute?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    168. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      9/11 was a big excuse to invade Iraq. The fact that the people let it happen was amazing.

    169. Re:Our gov't at work by bcboy · · Score: 1

      1) bomb sniffers

      2) require a 2nd external entrance to the cockpit, and partition it from the cabin, as is done in other countries.

      The two threats a plane faces are the threat of terrorists taking control of the plane (#2) and the threat of bombing (#1).

    170. Re:Our gov't at work by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      It'll get changed- the day a muslim terrorist buys a ticket in the name of T. Ridge and blows up the plane.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    171. Re:Our gov't at work by GSloop · · Score: 1

      If they're not drunk, they'll find some other reason to start plugging people. There are *always* stupid people around, drunk or not.

      It's bad enough on the ground. Having it happen at 25K feet seems like a much larger complication.

      Sheesh,
      Greg

    172. Re:Our gov't at work by docbombay · · Score: 1
      And this happened in Washington D.C. and then again in his home state? How do you excuse that level of ignorance?

      Clearly, the TSA person in question was an typical U.S. citizen. ;-)

    173. Re:Our gov't at work by myatmpinis1234 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why having 'T. Kennedy' on the watch list would prevent Edward Kennedy from getting on a plane.

    174. Re:Our gov't at work by chaoticset · · Score: 1
      How about, instead of mindlessly bashing what they are trying, coming up with something better.
      How about, instead of that, we just come up with a way to break their system more so they'll get rid of the damned thing?

      I mean, a flight full of people named Kennedy will have some persons with the first initial T. If some Kennedy family reunion somewhere is unduly derailed by this incident, so much the better. I can't wait to see a news story on it, actually.

      Hey. Maybe this is another type of opportunity -- if people legally change their name to, say, Orrin Hatch, then go on a spree of minor activism, maybe we can get him grounded too!

      --

      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
    175. Re:Our gov't at work by feloneous+cat · · Score: 1

      Well, yes. After implementing any system, you review after a period of time, and correct mistakes/problems. Also known as "The Microsoft Approach". Rather than bother to test and retest to make SURE that it has few/none false positives, we decide to just go ahead and implement it (also known as the "Missile Defense Approach"). Sadly, this administration has been quick to implement bad law and bad practices and slow to address the problems resulting in said laws and practices. Testing? Who needs it! The kicker is that NONE of these "preventative" measures do anything but further terrorize the populace.

      --
      IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
    176. Re:Our gov't at work by rkrabath · · Score: 1

      So when the planes go down they can identify the bodies easier. They know exactally who was on the plane.

      --
      Who do I have to blackmail to get some representation around here!?!?!?!?
    177. Re:Our gov't at work by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Better make it pretty powerful if it's going to blow apart a 747 into bits small enough to only cause "minor damage".

    178. Re:Our gov't at work by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

      Let's see, to prevent this someone would have had to predict that 1) a terrorist would use the name of a major political office holder that is instantly recognizable by anyone over the age of 20, and 2) this rich, famous, instantly recognizable super-human member of the species would actually want to fly on a bargain-rate airline instead of in the family jet.

      No, they only needed to consider that innocient people would occasionally be mistaken for people on their list of known terrorists.

      The problem isn't that someone mistook Ted Kennedy for a terrorist. The problem is that they apparently haven't put enough effort into creating a reliable means of identifying and resolving the mistakes that will inevitably be made.

    179. Re:Our gov't at work by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      I agree. Security has to be multi-layered and intelligent at airports. India had the 9-11 kind of security BEFORE 9-11 attacks. Multiple checks (no ID's, no no-fly lists). ALL passengers were checked thrice and NO non-flhying public was allowed beyond the perimeter. In addition to frisking and metal detectors during checkins, they check again just before boarding (outside the aircraft). No wonder India did not have a indian-soil hijack for past 15 years.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    180. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. We should all just go by CowboyNeal.

    181. Re:Our gov't at work by teromajusa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, there ought to be a "-1 Gratuitous Political Deception" moderation category.

      After reading your post, I found myself wishing the same thing.

      If you are that paranoid, you ought to drive. And the fewer people flying, the better. I remember the days when planes often had empty seats and travel was a lot more comfortable, even in the tiny seats.

      You think planes are more crowded because more people are flying, and that if less people flew, there would suddenly be vacant seats on planes? I guess if I told you it had more to do with airlines trying to maximize profits, you'd say I was just another paranoid conspiracy nut.

    182. Re:Our gov't at work by jcr · · Score: 1

      A terrorist can do any number of things without any weapons at all (like open one of the doors at 30,000 feet).

      That's pretty hard to do. Commercial airliners are pressurized.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    183. Re:Our gov't at work by teromajusa · · Score: 1

      "No, it was the federal law that required convicted felons be removed from voter registration lists. Did you actually read the article you linked?"

      If thats what they had done, then there would have been no discussion. What they actually did though was remove thousands of non-felons. No they didn't program the database, but they did tell the company doing the work to use very loose criteria for matching names, thereby ensuring many false positives.

    184. Re:Our gov't at work by Suidae · · Score: 1

      The only real solution to prevent the possiblity of hijakings is to not have any vehicles that transport large numbers of people at all.

      I dunno about that, can you image the mess it would make if someone hijacked an oil tanker and rammed it at full speed into a busy port? There is that one port in California that handles some rediculious amount of traffic everyday. I'm sure a full tanker at 30 knots could do some serious damage, plus lay an enormous oil slick that would have to be cleaned up before business could resume in full.

    185. Re:Our gov't at work by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1


      The way to prevent hijackings is to turn all airliners into UAVs. No pilot in the plane + no flight controls in the plane = nothing to hijack. The airlines would have "flight centers" full of full-sized mockups of real cockpits (until the day that no airplane is made with a cockpit anymore), that fly the actual airliners via satellite uplink.

      The points of possible failure are the sensor systems used to provide feedback to the pilots (cameras, servos, strain gauges, etc.), the satellite link to/from the plane, and the security of the flight center.

      The security would be the easiest risk to mitigate. People have long perfected the art of keeping other people out of buildings. The satellite link would have to be as secure as the ones that the military uses, to prevent any kind of "code-grabbing" attacks. And the sensors would need to be as redundant as possible with no access to the wiring from the interior of the plane. The 'preflight check' would also add a step for confirming the working of the sensor systems and the uplink, as well as the actual flight systems of the aircraft.

    186. Re:Our gov't at work by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1
      I would use J. Bush. No one wants to mess with the prez's brother.

      Or his daughter, depending on the gender of the person using the name.
      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    187. Re:Our gov't at work by catalina · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the Copyright Police collected so many names via BugMeNot that they won't be able to prosecute them all?

    188. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, your scenario actually happened to a young Marine guard at the Naval Academy. They were doing a 100% id check, and the base commander (in civvies) was stopped by the brand spanking been there one day, never met the commander in person guard. The base commander hit the roof, the guard insisted (IMHO rightly so, although he committed the sin of not knowing his base commander by sight) and he was gone, outa town, the next day. Gone are days when any schlub with a military tag on the car gets waved in.

    189. Re:Our gov't at work by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      What I don't understand is, why? If these security features were in answer to 9-11 attacks, and all the attackers had valid ID, why make the rule

      Well, one thing that comes to mind is that after something happens, it will considerably aid the investigation if everyone on the plane had to have ID that was checked.

      If a plane full of completely anonymous passengers flew into a building, it would be a hell of a lot harder to figure out where to concentrate the investigation than if they all had checked ID, even if some of those IDs were faked.

    190. Re:Our gov't at work by polecat_redux · · Score: 1

      What's interesting to me is the fact that we get attacked *once* and everyone starts to panic. Many, many other countries deal with terrorism on a regular basis, and lose many more people in the process, but we don't care about that because it's not us.

      I think the people of this country have a major problem with arrogance - or perhaps disillusionment. "Americans" get themselves whipped-up into such a frenzy about their level of patriotism like it's a badge of honor, and then proceed to blindly perpetuate the fact that the US is the most powerful country in the world. That myth is exactly the reason we continue to give up our rights and privileges for the good of the country... But it's all a farce. With power comes responsibility, and unfortunately, our government doesn't always seem to interested in restraining itself (This country is like a dumb puppy with sharp teeth - Johnny Depp).

      We are being attacked, because arguably, we deserve to be. We have done far worse things to people of other countries over the years - mainly to serve our own economic and political interests. Now that we're getting some of that in return, we're more than willing to let the governement yank the rug of freedom from beneath our feet just in case that rare "bolt of lightning" we call terrorism should happen to strike someone *we* know or love next.

    191. Re:Our gov't at work by gorbachev · · Score: 1

      "Of course, in your tinfoil hat world. Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris personally programmed this database so that it would only exclude blacks who would vote Democrat."

      No, they didn't program it, but the information uncovered by Greg Palast suggests that they DID order the company doing the technology work to use a "looser" algorithm in the purging process.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    192. Re:Our gov't at work by cyberformer · · Score: 1

      The ID requirement has been in place for many years, and has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. It's simply to stop people giving or reselling their tickets to someone else so that the airlines to have complete control of the market in plane tickets.

      This means the airlines can increase prices dramatically for last-minute bookings, and overbook their flights in the knowledge that a certain proportion of the tickets sold are unlikeley actually be used.

    193. Re:Our gov't at work by j_w_d · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree. How his name got there, and why it took so long for a prominent figure to get off is pretty damn bad. You and I would stand little chance.

      Make that 'no chance.'

      Israel does a much better job, but then they don't substitute technology for the human brain. The federal approach has been and continues to be monolithic stupidity (less expensive than educated human intelligence) supplemented by 'oh-wow' technology. It's a wonder that he STILL isn't on the list. Ted Kennedy might be known widely among those of us who are literate and follow politics some. But the average american these days seems to confuse current events with day-time soap operas. The average citizen can't tell you who their senators are, and there are only two per state.

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
    194. Re:Our gov't at work by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      ...pressurized from the INSIDE. making it easy to pop the door right open. heck, the emergency exit even has instructions right on it...

    195. Re:Our gov't at work by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Yeah, always wondered why someone hasn't come up with cockpits that can only be accessed from outside the plane.

      Then all you'd need is a button to fill the passenger cabin with knockout gas in the event of any trouble:)

    196. Re:Our gov't at work by j_w_d · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The guard should have been commended and the commander transferred. Knowing a face doesn't mean you know it's recent history. For all that guard could know, even if he knew the commnder's face, he couldn't know if the commander's lack of id wasn't due to a change in status- as in longer allowed on base, information that hadn't yet trickled down him. Then as you say, there's a 100 percent ID check requirement in force. The face is not the ID.

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
    197. Re:Our gov't at work by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      SHortly after 9/11, the guard force was beefed up, and armed guards protected all of our HQ buildings. Each building had two Marines with loaded M-16s at the entranceways to check IDs. Orders were ID must be shown no matter what, even if you know the person. Our Sergeant Major, a good 6' 200 pounds of solid muscle doesn't want to show ID, demands to be let past. The guard, a 5'3" barely 100 pound female raises her rifle and orders him to the deck and radios the Corporal of the Guard for guidance. COG comes down, checks the Sergeant Majors ID, and praises the guard. It was pretty funny, this tiny PFC holding the MEF Sergeant Major at gunpoint. If he had tried to force his way through, orders were to open fire.

    198. Re:Our gov't at work by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...pressurized from the INSIDE. making it easy to pop the door right open.

      Umm, No. If it was easy for those doors to pop open, we'd be dying like flies.

      Take a close look at one of those doors sometime. They have to come in first. Pressure actually holds them closed.

      As for the emergency exits, you'll notice that they have to be pulled *towards* you, then tossed out the opening.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    199. Re:Our gov't at work by .killedkenny · · Score: 1

      "like combining a watch list with nationality comparisons, face recognition, and instant background checks, for starters."

      This is the problem. You're ready to give up all your freedom and privacy just to hop a plane. The system is so ripe for abuse it's not funny - you see how easily political opponents can be harassed.

      The most distressing thing is, the system actually teaches terrorists how to beat it. It allows them to study who gets flagged and who gets passed.

    200. Re:Our gov't at work by sean.peters · · Score: 1
      It really looks like the TSA simply doesn't care whether innocent civilians are denied the ability to use the nation's airlines.

      Of course they don't care. Caring about false positives isn't part of their job description. In fact, it's not part of ANYONE's job description... which is the problem.

      Sean

    201. Re:Our gov't at work by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      One of the big reasons they need to know who you are before you get on a plane -- the airline, not the TSA -- is so that if it crashes, they have an accurate list of who died. This prevents notifying the wrong people, etc. It's kind of morbid, but it makes a lot of sense.

      Except that airlines made due with passenger-supplied unverified names on tickets for many years.

      And they still somehow dealt with sorting things out after an accident.

      Other public transportation systems don't require ID to help in case of accident.

      As far as I'm concerned, if someone feels strongly that they want to travel anonymously, they should be the ones deciding whether they want to make it easier for their loved ones to be notified by the authorities in the event of an accident.

      "We're doing it to insure your safety" rings hollow in this instance.

      It reminds me of the FAQ signage at the exit of the bigbox stores:

      Q: Why is my receipt checked against my cart full of products when I leave BigCo?

      A: We perform this service for you to insure that you haven't forgotten any of the items you've paid for.
      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    202. Re:Our gov't at work by malelder · · Score: 1

      You know, I started thinking more about this...

      Weren't they trying to keep drunks and people who would harass stewardesses off of the planes anyway?

      --


      Yuma, AZ...You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
    203. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Laden Bin. About a year ago when my father tried to transfer money to a relative, the bank denied this service, no reason explained. Later he found out that it's because his name, when pronounced backward, sound like Bin Laden.

    204. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a tremendous idea we just need to improve it a little. Why don't we raise taxes to 90% for everybody and confiscate any personal wealth, thus reducing our citizens to a poverty level below those poor under-advantaged countries, and support the entire world. ...

      Then they'll be happy, their standard of living will be higher than the evil Americans, they won't have to worry about that pesky little job thing, and they'll be free to pursue peaceful activities instead of being forced into terrorist acts..

      I know I enjoy working 60-70 hours a week to support other people....give me a break

    205. Re:Our gov't at work by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      What about someone trained in martial arts? I bet someone well trained with their hands is 100 times worse than an arab with a boxcutter.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    206. Re:Our gov't at work by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 1
      Then there's the "only ticketed passengers allowed past security". HELLO! The 9/11 guys had tickets!
      Yeah. First class tickets.

      I think they should give "special" attention to all passengers with paid first class tickets. Not upgrades, though. I get upgrades sometimes....

    207. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, the karma pops YOU!

    208. Re:Our gov't at work by Phurd+Phlegm · · Score: 1
      Idea 1) Take the names of government officials (like, say, SENATORS) OFF THE LIST.
      Yeah. Terrorists couldn't have fake names like Tom Ridge and Dick Cheney, right? That would be cheating.
    209. Re:Our gov't at work by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      and an even more draconian system would take its place.

      Not in a free society. In a free society draconian measures of any sort aren't tolerated, ever. The moment they are, the society is no longer free.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    210. Re:Our gov't at work by ryanmfw · · Score: 1

      Then we're just buying them off with money. Catch-22

      --
      Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
    211. Re:Our gov't at work by tompaulco · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another of the security features was to ground General Aviation airplanes for much longer than commercial airlines and to institute new "temporary" no-fly zones that are still in effect, but only for small planes. They have also mandated increased security for small planes. All this despite the fact that it was huge commercial jets involved in 9/11.
      Your typical General Aviation airplane has perhaps a 400 pound payload with full fuel. You could deliver much more ordinance much more precisely with a minivan, at about the same speed.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    212. Re:Our gov't at work by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      Holy cow, you're right! Here I am, literally jumping up and down screaming, and I never would have noticed if not for your voice of calm reason. Thank you for letting me know, my knees and voicebox thank you, my cat thanks you.

      Why do we have to compromise with extremists? Why do we have to outdo them at their own game? What kind of alternative do we need to propose? How about: airplane passengers and crew all willing to fight to the death to stop hijackers -- check, as of noon 2001-09-11. How about: cursory screening of all baggage for bombs -- check, as of what, 1970? That sure looks like enough air travel security to me.

      Man, I still remember the panic I felt on 2001-09-11 when I envisioned the draconian police state of the near future. The hijackings themselves just made me mad as hell but I knew the dictator wannabes in our government would leverage it for all it was worth to ram through the next 50 years worth of encroachment all at once, and that was scary. Don't play along with their sick game, thinking we need to overreact to everything bad that happens.

    213. Re:Our gov't at work by gnu-sucks · · Score: 1

      I agree with you 100%, and let me add a little re-inforcement here...

      Someone once said, those who prefer security over freedom deserve neither. There's also, "Give me liberty or give me death."

      At any rate, these people are talking about preserving freedom in the face of danger. This country was founded on freedom and danger, rebels, people seeking religious freedom, etc.

      If you consider what the above AC is talking about, he's saying, don't screen people for finger nail clippers and the like, rather, just put inplace a security system to actually DEAL with an immediate threat.

      Multi-layered is the key - just teasing the american (and alien) public with silly security check points that do nothing but delay the average joe that wants to get home and see grandma is completely pointless, and does nothing to handle an actuall situation.

      Give us our freedom, and give those who would take it none. Or something like that. Its a careful balance, eh?

    214. Re:Our gov't at work by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1
      and their mass transit loving eco terrorist friends alike

      Love how you threw in that canard about "eco terrorists". Yeah, I guess if you think it's wasteful and unamerican to drive a gas guzzling SUV to work every day, you're a terrorist.

      I say, if you love your SUV so much that you're willing to drive it all around and consume twice as much gas as a normal car, you're funding the fundamentalist Islamist states that are the bankers of terrorism, and YOU are the terrorist. Of course, my opinions get me shunned by polite society, so I guess you are the one who is correct.

      The USA only uses foreign oil for about 50% of its oil consumption needs (even though we only have 3% of the proven reserves). It wouldn't take much to stop funding terrorist states if we all got together and saved oil instead of calling anyone who wants to save oil an "eco-terrorist". Sure, there are real eco terrorists, who blow things up. They're not the mainstream, as you seem to imply. They're a small group of nuts.

      Maybe you should start caring about your country and your biosphere and do your part to save it instead of ignorantly conflating environmentalism with terrorism.

      --
      WWJD? JWRTFA!
    215. Re:Our gov't at work by number11 · · Score: 1

      it was the federal law that required convicted felons be removed from voter registration lists.

      Ah, that would be... FALSE. It's up to the states. Felon voting restrictions by state

      in your tinfoil hat world. Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris personally programmed this database so that it would only exclude blacks who would vote Democrat.

      Nope. People at that level don't get their own hands dirty (granted, Nixon and the tapes was an exception), they have others do the work for them.

    216. Re:Our gov't at work by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I specifically made that comment because some posters did make that comparison the other day for the other story...

      And if a cop pulls you over for no reason, you can sue for harrasment. Sure, they'll say you were speeding, or driving eratically or something, but that's why you get your day in court.

      In fact, there have been complaints about being pulled over for being a good driver... the cops were pulling good drivers over and rewarding them with movie tickets and so forth, and people said "look, all I want is to get where I'm going..." They raised a fuss, the police stopped doing it.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    217. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the hell did they begin to require ID checks in response to a mechanical failure in a plane?

      To prevent people from reselling their tickets.
      Seriously, at the time I was a really frequent flyer, all corporate paid so it didn't effect me but wose close enough to home to get my attentiont. For the decade or so leading up to that point (really, ever since deregulation) the airlines had been trying to prevent people from reselling their tickets. For some reason, they seem to think that they ought to be able to take your money and give you nothing in return. This approach fits in nicely with their overbooking policies.

      Well, despite their protests and grumbling,they really hadn't made any progress against reselling tickets. Until the TWA flight went down and the FAA issued this "secret" order that they had to ask for ID (technically you did not have to show it, but a subtlety like that was lost on 99% of the airline's staff and how many people are willing to miss a flight just to argue on a technicality? (Fortunately John Gilmoure *IS* but if I had his kind of money, I would too).

      How the airlines got the FAA to issue that oder is probably a very intersting story, but fundamentally you gotta remember that the FAA has two conflicting mandates - 1)protect the flying public by requiring minimuum standards in construction and design, training, seat-belt requirements, etc and 2) Promote the airline industry.

      So,under the guise of "security"(mandate #1) the FAA helpd the airlines make more money by enforcing a monopoly for them (mandate #2). Too bad it was the first step down the slippery slope to the just plain silly security meeasures in place today...

    218. Re:Our gov't at work by nathanh · · Score: 1
      And if Kerry wins in November, suddenly anyone with the name "G.W. Bush" is going to have trouble flying.

      That's not the only thing Bush has trouble with.

      "Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ... you're a ... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity."

    219. Re:Our gov't at work by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I'm sure it was a bug. "Kennedy" sounds kind of Middle Eastern, don't you think?

      Didn't you know? Ted Kennedy's political wing gets positively furious about 'racial profiling.' This is exactly the kind of fair treatment they demand.

      --
      resigned
    220. Re:Our gov't at work by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So everything is hunky-dory just because "Well, the Soviet Union is worse!"?!

      Sorry, but as an American I expect and demand for my civil liberties to be respected on an absolute scale, rather than a relative one!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    221. Re:Our gov't at work by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 1

      Actually, having worked network support in a large government department, I can tell you that his "connections" probably didn't help as much as the article description implies.

      Where I work, about once a month or so some user with a problem flips out and goes directly to the head of the entire department. By the time he has forwarded the issue down the chain three or four steps to the relevant group of people, you're actually left with less relevant information about the problem than if they had just called the regular helpdesk, and we basically have to start the process over.

      The article makes it sound like Kennedy's resolution was somehow expedited because he had an "in" with Ridge. I doubt Ridge likes him very much, so it's questionable how much of a favor he gets from that "connection". But ultimately, I wonder if things would actually have gone any slower if he had simply responded calmly to the misunderstanding and gone through normal channels.

    222. Re:Our gov't at work by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Did I say it's better compared to the former Soviet Union? No. In fact I said it's ridiculous to compare. What civil liberties are being violated when you're asked for proof of identity when boarding a plane? The right to be anonymous? Do you really consider that a civil liberty?

      I'm not saying I think it's necessary, or that it even does any good, but I don't think you're giving up any essential liberties.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    223. Re:Our gov't at work by Geoff-with-a-G · · Score: 1

      The whole concept of depriving people of the right to travel just because they are vaguely "suspected" of something stinks.

      Not to split hairs, but you don't have a right to fly in the first place. Just like you don't have the right to drive, or the right to sit in Central Park with a bomb.

      Certain powerful things (cars, planes, bombs) are very useful, but very dangerous. As a way of dealing with that, the government doesn't forbid them outright, but regulates and licenses them.

      Yes, you can drive a car, but only if we're convinced you're competent enough to do it without crashing it into other people.
      Yes, you can have explosives, but only if we're convinced you know what you're doing with them and have a legitimate, non-violent need for them.
      Yes, you (the airlines, not the passengers) can fly planes over the country, filled with people, but only if we're convinced you're securing those planes and that they won't crash, either accidently or from hijacking.

      I agree that the current security is too much intrusion and inconvenience and cost for too little actual security, but that's an efficiency issue, a cost issue. It's not violating your right to fly, because you never had one.

    224. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what dental records are for. They don't make us show ID to see a movie in a theater, or show ID to attend a sporting event, so why to get on a plane? I don't get it. Never did.

      You must have zee papers!

    225. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Date of Birth, plus a flash of DMV licence, covers the blindingly obvious.

      Speculation that some *Test* database entries have contaminated the production list,somehow, and some PFY of BOFH is rolling in laughter.

      2 weeks to annotate an simple entry - some butts need to be kicked.

    226. Re:Our gov't at work by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Learn a martial art. If I wanted to crash a plane, I wouldn't need a knife. Since I don't want to, there are no problems woth me, but there are no guarantees that the terrorists aren't taking martial arts. But you can't just stop all martial artists, so what do you do?

      --
      Not a sentence!
    227. Re:Our gov't at work by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "not keeping "immoral" people off airplanes."

      Moral, shmoral. All I know is that the guy has a history of DWI and manslaughter.

      Of course, if he has problems with the systems he himself voted into place...

    228. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Destroying one of the windows is orders of magnitude easier than opening the doors.

    229. Re:Our gov't at work by CristalShandaLear · · Score: 1

      WTF? Drink your own breastmilk? Can someone explain wtf this is about? I had a kid and I'll be darned if I'd have drunk my own breastmilk. That's just....ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Please elaborate?

    230. Re:Our gov't at work by jcr · · Score: 1

      That's not very easy, either. Polycarbonate plastic is pretty tough.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    231. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they need to re-evaluate Senator Edward Kennedy.

    232. Re:Our gov't at work by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      Oh thats good. The guy commits a traffic violation, so of course he should be barred from flying. Silly me. Clearly, given his history of reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident, he is likely to be a threat to the flight and should be barred from flying.

      Here's another one. If you're convicted of slander your rights to free speech should be taken away.

    233. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you moron, take the SENATOR's name off. Leave the NON-senator's name on.

      T. Kennedy, Senator- off list
      T. Kennedy, non- senator= ON list

      See how easy it is?

    234. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many people actually carry on a daily basis? Concealed or open.

      "Carry"? Carry what?

      Nail clippers? A nail file? Tweezers? (These are confiscated and not allowed onboard planes because they are 'weapons'.) ALmost every women will have thesse in her purse.

      Penknifes? Jackknives? Lot's of people carry these. SOme penknives are keyrings!

      Multi-tools (pliers/knife/screwdriver/etc)? Lot's of computer techs and similar people carry these.

      Need I go on?? You don;t need everyone to carry a GUN, you know. One, two, even 10 terrorists can be brought down pretty well by 100 passengers armed with jacknives.

      And jacknives won't cause that explosive decompression everyone is worried about. :-)

      If everybody carried a weapon, I'd agree with you. But they don't.

      But they do. Or can. And should.

    235. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what if the T. Kennedy in question actually turned out to be a terrorist?

      But he wasn't. He was a US Senator, for ghu's sake!

      There should be a way to differentiate between

      T. Kennedy, US Senator

      and

      T. Kennedy

      ANd the former should not be hassled.

    236. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah. If you wanted to inflict serious damage on a plane, it's simple: carry a lighter on board with you.

      Lighters, matches, etal are not banned items thanks to the pull of the tobacoo industry. When you're ready to wreck the plane, stand up, punch the emergency panel in the roof, pull out the oxygen feed, and flick your Bic. Spray fire around quickly, and revel in the resulting chaos.

      No good as a threat (I'm sure they can cut off the oxygen feed), but excellent as an act of random destruction.

    237. Re:Our gov't at work by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Oh thats good. The guy commits a traffic violation,"

      No, he commits two felony offences (one of them being homicide) that his social status allowed him to wait out the statute of limitations on.

      Perhaps DWI wasn't a felony back then (we've learned better since then), but manslaughter has probably been considered a felony in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts since at least the American Revolution.

      "Clearly, given his history of reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident, he is likely to be a threat to the flight and should be barred from flying."

      Would you want to sit next to someone on an airplane who has a history of "recklessly endangering" those around him?

      "Here's another one. If you're convicted of slander your rights to free speech should be taken away."

      Slander is a matter for civil litigation. Manslaughter is a felony. There are many things we as a society do not allow convicted felons to do.

    238. Re:Our gov't at work by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      "Oh, he had no trouble flying"

      I think that the previous poster meant George *H* W Bush, who crashed his airplane during WWII. The father, not the son.

    239. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never looked at the instructions... "Pull TOWARDS you"... that's INSIDE.

    240. Re:Our gov't at work by Lord+Dimwit+Flathead · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the late reply, but here's a USA Today article and the snopes entry on the matter.

    241. Re:Our gov't at work by bigpat · · Score: 1

      "I say, if you love your SUV so much that you're willing to drive it all around and consume twice as much gas as a normal car, you're funding the fundamentalist Islamist states that are the bankers of terrorism, and YOU are the terrorist."

      moron.

    242. Re:Our gov't at work by VanessaDannenberg · · Score: 1
      And as is plainly evident given 9-11, ID checking does absolutely NO good whatsoever. Facial recognition, on the other hand, or some other biometric way of postively identifying someone (maybe a DNA scanner in the not too distant future?) could perhaps be a vaild deterrant, but the system we have now punishes nobody but the innocent.

      I have to point out a potential flaw in this idea. What if the person in question has had facial reconstructive surgery? What about if the person's DNA doesn't match up with their appearance (I know a number of individuals who fall into this category)?

      Why not just continue to work on perfecting fingerprint readers? I had a set of electronic prints taken at one of the state police buildings in Pennsylvania.. The resultant images were as good as or better than any I've seen done with ink and paper. I worked at a place once which used your entire hand print as a form of ID (I think this device actually reads the size/shape of the hand rather than its texture), along with an ID badge, and that was just an assembly line job.

      --
      Karma: I don't care too much, but it's 0.0% (mostly due to lack of interest)
    243. Re:Our gov't at work by cardshark2001 · · Score: 1

      Great rejoinder. What can I possibly say to counter that?

      --
      WWJD? JWRTFA!
    244. Re:Our gov't at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course I have a right to fly. Just as I have a right to drive, ride my bicycle, look at a sunset, whistle in my shower. The government can only restrict those non-enumerated rights when it can show good reason to limit them. That doesn't mean I don't have the basic right in the first place. You're buying into the myth that we don't really have any rights, that everything we do is with government permission. Read the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights sometime, especially amendments IX and X.

    245. Re:Our gov't at work by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      You think planes are more crowded because more people are flying,

      No, planes are more crowded because fewer people are flying and the airlines have cut back the number of flights because of that. They fact that the numbers are once again increasing whilst the number of flights is not is making the problem worse.

      I guess if I told you it had more to do with airlines trying to maximize profits, you'd say I was just another paranoid conspiracy nut.

      Why don't you just say what you think is correct and let me worry about how I'll respond?

      Were it just a case of "maximizing profits", the number of flights would have been cut a long time ago. The sudden drop in passengers had the most to do with it. The airlines could fly with half- or 3/4 full airplanes and still make a profit, as long as their fixed and variable expenses were being covered. As soon as the number of passengers dropped below that magic point, they had to cut the number of flights to make any profit.

      Making flying convenient for the passengers is one way of increasing profits, since more people will fly. Cattle-cars like People's (I think that was the name, I flew on it once and vowed never again) aren't around anymore because they made it uncomfortable for the large-profit pax to fly. The packed airplanes and limited schedules they are keeping now aren't helping them back into the black.

    246. Re:Our gov't at work by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      The problem isn't that someone mistook Ted Kennedy for a terrorist.

      That is exactly the problem. The problem is not that he was prevented from flying, because he wasn't prevented from flying. The problem is not that the name (I'll not call it "his name", because there are unfortunate people who have the same name) wasn't removed from the list, because it eventually was.

      And I'd love to hear the protests from people who are unhappy that someone who was a known terrorist was let on an airplane after something happens to that plane (even if it is a mechanical failure). "Topping tonight's news, XYZ has learned that the man responsible for the downing of Flight 43 was allowed to check in and board the flight because the TSA removed his name from the list of known terrorist suspects just one week earlier." I'd bet two bits that Ted Kennedy's part in getting the name removed would not be mentioned.

      On the whole (which means I'm not arguing that the system is particularly effective to begin with), I'd rather have Ted Kennedy, Senator, showing extra ID when he checks in than having some low-level data-pusher removing a name that matches his from the list just to keep from inconveniencing him. That's just creating a way to bypass the system for those who can get id that say they really are Ted Kennedy or Gordon Smith or Ted Stevens (or any of the other lesser-known Senators and Congressmen.) And if that means that Ted Kennedy, Senator, has to get to the airport at least an hour prior to his flight just like the rest of us innocent people, that's too bad. If Ted Kennedy, Senator, knows his name is on a list and will take longer to check in, then better he gets their early than having him pull strings to get off the list altogether.

    247. Re:Our gov't at work by MrBlackBand · · Score: 1
      I've said this before, if the TSA wanted to prevent another 9/11 put armored cockpit doors on all airplanes which I think they've done. It doesn't cost much, no more 9/11's and at a fraction of the cost of current TSA measures, no intrusion of personal liberties, no damage to the economic health of airlines.

      Ah, but then the TSA would no longer be needed. As we all know, the primary goal of government agencies is to ensure their own survival. Why do you think we still have the CIA around a decade after the end of the Cold War?

      --
      "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
    248. Re:Our gov't at work by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Please reconsider what the effect of a hole, less than half an inch in diameter, would have on a commercial aircraft.

      There is a good chance that there is already 0.2 in^2 of leakage, and doubling it is not going to cause the plane to turn inside-out.

      That's not to say that I think that discharging a firearm in an aircraft is a thing to be taken lightly. Your comment, however, is nothing more than an ignorant appeal to emotion.

      -Peter

  2. Answer. by whiteranger99x · · Score: 5, Funny

    But what are ordinary citizens supposed to do if the Secretary of Homeland Security won't take their calls?

    Umm....get a DAMN good start driving?

    --
    Join the TWIT army now!
    1. Re:Answer. by GooDieZ · · Score: 0, Redundant

      better yet... ...start walking!

      --
      Things in a rear mirror might be behind you
    2. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might seems funny - but I actually took this route during the last 4th of July trip to New York. Its quite enjoyable if you have company.

    3. Re:Answer. by groot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Umm....get a DAMN good start driving?


      That won't work after the new 'Don't-Drive' rules take into effect on our nations hiways.

      Mr. Kennedy (if that is really your name) please step away from the vehicle...

      --laz
      --
      "Just remember, it takes a village idiot." -- The Motley Fool.
    4. Re:Answer. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Umm....get a DAMN good start driving?

      Well, If I'm only going to NYC, it's just as fast to drive, what with all the idiotic security meaasures at the airports.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    5. Re:Answer. by dekemoose · · Score: 5, Funny

      Do you really want Kennedy driving? Now that's a threat to the country!

    6. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I actually am deathly afraid of flying so I hope I get blacklisted by accident.

    7. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But what are ordinary citizens supposed to do if the Secretary of Homeland Security won't take their calls?

      For starters, wake up the fact that the Constitution no longer exists in America for ordinary citizens.

      American politicians are thus accomplishing what the terrorists could only dream of doing; they are destroying our once-great country from within.

      Our liberties can be temporarily suspended during times of war; but the problem is that this "War on Terror" will be permanent. We will never, ever, regain the liberties we are now losing.

    8. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For starters, wake up the fact that the Constitution no longer exists in America for ordinary citizens.

      in the words of my co-worker, who i thought was smart till i pointed this out to him when the patriot act passed, "at least we are still alive, unlike the thousands in 9/11, at least our families are alive"
      it was sorta sad and funny at the same time.
      i think the terrorists don't really want to kill you (sure seems that way) what they want to do is kill your ideals. if they wanted to kill you, they wouldn't leave enough time between attacks for you to breed enough replacements.
      i imagine that once the politics settle down and we start getting parts of our lost freedoms back is when the next big attack will happen.

    9. Re:Answer. by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      What I find even more disturbing is that while there are decent ways to temporarely suspend parts of the constitution in times of war, those are not being used, instead, the constitution is circumvented.

    10. Re:Answer. by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      Yea, that's just what we need. Another drunk driver out on the road and more bodies being pulled out of a river thanks to this guy.

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    11. Re:Answer. by Rahga · · Score: 3, Informative

      After a party on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969, Kennedy drove his car off a bridge, resulting in the death of one of his aides. This event has haunted his entire career, is the reason you'll see far-right activits show up to his events wearing life preservers, and is recognized as the single most important reason he has not nor ever will run for President of the United States. Check out Wikipedia's entry on Ted Kennedy, as it contains far more about the situation than it does on his career.

      This is not Karma farming... I don't need it anymore, and I realize that the vast majority of summer /. readers probably don't know this, and the joke went way over their heads.

    12. Re:Answer. by black+mariah · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fuck this country. Fuck the President. Fuck your mom. Fuck you.

      Fuck your friends, fuck the Senate, fuck the House, fuck all goverment employees.

      *WAITS*

      Nope. Still here. Sorry.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    13. Re:Answer. by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

      Well to be quite honest, I live in CA, so I've seen my share of people who I don't want driving :P

      So yeah, the ultimate answer is: "We Are Screwed!"

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    14. Re:Answer. by Jahf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fuck this country.

      You're kidding, right? I've been with 12 people in my life ... no way could I get through the US population in my lifetime. However this does work good as a blanket statement for the following.

      Fuck the President.

      No. No no no.

      Fuck your mom.

      My Oedipal complex went away when I was 13, thanks

      Fuck you.

      That one's easy but not so much fun.

      Fuck your friends

      If I can pick and choose, gladly. Otherwise I'd have to say no.

      fuck the Senate

      Have you SEEN those people ... well ... at least Strom Thurmond is gone.

      fuck the House

      Ok, so maybe there are a couple in there.

      fuck all goverment employees.

      Only if I can start at the interstate tollbooth, there's usually a couple hotties there. If I have to start at the DMV ... yeesh, have you SEEN those people? Oh wait, I said that about the Senate ... ok, so I'd take this category over that one.

      Oh, and fuck you too :P

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
    15. Re:Answer. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      If your speech had any possibility of being effective, it could well result in your "not being here."

      The fact that you tnake the ability to rant and rave and use foul language as the token of freedom is sad.

      And remember, if I have a dream with Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, and Captain Kirk in it, I can't turn it into a movie. As soon as expression bumps into the corporate agenda of ownership of cultural properties, freedom of speech gets tossed out the window.

    16. Re:Answer. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Don't try to get on any flights. Remember, the president can unperson you. Cameras in Boston. Cameras in Baltimore. "Free speech prisons" at political wank fests (known to the less intelligent as "conventions") with barbed wire and gun toting thugs to keep the protestors in their place. Don't challenege PATRIOT, and if you do, you better damn well not tell anyone you're doing it. Don't draw unflattering pictures of the president.

      Remember, you're either with Bush, or you're with the terrorists. There is no in between, so there is no room for dissenting opinion.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    17. Re:Answer. by whiteranger99x · · Score: 1

      Sounds almost like a drive here on the 405 :)

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    18. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude.. you slam-dunked that one.

    19. Re:Answer. by rho · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well, that, and the fact he's a fat, drunk, ultra-left wingnut shithead. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    20. Re:Answer. by XMyth · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's a good idea since Many SUVs are already large enough to take down tall buildings.

    21. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually he HAS run for president in the primary against Jimmy Carter and lost, in I believe 1980. Btw the consession speech he gave was brilliant, the best of his career.

    22. Re:Answer. by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "Don't challenege PATRIOT"

      Except it has been done successfully. As far as I know, the judge and attorneys are still around. Sorry, I don't usually let the facts get in the way of a good anti-government rant.

    23. Re:Answer. by black+mariah · · Score: 1
      There is no in between, so there is no room for dissenting opinion.
      Yet you just expressed one. Your lack of rights is imaginary at best.
      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    24. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a similar vein, Laura Bush ran a stop sign many years ago and her friend was killed in the accident. The details surrounding the incident are not well known. Unfortunately I don't have a link, but one shouldn't be hard to find. This comes up on left blogs all the time.

    25. Re:Answer. by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Oh god, another parrot corporation-basher. At least learn a few new phrases.

      You also can't make a movie starring Dilbert, the Mozilla logo, or your neighbor without permission. How are you going to whine about that?

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    26. Re:Answer. by The+Conductor · · Score: 2, Informative

      He did run for prez in 1980, but lost party nomination fight to Carter.

    27. Re:Answer. by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more in the perjorative sense than the literal boinking sense. I was at the DMV yesterday getting tags for a truck, oddly enough. Yes, I've seen them. I'll have beer on standby to help out when you get there.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    28. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you find (then post) a link, since it "shouldn't be hard to find" and you've already taken the time to mention this?

      Or is this just utter bullshit you're spewing? That's what I'm placing my money on.

    29. Re:Answer. by lost+sheep · · Score: 1

      ahhhh....nothing beats the evidence and reason based, eloquent style that our founding fathers instilled in the great debate of American politics.

      --
      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lost Sheep to Shepard, you got your ears on?
    30. Re:Answer. by Kenrod · · Score: 1

      The fact that this Anonymous Coward belch of flamebait gets modded to 5/Interesting should be enough to let everyone know where the mindset of Slashdot is.

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    31. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok... I know this may be a BIT obvious but when in history has ANY government EVER given ANY freedoms back to it's people? Once you loose them they are lost plain and simple..

      Look it up.

      Same goes for taxes. We still pay "temporary" taxes on natral disasters or at times of war...etc.

      Your freedoms are lost for good and its your fault for letting it happen. Sorry to sound so harsh but its true.

    32. Re:Answer. by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia has a link to a mirrored AP story from 2000; maybe someone with access can check newspaper archives to see if that's valid? BTW, the AP report states that it was in fact her boyfriend's car that she hit, and that he died as he was "thrown from his doorless Jeep", implying that he wasn't wearing a belt either. Sounds like he was at least partially to blame for being dead rather than injured, then.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    33. Re:Answer. by Farrside · · Score: 1

      Mark the above post's words!
      Slashdot should have a new modifier, "Eerily prescient".

    34. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it's the Washington D.C. weapons charge. Evidently, Ted-elete Kennedy felt he wasn't bound by the D.C. ban on all guns had a submachine gun with him (afraid of jealous husbands, perhaps?)

      His elitist record goes back further. While at Harvard, he paid another student to take a test for him. Got caught and expelled. A few years (and how many $$$ later?) Harvard gave him a degree.

      (True Fact: Teddy is related to the Terminator.)

      Then there's the JFK, RFK, and Marilyn conspiracy theory: Everyone knows Marilyn Monroe slept with John and Robert. Teddy propositions her, is rejected, so he has all three killed.

      Bottom line - it's a political publicity stunt. If he can call special favors to get his name off, he can secretly get it on the list. (Maybe one of his illegitimate kids is a clerk.) The delay - same dufus keeps throwing the name back on.

    35. Re:Answer. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Not the brightest color in the crayon box, are you? Your lack of cognitive ability is unfortunate, as I would have expected an individual with normal intelligence to be able to take the expanded illustration I provided and put it into the proper context. As you are incapable of doing that, I will spell it out explicitly. Let me know if you need me to dumb the illustration down any farther:

      Cameras in public places violate privacy. If I'm not a criminal, or acting like one, the authorities can damn well keep their eyeballs elsewhere. And, yes, it is a violation. There are plenty of reasons to watch people whie you're in public. Law enforcement authorities must, however, be using these cameras on the assumption that the individuals being watched are criminals. If they're not using them for that reason, then they're not doing their jobs. Either way, the cameras are a violation. It's just a matter of whether they're violating privacy, or wasting tax dollars.

      Presumption of guilt in the form of detailed background checks without provocation is a violation of my privacy. I can be treated like a criminal without cause anywhere from the bank to the airport.

      Accused criminals deserve the right to a fair trial. Inventing bullshit terminology such as "enemy combatant" is an excuse to eliminate a person's civil liberties and nothing more.

      Locking peaceful protestors up for having - get this - dissenting opinions is violation of free speech rights. Forcing people to be caged because they are protesting is jailing people for being dissenters.

      Ashcroft did indeed attempt to silence the ACLU for challenging PATRIOT - and succeeded for quite some time.

      Children ARE questioned and chided for drawing or saying unflattering things about the President. This IS a violation of free expression.

      The fact that one right hasn't been completely devastated does not prove that others haven't, or that rights aren't under fire. You can CHOOSE to believe that you have the same level of freedom you did ten years ago, but you're wrong, and I'll just say you're blind, deaf, and stupid for saying it. And, no. I'm not interested in convincing you of my position. I don't give a shit. America sucks ass becuase it's full of idiots who are blind, deaf, and stupid, and I'm not wasting my time trying to convince them. Let the lemmings push each other off the cliff, I don't care.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    36. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but lost party nomination fight to Carter.
      Boy that sure turned out good didn't it.

    37. Re:Answer. by aliens · · Score: 1

      Actually unless you're flying international I fly in and out of NYC quite often. It's never taken me a long time to go through checking in and passing through security.

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    38. Re:Answer. by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1, Troll

      That won't work after the new 'Don't-Drive' rules take into effect on our nations hiways.

      Mr. Kennedy (if that is really your name) please step away from the vehicle...


      Too late. He already killed Kopechne.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    39. Re:Answer. by RLW · · Score: 4, Funny

      He should have been on the don't drive list many, many years ago.

    40. Re:Answer. by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      I'm not getting into this with you. You obviously have no original thoughts of your own, instead relying upon whatever the current Slashdot party line is to tell you what you should think and what you should say to someone who thinks otherwise. In short, kiss my ass and learn to think for yourself.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    41. Re:Answer. by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Everything would've been ok if he only...

      --
      What?
    42. Re:Answer. by jpetts · · Score: 0, Troll

      Journalist: Senator, did you learn anything from Chappaquiddick?
      Kennedy: Yeah, don't drive over a bridge when you're pissed out of your fucking mind!

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    43. Re:Answer. by gorbachev · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Dude, with all the additional truck stops they had on major New York thruways you'd be better off with flying.

      They've set up an impromptu truck stop on southbound I-95 before New York City. It's been there for about 2 - 3 weeks now and creating massive traffic jams. The traffic was already bad, but now instead of a three 2 mile delays, you have one massive 15 mile delay. It's great. Hope they find a lot of terrorists.

      Of course, since they're only stopping trucks nothing is preventing a terrorist driving a Escalade packed with explosives right past the damn truck stop all the way to New York. All they're achieving is aggravating the people who have to commute past that truck stop every day.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    44. Re:Answer. by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      American politicians are thus accomplishing what the terrorists could only dream of doing; they are destroying our once-great country from within.

      Not to mention calling you unpatriotic for pointing this out. Patriotic for many appears to mean "following your leaders without question".

    45. Re:Answer. by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Hey, you still have the liberty to bitch on Slashdot.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    46. Re:Answer. by brufleth · · Score: 0

      What's even worse is that the girl didn't drown. She was still alive in the car due to a trapped air bubble. Ted went back to the party and told his friends/lawyers what had happened and they told him to go home and sober up and turn himself in the following morning, which he did. The divers found the girl inside the car holding her head up. There was no water in her lungs. She simply ran out of air. Had he gone directly to the police there's a possibility she could have survived. Don't beleive me? I ought to know, I grew up on the Cape in a village adjacent to Hyannisport. We're well informed when it comes to our local heros/villains.

    47. Re:Answer. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      They've set up an impromptu truck stop on southbound I-95 before New York City. It's been there for about 2 - 3 weeks now and creating massive traffic jams. The traffic was already bad, but now instead of a three 2 mile delays, you have one massive 15 mile delay. It's great. Hope they find a lot of terrorists.

      I drove up via I-83 (i think that's the one), and it took me about 5 hours. Of course, I was driving slow and taking all sorts of detours. Other alternatives are Amtrak and Greyhound. The train was kinda pricey last I checked, but the bus is dirt cheap and takes about 4 hours.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    48. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For starters, wake up the fact that the Constitution no longer exists in America for ordinary citizens.

      Phooy, only parts have been abrogated, I can still buy a nice gun for example.

      American politicians are thus accomplishing what the terrorists could only dream of doing; they are destroying our once-great country from within.

      Dream, no, plan with frightening insight, yes.

      Our liberties can be temporarily suspended during times of war; but the problem is that this "War on Terror" will be permanent. We will never, ever, regain the liberties we are now losing.

      The problem is this: The Constitution was designed on the ideology that all cultures/religions are inherently good and share its underlieing philosophy of fredom. This is not the case. The present "war on terror" demonstrates that (which has actually been going on for 100s of years now). It was a fine document for the times, now its time has pased - get used to it.

      -Coward

    49. Re:Answer. by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      I think maybe that's where the trouble starts; a country's constitution should protect all people in that country, not just people who have citizenship. Once you start making that kind of distinction, it's just all too easy too broaden/tighten the definition of who the constitution does or doesn't apply to.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    50. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then there's the JFK, RFK, and Marilyn conspiracy theory: Everyone knows Marilyn Monroe slept with John and Robert. Teddy propositions her, is rejected, so he has all three killed.
      Are you crazy? You can't tell me you believe such nonsense ... Only a maniac would.

      I've never heard such a crackpot story before... Thanks, man, you made me laugh.
    51. Re:Answer. by bitrott · · Score: 1

      HAHAHA Not fuckin funny ass. This joke has never been funny. It's an old joke. It's also in poor taste. It's also not funny. Have I mentioned how old and not funny it is? Cause it's both of those things with a vengance. I always wonder, what kind of un-funny dumb fuck pulls out that old chestnut and waves it around with an idiot grin on their face? Only an idiot dumb fuck I'm guessing.

      OLD. BORING. NOT FUNNY. And yet you got modded so high. Tacky bastards.

    52. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously have not been to the toll booth on I-95 just before exit 93 north of the Susquehanna River in Maryland.

      Boy oh boy, there are some really nasty redneck ladies there.

      Unless you're into that... Is that your idea of a hottie? :P

    53. Re:Answer. by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      How ironic.

      I don't think like you.. so... I... don't think for myself.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    54. Re:Answer. by nettdata · · Score: 1

      "Mr. Kennedy (if that is really your name) please step away from the vehicle..."

      If that's Ted we're talking about, I'm sure he's heard that LOTS of times.

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
    55. Re:Answer. by biggerboy · · Score: 1

      For starters, wake up the fact that the Constitution no longer exists in America for ordinary citizens.

      Quit your whining. If you want to see what real problems are, go to Sudan.

    56. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sad but true. We are the frog in the boiling water and most of us don't know it.

    57. Re:Answer. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      If you want to pretend that you honestly believe in thinking for yourself, you can start by admitting there is no such thing as the "slashdot party line". I see far more posts complaining about the alleged party line than posts actually exhibiting it, which proves there's no such thing (other than, perhaps, saying that the slashdot party line is the act of complaining about the slashdot party line.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    58. Re:Answer. by toriver · · Score: 1
    59. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Quit your whining. If you want to see what real problems are, go to Sudan.
      So should we wait until we're like Sudan b4 we should start whining?
    60. Re:Answer. by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Patriotic for many appears to mean "following your leaders without question".

      Of course it does. Didn't you learn that in grade school?

      How often do you hear the word used any other way?

      My favorite quote on the subject is from The Devil's Dictionary (H.L.Mencken):

      In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    61. Re:Answer. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      Talk about collateral damage -- I'd rather have a Kennedy as a passenger in a plane than at the controls of either an aircraft OR an automobile. Somehow they seem to have a penchant for aiming them at water.

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    62. Re:Answer. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Who says I don't? But the fact is that the model of intellectual property that is being used to control expression is being enforced at the behest of the major culture industry behemoths, not at the behest of smaller ones. There's a reason why the copyright extension act is called the Mickey Mouse act.

      I'm not a blanket corporation basher. But your eagerness to defend the most powerful institutions in the country suggests, perhaps, an instinctive loyalty to authority figures.

    63. Re:Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>fuck all goverment employees.

      >Only if I can start at the interstate tollbooth, there's usually a couple hotties there.

      Damn, that seems to always be the way. It must be the hiring practices, the most junior and therefore most young, get the 'bad' jobs. I have certainly noticed Babe counts being higher away from main government offices.

      Over here,(Oz) I've definitely seen goverment work teams, (Generally gardening, The fat old guy seems to have a lock on the Road work.) I wouldn't mind being on.

    64. Re:Answer. by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      Of course it does. Didn't you learn that in grade school? How often do you hear the word used any other way?

      Why in grade school, where (since I was educated in the USA) it was typically applied to colonial revolutionaries that most certainly didn't follow the existing government without question.

  3. Funny... by Phoenix-IT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is it me? Or does it seem that potential threats have and easier time getting into airports and on board planes than ordinary citizens do?

    1. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Standard buracratic process....
      Make things very easy for criminals.

      and
      Damn near impossible for law abiding citizens.

      See software copy protection, crippled cd's etc

      least not forget MPAA, RIAA DMCA suck

    2. Re:Funny... by dekemoose · · Score: 5, Informative

      For a lot of good reading on truly effective security practices, read Bruce Schneier's stuff, http://www.schneier.com/, his crypto-gram newsletters have lots of interesting reading.

    3. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is it me? Or does it seem that potential threats have and easier time getting into airports and on board planes than ordinary citizens do?

      It's just you. Seriously, one guy has problems because he ends up on the watch list on a prank or a fuck up and everyone starts whining that America is a police state and how their civil liberties have been taken away.

      If you think potential threats have an easier time getting on a plane, go dress up like one, fake a passport and see how far you get.

    4. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Is it me? Or does it seem that potential threats have and easier time getting
      > into airports and on board planes than ordinary citizens do?

      It's like copy protection. It makes life annoying for law abiding people, but does nothing to stop copyright infringement. Didn't the 9/11 murderers have valid ID anyway?

    5. Re:Funny... by btbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absolutely! The weird thing with blacklists is that people travelling on a fake identity will never be on the list....

    6. Re:Funny... by furball · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You forgot about gun control.

    7. Re:Funny... by benito27uk · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Does it not concern you that you can get on the list as a result of a 'prank or a fuck up'?

      Don't you think that addition to the list should be as a result of slightly more appropriate level of checks than that?

      And by the way, terrorists don't 'dress up like one' or carry fake passports, that's why they're difficult to identify, and why any sort of watch list will result in thousands of false positives.

    8. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nd by the way, terrorists don't 'dress up like one' or carry fake passports

      Why do you people comment on things that you have no idea about. Do you make things up just to fall in place with your ideology? See this link and then tell me again that terrorists don't carry false passports

    9. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Standard buracratic process.... Make things very easy for criminals. and Damn near impossible for law abiding citizens. See software copy protection, crippled cd's etc

      Holy....Christ. How illogical can you get? You are comparing CD copy protection to Terrorist watch lists?

      *SOFTWARE* copy protection does make things somewhat easier for the criminal than the law abiding citizens, since they can easly copy their software, get it pre-release, no-cd cracks, etc.

      Terrorist watch lists, homeland security measures, etc however in no way make things easier for a terrorist. They may inconvience law abiding citizens at times, but they sure as hell don't give the terrorists any advantage. I can't believe something so illogical could be modded to +5 insightful on Slashdot.

      While John Kerry and his supporters can make vaild points on the economy, class warfare, and plenty of social issues, the constant attacks on the war on terror are aiding the enemy just as Kerry aided the enemy in the Vietnam war. Kerry and his supports are advancing an ideology that will be helpful to the terrorists, and therefor are terrorists themselves of a lesser kind. They are Kerrorists!

    10. Re:Funny... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Of course it seems that way. Terrorists have realized that certain activities will get them black flagged, so they're careful not to do those things. Need a bunch of potassium nitrate? Well, don't order it on YOUR credit card...they'll be looking for that. Have somebody else do it. Having a clear record will become a requisite for suicide attacks, and in a way that's pretty scary.

      That's the whole problem with this Homeland Security business. It's too bureaocratic. The problem with American airline security pre-9/11 was complacency, not lack of security. Hiring more workers for less money and giving them more regulations isn't going to make the average security guy any more effective. Christ, I flew home from my honeymoon on September 10th, 2001 (yes, mindblowing...a day later I'd have never gotten home) with an 8 inch knife still strapped to my leg from my hike the day before. Walked right through security, right through the metal detector, didn't discover it until I was on the plane.

      This knife -- like the box cutters used by the hijackers -- should have been discovered by security. It wasn't. Because security had been asked to tone down the sensitivity of metal detectors to keep lines moving and to reduce staffing for random searches.

      Before 9/11, the crux of security checks was finding drugs, not stopping terror, because terror had never happened on American soil. Once it had, there was no need to wake up airport security and completely revise the travel regulations. We just had to make the guys already employed in this capacity understand why they were there. By adding all this red tape all we've done is, at great cost, removed accountability from the only people who can really stop air terrorism: airport security staff.

      I'd like to see airport security cut in half, trained twice as well and paid 50% more. A small elite staff will be more effective and less intrusive all around than a bunch of drooling rent-a-cops who care more about procedure and moving the line then they do about protecting flights.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    11. Re:Funny... by benito27uk · · Score: 1
      Of the four people mentioned in the article cited only one 'Lionel Dumont' confirms that the password was forged, for the other three it alleges, with no evidence provided:

      IHSAN GARNAOUI: ALLEGEDLY returned to Germany in January 2003 with the help of a forged Portuguese passport and REPORTEDLY has told investigators he had a number of South African passports.

      HAMBALI: REPORTEDLY had a fake Spanish passport

      IBRAHIM ALI ABUBAKER TANTOUSH: arrested in February in South Africa for ALLEGEDLY carrying a fake South African passport.

    12. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see airport security cut in half, trained twice as well and paid 50% more. A small elite staff will be more effective and less intrusive all around than a bunch of drooling rent-a-cops who care more about procedure and moving the line then they do about protecting flights.

      The problem is, after training and paying them 50% more you end up paying more than you would for the scrubs. Not to mention the rent-a-scrubs work a lot cheaper than 50% less than an "elite" security person would cost you. These airlines are for-profit businesses, they shouldn't cut corners on security but they will for their bottom lines

      I hate government regulation, and really hate monopolies, but I think the airlines should be regulated even more than they are already. Sacrificing security for $$$ is a poor idea.

    13. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your original statement:

      And by the way, terrorists don't 'dress up like one' or carry fake passports,

      Now you are saying:

      Of the four people mentioned in the article cited only one 'Lionel Dumont' confirms that the password was forged, for the other three it alleges, with no evidence provided:

      So, what you mean is, what you said the first time was wrong and I was able to disprove it with a 2 second google search. You were talking out of your ass, making things up to fit how you see the world rather than based on facts or reality.

    14. Re:Funny... by benito27uk · · Score: 1
      My original post says 'fake' not 'false'. I am not saying that they are carrying a passport in the name they were born with, I am saying that they are carrying legitimate passports that have been fraudulently obtained.

      Legitimate passports used by a terrorist who has not been previously identified or arrested will not come up on a threat list.

      If a terrorist and his pseudonyms are known then this information should be just one facet of the attempt to apprehend him. Only using the name (or pseudonym) as the reason for blocking a person travelling is sloppy and will not provide any more security

    15. Re:Funny... by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 1

      It's a new twist on security. If there aren't any ordinary citizens on the flight then there isn't any danger.

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    16. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha holy shit. The school systems in Europe are really shot aren't they? The best argument you can come up with is fake isn't the same as false? Give me a break, go kill yourself eurotrash.

      I am saying that they are carrying legitimate passports that have been fraudulently obtained.

      Ie, a FALSE passport. One that doesn't identify them as themselves. It's the same thing, you can play with words all you want and try to spin things. You are another bleeting slashsheep who makes up bullshit to support a poor argument.

    17. Re:Funny... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      The inability of government agents to question more than 2 Arabs per flight does make it easier for terrorists. They're strip searching blue-haired grannies and toddlers while large groups of Middle Easterners are openly practicing "dry runs" for terrorist attacks on airplanes.

      One of my big disappointments with the Bush administration is not kicking all the politically correct morons out on their ass and start treating airline security seriously instead of mostly paying lip service. I don't care what those freaks in the ACLU say, this is one time and place where racial profiling is not only useful, but mandatory if we are going to prevent another attack.

      Kerry's response to all this seems to be to go kiss Jacques Chirac's ass followed by Kofi Annan. He seems to want to treat this like a law enforcement issue. That's what got us in the situation in the first place. But he would ratehr hypocritically call for a recall of the "Unfit for Command" book while treating Michael Moore like a saint. I feel sorry for those people who have legitimate reasons to want Bush out, unfortunately, your candidate sucks (as a candidate), and he knows it. Why else would he run on something he did 35 years ago and completely fail to talk about what he's done lately?

      It's nice to see the Senior Swimming Instructor from Massachusetts having to suffer some of the problems we proles live with all the time. Now if we could only get him and his 534 colleagues to have to do their own taxes, or deal with insurance companies THEN we'd get some reform.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    18. Re:Funny... by Phleg · · Score: 1

      Insightful? RTFA. "T. Kennedy" is the fake identity used by a suspected terrorist.

      --
      No comment.
    19. Re:Funny... by iabervon · · Score: 1

      The 9/11 terrorists were dressed normally and travelling with real passports in their actual names. I'd probably have a hard time flying if I was trying to use an actual Al Queda member's passport, but that's just because I probably wouldn't match the picture at all.

      Potential threats look just like ordinary citizens. Ordinary citizens seem to have a harder time getting on planes simply because there are more of them to have trouble and complain.

    20. Re:Funny... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      "...while large groups of Middle Easterners are openly practicing "dry runs" for terrorist attacks on airplanes."

      Perhaps the next time you see this kind of blatant terrorist planning going on you should point it out to the security guards or something, it's a bit bloody stupid standing there watching this going on and not doing anything about it isn't it ?

      Simply moaning about it on slashdot is an dereliction of your patriotic duty and I am certainly writing to your government to get your IP address from Slashdot and have a word with you about standing by and virtually aiding and abetting terrorist activities.

    21. Re:Funny... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      "...go dress up like one..."

      So how do potential threats dress then ?

    22. Re:Funny... by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      I always think that everyone is intelligent, and then I run across stupid people like you.

      Tell me, sir...if we always search the most suspicious people, which is your mind are Middle Easterners, do this mean we are, in fact, searching other people less? Of course it does.

      So, to sneak something onto a plane, wouldn't all you had to do was grab, oh, a dozen Middle Eastern men, and have one nice, cleancut white woman just carry the weapons? I mean, she's not going to get searched under your plan, because you're a FUCKING MORON who thinks searching some groups of people less than others is a good thing. Because terrorists are complete idiots who stand around going 'Gee, I wonder who should carry the weapons? Adil? Habib? Cindy-Lou?'.

      Assuming that a terrorist organization can't recruit non-Middle Earnerners is just so incredibly stupid I can't believe you're not a troll. And you only need one person to carry the weapons and hide them in the bathroom.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    23. Re:Funny... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Great. Put the crack pipe down. I didn't say _I'm_ witnessing it. Maybe you should read a newspaper once in a while.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    24. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, to sneak something onto a plane, wouldn't all you had to do was grab, oh, a dozen Middle Eastern men, and have one nice, cleancut white woman just carry the weapons? I mean, she's not going to get searched under your plan, because you're a FUCKING MORON who thinks searching some groups of people less than others is a good thing. Because terrorists are complete idiots who stand around going 'Gee, I wonder who should carry the weapons? Adil? Habib? Cindy-Lou?'.

      When was the last time someone named Cindy-Lou was involved in suicide attacks?

      Assuming that a terrorist organization can't recruit non-Middle Earnerners is just so incredibly stupid I can't believe you're not a troll. And you only need one person to carry the weapons and hide them in the bathroom.

      No Non-Muslim would have any interest in aligning with Al Quadia. You are the fucking moron.

    25. Re:Funny... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Wonderful. Swear words in bold are always a sign of mature reason.

      I never said you don't search other people. But when you are talking about suicide missions, it's going to be hard to find recruits that aren't complete fanatics and nutcases, ergo, Middle Easterners are the most likely to be involved.

      You sound like one of those people who argue that everyone is at the same risk for AIDS, so we should mandate AIDS testing for ninety-year-old shut-ins because old Mrs. Beasley who hasn't been out of her apartment in 5 years is just as at risk as Chester Pantsdown cruising the sex clubs for a quick lay and an armful of smack.

      Why don't you sit down, take a deep breath and lay off the caffeine. Maybe consider a bit of therapy for your anger-management issues. A little medication can go a long way. Oh yeah, and finish your algebra homework before you get your allowance suspended.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    26. Re:Funny... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Well apart from the Daily Mail and The Sun most of the papers in the U.K. are strangely quiet on the subject of "Large Groups Of Middle Easterners Conducting Terrorist Dry Runs Whilst Airport Staff Look On And Search Harmless Old Ladies"

      So what do you think the newspapers who did witness this should have done, assuming they actually did witness it and are not just reporting the words of someone else who might have witnessed it, or there brother, or there cousins best friends babysitter who may have witnessed it ?

      Do you think they should have A) Used it for a sensational fear mongering newspaper article or B) Pointed out to the airport staff that there was an obvious terrorist dry run going on under there very noses ?

      The point is if it was a real terrorist dry run then when it was drawn to there attention any airport in the world would take very swift action whereas if the only terrorist dry run actually happening was in the imagination of the observer then they probably wouldn't do anything at all.

    27. Re:Funny... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Do you think they should have A) Used it for a sensational fear mongering newspaper article or B) Pointed out to the airport staff that there was an obvious terrorist dry run going on under there very noses ?

      Done and done. Be sure to read the original. That article caused quite a stir in the USA, providing ammunition for those people who can claim anything as factual as long as a journalist said so.

    28. Re:Funny... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Before 9/11, the crux of security checks was finding drugs, not stopping terror, because terror had never happened on American soil.

      That is such a horrible lie, I can't even decide where to begin.

      (Hopefully, you didn't mean that you believe this yourself, but that the USA administration behaved as if it did. Similarly to how Tom Ridge doesn't believe there have been any terrorist attacks in the USA since 11/09/01, although I can count a few)

    29. Re:Funny... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      That's one of the most disgusting things I think I have ever read and I think a good example of where all this state sponsored paranoia about terrorism is leading us.

      Essentially the journalist is saying

      "A lot of people who looked they might be foreigners got on the plane with us, all foreigners are likely to be terrorists. They did all the normal things groups of people do on planes but because they were foreign and looked funny my husband and I became more and more agitated and scared until we had worked ourselves up into a state of unreasoning terror brought about by our extreme suggestibility and lack of reasoning skills. At that point we broke into a full scale panic embarrassing not only ourselves but also the foreign gentleman, the aircrew and the undercover federal marshalls whose cover we blew."

    30. Re:Funny... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      I was referring to air terror, and as for myself I'm always wary of flying. In fact, when I took my honeymoon in September of 2001, I flew Continental rather than Southwest because Continental flew smaller planes and required a layover in Chicago. This meant that the planes never had enough fuel to get anywhere, making their value to hijackers greatly decreased.

      Nowadays, I've ammended my policy and won't fly in anything other than an ultralite.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    31. Re:Funny... by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      I was referring to air terror,

      In that case, then it's NEVER happened "on American soil". Because airplanes, ya see... they fly.

      Although if you meant "American airspace", then it's still wrong. Armed hijackings had already happened in the USA, and other parts of America.

      as for myself I'm always wary of flying.

      You know that's irrational, right? Statistically it's just not something to worry about.

    32. Re:Funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a fact.

      Here's the question for you: who is going to have a better understanding of managing american security processes: a good forger or Martha down at the DMW? You can bet your freedom that a guy who prepares illegal documentation for a living is going to know exactly what documents and actions are optimal for any given security situation whereas someone at the DMW MIGHT know enough to tell you not to smile for your biometric id.

    33. Re:Funny... by StewedSquirrel · · Score: 1

      Woot!

      You seriously think that Ted Kennedy was the first non-terrorist to get stopped by this sort of booby trap?

      Perhaps it's the first case to make national news... but I can guarantee that it's not the first... or the 10th... If you think of how many people, statistically, have enough name recognition to make national headlines... Lets say it's about 0.01% of the population (that's a generous 30,000 people)... Then statistically, it's likely that 10,000 people (+/- 2,500) have been stopped in a similar manner before this issue made national news.

      Figure that T. Kennedy is a very popular terrorist alias and maybe that number is only 5,000.

      Boo hoo.

      FYI, I know someone who operates on a fake passport and a fake social security number. Though that's for immigration reasons, not for terrorism reasons. He flys just fine. He has a job and pays taxes... He owns a small business and he speaks in front of crowds. But he "doesn't exist". :-) Ponder that while you're at it.

      Stewey

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
    34. Re:Funny... by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      There's no statiscal reason to worry about lightning strikes or random murders, either. But I'm still wary of lakes during thunderstorms and I lock my door at night.

      I mean, there's paranoia, and then there's preparation. It is not likely on a given day that I will need to use the knife in my pocket or the condom in my wallet but when it happens I'm quite grateful I didn't talk myself out of carrying them.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    35. Re:Funny... by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      Make things very easy for criminal and Damn near impossible for law abiding citizens.
      But in this case it worked out right and they made things damn near impossible for the criminal. Now if only they could keep him out of the driver's seat and out of congress.

      (Note to partisans: Kennedy is not much better or worse than any other senator.)

    36. Re:Funny... by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      When was the last time someone named Cindy-Lou was involved in suicide attacks?

      You're right, silly me, terrorists never have names like Eric or Tim or Ted. (I'm not quite certain why suicide attacks are worse than non-suicide attacks. On the whole, I'd rather the terrorists die, personally, instead of wandering off to go again, like Rudolph did repeatedly.)

      No Non-Muslim would have any interest in aligning with Al Quadia. You are the fucking moron.

      I said 'non-Middle Easterner' and you said 'non-Muslim'. You see the problem there? We have plenty of Muslims that are not from anywhere but right here. And many of them are angry, especially after stupid comments by Bush. I point to John Allen Muhammad

      And I love the assumption that Al Quadia is the only terrorist organization in the world. Al Quadia, the real organization, is basically dead. There are a lot of splinter groups running around, but the large funding from the top has almost completely vanished. Al Quadia is not the threat anymore.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    37. Re:Funny... by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but I always swear when people endanger my life because they're stupid.

      Here's the facts: We know, last time, terrorists didn't use any non-Middle-Easterners. So, logically, we could look just them, or them more than others. Logically, we can finger suspicious people, and search them more, and even keep the really suspicious ones off the plane.

      That would work perfectly...in a vaccuum.

      Of course, it assumes terrorists are idiots who don't know what we're doing because they can't read newspapers.

      In reality, terrorists will get on airplanes repeatedly, to figure out who's on the no-fly list. They'll see how often they get searched. This isn't quantum physics, people.

      And, in the end, they'll tell the people on the no-fly list to say home, they'll hire some dirty-poor farmer from Peru to carry on weapons with the promise of riches to his family, and they'll all get in line, panicking the security people, who will body-cavity search them, find nothing, and let them on their way, while the farmer walked through with the razor blades in the CD player of his laptop.

      Congratulations, morons. A random search might have caught the Peruvian. But all your expensive security people were searching the people who knew they'd be searched.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    38. Re:Funny... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Here's the fact: The Federal authorities are prohibited by regulation from questioning more than 2 Arabs per flight. This is what's stupid. So you get the case like we had a few weeks ago where there were 14 Syrians travelling together and behaving so suspiciously that passengers thought there was an imminent terror attack. Because of political correctness, we are checking unlikely people in favor of likely people.

      Your righteous indignation is amusing, but misplaced because you are arguing against your simplisitic view of what you think people who disagree with you think while apparently completely missing my point.

      Next you be saying all Republicans are rascist and all Democrats are Commies. Oh, yeah, all blacks are lazy and all Jews are money-grubbing.

      Please do me a favor and read what I'm actually saying rather then launching into some spittle-flinging tirade about how intellectually superior you think you are.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  4. Silly Homeland Security... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Everybody knows Ted Kennedy is no threat unless you're driving in a car with him.....

    1. Re:Silly Homeland Security... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Yeah yeah. Funny and all.

      But this is Edward Kennedy. Not that I blame you for mixing them up. Just how many Kennedys are there in the government? If you want an easy majority for a bill, maybe you should just court the Kennedy vote instead of any party.

    2. Re:Silly Homeland Security... by mgs1000 · · Score: 1

      It's his nephew that was a threat to aircraft.

    3. Re:Silly Homeland Security... by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Great moderation there...

      Can I just add that I get really pissed off with people confusing Jack and John Kennedy?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Silly Homeland Security... by Pitdog7 · · Score: 0

      They had the wrong Kennedy on the "No-fly" list but it's a bit late now...

      --

      "If my answers frighten you, then you should cease asking scary questions." -Jules Winnfield
    5. Re:Silly Homeland Security... by CarrionBird · · Score: 1

      Read the article.

      --
      Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
    6. Re:Silly Homeland Security... by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      I thought they held him back because they were worried the plane wouldn't be able to lift off the ground...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    7. Re:Silly Homeland Security... by ifwm · · Score: 1

      No they were out of booze and didn't want him to make a scene.

    8. Re:Silly Homeland Security... by jhigh · · Score: 1

      Ted Kennedy and Edward Kennedy are the same person...dolt.

      --
      Social Engineering Expert: Because there is no patch for stupidity.
    9. Re:Silly Homeland Security... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saddly, first thing I thought when I read the aritcle is please don't make him drive, you know how many Bridges there are between Boston and DC?

      -AC

    10. Re:Silly Homeland Security... by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      Maybe he was drunk and DHS thought he might try to drive the plane.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
  5. Could it have been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could this have been some backroom shenanigans to harass and intimidate an outspoken member of the opposition party? Lord, no, such a thing would never be done by politicians these days...

    1. Re:Could it have been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
      outspoken member of the opposition party
      You misspelled "drunk and fat."
    2. Re:Could it have been... by mattlary · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey Farva; what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the shit up on the walls?

    3. Re:Could it have been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is pretty surprising how much this comes up in politics. Half of the insults hurled at Michael Moore are about him being fat. It's not like there aren't fat Republicans too. Is that the best you can do?

    4. Re:Could it have been... by arose · · Score: 1

      Politicans are just like kids, they call each other 'fag' when you are not around.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    5. Re:Could it have been... by IsaacW · · Score: 1

      You mean Shenanigan's?

    6. Re:Could it have been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misunderstand me. I didn't point out his drunken fatness because he's a Democrat, I pointed it out because he's a whiny mouthpiece for the worst the government has to offer, a member of an over-praised clan of rapists and adulterers whose family fortune came from bootlegging and war profiteering, and thanks to his Chappaquiddick activities he's at best an idiot and a coward and at worst he's a murderer.

      Newt Gingrich is a fat fuck too, but I don't hold that against him as much as I do the fact that he served his wife with divorce papers while she lay in bed in hospital dying of cancer.

      If someone's fat and also a happy, wonderful person to be around then my thoughts are "go on with your happy, fat self!" If they're generally soulless assholes like Gingrich, Kennedy, and so on then I find it's a nice visual metaphor for their repellent insides.

      And Michael Moore being a fat bastard who plays fast and loose with the facts doesn't change the fact that W. just might very literally be a war criminal.

      I have no ideological party lines - my two favorite humorists are Garry Trudeau and P.J. O'Rourke. I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

      [Chandler] Could I *be* any more off-topic... [/Chandler]

    7. Re:Could it have been... by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Could this have been some backroom shenanigans to harass and intimidate an outspoken member of the opposition party? Lord, no, such a thing would never be done by politicians these days...

      Given that a Kennedy spokesman said "This wasn't politically motiviated, just a screwup" I have to conclude that, no, this isn't "someone" trying to harass a high profile member of the minority party.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    8. Re:Could it have been... by xSauronx · · Score: 1

      thats giving them too much credit,more likely to be a stupid mistake than pure evil crafty-ness

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    9. Re:Could it have been... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 4, Informative
      Really. Now the FBI is tailing people just to harass them because of their political views. Lots of recent reports here.

      And this kind of crap is not going to be buried by the media!

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    10. Re:Could it have been... by ifwm · · Score: 1

      So what if it was? If I had a chance to mess around like that, I'd do it in a heart beat. And (this is the important part) I'd call the guy and tell him about it. Because it would be funny.

      Then I'd expect something in return, because that too would be funny.

    11. Re:Could it have been... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised folks weren't more suspicious about Wellstone's convenient death at the start of all of this.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    12. Re:Could it have been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hehe...c'mon now, their just following "tips" people give them. Lord knows that in this day and age anyone who opposes the political status quo is suspicious and needs to be investigated. Just let them do their job so they can keep the children safe and America free from the freedom hating terrorists.

    13. Re:Could it have been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least Kennedy has done things for the public good.

      Gingrich was just a selfish bastard who shut down the government because Clinton wouldn't let him use the front door of Air Force One.

    14. Re:Could it have been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should run for the senate. Make that your poltical platform.

    15. Re:Could it have been... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And this kind of crap is not going to be buried by the media!

      What does it mean for something to be buried by the media? If it means never reported, guess what, it wasn't.

    16. Re:Could it have been... by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      I agree that it wasn't motivated by any high-ranking Republicans, but for a different reason. What would Kennedy gain by crying foul? He's a Senator, and by extention holds some blame for the law to begin with. If he blamed an opposing party, it would be fairly easy to make him look like a paranoid looney, not just a drunk. Not to mention what amounts to a political sissy.

      The reason I think it truly could not have been engineered by someone with an axe to grind with Kennedy is the fact this very clearly shows a weakness in the system - and the last thing they want is for these "anti-terrorism" measures to be seen as is weak, ineffective, or misguided.

      --
      ± 29 dB
  6. The slippery slope by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It goes to show that once you head down this road, it is abused, or at best, applied incompetently and inflexibly. Show me your papers, citizen!

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    1. Re:The slippery slope by freak4u · · Score: 1

      I wasn't using my rights anyway. Does anybody remember the qoute about giving up our rights because we weren't using them, and they took away our first and we were speechless (sorry for mangling it, just can't remember)

    2. Re:The slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only all justice were administered by you, the world would be a perfect place. Oh wait, no, it would be a nighmarish hell.

    3. Re:The slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean....you have the PROOF of Kennedys' guilt? I'd suggest a quick call to the Justice Department to let them know, otherwise *you* may be considered a terrorist criminal felon abettor for not informing them!

    4. Re:The slippery slope by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 0

      Too bad "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.

    5. Re:The slippery slope by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1, Troll

      Flamebait eh? More like AC bait. By his own version of events he is responsible for her death. Quoteth the Wiki:

      After a party on Chappaquiddick Island on July 18, 1969, Senator Edward Kennedy drove his 1967 Oldsmobile Delta 88 off a wooden bridge into a tide-swept pond and his passenger and aide, Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned. Kennedy did not report the incident for 10 hours. Kennedy pleaded guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident and received a suspended sentence. This incident has haunted his reputation for the 35 years since its transpiring. Senator Kennedy's driver's license had expired on February 22, 1969 and had not been renewed. Although driving with an expired license was only a misdemeanor, it did provide the evidence of negligence needed to prove a manslaughter charge in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.

      It's not particularly shocking that someone would believe that manslaughter with a suspended sentence is too light of a punishment for someone driving drunk without a license who let's a friend drown while he sleeps it off to avoid being charged with a DUI.

    6. Re:The slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Just because some dickwad wrote an essay claiming the slippery slope is a false arguement doesn't make it so.

      There is every bit of evidence to suggest that the power a government obtains is never relenquished, just as taxation is never reduced - only staid or raised.

      The "slippery slope is a logical fallacy" argument is a fallacy. Too bad you couldn't offer some real substance to the conversation.

    7. Re:The slippery slope by Dovregubbens+Hall · · Score: 1
      Not only that, this is exactly the kind of stupidity that the citizens in Eastern Europe had to go through every now and then. It is a major reason why the whole system collapsed, people won't take the shit of someone standing above their heads, the daily humilitation and the "we can't tell you".

      It is high time the citizens of the United States learn from recent mistakes. How many can you wake up and get to realize that the US is now of the level of former communists countries with respect to freedom?

    8. Re:The slippery slope by wwest4 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      FYI - it is itself fallacious to disregard all slippery slope arguments as fallacious without disproving them individually. There is such a thing as a valid slippery slope argument.

    9. Re:The slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, technically speaking, Teddy never actually reported the accident. He was getting around to it (after making at least 17 other phone calls) when the local law enforcement located him in person.

      And it would also appear from the evidence that Mary Jo Kopechne didn't drown, she suffocated slowly in an underwater tomb.

      What I can't figure out is how party and family loyalty and/or cash disbursment was apparently enough to silence the family of MJK.

      http://www.ytedk.com

    10. Re:The slippery slope by freak4u · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Found the quote I was looking for
      "When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet." --Lyle Myhr

    11. Re:The slippery slope by freqres · · Score: 1

      Well, if the U.S. can spend the repressive Soviet regime into collapse, why can't the U.S. spend the repressive U.S. regime into collapse? Worked before, it will work again.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    12. Re:The slippery slope by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      By his own version of events he is responsible for her death. Quoteth the Wiki:

      I never knew Ted Kennedy contributed to the Wikipedia. I guess you really do learn something new every day.

    13. Re:The slippery slope by BoFo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about:

      Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

      - Ben Franklin

      - or -

      First they came for the Jews
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Jew.
      Then they came for the Communists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a Communist.
      Then they came for the trade unionists
      and I did not speak out
      because I was not a trade unionist.
      Then they came for me
      and there was no one left
      to speak out for me.

      - Martin Niemöller

    14. Re:The slippery slope by freak4u · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. People wonder how the holocaust happened, how communist Russia happened; wonder how people didn't see it starting. put on your glasses

    15. Re:The slippery slope by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      Sigh, from the quote above, highlighted for your viewing pleasure:
      Kennedy did not report the incident for 10 hours. Kennedy pleaded guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident and received a suspended sentence.

      Doesn't that count as his version to you?

    16. Re:The slippery slope by TwistedSquare · · Score: 1

      I agree. I got moaned at for making a slippery slope argument on slashdot a while back. Regardless of whether it was valid or not, people posting back "slippery slope arguments are fallacious so you're automatically wrong" is not helpful or necessarily correct.

    17. Re:The slippery slope by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      And just because someone made a good quote that the tinfoil hat crowd uses as a slogan doesn't make it true either....

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    18. Re:The slippery slope by jasondlee · · Score: 1

      There is every bit of evidence to suggest that the power a government obtains is never relenquished, just as taxation is never reduced - only staid or raised.

      Reagan and Bush (and I'm sure others) have both cut taxes, though no one has done it as drastically as Reagan did, IIRC...

      jason

      --
      jason
      Have a good day?! Impossible! I'm at work!
    19. Re:The slippery slope by Dovregubbens+Hall · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry to say, but it is my opinion that the US had very little to do with the collapse of the Soviet regime. I think it had very little to do with leadership at all. Reagan had very little to do with it, IMHO, Gorbatchev played a role in that he kept his hands off of what happened, but that's it.

      The Soviet regime, and its ideological followers, collapsed on itself, and there are many reasons why it drove itself to collapse, lack of freedom has something to do with many of the reasons, lack of incentives to be productive are also important.

      However, what made the revolution was simply lots and lots of people standing up. Huge crowds waking up from apathy was the single most important reason why it happened.

      The US has indeed a remarkable ability to heal itself, and I'm sure it can this time too. However, ringing the bells to get the crowds to wake up from apathy is a huge undertaking.

    20. Re:The slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

      The slippery slope arguement is nothing more than "setting incremental precedants makes way for the setting of incrementally greater precedants". You can't argue that it is true.

      For example, it would not have been socially acceptable for a woman to wear a gstring bikini in public in the 1930s. However, fasion and social acceptance changed in small increments to the point where it's completely acceptable and normal today.

      The same is true with just about everything. If you argue that, you're a dumbass.

    21. Re:The slippery slope by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      No. That's not what you said. You stated
      By his own version of events he is responsible for her death
      and then proceeded to quote from a wikipedia article that connects Kennedy's actions to Kopechne's death.

      Kennedy plead guilty to leaving the scene of an accident. He did not accept responsibility of Kopechne's demise, in any legal sense. If he had chosen to do so, he would have plead guilty to a charge of manslaughter.

    22. Re:The slippery slope by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Slipperly slopes are always wrong unless you can actually prove a strong causal link, but this isn't nessisarrily a slipperly slope.

      If Bad thing A happens, then bad thing B happens, then bad thing C happens, that's a linear progression of events. If all of these thigns are restrictions of personal liberty, then you certainly have a downward progression.

      But in this case, the causal connection is A(1), which is "Scary Republican Warmongers in the White House", which most people wouldn't regard as a good starting point for this sort of slipperly slope (Though mayeb they should).

      Either way it sucks, and there is an obvious solution.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    23. Re:The slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that be Bush on Larry King referring to stem cell research?

    24. Re:The slippery slope by ajs · · Score: 4, Informative
      Ah, another bastardization of the original. Here's an interesting comment from a page about the person that made the original "when they came for..." comment:
      Everbody loves to quote Martin Niemöller's lines about moral failure in the face of the Holocaust: ' First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'

      But interestingly, people use the quotation to imply different meanings - even altering it to suit their purpose. When Time magazine used the quotation, they moved the Jews to the first place and dropped both the communists and the social democrats. American Vice-President Al Gore likes the to quote the lines, but drops the trade unionists for good measure. Gore and Time also added Roman Catholics, who weren't on Niemöller's list at all. In the heavily Catholic city of Boston, Catholics were added to the quotation inscribed on its Holocaust memorial. The US Holocaust Museum drops the Communists but not the Social Democrats; other versions have added homosexuals.

    25. Re:The slippery slope by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "How many can you wake up and get to realize that the US is now of the level of former communists countries with respect to freedom?"

      You sir, are a moron.

    26. Re:The slippery slope by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "He did not accept responsibility of Kopechne's demise"

      You're right. Which is why I've always considered him a scumbag of the first order.

    27. Re:The slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It goes to show that once you head down this road, it is abused, or at best, applied incompetently and inflexibly. Show me your papers, citizen!


      No, this only goes to show that a little fearmongering and use of the "slippery slope" argument can get you +4 Karma.

      God forbid somebody cite anything other than anecdotal evidence on this site.
    28. Re:The slippery slope by blair1q · · Score: 1

      You're either a total moron, a credulous dupe, or a conspiratorial liar.

      The evidence is that he was likely not drunk at the time though he had been drinking earlier in the evening.

      He swam down to the car at least three times by his own recollection to try to save her.

      Traumatized, he went to family friends before he went to police.

      Kennedy was charged with failing to report the accident in a timely manner, convicted, and served his sentence. In our system of justice, he has paid his debt to society.

      Try dragging a fact into your worldview for once.

    29. Re:The slippery slope by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1
      Nice edit. In any case, I direct your attention to Kennedy's public statement.

      Although my doctors informed me that I suffered a cerebral concussion, as well as shock, I do not seek to escape responsibility for my actions by placing the blame either in the physical, emotional trauma brought on by the accident, or on anyone else. I regard as indefensible the fact that I did not report the accident to the policy immediately.

      It's possible that his allocution may also be on file somewhere, but amid the "Ted Kennedy killed Vince Foster with the Assistance of Hillary Clinton" pages, it's difficult to locate.
    30. Re:The slippery slope by workindev · · Score: 1

      How about:

      Remember when a bunch of islamic bastards hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings, killing 3,000 innocent Americans? That sucked.

      - Workindev

    31. Re:The slippery slope by sjames · · Score: 1

      Too bad "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy.

      Unfortunatly, there are two distinct things that tend to be called a slippery slope fallacy. The first IS the slippery slope fallacy, the second is a shorthand that has the FORM of the slippery slope, but, in fact, can be successfully backed by rational argument.

      While that shorthand is impermissable in formal debate, it is common and, within reason, acceptable in an informal discussion.

      For example, if I claim in informal discussion that a given law, X is to be done iff Y is true will be a slippery slope, I may be arguing one of at least 3 things:

      I may be arguing that the law will leave us open to the SCOTUS improperly determining that X if Z is true was also within the intent of the law.

      I may be arguing that the people will improperly generalize the principle of the law and begin doing X when Z is true.

      In both of those cases, it is possible that I have historical facts to back the argument up but didn't wish to write a 12 page essay in an informal discussion.

      It is, of course, also possible that I am, in fact, commiting a fallacy.

      Because of the above, in an informal discussion, proclaiming an argument invalid simply because it contains a slippery slope FORM shorthand is in itself a fallacy. More properly, you should simply challenge the assertion and see if that challenge is met with further rational argument or gibberish. In the latter case, you may consider the assertion to be unsupported.

    32. Re:The slippery slope by sjames · · Score: 1

      The slippery slope IS a fallacy, pure and simple. It's just that some people have a habit of (improperly) declaring assertions backed by rational argument to be fallacies. For example, when you say:

      There is every bit of evidence to suggest that the power a government obtains is never relenquished, just as taxation is never reduced - only staid or raised.

      And then either show the historical record to back it, or the point is conceeded since we are all well aware of that historical record, your argument is by definition NOT slippery slope, though it may be improperly proclaimed to be.

    33. Re:The slippery slope by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 0, Troll

      What someone killed on September 11 might say if they could:

      When they blew up the bus in Israel, I didn't say anything, because I wasn't Israeli. When they attacked the USS Cole, I didn't say anything, because I wasn't in the military.

      Then they attacked the World Trade Center, and now I'm dead and can't say anything.

      Speak out against terror, not those trying to protect us. Yeah, the Department of Homeland Security ain't perfect, are you? Didn't think so.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    34. Re:The slippery slope by Nevo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, so we should curtail civil liberties for all citizens in the hopes of catching a few islamic bastards.

      Let's imprison people indefinitely without charging them with a crime in case they might be terrorists. Sure, we might destroy a few innocent peoples' lives, but hey, it's all in the name of fighting terrorism, so it's okay, right?

    35. Re:The slippery slope by praedor · · Score: 1

      So? Your point being?


      The statement is about everything people have altered to fit the particular situation. It is useful and valid to add or subtract from it to indicate the danger of allowing discrimination against, or legal attack on, any group or class due to political, racial, etc, membership. Basic human rights and civil liberties must not be allowed to pass, no matter how "minor" the errosion appears to be. The errosion continues and can easily spread to include YOU.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    36. Re:The slippery slope by cheezedawg · · Score: 0, Troll

      but hey, it's all in the name of fighting terrorism, so it's okay, right?

      Sounds about right to me.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    37. Re:The slippery slope by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just taking a guess, but it would be my perception that modifying that quote would only have one of two purposes: to get the attention of a group that wasn't there, or to avoid the attention of a group that is disliked by many.

      In other words, modifications of this quote, as far as I can see - are politically motivated. Frankly, if one can not see between the lines, that this could apply to any group that strikes controversy amongst people, the point is lost anyway.

      -Erik

    38. Re:The slippery slope by diamondsw · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they alter it because the gestalt is what's important, not the specific groups?

      --
      I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
    39. Re:The slippery slope by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

      But where does that slope begin?

      First they came for the Telemarketers, but I was not a Telemarketer, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Spammers, but I'm not a Spammer, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Script Kiddies, but I'm not a Script Kiddie, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Pedophiles...

      It the 'edge of humanity'.

      'Multiple Murderers' are described as 'animals', 'inhuman' etc, so what society can justify killing them. Just like many claimed that Blacks were less than human, to justify slavery.

      "They ain't like us, let's kill 'em."

    40. Re:The slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could use the same argument to ban all airline flight. The point is, you have to execute security in an intelligent manner, not a sweeping blanket, just because it's easy.

    41. Re:The slippery slope by workindev · · Score: 1

      Choice A) Experience inconvienence at the airport, including the slight possibility of being delayed getting on a flight. Sucks.

      Choice B) Look out your office window and see a fuel-laden 767 coming towards you at 550MPH piloted by islamic terrorists praising Allah. Sucks even more.

    42. Re:The slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, are you willing to convince me that our government is doing a better job now than it has been before 9/11 to keep us safe? There was something said about the shuttle disaster, and that was that the astronauts would have wanted the missions to continue. This administration does not want to continue if it is not in their best interests. To them it is not about the interests of the citizens. Look at the administrations stance on the issues and their actions. I'm sorry, but what do attacks on foreign land and water have to do with our safety here in the U.S.? One thing, that is the indirect consequence of our military, political, and economic actions. If they want to attack terrorists, no problem. Instead, our government has done a great job in creating enough hatred that we have a self sustaining terrorist creation machine. It is our goverments job to prevent war and terrorism. So why defend them as they put the legal, technological, and social (propaganda) systems in place? Is this stopping the source of terrorism? Do you realize what all this is doing to this country? Let me remind you of Nazi Germany; where you were first labeled, then sent away, then forced to labor, then finally murdered.

    43. Re:The slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you go into that, you can find many examples from both sides. A US missile boat shot down a passenger plane from Iran, "by mistake". Iranians have blown up planes. USA usually turns to look the other way while Israel goes Nazi Germany over the Palestinians (it's been quiet there, could it be because of US elections coming up?) And so on.

    44. Re:The slippery slope by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Sir, your example does not shoot down the parent post.

      The two referenced examples were Benjamin Franklin and Pastor Niemoller.

      Bejamin Franklin lived in a situation where massive property damage had just been caused by lawbreaking -- theft and destruction of property in the Boston Tea Party, refusal to pay taxes, violence against troops (and killing of them). The crackdown on rights were justified by the British based on lawbreaking and deaths.

      Pastor Neimoller lived in a situation where the Reichstag (basically, our Senate building) had just been burned down by what the government claimed were communist terrorists. The crackdown on rights as justified by the attack on the nation's government.

      Traditionally, governments that have been allowed to remove civil rights for "emergency reasons" that stretch on indefinintely have not done very well.

    45. Re:The slippery slope by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      If their goal is "lets make a hypothetical statement about a pattern that could happen in the future", then that makes sense - but if the goal is "Let's make a statement about what *did* actually happen", then inserting or deleting items from the list is historical revisionism and should not be tolerated.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    46. Re:The slippery slope by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to look like a moron, next time try picking two choices that actually are contrary choices in some way. Choice A and B are not mutually exclusive in the slightest.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    47. Re:The slippery slope by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      your argument is by definition NOT slippery slope

      You are operating under the false impression that the phrase "slippery slope" is equal exactly to the phrase "slippery slope fallacy", such that there are no situtions in which the term should be used for non-fallicious situations. That's just not true. Just like you can have a "dichotomy" without having a "false dichotomy fallacy", you can have a "slippery slope" without a "slippery slope fallacy". "Slippery slope" merely refers to a style of argument. Whether it's a fallacy or not depends on whether the things downslope actually do logically follow from the things upslope or not. (And then in that case it's really just a special case of the generic fallacy of "does not follow".)

      If the only way you had ever heard the phrase "slippery slope" used was in reference to the fallacy, I could see how you could get the misconception that that's *ALL* the phrase is ever used for. But it is used in other contexts too.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    48. Re:The slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is funny. Somebody with the nickname "dunbar the inept" is giving advice how not to look like a moron.

    49. Re:The slippery slope by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      The name is the name of an old D&D character with a string of very bad luck. It's a clue to those whom I want to know who I am.

      And "moron" != "inept". They are different things. Ineptitude says nothing about intelligence. For example, Stephan Hawking is quite inept.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    50. Re:The slippery slope by Darby · · Score: 1

      Reagan and Bush (and I'm sure others) have both cut taxes, though no one has done it as drastically as Reagan did, IIRC...

      Actually, they both drastically raised taxes. They just deferred it a few years down the road.
      That's what enormous deficits are.
      It's like when you go out and buy a bunch of crap on your credit card thinking you're getting something for nothing.
      We'll pay for it sooner or later (or our children will) but with the interest as well.

    51. Re:The slippery slope by jasondlee · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily trying to split hairs, but Reagan *cut* taxes, which boosted productivity. He also boosted military spending to fight the Cold War. The increased, unfunded spending led to the increased national debt we see now, not the tax cuts.

      --
      jason
      Have a good day?! Impossible! I'm at work!
    52. Re:The slippery slope by jc42 · · Score: 1

      [I]f the goal is "Let's make a statement about what *did* actually happen", then inserting or deleting items from the list is historical revisionism and should not be tolerated.

      Actually, that's only true if you add people who don't belong on the list. In the Nazi's case, they did specifically enslave and kill Catholics and homosexuals. So adding those groups to Niemoeller's list is just expanding his comment to include other groups that he omitted.

      This isn't necessarily a criticism of him, either. There would have been little point to his listing exhaustively all the victim groups, when that wasn't his point.

      I have read a few historical comments to the effect that the Catholics were the hardest hit numerically. Exact numbers are impossible, of course, but many have claimed that around half of the 20 million or so victims were Catholics. But percentage-wise, of course, the Catholics lose out to the Jews, of which roughly 3/4 were killed, while it was maybe 10% or 20% of the Catholics. And going on, it seems that percentage-wise, the Jews lose to the Gypsies, of which roughly 90% were killed (though the total count was a lot lower, since there were only 1 to 2 million Gypsies in the area before the Holocaust).

      So far, I haven't seen good numbers on the population or slaughter rate for homosexuals or socialists. Don't suppose it would be very easy to get such numbers. It does seem that the Gypsies, Jews and Catholics were the great majority of victims, but there was nuumerically plenty of victimhood to go around.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    53. Re:The slippery slope by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given how many people were Catholic in the areas under Nazi occupation, I have a hard time believing that the Nazis were just randomly rounding up all the catholics they could find. That would pretty have been the majority of the population of Poland, for example. Not to mention Italy. I really doubt that it was a matter of going after Catholics explicitly (Hitler himself was raised as a Catholic). It was probably more of a matter of going after people for other reasons, and it just so happens that a large portion of the population of countries under Nazi occupation was Catholic. Even if the criterion was something as random as "everyone wearing blue on tuesday", you'd still end up with a larger number of Catholics than anything else.

      The other problem with those figures is that the groups overlap. Sum up the percentage of all the jews, gypsies, catholics, socialists, and homosexuals that were killed and you'll get a figure much higher than 100%. Someone could be a Homosexual, a Socialist, and a Catholic all at once.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    54. Re:The slippery slope by Pseudonym · · Score: 1
      First they came for the Telemarketers, but I was not a Telemarketer, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Spammers, but I'm not a Spammer, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Script Kiddies, but I'm not a Script Kiddie, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Pedophiles...

      I don't know about you, but I'd hope that telemarketers, spammers, script kiddies and paedophiles all get basic human rights such as the right to due process.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    55. Re:The slippery slope by ajs · · Score: 1

      The other problem with those figures is that the groups overlap. Sum up the percentage of all the jews, gypsies, catholics, socialists, and homosexuals that were killed and you'll get a figure much higher than 100%. Someone could be a Homosexual, a Socialist, and a Catholic all at once.

      And the way the Germans we counting, you could be a Jew too (if you had a Jewish ancestor). Man, there's a combo that'd get you through ANY school's Affirmative Action quotas! ;-)

    56. Re:The slippery slope by ajs · · Score: 1

      There are two factors in what you point out: 1) the groups you point out are actively harming others 2) over-agressive law enforcement using the above as excuses to broaden their powers generically.

      I'm all for stomping on those who hurt others, but I want to make sure that a) they're given at least two chances to reform (this is why sex offender registration is a huge deal to me as well as the state of prisons) b) the punishment fits the crime (e.g. not having to register as a sex offender for having sex with your boy/girlfriend in a public place) c) we keep the powers of law enforcement in check.

      That last is really important. In this country we make law enforcement difficult, and we do so for a reason. Ultimately, we appreciate the guy who enforces the law, but we don't TRUST him enough to let any single abuse get too far out of hand. Personally, I think this was a stroke of brilliane, and you will note that it has been replicated and improved on in various parts of the world. The 2nd and 6th ammendments are critical parts of our system of government, and encroaching on those HARMS the overall health of the nation.

  7. oh yeah by Perianwyr+Stormcrow · · Score: 1

    It would be robocool to fill the list up with random names. Like George Bush's father. And the governors of all 50 states.

    --

    What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey

    1. Re:oh yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that hardly seems random...

    2. Re:oh yeah by xarak · · Score: 1, Funny


      Governor of California will suffice. I'd not like to be the security guard who has to tell Arnie he can't board.

      --
      Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
    3. Re:oh yeah by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Probably less dangerous than telling Buzz Aldrin that he didn't walk on the Moon.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:oh yeah by dekemoose · · Score: 1

      If we could also get the names of every one of our senators and representatives on there(preferably while they were at their home state or out of the country) we could really start to improve matters.

    5. Re:oh yeah by rusty0101 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to include the heads of the CIA, NSA, FBI, and Homeland Security while you are at it.

      --
      You never know...
    6. Re:oh yeah by abb3w · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It would be robocool to fill the list up with random names. Like[...]

      Random? How about you go to the root of the problem? Start with "Tom Ridge", and see how long things stay the way they are. Mind you, "Edward Kennedy" was probably a good first choice for getting some noisy hell raised about the situation.

      Incidentally, I thought I heard back in high school American government class that it was massively illegal to interfere with a member of Congress on their way to or from the House/Senate floor? Anyone?

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    7. Re:oh yeah by freqres · · Score: 1

      Then the only person left in D.C. to run the country would be Marion Barry. What a country this would be then.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    8. Re:oh yeah by ender- · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, if I were a terrorist, I think I'd start using "Tom Ridge" as pseudonym. Then I'd laugh my ass off when the head of Homeland Security can't get on a plane, and they won't tell him why. :)

      Or I wonder if they've got an "immunity" list, so that even if there WAS a terrorist going around as Tom Ridge, the name would never be put on the list. That would be just as good!

      Ender-

    9. Re:oh yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incidentally, I thought I heard back in high school American government class that it was massively illegal to interfere with a member of Congress on their way to or from the House/Senate floor? Anyone?

      That law was repealed.
      I've met Senator Kennedy on his way to the Senate floor. He certainly seemed to be the victim of interference from several martinis, but they're
      no longer illegal.

    10. Re:oh yeah by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      Incidentally, I thought I heard back in high school American government class that it was massively illegal to interfere with a member of Congress on their way to or from the House/Senate floor?

      Absolutely it is; otherwise it would be easy to intimidate reps through the misuse of the security apparatus and the system of "checks and balances" would crumble. What is remarkable about this case, aside from the fact that it happened at all, is that it took so long to resolve. But, as with all of the other crap that's going on in the US these days, the public will quickly become conditioned to accept it as normal and necessary.

    11. Re:oh yeah by bsartist · · Score: 1

      It should be safe by now. How long to 'roid rages last, anyway?

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    12. Re:oh yeah by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "Incidentally, I thought I heard back in high school American government class that it was massively illegal to interfere with a member of Congress on their way to or from the House/Senate floor?"

      This is Edward Kennedy. The only thing he was on his way to way a 5 martini lunch.

    13. Re:oh yeah by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      How many different names are there in the world ? Sooner or later once that list gets big enough ( are people removed at any point ? ) it should contain a large % of all possible names.

    14. Re:oh yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about who you are talking about, of course there is an immunity list. These people NEVER play by their own rules.

    15. Re:oh yeah by johnjay · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't everyone in the airport already want to show Tom Ridge how tough their security was?

      "We're on it Mr. Ridge. Even you can't get by us without scrutiny."

      Now, I can see the fun in putting Ridge on the list when he's no longer head of Homeland Security...

    16. Re:oh yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Incidentally, I thought I heard back in high school American government class that it was massively illegal to interfere with a member of Congress on their way to or from the House/Senate floor? Anyone?

      True. I can remember Sen. Byrd getting stopped for a traffic ticket, pulling out the constitution from his coat pocket and pointing out that he COULDN'T get a speeding ticket on his way to town.

      As for Sen. Kennedy. He gets a heck of a parking place reserved at National Airport - there is a whole parking lot just for Congresscritters and the Supremes. But, let's say your name is...John Smith (it happens!). One of the unfriendlies decides to use John Smith as an alias and suddenly no one named J. Smith can fly? Get a grip.

  8. if you can't talk to the guy ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think good old fashioned bribery is what that situation calls for

  9. Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kennedys shouldn't be flying?

  10. There could be an innocent explanation by John+Jorsett · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's possible it wasn't that they thought he's a terrorist. Maybe they weighed him and decided they didn't have enough fuel.

    1. Re:There could be an innocent explanation by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Clerical error, he was supposed to be put on the no drive list.
      (Note this not true, just was the fark headline for this yesterday, its fun to push false facts yay!)

    2. Re:There could be an innocent explanation by raider_red · · Score: 1

      More likely, they decided there wasn't enough alcohol on the plane to accomodate Senator Kennedy.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    3. Re:There could be an innocent explanation by mbourgon · · Score: 1

      That couldn't have been it... they just would've given him a hose to breath into and use the fumes to power the plane.

      --
      "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
    4. Re:There could be an innocent explanation by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but he wasn't flying Southwest airlines so that ain't it. :)

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    5. Re:There could be an innocent explanation by voidptr · · Score: 1
      Or the pilot didn't want to violate the Federal Aviation Regulations. FAR 91.17:
      (b) Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft.
      --
      This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
  11. Clerical Error... by Rayonic · · Score: 4, Funny

    He was supposed to be on the No-Drive List.

    1. Re:Clerical Error... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was the "No Bridges" list, but hey -- after the first DUI, who can count anyway....

    2. Re:Clerical Error... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *grin* Damn, and just after I finished wasting all my moderator points on modbombing rd_syringe...

    3. Re:Clerical Error... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ted:"And so then I says to Mary Jo, I says we'll cross that bridge when..."
      Screener:"I've heard this one before, Senator."

      Other lists he's on...
      • Do not feed.
      • Do not serve before 5PM.
    4. Re:Clerical Error... by starcraftsicko · · Score: 1

      I think you were refering to this !!

    5. Re:Clerical Error... by nicedream · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't happen to be referring to this fark.com headline would you?

    6. Re:Clerical Error... by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      Kinda gives new meaning to the phrase "ripped from today's headlines", eh? ;-)

  12. Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nixon used the IRS to pester his foes. Now we've (er, they've) got the TSA to play with. It's lovely to see the advances that government has made.

    1. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by SCOX_Free · · Score: 1, Informative

      Get the facts straight. Nixon TRIED to use the IRS to pester his foes.

      Clinton is the one who succeeded in using the IRS.

    2. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      Nixon had an enemies list, and he succeeded in using several departments of his executive branch to harass them. Of course, Tricky Dick is the only person forced to resign from the presidency, and you can be assured that it isn't because he merely TRIED to do illegal things.

      Kenneth Star spent upwards to $50 Million dollars investigating Clinton and all he could show at the end of it was that Billy lied about getting a blow job. Of course, Newt couldn't find ANYONE in congress to initiate proceedings against Billy because all Newt's people were guilty of similar offenses.


      So, excuse me, but get YOUR facts straight. Billy was impeached (f*cking unbelievable) because he decided to lie about his blow job. You can be assured that if Kenny had any suspicion that Billy was guilty of a REAL crime that he would have spent another $20 Million chasing it down.

    3. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by SCOX_Free · · Score: 1

      The crime wasn't the blowjob... It was the lie under oath. That is called perjury. Furthermore it was a lie about the same piece of legislation that HE signed into existence.

    4. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by bretharder · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not that I support Clinton...
      But my understanding is that Clinton asked the Judge to define Sexual relations.
      And the Judge said Sexual relations = intercourse.
      And Clinton correctly (according to his story) stated that he did not have sexual relations with ML.
      By the Judge's definition oral sex was not considered sexual relations.

    5. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by gosand · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Get the facts straight. Nixon TRIED to use the IRS to pester his foes. Clinton is the one who succeeded in using the IRS.

      And Bush Jr. used the U.S. Military.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    6. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Got proof? :)

    7. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah yes, 'some people say' these (you for example). Yet, I don't see anything supporting it beyond what 'some people say'. Thanks, try again.

    8. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by jmichaelg · · Score: 0, Troll
      So, excuse me, but get YOUR facts straight. Billy was impeached (f*cking unbelievable) because he decided to lie about his blow job.

      Let's get YOUR facts straight. Bill Clinton was on trial for a sexual harrassment charge. The charge was he gave good paying jobs to women who gave him sex and ignored the women who didn't. Monica Lewinski came up as a case in point. Clinton's lie about his relationship with Lewinski obstructed proving the key point - he was a typical jerk boss who promoted women he fucked and dissed women who rejected him.

      Clinton then compounds his perjury by talking to his secretary about her upcoming Grand Jury testimony. He was specifically ordered not to speak to any of the witnesses who had yet to testify and yet he did. That's another obstruction of justice charge.

      Bill Clinton deserved his impeachment and should have been removed from office. The fact that he wasn't removed left him in a position to sell pardons to people like Marc Rich and the Hasidic Jews knowing nobody would do anything about it. The Marc Rich pardon was true chutzpah - to wit:

      Some are calling the inquiries a field day for die-hard Clinton-haters. But most see this as a source of bipartisan outrage. Republicans and Democrats alike were dumbstruck by the Rich pardon. The federal prosecutors who indicted Rich are especially livid, particularly because, by definition, Rich appears to be ineligible for a pardon: He never took responsibility for his actions or served any sentence.

      The congressional panels were called to investigate the path to Rich's pardon -- which, as various documents seem to indicate, did not follow usual channels. In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. pardon attorney Roger Adams says when the White House sent over Rich's name for pardon consideration -- only a few hours before the President was due to leave office -- there was never any mention of Rich being a fugitive. There is also suspicion that donations made to Clinton campaigns and to the Clinton presidential library by Rich's ex-wife, Denise, could be a quid pro quo for the pardon.
      The only difference between Nixon and Clinton was Clinton, being a Democrat, has the Washington Post and New York Times, on his side. Both were equally crooked presidents.
    9. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by Moofie · · Score: 1

      So he violated his oath to tell "The truth, the whole truth, so help me God..."

      Telling the truth is pretty not complicated. It's frightening sometimes, but it's usually the simplest course.

      I guess it all depends on what the definition of "is" is...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    10. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by vondo · · Score: 1
      Acutally, as I recall, the definition did include oral sex or manual sex designed to give pleasure, or something like that, but talked about doing these things, not receiving them.

      Clinton's defense was that he was only on the receiving end and therefor she had sexual relations with him, but he didn't with her.

      But that's just my recollection of it.

    11. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by mik · · Score: 1
      Billy was impeached (f*cking unbelievable) because he decided to lie about his blow job.
      To be specific, he was impeached because he was manuvered into making a "yes or no" answer to an overly specific statement defining "sexual relations" without including oral sex (I think you should be able to hear for yourself in one of the segments at CNN, but the CNN Real servers don't seem to be happy today). In retrospect, it is pretty clear that this was the intention, given that Starr already knew exactly what had happened between Bill and Monica - by exluding blow jobs from the definition and insisting on a yes/no answer they could trivially make it appear he was lying.

      Ob disclaimer: Clinton's behavior was disgraceful but didn't do significant harm to the country. The Starr investigation, on the other hand, was disgraceful, expensive and obviously harmful.

    12. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by Pike · · Score: 1
      "Kenneth Star spent upwards to $50 Million dollars investigating Clinton and all he could show at the end of it was that Billy lied about getting a blow job."
      Mr Starr spent less than $40 million. That is roughly 8 million less than the Iran Contra scandal which dragged on for six years and resulted in only 3 convictions upheld. Mr Starr's investigation resulted in 15 convictions or guilty pleas.
      1. AK Gov. Jim Guy Tucker 3 counts of fraud felony convictions (Tucker resigned facing impeachment)
      2. Neal Ainley - 2 misdemeanors for embezzlement
      3. Jim McDougal convicted on 18 counts of fraud and conspiracy felony
      4. Susan McDougal convicted on 4 counts of felony (pardoned during Clinton's last minute pardonfest)
      5. William J. Marks Sr - conspiracy
      6. Stephen Smith - conspiracy
      7. Larry Kuca - Fraud
      8. David Hale - guilty plea conspiracy
      9. Chris Wade - felony - Whitewater real-estate investor
      10. John Haley - fraud
      11. Robert Palmer - felony for conspiracy
      12. Charles Matthews - guilty plea for bribery
      13. Eugene Fitzhugh - Whitewater - bribery
      14. Webster Hubbell - #2 ranking Justice Dept. Official - felony for embezzlement and fraud
      15. John Latham - CEO of Madison Bank - bank fraud
    13. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by RISCy · · Score: 1

      AK is Alaska, ass, not ARkansa

    14. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by rudedog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the Iran Contra scandal which dragged on for six years and resulted in only 3 convictions upheld

      Maybe that was because George Bush Sr. pardoned Casper Weinberger and 5 others, effectively preventing Weinberger from ever having to testify (and possibly incriminating Bush himself).

      And people complain about Clinton's pardons while completely ignoring Bush's horrendous abuse of power.

    15. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The impeachment case was nonexistent, and constitutional scholars and historians all agree.

      The grounds for impeachment are: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

      The Republicans exploited the vagueness of the thrid category. But honestly, is lying under oath about adultery comparable to treason or bribery? I don't think so.

    16. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by jcr · · Score: 1

      Billy was impeached (f*cking unbelievable) because he decided to lie about his blow job. ..under oath.

      If he'd said "go to hell, that's none of your damn business", I'd be behind him all the way. Lying about it was the coward's way out, and it should at the very least get him disbarred.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    17. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by identity0 · · Score: 1

      I saw an interview with Moore done by Conan O'Brian... apparently, since after making "Roger & Me", he started overpaying his taxes on the theory that the IRS was less likely to harrass him if they would actually find that they owed *him* money if they audited. : )

    18. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by Jason+Hood · · Score: 1

      And who appointed Starr again? Who gave him permission to pursue the case?

      If you dont know the question to either of those you have no basis for commenting on hims actions.

      --
      Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
    19. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by cyberformer · · Score: 1

      Gingrich himself used the "oral sex =! sex" defence before Clinton. They actually have the support of some religious fundamentalists (makes the celibacy thing a whole lot easier for priests) and sex educators (less pregnancy / STDs).

    20. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The crime wasn't the blowjob... It was the lie under oath.

      No, he didn't. As the other poster pointed out.

      That is called perjury.

      No, its not. Even he did lie, its not perjury because it has to be relevant to the case at hand.

      Furthermore it was a lie about the same piece of legislation that HE signed into existence.

      What are you talking about?

    21. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      So he violated his oath to tell "The truth, the whole truth, so help me God..."

      Are you blind, or did you just skip over the post you are replying to?

      Telling the truth is pretty not complicated. It's frightening sometimes, but it's usually the simplest course.

      Not when the question is one that is noneofyourfuckingbusiness to be asking in the first place.

    22. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Lying about it was the coward's way out

      Right. And I'm sure you'd make the same decision, if a special prosecutor was breathing down your neck with an unlimited budget, unlimited staff, unlimted time and last but not least, an unlimited scope to look over your entire life for any evidence of wrongdoing. Probable cause or suspicion need not apply. Oh, and don't forget the Republican majoraty just looking for a moderatly passable excuse to impeach you.

      at the very least get him disbarred

      Why? If someone is asking you questions that are noneoftheirfucking business, its noneoftheirfucking business what kind of answer you give.

    23. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      And who appointed Starr again? Who gave him permission to pursue the case

      And what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

      If you dont know the question to either of those you have no basis for commenting on hims actions.

      If you bring up irrelevant details maybe you should STFU and stay out of the discussion. Oh, and to answer your question: Janet Reno.

    24. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Splitting hairs about what is or is not sexual intercourse is not telling the whole truth. Period.

      He's the President. What he does in the White House IS my business.

      Had he told the truth, there would have been no problem. He lied, though.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    25. Re:Wonder what happens to Michael Moore by Jason+Hood · · Score: 1

      Well people always try to draw the conclusion that either Starr was out for fame or he was politically motivated. The fact is he did his job. If he wasnt Reno/Oversight could have recalled him at any time.

      --
      Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
  13. given the record by kc0re · · Score: 3, Funny

    Given the record of deaths in the Kennedy family, Tom Ridge was probably protecting Ted from himself.

    1. Re:given the record by goldspider · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't buy that for a second!

      Afterall, it's not like Teddy was flying the plane!

      *ducks*

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:given the record by soulsteal · · Score: 1

      True. Ted's a Kennedy. He's not accustomed to tragedy.

  14. Well... by eclectro · · Score: 0, Troll


    Maybe he is on the no-fly list because the plain can't fly with him on it

    Let's not jump to conclusions here.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Well... by Mr+Guy · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Iowa doesn't get much lift.

  15. license to fly? by jokach · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It appears the good ole' US government is soon going to require us to carry 'airline licenses', just like drivers licenses ... maybe that would keep them from making incompetent mistakes like this!

    1. Re:license to fly? by base3 · · Score: 1

      They're already piloting (ha, great choice of word, huh) that. Google for "trusted traveler program."

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
    2. Re:license to fly? by XMyth · · Score: 1

      "trusted traveler program" ....does that scare anyone else?

    3. Re:license to fly? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      First thing that popped into mind - Schwarzenegger's The Running Man. People would need "travel permits." Yikes.

      Then thought about Hunt for Red October, where Sam Neill says to Sean Connery, "You can travel with no papers?" Sean Connery: "Yesh. No papersh."

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  16. Re:How many people by freak4u · · Score: 1

    He got to wait in the terminal ::cough::at the bar::cough::

  17. well... by Pidder · · Score: 1, Funny
    But what are ordinary citizens supposed to do if the Secretary of Homeland Security won't take their calls?

    Wear a Ted Kennedy mask?

  18. Ironic by StevenHenderson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Funny how a democratic senator is blacklisted after speaking at the DNC. Coincidence?

    1. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, coincidence. You have to be some kind of tinfoil-hat Republican conspiracy freak to see a relation here, because putting someone at a no-fly list after speaking at the DNC is a rather ineffective way of furthering ideals. Even conspiracies have an obligation of making sense.

    2. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Funny how a democratic senator is blacklisted after speaking at the DNC. Coincidence?

      He was blacklisted several months BEFORE the convention. RTFA!

      I heard the speech, however, and
      believe me, in this case, preemptive action would have been justified.

    3. Re:Ironic by StevenHenderson · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thats my bad, but he nevertheless he has been anti-Bush for a while, and the idea is the same. Sorry for the goof. :-/

    4. Re:Ironic by StevenHenderson · · Score: 1

      I was not declaring a sure conspiracy, but rather throwing out the idea as food-for-thought. I am sure that stranger things have happened. You have to think that some sort of retribution might come of this. On Capitol Hill, they don't seem to be as dignified as we (well, some of us) give them credit for. A lot of them are just big kids running around with a lot of power looking for an excuse to abuse it until we catch them in the act.

    5. Re: Ironic by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny


      > Funny how a democratic senator is blacklisted after speaking at the DNC. Coincidence?

      Maybe he's in trouble because the DNC wasn't held in an approved Free Speech Zone.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    6. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this down. Parent is obviously trying to pander to the widely liberal readership on Slashdot. However, he fails to actually read any articles on subject.

    7. Re:Ironic by MarkPNeyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I love slashdot. Where else would you find wild anti-republican conspiracy theories considered insightful? Ohh... wait...

      The whole situation in this country is just getting rediculous. Is it possible for people to believe that George W. Bush is a terrible politician, but a decent guy who just has a difference of opinion with you? I'm so sick of republicans acting as if they represent all of what's right and good in this country and claiming that the democrats represent immorality and stupidity. I'm also tired of the democrats acting as if all the republicans are either slaves to the corporate interests, and either evil crooks or else slobbering boobs who've been convinced to go along with the crooks. Jesus Christ ! Is it that unlikely that we just have differences of opinion? Is is that hard to beleive that Bush isn't trying to gather more power for himself for evil purposes - that he's just trying to keep us safe?

      You can bitch all you want about Bush having said that he'd be a uniter and not a divider. Personally I think that's a stupid thing to say, but it's definately not as if Bush is intentionally trying piss off half the country. He's been being attacked since before he got into the office, with liberals saying he looked like a monkey, that he was stupid and talked funny and a religious zealot and incompetent. Are you at all surprised that this country is very divided, when half the people think their president is defeding them from evil, and the other half thinks the president looks/talks like a monkey?

      I understand completely if you disagree with the president's policies, and you'd like to voice your opinion. I think there are plenty of valid disagreements you could make with the bush administration. The problem is that all I seem to hear is : "Ohhh that Bush - He's just evil! We invaded an innocent country all for oil and haliburton, after he stole the election in florida. And have you heard how talks all goofy?"

      I can take criticism of the president - it's important and needs to be done. But not when the main critisim is that he's :

      1) evil

      2) incompetent

      3) looks/talks like a monkey

      If I beleived half of the critcisms being made of Bush, I'd be calling for armed revolution. The problem is that most of them just don't hold water at all. So he lied to us about iraq having WMD? What about the governments of Russia, Germany, Britain, even France coming to similiar conclusions about WMD? Why is it that Bush is called a Liar when John Kerry and Hillary Clinton came to the same conclusion that Bush did, re WMD. Why the hell would you go into a country based on a total lie? That doesn't do anything at all to help him. You'd have to beleive (which i'm under the impression that a lot of liberals do these days) that bush has the intelligence of a four-year old and about as much morality as Adolf Hitler.

      Can we please raise the level of political discourse in this country? I would love to argue about the military efficacy of invading Iraq. I'd love to debate the merits of McCain Fiengold. I'd love to talk about social security and whether it can or should be exteneded and fixed. It looks like all i've got to look at this election year is a man who is an evil, stupid, incompetent ape, or a man who was apparently in vietnam thirty years ago where, depending different sides of the story, was either a hero or a shmuck. Do you honestly think that if Kerry gets elected, this country will be 'unified' again? You're going to hear all sorts of outrages charges against him, too. Just you wait...

      --

      My blog
    8. Re:Ironic by StevenHenderson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank you for your insightful and eloquent reply. It is good to see such open-minded thought on /. Please understand that when I post something like this, it is not always at surface value, but rather to incite the types of debates that make slashdot such a unique forum for thought. Yes, I think Bush is a moron. No, I dont think he is an evil or awful person, just a bit simple to run our country. No, I do not particularly like Kerry, but as in 2000, 2004 will be an election where America will choose a lesser of 2 evils. You state many opinions on how we make such a big deal over "differences of opinion." Unfortunately, this is "the way it is" with a 2-party political system. It has been this way since the dawn of this country, and will likely continue as such until the end of it. Again, thanks for your thoughts on this matter - they are enlightening and appreciated.

    9. Re:Ironic by MntlChaos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, I have little time to write an eloquent post as you did, so here goes.

      You say that incompetence is not one of the things you can take people criticizing the President about. Incompetence is being unable to competently perform one's job. When that job is as important as President of the United States, incompetence is utterly unacceptable

    10. Re:Ironic by syrinx · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points. Bravo. *applauds*

      mod parent up!

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    11. Re:Ironic by MarkPNeyer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's one thing to say that the president has made some mistakes and not performed his job as well as he should. In my mind, that's not incompetence. If you are incompetent, you lack the fundamental qualities necessary to lead and do the job. I do agree that saying he's incompetent isn't nearly the same level of vitriol as saying he's evil, but it's still not the best form of discourse. Calling the president incompetent is a nice ad-hominem way of saying you don't like the job he's doing.

      --

      My blog
    12. Re:Ironic by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If I beleived half of the critcisms being made of Bush, I'd be calling for armed revolution. The problem is that most of them just don't hold water at all. So he lied to us about iraq having WMD? What about the governments of Russia, Germany, Britain, even France coming to similiar conclusions about WMD? Why is it that Bush is called a Liar when John Kerry and Hillary Clinton came to the same conclusion that Bush did, re WMD.

      Misleading point here... Russia, Germany, France, et al were calling for continued inspections searching for the WMD. Only Britain was at the similar conclusion... And Britain, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, et al. only came to that conclusion after Bush released his satellite pictures of trucks and other misleading or false information at the UN. Did Kerry lie? No. Did Clinton lie? No. Did Blair lie? I doubt it. Bush and his staff were the only ones privy to the inside information that he claimed "proved" that Iraq had WMDs. To claim the others, who were merely saying "yes, given the evidence you show us Mr. President, and given that we trust you and don't think you're a liar, we come to the same conclusion."

      The conclusion later proved to be false, evidence later proved to be false (and falsified - see the 9/11 report) - therefore, the people who believed the falsified evidence are exonerated... and the ones who knew it was false are implicated.

      -T

    13. Re:Ironic by mcc · · Score: 1

      If you are incompetent, you lack the fundamental qualities necessary to lead and do the job.

      One could make a compelling and evidence-backed argument that, with George W. Bush, this is the case.

    14. Re:Ironic by intnsred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So he lied to us about iraq having WMD?

      What the hell, right? So what if ~1000 American kids are dead and 10,000+ are mangled. So what if tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead and many more are mangled. So what if we jail Iraqi resistance fighters by the thousands and torture people routinely? What's the big deal? They're only people, right?! :-(

      What about the governments of Russia, Germany, Britain, even France coming to similiar conclusions about WMD?

      I'd say Britain doesn't count; Blair is Bush's poodle and he was willing to do or say anything to curry favor with his masters.

      As for Russia, Germany and "even France", they came to no such conclusion. They resisted the war, they refused to give the US the UN fig-leaf for its oil grab.

      And to top it all off, for the months that UN inspectors were in Iraq before the war, searching everywhere the US told them to, they found no WMD!

      There was only 1 government (and its poodle) who was bleating endlessly about Iraqi WMD. The US gov't.

      Why is it that Bush is called a Liar when John Kerry and Hillary Clinton came to the same conclusion that Bush did, re WMD.

      Because they were "briefed" on "secret" intelligence by the liars who wanted to go to war. They were told stories about how Iraq had pilotless drones and would mount them on ships and would attack the US mainland (all fiction), and many other fairy tales.

      They were spineless, not daring to go against the gov't/media-generated war hype, and so they believed the lies that were fed to them. (But don't worry too much about them, they'll be "rewarded" with campaign donations from the corporate drones who were gleefully campaigning for war.)

      Why the hell would you go into a country based on a total lie?

      Well, the three most popular reasons are:

      (1) To secure OIL, especially the huge reserves which were closed off to US oil companies and nationalized and used for Iraq's own benefit

      (2) To eliminate one of Israel's enemies and generally weaken the Arab world

      (3) To secure new US military bases (since the Saudis were kicking us out) in the Middle East

      Can we please raise the level of political discourse in this country? I would love to argue about the military efficacy of invading Iraq. I'd love to debate the merits of McCain Fiengold.

      In other words, you'd rather not talk about messy details.

      Why talk about the sheer immorality and undemocratic methods used by a war-mongering administration to invade a country and kill thousands, and to rewrite its society turning it into a "free market" playtoy for American corporations, when instead we can talk about the "military efficacy" of our illegal invasion?

      Why talk about corruption of politicians and corporations writing laws and the entire wholesale purchase of our two[sic]-party electoral system, when we can instead talk about the details of a law, McCain-Fiengold, which does not work, and which was written by two people steeped in the corruption of the system that they were trying to give a quick paint job to so as to prevent more systemic reform?

    15. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But its true. He is incompetent.

      Two planes crashed into the world trade centers, and he didn't know enough to excuse himself.

      The man can't form a coherent sentence.

      I voted for him in 2000 because I thought he was better. But I was wrong. He was and is a mistake. He needs to be put out of office and sent back to texas, the sooner the better, because I honestly believe is ruining this country.

    16. Re:Ironic by StevenHenderson · · Score: 1

      WOW. Excellent freaking post. Seriously, I wish I could go on ebay and buy some mod points and put your post up to (6, Kickass). You said it so well, and know what you're talking about. Your input to this thread is much appreciated and admired.

    17. Re:Ironic by mcc · · Score: 1

      Why the hell would you go into a country based on a total lie? That doesn't do anything at all to help him.

      Looking at how Bush's approval ratings have reacted to the war, it appears to have helped him immensely.

      [In order to think Bush lied about Iraq] You'd have to beleive (which i'm under the impression that a lot of liberals do these days) that bush has the intelligence of a four-year old and about as much morality as Adolf Hitler.

      This is a straw man.

      Your post would have been much stronger without the paragraph where you chose to switch gears from (legitimately) attacking those who trash Bush without a valid basis to (illegitimately) taking a very, very valid reason to criticize Bush's administration (he brazenly decieved the public in order to start a wholly avoidable war to which we have lost billions of dollars, our federal financial, international diplomatic, and military flexibility, and a thousand American servicemen, all with no apparent benefit to Americans) and suddenly trying to paint it as insignificant or equivilent to calling him a monkey.

      If you wish to complain about the maturity of intellectual discourse in this country, that is fine and good. However trying to publically confuse political discourse which you happen to disagree with with political discourse which is immature in practically the same breath you complain about rabid and unfair political debate tactics is rather disingenous.

    18. Re:Ironic by putaro · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And he looks like a monkey too!

    19. Re:Ironic by TALlama · · Score: 1
      ...and the other half thinks the president looks/talks like a monkey?

      The half that doesn't think so apparently hasn't seen Bush or Chimp.

      --

      - The Amazina Llama

    20. Re:Ironic by DarKnyht · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You seem to forget that Germany, France and Russia are all being investigated because they were taking bribes through the "Oil for Food" program to do everything in their power to prevent the UN from following through their resolution.

      All that US and Bush did was stand by his word when it came to said Resolution. I do not exactly agree with the war nor am I a total Bush fan, but I do respect people who try their best to follow through on their word. And yes, I know Bush has not followed through on everything he said. But in his defense, he was not expecting to have 9/11 cripple our market either.

      As for those senators that did not truely want to go to war but were afraid to stand for what they believe, I find them to be the scum at the bottom of the septic tank. If they are going to be afraid to stand for what they believe just because the media might attack them and they might lose a few poll points then they have no business to be in the position they are in. The people voted them into office because of the ideals they said they stood for. If they cannot stand for those ideals when the pressure is on they have no right to be there in the first place.

      However, from what I have seen, most of them just play to the crowd. If the crowd is for the war, they are for it. As soon as the crowd is against it, they magically change their opinion and they never were for the war and if you would suggest otherwise you are attacking them. They honestly stand for nothing except what is popular and I do not want someone that only does what they think will earn them more popularity points. That goes for both parties, as they are both guilty of this.

      --
      Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
    21. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't agree more with the parent post here. Unfortunately, a more civilized discourse is not going to happen in politics anytime soon.

      The main reason is that most people's talking points are parroting someone like Moore/Limbaugh or Dennis Miller/Jon Stewart and they never actually research the validity of what they hear.

      The other reason is because the many of the more knowledgeable people who actually do have ability to engage in a real debate know its much easier to smear your opponent. Once you admit that your opponent is just someone with another point of view, you give validity to their arguments. Its much easier to label a person bigoted/evil/stupid/greedy/etc in order to make everything they say be put in that light.

      Despite what you may hear about politics having been more civil in the past, its simply not true. This is how it has always been and unfortunately always will be.

    22. Re:Ironic by MntlChaos · · Score: 1
      Calling the president incompetent is a nice ad-hominem way of saying you don't like the job he's doing.
      It is not ad-hominem. Ad-hominem would be if I said that Bush shouldn't lead because you, who are arguing for him, are incompetent (which I am not).
    23. Re:Ironic by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      Well, one could view all this as a difference of opinion between the administration and its opponents. But to me, that's not the real issue.

      The problem here is that the TSA is a system easily abused by whatever group happens to be in power. The reins of power change hands from time to time, you know. Regardless of what one thinks of this administration, one can reasonably think that some administration might abuse this power in the future.

      We have undisputed proof that a Senator, one of the most distinctive and recognizable members of the whole Congress, can be tagged by the no-fly list and actually held up at an airport he uses regularly in his home state. That is a big deal!

      It is true that he did not miss a flight, nor a vote, because some airline supervisor recognized him and approved him to board. As a result of this debacle, it is proposed that the whole no-fly system come directly under the management of the TSA... which means it'd be TSA employees and supervisors controlling the whole process, including any urgent appeals.

      Many members of Congress leave DC for various reasons during the session, and fly back to attend votes. If an unscrupulous administration's party wanted to ram something through Congress, the TSA would make an excellent weapon. A few anonymous tips could conceivably ground just the right Senators and Representatives to ensure the passage of a marginal bill. (For instance banning handguns, or outlawing all abortions, or declaring war.)

      This is a frightening power for any administration to have, regardless of which side you're on.

      This administration is deserving of criticism not because it has abused the no-fly system, nor because it might abuse the no-fly system, but because it is responsible for creating a no-fly system so ripe for abuse and error.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    24. Re:Ironic by MarkPNeyer · · Score: 1

      Ad-hominem means attacking a person rather than their ideas. Calling the president incompetent is most definately ad-hominem because it is an insult towards him personally, rather than his ideas. Again, I totally agree that saying the president is incompetent is a step above saying that he's evil or simian, but it still doesn't really get us anywhere.

      The only valid comparison I can think of is the following : Suppose you say you've seen the latest Michael Moore movie, and I reply that Michael Moore is a liar. That's an ad-hominem attack on Michael Moore, and it doesn't get us anywhere. It'd be better for me to say that Michael Moore's film is full of lies, and then show you what I beleived those lies were. I'm still calling him a liar, but by directing my critcism towards his movie, rather than him, we can start talking about the movie itself rather than debating the pros and cons of Michael Moore personally.

      --

      My blog
    25. Re:Ironic by Linnen · · Score: 1

      The part about bribes given through the "Oil for Food" should be taken with a LARGE grain of salt.
      The ONLY primary source for this is Ahmed Chalabi. He claimed to find documents proving this allegation. And he will NOT let anyone else view / read / verify these document.

    26. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ad-hominem means attacking the person you are arguing with, rather than that person's ideas.

    27. Re:Ironic by Phleg · · Score: 1

      What the hell, right? So what if ~1000 American kids are dead and 10,000+ are mangled. So what if tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead and many more are mangled. So what if we jail Iraqi resistance fighters by the thousands and torture people routinely? What's the big deal? They're only people, right?! :-(

      What the fuck does that have to do with the grandparent's original comment?

      What about the governments of Russia, Germany, Britain, even France coming to similiar conclusions about WMD?

      Yeah, about here is where I say you lose all credibility. I had suspected it, but looking at the URL in your signature pretty much confirms it: you actually think Michael Moore is a source for legitimate political discourse. Let me guess--Bush is evil, a liar, and only trying to serve personal interests, but Michael Moore is the only remaining bastion for Truth and Justice.

      *groan*

      --
      No comment.
    28. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I love slashdot. Where else would you find wild anti-republican conspiracy theories considered insightful?
      Funny, the "insightful" knee-jerk anti-Democrat conspiracy theories don't seem to bother you.
    29. Re:Ironic by intnsred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You seem to forget that Germany, France and Russia are all being investigated because they were taking bribes through the "Oil for Food" program

      US companies are implicated in the corruption of that program also. The US gov't has refused to do an audit of the oil for food program. Your point?

      All that US and Bush did was stand by his word when it came to said Resolution.

      Please don't talk about the US and Bush's "word" -- it's worthless. One should not believe liars.

      What happened to the UN inspectors in Iraq while Clinton was in office? Iraq claimed that the inspectors were really spying for the US -- an illegal activity which gave Iraq full, legal reason to kick them out. The US said, "No, they're not spies". Iraq said, "Yes, they are." Iraq interfered with the inspectors' inspections and Clinton then ordered the inspectors out and launched cruise missile strikes.

      Later, Scott Ritter, the Marine Corps officer who headed up the UN inspection team for quite some time, admitted that the US inspectors were spying for the CIA. The Iraqis were right and the US gov't was lying.

      Later, when Bush passed the resolution for Iraq to disarm, Iraq said they had disarmed. The US demanded documentation. The Iraqis provided a CD-ROM of thousands of pages of documentation.

      The US demanded first-access (before the UN) to that CD-ROM and promised not to modify its contents. The US lied, and when it got the CD-ROM it removed all references to American companies providing dual-use chemicals and technologies to Iraq's 80s-era WMD program. THEN the US turned the CD over to the UN.

      Under great pressure and the US/British military build-up, the Iraqis agreed to let the UN spies/inspectors back into their country. Hundreds of inspectors went to Iraq. They went all across the country, directed by US intelligence.

      The inspectors found *nothing*. The Iraqis were telling the truth, they had no WMD. The US gov't is the liar, and Iraq was telling the truth.

      The US then launched its illegal invasion.

      This timeline ignores the FACT that two very high officials of the Bush administration have publicly stated that Bush wanted war with Iraq before any of the UN resolutions or the above controversy.

      Do we forget Bush's former Treasury Secretary on the "60 Minutes" TV show displaying a map of Iraq being divided up among US, British and western oil companies -- a map created very early (long before 9/11) in the Bush administration? Do we really have to debate the above points?

      Anyone with a minimal grip on reality knows the REAL reason why Bush went to war with Iraq -- and it had nothing to do with WMD!

      Based on these events, it's crystal clear: The US gov't violated the UN Charter in launching an offensive war to conquer Iraq and to put a puppet gov't in place in Iraq. That's harsh, but there's no other way to put it.

      It's also harsh to say that George Bush and his group are war criminals for launching that aggressive war -- but again, it's true.

    30. Re:Ironic by Quatloo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You offer a perfect example of why it is completely pointless to attempt any reasonable argument with the left of center. You state no facts, back up nothing, and toss out oil conspiracy theories. Yes we are just loading those american tankers for free and sending them home.

    31. Re:Ironic by AEton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1) I've read several intelligent theses that the current US President is not incompetent, but that he puts forth great effort to lead his enemies to think he is. Every time an ad hominem attack is raised against the President instead of a cogent criticism of his policy or the disparities between his promised and delivered campaign, he wins; he makes "those left-wing liberal haters" lose credibility and power.

      A similar assertion is made by linguist Geoffrey Nunberg in his most recent book:

      "Bush went to Andover and Yale, and you can be sure he heard the term 'nuclear' at the dinner table in Kennebunkport," he says. "His brothers don't talk like this. His father doesn't. He's chosen to talk like this."

      Nunberg surmises that Bush is trying to shed his patrician heritage and proffer himself as a populist, a strategy that worked well against the legendary stiffness of Al Gore in the 2000 election.

      2) President Bush is most likely trying to do what he thinks is good and right for America. However, conservatism by nature is afraid of change, and Bush is on most fronts a conservative. The President looks at trends in society and sees them as worrying hallmarks of a civilization in decline.

      His actions to ban marriage between homosexuals, to reduce oversight on large corporations, to wage a war on Iraq (instead of, say, Saudi Arabia, which still produces millions of dollars annually in support for terrorism and was the home of 15 of the 19 hijackers of 11 September 2001), all these actions are likely made honestly and with the intention of preserving what he sees as a decadent, depraved society.

      Consequently, that fundamental clash of values - the one that arises in the distinctions between Ashcroft&Homeland Security vs. unfettered civil liberties, Social Security security vs. trickle-down tax cuts, No Child Left Behind vs. effective teaching - this disparity could cause anyone on either side of the issue to view the other as hopelessly out of touch with morality ("evil") or reality ("incompetent").

      --
      We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
    32. Re:Ironic by quisph · · Score: 1
      Ad Hominem means something much more specific than that.

      "An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument." (emphasis mine)

      Whether or not a statement about a person is ad hominem depends on the claim or argument under discussion, as well as who is making the claim or argument. Saying that Bush is incompetent, or Michael Moore is a liar, is not ipso facto a logical fallacy.

      If one is, for instance, trying to decide whom to vote for, then Bush's competence is actually quite relevant. Perhaps more so than his policies.

    33. Re:Ironic by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      >I can take criticism of the president - it's important and needs to be done. But not when the main criticism is that he's : ...
      >2) incompetent

      Really? I should think that incompetence is a terrific reason to criticize someone. He is there to do a job, and he's not doing it well.

      As for the point about political discourse, you're right. Liberals saying Bush looks like a monkey is like Conservatives saying Kerry "looks French"; it's a distraction from the real problems.

      It must be said, though, in terms of the "is he sincere but misguided/incompetent, or is he doing wrong intentionally/for evil purposes" -- ask yourself this: if the person in question continues to do a poor job, even in the face of so much evidence that he's doing a poor job, do his reasons matter? If the end result is the same, I don't care if he is the most sincere person in the world -- he's still doing a poor job, and someone who can do a better job should take his place.

    34. Re:Ironic by intnsred · · Score: 1

      you actually think Michael Moore is a source for legitimate political discourse.

      Have you read Moore's book and seen the sources that he cites? Have you examined those sources that are cited?

      I have. Moore's position on the elections of 2000 is largely based on the work of mainstream Florida newspaper articles, and the investative reporting of the BBC which pointed out Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris' scheme to ban tens of thousands of Floridians from voting; voters which -- surprise -- were overwhelmingly (~90%) Democrats.

      Surprisingly, those BBC reports appeared on the BBC's prime-time nightly news on consecutive nights. They have yet to appear on American network television.

      I am by no means a Michael Moore fanatic. I view his work on Fahrenheit 911 as not as in-depth or as insightful as his "Bowling for Columbine" work. For example, Fahrenheit 911 completely ignores the most massive anti-war protests in the history of the world, and it ignores Israel as a factor for the war on Iraq (heck, even the Pentagon admits Israel was a factor).

      But whether I'm a Moore fanatic or not does not mean that Moore is a liar or should be completely ignored on all subjects.

    35. Re:Ironic by MarkPNeyer · · Score: 1

      The point of my post was that we've gotten to a point in this country where both sides think the other side is evil. To me, saying that the president would deliberately mislead the american people in order to drum up support for a war that willl boost his popularity ratings is the same as saying that the president is not just evil, but incredibly stupid.

      Of course Bush got an immediate rise in public opinion from going to war; but if you think that Bush went to war just for that boost, then you must think bush is a total Idiot. If he wanted to go war in order to gain public opinion, why on earth would he do so in early 2003, when there was still almost two years untill his bid for re-election? If his goal was public opinion support, he could have done one hell of a better job. He could have talked about going to war for two years, repeatedly sending in inspectors, pleading with the french, building a coalition, planning for the aftermath, and waiting untill july 2004 to send in the troops. That way, he could coast into re-election, riding on the surge of public support. No one could criticize him for 'rushing to war' since he spent so much time trying to gather a coalition, and no one could criticize him for not having found WMD, since he could just say 'give us more time.' If he was intentionally misleading everyone to war, he'd have to have been a complete idiot to have done so when he did. The only explanation (which seems like a perfectly reasonable one) is that Bush really, honestly beleived that there were WMD in Iraq.

      The whole 'Joe Wilson' escapade proves my point perfectly here. This guy comes out and accuses bush of lying with his '16 words' about Saddam attempting to buy yellowcake. Everyone was calling bush a liar and saying that he was trying to spook everyone based on intelligence that he knew was incorrect and that he was misleading us. In July, Bush apologized for putting the statement in the address, and said it was a mistake. Now it's come out that it was Joe Wilson who was the liar, and that the statement bush made in his State of the Union address was perfectly valid. Why on earth would bush apologize for making such a mistake, if his main goal was to mislead everyone ? Why would he wrongfully concede a point to his critics, rather than correctly accuse Joe Wilson of being a liar, if his goal was to dupe everyone? It just doesn't make any sense.

      If you think that we should have had better intelligence, fine. That's an argument I'd love to have. If you think that going to iraq weakend our hand in the war in terror by distracting our troops from hunting saddam and by distancing once close allies, I'd love to have that argument as well. There are plenty of perfectly reasonable critcisms of the war on Iraq, but the 'Bush lied and people died' argument isn't one of them. Unfortunately, that seems to be the argument most frequently made Bush's opposition, and that's what I'm lamenting here - It's a stupid argument that only makes sense if you beleive that Bush is both incredibly stupid and a very, very bad man.

      --

      My blog
    36. Re:Ironic by MarkPNeyer · · Score: 1

      Thank you for forcefully and clearly illustrating my point.

      --

      My blog
    37. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah how easy it is to be on the "right Right". Everything against you is so easy to dismiss "no facts" "your citations are worthless" "conspiracy theories". Over and over we see this pattern and it gets old. How about the 60 minutes interview with the former secretary of state showing how Bush had drawn up a map of Iraq before 9/11 showing how the administration would divide up oil interests with Britain? Oh, but I can't link that on the internet so its not "real" because only things you see on the internet are true.

      I wonder if we would be loading up American tankers for free if the mission really had been "accomplished". We know Bush had been pushing to abolish the oil for food program to allow the New Iraq to export its oil to the US without feeding the poor in Iraq.

    38. Re:Ironic by CovertPenguins · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget it was Iraq. The place has never been on option on my vacation list. So now we're positive they don't have WMD. If they'd been more forthcoming when asked about disclosure...

      Right or wrong, here's how it works: The biggest, baddest kid on the block gets sucker punched. He's hurt, he's mad. He asks you a question about your ability to hurt him. You play tough and talk smack and you're going to get your ass kicked. This is elementary school psychology.

    39. Re:Ironic by starcraftsicko · · Score: 1

      It was the consensus of the "intelligence community" in 2001 that Iraq had WMDs. France and others called for "further inspections" not because they had any real doubt of this, but rather because it gave them an excuse to do nothing. They wanted to do nothing because maintaining the status-quo was in their (economic) interest. THEY weren't currently the target of Islamic terrorists. Their aircraft weren't involved in enforcing UN no-fly-zones. They stood only to profit.

      Unfortunately, an great analogous situation exists.

      It is the consensus of the scientific community that "global warming and climate change" is real and is impacted (at least in part) by human activity. However the US and some other countries call the evidence unconvincing and inconclusive. They do this not because they disbelieve the evidence, but rather because altering their behavior is not in their (economic) interests.

      There is ALWAYS a case for inaction. Inaction requires no courage; no conviction.

      If France and others believed that there was no case for WMDs, they should have DONE SOMETHING. Even at this late stage, they could intervene with their military and try to return Iraq to its rightful (?) Baathist rulers. But they don't.

      They sit on the sidelines and quibble. They do not ACT.

      Now for the trivia challenge: What momentous event in the 1930s and 1940s was brought about, in large part, by the unwillingness of France and the UK to ACT?

    40. Re:Ironic by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Right or wrong, here's how it works: The biggest, baddest kid on the block gets sucker punched. He's hurt, he's mad. He asks you a question about your ability to hurt him. You play tough and talk smack and you're going to get your ass kicked. This is elementary school psychology.

      Don't change the subject.

      Was/Is military action against Iraq culminating in regime change a good and worthwhile thing? Perhaps. Was it presented to Congress (the only body that can declare war) that way? No. It was presented falsely as "they have WMD's and they are an imminent threat of using them on us". That's the falsehood. If regime change was truly justified (and I feel it was), the Bush administration was both morally and legally obligated to present the real arguments for it.

      -T

    41. Re:Ironic by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      It was the consensus of the "intelligence community" in 2001 that Iraq had WMDs.

      Not so. Read the 9/11 Report or check out Fahrenheit 911 (both of which look at the same sources). It was not the consensus of the intelligence community. It was a conclusion that was requested ahead of time by the Bush Administration, and the intelligence analysts were told to come to that conclusion by any means necessary.

      The rest of your points rely on this first false premise except one:

      If France and others believed that there was no case for WMDs, they should have DONE SOMETHING. Even at this late stage, they could intervene with their military and try to return Iraq to its rightful (?) Baathist rulers.

      Um, France's military is going to step in to stop the US military? There are no other world military superpowers other than the US - our armed forces can literally walk over just about anyone else (with the exception of China, but that's merely due to their numbers). If France interposed themselves, the US would attack them, France would feel itself obligated to stop the attack in the only possible way they could: nuclear weapons. Which would lead to WWIII. Bad move. France couldn't step in. Even if they had their whole military move to Iraq and lie down in front of the US tanks, it would have been futile.

      -T

    42. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the fact that Iraq was no threat to us? In fact, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was probably good for us. Saddam was afraid of al-Qaeda because it posed a threat to him. Saddam's government was secular, not Islamist.

      People say there was an al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before 2003. And there was: in regions Saddam's government did not control. Since the US invasion, we now have al-Qaeda in areas that were previously controlled by Hussein.

      Nevermind problems in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Korea, etc., which are far more troubling. George Bush decided to go after a country that, yes, was ruled by an evil dictator, but was stable, secular, and non-Islamist. Now that that government is gone, all the extremists and REAL terrorists have now entered that country, and our President won't even acknowledge the problem, let alone acknowledge that problems exist elsewhere. Hardly "mission accomplished."

    43. Re:Ironic by jcr · · Score: 1

      I'm so sick of republicans acting as if they represent all of what's right and good in this country and claiming that the democrats represent immorality and stupidity. I'm also tired of the democrats acting as if all the republicans are either slaves to the corporate interests, and either evil crooks or else slobbering boobs who've been convinced to go along with the crooks.

      Well, how else would you convince the public that there's some substantial difference between the Republican and Democrat factions of the Ruling Party?

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    44. Re:Ironic by starcraftsicko · · Score: 1
      It was the consensus of the "intelligence community" in 2001 that Iraq had WMDs. Not so. Read the 9/11 Report or check out Fahrenheit 911
      I have. F911 was incomplete, and must be taken with lots of salt. Mr. Moore sought the conclusion he reached (much as you suggest the Bush team did)... The 9/11 commission report is another matter of course. Have you actually read it?

      The 9/11 report analyzed mainly 9/11 related intel. It contains little conclusive information about Iraqi WMD intel... because Iraqi WMDs were not involved in the 9/11 attack. Therefore the commission report doesn't shed much light on the Iraqi situation because their attention was focused elsewhere. The information the present on point is incomplete, and they acknowledge this.

      I do not dispute that contrary opinions did exist, just as they do with regard to environmental matters, but rather point out that a consensus (in both cases) exists despite the contrary voices. Intelligence analysis reads much like a weather report: "it'll rain for sure... but there's a chance it won't".

      In 2001, no intelligence agency that you (or I) would consider reputable asserted that Iraq lacked WMDs. This doesn't excuse the CIA or the DIA or the Bushys their failure to realize the truth, but it does lend plenty of credence to the idea that that their failure was due to a lack of perception rather than to an intent to mislead.

      As for France's notable inaction... they could have built a coalition from the (un)willing. Russia, Germany, Maybe even China could have gone in. And don't forget the Iraqi army! The US army is not invincible. It could have been done (with a cost for sure, but still). Unless of course you are suggesting that nobody sane would want France as an ally?
    45. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I would love to argue about ..."

      Perhaps you are looking for a political website rather than a hi-tech one?

      And I never really thought about GW looking like a monkey, but now that you mention it...

    46. Re:Ironic by TerrapinOrange · · Score: 1

      So, I guess expecting the US to not act like an angry elementary school kid is asking too much?

      Sure, Saddam was asking for it. But when a course of action is going to lead to thousands of deaths, that's not a good enough excuse.

      A few years ago a Canadian politician called George Bush a moron. On the school yard, this would have been justification for a thorough ass kicking. By your logic I guess it would have been acceptable to attack Canada too?

    47. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can take criticism of the president - it's important and needs to be done. But not when the main critisim is that he's :
      1) evil
      2) incompetent
      3) looks/talks like a monkey


      If it is not important whether or not a president is evil and incompetent, what is?

      Or are you saying that the only criticism you can take is "softball" criticism of his hairstyle, dating habits or military record.

      (my apologies...that came out a little blunt but anything else would not accurately represent the statement being rebutted).

    48. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best post EVER.

    49. Re:Ironic by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      I have. F911 was incomplete, and must be taken with lots of salt. Mr. Moore sought the conclusion he reached (much as you suggest the Bush team did)... The 9/11 commission report is another matter of course. Have you actually read it?

      Yes - I work at an all-news radio station. Anyways, yes, Mr. Moore's "Documentary" was obviously an opinionated commentary rather than an objective journalistic report (he's no more a journalist than Rush Limbaugh), but the reports, news footage, etc., that he showed were legitimate. Even in the absence of any commentary, several conclusions could be drawn about the lack of consensus in the intelligence community.

      In 2001, no intelligence agency that you (or I) would consider reputable asserted that Iraq lacked WMDs.

      Not so - Hans Blix, and his team of on-site inspectors.

      This doesn't excuse the CIA or the DIA or the Bushys their failure to realize the truth, but it does lend plenty of credence to the idea that that their failure was due to a lack of perception rather than to an intent to mislead.

      Don't know about that - while we can't know their intent, there are strong indications that they wanted this particular conclusion for a long time - something that should raise immediate suspicion in the validity of any investigation.

      As for France's notable inaction... they could have built a coalition from the (un)willing. Russia, Germany, Maybe even China could have gone in. And don't forget the Iraqi army! The US army is not invincible. It could have been done (with a cost for sure, but still). Unless of course you are suggesting that nobody sane would want France as an ally?

      What Iraqi army? ;)
      Seriously, though, China wouldn't have gone in - they would have seen it as an opportunity for their enemies to fight each other, and would have stood by and watched happily. The others you mention, though, even combined, could not stand up to the US:

      I have a rifleman, you have a dozen tanks. My guy has two choices: surrender or die. Add nuclear weapons in, and you get the situation I mentioned - my rifleman has three choices now: surrender, die, or use his nuke to take out your tanks, but suffer immediate nuclear retribution and the start of WWIII. Scale it up by ten thousand, and that's why France, even with Germany, Russia, etc. couldn't do anything - they didn't have a hundred thousand tanks to be able to counter the Americans with; all they could do would be threaten mutual nuclear annihilation, and that's a bluff for any government.

      -T

    50. Re:Ironic by Dumbush · · Score: 1

      What I really love about foreign intelligence:

      Russia told us Sep11 is going to happen. We ignored it

      Russia *told us about WMD. Oh it must be true!

      Face the facts, this administration is self-serving. Intellgience itself is an oxymoron if that's all you get out of it.

    51. Re:Ironic by Lost+Race · · Score: 1
      I love slashdot. Where else would you find wild anti-republican conspiracy theories considered insightful?
      I love wild conspiracy theories. They're hillarious, and they explain everything! What more could you need? Insight? The good ones are chock-full of it -- read Illuminatus and tell me there's no insight in there! (Factual accuracy is not a prerequisite for insight.)
    52. Re:Ironic by nathanh · · Score: 1
      The whole situation in this country is just getting rediculous. Is it possible for people to believe that George W. Bush is a terrible politician, but a decent guy who just has a difference of opinion with you?

      Hey, I'm not American and I've no attachment to either party in your two-party system, but it must be said that GWB is a fricking idiot. He's dumber than a box of hammers. He's a goose. A galah. A drongo. He couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag. When he's "lost in thought" you can almost hear his remaining pair of brain cells clicking together.

      Evil? Nah, I don't reckon he's evil. I'm a generally positive person and I believe there are very few truly evil people. But there are stupid people. And there are ignorant people. And there are righteous people and they are the scariest of all. GWB manages to represent himself well in all three categories. How he managed to find himself in such a position of such power is beyond me. I thought your democracy was supposed to elect the best and brightest? You've managed to elect the dimmest bulb in the lighting store.

      Ever seen the movie "Being There"? I thought it was a comedy. Now I wonder.

    53. Re:Ironic by starcraftsicko · · Score: 1
      In 2001, no intelligence agency that you (or I) would consider reputable asserted that Iraq lacked WMDs. Not so - Hans Blix, and his team of on-site inspectors.

      Mr. Blix and his inspectors BEFORE THE INVASION made it quite clear that they had not located any WMDs. HOWEVER they/he were emphatic in their request for additional time to continue inspections.

      Their request for more time indicates a belief that such time would not be wasted; that in fact there were weapons to find. At BEST their findings were inconclusive, but their actions and request for time gave support to the "consensus" conclusion.

      POST INVASION, Blix has talked about always having had some doubt about Iraqi WMDs and such. To be clear, his hindsight is almost as good as mine... but your news agency interviews him and not me. (If I'm wrong on this, which I doubt, post a link. If he publicly said "Iraq does not possess banned weapons or banned weapons programs" prior to the invasion, someone someplace would have made a note.) Mr. Blix had a chance to be courageous. He had at least two (televised) occasions to report to the UNSC about his findings. If at either he had stood up and said "Iraq is free of banned XYZ, I recommend lifting sanctions" BELIEVE ME, we'd have heard about it.

      As for your military assertions... France and Germany and Russia all have tanks of their own... They COULD have acted. I am also quite certain that if any of these nations had committed troops in support of Saddam's government, the US would have at the very least, paused a few months to reconsider.

      The price of INACTION is that one must accept what comes.
    54. Re:Ironic by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Mr. Blix and his inspectors BEFORE THE INVASION made it quite clear that they had not located any WMDs. HOWEVER they/he were emphatic in their request for additional time to continue inspections.
      Their request for more time indicates a belief that such time would not be wasted; that in fact there were weapons to find. At BEST their findings were inconclusive, but their actions and request for time gave support to the "consensus" conclusion.

      That makes no sense. "Their requewst for more time indicates that... in fact there were weapons to find." So, by the same token, the sheer fact that SETI wants to spend more time looking for aliens means that aliens must exist? The fact that agnostics spend time wondering if God exists or not means he must exist? The fact that I want more time to look for the BMW in my garage means that there must be a BMW somewhere in there?

      The fact that they wanted to look means they wanted to be certain. They weren't certain yet. That's all it means.

      As for your military assertions... France and Germany and Russia all have tanks of their own... They COULD have acted. I am also quite certain that if any of these nations had committed troops in support of Saddam's government, the US would have at the very least, paused a few months to reconsider.

      It's a metaphor. The combined might of France, Germany, and Russia could not stand up to the United States armed forces, except by using nuclear weapons. That's the only possible way they could stall our forces, and that is an unacceptable solution for any government, since it results in total mutual annihilation. As for pausing, there was no indication that the US would pause, and it would have caused an irreconcilable rift in diplomatic relations between whatever country stepped in, and the US - and with Bush looking like a loose cannon at the time, any country that tried to protect Iraq could have been next on the invasion list.

      -T

    55. Re:Ironic by starcraftsicko · · Score: 1

      That makes no sense. "Their requewst for more time indicates that... in fact there were weapons to find.

      How about "Their request for more time indicates a belief that... in fact there were weapons to find" ?? Or your own:

      They weren't certain yet. That's all it means.

      You had suggested Mr. Blix as a credible source disputing the consensus "Iraq has WMDs" that existed pre-invasion. By your own analysis here, Mr. Blix's presentation was one of uncertainty rather than one that challenged the consensus.

      Perhaps "deep down" he believed that there was nothing to find, or that Saddam & Co. had used up all of their Chem. Weapons on the Kurds. Perhaps. But he didn't say so when it might have mattered. For those that believed the consensus (which was, as I have said, basically every intelligence service that you and I would consider to be "reputable"), his request for more time certainly lent support to the idea that such time would not be wasted. Perhaps they saw what they wanted to see, but Mr. Blix certainly presented it in sufficiently ambiguous light to permit this.

      His position was VERY self serving. By asking for more time, if after the invasion, the coalition had found huge stockpiles of nerve agents, he could have claimed "given more time we would have surely found them". And if, as actually happened, no WMDs were found, he could later claim to have "known all along" and to have been asking for more time to prevent a "needless" conflict. Either way, he'd be a celebrity with the news networks.

      the sheer fact that SETI wants to spend more time looking for aliens means that aliens must exist?

      No. It indicates that the Seti people believe that their efforts looking are not wasted. IE, they believe that there are ETs to find... whether there actually are or not. Similar analysis on your related examples.

      It's a metaphor. The combined might of France, Germany, and Russia could not stand up to the United States armed forces, except by using nuclear weapons.

      Um... a metaphor? More like a claim, or an assertion I think. And a false or unsupported one at that.

      I'd like to believe that I am a suitably patriotic, or even occasionally nationalistic, American. But even -I- do not belong to the cult of American military invincibility. I have to wonder why you do... What evidence have you been reading? The fact that the US Army never loses in Tom Clancy's world does not translate into assurance of victory for US forces in the field.

      It would be more correct to assert that opposing forces must be willing to absorb lopsided casualties in order to fight the US military. Those casualty figures -might- be unacceptable... on the order of 100 to 1 for may Middle Eastern powers (Saddam's Iraq) or of 10 to 1 for China perhaps. But France and Germany and Russia do not operate with the same technological deficit. Loss ratios on the order of 3 to 1 are likely...

      3 to 1 loss ratios are sustainable, if a nation or government has the will to do so. Union losses for most of the US Civil War hovered around this level. Losses in US armored units vs. Germany in WWII were about this level. It can be done. the problem is that few Western nations in modern time have the kind of will power to sustain any significant casualties.

      So if you meant to claim that France and the others lack the national will to sustain casualties in a war, I'd probably agree. That's why even reputed Liberal strategists don't worry much about France: When the chips are down, and the casualties begin to mount, you can count on France... to surr

    56. Re:Ironic by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      You had suggested Mr. Blix as a credible source disputing the consensus "Iraq has WMDs" that existed pre-invasion. By your own analysis here, Mr. Blix's presentation was one of uncertainty rather than one that challenged the consensus.

      The fact that he didn't say "I bet my life, reputation, and first born son that there are no WMDs in Iraq" doesn't make his presentation "one of uncertainty". You're throwing a disingenuous spin on it here. He said, in essence, "my inspectors and I believe there are no WMDs in Iraq. We have found none, and no mechanisms for creating them. However, there are a few places we have not checked yet - until we have seen them, we can't say for certain that there are no WMDs here."

      Um... a metaphor? More like a claim, or an assertion I think.

      No, Mr. Out-Of-Context... My "1 rifleman vs. 100 tanks" was the metaphor.

      What evidence have you been reading? The fact that the US Army never loses in Tom Clancy's world does not translate into assurance of victory for US forces in the field.

      The US Army, in a conventional war, has never lost. Guerilla actions, terrorist strikes, the Viet Cong, etc. were not conventional, so don't cite those as examples. This makes a difference here, because an intercession by France, Russia, Germany, et al would be conventional in form.

      3 to 1 loss ratios are only sustainable provided you look at the economic stability/growth of the country in question. Russia could not sustain a 3:1 loss, nor could France or Germany. The combined EU might be able to, but other than that, no one else (except China). The US can, because of our economic strength. Huge numbers of men lost means huge decline in GDP, since they won't be working, but the US can take a decline in GDP without collapsing.

      That's why even reputed Liberal strategists don't worry much about France: When the chips are down, and the casualties begin to mount, you can count on France... to surrender.

      Do you have proof of this, or is it just bigotted claptrap? France surrendered to the Axis when, at the time, they had no other options. The US had not entered the war, nor had England (they were trying to stay neutral, thinking Germany would stop at France). They were facing the same sort of 10:1 strength deficit, and were offered the opportunity to be peacefully conquered or be destroyed outright.

      As for the nuclear specter, you overplay it. The widely held belief (even, dare I say, consensus) that a nuclear exchange would lead to Armageddon serves to prevent such an exchange except in direct defense of home territory (IE France might nuke if invaded or nuked, but not otherwise. Ditto US, UK, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel... the only exception might be North Korea, but -might- is the right word here).

      So, you say that if France and the US met on the battlefield in Iraq, and France used nuclear weapons on the US army in the field, the US wouldn't respond with nuclear weapons on the French homeland?
      Respectfully, I disagree, and I cite both examples of nuclear weapon use in war - Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not used against military installations or troops, but rather against civilian population centers. Now, while I think use of those bombs were the right thing to do for several reasons, I don't think the US would hesitate to use them again, particularly if they were used against even our troops in the field (the United States homeland was under no threat of attack by Japan at that point - Midway and Pearl Harbor were long since over, and the famous balloon attempt was mostly a bust.)

      Certainly nuclear weapons are the only way France could hope to achieve a lopsided victory, but the knowledge that French wines would be radioactive for 10,000 years as a result should serve to deter even a loose cannon like Chirac.

      Didn't you just say that the French could use nuclear weapons in the field and the US wouldn't retaliate on Paris? Or, are you echoing my point - that the only way the French could achieve a victory would be through nukes, and they are unwilling to do that because of retaliation? That's exactly what I said, and that's exactly why France wouldn't intercede militarily in Iraq.

      -T

    57. Re:Ironic by starcraftsicko · · Score: 1

      He said, in essence,

      Link me to where he said that, or tell me what book and page to look at in the library. Before, you said that he said "he wasn't sure", now you're saying that he said he was. Link me where he said, before the invasion, Iraq lacks WMDs, and I will concede the point. You (claim to) work at a 24/7 news agency. You have a huge advantage for this kind of research. I am truly interested. Link it.

      No, Mr. Out-Of-Context... My "1 rifleman vs. 100 tanks" was the metaphor.

      It was a poor metaphor because the example given was topical. Better to claim a field mouse against a tiger, or something to that effect. Anyway, it's still untrue.

      you can count on France... to surrender.

      Do you have proof of this, or is it just bigotted claptrap?

      Ok, I admit I was enjoying a joke at the expense of a whole nation of wine snobs, but yes, there is some real hard truth to it. I'll get to that in a second.

      The US Army, in a conventional war, has never lost.

      False. War of 1812. None of Pre-war objectives were achieved. Washington DC was burned by British troops.

      In the modern age, one can also make the argument that the Korean War was a defeat. The US was pushed back significantly from it's point of furthest advance. China showed the US the truth of the Russian maxim: Quantity has a Quality all its own.

      The Bay of Pigs mess might also qualify as a US defeat, though the army involved was technically Cuban. (Kennedy should have resigned after that one. Not for sending the invasion, but for failing to back it up as promised).

      France surrendered to the Axis when, at the time, they had no other options. The US had not entered the war, nor had England

      False. True. And again, False.

      Ever heard of the BEF? Dunkirk?

      Britain, Like France, Declared war on Germany in response to the German invasion of Poland. Belgium, not England, tried to remain Neutral until it was too late, and as a result, No fortification or preparation was made in the Ardennes until it was far too late. When Battle began in earnest, poor morale amongst the largely conscript French infantry led to several mass surrenders. HOWEVER, some French formations actually did put up a fair resistance, and French armored units were never fully utilized. France surrendered with the bulk of its army intact. It surrendered with its fleet intact. Most units had access to adequate supplies and were available to receive orders. Also Several fresh formations were in Eastern France and were COMPLETELY untouched. These units could have reinforced the main French line, had it faltered, or flanked the German Blitzkrieg and broken German Supply lines through Belgium.

      The French were far from powerless, and their decision NOT to fight, and NOT to continue the battle in their colonies (Algeria for starters), and NOT to use their fleet to keep Germany out of the Mediterranean and North Atlantic prolonged WWII in the Atlantic & Europe AT LEAST a year.

      After the French Surrender, Germany turned toward Britain, and also North Africa. Blah. blah. Blah. Premature French TOTAL surrender cost the US and UK hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of lives.

      If you want to know how it actually happened, I'd be glad to recommend some books...

      So, you say that if France and the US met on the battlefield in Iraq, and France used nuclear weapons

      I submit that, with the exception of POSSIBLY North Korea, the Acknowledged and Suspected Nuclear Powers would only use nukes a) if nuked, and b) in direct defense of their homeland (with the longest established powers using them only as a last defense). That includes both the US and France.

      I cite both examples of nuclear weapon

    58. Re:Ironic by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Link me to where he said that, or tell me what book and page to look at in the library. Before, you said that he said "he wasn't sure", now you're saying that he said he was. Link me where he said, before the invasion, Iraq lacks WMDs, and I will concede the point.

      "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."

      Better to claim a field mouse against a tiger, or something to that effect. Anyway, it's still untrue.

      Sure, fine. Fieldmouse vs. tiger, fieldmouse has option of nuclear weapons to kill tiger. Better? Now, what makes it "still untrue"?

      I concede War of 1812, but not Korea. Vietnam was a defeat, but Korea was not - while they were pushed back from their furthest point of advance, they were not pushed back completely, and in fact had gained more than they lost. But that is arguable, I'll grant. Bay of Pigs, as you said, was a non-US action.

      I'll agree that France's surrender indeed prolonged the war, and cost the US and Britain many thousands of lives. However, pessimistic as it may be, that's not France's concern. It cost signifigantly fewer French lives, throughout the duration of their occupation, than it would have if they attempted to hold off the Axis advance.

      But without nukes, they could still have defeated US forces IF they'd been willing to sustain 3 to 1 loss ratios.

      I disagree with this one - the US could sustain 3:1 loss ratios much longer than France could... especially since the US would be the 1 to France's 3... While France could hold the advance for a period (weeks? I'd doubt as long as 2 months) they would eventually be defeated.

      I'd also disagree about casualties and political will - the American public is currently unwilling to consider losses that high, but then, we're fighting against guerillas. WWII had a much higher number of casualties per day, and the American citizenry was solidly behind it. I think the propaganda machine would paint France as "the enemy, supporting and protecting terrorists" and the post-9/11 ('cause this was back in early 2002) Patriotism Surge would have been behind it.

      Anyways, definitely good debating - feel free to continue with the Blix stuff or see you next time.

      -T

  19. Just to point this out by CptChipJew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Kennedy used this as an opportunity to show how this system is sort of a lousy idea, and an even worse implementation.

    So to this, all I can say is that Ted should be modded up at least +3 Insightful

    --
    Vonal Declosion
    1. Re:Just to point this out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly. Kennedy is a big fan of beauracratic socialist government. He just wants it to be *HIS* beauracratic socialist government.

      I don't see how the "system" failed here anyway. It was established to prevent terrorists from boarding a plane. Kennedy is a politician and by definition, that makes him a terrorist.

    2. Re:Just to point this out by calculadoru · · Score: 1

      nice sig and all, but you should really check its spelling. it should be "a shell script WHOSE sole aim", not 'who's'. unless of course it's that way on purpose :)

      --
      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
  20. Sounds like a political stunt to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something here is a bit fishy, I'm sure Mr. Kennedy flies quite often. The timing of it all seems a bit too opportune.

    1. Re:Sounds like a political stunt to me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What are you suggesting? That he blacklisted himself?

  21. Liberal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well... Liberal... Terrorist... same thing in my mind! Start the feeding upon my post!

  22. Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" list by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't recall the radio program but late in the day the word was that he wasn't on a No-Fly list but rather a Screen list. What the exact difference is between the list was not discussed, but I'd have to imagine that the first prohibits flight while the second is more of a harassment.

  23. Anyone else think this was politically motivated? by bretharder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A Liberal Democrat Senator gets put on the No-Fly list by mistake _AND_ It takes 3 weeks to get removed?

  24. politically motivated? by monkeyserver.com · · Score: 1, Redundant

    He's very anti-bush, I wonder if some one with a little power thought this would be funny. I'm sure the bush ppl wouldn't mind inconviencing one of the most recognizable Democratic senators in the country.

    of course, if that's true then only Micheal Moore would have a harder time getting OFF the list...or heaven forbid... an actual terrorist

    --
    http://monkeyserver.com --- weeeeee
    1. Re:politically motivated? by Bob+4knee · · Score: 1
      He got on the list by buying his (one way) ticket(s) at the last minute. Having some other suspicious guy give the name "Ted Kennedy" probably didn't help. Once your'e on the list, you seem to be on it for life. If Ted asked me to help him get off of the list, I'd help him, eventually. That seems to be what happened.

      Sure it's a bad system. Like all of our current airport security it is designed to make the sheep feel like "somebody is doing something" more than to provide any real increase in security. Unlike taking nail clippers away from blue-haird ladies, this one is much more open to abuse. Nobody in either party is real surprised.

    2. Re:politically motivated? by Skater · · Score: 1

      I doubt it - why would the Bush administration want BAD news about this system in the news?

      --RJ

  25. Get a common name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My name is James Sullivan - i may be safe for a little while - while the matching is done on name... There are people secretly named James Sullivan everywhere.

  26. Ordinary citizens don't need air travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Only glorious Party members need to go places. Citizens should be Happy to be working for the greater glory of the Corporation that so graciously employs them.

  27. So what will it be folks? by east+coast · · Score: 0

    Either we drop these security measures which makes us open to hijackings or we learn to live with some inconvenience until the system can be refined. It's odd that out of all the self proclaimed geeks that wonder these message boards that this is somehow an alien concept. If we abandoned technology everytime we tried to put it into a useful circumstance and it failed we'd still be living in caves praying for lightning to create fire.

    You'd think that we'd have gotten past the point of dismissing everything that had the occasional glitch.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:So what will it be folks? by p3d0 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Either we drop these security measures which makes us open to hijackings or we learn to live with some inconvenience until the system can be refined.
      Yes sir, you just bought the false dichotomy that the US government is currently peddling. Contratulations on being a Good Citizen. I hope you have as much success with the War on Terrorism as you did with the War on Drugs.
      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    2. Re:So what will it be folks? by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      The system needs to be scrapped.

      The appropriate solution is ZERO access to the flight deck from the passanger conpartment.

      Fix the plane designs and the issue goes away.

      They can still blow one up, but not drive it into something.

    3. Re:So what will it be folks? by gtaluvit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How does this make us open to hijackings? The terrorists from 9/11 had valid credentials. They went through a metal detector. The added security does nothing but placate the sheeple. Try flying sometime and you'll see how security is spotty at best. You don't have this kind of trouble in foreign airports that are BIGGER targets for this sort of thing. Think about that.

      --
      - gtaluvit (prnc. GOT-tuh-LUV-it)
    4. Re:So what will it be folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think that we'd have gotten past the point of dismissing everything that had the occasional glitch. Piss off Gates.

    5. Re:So what will it be folks? by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 4, Insightful

      or we learn to live with some inconvenience

      You're kidding right?

      This guy is a U.S. Senator. Not just that, but probably one of the most well-known senators (love him or hate him). This goes way beyond a little quirk in the system.

      I highly doubt that the next attack is going to be the same as the last one, we need to focus on the unidentified threats, but instead we focus on implementing systems that get us used to losing our rights. Fuck it, the 9/11 terrorists actually accomplished their goal by fundamentally changing the way we think and act!

      And when I speak of a system, I mean the end-to-end system, not the computer system.

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    6. Re:So what will it be folks? by Grimm42 · · Score: 1

      No, no, by all means keep up the good work, anti-Bush politicians should not be allowed to fly anyway! Is'nt that what democracy is all about?
      This is not a glitch. Get it? And that is the problem.

    7. Re:So what will it be folks? by cridanb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      thats assuming that the measures protect us from hijacking. But ted is just grandstanding he actually did fly every time and it was not his name on the list but a simular name. and its not the tech that is the problem her , why would a booking clerk or sercurity person not have enough sense to look at Ted and say ok he is the senior pol from Mass let him pass

      --
      men will do for beer ,that which they would not for love or money
    8. Re:So what will it be folks? by Just+Another+Perl+Ha · · Score: 2, Insightful


      But.... doing that would hinder the airline's god-given-right to maximize their profit. Isn't that unconstitutional? Much better to treat everyone as a criminal... that's what the record companies do and it works wonders for them.
      </sarcasm>

    9. Re:So what will it be folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean give the cockpit only one door (accessable from the outside only) so that if somebody wanted to hijack the plane mid-flight, they would need to risk going out the main door (outside while flying) and then open the cockpit door and re-enter the plane?

    10. Re:So what will it be folks? by jbash · · Score: 1

      LOL, yeah, some glitch. Did you know that as an average citizen there is NO MECHANISM to contest your name on the list?

    11. Re:So what will it be folks? by freqres · · Score: 1

      This guy is a U.S. Senator. Not just that, but probably one of the most well-known senators (love him or hate him).

      Not to nitpick, but I think that most Americans wouldn't know Ted Kennedy if they saw him (especially if you picked someone who didn't live on the East Coast). If you put Fat Ted, James Traficant and Boss Hog in a police lineup and pulled someone off the street and asked them to pick which one was Ted Kennedy, my bet would be most people would pick the one they vaguely recognize (hint: Boss Hog).

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    12. Re:So what will it be folks? by Absoluttt · · Score: 1

      Bigger targets? Are those bigger targets sending billions of dollars like the USA in military forces to support a country or factions that the terrorists hate? They didn't crash a few planes into the Leaning tower of Piza, or the Eiffel Tower...

    13. Re:So what will it be folks? by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      LMAO!!! Nice one...

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    14. Re:So what will it be folks? by Watcher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They went through a metal detector.

      Here's the really obscene part, which comes from the 9/11 commission reports: in every flight, at least one (and in one case all four) of the highjackers on the flights set off the metal detectors. They were screened by security afterwards, and allowed to pass. We even have it on video. The sad truth from what happened on 9/11 is that we did't really need more security-we needed to make the security we already had functional. Of course, this is the country that passes new gun laws instead of enforcing the ones it already has, so why break with tradition?

    15. Re:So what will it be folks? by Analogy+Man · · Score: 2, Insightful
      the 9/11 terrorists actually accomplished their goal by fundamentally changing the way we think and act!

      In addition to this don't neglect the financial impact (the terrorists leaders don't).

      A cryptic cell phone call and a correlating notebook with maps and jibberish left in a rental car could shut down major institutions.

      If they can get one guy to blow himself up in an airpport with explosives up his bum, it will be cavity searches for Aunt Betty from Phoenix next.

      Our best security is to keep our heads up and go about our business. Marshal law is not the answer.

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    16. Re:So what will it be folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      They went through a metal detector.

      When I take my bicycle with me on the plane (in Europe), I am wearing:

      • Glasses with a metal frame;
      • One home key and one cycle key hidden under my clothes;
      • One metal watch with a metal strap;
      • Two pieces of steel sized 6x15x20 mm, one under each shoe, that fit into the pedals of my bike.
      Guess what? All this does not set off the metal detection ports. In my hand luggage, there are often a number of things that must look funny on the X-ray screen: a metal cooking vessel, the pedals (full of springs and oddly-shaped pieces of steel), wires (for recharging batteries from the dynamo), lumps of cheese and chocolate (must look like lumps of semtex), a spoon, fork, and (blunt) knive that I forgot to put into the check-in luggage, and other small things that you need in outdoor life. I've never been asked to show what's inside of that bag. I'm actually considering to cut a few layers of tinfoil into the shape of a gun or knive, just to see what happens.

      The laser service engineer that visits our lab every now and then carries a big case with screwdrivers and other tools as well as cleaning chemicals and a gas-operated soldering iron, and he claims that he managed to carry those as hand luggage on occasions where he was in a hurry. (He is of course a very good airline customer with a pass for unlimited domestic travel).

    17. Re:So what will it be folks? by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      The terrorists from 9/11 had valid credentials.

      AARRRGGG!!!! Why won't these falsehoods die?! Their passports may have been issued in the true names of the terrorists, but they were still fraudulent. Try reading the complete 9-11 commission report. Specifically, page 563, note 32 claims that two of the hijackers had fraudulently manipulated their passports and that it is believed that up to 11 others did as well (their passports were not recovered from the wreckage). Apparently, the passports had been doctored to remove entrance and exit stamps of the countries the terrorists passed through enroute from Afghanistan to the US. This is the sort of information that immigration officials use to determine both the depth with which the entrant should be interviewed, as well as what additional surveillance would be required.

      You don't have this kind of trouble in foreign airports that are BIGGER targets for this sort of thing.

      You sir, have obviously never flown in or out of Ben Gurian airport in Tel Aviv, Israel... and it seems to have served them quite well.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    18. Re:So what will it be folks? by cyber0ne · · Score: 2, Informative

      The added security does nothing but placate the sheeple.

      Amen. Also, no matter what the government mandates to try to make people feel safe, it all comes down to Mr. John Q. Agent working at the airport to actually make it work. And he often fails.

      I can give several examples of (post-9/11) experiences in an airport where I used to live (Missoula, Montana). I once boarded a plane with nobody at the gate to check passes (I still have the complete, unchecked boarding pass). I've walked right into almost every "restricted" area, including the machine room in the basement, the offices behind the airline counters, and even right out the back door to where the planes are.

      My only comfort was knowing the strategic choices of planes on 9/11 was related to their high fuel content and proximity to specific targets. By the time any plane from Montana gets to a terrorist target, it's time to re-fuel.

      --
      http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
    19. Re:So what will it be folks? by dave420 · · Score: 1
      Well, they still went through the metal detectors and their weapons weren't found, which is a much bigger failing than false documentation.

      Israel is a unique instance. Compare any US airport to a European one, and you'll see tighter security, yet faster-moving people. Go figure.

    20. Re:So what will it be folks? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Compare any US airport to a European one, and you'll see tighter security, yet faster-moving people

      Clearly, you have never flown through Madrid or Athens (pre-Olympics).

    21. Re:So what will it be folks? by Jonboy+X · · Score: 1

      [W]e need to focus on the unidentified threats...

      Hehe, well put. Sounds like a Bush quote along the lines of, "We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."

      For the slow kids, the point is that you can't focus on something until you identify it. If you're focusing on it, you've already identified it, so it's no longer unidentified.

      --

      "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
    22. Re:So what will it be folks? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Yes sir, you just bought the false dichotomy that the US government is currently peddling. Contratulations on being a Good Citizen.

      So do you have a better solution or are you just here to troll?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    23. Re:So what will it be folks? by dave420 · · Score: 1
      I was obviously talking about large airports. I've flown out of Long Beach in LA, and it was no more than two tents next to a somewhat-flat piece of road. ;) They still couldn't get people through it quickly.

      Take a look at Heathrow. Massive, massive airport, hundreds of flights, and fast-moving people. The security procedures are more thorough, yet they don't terrorise the passengers. Makes you think, doesn't it?

    24. Re:So what will it be folks? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      we need to focus on the unidentified threats, but instead we focus on implementing systems that get us used to losing our rights.

      So how exactly are we to focus on the unidentified threats without everyone screaming that their rights are being violated? And since when is flying a right?

      Fuck it, the 9/11 terrorists actually accomplished their goal by fundamentally changing the way we think and act!

      So anything we've done since 9/11 in an attempt to stop another incident is giving in to the terrorists? That's akin to saying that running anti-virus software is nothing more than giving into script kiddies.

      Maybe in some ways you're right, perhaps there is a better way. But you know what? In the 8 or 9 flaming posts I've seen in reply to mine there isn't one single idea on how to make the system better. Infact one of these posts had outrightly erroneous "facts" to support their claim. yet, while my original post got modded down this post got modded up to a +5 interesting. I'm open to suggestions, but make it a bit more specific than "focus on the unidentified threats".

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    25. Re:So what will it be folks? by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      Yes, I posted in haste (and anger). Upon reflection , I should have said ..need to focus on identifying the unidentified threats... Hey, I guess I could grow up to be president some day!

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    26. Re:So what will it be folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny, i was going throught security 2 weeks ago, and i carried on (by accident really) my shaving kit, with beard scissors. (5-6inch long). i put it throught the xray machine. they found it, and questiond me a little about it. But did not really give me a hard time about it. I just said, look i was born in royal oak, i have a job, i am white, i have been flying before, c'mon it wont happen again. it was a mistake, i should of checked it with the rest of my luggage.

      So they let me carry it on! woho0

      NO BS! but i wont tell you which airport.

    27. Re:So what will it be folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They went through a metal detector.

      In this case we are talking about metal detectors in the USA, not Europe.

      The 9/11 Commission report clearly stated that the metal-detectors are calibrated to detect anything equal to or larger than metal content of a .22 caliber pistol.

      Try carring all that crap you mentioned through a metal detector here in the States and see what happens.

    28. Re:So what will it be folks? by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      I just don't see that taking away my fingernail clippers is going to prevent a repeat of 9/11. In fact, I highly doubt that a 9/11-style attack will happen again, the bad guys have already moved on to the next idea. My point was that we need to focus resources on identifying how the next attack is likely to play out.

      All of this added so-called airport security is like closing the door after the horse is out of the barn, so to speak.

      Maybe I'm idealistic, but I believe that I do have the right to anonymous domestic travel. Up until recently we have had this right, but now we have to show papers wherever we go.

      What fuels my sense of outrage is that so much is being done in the name of fighting terrorism that clearly has little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism, and does take away my civil liberties. Look at it this way, when do you expect to get any of your liberties back? That's right, everything changed on September 11 2004! You hear it all of the time. There is a constitutional process for dealing with war and curtailing liberties in time of war. But we chose, for a host of reasons, not to go that route. So now we have an open-ended "war", and no way to get our rights back when/if the war ends. The terrorists achieved their goal.

      And yes, every time I have to deal with frigging AV software, I get pissed because I am sacrificing my time and resources to the script kiddies.

      How do we make the system better? As citizens, we provide well-reasoned critical analysis (whoops, I forgot, this is /.), and elect officials who demonstrate understanding and respect for the principles that differentiate our country from the systems that preceeded it.

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    29. Re:So what will it be folks? by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      s/2004/2001/ [blush]

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    30. Re:So what will it be folks? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      All of this added so-called airport security is like closing the door after the horse is out of the barn, so to speak.

      Not to belittle your point, it does seem to have some merit, but hijackings have happened before 9/11 and will after. Infact I would even go as far as to say that your argument doesn't hold much water since "The Shoe Bomber" was another attempt to target commercial passenger airliners. Granted he was flying from (I believe) the UK but all the same...

      Maybe I'm idealistic, but I beleive that I do have the right to anonymous domestic travel.

      It's not the idea of getting from point A to point B but rather the method of travel. Again the word "right" has come into the mix when it simply shouldn't have. The use of a government regulated transportation system is not a right at all. That's why we have a drivers license, a pilots license and vehicle registration. Theses are considered privileges. Perhaps it seems that they should be right as we are taxpayers supporting these systems but technically speaking it's still a privilege.

      What fuels my sense of outrage is that so much is being done in the name of fighting terrorism that clearly has little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism, and does take away my civil liberties

      Again, not to belittle your views, but since when has flying on United Airlines been a civil liberty? I think we need to take a step back and re-evaluate what we're really considering rights and liberties. Neither the government nor the airlines is prohibiting you from traveling. The airline has the right to deny you access to a commercial their airliners, the government also has the right to deny you access to commercial airliners (and this is a right of theirs by the way, not a privilege).

      elect officials who demonstrate understanding and respect for the principles that differentiate our country from the systems that preceded it.

      I'm still asking for a better plan. Electing someone to formulate a better plan isn't a plan in and of itself. I'm just simply looking for honest answers instead of the flaming replies I was subject to. I'm afraid the answers are few and far between.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    31. Re:So what will it be folks? by hankwang · · Score: 1
      The 9/11 Commission report clearly stated that the metal-detectors are calibrated to detect anything equal to or larger than metal content of a .22 caliber pistol.

      So, if you don't wear other metal parts, you're supposed to pass through with a small knive? The 9/11 hijackers used stanley knive blades. Since then, sharp items (safety needles, scissors, pocket knives) are confiscated upon discovery (even in Europe), but the metal detectors are still not supposed to be triggered by them. Weird.

    32. Re:So what will it be folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it on video.

      Ah yes, a video with no time stamp, and the only thing which can really be seen clearly is the equipement which has been added to the checkin processs since 9/11. Funny how that video was plastered all over the place, then just disappeared.

      > we did't really need more security-we needed to make the security we already had functional

      Well, at least you come to a reasonable conclusion......

    33. Re:So what will it be folks? by praedor · · Score: 1

      I hate to risk a divergent spate of crap spewing but that nonsense about "not enforcing gun laws already on the books" is poo-poo.


      The same crackpots that say that are the same ones that, for some reason, resist criminal background checks for people seeking to purchase a gun. They basically WANT criminals to have easy, free, and protected access to guns (to what end?). This IS a fact because it is the ONLY explanation for resisting background checks at gun shows...HELLO!? That is a free ride for criminals to get around the background check to get some heavy duty firepower. Makes NO sense.


      So OK, let's enforce the law entirely, consistently, and logically: background checks to buy a gun (ANY gun, ANYWHERE), period. How about that eh?

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    34. Re:So what will it be folks? by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      Interestingly, we really still do not know how they got knives onto the planes. In recently aired security checkpoint footage, at least one of the hijackers was seen pulled aside and 'wanded' using very bad technique (nothing was found). It is speculated that they had small pocketknives or boxcutters in their carry-on luggage both of which used to be permitted onto flights under the old security rules.

      As for the false documentation,... perhaps if their passports were not so easily manipulated, their previous travel would have placed them under further scrutiny. Maybe not for each hijacker but hopefully someone would have noticed that several men, all travelling from Afghanistan to the US via Arab countries, were all boarding the same plane, with recently purchased one-way tickets. But then again, we all remember what a joke security was before 9-11.

      As for the security at foreign airports, I fully agree with you... there is no reason that the US can't have both faster service and tighter security. I thought you were implying that US security wasn't as good (quality not speed) as European.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    35. Re:So what will it be folks? by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      I'm mostly here to troll, but my "solution" is that some perceived safety is not with a loss of freedom.

      One of the great modern myths is that we should strive toward a risk-free existence. I say, do not accept infringement. Freedom is risky.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    36. Re:So what will it be folks? by Watcher · · Score: 1

      The same crackpots that say that are the same ones that, for some reason, resist criminal background checks for people seeking to purchase a gun.

      Wow, back that truck up a couple miles there buddy. Don't lump me in with the NRA politicos who resist every new gun law passed-there's a reason why I'm no longer a member of that group, even though I support the right to bear arms. I agreed with instant background checks, and I've seen people arrested at gun shows who attempted to purchase arms illegally. Thank goodness they were stopped there. My view is that many times we pass laws on state and federal level that are contradictory (look at the gun laws in CA, for example-I've talked to law enforcement folks out there and they aren't certain what is legal in many cases), or are a redundant passage of something that already exists.

      Just because I don't like congress wasting its time passing the fifth law on something that is already illegal and just needs to be enforced by the current administration does not mean I support the hard line "No new laws period" attitude.

      So OK, let's enforce the law entirely, consistently, and logically: background checks to buy a gun (ANY gun, ANYWHERE), period. How about that eh?

      Nice try there buddy. Don't go shoving words into my mouth because you have a stereotypical view of gun owners. I support all of this. I support background checks for private sales, even between family members, something the NRA does not support (and a large part of the reason why I ended my membership).

    37. Re:So what will it be folks? by neoThoth · · Score: 1

      "You don't have this kind of trouble in foreign airports that are BIGGER targets for this sort of thing."
      How many foreign airports have you been to? The last one I saw (in germany) had several armed guards walking around with SMG's. Some international airlines also fly with armed agents on board. Think about that.

    38. Re:So what will it be folks? by Watcher · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, a video with no time stamp, and the only thing which can really be seen clearly is the equipement which has been added to the checkin processs since 9/11. Funny how that video was plastered all over the place, then just disappeared.
      Em, I'm talking about security videos discussed in the 9/11 commission report. If you're saying that the commission based their history of the events on that day on video that is known to be spurious, and you know this, what does that tell us about their report? Maybe I'm being naive, but I'm a little skeptical of what you're saying here.

    39. Re:So what will it be folks? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      One of the great modern myths is that we should strive toward a risk-free existence.

      So you do not think that we need more security, if any, than pre-9/11? If so all you have to do was say that we should drop the system instead of trolling. Things work much easier that way.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    40. Re:So what will it be folks? by MyHair · · Score: 1

      Insightful? How?

      The 9/11 hijackers didn't have anything that security wouldn't allow through. That's why they used boxcutters. Blades less than 3" were fine.

      People set off the metal detector all the time, even today. They are screened by hand.

      If there were any security failures on 9/11 it's that there was no procedures or policies to prevent that type of attack even though similar attacks have been tried on a smaller scale at least three times before by crazed or distressed individuals. (Source of info: Gavin de Becker's _Fear Less_ and experience which I won't disclose.)

      Geez, people...no terrorist is going to successfuly hijack a jet in the next 50 years because everyone remembers 9/11. Hell, look at the Pennsylvania crash...that's how fast we figured it out. The 4th plane was taken down by passengers hours after the first attacks. How's that for rapid response to changing conditions?

      Just keep bombs off the planes and everything else will be prevented by the passengers.

    41. Re:So what will it be folks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem. Get it done instantly while I'm standing there, then give me my gun. Most (sane) people object to the fact that it can take upwards of a week to get this done. Seriously, how hard is it to put together a list of the people we want to keep from buying guns and search it by computer at the point of sale?

      Get it done in less than 15 minutes, and you probably won't hear a peep from most gun owners about it.

  28. Re:first flight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn the no fly list....
    Foiled again

  29. The fly on the wall... by petepac · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ashcroft: Hey Tommy, can you do me a favor?

    Ridge: What can I do for you Ash?

    Ashcroft: Ted Kennedy grabbed my parking spot in the parking lot at Justice. Anything you can do so I can get back at him?

    Ridge: I've got a GREAT idea!!!

    --
    >> Practice Safe Hex
    1. Re:The fly on the wall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought "Ted" was short for "Theodore" while "Ed" was short for "Edward"

    2. Re:The fly on the wall... by petepac · · Score: 1

      Ted is Short for Teddy. Must be a Boston, Massachusetts thing.

      --
      >> Practice Safe Hex
    3. Re:The fly on the wall... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flies on the wall are necessary, especially now that tape recording equipment has fallen into disfavor after this was recorded in 1972.

  30. Has anyone considered that by RCO · · Score: 1, Funny

    this might not have been a mistake?

    --
    'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
    1. Re:Has anyone considered that by Mycroft_514 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I read the article. Someone - a known terrorist used the alias of T. Kennedy. The screen list is used to make sure that this is really Ted Kennedy, not someone pretending to be him. Hmm, sounds legit to me.

      Then again, Ted Kennedy IS dangerous when traveling.

    2. Re:Has anyone considered that by RCO · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and it wouldn't take a conspiracy, all it would take is one person pissed off at Kennedy. They feign terrorist activities using the name Edward Kennedy, and the name is on the list. Or one person in Homeland security thinking it might be amusing to add the name just for fun...

      Or they may have finally converted the No-Drive list over

      --
      'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'
    3. Re:Has anyone considered that by $rtbl_this · · Score: 1

      The thing that bugs me about that is that his ID would show his name as "E. Kennedy" as his Ted is short for Edward. Surely even with the collision of this very common name there should have been no issue.

      --
      "Are you being weird, or sarcastic?" said Emma. I said I didn't know because I get the two feelings mixed up.
  31. Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S.A the land of the free! Seems that slogan needs to be re-evaluated.

  32. Publicity Stunt by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Sounds like Ted was staging a publicity stunt to me.

    It's not like the people in Washington or Boston would not recognize him as a Senator, and treat him as such. Hell, I don't even like him, and *I* would recognize him as a Senator, and treat him with the respect due the office.

    And it's unlikely that a clerk at an airline counter is going to check some list of banned passengers when a Senator that (s)he recognizes stops at the counter in front of her. She'll issue the ticket without a second thought, unless she were a complete imbecile.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Publicity Stunt by nberardi · · Score: 1

      I think it is more of an automatic process for the checking of the names. At least I hope it is, or the service is pretty useless.

    2. Re:Publicity Stunt by slartibart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd bet the majority of Americans would not recognize Ted Kennedy. And even if the counter employees recognized him, I doubt they would deviate from their normal procedure.

    3. Re:Publicity Stunt by TheZax · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sounds like Ted was staging a publicity stunt to me.

      Yeah, my guess is that he called in a favor, got himself put on the no-fly list. Then, when they were going to let him fly anyway, he probably, insisted that he was doing his civic duty to not let himself fly, since he knew he was on the list.

      --

      JWall: GUI client for IPTables
    4. Re:Publicity Stunt by djfray · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Our Airline security system would be highly endangered if passengers were trusted because they were recognized as a senator. There are people who look almost identical to ted kennedy, I'm sure, who could also get fake licenses. They are following procedure, because if they do make an exception they will probably be fired.

      --
      This sig is o Unfunny o Funny
    5. Re:Publicity Stunt by calypso15 · · Score: 0

      She'll issue the ticket without a second thought, unless she were a complete imbecile.

      An imbecile? Working in the airline business? It boggles the mind.

    6. Re:Publicity Stunt by IPFreely · · Score: 5, Insightful
      And it's unlikely that a clerk at an airline counter is going to check some list of banned passengers when a Senator that (s)he recognizes stops at the counter in front of her. She'll issue the ticket without a second thought, unless she were a complete imbecile.

      No, that not true. Counter personel will always check ths list and follow the rules, and act based on those rules no matter who is in front of them. If a ticket agent ignored the list and the rules and let someone on the airplane, they would be roasted.

      Security personel are always drilled that you follow procedure no matter who is standing in fornt of you. If you don't follow procedure, if you act based on their own initiative, then you take all responsibility for your actions. If you follow the rules, no matter what those rules tell you to do, then the responsibility for what happens falls on those who wrote the rules and made the list. The agent is not responsible.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    7. Re:Publicity Stunt by eam · · Score: 1

      > She'll issue the ticket without a second thought,
      > unless she were a complete imbecile.

      "complete imbecile" describes the majority of the American workforce.

    8. Re:Publicity Stunt by PhxBlue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And it's unlikely that a clerk at an airline counter is going to check some list of banned passengers when a Senator that (s)he recognizes stops at the counter in front of her. She'll issue the ticket without a second thought, unless she were a complete imbecile.

      Not if it meant she'd lose her job. I don't know about the airlines, but the security training I've undergone has always stipulated that you always check IDs and you don't let someone through whose name is on a "do-not-pass" list just because you happen to recognize them. That would defeat the whole point of "do-not-pass" list, since then all a terrorist cell would have to do is get someone hired onto the airline staff.

      Don't get me wrong, I think the do-not-fly list is a stupid idea and a gross invasion of privacy. But blame the people who came up with it, not the people who'd be out of work if they didn't carry it out.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    9. Re:Publicity Stunt by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      I expect that most would. Especially in Washington DC (where he's been for 42 years, since he was first elected to the Senate) and Boston (you remember, the main city of the state that has sent him to the Senate for 42 years now). His face is pretty distinctive, I expect the Senate ID he would use to prove his identity would give it away nicely, and his bodyguards, secretaries, other underlings should just confirm it.

      For that matter, what is he doing flying commercial? Not like he's not more than rich enough to charter a jet!

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:Publicity Stunt by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      "Hell, I don't even like him, and *I* would recognize him as a Senator, and treat him with the respect due the office."

      Well then you've just done more than what we've seen from the Left about Bush being a TRAITOR and all... I was beginning to wonder if anyone has paused to reflect on the concept of respect - even for someone you don't personally like.

      That said, I can't imagine how this sort of thing could happen. No Republican in their right mind would give Teddy this sort of fodder. No way. You conspiracy kooks are just out of control now...

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    11. Re:Publicity Stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are people who look almost identical to ted kennedy, I'm sure,

      I pity the fool.

    12. Re:Publicity Stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >

      Haven't flown much, have you?

    13. Re:Publicity Stunt by theLOUDroom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sounds like Ted was staging a publicity stunt to me.

      WHAT THE FUCK!!?

      Seriously, where the hell do people get ideas like this. Obviouslyhe set himself up as a publicity stunt......oh wait.....HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THIS LIST. Yep, you're just another one of those fools who for some reason don't want to believe that the current administraion could EVER mess up even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

      Maybe you've had your head in the ground since 9/11 but this country has routinely been harassing and banning people from air travel based on the flimsiest correlation (it's not even real "evidence") with some list of characteristics that MIGHT make them a terrorist.

      It's stupid, and un-american and it's only matter of time untill they harassed someone important.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    14. Re:Publicity Stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but most Americans can't tell you where the Pacific Ocean is, either (this is true, by the way).

    15. Re:Publicity Stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and treat him with the respect due the office"

      What the fuck? A senator is just a rich guy in an ugly tie, not Jesus Christ. They're not due any less respect than anybody else... but they're not entitled to any MORE, either.

    16. Re:Publicity Stunt by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      > I was beginning to wonder if anyone has paused to reflect on the concept of respect - even for someone you
      > don't personally like.

      George Carlin did, and here's what he came up with: "Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for
      controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned
      and based on ... performance."

      While it's true that I don't "personally" like Bush, that's not why I/we disrespect him. It's based on his performance.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    17. Re:Publicity Stunt by jbash · · Score: 1

      The parent post should not have been modded insightful, because it reveals the fact that the poster DID NOT READ the fucking article(s). It was NOT a publicity stunt by one of them "Demorats" trying to push the "librul agenda" onto the American people.

      Here's a passage from the SF Gate article that should shed some light for the poster:

      Federal air security officials said the initial error that led to scrutiny of the Massachusetts Democrat should not have happened even though they recognize that the no-fly list is imperfect. But privately they acknowledged being embarrassed that it took the senator and his staff more than three weeks to get his name removed.

      A senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects.

    18. Re:Publicity Stunt by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Yes, lots of Hezbollah Ted Kennedy lookalikes on suicide missions flying *away* from Washington DC.

      With thinking as profound as yours, have you considered a job in Homeland Security?

      Offtopic: What fuckwit named it "homeland security" ? Sounds like something a hick would come up with.

    19. Re:Publicity Stunt by metamatic · · Score: 1

      If you don't follow procedure, if you act based on their own initiative, then you take all responsibility for your actions. If you follow the rules, no matter what those rules tell you to do, then the responsibility for what happens falls on those who wrote the rules and made the list. The agent is not responsible.

      "Ja, I vos only following orders..."

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    20. Re:Publicity Stunt by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Which is only common sense. Wouldn't you rather have a braindead system with a thousand holes protecting you rather than a few intelligent people working on their own initiative *thinking* about who and how people are allowed to pass?

      I don't trust intelligence myself, and these people who would let a US senator past, simply because he holds the highest legislative office in the country are traitors. You heard me, traitors.

      [serious]E. Kennedy is a worthless sack of shit that should never have been allowed into office. But he's there. And assuming this isn't a publicity stunt, whoever delayed him longer than it took to recognize who and what he was, needs to be fired. Along with all their supervisors at that airport.[/serious]

    21. Re:Publicity Stunt by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree. Blame Hitler, I'm just a Nazi running the "showers". Nothing personal, eh?

    22. Re:Publicity Stunt by twd · · Score: 1

      It's pretty much useless, anyway. It hasn't led to a single arrest, only the inconveniencing of innocent passengers.

      --
      ~*~ Tara
    23. Re:Publicity Stunt by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Ted was staging a publicity stunt to me.

      Right. And rather than call him on it, Asa Hutchinson decided to bite the bullet and appear in front of a Senate committee to apologize up and down for the mistake.

    24. Re:Publicity Stunt by djfray · · Score: 1

      "Yes, lots of Hezbollah Ted Kennedy lookalikes on suicide missions flying *away* from Washington DC."

      You know, amazingly, that is not what I said, or implied at all. Not all people who would be a danger to an airplane are Hezbollah. With thinking as profound as yours, have you considered a job in the KKK? Just because someone is white, or looks like someone famous, doesn't mean they aren't a terrorist, or threat. And even then, it's not up to the people checking the lists and admitting them, they are doing their job, and if they make an exception, and on a tiny chance end up being wrong, they can lose their job, get sued, or even go to prison.

      Don't feed your superiority complex by pretending I have one. :-P

      --
      This sig is o Unfunny o Funny
    25. Re:Publicity Stunt by jcwren · · Score: 1

      Responsibility doesn't fall on anyone, and that's the entire problem with government and corporate systems. A (fairly) complete lack of personal accountability.

      It's always "Well, the government blah blah blah...". The government, last time I checked, was made up of people. And when these people screw up, heads should roll. Preferrably in a televised event on Fox.

    26. Re:Publicity Stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like the people in Washington or Boston would not recognize him as a Senator, and treat him as such.

      I think you're underestimating the stupidity of the average person.

    27. Re:Publicity Stunt by Hyperspac · · Score: 1

      If you follow the rules, no matter what those rules tell you to do, then the responsibility for what happens falls on those who wrote the rules...

      You are always resonsable for your own action, even if you yeild control of them to someone esle. Maybe if more people realized this we would be in better shape.

      "I just clicked on the link and installed the software like the e-mail told me..."

    28. Re:Publicity Stunt by Quixote · · Score: 1
      The only "stunt" here is your brain, which is too "stunt"ed to read the f'n articles.

      Since your heads too far inside a very dark place, I'll summarise it for you:
      This happened between March 1 and April 6. And Ted Kennedy brought it up at the hearing just to make a point. He didn't run around screaming when it happened; otherwise you would have heard about this in March and April.

      If his intention was to create publicity, don't you think he would have done it a long time back? Don't you think he would have brought video cameras with him to the airline counter, a-la Geraldo??

      Jeeez! Use your f'n head for something other than carrying a hat, willya?

    29. Re:Publicity Stunt by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The check-in agent has to use the computer, and if the computer finds the person on the DNF list, the terminal is locked automatically, to stop just such a practice. The computer has the final say whether you fly, and it doesn't read the papers.

    30. Re:Publicity Stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dude. Nobody's freakin' dying if they don't get on the plane. This is not a fair comparison. It's hard enough to get a job in the DC area right now -- I sure as hell wouldn't risk losing mine to avoid inconveniencing someone. They're on the list? They can talk to my superior.

      That's entirely fucking different from running the "showers," asshole.

    31. Re:Publicity Stunt by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Let's see. Publicity in March, or closer to an election? Hmm, which would I choose, were I in his position? I think I would start making noise about it later than this - perhaps September, but COngress will be in recess then, I think. So now would be a good time.

      Keep in mind we aren't talking about a neutral party here - Teddy is very much pro-Kerry, anti-Bush. He has a vested interest in publicity that is bad for Bush.

      Seems to me that when a bunch or terrorists were caught at a time convenient to Bush and bad for Kerry (during the Convention), people had no trouble at all believing that it was a setup. Now, something bad for Bush appears, from a famous guy on the other side, at a convenient time, and it's "NO WAY COULD SUCH A THING HAPPEN!"

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    32. Re:Publicity Stunt by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Nonsense! According to the article, in all three cases, a supervisor overrode the clerk, and got Kennedy on the plane. So obviously, it is a trivial matter to override the computer.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    33. Re:Publicity Stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May I ask how you know any of this? Are you a counter person at an airline? Are you a counter supervisor at an airline? What is your basis for your statements?

    34. Re:Publicity Stunt by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      Aha! You must be one of those soldiers at Abu Ghraib...

      --
      Did he inhale?
    35. Re:Publicity Stunt by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      My, you don't know much about politics, do you?

      Call him on it, and the newspapers play this as "he said, she said" for weeks. And the damage continues for every day it is on the front page in one form or another.

      A quiet apology gets you a bit of (quickly forgotten) bad publicity, and you go about your life.

      I guess, what I really have trouble with, is the notion that an airline clerk would recognize Kennedy, input the data into the computer, see the flag, and NOT call her supervisor immediately. The "refuse to issue a ticket", coupled with the "why?" and the "I can't tell you" looks too much like a setup.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    36. Re:Publicity Stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your working theory that he is lying about being on the list or that he has a spy in homeland security who put his name on the list and then refused to remove it?

    37. Re:Publicity Stunt by hal9000 · · Score: 1

      Dude, it was documented BEFOREHAND that Republicans pressured Pakistan to nab some bad guys during the DNC. And there it was, just as planned, on the 4th day of the convention.

      --
      Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
    38. Re:Publicity Stunt by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Yes, flying is a privilege and all that. Let's see, can I list some scenarios where it's more than an inconvenience?

      1) Someone who has been unemployed too long, about to lose it all, but they managed to land that interview in another city. Good chance of holding it together, vs. losing it all.
      2) Their child/parent is dying, and they've got at best a few hours to race home and say goodbye.
      3) You've only got partial custody or visitation rights for your kid, and it's Christmas Eve.

      C'mon guys, let's help this guy out. We can name more, can't we?

      I'll tell you what I tell the telemarketers who are sassy enough to talk back at me. Get another job. Hell, maybe I should cut them more slack, they aren't TSA, after all. I have more respect for whores, to be quite honest. At least they only prostitute their bodies, they aren't pissing on the Bill of Rights and and giggling.

    39. Re:Publicity Stunt by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Hmm, the Left has said it is true, therefore it must be true? Show me something from a reasonably impartial source, if you wish to convince me.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    40. Re:Publicity Stunt by EinarH · · Score: 2, Funny
      Funny conspiracy teory you got there, almost as funny as the one from Seinfeld back in the days:
      JERRY: Hey, so where's my sneakers?

      KRAMER: That's what I wanna know.

      JERRY: What do you mean?

      KRAMER: Well, I saw Mom and Pop this morning, but when I went by the store on my way home? The place was empty. Everything is gone. Mom and Pop - vrooop - vanished.

      JERRY: So all my sneakers are gone?

      KRAMER: I'm afraid so. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I've been asking around - they didn't even have any kids.

      JERRY: Mom and Pop aren't even a Mom and Pop?!

      KRAMER: It was all an act, Jerry. They conned us, and they scored, big time.

      ELAINE (amused): So. Mom and Pop's plan was to move into the neighborhood...establish trust...for 48 years. And then, run off with Jerry's sneakers.

      KRAMER: Apparently.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

    41. Re:Publicity Stunt by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It is possible to override the system, but it can't be done by the check-in agent, but their supervisor. But then you're all for this, aren't you? ;)

    42. Re:Publicity Stunt by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Yah, I've just avoided flying for two years because I think the current system is so wonderful.

      Suspecting a partisan political figure of doing something for partisan political gain is just so...absurd, after all, that noone could really believe it, could they?

      Unless the figure were the opposing party, right? ;-)

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    43. Re:Publicity Stunt by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      As much as I like George Carlin's schticks, I try not to use him as an example of proper civil discourse. Note I said: CIVIL. In order for that word to have any meaning whatsoever you have to start with respect.

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    44. Re:Publicity Stunt by FauxPasIII · · Score: 1

      -shrug- He's absurd most of the times, and intentionally so. But there are nuggets of pure genius in his rantings
      and I contend that the above is one such insight. The idea that a person should be deferred to or treated
      differently due to their occupation, their station in life or other aspects of social position and not on their
      individual achievements is a foreign and mildly offensive concept to me.

      I try to afford everyone a basic, polite assumption of respectability, until they have proven themselves worthy
      of either reverence or contempt. For what it's worth, it usually doesn't take long to go one way or the other. ;)

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    45. Re:Publicity Stunt by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      If you follow the rules, no matter what those rules tell you to do, then the responsibility for what happens falls on those who wrote the rules and made the list. The agent is not responsible.

      I can think of a counter-example or two.

    46. Re:Publicity Stunt by IPFreely · · Score: 1
      If you actually understood what you were linking to, you'd know that it is not applicable to the case at hand or airline security in general.

      All of these posts saying that "following orders" is not safe are just lost. The defense of "following orders" is valid so long as the orders being given are valid and legal orders. The defense is only invalidated when the orders are illegal and the person carrying out the orders clearly knows that it is illegal and does it anyway. I don't believe that it was illegal to prevent someone from getting on an airplane because their name is on a list.

      The military requires everyone to follow orders. It's one of the most important military laws. Failure to follow orders can land you in prison. The addition of the "Nuremberg defense" was only to take care of the most extreme cases where illegal orders were being given, and that actually does not happen often (at least in the US military). When that does happen, it is always a case that gets a LOT of legal attention.

      The poor soldier trapped in the middle is usually screwed both ways, but the problem is not caused by the soldier but rather by the environment and orders given to the soldier. The soldier has the option, if they believe that their orders are illegal, to refuse the orders. They almost always land in court for doing it and they must defend themselves by having the orders declared illegal. It's not an easy situation for them so they don't do it often. Between the two, it is usually easier and safer for the soldier to just follow orders no matter what.

      Civil law is not too different. The punishment for disobeying orders is usually being fired, and there is even less chance to defend yourself from that than a soldier has in a courts martial. The punishment for following illegal orders is about the same, suitable to the crime involved.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
    47. Re:Publicity Stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, just so long as he's not flying the damn thing, ted kennedy shouldn't be a threat

    48. Re:Publicity Stunt by nberardi · · Score: 1

      Where did you get the statement that it has led to no arrests? Do you have any facts to back that up or are you just pulling statements out of thin air?

  33. Hopefully, by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 1

    the other members of Congress, regardless of their party affiliation, will get pissed off that one of their own was put on the No-Fly list and maybe re-evaluate the damn thing.
    Or, they'll just give themselves a special "We're Congress, We're Exempt Card"

    1. Re:Hopefully, by wikdwarlock · · Score: 1

      This presumes a level of comraderie in the US Congress that simply doesn't exist. Even w/in the two major parties, there's not alot of team spirit. Everyone has their own special interests/lobbyists/pacts with Satan to consider.

      Unless, of course, they're considering a pay raise. Then, it's all for one and one for all!

      --

      "I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
  34. Maybe that's not the real reason. by hal2814 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was watching that show Airline that follows around SW Airlines employees and they wouldn't let a couple fly becasue they had too much to drink. Could that be the REAL reason Kennedy wasn't allowed to fly?

    1. Re:Maybe that's not the real reason. by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

      I was watching that show Airline that follows around SW Airlines employees and they wouldn't let a couple fly becasue they had too much to drink. Could that be the REAL reason Kennedy wasn't allowed to fly?

      You didn't read the article either, did you?

      Asa Hutchinson appeared before a Senate committee to explain the problem and apologize for it. Probably, that wouldn't have happened if the whole thing was a judgement call on the part of an airline employee. Clearly, Kennedy was on a 'no fly' list of some sort. Later reports claimed that he was actually only on a list of passengers to be screened, but that doesn't seem to match the facts.

    2. Re:Maybe that's not the real reason. by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      I did read the article and several others as they came out over yesterday (since this isn't exactly a new story). You are correct that this wasn't some judgement call made by an airline employee, but that would ruin the joke wouldn't it?

    3. Re:Maybe that's not the real reason. by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you aren't familiar with Ted's sordid past.

      -Peter

    4. Re:Maybe that's not the real reason. by suwain_2 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you've had too much to drink. You can't fly aboard our plane. You'll have to drive there.

      Uhh... Anyone else see a problem with this?

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    5. Re:Maybe that's not the real reason. by voidptr · · Score: 1

      FAA regulations prohibit anyone who is intoxicated from flying, and there's a couple of reasons for it.

      The pilot and crew do not need the distraction of a drunk person harrassing them during the flight, or possibly doing something that jeopardizes the safety of the flight, like deciding they want to step outside for a minute.

      Second, high altitudes and lower oxygen levels can aggravate the effects of alcohol. Someone who is visibly intoxicated on the ground could potentially have a very serious medical problem at 8,000 feet cabin pressure.

      --
      This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
    6. Re:Maybe that's not the real reason. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow

      You're incredibly thick-headed even for a /.'er!

      Try raising your hands up high so you can catch those jokes that go over your head. :P

    7. Re:Maybe that's not the real reason. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      So why do they serve alchohol on the flights? Can't be drunk getting ON the plane, but once you're in the air, then it's okay to become drunk???

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  35. Winds of change? by drakyri · · Score: 1

    Those who make the laws aren't always able to see from the perspective of those who must obey the laws ... or at least, the rest of the population. After this incident, perhaps Kennedy will be a little more inclined to push for changes in the TSA, Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. I don't know what his voting record is on the subject, but it seems like things can only improve after this incident.

  36. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    think the screen list is for people whos names resemble alias's of known or suspected terrorists

  37. It wasn't a blacklist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    It was a weight limit.

    The last time Ted Kennedy went to the beach, a group from Greenpeace showed up, tied a rope around his feet, and used a boat to try and haul him back into the water....

    1. Re:It wasn't a blacklist... by tomocoo · · Score: 1

      It's the new FAA FPGAM database... fat people who got away with murder.

    2. Re:It wasn't a blacklist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did it work?

  38. Too bad... by StevenHenderson · · Score: 1, Funny

    Oh come on, it was just an excuse for him to spend more time at the airport bar.

    1. Re:Too bad... by Thrymm · · Score: 1

      Hahaha amen! At least he attempts to fly instead of killing another woman DUI.

  39. I doubt it's a setback... by Pollux · · Score: 1

    No way will GW drop the "no-fly" list. They'll probably just add an exception to the rule:

    "If the passenger is overweight, has grey hair, looks like someone kicked his face in, and turns so red in the face when you tell him he might be a terrorist that he looks like he's going to spontaneously combust, let him pass."

  40. good idea by Arch-out · · Score: 1, Funny

    sounds like they are now going to ban people that support terrorists.

    1. Re:good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't do that. Half of his advisors are Iran-Contra conspirators. It would be inconvient if the Bush cabinet couldn't fly.

  41. Possible DOS attack? by zaaj · · Score: 1
    So, all terrorists have to do is find a list of important people to whom lack of commercial flight availability would hamper US security, and use aliases that match their names, right? It would seem that something more than a name should be required to deny people access to tranportation. Heck, I've looked up my own name in national phone book databases and found dozens of first & last name matches all over the country.

    A photo of a face would go a long way, but would definatley increase the overhead of distribution of the list. Anyway, it does seem to be an easy-to-abuse/misuse system as it is.

  42. Teddy Kennedy driving.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Q. Who do you get when you cross A.J. Foyt with Jacques Costeau?

    A. Teddy Kennedy

  43. If Tom Ridge Won't Take Your Call by Kurt+Wall · · Score: 1

    You run for Congress. Then he'll take your call.

  44. Witty Republicans by Alien54 · · Score: 1
    will sort of go for the idea of Ted Kennedy being a terrorist as being some what obvious. Rush Limbaugh on the other hand .....

    well you can take that several ways....

    and conspiratorialists will point to this and say the Kennedy is a marked man in the eyes of our new republican overlords.

    take your pick

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Witty Republicans by jc42 · · Score: 1

      and conspiratorialists will point to this and say [that] Kennedy is a marked man in the eyes of our new republican overlords.

      As far back as I can remember, he always has been.

      He's smarter than anyone expected, though.

      To quote some conspiratorialist or other: They got his brothers, but they can't get Ted.

      We can now return to the jokes about why he prefers flying to driving (although it's probably faster to drive from Boston to Washington than to fly) ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    2. Re:Witty Republicans by Artifex · · Score: 2, Funny
      and conspiratorialists will point to this and say [that] Kennedy is a marked man in the eyes of our new republican overlords.


      As far back as I can remember, he always has been.

      He's smarter than anyone expected, though.



      He's sort of the apple of their ire, then, right?
      --
      Get off my launchpad!
    3. Re:Witty Republicans by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Groan!!!

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  45. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he wasn't on a No-Fly list but rather a Screen list. What the exact difference is between the list was not discussed

    He IS allowed to fly, but must remain behind a screen so that the other passengers don't have to look at him. Seems reasonable to me.

  46. Re:Well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They might have flagged a security risk because they were serving clam chowdah in-flight.

  47. Funny by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    This comes at the same time that Arlen Specter made the news in Pittsburgh for trying to get around air travel safety rules.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  48. Mischief, anyone? by palutke · · Score: 1

    From the article: A senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects.

    Okay, how about adding J. Ashcroft, G. Bush, T. Ridge, J. Lieberman, J. Kerry, etc to our list of aliases?

    --
    'I ain't a liar, baby, and I ain't proud I just want what I'm not allowed.' -- Violent Femmes, 36-24-36
    1. Re:Mischief, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice idea, but most of those people probably get around on private jets, anyways. Remember how Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airlines shortly before 9/11?

  49. Oh, you mean Shenanigans ? by LordPixie · · Score: 1

    Ooooohhhhhh....


    --LordPixie

  50. any way Ben Laden is autorised to fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ben Laden

    As you know when ALL United States where forbiden to fly... only the president & the Ben Laden family had autorisation to fly.

    No other plane.

    does the black list inclue 230 million terrorist?
    It seems

  51. I have wondered when this will happen to me by sita · · Score: 1

    A couple of years ago, I lost my passport in Jaisalmer, fairly close to the Indian-Pakistani border. According to the (Swedish) police I will be notified if my passport is found and turned in to Swedish authorities. I haven't heard zilch since, so I expect the passport went to the Pakistani passport black market and God knows where it will surface.

    Then I will be on those lists!

    1. Re:I have wondered when this will happen to me by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a passport from Sweden (where they pretty much kick you out if you aren't over six feet, scratch that, two meters tall, blond, fair skinned, and blue eyed) will be useful to someone in a nation where a Swede would likely be mistaken for an albino.

  52. Sounds like the prank of the year to me by helix_r · · Score: 0, Troll


    Usually conservatives are quite humorless, but that is a very good practical joke.

  53. But what are ordinary citizens supposed to do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy! Ride the legacy of your bootlegger father right into the Senate so you can call Tom Ridge directly or wait for the TSA to outsource the no-fly list to Indian support personelle so we can get some proper levels of service.

  54. At least he got an apology. by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If it were an ordinary citizen, we would just get the run around.

    1. Re:At least he got an apology. by whiteranger99x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that's the point I was hoping to convey :)

      Generally, if they are a super important politician, celebrity, atkin's spokesperson, then they get apologies. Otherwise it's "fuck the rest of them!"

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
  55. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by katre · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everytime I fly I am on the Screen list. It's annoying and intrusive and pisses me off, but I've never had a gate agent actually tell me about it, and it's never made me almost miss a flight.

    With the screen list, they put several big S's on your boarding pass, and then you get shunted into the "extra-thorough" screening line going in. You'll recognize it next time you fly: it's extra long, extra slow, and it's where all the people with dark skin or funny clothes go.

    What was described in the article is nothing like the screening I've seen. I've never had an airline worker tell me I can't fly, in fact they never mention it. I wouldn't have realized the significance of the S if it didn't happen every time I fly.

  56. GOP has used the FAA before for dirty work by bobalu · · Score: 0, Troll

    When Tom DeLay wanted to find the Texas Dems he had the feds track down their plane, so I wouldn't be surprised if they put Kennedy on the Do Not Fly list to keep him from voting on a particular bill.

    We've turned into your basic banana republic.

    --
    The revolution will NOT be televised.
    1. Re:GOP has used the FAA before for dirty work by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if they put Kennedy on the Do Not Fly list to keep him from voting on a particular bill.

      Well..since he was leaving Washington, flying to Boston, probably not.

    2. Re:GOP has used the FAA before for dirty work by aborchers · · Score: 1

      Since you're calling people idiots, let's address your own intellectual shortcomings:

      Just because it happened to intercept him leaving Washington doesn't mean there was no political motivation behind his inclusion. Having him put on the list for political purposes, specifically to hamper his ability to move freely and get in and out of Washington easily, and actually timing his movements accurately enough to guarantee he was intercepted at a precise moment coming back are two entirely different things. You will note that he did have trouble on the return leg as well!

      I'm not saying it was a conspiracy, just that your logic is unsound. The original poster is correct in stating that the GOP has abused the FAA before, but he's probably wrong to infer political abuse here. A much more likely scenario is that there exists an Edward Kennedy (*very* Irish name) w/ IRA affiliations or something.

      --
      Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    3. Re:GOP has used the FAA before for dirty work by Ivan+Raikov · · Score: 1

      Score 0, Troll? Have the Repugnicans taken a hold of Slashdot moderation? Oh, the ignominy...

  57. He shouldn't fly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because he's probably three sheets to the wind most of the time and is ready to push some floozy out of the plane door.

  58. Nixon used the IRS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    And Clinton used the FBI.

    This ain't a Republican issue, and I doubt seriously that it was politically motived.

    It's more likely some intelligence somewhere picked up a terrorist with a sense of humor using "Ted Kennedy" as an alias...

    1. Re:Nixon used the IRS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's more likely some intelligence somewhere picked up a terrorist with a sense of humor using "Ted Kennedy" as an alias...

      Putting a senator on a no-fly list is akin to career suicide. You do not fuck with powerful politicians because they will pay you back in spades.

  59. Foreigners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    While US citizens have problems, visitors have it even worse.


    Didn't that Palestinian guy die of old age in US prison because Palestine no longer exists and his old passport wasn't held valid, or something?

    1. Re:Foreigners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, the difference is that THEY ARE VISITORS and not AMERICAN CITIZENS. Visitors to America do not have the same constitutional rights as citizens of America, because... duh... they are not American citizens.

    2. Re:Foreigners... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 5, Interesting

      THere are 2 issues wth your reasoning (don't know if it was meant to be cynical and just repeating how some people in government seem to think..)

      1. The constitution and bill of rights may define some rights for US citizens, but are based on the idea that many such rights are not given by that bill or the constitution but confirmed. Those rights exist due to being human, not because the constitution or bull of rights grants them. Due process is one of those.

      2. The USA is a party to the international declaration of human rights. Due process is a part of that as well, and sicne this is an international treaty, it should be considered 'law ' accourding to the USA constitution.

      So, it does not matter at all if he was a foreigner or not.

      The fact that your government seems to argue along the lines that you presented however is the exact reason why I am not visiting the USA, and haven't visited it ever since that government started with this kind of talk.

    3. Re:Foreigners... by Asterisk · · Score: 1

      You're mistaken. The constitution grants powers to the government; it does not grant rights to the people. The Bill of Rights recognises certain rights posessed by individuals and restricts the government from violating them in all circumstances; it equally protects the rights of all individuals within the jurisdiction of the United States.

    4. Re:Foreigners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA is a party to the international declaration of human rights.

      Since when?
    5. Re:Foreigners... by TGK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Damn it, why is it I only have mod points when we're discussing Star Wars and Babylon 5?

      These points are well taken and should be observed by all /. readers. There is a xenophobic tendency in this country that is spiraling dangerously out of control. We are drawing lines between American Citizens and Foreigners (I capitalize this as it is rapidly becoming synonymous with "Gaijen" or "Barbarian"). Lest we forget, the overwhelming majority of American Citizens are decedents of immigrants.

      As is penned in the Declaration of Independence "All Men are Created Equal." Moreover, as you point out, the Constitution grants only a very few and very specific rights to US citizens. I think voting is just about it. Freedom of speech, assembly, equal protection, all of these are guaranteed to any human being within the borders of the United States.

      Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of the President to suspend some of these rights in time of war. Unfortunately for Herr Bush, we are not at war. "What's this" you say? Not at war? What about the War on Terror? The Court has (thus far) only upheld these suspensions when the country is in a state of declared war. Bush has attempted to circumvent the Court's wrath by denying his victims the right to see a lawyer or even appear in court. Fills you with warm fuzzies doesn't it?

      Enemy combatant or not, if you're being held by the United States you have the right to an attorney and your day in court. When Congress declares war and we are legally in such a state, then and only then might the rules change. Until then "we're living in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working
      classes.... .... help help I'm being repressed!"

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    6. Re:Foreigners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Enemy combatant or not, if you're being held by the United States you have the right to an attorney and your day in court.

      No, they don't

      Non-citizens abroad lack any constitutional rights, even when they confront the U.S. government there. However, they continue to enjoy constitutional rights within U.S. borders, even when here illegally. This has been decided by the supreme court already. Do a google search on "Odah decision"

    7. Re:Foreigners... by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      No, they don't

      And the American citizens who were being held without trial? They've been in around a year and only recently did the SCOTUS finally decide that the govt MUST give them a hearing because they are citizens.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    8. Re:Foreigners... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      While for as far as I can see you are right with regards to the constitution, I also think that basic human rights exist without the need for the constitution of the USA, that it recognizes them is a nice plus when you live there.

      When you believe to be 'the good guys', it makes a lot of sense to apply hem regardless of whom you are dealing with and where. If you don't you are soon being looked at as ridiculous I'm afraid.

    9. Re:Foreigners... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > Let's not re-write all of US history. "All Men are Created Equal," unless you were a slave, not a land owner or ofcourse a woman.

      Quite true, but at least partially solved nowadays (entirely according to others)

      Much of it was solved due to it being wrong, and had more to do with how society worked then with what the constitution says. I'd argue that in part it was possible to do something about those situations exactly because of what the constitution says.

      The idea of 'free men' has come a long way since the foundation of the USA, and while I'd on one side argue that in law, the USA has diverted quite a bit from what the constitution seems to aim at, in society it seems it got a lot closer (at least untill relatively recently)

    10. Re:Foreigners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while many of your points aren't bad, let me correct you on some issues.

      1) the Constitution grants only a very few and very specific rights to US citizens

      Sorry, your wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant these rights, it protects them because they are "inalienable" so that no one can later take those rights away. I know you have Martial Law, but those are very extreme and rare cases.

      2) Enemy combatant or not, if you're being held by the United States you have the right to an attorney and your day in court

      While I agree with you that these people should be taken to court, I think (and this is just my own opinion) it should be oversaw by an international body since it is more of an international type of event. An enemy combatant vs. a domestic murder, even though committing the same crimes have two different scopes of jurisdiction

      3) Until then "we're living in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working
      classes.... .... help help I'm being repressed!"


      I'm going to take this as a joke. Because if you honestly believe this, then I have to consider you incredibly stupid and very exagerrative of the facts.

    11. Re:Foreigners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone seems to forget one thing, the constitution does not grant us any rights!!! The constitution only defines "some" of the inherent right we possess. These rights are yours whether the government wants you to have them or not, or whether you want them or not. You are the only one who can deny yourself these rights. Anything else is tyranny.

    12. Re:Foreigners... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > Sorry, your wrong. The Constitution doesn't grant these rights, it protects them because they are "inalienable"

      Both the parent, and my original grantparent are talking about soem specific rights (like voting) which are granted to US citizens only, and both recognize that in general the constitution merely confirms and protects rights, not grants them.

      > While I agree with you that these people should be taken to court, I think (and this is just my own opinion) it should be oversaw by an international body since it is more of an international type of event. An enemy combatant vs. a domestic murder, even though committing the same crimes have two different scopes of jurisdiction

      I'd agree.. but seeing how the USA doesn't seem to be willing to either recognize the body that seems most suitable for that or setup a viable alternative, it seems the US legal system will have to deal with this. (just trying to be soemwhat practical, we can't have those peopel wait till there is an international solution, most will be old men (and women) by that time if still alive at all)

    13. Re:Foreigners... by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      We seem to agree ;P

    14. Re:Foreigners... by DeprecatedFeature · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thank you. I am an American citizen, naturalized since age 15 or so. I was also in AFROTC (very briefly). Because of this, the federal government has my fingerprints on record, a full accounting of everything I've ever done, a lengthy list of people I've known, and all the info it could ever want about me. I know this because I had to give them all of this. Despite all of this, I am pulled out of every single line in every airport I ever go through and my bags are generally searched thoroughly if not emptied entirely. Why is that? I am a short white glasses wearing female computer technician. Like one of the earlier posters, I can only imagine that I am on some list, somewhere. I've read about the mangling of the Bill of Rights currently in progress, and when I talk to my peers, all they can say is we have to support the president.
      Wrongo bongo. I have to get his rear out of the white house by voting for the person who stands the greatest chance of deposing him and his imperial hawk buddies. That's what I've got to do, and that's what anyone else who has suffered because of the recent insanity needs to do. Outta there. This year.

      --
      maybe one day i'll be smart enough to come up with a cool sig, too.
    15. Re:Foreigners... by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      I'll believe we're at war when they start rationing gasoline.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    16. Re:Foreigners... by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2, Informative

      Despite all of this, I am pulled out of every single line in every airport I ever go through and my bags are generally searched thoroughly if not emptied entirely. Why is that? I am a short white glasses wearing female computer technician.

      There are relatively few jobs other than airport security screeners that have minimal requirements, have had to hire a ton of people extremely rapidly in a short period of time, and allow hirees to pat down choice females from a line.

    17. Re:Foreigners... by j_w_d · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of the President to suspend some of these rights in time of war. Unfortunately for Herr Bush, we are not at war. "What's this" you say? Not at war? What about the War on Terror? The Court has (thus far) only upheld these suspensions when the country is in a state of declared war. Bush has attempted to circumvent the Court's wrath by denying his victims the right to see a lawyer or even appear in court. Fills you with warm fuzzies doesn't it?

      Actually, and this is a problem with the constitution in my book, National Emergencies also permit the suspension of civil rights. This is one reason the extreme, off-edge of a spherical planet, far-right wing wackos (EOTEOASPFRWW) don't like FEMA. The president can declare a national emergency all by himself. War has to be declared by congress.

      Evidently not even EOTEOASPFRWW are always wrong.

      --
      ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
    18. Re:Foreigners... by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      Non-citizens abroad lack any constitutional rights, even when they confront the U.S. government there. However, they continue to enjoy constitutional rights within U.S. borders

      While they are techinically outside US borders, they are completely under US control.

      Do you honestly believe that the writers of the constitution, had they envisioned the posibility of long term american control of foreign soil, would have permitted this loop hole?

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    19. Re:Foreigners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I am a short white glasses wearing female computer technician.

      You sound hot. What are you wearing?

    20. Re:Foreigners... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      [T]he Constitution grants only a very few and very specific rights to US citizens. I think voting is just about it.

      Actually, it doesn't really say much about who can vote. Read Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 for example. This is about the closest that the original constitution came to addressing the subject. The 14th Ammendment (1868) was the first real mention of any rules for who could vote, and it did this in a double-negative fashion, by saying that a state's representation should be decreased if voting was denied to certain people. It didn't actually say that those people must be allowed to vote.

      A lot of historians have dealt with this topic, and explained that before around 1900, most elections in the US were open to anyone who qualified according to local rules. Citizenship wasn't generally a requirement. The most common requirement was that you had to be a land-owning male. In some states this was redundant, as females couldn't own land. In others, married women couldn't own land. There was that awkward line saying that a slave's vote counted for 3/5 of a free man's, but that didn't usually matter much, since slaves votes were usually controlled (or proxied) by their owner. And again, it didn't say that slaves had to be allowed to vote; it just said how their votes (if any) were counted.

      The lack of residency requirements made sense to most people, on the grounds of "No taxation without representation". Foreigners weren't exempt from taxation, so usually they were allowed to vote (if they owned land in the precinct).

      This was especially true in frontier areas, where a citizenship requirement would have disenfranchised most of the white people. But when the frontier disappeared around 1900, states started requiring residency and citizenship for voting. The intent, of course, was to disenfranchise all that riff-raff immigrating from places like Greece and China. And this is still the real reason behind most of the voting restrictions.

      I've long wondered what the effect would be if we had an Ammendment stating that a state's representation in Congress shall be in proportion to the number of actual votes cast in the preceding N elections. This would probably radically loosen the voting requirements in most places.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    21. Re:Foreigners... by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Since the 10th of December 1948. Hope this helps.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    22. Re:Foreigners... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      By that logic we were at war during the oil crisis in the '70s.

      I'll believe we're at war when Congress declares it!

      Incidentally, we haven't been at war since 1945.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    23. Re:Foreigners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

      But some are more equal than others, apparently...

    24. Re:Foreigners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      mod up.... I've seen this happen as well.

      PS: you should add "a senator" to your .sig of WoT victories, considering this thread.

    25. Re:Foreigners... by maximilln · · Score: 1

      When Congress declares war and we are legally in such a state, then and only then might the rules change

      I'd always heard that we're still in a state of war from 1990 or '91 when we invaded Iraq the first time. If we never quit being at war with Iraq then all sorts of things are legal.

      --
      +++ATHZ 99:5:80
  60. What was the true inconvenience? by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Just this week I flew to Boston, and I was blacklisted because I was on the no-fly list. The consequence... When I tried to use the E-ticket machine to get my boarding pass, the machine said it was unable to finish the transaction, please ask for assistance. After waiting in line, the airline rep at the counter asked for my ID, made a phone call, asked a few questions, and then gave me my ticket. He told me that my name was on the no-fly list, however, my middle name and driver license number did not match who they were looking for. On the return flight, I had not problem at all.

    My point is that I was marginally inconvenienced, but it was not the end of the world. It cost me maybe 10 minutes of my life. How much of this is that Ted Kennedy doesn't like being treated like the masses?

    BTW, my name is as WASP as it gets.

    1. Re:What was the true inconvenience? by goldspider · · Score: 1
      Elitism and hypocricy are no strangers to the Kennedy family.

      Remember last year when an alternative energy company proposed to build a windmill farm on Martha's Vineyard? You can imagine how well that went over.

      Green energy is a great platform for some Democrats, at least until they're asked to put their money where their mouth is.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    2. Re:What was the true inconvenience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have a muslim name (although personally an athiest) and every flight is
      a fucking hell. I was kept in a glass booth for an hour, had my ID taken
      away, asked questions and basically humilated.

      It is OK when I am travelling alone, but it gets ugly when I am "randomly"
      selected from amidst my coworkers and business partners.

    3. Re:What was the true inconvenience? by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      But you weren't actually on the list. It would have been much worse if you really were.

    4. Re:What was the true inconvenience? by faqmaster · · Score: 1

      RTFA. He was "inconvienced" for HOURS. Read some of the "it happened to me" posts downthread. Your experience is not the result of being on the Do Not Fly list. First clue that you're not on the list: If you are on the Do Not Fly list, they won't tell you.

      --
      Are you...Are you some kind of genius?
      No, ma'am, I'm just a regular Slashdot reader.
    5. Re:What was the true inconvenience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      My point is that I was marginally inconvenienced, but it was not the end of the world. It cost me maybe 10 minutes of my life.

      Prelude: I'm posting anonymously, as the person in question doesn't want a lot of attention paid to this (he's hoping to get a security clearance and work for the government, and doesn't want to 'rock the boat'.) Second, this person is a relative of mine, frighteningly intelligent, and is a native-born American citizen. We'll call him "Bob".

      Bob's maternal grandfather was the son of Catholic Lebanese immigrants who fled Lebanon just before their town was slaughtered. His first and last names are perfectly pedestrian, but his middle name is his a family name of Lebanese origin. He's pretty fair-skinned, but has dark hair, heavy features, tans easily, and can look pretty scruffy when he doesn't shave (which is fairly often.)

      He was recently detained for several hours. He missed his flight, which caused him to miss most of the convention he was going to. He was given no reason why he was detained.

      His story starts much like yours, but instead of getting ticket after a phone call, he had his hands zip-tied behind his back at the counter (so tightly that they dug into his wrists) and was escorted by armed guards to a detention room. There, they sat him in a chair with his arms still tightly zip-tied behind his back and left him. There was a clock on the wall, so he got to watch the minutes tick by until his flight left. Shortly after the departure time, an agent entered the room and began to interrogate him. He was brusquely asked questions such as "Your middle name is '[middle name]'? What kind of name is that?", "How long have you been here in the United States?" and other questions that one would generally not ask a third-generation American citizen. He answered their questions, and they released him shortly afterwards. He managed to get on a flight that left over six hours later than his original flight and continued on to his destination without further incident.

      Again, nobody told him why he was detained. He missed a good chunk of his conference, but fortunately he still managed to make it in time to give his presentation. The topic of his presentation, and the conference, was national security.

      Tell me honestly--if the current system is doing this kind of thing to people like Bob, just how good do you think it is? Bob is the very antithesis of a threat to national security, and yet here we are, tying him up questioning him as if he was found carrying a ten-inch Bowie knife in his jacket pocket. He's an upstanding American citizen. He's well educated. He'd done nothing even remotely wrong. He's working hard to join his government and serve our nation. He wasn't even offered a "sorry to have troubled you" when he was released. Does this not strike you as a particularly sorry state of affairs, and a startlingly ineffective method of securing our airplanes?

    6. Re:What was the true inconvenience? by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't have to tell you anything. The TSA is exempt from the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) which says that all government laws, rules and regulations are to be available to the public.

      But, like I said, they snuck in a "notwithstanding article blah blah" clause into the TSA, so they just toss out any FOIA requests about the system or its rules.

      Is there just one list? Several lists? Who knows.

      The TSA's scope is potentially much bigger than just airports, too. Just wait until there are TSA patrol cars out on the highways, and you can be pulled over, searched and arrested on "secret" laws or rules.

      Maybe it's illegal to drive a hybrid civic with a "defeat Bush in '04" sticker. Who knows. They could make a regulation making it illegal to be any blacker than Will Smith.

      Sure, it violates your constitutional right to due process. That is, being able to read and understand the laws you're charged with violating, which some lawyers might argue is somewhat important to presenting a defense.

      But hey, we're fighting terror.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    7. Re:What was the true inconvenience? by ptr2004 · · Score: 1

      Get yourself an alias preferably of Senator. If enough people do this maybe Dept of Homeland Security would reappeal the no fly list on alias thingy

    8. Re:What was the true inconvenience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you hate America?

    9. Re:What was the true inconvenience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its the possibility of facing this kind of crap that means, that despite getting married in Vegas, and generally loving the USA, Im not planning on going back there in the future (maybe ill head to canada). Im white, but I'm a member of greenpeace, and knowing the paranoi of the US, that probably puts me on the 'dodgy'list. I dont fancy a cavity search or interrogation from some retard at the airport, so Ill spend my holiday money in someone elses economy.

    10. Re:What was the true inconvenience? by FurryFeet · · Score: 2, Funny

      BTW, my name is as WASP as it gets.

      Would it, by any chance, be Fred?
      Just a wild guess...

    11. Re:What was the true inconvenience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you hate America?

      Ah, there we go. Anyone points out the bullshit the republicans are pulling, and suddenly we "hate America". Maybe if the republicans quit pulling bullshit like this, they wouldn't be so hated by a majority of the population. Of course, thats also why they have the voting on a Tuesday, since the majority of the population is legally repressed by their Republican slave masters who tell them they're free to spend a vacation day to go vote, but if they're out of vacation and go anyway, they're free to not come back. If the blue collar democrats were really free to vote, we'd see who'd be in power. Would it be the 10% of the population with 90% of the wealth? Or the other 90% of the population? Hard to guess, huh? And whats with this "we pay too much taxes" bullshit. If your tax bracket has 90% of the country's wealth, your bracket should be paying 90% of the country's taxes, none of this loophole shit.

    12. Re:What was the true inconvenience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm currently in the process of applying for a military intelligence position. I'm not even sure how far back it was my family immigrated to the United States. No history of crime of any kind. Somehow I made it on to the list.

  61. This happened to my friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Believe it or not this happened to my college roommate and his girlfriend when they tried to visit me in NYC in June. They got up to go to MSN (Madison WI) airport at 4am and when they got there they were held and interrogated because they were both on the no fly list. Even the TSA people realized it was a mistake (two middle class/white/college educated midwesterners in love with a round trip ticket?) but because it was so early in the morning none of the government offices that could sort this thing out were open. Long story short they finally made it. THANK GOD WE'RE SAFE WHEN MY COLLEGE ROOMMATE CAN GET INTERROGATED AND SEARCHED FOR HOURS AND MUSLIM ARABS CAN STILL GET ON WITHOUT GETTING SEARCHED AND RUN DRY TERRORIST RUNS (http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landi ng.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711). I hate this country under Bush.

    1. Re:This happened to my friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      so you mean, let all the white people through, and reflexively stop all Muslim Arabs?

      Are you sure you don't work for the DHS?

    2. Re:This happened to my friend by Aceto3for5 · · Score: 1

      I agree, but remember we arent allowed to only search muslims and arabs. That would be intolerant.

    3. Re:This happened to my friend by maxume · · Score: 1

      And of course, it would be stupid. It might make more sense to search more muslims and arabs, but it makes absolutely no sense to search only muslims and arabs. Think Oklahoma City Federal Building. Those guys were pretty average american, at least in appearance.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:This happened to my friend by maxume · · Score: 3, Informative

      You should check out what snopes has to say about the dry run. Seriously. The air marshals were at least as concerned about the behavior of the woman who wrote that article as they were about the musicians, maybe more. If you don't want to put faith in the snopes article, read thier sources. If you don't want to put faith in their sources, I can't help you.

      For people nervous about links: http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/skyterror.asp

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:This happened to my friend by Aceto3for5 · · Score: 1

      Remember Johnny Jihad Walker? The apple-pie eater they found fighting for the taliban. I agree we can housebrew some violent fanatics here too, but... none of the 19 on 9/11 were americans. Or the WTC bombing in 93, the Madrid bombings, Embassy Bombings, or Bali.

      So do we search all muslims and arabs? Would that have even helped on 9/11? They only had box cutters, they would have been let onboard im sure. I think the point of this story is... we need to get politics OUT of homeland security. It shouldnt be a campaign issue, we should be able to trust that our leaders, no matter who they are, will defend us no matter what it looks like.

      In hindsight it would have been great if we arrested these men for terrorism before they boarded the planes, but if we had, you would have heard an outcry of racial profiling. After all, they only had box cutters, what could they do with that?

      If we are unable to trust our leaders to act in our best interest, than we should elect ones we CAN trust. If no leader exists whom we can implicitly trust, then we need to re-evaluate the current system and maybe some of us armchair politicians should run

    6. Re:This happened to my friend by maxume · · Score: 1

      Apparently, I took your original comment in the wrong way. I thought you were being sarcastic. I now cannot decide if you were more sarcastic than sincere, or more sincere than sarcastic. Anyway, hell no do you search only muslims and arabs. If you search anybody at all, you make sure you have a good reason for each and every search. Short of that, everybody should probably go through the same screening as everybody else. And no, I don't think that being arab or muslim is a good reason for a search.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  62. Brainless bureaucracy by mariox19 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Obviously the security people at airports are trained and no doubt encouraged by a litany of inflexible rules and consequences for those that don't follow them to the letter to simply "go by the book." What we wind up with is the mindless application of bureaucratic procedures by security drones. You couldn't convince me that we are all safer because of this.

    It's not that politicians should receive special treatment; but it is ridiculous that one of the most recognizable men in American politics gets flagged by the computer and no one can do anything about it because no one dare stick his neck out for fear of being "flagged" for termination from his job.

    On second thought though, with all the bullshit the average person has to put up with in every aspect of life that involves dealing with government agencies and their rules -- at least some of which I'm sure Senator Kennedy is responsible for -- I say hooray for inconveniencing the senator! Let's have more of this!

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    1. Re:Brainless bureaucracy by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      but it is ridiculous that one of the most recognizable men in American politics gets flagged by the computer and no one can do anything about it because no one dare stick his neck out for fear of being "flagged" for termination from his job.

      Have you seen the Senator in person often enough to be *sure* that who you're looking at is indeed a US senator, and not a close look-alike? Perhaps if you saw him every day, but people tend to look a bit different in real life than on TV (where most people have seen him).

      I may not like the rules, but I'm proud the security personel were able to stand up to even a high ranking official to enforce their rules. Else the terrorists just find people who look like senators to carry out their plans (While yelling "Do you know who I am?")...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
  63. To all terrorists: Use the alias 'T. Kennedy'! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This foul-up tells terrorists exactly how to avoid the no-fly list: Just use an alias that matches the name of a prominent senator.

    We all know now that 'T. Kennedy' has been removed from the list. I'll bet there is no 'G. Bush' or 'T. Ridge' there either.

    A fake driver's license under one of these known names and I'm set to travel the US unmolested.

  64. Abnormal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

    Am I abnormal if I don't agree with what you say, and I also *refuse* to die for your right to say it? I mean, if you're a stupid fuck, then why should I die for you to have the right to spew your idiocy all over the place? Someone please explain that to me! I don't know why, but this quote always sticks in my craw.

    1. Re:Abnormal? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The quote is about the First Amendment. Which I consider important enough to fight for.

      The quote probably originated with Voltaire, but is of uncertain provenance, so I put it in quotes, and did not attribute it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Abnormal? by IPFreely · · Score: 1
      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

      Am I abnormal if I don't agree with what you say, and I also *refuse* to die for your right to say it? I mean, if you're a stupid fuck, then why should I die for you to have the right to spew your idiocy all over the place? Someone please explain that to me! I don't know why, but this quote always sticks in my craw.

      First, you have to recognize that the right to speech is not about a specific message, whether it is smart or stupid. When you defend the right to speech, you are defending all speech, not just smart speech or stupid speech. That is not a distinction.

      When you defend someone elses right to say something stupid, it is the same as defending your own right to say something smart. When you attack someone elses right to say something stupid, you are also attacking your own right to say something smart. The right to speech is the only point. Whether the message is right or wrong or smart or stupid is irrelivant.

      So, as the quote says, I may not like what you are saying, but since I value my own right to the freedom of speech I must defend all freedom of speech no matter how poorly someone else uses that right.

      By saying that you *refuse* to die for someone elses right to say it, I presume you mean you would not die for their message or their ideology. That is your choice, and I probably wouldn't die for most other peoples ideology either. But that isn't the point of the quote. They are not saying they'd die for the ideology or the content, but that they'd die for the right to speak freely reguardless of the ideology or who agrees with it.

      Nuff said. Too much answer, not enough question.

      --
      There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
  65. T. Kennedy by EnglishTim · · Score: 4, Informative

    Riiiight. So basically anybody called 'T Kennedy' isn't allowed to fly.

    According to the 1990 census information, 0.067% of Americans have the surname 'Kennedy' - given a rough poulation of 300million, that makes around 200,000 American Kennedys.

    Now, also from the above information, 4.25% of the male population and 3.35% of the female population have names beginning with T.

    This means that just from that single name on the no-fly list, roughly 7600 Americans could be excluded from flying.

    It's utter, utter madness.

    1. Re:T. Kennedy by kahei · · Score: 1


      Excellent link, thanks.

      I never realized how many people who really do not 'get' spelling there are.

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    2. Re:T. Kennedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      According to the 1990 census information, 0.067% of Americans have the surname 'Kennedy' - given a rough poulation of 300million, that makes around 200,000 American Kennedys.


      I heard Ted Kennedy got around, but that's ridiculious.

    3. Re:T. Kennedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This means that just from that single name on the no-fly list, roughly 7600 Americans could be excluded from flying.

      It's utter, utter madness.

      in fact it's "THE LAND OF THE FREE"
      laugh at will ... epic-size laughter recommended

    4. Re:T. Kennedy by Dwarfgoat · · Score: 1

      Because the article said "T. Kennedy" was on the list, and he was detained. Why a "T. Kennedy" was stopped when his name is Edward, who knows. Perhaps he waddled up to the ticket counter and told the agent he was Ted Kennedy. See, if he'd just gone by his given name, all this could have been avoided.

      --
      That? That was a pigeon.
    5. Re:T. Kennedy by EnglishTim · · Score: 4, Informative

      > What in the heck does someone named 'T. Kennedy' have to do with this story? That isn't his name.
      > Again, what does that have to do with this story? His name doesn't start with a 'T.'


      FROM THE ARTICLE:
      "Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy said Thursday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret "no-fly" list."...

      "A senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects."

      > Hey moderators, how about actually reading the posts before hitting the buttons.

      Hey, poster! how about actually reading the article before posting?

    6. Re:T. Kennedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects."

      Terrorists and associated types, please start using aliases like "John Ashcroft", "John Kerry", and the like. This will not only confuse the CIA & FBI, it will also make it hard for the politicians to move around the country... except on AF1, I guess.

    7. Re:T. Kennedy by curiously+curious · · Score: 1

      This story is FAKE on several levels.

      1) An initial "T." is on a super-secret "no-fly" list? If true, there would be numerous citizens complaining in public forums. Oh, I am so sorry. "T. Kennedy" was just added to the list more than 3 weeks ago! Return to 1).

      2) The system as explained publically is marking each boarding pass one of three ways. Normal, enhanced security, and stop for law enforcement review. In practice it appears the third step has been converted to "no boarding pass can be issued sir or madame." This is swell. We as a country are truely sporting; give terrorists second (and third, etc.) chances at trying to board flights, as well as letting them know, with no penalty, which ID's are in our super-secret "no-fly" list.

    8. Re:T. Kennedy by rickle · · Score: 0

      Actually, now anyone called "T Kennedy" is allowed to fly, since his name was removed :o) Terrorist #1: Hmmmm... What name should I use...? Terrorist #2: Well, out of all the names out there, we only know of one that isn't on the list... Terrorist #3 to Terrorist #1: Hello Mr. Kennedy!!

    9. Re:T. Kennedy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah this story seems like 100% pure propaganda.

      1) Why would a US senator from a wealthy family not fly in a private jet? Can you really visualize Ted Kennedy going through security and being wanded like everyone else? I certainly can't.

      2) Even if we were to believe that somehow Sen. Kennedy actually went to an airport and boarded a commercial flight (lol), there is no way that just from the name of T. Kennedy that a famous US senator with a recognizable face is going to be stopped from boarding a plane. The drones at the ticket counter if anything would be in awe of meeting him and I'm quite sure that they would naturally assume that the terrorist is a *different* T. Kennedy.

      3) The jokes about him being on the "no-drive" list sound like pre-scripted republican humor written by Peggy Noonan or someone like that and aren't really very funny.

      The reason this article is in the news is that it is a thinly-veiled threat to dissenters from the current ultra-fascist govenment that if they get out on line, they might accidently find themselves on the "no-fly" list. It's kind of reminiscent to having the mafia talk about "accidents" their opponents might have.

    10. Re:T. Kennedy by humanerror · · Score: 1

      Interesting statistics, but...

      The senior Senator from Massachusetts is Edward Moore Kennedy. The letter T does not appear at all anywhere in the name by which he is legally identified.

      He wasn't held based on some automatic flag set off by his ID matching "T Kennedy," but based on the fact that they knew exactly who he was (but apparently didn't know that Ted is not short for Theodore, but simply a nickname unrelated to his given name).

      According to the Washington Post writeup, "[a] senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects." "They" really should have put a bit more work into their story, unless the implication is that since the Senator is known to the entire effin' world by the alias Teddy Kennedy, he is suspect.

      --
      "We're an apex predator with the fecundity of a base level herbivore... We're a virus with shoes..." RazorJAK
  66. Only certain flights by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but it was only on flights to Chappaquiddick.

    John.

  67. no...no...no... by httpdotcom · · Score: 1

    Airline: Sorry sir...we can't let you board this plane.

    Senator: It's Kennedy...not K.A.Z.I.N.S.K.Y. How many times do I have to spell this out for you people?

  68. The real Question ... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    should be how did a senator make the list in the fist place?

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:The real Question ... by EricWright · · Score: 1

      TFA indicates it was most likely an alias used by someone they really don't want flying. However, there's bound to be hundreds of real T. Kennedy's out there. I guess any of the would have had the same problem as the senator from MA, just without the congressional identification cards.

      Just wait until a suspected terrorist uses the alias J. Smith in an airport.

  69. Re:Well.. by IsaacW · · Score: 1, Funny

    Since he's from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy would only cause a disturbance if the chowder had tomatoes in it.

  70. So called Technology...? by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    As an American, I worry that our government is spending a lot of attention on air safety. The terrorists are quiet, perfecting their plans and one day...one day, they will hit us. All the railways are unsafe, a terrorist can still wait for the big political leaders and explode his car or an IED, just like they do in IRAQ. It does not take a lot of technology to defeat us. This reminds me of Somalia because even with all the technology, one bullet to the neck results in death. Our dead now number > 900 and still counting!...Cb..

    1. Re:So called Technology...? by dave420 · · Score: 1
      It makes you wonder how the terrorists will next attack. If they use a car, are they going to ramp-up security for cars? What about if it's a container ship - are they going to blocade the ports?

      If the US government attacked the source of terrorism, and not the actual terrorists, the country (and world) would be a much safer place. Of course, to do that, they'd have to admit a tiny bit of blame, which they don't seem to want to do.

      It's like a plumber fixing a leak by putting buckets under the drips, instead of actually fixing the pipe. It'll only get worse.

  71. How to get on the plane - Bad Guy's actions by notthepainter · · Score: 0
    Get a fake ID, says T. Kennedy on it. I'm serious, Don't mod this as funny, ok, do it if you want. But now that name is presumably off this list, which is exactly what you want.

    This reminds me of the MIT Barber Pole Hack (http://alum.mit.edu/ne/whatmatters/200304/memorie s.html.

  72. Uh oh.... by hughk · · Score: 1
    I share a family name with that senator (but absolutely no relation). Is the entire clan blacklisted?

    Perhaps I shouldn't have helped out on PGP all those years ago.....

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  73. Wrong again! by sherpajohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Doh! And here I thought I would get to read a juicy story about some aging senator who likes to get rip-roaring drunk on flights and pinch the stewerdesses' rears. Ends up being yet another story about how American "terrorist" paranoia knows no bounds.

    On a somewhat related note, it took my girlfriend and I about 2 hours to cross into the States in late June. we were "pulled" aside - told to turn off our cell phones, remove all valuables from her car (but no camera's or recorders please!) and go into a building while they searched her car. After sitting there about an hour, a person who I assumed was the supervisor came over to us and said "Why are YOU here?" (being the only caucasian couple in "waiting"). We showed him the slip of paper they had given us - he wrinkled his nose, peered at us, went "hmmmmm" and handed the slip to a INS agent and went on his way. We were then very rudely "interviewed" by said agent. Even though my girlfriend drives a very nice 2000 model Grand Am - they wanted to know how much money we had on us - when I told them none, as we intended to use americna funds we would get from bank machines, they demanded to know how much money we had on our credit cards and in our bank accounts! Were they stupid enough to think we would leave the relative freedom of Canada to sneak into the States? Give me a break. I am happy to say that after that, our trip down to St. Louis and back was wonderful.

    Oddly enough coming home, we got waved through Canadian Customs in about 30 seconds.

    --

    Going on means going far
    Going far means returning
    1. Re:Wrong again! by elefantstn · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oddly enough coming home, we got waved through Canadian Customs in about 30 seconds.

      And there, at the end of your post, is the reason the American INS is so thorough with people coming from Canada.

      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    2. Re:Wrong again! by sherpajohn · · Score: 2, Informative

      And there, at the end of your post, is the reason the American INS is so thorough with people coming from Canada.

      Um, being a Canadian, the only time they "check" me is on the way back into Canada. I take it you are implying the INS is wary of all people entering the US from Canada due to Canadian Customs being "lax" in checking folks out? I mean you do understand that Canadian Customs does not even talk to you when you are leaving Canada? Actually that's a good thing, had INS checked us on the way out, we may have never gotten home with that single-barrell bourbon.

      --

      Going on means going far
      Going far means returning
    3. Re:Wrong again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even though my girlfriend drives a very nice 2000 model Grand Am

      I have to take exception to that. Grand Ams are complete shit. As are the people who drive them.

    4. Re:Wrong again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it makes you feel any better, US customs agents are equal opportunity assholes - they treat US citizens like crap too.

    5. Re:Wrong again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To tell the story from the other side my brother, Irish white, and my cousin, Peurto Rican father, had a heck of a time convincing the Canadians at the border into Quebec that they were actually related. They spent hours answering questions about who they were, where they were going, and how they could possibly be related.

      I thought it was very funny hearing about it second hand.

    6. Re:Wrong again! by thefergus · · Score: 1

      Though it's not on the same level, my girlfriend and I had to answer similar questions upon landing in Glasgow. We had to provide the name/address/phone number of the places we were staying, how long we were planning to stay at each location, the sum of our credit cards and the total available to us via our bank cards. It wasn't really a hassle, just took a few minutes to get the address/phone number information. I assumed (and still assume) that it's just standard procedure. When we landed in Toronto, though, we had to do little more than provide our passports and after a quick chat with Customs about being college students and just passing through, we were on our way. Very nice people.

    7. Re:Wrong again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I agree. I had a similar experience going thru Canada to Alaska. They wanted to know all sorts of crap about how much money we had. (Making sure we could support ourselves for the drive through. No country wants foreigners getting stuck in their country for lack of money.) Hey come to think of it, had this experience going into most of the countries I've been to.

      Side note: I've actually joked with U.S. Immigration officials on going into America. (What's in this bottle; is it laced with anything? Yes, caffeine.)

      Most have a sense of humor, unless they are a minority and have an axe to grind. (I agree with Short Circuit -- a sense of humor is a sign of intelligence.)

    8. Re:Wrong again! by KontinMonet · · Score: 1

      All you get are a couple of questions? Sheesh, as from September, we (the US' supposedly best allies) have to supply fingerprints and have them checked on every flight, whether arriving, flying internally and when escaping the US. And we will be expected to turn up at check-in five (!) hours before the flight, get asked a random set of questions (mother's maiden name, favourite pub, whatever) which then have to be answered exactly the same way when landing in the US.

      But before this particular regime starts, mistakes have already begun. A British man travelling with his American wife to visit her very sick mother in LA was flagged as not having officially left the country in 1996. He was put in shackles, denied food or drink and, being foreign, allowed a phone call only to the consulate who cannot help. He was shipped back to the UK about a day later. It's why I now refuse to visit the US (even tho' my mother lives in Florida). I don't like being treated like a bug.

      --
      Did he inhale?
    9. Re:Wrong again! by donutello · · Score: 1

      A neighbor of mine had a similar experience while going into Canada. Turns out he had a previous drug conviction and the Canadians won't let you in if you have a drug conviction unless you contribute ~$100 to their general fund.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    10. Re:Wrong again! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1
      Trust me, it's almost as fun for Americans driving into Canada. My in-laws live in Buffalo, NY, and during a recent visit a few of us decided to head over to Canada to look at Niagara Falls and eat dinner. We didn't get pulled out of line, I'll grant you, but the agent's evil eye had me about ready to confess to whatever crime she was ready to offer.

      Now, I know that terrorist come in all shapes and sizes. However, they probably won't manifest as a late-model minivan full of middle-class 20- and 30-somethings armed with video cameras and party clothes. As I said, we didn't get detained, but there's no doubt in my mind that if I'd said anything more complex than "yes, ma'am", "no, ma'am", or "the Falls and dinner, ma'am", that she would've been field-stripping the Toyota Family Truckster in a heartbeat.

      My wife said that it was fairly common to get stopped and searched on her way in, but that she almost never got stopped on the way out. I think the moral is that "foreign" countries tend to make entry a chore. Returning to your home country is usually pretty easy.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    11. Re:Wrong again! by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      On a somewhat related note, it took my girlfriend and I about 2 hours to cross into the States in late June. we were "pulled" aside - told to turn off our cell phones, remove all valuables from her car (but no camera's or recorders please!) and go into a building while they searched her car. After sitting there about an hour, a person who I assumed was the supervisor came over to us and said "Why are YOU here?" (being the only caucasian couple in "waiting"). We showed him the slip of paper they had given us - he wrinkled his nose, peered at us, went "hmmmmm" and handed the slip to a INS agent and went on his way. We were then very rudely "interviewed" by said agent. Even though my girlfriend drives a very nice 2000 model Grand Am - they wanted to know how much money we had on us - when I told them none, as we intended to use americna funds we would get from bank machines, they demanded to know how much money we had on our credit cards and in our bank accounts! Were they stupid enough to think we would leave the relative freedom of Canada to sneak into the States? Give me a break. I am happy to say that after that, our trip down to St. Louis and back was wonderful.

      Oddly enough coming home, we got waved through Canadian Customs in about 30 seconds.

      This is almost an exact replay of my and my girlfriend's trip to Canada. Luckily, I had bank statements in my wallet that cleared that up. When this happened to a friend of mine and they found a gun holster (no gun) under the back seat, they didn't even get into the country.

      Driving back into the US, they asked if I was brining anything back and I said a trunk full of Coke-a-Cola (made with sugar) and Katsup Chips and they waved us through.

    12. Re:Wrong again! by ajna · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If it makes you feel any better, one of my acquaintances, also detained at the border by US immigration, was forced to prove his bank account balance since he wasn't carrying any cash on him. He's a US citizen, Caucasian, too.

    13. Re:Wrong again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I had a similar experience as a US citizen going to Canda for some business. Crossing over to Canada took about 30 seconds. They seemed annoyed that I might be taking away a job from a Canadian citizen (actually I would be employing them) but let me pass without any real trouble. On my return journey to the US they searched my car and had to answer a bunch of rude questions to a dept of homeland security agent. They pretty much accused me of being a trator because I was considering using Canadian worker rather than US ones even though all the 8 or so US companies I approached ignored me. It really made me think how little this country thinks of me as a citizen.

    14. Re:Wrong again! by genixia · · Score: 3, Informative
      - they wanted to know how much money we had on us - when I told them none, as we intended to use americna funds we would get from bank machines, they demanded to know how much money we had on our credit cards and in our bank accounts!


      The 2nd question was because of your 'wrong' answer to the first. INS (or whatever they call themselves now) are required to ensure that you have enough funds to support your visit so that you won't resort to asking for handouts or robbery. The bizarre thing is that the law that codified this requirement was written a long time ago and the amount of cash required wasn't index linked, so it wouldn't cover a meal in a decent restaurant today. I can't remember exactly what the figure is, but it's something like $20.

      When I was dating my now wife and make frequent trips into the USA without a green card, I used to keep $40 in my wallet just to avoid that hassle even though I, like you, used ATMs to support my stay.
    15. Re:Wrong again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it makes you feel any better, one of my acquaintances, also detained at the border by US immigration, was forced to prove his bank account balance since he wasn't carrying any cash on him. He's a US citizen, Caucasian, too.

      I find that really hard to believe. Immigration can do that to non-Americans because they don't want them coming into the country on their visit and becoming a burden if they have no money. Annoying, but understandable.

      An American citizen, however, has the right to enter the United States, regardless of income or assets.

    16. Re:Wrong again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, this *EXACT* same thing happened to me, except I was refused entry, until I could prove that I had the funds available.

      I had paycheques to be deposited, holiday pay to be deposited. That wasn't enough. I ended up getting a wire transfer from a friend for $10k CAD, and then they had the gall to turn their nose up at that, and question where I got that kind of money, on such short notice (granted, it was only couple hours, I had the transfer information faxed to branch of my bank at the nearest town (in canada)) and reluctlently I was permitted to cross the border into the US.

      Single, white, male, with a Canadian passport, Canadian DL, etc. I guess that makes me fit the profile, and thusly put on the list to be anal-probed.

      What offended me the most, was being called stupid, and asked "what were you thinking comming down here with out enough $$$".

      Another time, I got questioned like a son-O-a-bitch, because I was meeting my g/f (yes, I read slashdot, and do have a girlfriend) in Vegas. Was asked if I was going to get married to her... Uhh, no. "WHY NOT?" was the next question, and I thinking to myself "none of your f**#ing GD business", but I knew if I said that, it would be game over. So gave the "new relationship, both reciently out of major relationships, taking it slow..."..... "THEN WHY ARE YOU GOING TO LAS VEGAS then?".... Uhh, she has a meeting she's attending, and has taken an extra couple days, then same days I'm *HOPING* to go down there, you know, gamble a bit, search for Elvis, pig out on some of those $2.95 buffets. Again, under reluctance, I was permitted to cross.

      9/11 has done a lot to the US, and the border, INS, etc. IMHO (or IMNSHO) 9/11 has really screwed up the "friendlyness" of the US. I can say, I honestly *DREAD* the experience of crossing the border into the US.

    17. Re:Wrong again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's funny, the americans won't let you in at all!

    18. Re:Wrong again! by paxmark1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amen!

      I have such a difficult time getting into the US at times it isn't even funny. I crossed once with my car, one bag, and a 20 year old fishing tackle box missing the plastice innards and containing 12 years of auto maintenace receipts.

      I was treated like a scum bag the whole entire time. I did not mind the intense look over of my car, that is acceptable, but opening my mail to the IRS and looking at my tax form, and holding a photographic negative on the flat side putting fingerprints onto the negative of a woman I loved really pissed me off.

      Finally they barked at me that I could get out of the locked room, still treating me like I was a meth dealer or something.

      So I said to "Say hello to A and B." 90 seconds later those two six footers wheeled around to me and barked at me why I said that, what did i mean by that. I retiterated that I had told them what my visa to work in Canada was for, intentional community living with the mentally challenged. I said that I had memorized the home phone number of A and B as I daily called that number for someone I took care of in my house. A and B being border guards on the Canadian and US sides respectively. Supervisor on the US side actually. They said I could go real quick then.

      I can name 5 other times I have been rudely treated by US border guards. They are equally rude to Canadians and Germans I have seen.

      I always have a very easy time getting into Canada, even with a carloard of my stuff. Very professional.

      US border agents are ignorant and rude. To expect anything more out of privatized TSA hacks is nonsensical.

      I am not looking forward to my next border crossing for a bi-national leadership conference to be held in Washington state.

      The federation of intentional communities that I am in (over 120 communities in 30 countries) has decided that no more International Federation meetings will be held in the US due to visa difficulties.

      Very dark days indeed in the US. This US citizen is very happy to be working and paying taxes to Canada.

    19. Re:Wrong again! by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

      I live in the U.S., and I've been to Canada a number of times, and the border guards are usually quite friendly to me (much more so than the U.S. ones).

      One time when I was a kid, however, I was with my family going camping in Canada, and we were stopped at the border of Canada for quite a while. The border guard asked my dad if he had any handguns (illegal in Canada, but legal in the U.S.) My dad has never owned a gun in his life, so naturally he said no.

      The Canadian border guard then proceeded to talk at length about Canadian laws and how handguns were illegal. She then proceeded to question my dad for the next five minutes about guns and kept asking if he had any. My dad was very polite and answered all the questions.

      She apparently was convinced that my dad was a gun-toting nutcase (those crazy gun-loving Americans, eh?), so our vehicle and the camper on the back of the truck was thoroughly searched, with Canadian border guards going through every cupboard and even the refridgerator, looking for the mythical guns that guard was convinced we were carrying.

      In the end, of course, no guns were found, and we were sent on our way. I guess it was a disappointment to her that she didn't get to crack some American skulls.

      A friend of mine in Germany once pointed to some German border guards and said "Those are people who like to cause other people pain and misery". I'll have to say that there seems to be quite a few of those people in the border guard services around the world. I've met border guards who were very nice and polite, but others seemed convinced that everyone is a criminal, and regard you as a criminal whose crime hasn't been revealed yet, and think if they try hard enough, they can uncover it. It's sad, really.

    20. Re:Wrong again! by jc42 · · Score: 1

      I have several friends who have similar stories with security at airports in Israel. Now, El Al ("Upwards!";-) has a solid reputation for very good security. These people I know, who are Americans, typically take under a minute to clear Israeli security.

      Their technique is simple. When the security people start talking to them, they answer - in fluent Hebrew. They have a brief, friendly chat, and are waved through.

      There are, of course, Palestinian Arabs who speak fluent Hebrew. But apparently the Israeli security people are confident that none of them will ever be terrorists. If a real terrorist decided to become fluent in Hebrew, he/she could do a lot of damage. But so far, nobody has ever wanted to put this much of an investment into it. Understandable, I suppose. It would mean a lot of time hanging around with the enemy.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  74. Yeah, he's a threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to the stewardesses

  75. Vote. by kryzx · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "But what are ordinary citizens supposed to do if the Secretary of Homeland Security won't take their calls?"

    Vote.

    --
    "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
    1. Re:Vote. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on now, think.

      The only thing that voting gives you nowadays is the right to complain and talk and whine.

      It doesn't change anything. The DHS and TSA are here to stay -- and out rights and freedoms are out the window.

      What exactly do you think voting will do? Keep in mind the majority of shee^H^H^H^Hpeople would rather be safe (or, have the illusion that they are) than be free...

    2. Re:Vote. by mat+catastrophe · · Score: 1

      Funny. It was voting what put these people in charge. You propose that anyone running today will fix these problems? I don't think so.

      --
      sig not found
    3. Re:Vote. by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Which is real handy, if you want to wait four years between flights.

      (I can never remember whether the US term of office is three or four years, one or the other Im sure)

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    4. Re:Vote. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That won't work. Unfortunately, all of the candidates are politicians.

    5. Re:Vote. by Archon · · Score: 1

      Funny, I don't recall cabinet positions ever appearing on a ballot.

    6. Re:Vote. by Zak3056 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Vote.

      I agree completely with your sentiments. But I don't think any major party candidate is going to do anything about the Department of Fatherland^W Homeland Security. Recall that the votes for PATRIOT etc were almost unanimous.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    7. Re:Vote. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, whatever.

      Democrat, republican - they're both the left and right arms of the same beast. They both represent corporate America. This country is driven by business and corporate interests will always prevail above those of ordinary citizens. Voting or not.

      Go ahead and go back to sleep in your little happy-fun dreamworld.

    8. Re:Vote. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny. It was voting what put these people in charge. You propose that anyone running today will fix these problems? I don't think so.

      No, it was the supreme court that put these people in charge because not enough people voted in Florida.

    9. Re:Vote. by starcraftsicko · · Score: 1
      What exactly do you think voting will do?
      Well, that depends. If you believe that your only choices (if you are in the USA at least) are Bush or Kerry, or Democrats or Republicans if you prefer, then your vote will be meaningless. Both persons and parties are certainly part of the ESTABLISHMENT. They aren't going to disband the TSA of DHS. And they certainly have no intention of repealing the DMCA.

      So your vote CANNOT and will not precipitate a REVOLUTION. Or at least not if you Vote for a Democrat or a Republican.

      But to NOT VOTE AT ALL?? That just indicates your acceptance of the status-quo. It indicates your willingness to be a sheep. It signifies your disinterest in controlling your own destiny.

      You want real change? Vote for Nader. Vote for the Libertarian candidate. Or vote for yourself. Seriously.

      Most Americans fail to realize that there would be REAL consequences if 25% or more of ballots cast in a major (IE presidential or congressional) election were write-ins! Certainly on one of the "major" candidates would still "win", but with such a wide expression of dissatisfaction, there would be no "mandate" for the winner. And while we would be stuck with whichever buffoon was the "victor", the parties, mainstream and fringe, would present some real options for the next go-round. But this can only work if the dissatisfied vote.

      Voting for change does not mean change occurs tomorrow. Politics is not about instant gratification. (unless you are in the position to receive Oval Office BJ's I suppose) Real change takes years. Real change is worth working for.


      A vote for Bush OR a vote for Kerry is a vote for more of the same. THINK! And Vote!


      Sure! Mod me down! I'm not pumping Kerry, so on slashdot I must be an Overrated Troll.
    10. Re:Vote. by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Not really. Somehow the state of Florida gave an extra 5000 votes to the millitary, and then threatened to bring in the millitary if those votes weren't counted.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    11. Re:Vote. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1


      They both represent corporate America. This country is driven by business and corporate interests will always prevail above those of ordinary citizens.


      Wait, wait. Are you telling me that Corporate America doesn't want us flying? I'd suspect you'd find a few rather large corporations that just happen to have quite an inventory of aircraft disagreeing with that.

      Nice rant. Normally, I'd agree. But it has no place in this conversation.
    12. Re:Vote. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vote

      Yes, because we've got someone much better running for the position. I've even seen their TV ads, saying they will be taking our calls, even if we aren't a senator!

      So everyone, be sure to vote this november for the most important position of Secretary of Homeland Security. Your vote counts!

    13. Re:Vote. by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Recall that the votes for PATRIOT etc were almost unanimous.

      Had our representatives received massive negative input from us, a.k.a. letters, faxes, emails, and public protests, maybe they would have voted otherwise.

      Either way, the burden of responsibility is still ours.

    14. Re:Vote. by EvilNight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then you VOTE THEM THE FUCK OUT. This entire problem occurs because the voters in this country fall into two categories: Those who are foolish enough to think there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats, and 2) those who honestly think that there is no way to vote in a third party (or fourth, or fifth, or twelfth, but let's not go as far as France.)

      The biggest lie the media has ever gotten the american public to swallow is simply this:

      Any vote for a third party is a vote for $NAME_of_REP_OR_DEM_PEOPLE_HATE.

      Pure BULLSHIT. This lie serves one simple purpose: keep the two party corporate system in power. And people are stupid enough to believe this. Apparently nobody has ever taken the time to read up on how the voting system in this country actually works. They are content to mumble crap about the Electorial College and how futile it is to vote third party when in fact it is anything BUT futile. Just get them 5%, people. You get a third party a 5% share of the vote one time, and they can take care of themselves from that point on.

      If you don't like the current candidates, vote for one of the candidates from the other 50 political parties in this country. Any 3rd party that gets in is going to have one agenda: CAMPAIGN REFORM. It's the only way for them to guarantee themselves a second term. Once those problems are fixed, this one party as two parties system is out the fucking door, and that's the best thing anyone could hope for in this country. It will put choice back into politics, and the rest will attend to itself.

      If you won't vote, you are part of the problem. You live in this country, you CANNOT disclaim responsibility for political problems by refusing to exercise the only means you have by which to solve them. If everyone sitting around not voting got off their asses and voted 3rd party, they would OVERRULE all of the people voting R/D just by sheer numbers.

      If you continue voting for the same two parties that keep running this country into the ground every single year, you are part of the problem. Republicans and Democrats care about one thing and one thing only: corporate payday. They are in the BUSINESS of selling laws to corporations with deep pockets. The only way to escape from this problem is to put more parties into the system to make it more resistant to corruption.

      There is no mysterious savior that is going to appear and fix all of america's political problems. If the voters never wise up and take action, the erosion of freedoms at the expense of corporate interests is going to continue unabated, and someday the common people are going to be forced to take up arms and bring the government down the old fashioned way. If it goes far enough and the americans don't do anything about it, rest assured that someday the USA's foreign policy will tick off someone with the power to come in here and do it for us. You're fooling yourself if you think humanity has evolved to the point where another world war is not possible.

      You are not an impartial observer. The mere fact that you draw breath on this planet obligates you. Try doing something that is becoming complete unamerican in modern times: take some responsibility and do something about the problems.

      --
      Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
    15. Re:Vote. by goodydot · · Score: 1

      Vote. Yes, and hope that election day is three weeks away, as you won't be home before then.

    16. Re:Vote. by Zak3056 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then you VOTE THEM THE FUCK OUT. This entire problem occurs because the voters in this country fall into two categories: Those who are foolish enough to think there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats, and 2) those who honestly think that there is no way to vote in a third party (or fourth, or fifth, or twelfth, but let's not go as far as France.)

      The biggest lie the media has ever gotten the american public to swallow is simply this:

      Any vote for a third party is a vote for $NAME_of_REP_OR_DEM_PEOPLE_HATE.


      You're preaching to the choir on this one. My vote this year is already going to a third party candidate. I, like you, realize change is impossible while our current two party system endures, and I'm working to change that.

      HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I'm naive enough to think that the winner of the Presidential election this year will NOT be a Republican or a Democrat, which goes to the point of my initial post.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    17. Re:Vote. by EvilNight · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, I'm in agreement on that one. The best case scenario is one where this year, some third party (green and libertarian appear to be the frontrunners) manages to get its 5%, and then finally get recognized as an official political party, allowing them to attend debates, partake in campaign funding, run advertisements, and the hundreds of other political behaviours they are restricted from doing until after they gain a 5% share. Then during the next election, they easily cut through the bullshit (truth has a way of doing that) and get their candidate elected president. That's best case.

      Most likely, we're going to be stuck with another twelve to twenty four years of democratic and republican nonsense before enough younger voters get politically motivated to make a 5% dent in the system.

      I think, finally, though, that people are beginning to realize alternatives are available, and not ridiculous. That alone is progress. I for one don't like the idea of burning washington to the ground in my 60's, and it would be nice if America could be the first nation to pull off a major governmental change within the rules of its own governmental framework (without bloody revolution).

      --
      Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
    18. Re:Vote. by intnsred · · Score: 1

      Remember the FCC issue about giving greater ownership and monopoly powers to big media corporations? That garnered BY FAR the most public feedback (overwhelmingly against) of any issue in the history of the FCC.

      The FCC still passed it. They didn't give a damn what the public's opinion was.

      I'm sorry, but I think letter writing, phone calls, and sewing circles are going to have to be combined with numerous loud, noisy protests in the streets of American cities.

    19. Re:Vote. by intnsred · · Score: 1

      This lie serves one simple purpose: keep the two party corporate system in power.

      Agreed; or as George Monboit stated, "A vote for Kerry is not just a vote against George Bush. It is a vote for the survival of the system which made Bush happen."

    20. Re:Vote. by pclminion · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, but I think letter writing, phone calls, and sewing circles are going to have to be combined with numerous loud, noisy protests in the streets of American cities.

      That's why "public protests" was in my list...

    21. Re:Vote. by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      Silly person. Do you really think that even if the Democrats win that DHS is going to die? A tool such as DHS is useful to either group that is in power. Why would either side willingly destroy an organization that they can easily bend to their specific purposes?

    22. Re:Vote. by mat+catastrophe · · Score: 1

      Don't go pinning all this on the Village Idiot. He had help. 98 Senators, in fact - including the two "ultra-liberals" running the Loyal Opposition Ticket. Bollocks.

      --
      sig not found
    23. Re:Vote. by zCyl · · Score: 1

      The biggest lie the media has ever gotten the american public to swallow is simply this:

      Any vote for a third party is a vote for $NAME_of_REP_OR_DEM_PEOPLE_HATE.


      This is the case so long as we maintain a plurality voting system. If you want REAL change, it will take more than just voting for some small party candidate. You have to start raising public support for a change in our voting system toward Approval Voting until the public outcry for this change is too large to be ignored.

    24. Re:Vote. by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Had our representatives received massive negative input from us, a.k.a. letters, faxes, emails, and public protests, maybe they would have voted otherwise.

      There wasn't time.

      The Patriot act was submitted and voted on before there was time for people to read it, including most of congress.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    25. Re:Vote. by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Um, I take back my previous comment. I think I was confusing the Patriot Act with some other large bill.

      Was it the Budget? I totally forget.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    26. Re:Vote. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work. Every politician currently in power GOT there using the two-party system. So you can't get them to change the rules that got them there. They are the benefactors of those rules. To carry out the kind of change you are talking about, it cannot happen through peaceful public outcry. The ones in power are in the position where they are best served by igorning that outcry. Besides, the stuff you would need to change is buried deeply in the constitution, such that it would require a very big amendment to change it.

      The only way to change it is either a total revolution in which the system is scrapped, or a miracle where the current system is used in its current form to vote in a new third party. They could then be presuaded to change the system, but only if you get to them right away. After a few terms they would become part of the problem.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    27. Re:Vote. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      They both represent corporate America.

      There are two sources of corruption in government that have nothing to do with each other: 1 - government wanting more control, and 2 - corporations wanting to direct that control to their advantage. The various overzealous (allegedly) anti-terrorist measures are all part of #1, not #2.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    28. Re:Vote. by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I'm in New Zealand, we have MMP (Mixed Member Proportional).

      When I listen to the news about American politics, it always amuses me when the American media refer to the 'other' parties as 'independent' parties.

      So, let me get this straight, the Republicans and the Democrats are not independent parties? What is the media trying to say here?

      I mean, on the one hand it makes perfect sense; the Rep. and Dem. parties are co-dependent and are therefore not exactly independent of one another.

      But on the other hand I find it hard to believe that, eg, CNN, would want the American public to think like that.

      And after all, in any modern democracy with modern media corporations involved, the media is crucial for shaping voting patterns. In fact, it becomes, in essence a 'mediacracy' and no longer a 'democracy'

      Or maybe the truth is "America; we put the 'Mock' into De-mock-racy!"?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    29. Re:Vote. by rocketfairy · · Score: 1

      Okay, then what are ordinary citizens supposed to do when the Diebold machines won't count their votes?

    30. Re:Vote. by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Thats one reason we have first and second ammendments. Use them both, as needed.

    31. Re:Vote. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Um, I take back my previous comment. I think I was confusing the Patriot Act with some other large bill.

      You were right the first time; PATRIOT was passed with the vast majority of our "representatives" failing to read the legislation, because it wasn't made available to them.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    32. Re:Vote. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Most likely, we're going to be stuck with another twelve to twenty four years of democratic and republican nonsense before enough younger voters get politically motivated to make a 5% dent in the system.

      I think you're being extremely optomistic, particularly your idea that all it will take is for some party to gain 5% of the vote before things start to snowball. A good example is Ross Perot who drew roughly 20% of the vote in 1992 (and about 8% in 1996.) The reform party absolutely fell apart during the 2000 election cycle (going so far as to have two separate conventions and two nominees!) despite having the advantages you mention--largely because Ross Perot was all the party had going for it, and that aint saying much!

      Most third parties run a presidential candidate on at least SOME of the state ballots, but they've got nothing going for them at the local level. How many libertarian or green state senators/representatives are there? Heck, how many of them are even elected at the county level? Until they straighten out these problems and build strong state and local organizations, they'll never successfully run a presidential candidate. That's not the way I want it, but that's a cold, hard fact. That's what it will take to convince people that "you're throwing your vote away" is just so much horseshit.

      Twenty-four years? Sadly, I think it's more like fifty--at the least.

      In the mean time, I view my third party vote not as something likely to put someone in office, but rather as a prod to the two mainstream parties that they've lost my vote and have to work at winning it back. THAT is one thing that Ross Perot did stunningly well: shock the Republican party into making some serious changes (and looking at the last four years, I think it's a lesson both they and the democrats need to be taught again.)

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    33. Re:Vote. by zCyl · · Score: 1

      Every politician currently in power GOT there using the two-party system. So you can't get them to change the rules that got them there.

      There was once a time when every politician in power got there by being elected by an all male electorate. Under public outcry, it changed by constitutional amendment.

      If you believe in it, give it a try.

    34. Re:Vote. by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I think you underestimate the magnitude of the change necessary. Altering whom is eligible to be a voter is a puny little change compared to altering the entire system of what those voters are actually doing with their votes.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  76. Does this mean by aussie_a · · Score: 1

    fruit prices will go down?

    1. Re:Does this mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't really know about fruit, but vegetables around the country rejoiced that a very high-profile vegetable eventually got justice and an apology in this story. They certainly feel their worth and respect went up, in the end.

      But like I said, dunno about fruit. Now, had you said fruitcakes it would be different...

  77. Oh, come on ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Some of the comments here just amaze me.

    Yes, I'm sure the Bush administration deliberately decided to harras Ted Kennedy in such an obvious, ham-fisted way. that could so easily be twisted into anti-Bush, pro-Kennedy publicity.

    Because the benefit balanced against such huge risk would just be so great; I mean God help the Republicans if Ted actually succeeds in flying anywhere. That delay will be crucial.

    What are you people, twelve? Oh, wait ...

    1. Re:Oh, come on ... by spezz · · Score: 1
      as opposed to the high level of discourse one finds (flash warning) here

    2. Re:Oh, come on ... by jbash · · Score: 1

      At the risk of being modded down (since anything more than mildly critical of Bush gets negative points), this is not beyond the scope of the current White House occupants to put Democrats through this kind of "mistake."

      Immediately after 9-11, Prime Minister Cheney ordered Continuity of Government to go into effect. Remember that? The program calls for the evacuation of government leaders from Washington and the activation of the underground hideaways that shelter bureaucrats trained to keep Uncle Sam in business. The problem was no Democrats were evacuated or kept in the loop. Must have been an oversight. :)

  78. Another thing I noticed by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They didn't let him on the plane because he was a suspected terrorist, but there's no indication that they tried to detain or arrest him either. WTF?

    1. Re:Another thing I noticed by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      they have no real evidence. however, airports are free from a lot of due process laws when it coms to the airport itself. However, that doesn't extend to detainment or arrest.

    2. Re:Another thing I noticed by dave420 · · Score: 1

      For now...

    3. Re:Another thing I noticed by njfuzzy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's simple. These regulations are designed to be just enough of an inconvenience to convince citizens that the government is working hard to protect them from evil brown terrorists. "Solutions" that are visible get you far more fear votes than solutions that are effective.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    4. Re:Another thing I noticed by donutello · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You need sufficient cause to detain or arrest someone. In the case of many terrorist suspects the information about their terrorist activities is either obtained illegally or through secret means where the sources can't be revealed or it is merely suspected.

      A person denied entry would be arrested if there was an existing warrant out for them. However, in the absence of a warrant they have no authority to arrest or detain any such person.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    5. Re:Another thing I noticed by edinho · · Score: 1

      Just listen to yourself. I bet you still can't find any fallacy/discrepancy in your reasoning. So sad.

      So, a person, for some undisclosed reason, is suspected of being a danger. But nothing is done to investigate this serious suspicion further. Just plonk the "suspect" into the list. Simple. If people ask, just say "we cannot disclose the source" or "we cannot tell you if you are on tht list" or if you are on the list (like Kennedy) "we cannot tell you why you are on the list" and "we cannot tell you how to get off the list".

      You are so mistaken to believe that this list is effective in stopping people who are a real danger. Here are a few reasons (and there are lots more) why it is really useless and just a PR:

      • If a real terrorist is stopped at the gate, then he is given a signal that his cover is blown.
      • If a real terrorist is not stopped at the gate, he knows his cover is not blown.
      • Go read up on the political/peace/anti-war activists that are on the list. I am sure they have a history of blowing up planes.
      • Go read up on how easy it is to get a fake ID.
      Shocking how you can think that this no-fly list is effective and justified. It has no transparency, no accountability, easily abused and misused, and did I mention that it is ineffective? Does that sound like a free country to you or more like 1984? Oh, if you are still too dim to figure out why it is ineffective, let me elaborate even further:
      • It is easy to circumvent, e.g., get a fake ID. Thus it won't stop a halfway determined bad guy.
      You might think that the feds know what they are doing. Sorry to say that the evidence is to the contrary. What evidence? Well, it is staring right at you all the time, take for example Kennedy's case--does that show a bunch of people that knows what they are doing, or a bunch or arrogant incompetents? It is thus only a harassment to those who are really not a danger. Do you want to take a guess how many people are stopped each day? How many of them are really bad guys? How can anyone with three brain cells still try to justify this blight on the Constitution?
    6. Re:Another thing I noticed by donutello · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot. I didn't claim the list was effective or justified. I pointed out why you couldn't detain or arrest someone even if you suspected them of being a terrorist.

      Maybe next time try reading so you don't sound like a fool when you speak.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
  79. Re:Any competent clerk would reject him by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    As it is not impossible for a senator to commit a crime, any competent airline clerk would reject him if his name was on the list. A clerk is not responsible for making judgments as to which persons on the list should be allowed through, but for making sure that the names on the list do not get through. I feel much safer knowing that even senators can't bluff their way past airline clerks, but need to call other government officials who in turn need to contact the clerk's supervisor through appropriate channels.

    Now that we've established that the clerks are doing their job, I just wish that I felt safe about the department of homeland security doing its job.

  80. Obligatory Dennis Leary quote by (trb001) · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Ted Kennedy. Great senator, but a bad date."

    1. Re:Obligatory Dennis Leary quote by nettdata · · Score: 1

      One of my favourite bits by Denis Leary... that and "Marv, Marv, Marv, Marv"

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
  81. Yeah by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Insightful

    because his Karma on slashdot is a heavy issue on his mind.

  82. Kennedy's actual record of in-flight disturbances by XavierItzmann · · Score: 3, Informative
    What happens today to people who scream on airplanes, run down the aisle, and assault other passengers with pillows, like Kennedy has done?
    Ted could drink about as much as any man and still appear relatively sober. That was the most dangerous of gifts. But something was different now, and this trip brought him back to thoughts of death and dying. "They're going to shoot my ass off the way they shot Bobby's," he said as the reporters listened and took their private notes. Wanting only to pop a few more drinks, he did not eat at the airport in Fairbanks on the way home. He got on the plane and asked the flight attendant for a drink, and then another. He swaggered up and down the aisle, bouncing a pillow on the head of one of his aides, shouting for him to wake up, and then weaving along shouting, "Eskimo power! Eskimo power!" The journalists listened and noted Ted's sad state, but none of them wrote about it in their publications when they got home.
    Sons Of Camelot: The Fate Of An American Dynasty, by Laurence Leamer

    Chanting political slogans and assaulting passengers? Okay, it was 1972, but we pay TSA to stay vigilant against anyone with a history of unstable political activity, don't we?
    http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/00 2283.php

    --
    The next pasture is always greener
  83. C'mon folks... by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    First, this is just funny. Anything that inconveniences a Kennedy can't be all bad. Esp. Teddy! Second, I wonder how much this was done on purpose. Something smells here. Let's see, a Kennedy could probably easily get his name on such a list to pull a stunt to jab the Bush Administration. Again, this isn't so much a lax in g'ment as just a funny thing that isn't without some usefulness.

  84. No Booze for Ted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [unbased on fact]
    Clearly Ted like the drink.
    Probably, while drunk, he got too frisky with the stews
    and that's why they banned him.
    [/unbased on fact]

  85. Ghostbusters by otisg · · Score: 2, Funny

    If there's something strange, in your neighbourhood - who're you gonna call?

    Ghostbusters, of course!

    --
    Simpy
  86. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by jbash · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And how many people wrongly on the list can call Tom Ridge? If it took Senator Kennedy several weeks, how long would it take me or you? Thank you to the government for keeping us "safe" by taking away our Civil Liberties. Bastards.

  87. Publicity Stunt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't supposed Kennedy is against the no-fly list is he? This seems like a publicity stunt.

  88. code for no-fly list by hey · · Score: 1

    if ! IsRepublican(name)
    {
    print "I am sorry, you can not fly!\n"
    print "Have a nice day.\n"
    }

  89. Shoot the General by Detritus · · Score: 1
    What do you do if you are guarding a secure area and a General tries to barge in without identifying himself and following proper security procedures?

    You shoot the General.

    VIPs are not exempt from security rules.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    1. Re:Shoot the General by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      This is entirely correct. Doesn't change the fact that people tend to be slack about following the rules when they recognize someone.

      Sure, you're supposed to check the list for anyone who comes to the counter. Would you do it for your wife/husband, who you just had breakfast with two hours before? I think not. Your brother that you talked to last week? Unlikely there as well.

      People are assuming that the ticket clerk has had expensive security training. That's unlikely as well. A bare minimum is likely, just so she knows to check the list.

      And for those who say, "Well, a Senator could commit a crime too". Yah, Teddy has been accused once or twice, as I recall. In general, however, if a Senator is a criminal suspect, you'd know about from the Evening News and/or morning newspaper. You won't have to guess about it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Shoot the General by buysse · · Score: 1
      You seem to be assuming, as do many other people, that the computers would even issue a ticket for someone that was on the no-fly list. I highly doubt that enforcement of that system would be someone pulling out an eight-inch thick book and looking for each name in small type, or even doing the equivalent operation on a computer. It's going to be automatic. The clerk has no control.

      As an example, if you're on the "body-cavity searches for everyone!" list, there are large, obvious marks on the boarding pass. Since those designations both come from the same system (CAPPS II?), I wouldn't assume that it would be *easier* to bypass the more restrictive list.

      Don't blame the clerk for not knowing that it was Ted Kennedy. She could not issue a boarding pass for someone who's name matched that list. I feel pretty bad for John Smith, considering there's got to be at least one "evil" J. Smith out there. You can extrapolate the odds of having trouble with a "Middle-Eastern sounding" name yourself.

      Now, I will say this -- even if she could have overrode the system and issued a boarding pass, if I were her supervisor she would have been fired and possibly facing criminal charges the moment I found out about it. I don't like this system to begin with, but you damned well need to follow it if you're part of the system. You can lobby to change it, but while it's in place, it is your G*d. Can you tell that I do some security work?

      --
      -30-
    3. Re:Shoot the General by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Can you tell that I do some security work?

      Yes, quite so. And you are quite correct as to proper procedure. I do not have your belief that "proper procedure" is followed quite so blindly, though.

      Nor does the evidence provided in the article support that it was. A supervisor was called, and by magic, a boarding pass was issued. Doesn't sound like there was much trouble getting that pass, does it?

      Note also that the pass was initially denied (according to the HS people) as a result of a "similar name". Don't know about you, but my computer doesn't twig on "similar" when I do a db query. Exact matches only.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Shoot the General by buysse · · Score: 1
      Have you ever heard of the Soundex algorithm? It's an algorithm specifically designed to catch words that are pronounced similarly with different spellings. IIRC, Knuth vol. 1.

      This one was even easier -- T. Kennedy (simple substring match on first name and exact match on last name).

      Also, I would assume that *someone* could override the system, just not the front-line clerk, and that's what I was disputing with the parent poster. He and several others were complaining that the clerk wouldn't "check the list" if it was someone they knew, and that they should have just rolled over. That's what I was disputing (then I started ranting.)

      We also don't know how high up the chain the call to a supervisor had to go, either. All that we know is that a supervisor was called, and at some point in the near future a boarding pass was issued. For all we know, there may have been a call to Tom Ridge's office to get the appropriate clearance to override the system. If it wasn't a senator, that call would probably never have been made.

      --
      -30-
    5. Re:Shoot the General by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      T Kennedy? You mean his ticket wasn't issued to Edward M. Kennedy, to match any legal ID he might have? That's odd.

      We can be fairly sure it didn't take a call to Ridge to get it cleared. That would have raised enough stink that we would have heard about nothing else for months.

      I don't think the computer blocks issuing the pass, though. If that were so, there would be no reason to say "I can't tell you" when asked why. You'd just say "I don't know, the computer won't issue one".

      By the by, note that I never said the clerk "should have just rolled over". I said that I would expect her to just roll over. Well, I never used roll over, but it does convey the thought.

      I would, in general, expect that someone who looked like a famous person, had the appropriate ID of said famous person, and acted like said famous person (whether it was Ted Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, or Madonna - sorry, I'm not real up on famous entertainers right now, but Madonna used to be famous anyway) would get preferential treatment. I do not advocate preferential treatment for famous people (not till I'm famous, at least ;-) ), but I have been in the world long enough to expect it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  90. One Word: by WgT2 · · Score: 1

    HILARIOUS!

  91. huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the US-history impaired, just see the wiki link. Chappaquiddick is the site of Kennedy killing a Mary Jo Kopechne.

  92. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Libertarian Gary Nolan was also blacklisted.

    Seems like ALL of the Rebublican's competitors get blacklisted. Discuss among yourselves.

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Doesn't look like much of a coincidence anymore.

  93. This it the way it should work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad it happened to one of the rich and powerful, it needs to happen more. That's the main problem with this new program for frequent flyers to sign up where you can undergo "extra scrutiny" up front and then get a special pass that lets "zip through security."

    You just know that all the politicians are going to get those special passes while the proles are left to suffer through the pains and failings of yet another exercise in bullshit security. It will be just another way that the ruling elite are isolated from the regular experiences of the average citizen. So when asscraft tries to get another personal-diginity-destroying law on the books in the name of terror, all the politicians will be happy to sign up for it because they won't have a clue what its like to get the shaft when system beats down yet another innocent citizen.

  94. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hm, sounds like something that they implemented back in the 1930s in Germany. I don't recall how exactly that separation tactic worked. I'm sure no one was hurt by it, only delayed in their travels.

  95. identity crisis by recharged95 · · Score: 3, Informative
    It's "Edward M. Kennedy"

    Ted's a nickname...

    Washington Post states the actual [bad] entry in the system was "T. Kennedy" that trigger this whole event.

    Scenario: When you goto the airport, they look at your drivers license and it says "Richard Bruce Cheney" (or Richard B. Cheney). I'm sure you will not be flagged against "D. Cheney" if it shows up in the database, otherwise all we need is a J. Smith to be entered in the database and viola, system overload... Anyway that's where profiling comes in to place I guess to prevent that ;)

    Sounds like human error or poor judgement (or good judgement, depending on political party preference) but obviously blamed on a computer/database.

  96. Nevermind freedom to travel. by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    The real question is how did a known terrorist become a senator! I think this clearly prooves that the government cant be trusted because there are terrorists in the government!

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  97. For the non-US by Professeur+Shadoko · · Score: 5, Informative

    I didn't get the joke, so I googled a bit:

    here

    On the evening of July 19, 1969, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts drove his Oldsmobile off a wooden bridge on Chappaquiddick Island, drowning his passenger, a young campaign worker named Mary Jo Kopechne. The senator left the scene of the accident, did not report it to the police for many hours, and according to some accounts considered concocting an alibi for himself in the interim.

    At the time, Kennedy managed to escape severe legal and political consequences for his actions thanks to his family's connections (which helped to contain the inquest and grand jury) and to a nationally televised "Checkers"-like speech broadcast a week after the accident. But virtually no journalist who has closely examined the evidence fully believes Kennedy's story, and almost 30 years later, the tragedy still trails the senator, with aggressive press investigations revived in five-year anniversary intervals.

    Probably more than any other single factor, Chappaquiddick - a frenzy without end - has ensured that Ted Kennedy would not follow his brother John to the White House.

    1. Re:For the non-US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...has ensured that Ted Kennedy would not follow his brother John to the White House.

      and thus to his grave

  98. Shouldn't Ted Kennedy... by qtone42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    be on a No-Drive List?

    He seems much more dangerous there than flying (unless, of course, it is a small plane where he exceeds the weight limit.)

    And I won't even go into the possibility of a No-Vote List for Senators...

    --Qtone
    Still not French

  99. If Tom Ridge won't take your call... by Kurt+Wall · · Score: 1

    ...then you run for Congress. After you win, he'll take your call.

  100. NOT TURNED DOWN by magarity · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's bad enough when comment posters don't RTFA, but the submitter?!?!

    From the article:
    A Kennedy aide said the senator nearly missed a couple of flights because of the delays

    This is NOT "turned down for a flight". Sheesh!

    1. Re:NOT TURNED DOWN by iamsure · · Score: 1

      RTFA - He did make his flight eventually in each case. Airport supervisors overruled the counter reps, and away he went.

    2. Re:NOT TURNED DOWN by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      But only because he is the Ted Kennedy; if he had not been the famous Senator, I'm not sure he would have had the same luxury.

  101. Too Funny!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have kept that no good drunk off my plane also!

    I'm Ted the-fat-blubbering-idiot, and I only wanted to drive this plane off the chappaquiddick bridge, but I would have saved myself and no one else... yes, that's for SURE.

    Ted Kennedy. The idiot of idiots. Drunk of Drunks. Heir to family wealth created with illegal monies. (I mean, how did you think they got rich? It wasn't legally.)

  102. You think it's just one guy? by revscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's just you. Seriously, one guy has problems because he ends up on the watch list on a prank or a fuck up and everyone starts whining that America is a police state and how their civil liberties have been taken away.

    You really think it's just one guy, or even just a few? You are willfully ignorant then. This kind of shit has been going on since 9/11, and it has only gotten worse.

    Screw justice, though, right? We have terrrists to catch!

    1. Re:You think it's just one guy? by cHiphead · · Score: 3, Informative

      you are not fucking kidding, my WIFE gets stopped EVERY TIME she boards an airplane, especially when she has our son with her. *I* on the other hand, was only stopped once, when I was next to her in line and said I was her husband. From now on, we enter the lines seperately when our son is with us. The only remotely logical explanation is that she took trips with her parents to Hungary and around Europe before she was 10 years old and thus is on some sort of watch list.

      Fuck 9/11 and fuck homeland security. If someone is determined and smart, they can blow up any goddamn thing they want, no amount of flag waving bullshit security is going to save us. Its reality and people don't want to face it. The only way we catch these people (the ones REALLY determined to hit us) is a LOT of hard work by LAW ENFORCEMENT (NOT MILITARY!) with an extra hefty scoop of LucK. Terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not an issue of war.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:You think it's just one guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really think it's just one guy, or even just a few?

      You really think it's more than a few? Where are all the media stories? In an election year, they would be all over shit like that. You are assuming things that aren't true. If it's more than a "few" than cite 10 stories about different innocent men and women ending up on a terrorist watch list.

      You are willfully ignorant then. This kind of shit has been going on since 9/11, and it has only gotten worse.

      Where is the proof? You can say all you want that "it has only gotten worse" but I haven't seen anything get worse. Not in my personal life, not in the media, not anywhere. You can try to make shit up to slam the anti-terrorist effort because of your ideology or your nationality but it really does no good if you can't back it up with facts.

      Screw justice, though, right? We have terrrists to catch!

      Justice? Was Kennedy somehow "screwed by justice" because he had problems at the airport? Give me a break with the crybaby shit. Do you whine this bad when your order gets fucked up at McDonalds? People make honest mistakes everywhere, the government is no different. At what point are you going to let the federal government do it's job and protect the citizens of the US. That along with regulating interstate commerce is the only reason the federal government was formed.

      3000 people died on 9/11...How many more have to die before you wake up and realize a case of a clerical error does mean America is a police state. Will 300,000 do it? Or maybe you need 3,000,000 to die before you realize what a war really is. It's sad that this country hasn't been through enough to encourage unity like there was for WW2 once we were in it.

    3. Re:You think it's just one guy? by brandonY · · Score: 4, Funny

      Eh, there could be lots of other reasons for your wife to get stopped every time. For instance, does she look rather like a young arabic man?

    4. Re:You think it's just one guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is so ignorant it's not funny.

      you are not fucking kidding, my WIFE gets stopped EVERY TIME she boards an airplane, especially when she has our son with her.

      How old is your son and how often does she fly? Also, if your wife gets stopped every time she boards an airplane then the statement "especially when she has our son" makes no sense. Either she gets stopped every time, even with your son, or she gets stopped sometimes "especially with your son". It sounds like you are lying, or have your story mixed up.

      From now on, we enter the lines seperately when our son is with us. The only remotely logical explanation is that she took trips with her parents to Hungary and around Europe before she was 10 years old and thus is on some sort of watch list.

      No, this isn't how homeland security works with the airports. Read this article, or read up about it from other sources. If your wife was on a "terrorist watch list" she wouldn't be allowed to fly. At all. Airports conduct random searchs of passangers, it may just be that your wife happened to get searched when she flew. They do however search people fitting certain criteria sometimes (although they claim they don't so the ACLU isn't up their ass). I was searched the last time I was on a plane and asked why. (I am a dark skinned male, with a crew cut and in my 20's) The guy at the airport told me "Because you are a young guy, wearing a military belt and boots (I was)" which was good enough for me. You would probably think this was racist, but I thought it was common sense. (Although a hijacker would be nuts to dress in military gear).

      Fuck 9/11 and fuck homeland security. If someone is determined and smart, they can blow up any goddamn thing they want, no amount of flag waving bullshit security is going to save us

      Why is national defense "flag waving bullshit"? And no, if someone is determained and smart they CANT blow up any goddamn thing they want. That is the same crap that people give as an excuse for poor computer security...."well if someone is smart enough they can break into anything..." that doesn't justify not trying to stop them .

      ts reality and people don't want to face it.

      No, it's not reality. You need massive resources on top of smarts, luck and determination to pull off such an attack. Do you really think one "determined and smart" person with limited funding could pull off an attack on the RNC? Not likely. You are living in a dream world. While perfect security is not possible, that doesn't mean security measures don't help.

      The only way we catch these people (the ones REALLY determined to hit us) is a LOT of hard work by LAW ENFORCEMENT (NOT MILITARY!) with an extra hefty scoop of LucK. Terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not an issue of war.

      Dumb, dumb, dumb and even more DUMB. Terrorism is a military issue, since it invloves defending the entire US against a foreign army. I'm glad most politicians don't think like you do, I wouldn't want to rely on luck and law enforcement to get rid of battle hardened enemy fighters.

    5. Re:You think it's just one guy? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      AHAHAH you're so funny, I nearly burst out laughing here.

      Terrorism is a military issue, since it invloves defending the entire US against a foreign army

      N O its not. Who's dumb now? the grandparent? or you, who just died because you succumbed to your profiling crap and decided to ignore the real threat of angry white men?

      You need massive resources on top of smarts, luck and determination to pull off such an attack.

      Right, it takes massive resources to fill up a 55 gallon drum with gasoline and kick it from the back of your pickup truck into the middle of an interstate? There's all sorts of ways a single lone person could wreak havoc without "massive" resources or even luck. Oh, but like any true Republican you're only concerned about the good ol' buds at the RNC. Just like on 9/11 when "key" leaders were evacuated immediately under the continuity of government plan. Which was supposed to evacuate all of congress, but well, the Democrats didn't matter so much, so they had to wait for their turn to come hours later.

      I am a dark skinned male, with a crew cut and in my 20's

      See above as to why this kind of profiling is doomed to fail catastrophically.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. Re:You think it's just one guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or maybe the TSA guard is a perv and wants to grope your wife's breasts.

    7. Re:You think it's just one guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree, the security thing is a joke, especially the "spot check".

      Okay, I'm 6'5" 220lbs, and fit. In front of me is a 65+ lady *with a cane*.

      Who's more likely to be able to take over a plane?
      Who get's the pre-flight search?

      The lady.

      Sure, funny, but similar things happen all the time.

      I dunno, I'm calling bullshit on that one.

    8. Re:You think it's just one guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      N O its not. Who's dumb now? the grandparent? or you, who just died because you succumbed to your profiling crap and decided to ignore the real threat of angry white men?

      *sigh* Yes, radical people from both ends of the spectrum that are from the US commit acts of terrorism. McVeigh is the only US terrorist I can think of off the top of my head who has pulled off anything large. Blaming such things on only "Angry White Men" is racist. Downplaying leftist groups who do the same thing is simply bias.

      However terrorist groups in the US have no where near the funding,numbers, or devotion of Islamic groups. How many US "terrorists" have killed themselves to carry out their attacks?

      Domestic Terrorism is no where near the threat of islamic terrorism.

    9. Re:You think it's just one guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, I know the guy and his wife. I work at the airport they live near, and I'm friends with one of the security guards there.

      The wife is really hot, and has huge tits. Dave (not his real name), the security guard, once told me that they love to stop her and search her, since she smiles and acts encouraging when they "verify that her bra does not contain concealed weapons."

    10. Re:You think it's just one guy? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Blaming such things on only "Angry White Men" is racist

      I chose those words to prove a point. Picking on dark skinned guys with turbans is racist too. I forgot to mention the Jamaican snipers in that list, neither white nor arabic.

      You seem to think that killing yourself is required in order to be effective. It seems that every one of these people effectively spread more terror by getting away with it alive, and in some cases repeated their acts. It takes far less resources than you think when you don't have to track down, recruit, and train more suicide bombers.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    11. Re:You think it's just one guy? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      My point is that if you're trying to really terrorize people, you don't spend years training to fly a plane into a building. It doesn't take millions of dollars. All it takes is a methodical and repeatable way of killing people or causing scary-looking damage on a regular basis. You don't go after election conventions, because thats not where the real people are. Killing the president doesn't make you a terrorist, it just makes you an assassin.

      As for labeling the poster a Republican, there is such a thing as making an assumption based on evidence: wears military gear, reliance on the military to solve all their problems, concern about the RNC as a target. Sounds right wing to me.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    12. Re:You think it's just one guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would probably think this was racist, but I thought it was common sense. (Although a hijacker would be nuts to dress in military gear).

      Well, which is it - "common sense" or "nuts"? It sounds like you are lying, or have your story mixed up.

      You have also just illustrated exactly why this kind of profiling does not work. In fact, you have just informed terrorists around the world that they can facilitate their own entry into the US by wearning a plain belt and sneakers. Also, terrorist groups should try to avoid sending people in their 20's if they can send people in their 30's instead. By discovering and releasing this information, you have helped weaken the Security of your Homeland.

      By the way, random checks cannot be overcome in this manner.

  103. Why reevaluate? by intnsred · · Score: 1

    Why reevaluate? The system is working perfectly.

    The system is designed to be used against "enemies" and to scare people into submission.

    Just look at the recent reports of FBI/homeland security "visiting" potential protesters of the Republican convention in order to instill fear. Look at the way these laws against "terrorism" are now being used against everyone from peace advocates to drug dealers/users and common criminals.

    They're working exactly as they were indended to work.

    1. Re:Why reevaluate? by dave420 · · Score: 1
      That's exactly why the system was put in place. It's another tool to fuck with, and control, people. I don't like where this is heading.

      Great article in your sig, dude. Could do with some external sources, but a great read.

      fight the good fight ;)

  104. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by woodlander · · Score: 1

    Well, it's not like the Democrats haven't been terrorizing poor George Bush.

  105. Ms. Coulter? by revscat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is that you? Nixon used every power at his disposal, from the FBI to the IRS to the CIA, in order to intimidate and even imprison his enemies. Look at what he did to Tim Leary: got him sentence to over 10 years in a federal prison for having, IIRC, less than two grams of marijuana in his car.

    There were plenty of *allegations* made about Clinton and the IRS, but like 99.9% of the allegations made about him they turned out to be Dudge fodder and usually outright lies.

    1. Re:Ms. Coulter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can't be Ann Coulter. She's nowhere near a computer she could post from right now. I just came through airport security and she was there, biting someone's leg because she apparently smelled dissent. At least the guards had her on a leash which was the first sign of management of any kind I've seen in the anti-terrorist program.

    2. Re:Ms. Coulter? by stratjakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, Nixon put the entire "War on Drugs" we have today into motion, largely to punish the anti-war hippies who were driving him out of office.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:Ms. Coulter? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and look how well that's worked out...

      - A.P.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    4. Re:Ms. Coulter? by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      It achieved it's real goal. Lots of hippies had their homes and property siezed, as mentioned, Tim Leary got a 10 year sentence, etc..

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  106. My Story by gone.fishing · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I fly quite a bit for work and know that for a time I made some sort of list somewhere. Apparently after a while, if you pass enough of their tests you are removed from the list.

    The e-ticket machines would not issue me tickets, telling me that I had to get my tickets at the counter. I was no longer asked if I wanted to upgrade to first class for special price... The boarding agents stuck little colored dots with initials on them on my boarding passes - apparently as cues to people down-stream. It got frustrating that everywhere I went I and my luggage were singled out for special attention. Up to the point where my luggage would not be accepted curbside, My luggage and I would be taken into a little room and searched. In one case, even sealed packages were opened. As I boarded the airplane, I was always one of the passengers called for a random search.

    Durring one of these searches, I mentioned to the agent that I must have made someone's list somewhere. He shook his head up and down as he said "I can't say that sir!" I had my answer and just resigned myself to being watched.

    Then one day, as suddenly as it started, it stopped. My guess is that I satisfied the intellegence built into the database that I was not a threat and it removed me from the list.

    I do not know what I did to make their list nor do I really know what I did to get off of their list. I can tell you it is an unpleasant experience being there.

    As far as I know, I have never done anything anywhere that would cause someone to think of me as a potential terrorist.

    1. Re:My Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you bought a firearm or ammo recently, or applied for a CCW permit you'll make the short list. Kennedy packs heat, but then he's a big time gangsta, ah, that is, Congressman.

    2. Re:My Story by cybermage · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps it's your speech they don't like.

      I sometimes wonder if my posts on the Internet will come back to haunt me someday....

    3. Re:My Story by the_ed_dawg · · Score: 1

      Same thing for my academic advisor. Every time we fly to a conference, we have to show up an extra 45 minutes early to compensate for the additional hassle. At Indianapolis, they were actually nice enough to tell him why he wasn't allowed to get his boarding pass from the e-ticket machine, so at least he knows what's going on. Just like Mr. Kennedy, someone on the no-fly watch list has a similar name, which is really funny because his name is quite uncommon.

      --
      There are two types of people: those prepared for the zombie apocalypse and those who will be eaten.
    4. Re:My Story by jdmuir · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, I have never done anything anywhere that would cause someone to think of me as a potential terrorist.

      Does posting on /. count?

    5. Re:My Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you're flying SWA, you can tell if you're going to get the special treatment by looking for the checkerboard pattern at the bottom of your ticket. The TSA greeter will then mark the ticket with a red 'X', and you'll have to go through the stand-here-sit-here-legs-out-stand-up routine.

    6. Re:My Story by Vasan · · Score: 0
      As far as I know, I have never done anything anywhere that would cause someone to think of me as a potential terrorist.

      Sir, do you or have you ever used Linux in the past?

    7. Re:My Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Congratulations. You have donated many hours of your life to the training of airport security. There aren't many real terrorists out there, so they had to practice on somebody.

    8. Re:My Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All you have to do is stop buying one way tickets, or stop buying your tickets at the last minute. Everytime I or any one I know have done either, I/they have been searched, which doesn't make any sense since terrorists typically will buy their tickets in advance and won't fly on on a one way ticket. So, who are they really trying to check?

      Also make sure when they say "You might want to take off you shoes", you actually do it. Don't be smart and say, "No that's all right, they went through last time", that'll get you flagged big time.

    9. Re:My Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably you bought your tickets in a way that triggered the system. Too many one-way or open-jawed tickets will do that. Too many tickets bought within a few hours of departure will do that too. If you read between the lines on the CNN story too many one-way tickets to D.C. bought just before departure appear to be what got Kennedy on the list. Makes some sense really since most people buy round-trip and at least a couple of days before departure.

    10. Re:My Story by glwtta · · Score: 1
      I do not know what I did to make their list nor do I really know what I did to get off of their list.

      I don't know what the answer to the first part of that question is, but I am guessing that the answer to the second is "Not bombed any planes".

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    11. Re:My Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I fly quite a bit for work and know that for a time I made some sort of list somewhere. Apparently after a while, if you pass enough of their tests you are removed from the list."

      I work with large quantities of nitrate-based fertilizer. My laptop bag is routinely found to have traces of explosives. I have had to explain this so many times, I go to the airport anticipating it.

    12. Re:My Story by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, I have never done anything anywhere that would cause someone to think of me as a potential terrorist.

      Posting to Slashdot perhaps?

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    13. Re:My Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're such an idiot. Anyone can see from looking at the link you point to that that post is only 2 days old. I get the impression from reading his post that he's talking about problems he had for quite some time, not just 48 hours.

      His journals seem pretty apolitical, too

    14. Re:My Story by wfberg · · Score: 1

      All you have to do is stop buying one way tickets, or stop buying your tickets at the last minute.
      Harassing people that buy cheap tickets?
      Making people show ID "for security" so you can't resell the return leg cheaply?

      Sounds more like airline job-security...

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    15. Re:My Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do not know what I did to make their list nor do I really know what I did to get off of their list.

      More than likely, you didn't do anything-- either to get on the list or to get off it. You were probably added to the list because the initial load of the TSA no-fly list used an overly-broad sieve and somebody with a similar name to yours did something that magickally qualifies for special treatment. You were probably removed from the list because somebody fixed the software to be more selective.

      The scary part, of course, is what may have happened to Senator Kennedy. It is quite plausible that his name was added to the no-fly list by somebody trying to make a specific point of hassling the Senator [and everyone who shares his name] because of any number of things he has said in the well of the Senate that has pissed off a lot of wingnuts in federal bureaucracyland.

      If you think the TSA No-Fly List will never be used to punish political opponents of the state security apparatus, then you're beyond help at this point.

    16. Re:My Story by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

      I do not buy one way tickets and usually get my tickets two weeks in advance so those are not the reasons. Also, my employer is listed on the tickets (a large, well known company). We purchase our tickets from a travel agency that only does corporate work and, all of my information is registered so that the transaction is easy.

    17. Re:My Story by gone.fishing · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that. My laptop bag has frequently been swabbed for "explosives" and none have ever been found. My job does sometimes take me to manufacturing plants where the fertilizer is made. But then again, I never take the bag into the plant, just the office. Things are pretty clean in there.

      Just curious - Could we work for the same company?

    18. Re:My Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are such a duck fucking cock gobbler. It was obvious to anyone who doesn't have a steaming pile of excrement inside their skull that he was linking to that post AS AN EXAMPLE, not that the TSA was singling him out for that specific post.

      Fucking idiot.

  107. It was an accident by danuary · · Score: 5, Funny

    For the safety of everyone else, they meant to put him on the no DRIVE list. It was an honest mistake.

  108. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Absoluttt · · Score: 1

    So I'm dying to know which category you are in: Funny Clothes or Dark skin? I've been through that line more than a few times, although I don't think I dress funny and have light skin.

  109. It's not about inconvienience: it's about justice by revscat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My point is that I was marginally inconvenienced, but it was not the end of the world. It cost me maybe 10 minutes of my life. How much of this is that Ted Kennedy doesn't like being treated like the masses?

    Perhaps some. But perhaps some of it is that he has been made aware of how people are being treated, and doesn't like it. I don't either. Are you old enough to remember the Cold War at its height? It was the same kind of crap: band-aid measures typically undertaken out of a knee-jerk reaction to some scare, real or imagined, and it winds up doing little if any good. "Duck and cover", anyone?

    Same thing here. America has gone batshit crazy over terrorism, and needs to settle down. Bringing attention to crap like this is good for us all.

  110. King of Liechtenstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Liechtenstein is a Principallity, you insensitive clod....

    1. Re:King of Liechtenstein by zoefff · · Score: 1

      :)
      From the same organization that gave you the No-Fly List: Information on Liechtenstein.
      In german it is called a Kingdom, but they indeed have (just) a Prince

      Cool info site BTW

    2. Re:King of Liechtenstein by The+Monster · · Score: 1
      In german it is called a Kingdom
      The CIA factbook says "Fuerstentum Liechtenstein" which I've always translated as Principality.

      When I google for "Königreich Liechtenstein" I find no hits other than the juxtaposition of "Vereinigtes Königreich" (United Kingdom) with Liechtenstein in some comparison or other.

      So if someone in the TSA thinks there's a King of Liechtenstein, I can't figure out where they'd get the idea.

      --

      [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
      SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

    3. Re:King of Liechtenstein by zoefff · · Score: 1

      yep your right, it's my lack of language knowledge, not me being from TSA ;)

    4. Re:King of Liechtenstein by zoefff · · Score: 1

      To be more precise: in Dutch 'vorst' can also mean 'King'. It means Fuerst in German, but I don't know if it can have the meaning of King in that language.

    5. Re:King of Liechtenstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      German noble titles (ordered ascending by power):
      German => English
      Ritter => Knight
      Baron => Baron
      Graf => Earl/Count
      Markgraf => Margrave
      Fürst => Prince
      Herzog => Duke
      Grossherzog => Grand Duke
      König => King
      Kaiser => Emperor

      It would be a big step from Fürst to König...

    6. Re:King of Liechtenstein by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

      The CIA factbook says "Fuerstentum Liechtenstein" which I've always translated as Principality.

      Yep. In German, Fuerst = Prince, Fuerstentum = Principality.

      I've been to Liechtenstein and seen the Prince's castle. It's a nice little country, although not that distinguishable from Switzerland, as they use Swiss Post and Swiss currency. At the border there is just a sign beside the road that says "Fuerstentum Liechtenstein".

  111. if the government were open source.... by whovian · · Score: 1

    http://bugzilla.dhs.gov

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  112. If I were a terrorist by gorbachev · · Score: 1

    I would start spreading rumors that terrorist cells have adopted the following aliases:

    John Smith

    George W. Bush
    George Bush
    Ariel Sharon
    Dick Cheney
    Colin Powell
    C. Rice (yea, I can't spell that name)
    etc.

    No, I'm not kidding. From what I can tell from various stories about this no-fly list, it really would cause great havoc to the general public, if popular names would end up on that list. It would likely also make that list largely useless for its intended purpose.

    Any system that flags people as a potential terrorist by the name they use is idiotic, insecure and completely useless.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  113. Ted Kennedy: The Unabomber by 1/137 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So I'm thinking to myself "who's on the list with a name like Ted Kennedy?" Then it hits me: Ted Kacynski.

    --
    My handle breaks slashcode, what does your handle do?
  114. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

    Sounds like an interesting opportunity for a little experimentation. Next time you fly, try wearing different clothing from what you normally do. If you usually wear baggy pants and t-shirts, try normal-fitting jeans and a nice button-down shirt. Try carrying a different piece of luggage.

    I'm not saying you should conform to the TSA's idea of non-threatening style, just that a little experimenting might nail down exactly the sorts of things they're looking for.

    You may know full well why they screen you already, and I don't mean to ask. Could be your name or your skin color or probably several other things that you can't change that I haven't thought of.

  115. Sir, the Test Passed!.... by rben · · Score: 1

    Now we can keep all the opposition politicians from voting against our bills by preventing them from getting to Washington in the first place! We'll just tell them that Tom Ridge is in a meeting with the vice president and can't be located!

    --

    -All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
    www.ra

  116. Could do what tom hanks did.. by trendescape · · Score: 0

    and live in a airport terminal.

    --
    irc.enterthegame.com #linux
  117. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by digerata · · Score: 3, Insightful
    About the racial comment, its not entirely true. I'm caucasian, wear normal clothes, and I've had to go through it 2 out of 5 flights since January.

    Though it is the most frustrating thing to have happen to you. You entire privacy is completely violated and the process solves absolutely no problems.

    The second time it happened to me in the Reno, Nevada airport (which is a freakin horrible airport) they lost my laptop and a $250 watch. How the hell do you do that?

    --

    1;
  118. I'll just be Tom Ridge by wadiwood · · Score: 2, Funny

    before I go flying in the USA, I think I'll change my name to "Tom Ridge", so I won't get hassled...

    --

    -- it must be true, it's on the internet.
  119. Now we know... by scottme · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After all this brouhaha, "Edward Kennedy" should be a pretty good choice of alias for a would-be terrorist hijacker to use, since that name has surely been removed from the No-Fly list.

    1. Re:Now we know... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure an arab gentlemen, checking in as "Edwark Kennedy" wouldn't draw any unwanted attention at al...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  120. Would You Care by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

    Would you care to provide a list of the court dockets detailing the convictions for the crimes you accuse? See, the policy of "innocent until proven guilty" applies equally to everyone, including scummy senators, and the problem here is that someone who did not qualify for the list on legal grounds ended up on the list in error. Sorry, but the only accusation that's ever stood the test of prosecution is plagiarism, and last I checked it's not reasonable to prevent someone from flying for that.

    Sure, Kennedy has been very low-life, but that's not the real issue presented here. The real issue is that someone got on the no-fly list incorrectly, and the question arises as to whether someone in the same position as him but without his influence would be able to correct the error, and whether the error indicates a fundamental flaw in the no-fly list to begin with. Try to stay on target here.

    Virg

  121. Kerry Wins = Payback Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What Ted Kennedy Knows

    "Sorry, Tom, don't know how that new Federal Highway got routed through your house...."

    1. Re:Kerry Wins = Payback Time by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      I am thinking you are kidding, but it is kinda hypocritical to complain about how "they" did it to "us", then recommend that "we" do it back to "them". How can "we" claim to be anything but "them" this way, really?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  122. Is it really a mistake? by danharan · · Score: 1

    If you wanted to show that the average citizen had better stay quiet or risk being fucked with -- and as others have mentionned, if it took Kennedy 3 weeks to get off the list, what are your chances? -- you could scarcely devise a more effective scenario.

    As usual, I'm wondering if we are facing very well thought-out machiavellic plans or sheer ineptitude. And every time I think I have it figured out, they do something else to throw me off.

    --
    Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
  123. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Dracolytch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Reminds me of a funny think my friend Nisa told me (She's from Shri Lanka):

    No matter how late you are for a plane, if you have dark skin, never EVER run through an international airport.

    ~D

    --
    This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
  124. Extremely interesting by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 2, Funny

    If a would-be terrorist/extremist wants to hassle the neocons, that person would just use the names of the lesser known ones as a fake identity and voilà - you'd have angry undersecretaries on airports!

    (Yes I'm a bit childish today - it's Friday for God's sake)

    --

    Stop the brainwash

  125. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats easy, you "lose" the laptop and watch in your car, to be later "lost" at the pawn shop.

  126. Problem Solved! by faqmaster · · Score: 1
    I love their "solution,"
    "Administration of the list clearly needs to be changed and consolidated to be government-managed," TSA spokesman Mark Hatfield said.

    Sure, that's it.
    --
    Are you...Are you some kind of genius?
    No, ma'am, I'm just a regular Slashdot reader.
  127. but people will accept it by zogger · · Score: 1

    think about it, a do not fly list is in effect creating a sub classification of untermenschen, who are treated as non citizens with no rights, automatically. Not charged with a crime, charged for being who they are. When will they be required to wear the official symbol at all times, so that other "real" citizens can avoid them or further persecute them? Didn't we already go through this in ww2? Classifications of humans based on some government list? It's easy to see, too, as soon as any human is referred to in a non standard way that suggest or implies they are "not really human", but different somehow. Why those people over there aren't human, they are monkeys, niggers, so we don't have to treat them like humans. They are slopes, gooks, slants, huns, beaners, japs, filthy injuns, bloody wogs, commies, liberals, ragheads, camel jockeys, unionists, rebels, terrorists, insurgents, persons of interest, or todays favorite "detainees". Nothing like getting "detained" for years or life. Makes it sound so righteous, as soon as you are a detainee your captors can think-say-do anything, because you cease being a human so anything goes. First you need the list, then the de humanising term, then mass feudalistic profit. It was the same 3,000 years ago, 300 years ago, 30 years ago. It's always been that way you untermenschen, obey your "superiors", bow and kneel before them as they are gods walking before you, grovel knave, the bluebloods demand it.

    It's not the main politicians who are pushing these fascist agendas who are at main fault. They are actually small in number and almost pitifully impotent in their own right. If it was *just* them we wouldn't have much problems with it, they could be rubber roomed like any other legitimate nutjob. Nope, it's their nature to be fascist pigs, it's literally bred and inbred and brainwashed into them with their feudalistic backgrounds and inclinations and social structure. It's the legions of bureaucratic drones and brainwashed seig heiling gun toting order followers who implement these fascist decisions masquerading as laws, with no questions asked, who are the enemies of freedom. The biggest flag wavers always turn out to be the ones who *implement* these decisions by the autocrats, using every excuse in the book to justify their blind obedience and order following. They are always the first to implement thoroughly bogus actions, and the last to recognize that what they are doing is wrong.

    Sucks, but there ya go. It's your friends, neighbors, relatives-even this guy "you" who is at fault, because he she them they you or me will "follow orders" that are clearly *wrong*. Pick an excuse, that's all that's needed, one single excuse, poof, totalitarianism reigns, no matter what it's called-communist dictatorship, fascist dictatorship, monarchial dictatorship, etc. That name doesn't matter, and people waste a lot of thought and energy fighting over a stupid name, when it's the actions that are important.

    9-11 was an exact implementation of a reichstagg fire-like event. It was designed to implement a police state, to be used as an excuse to implement things such as this, and others such as the concept of "detainees" and secret military tribunals and internal checkpoints and expanded paramilitary surveillence and command and control. Same old crap with "ohh, new-shiny!" plastered on it. Then all they have to do is mutter "terrorist" or "security" to excuse any actions. And it happens on all the sides involved, I am not picking on any one grouping here, folks all over are just as guilty of it.

    The "why" of it is easy to understand, the worlds elite have always been feudalistic in nature. Very very few are not. And in order for them to be and remain topdogs, they have to create targets so that the vast middle can have anyone but the top to look at as "the enemy", to keep attention focused there, to keep sub groups of serfs willing to remain serfs and to keep them suspicious and fighting with each other while *all* of them are be

  128. relevant bit on NPR yesterday,can be downloaded... by justins · · Score: 4, Interesting

    included a funny little exchange between a woman whose daughter was being prevented from boarding planes and Asa Hutchinson, TSA honcho (and, interestingly, one of the House GOP engineers of the Clinton impeachment). The gist of the story being that after repeated attempts to get her daugher off "the list," she was still on the list. Hutchinson suggested she talk to the TSA ombudsman, which she had evidently already done.

    There were a few other interesting, chilling tidbits regarding homeland security. Fun stuff:
    http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wf Id=38597 56

    --
    Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  129. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by Rahga · · Score: 1

    Well, right or wrong, he was seriously investigated for manslaughter charges in the past. That's enough to make other criminals and thugs on that list to say "Whoa.... Heavy."

  130. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by dave420 · · Score: 2, Informative

    He didn't say everyone in the line was non-white, but that most non-whites go through the list. I have to agree with him. I'm white and I've been through the extra-security rubbish (at LAX a few times), and it sucks. There definitely is racial profiling going on, which is just freakin' stupid, and illegal in the US. But then it's part of the war on terror, so most people forgive it.

  131. He could just drive... by FatherOfONe · · Score: 0, Troll

    But given that he has killed more people in his car than I have with my gun; it is probably better for him to fly.

    I guess it would be safe for him to drive as long as there isn't any water around, and you could keep him off the wagon for a few hours.

    --
    The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
  132. Over-generalizing, Are We? by TheWizardOfCheese · · Score: 1

    My point is that I was marginally inconvenienced, but it was not the end of the world.

    Oh yes, quite! You have not been seriously inconvenienced, and your experience in not being inconvenienced obviously proves that nobody else has a problem either. Those lying elitists!

    --

    "The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
  133. Something I don't understand... by An.+(Coward) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...is why a no-fly list even exists. I don't mean the list where you get pulled aside for extra scrutiny, but the one where they simply will not let you on the plane.

    I'm not aware of anything in particular happening to these people, other than not being allowed to board. And I just don't understand the point of that. If the government considers you too dangerous to be allowed on a plane, then they ought to arrest you, charge you with some terror-related crime, and let a court determine your innocence or guilt.

    Freedom to travel is a long-acknowledged right. If the government can't muster enough evidence on you to justify their actions against you, then they shouldn't be able to interfere with that right.

    1. Re:Something I don't understand... by jcr · · Score: 1

      The list exists, because after the passengers on the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania proved that people are capable of overcoming thirty or more years of "just do what the guys with guns say to do" conditioning, the government was faced with the need to do something IMMEDIATELY to keep people docile and dependent on government for the pretense of safety.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  134. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Lieutenant_Dan · · Score: 1

    Out of curiosity, how did they handle that problem? Did they cover the "lost" items or did you have to use your insurance policy?

    I can relate, even though nothing was actually lost by the screeners, I had an idiot damage my digital video camera once. The hardest thing at the time was to contain my anger and not snap in the airport.

    I did get stuff stolen by baggage handlers in the past though.

    What I find with the airport staff is they seem to hire the most brainless thugs that never were held by their mothers as childs, and seem to have an utter disregard for the people they are supposed to server. The worst in my opinion are the folks working at Fort Myers, followed closely by the people in Chicago. A solid third is Vancouver.

    --
    Wearing pants should always be optional.
  135. Bomb! by dfj225 · · Score: 2, Funny

    My favorite thing at the airport is the sign that tells you what you can't bring on and it has a very cartoon looking bomb on it. That should definetly keep Wiley E. Coyote off of the plane.

    --
    SIGFAULT
  136. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by BlewScreen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think the fact that he was put on the list was politically motivated - but I am wondering why it took three weeks to make the news...

    Did he decide that he wouldn't tell anyone until the issue was resolved? Did the people in the airport not realize it was Ted? I'd have told everyone I know, and an airport usually has enought people in it that SOMEONE would have let a newspaper or TV station know... It happened FIVE times...

    Further, wouldn't this have made a more favorable impact for the D's if the news came out during the DNC? Maybe they wanted to wait until people forgot about the DNC and started thinking about the RNC...

    Or maybe it never really happened...

    </tinfoil>

    -bs

    --
    That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is.
  137. Can a plane really fly with him aboard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet he has to drink those Wonka "Fizzy Lifting Drinks" right before every flight.

  138. A few humble suggestions for the blacklist by gedeco · · Score: 0, Troll

    George W. Bush
    Darl McBride
    All pilots of United Airlines

  139. Let me get this straight... by TyrranzzX · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    A SENATOR, someone who is DEFINATLY NOT a terrorist, as they are an ELECTED official, was put on the NO-FLY list, a list designed to keep TERRORISTS OFF of airplains, was put ONTO the no-fly list, by "Accident".

    ...

    Yea, an "accident". I'd like to know what's going on there.

    1. Re:Let me get this straight... by Zareste · · Score: 1

      If the database of terrorists had any accuracy at all, MOST senators - and the Bush administration - would be smack dab at the top of the list.

      Hey, someone had to say it.

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
  140. Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its funny that if you truely say you are a Muslim and knows the difference between yourself and an Islamist, I would have to question the "troll factor" of your post. Quite frankly, most of those who are labelled "islamists" today are freedom fighters. Sure, there are terrorists who attack our country but those are the same people lumped into those who truely want their freedom like the Palestinians and Chechans. Remember, Geroge Washington and his "goons" were called terrorists more than 200 years ago.

    1. Re:Interesting... by tbjw · · Score: 1

      The issue here is not whether the motives of the people are honest, or pure. Or whether even the methods they adopt are justified or not. The issue is: 'Is it a threat to the safety of the flight to let this person on'.

      And I'm sure anyone who takes a plane would agree with me.

  141. Re:sherpajohn is a racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    umm, maybe the grand-parent was pointing out the apparent racism of the INS officials?

    Name-caller.

  142. Making A Difference, Not Just Noise by MooseByte · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Ok...here's a proposal. [ ... ] How about, instead of mindlessly bashing what they are trying, coming up with something better. Something that won't take decades to bring to fruition [ ... ] Let's try to fix the process, instead of jumping up and down, screaming."

    I fully agree. Another critical angle is to contact your representatives and be heard. Your phone call is actually more powerful than your vote in many ways. Your vote gets the person into/out of office, your phone calls/email/letters gives them direct feedback on specific issues.

    Followup ideas on How To Do It Better to follow shortly, but I've got to knock out a conference call first. Yeah, work. The nerve of them. ;-)

    1. Re:Making A Difference, Not Just Noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone rumors that if you complain about the list you might get added to it?

    2. Re:Making A Difference, Not Just Noise by thetoastman · · Score: 1

      Come on, you really think that these Congress Critters listen at all to what the average person writes about, calls about, or eamils about?

      I've written my senators (both) and my representative. I've put factual information in the letter and added online references to support those facts.

      All it has ever done is get me on their mailing lists (both paper and electronic) so they can trumpet their successes.

      I used to get the typical "thank you, but" letter, but now I don't even get that.

      Face it. Unless you're rich, connected with a powerful lobbying group, or threaten the Congress Critters with a powerful lobbying group, they could care less about you or your concerns.

      Strike that - they probably can't care less about you or your concerns. It doesn't matter what party affiliation the Congress Criter is, either. Doing the right thing and attempting to solve difficult problems is not in their makeup.

      Ambrose Bierce has a good definition.

      POLITICIAN, n.
      An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When he wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.

      And no, I don't have a good solution to either the politicians (probably not possible) or the No Fly List. However, I think the latter (if desired) has a solution.

  143. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Tore+S+B · · Score: 1

    ...although I don't think I dress funny...

    Uh, suuure you don't.

    --
    toresbe
  144. On your planet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On your planet, counter and gate agents always follow the rules. Here on Earth, at least in the USA, they TRY to follow the rules. They are not very bright, they are often under considerable stress, and late planes, down systems, and screaming passengers often keep them from performing at peak. I have FREQUENTLY benefited from their inability to perform even the simplest tasks under duress, but I don't complain about that, now do I.

    Instead, you just hear about times when they followed the letter of the law.

  145. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    No matter how late you are for a plane, if you have dark skin, never EVER run through an international airport.

    Unless your initials are O.J. Then you can get away with murder.

  146. It's a bad 'sounds like' algorithm... by mdemeny · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... looking for 'Haddi Ou-ard Quani-di'

    1. Re:It's a bad 'sounds like' algorithm... by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      You're not far off.

      My database server claims the SOUNDEX values for "Haddiuard Quanidi" and "Edward Kennedy" are equal.

  147. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did you get on the list?

    Have you...
    Tried to pass a weapon through security,
    made a drunken fool of yourself on the plane, carry a banned substance in your bag,
    join up with a terrorist organization?

    If you are on the list and your name isn't Ted then there must be a reason.

  148. Dude by mcc · · Score: 1

    You didn't watch the DNC, did you? I think something like 43% of the American population had spoken at it by the time it was over. It's probably just a coincidence.

  149. The real problem with this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Beyond the civil liberty implications and obvious bureaucratic bungling that seems to have reached new lows lately, you've touched on the real issue.

    While we're spending billions of dollars on a 21st century Maginot line, it has distracted us from what really needs to be done to ensure safety.

    When Ted Kennedy is stopped because he's on a secret list, that's a warning flag. Unfortunately, the guys in charge refuse to look at what's going on and fix the mistakes, so they repeat the same mistakes, hoping for a different result.

    Its almost as if these guys have a pet project that ignores the real world. Its like saying "We need national identity cards!". It ignores the fact that the terrorists on 9/11 had the equivalent of identity cards.

    The system can be gamed, there's no way around this, so these knuckleheads spend billions of bucks hoping it will make the population feel better *without concern for whether it improves actual security*.

    Its this kind of thing that turned me into someone who can no longer support Bush. Its not just that he's stupid, he hires stupid people, and they continuously do stupid things that piss away money, isolate us from the rest of the world, start wars in the middle east and have dont nothing. Zero. NADA to improve actual security.

    With that kind of track record, I'm going to assume that the only people left supporting Bush are either religious nuts or idiots.

    And I'm republican, and I voted for this idiot last time.

  150. Welcome to the new America by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please have your papers ready.

    This will be another 'reason' to move towards tagging people, or doing DNA tracking on *all* citizens: "We have to be sure its you, as we all know documents can be faked"

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Welcome to the new America by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      This will be another 'reason' to move towards tagging people, or doing DNA tracking on *all* citizens: "We have to be sure its you, as we all know documents can be faked"

      The utter rediculousness of this is that we don't know who the terrorists are, so accurate identity cannot possibly be worthwhile. The TSA is trying to figure out how to detect someone who could possibly be a terrorist based on what little we know about the terrorist groups and their membership.

      Who cares what someone's policitical views are, so long as we prevent everyone from being able to take control of the plan or cause harm to the passengers? Block the weapons, ensure the planes have armed security, and you've solve the majority of the problem.

      Besides, we're spending so much effort watching commercial airlines now, why would terrorists try that route? We've been distracted from other lower-profile methods of smuggling destruction. The next attack won't be the same as 9/11.

    2. Re:Welcome to the new America by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      That was meant as sarcasm.... But i would not put it past them using it as a 'reason' to push for DNA/etc.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  151. Re:sherpajohn is a racist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, not Name-caller....Troller.

    Thank you.

  152. Good plan by FurryFeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow. So all terrorists need to do is start using legislator's names as aliases. In no time, Congress will collapse (or laws will be changed).
    I'm only half joking, you know.

  153. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

    With the screen list, they put several big S's on your boarding pass, and then you get shunted into the "extra-thorough" screening line going in. You'll recognize it next time you fly: it's extra long, extra slow, and it's where all the people with dark skin or funny clothes go.

    How did you buy the tickets?

    Last year, while travelling for business, I was sent through the special line 10 times out of 12. It was because
    1. The tickets were booked at the last minute, some the day before the flight.
    2. Since I was travelling to several cities in a row, they were all one way tickets.
    3. The company (a big and powerful one) paid with frequent flier miles accumulated on the corporate account, for business class tickets. Now, you'd think that a ticket linked to a corporate account would breeze me through, but no. I think perhaps these tickets are marked as purchased by "cash"...
    4. Even though I was travelling on business, I had brought along backpacking gear since I expected to get out into the backcountry at every possible moment I wasn't in the office. So I had a big rucksack and camping gear.

    I was never denied entry to the plane, but they searched very well... most of the time. A couple of times the TSA agent began digging through my (well packed) backpack and gave up halway through.

    --
    -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
  154. Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution by Rescate · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 6:

    [...] They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same [...]

    This clause is sometimes put forward by congressmen to try to avoid tickets, since they are "going to and returning from" their sessions. See Sen. Robert Byrd: Invoking an ancient rule to avoid a modern law to find out more.

    1. Re:Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution by abb3w · · Score: 1
      Ding! Yeah, "violation of explicitly declared constitutional privilege" was about the level of "massively illegal" I was thinking of.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    2. Re:Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty open-and-shut case of the TSA clearly violating the constitution. Heads should roll for that one, literally, but of course nothing will come of it. What exactly is the penalty for a government officer, through intent or gross negligence, violating the constitution? How would it be prosecuted? I can't even think of any example of anyone ever getting in real trouble over breaking their oath to uphold the constitution.

  155. So, let me get this straight by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. Andy Anthrax uses the name Bobby Bomber as an alias and this name somehow makes it onto the No Fly List.
    2. Andy turns up at the airport and claims to be Bobby.
    3. The girl at the checkin desk says "I'm sorry, Mr Bomber, your name is on the secret no-fly list. You can wait and see a supervisor, or you can go home and choose another alias next time.".

    The hell? All that happens is that Andy Anthrax finds out that he's on the list? So the next time he books a ticket, it will be as Barry Boxcutter.

    Has anyone in the Department of Homeland 'Security' considered that this scheme is only going to stop innocent people who don't happen to have multiple identities? If we had any confidence in this list, then Senator Kennedy should have found armed agents waiting to take him down the moment he entered the airport. That this didn't happen just highlights that the whole no-fly list is a bad joke that's got way out of hand.

    We need real security, not window dressing. And no, answering "National Security" in response to any criticism of the policy is not a substitute.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:So, let me get this straight by jafac · · Score: 1

      For a demonstration of the effectivness of a No Fly List, see:
      The effectiveness of any Blog's "No Post List".

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  156. Re:It's not about inconvienience: it's about justi by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    Are you old enough to remember the Cold War at its height? It was the same kind of crap:

    Except that this time, instead of a nebulous threat of Soviet ICBM's raining down on us, the "bad guys" are actually blowing things up and purposely targeting civilians.

    America has gone batshit crazy over terrorism, and needs to settle down.

    What do you propose we do instead?

  157. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Delayed? Most were "expedited" to their "final" destinations.

    Yeah, I'm just thrilled about this TSA stuff.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  158. How Slips the Argument by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

    > For example, it would not have been socially acceptable for a woman to wear a gstring bikini in public in the 1930s. However, fasion and social acceptance changed in small increments to the point where it's completely acceptable and normal today.

    This would only generalize the slippery slope argument in the particular case that some social force has been actively trying to get women to wear g-string bikinis since the thirties. The concept of the slippery slope as an argument really requires intent on the part of the force or entity pushing down the slope. It's easy to say everything is a slippery slope if you consider everything from your conclusion to be "uphill" in terms of your argument, but to say that means every slippery slope argument is false for that very reason is itself fallacious, by the fallacy of incorrect association.

    Virg

  159. the real reason by JimFromJersey · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Look this has nothing to do with the TSA, the airline probably told the security people to stop Ted 'I got away with murder' Kennedy from hauling his bloated ass onto the airplane because transporting his disgusting fat-body requires two or three times the fuel of a normal human being. Ask yourself would you want to sit next 300 pounds of alcohol-soaked, chewed bugglegum? Having to apologize to the stewardess everytime Teddy grabbed their ass? Oh and before you lefties start your whining, this has nothing to do with his politics. The man could be anywhere on the political spectrum, he would still be digusting fat-body.

    --
    between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
  160. source is biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all, that source amounts to "someone who wrote in a book that someone told them that they saw this happen 30 years ago." That's hardly a direct, credible source. Furthermore, the whole thing comes from a site that links to the "museum of left wing lunacy" and the "conservative dating network." I hardly expect to find impartial information there.

    Nice try, better luck next time.

    1. Re:source is biased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA HA HA!!!

      As opposed to impartial information on Slashdot?

      OK, Grab your **** and recite the slashdot chant.

      We hate Bush, Kerry is Great, we surrender our will as of this date.

      We hate Bush, Kerry is, well not so bad, we surrender our will as of this date.

      We hate Bush, Kerry is not Bush, we surrender our will as of this date.

  161. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just way until November, when everyone registered as a Democrat is "accidently" put on the list of people barred from voting....

  162. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by whovian · · Score: 1

    Before my first flight under this new "security" screening, I was pulled out of line for several stupid reasons, including an empty plastic water bottle (which they discarded for me) and an untied shoelace. The shoelace prompted them to do a quick wipe of my shoes and bag handles, and led them to "discover" "drugs".

    They got really uppity and starting firing questions rapidly at me as to the possible source of this contamination. After about 3 to 5 rounds with me deliberately responsed slowly -- because I figured they were trying to get me to make a mistake -- they stopped and just recorded my name, address, etc.

    Great. I'm now a person of interest for drug trafficking or who knows what. Woo government.

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  163. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Trifthen · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they "lost" the watch right onto their wrist later that day. As for the Laptop, Who knows.

    --
    Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
  164. Wife looks like "Young Arabic Man" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Insert obvious joke about NJ Governor McGreevey.

    1. Re:Wife looks like "Young Arabic Man" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP 10 McGreevey jokes...

      #10 - the NJ state bird is now the swallow
      #9 - NJ Turnpike is being renamed Hershey Highway
      #8 - NJ raises terror alert level to 'lavender'
      #7 - We know he didn't like Bush, but this is ridiculous
      #6 - Now we know why he enjoyed "polling" so much
      #5 - What do McGreevey and the Isreali Navy have in common? Jewish seaman!
      #4 - NJ DMV will now call rear end accidents "A McGreevey"
      #3 - Gives new meaning to stuffing the ballot box
      #2 - NY Post headline... McGreevey goes down
      #1 - It shouldn't take McGreevey long to get out of the governor's
      mansion.... he's already got his shit packed!!

  165. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, maybe if he'd responded to that offer to donate to one of the GOP PACs, he'd have gotten better service.

    But seriously, I think the staff who were screening deserve commendation for following procedure, even though I think the no-fly list is a crock. If you want to break a bad process, use it.

  166. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by dunc78 · · Score: 1

    Give me a break, of course the conservatives did this because they love the negative publicity they would have to know it would bring. This being modded to the point of interesting is rediculous, all it is is an easy jab against the Bush administration. Most conspiracy theories are rediculous, but this one may take the cake. Maybe, just maybe, there is a way to explain how besides the ever so popular way of bashing the Bush administration. I have no idea how the list works, but maybe it formulates risk based on conditions that include driving records (don't know why it would, unless the had they made the criterion exactly to stop Ted Kennedy from flying!!)

  167. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may not be you on the list, but rather your name. Does seem a bit odd that a persons name would be a primary discriminator to getting on the list though, but with all the privacy concerns, I guess that may be all they can put.

  168. It's just as stupid ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Seriously, where the hell do people get ideas like this. Obviouslyhe set himself up as a publicity stunt......oh wait.....HE HAS NO CONTROL OVER THIS LIST. Yep, you're just another one of those fools who for some reason don't want to believe that the current administraion could EVER mess up even when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    It's just as stupid to believe that Bush deliberately targeted him for being a liberal democrat. What on earth would that accomplish that would be worth the risk of doing something so obvious and ready to backfire?

    1. Re:It's just as stupid ... by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      It's just as stupid to believe that Bush deliberately targeted him for being a liberal democrat. What on earth would that accomplish that would be worth the risk of doing something so obvious and ready to backfire?

      That's not true. I'm not trying to claim that this is necessarily what has happened, BUT AT LEAST IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE for Bush to get Kennedy on the list.

      Even though it would have been a stupid thing for Bush to do, it's at least a possibility, unlike Kennedy getting himself on the list. It also wouldn't be the first time this admistration did something stupid. They're not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer. "Mission accomplished" anyone?

      I think that it's unlikely, but should be investigted.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    2. Re:It's just as stupid ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Even though it would have been a stupid thing for Bush to do, it's at least a possibility, unlike Kennedy getting himself on the list.

      I suppose that anything is possible - I'm still baffled at what the goal would be. He can use the family money to charter a private plane anytime he wants, so I doubt that he could even be significantly slowed in getting anywhere. And however effective he might be at speaking to the party faithful, I don't think that the Bush administration is exactly quaking in their boots that he might get somewhere on time and speak.

      He quite clearly *is* using his random match as a publicity stunt, though I agree with you that I don't see how he could have set it up.

    3. Re:It's just as stupid ... by Tassach · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It's just as stupid to believe that Bush deliberately targeted him for being a liberal democrat
      Yeah, and it was just as stupid to believe that Nixon ordered his goons to break into the Democratic National Comittee's headquarters and steal documents. Oh wait, that REALLY HAPPENED.

      You think that your St. George is any less likely than Nixon to abuse the power of the Presidency? I'll give you three guesses who Bush Sr's political mentor and patron was. Here's a hint: he came from Yorba Linda and had a dog named Checkers.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    4. Re:It's just as stupid ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and it was just as stupid to believe that Nixon ordered his goons to break into the Democratic National Comittee's headquarters and steal documents. Oh wait, that REALLY HAPPENED.

      That Nixon ordered them to? I must have missed that memo.

      Nixon's goons at least had a goal in mind. What, exactly, would setting up a pattern match for Ted accomplish? Force him to charter flights? Slow him down from reaching one destination, until he catches on? I hate to break it to you, but Ted Kennedy showing up somewhere doesn't really strike fear into the hearts of Republicans. I'm at a loss to see what possible hoped for gain would outweigh the obvious risk.

    5. Re:It's just as stupid ... by Tassach · · Score: 1
      That Nixon ordered them to? I must have missed that memo
      What do you think was discussed during that famous erased portion of the relevant tape? You think Nixon was telling Liddy his grandmother's super-secret recipie for chocolate chip cookies and didn't want anyone else to know it?
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  169. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by justins · · Score: 1
    The second time it happened to me in the Reno, Nevada airport (which is a freakin horrible airport) they lost my laptop and a $250 watch. How the hell do you do that?

    You accidently drop them in a... local pawn shop, I suspect.
    --
    Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  170. GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT FIRST. by Shivetya · · Score: 0, Troll

    Bill Clinton was impeached BECAUSE HE LIED UNDER OATH.

    It does not matter what he lied about, the key issue was that he LIED UNDER OATH.

    Dismissing it because of the reason for his lie dilutes the respect for law. It is a dangerous path to follow.

    Simply put, if we can excuse lieing under oath because on one reason who is to decide that the next reason used is any less valid?

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT FIRST. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LIED UNDER OATH.

      So is that a high crime or a misdemeanor?

  171. Re:It's not about inconvienience: it's about justi by revscat · · Score: 1

    What do you propose we do instead?

    I dunno, maybe do things that make *fewer* people want to kill every single one of us? Not target civilians? Keep our promises when funding AIDS relief efforts, help stablize African economies, not torture people and then pretend it was just a few reservists, not invade countries for no good reason, etc., etc. Oh, and bitchslap Israel occasionally, too. That'd be nice.

    You know: be liberal.

  172. Re:Wrong again! parent not flambait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is not 'flamebait'! the poster has a very valid point. if canada was not so relaxed about who they let in, there would be one less potential vector for terrorists trying to get into the US.

    if canada is not concerned about those entering their borders (and maybe they need not be, especially if the targets of these terrorists is the US), then it is up to the US to stop them.

  173. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by mark-t · · Score: 1
    ... although I don't think I dress funny ...
    What kind of nerd can you call yourself if you don't dress funny?
  174. Re:It's not about inconvienience: it's about justi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I propose we do NOTHING. Pull the troops home, fuggitaboutit.

    Realistically very few people are hurt/killed in terrorist attacks. Essentially almost none. We're talking Bee-sting and shark attack level fatalities rates here people! Do we need to do ANYTHING? Ignoring it is arguably the best thing to be done in this situation. Of course nothing is actually what is being done. Yeah! Now fucked up sexually repressed american women get the exhibitionist thrill of maybe being strip searched at the airport. Wonderful actions, that are sure to be very productive in thwarting terrorism.

  175. Re:the real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh and before you lefties start your whining, this has nothing to do with his politics.

    So you clearly feel the same way about the drug-addled liposuction wastebag Rush Limbaugh and his vomit-inducing brother David, right?

    Rrrrrrright.

  176. Pratical Joke by concordeonetwo · · Score: 1

    For some reason, it seems this would be funnier if this was a pratical joke by President Bush...

    1. Re:Pratical Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think it wasn't?

  177. Re:the real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah? Well Rush Limbaugh is fat too! Take that JimFromJersey! Yeah!

  178. what a load.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lest you forget that the real crime regarding Clinton and Lewinsky, was that he LIED about this in court regarding a sexual harrassment claim.

    I don't care which party the President is affiliated with, if he LIES in court, I want him GONE. But I guess that depends on what the definition of GONE is.

  179. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by katre · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh, I'm caucasian too. My wife, however, is not. And we've definitely noticed that while I'm not the only white guy in the screening line, there aren't many of us.

  180. No story here. by bannerman · · Score: 1

    Look, it's not like they didn't let him fly. They just made him wait until a supervisor with the authority to give him a bording pass arrived on the scene. I'm glad they're giving equal treatment to average joes and to important people alike. So, a few people are going to get hassled at the airport. It happens. You'll live, most likely.

    --
    I keep forgetting my place. Jesus is for losers. Why do I still play to the crowd?
  181. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent says: Hm, sounds like something that they implemented back in the 1930s in Germany. I don't recall how exactly that separation tactic worked. I'm sure no one was hurt by it, only delayed in their travels.

    Mods, how on earth can you moderate a statement like this as funny? If I were a US citizen, this would make my blood freeze. Mod it as insightful, maybe that will make US voters think about the truth in this statement.

  182. to some people... by lost+sheep · · Score: 1

    I'm sure this is proof the system is working.

    --
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lost Sheep to Shepard, you got your ears on?
  183. I know a guy by JediLuke · · Score: 1, Insightful

    who has to carry a letter around when he flies because of this. While i understand that we are in danger from terrorists, it's unfortunate that our own citizens cannot travel about their country without "papers".

    "Papers mein herren"
    "here you go, heil Bush"*

    *sorry for the bad german!

    --

    JediLuke
    -Do or Do Not, There is no Try
    1. Re:I know a guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      love it when the right wing gets mod points.

    2. Re:I know a guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you've done it. Your name will be added to the "no fly" list shortly.

  184. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by katre · · Score: 1

    Sadly, that's exactly it, I did join up with a terrorist organization.

    You see, I'm muslim. And we must all be bad, right?

  185. Moderator's are on drugs again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why was that marked "-1, Flamebait?" Lax Canadian customs *is* the reason the US has to be more thorough at the Canadian border.

    Damn moderators, start thinking before acting.

  186. U R Wrong about 1 point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ted Kennedy did run for president in '80, but lost the nomination.

  187. wrong list by httpoet · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think they meant to put him on the no-drive list.

  188. 1. Make vague statement. 2. ??? 3. Point made! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    For starters, wake up the fact that the Constitution no longer exists in America for ordinary citizens.
    The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

    This may be hard for you to believe while you're mired in anecdotal evidence, but there are millions of "ordinary citizens" exercising their Constitutional rights every day -- speaking their minds, worshipping how they please, etc -- without needing special permission from the Government. Even more astounding may be the fact that they aren't thinking twice about it, nor do they consider their lives to be more dreary and 1984ish since 9/11.

    But hey, I don't want to rain on your parade! After all, fear sells!
  189. It actually happened to Adm. Rickover by SysKoll · · Score: 1

    According to the book "Dark Waters" (a book about the cold-war nuclear mini-sub NR-1), an incident of this sort really happened to Admiral Rickover, the colorful and fearsome head of the US Navy nuclear submarine program.

    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    1. Re:It actually happened to Adm. Rickover by jon787 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I read about that in a different book.

      IIRC Rickover also refused to sign one of the papers he technically needed to get a security clearence or something.

      --
      X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
  190. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by bryanp · · Score: 1

    Well, you probably shouldn't use the bag you normally carry your pot in as a carryon. ^_~

    Me, I learned a similar lesson - it's a bad idea to re-pack my range bag as a carryon. Residual gunpowder can show up on those little testers. And while it didn't happen I kept thinking "What if I missed a loose round of ammo and it's lying in some crevice of the bag awaiting discovery?"

    --
    "An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
  191. with apologies to the original. by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

    First they came for the Democratic senators, and I didn't speak out because I was not a Democratic senator...

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  192. Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "did you have to use your insurance policy?"

    If you use your homeowners policy for "trivial" matters, you will get cancelled. There is a minor crisis going on related to homeowner's insurance. Google for it.

    1. Re:Bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you use your homeowner's policy for anything two to three times within three years, you will most likely get cancelled. The fact of the matter is, homeowner's insurance doesn't make the insurance company a lot of money because they have to keep premiums down to compete, and stuff costs a lot more than it used to cost. It's either this, or the health insurance crisis where prices go up and therefore premiums go up.

  193. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by Archimonde · · Score: 1

    You've got Liberal Democrats in the Senate?

    Wow, I'm impressed ;)

    --
    Trolls are like broken clocks. They show the truth two times a day. The rest of the day they talk nonsense.
  194. Re: Florida voter registration records by gorbachev · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's just say that even though I think the circumstances are highly suspect, I still doubt republicans would go that far.

    If they really did that on purpose, I'm sure it's several felony counts, one per every voter removed that wasn't supposed to.

    Too bad we will never find out, since nobody, but the "unpatriotic" are interested in reporting or hearing about it.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  195. Mod parent to interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'll bet that no-one named Bin Laden is having any trouble getting on a flight. Heck, when I was stranded trying to get a flight home after Sept 11, 2001, a bunch of these folks had grabbed a plane out of the country.

    1. Re:Mod parent to interesting. by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 0, Troll

      With the help of the Bush Administration no less.

      No, at this point in the history of the world, I do not think this was some king of bug or mistake. At some point they are going to start doing this to anybody they think is a Democrat or a liberal or just a non-creationist. Don't believe me? Just vote for the bastards again.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    2. Re:Mod parent to interesting. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1, Insightful

      At some point they are going to start doing this to anybody they think is a Democrat or a liberal or just a non-creationist.

      You mean like Democrats have done since at least the post-Civil-War Reconstruction? (Most recent example I recall: feloniously "losing" California voter-registration-drive forms for anyone not signing on with any other party. But I could go on for pages, with 1 1/2 centuries to mine.)

      THE most classic technique of propaganda is to accuse ones opponent of one's own most glaring faults. Especially the sins that one's side commits systematically and one's opponent's side tries to avoid.

      It shorts their opponents out when they try to point out when the propagandists' side does something wrong, making it look like a playground "no, HE did it" spat. And it gives the propagandists a golden opportunity to score points and propagate the story further whenever one of the other side DOES screw up, or even does something that can be spun to look that way.

      But, despite my understanding of the dumbing-down of the population by the public schools and establishment media, it never ceases to amaze me how many allegedly intelligent people contiue to fall for and propagate these memes.

      The allmighty GALL!

      But keep it up, anyhow. Especially on the "internal security" insanity. That is a VERY powerful tool for anyone who WOULD deliberately and systematically misuse it in such a fashion. I really want to see that dismantled before the next time a Democrat is in the White House.

      You KNOW they'll use it that way. Because they're already talking about the possibilities.

      Those who do not understand history are doomed to rhyme.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:Mod parent to interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With the help of the Bush Administration no less.

      You mean with the help of leftwing idol Richard Clarke (he admits that the approval for the flight was his and his alone). In despite the claims of Michael Moore, the flight did not occur until several days after 9/11 AFTER the FAA had ended the grounding of all commercial flights.

    4. Re:Mod parent to interesting. by citabjockey · · Score: 1

      Why would Mr Clark even be asked about having the aircraft takeoff if higher ups did not wish this to happen?
      Allowing the Bin Ladens to leave without having been interviewed by the FBI was a horrendous mistake. One of many by the Bush (league) white house.

    5. Re:Mod parent to interesting. by La0tsu · · Score: 1

      Start rhyming, because your grasp on history leaves something to be desired. Reconstruction was a Republican program. It was misused at times, with Democrats being the ones on the short end of the stick.

      And then there's the McCarthy era, also one of Republican excesses. Ditto the Nixon years, when they used the CIA to spy on american citizens.

      I don't wish to imply that Democrats, or liberals, are blameless. In fact, during the reconstruction era, the Republican party was the liberal party. That didn't really start to change until the TR years.

      However, I think the main point is that you are quite misguided if you think the GOP is less likely to misuse power than the Democrats.

    6. Re:Mod parent to interesting. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please don't put emphasis on words by typing in caps. We don't need to hear your annoying cadence in our heads. I'm not disagreeing with what you wrote, but the actual writing makes me angry

    7. Re:Mod parent to interesting. by mr_e_cat · · Score: 1

      You mean like Democrats have done since at least the post-Civil-War Reconstruction? (Most recent example I recall: feloniously "losing" California voter-registration-drive forms for anyone not signing on with any other party. But I could go on for pages, with 1 1/2 centuries to mine.)

      Well, we only have to mention the Florida "felons" who were denied the right to vote in 2000 and will again be denied this year.

      Both sides are equally guilty, and if there is one rhyme that repeats itself, it is that democracy is not taken seriously in this country.
      One day that attitude will bite us in the ass big time.

  196. You know you're screwed when... by SysKoll · · Score: 1
    Quoteth the article: "Administration of the list clearly needs to be changed and consolidated to be government-managed," Hatfield said.

    The government-run TSA will certainly benefit (read porkbarrel) from more government management. However, more Federal inefficiency and centralized mishandling will certainly not fix the inherently broken No-Fly list system.

    Meanwhile, we passengers are screwed.

    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  197. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the one thing Bush did NOT do was stand by his word.

    Sure he stood by the resolution. But he also claimed that he would ask for a second vote regarding the invasion of Iraq, regardless of how the vote was going to turn out.

    He withdrew the request for the second vote.

    1. Re:Actually... by intnsred · · Score: 1

      the one thing Bush did NOT do was stand by his word. Sure he stood by the resolution.

      I don't mean to pick nits, but Bush is a liar all the way around; he did not stand by the resolution.

      In the UN Security Council resolution on Iraqi WMD before the war, the US did not specify the use of force -- Russia and/or France would have vetoed it.

      The US gov't also thought it was important that the UN Security Council be in unanimous support of the resolution, so the US gov't had to get Syria (then a non-permanent member of the Security Council) on board too. Syria was adamant about no use of force.

      So the US draft resolution was modified removing the US desire to use force. This modified resolution passed unanimously.

      Immediately after its passage the US liars started claiming that the resolution gave them the "right" to use force. Bush lied again.

  198. I always thought he looked shifty... by crovira · · Score: 1

    I never trusted anybody who doesn't have a real job.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  199. Re:kennedy driving? by wljones · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm just sorry he missed the Boston to Washington flight that landed in Pennsylvania.

  200. Careful with the Marc Rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ol' Libby (Cheney's chief-of-staff) was Rich's attorney, drew up the pardon papers, personally called Rich when he was pardoned and has stated, under oath, that he believed that Rich was not guilty.

  201. Big Difference by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The difference between George Washington and the crazy Islamists today is that G. Washington didn't have his friends in other countries blowing up buildings and killing innocent people far from the fighting. I don't rememember Thomas Jefferson saying it was ok to take the war to the civilians back in Britan or France or kidnap Britsh merchants and cut thier heads off as a 'message to others.'

    You cannot make this comparison logically. The war we are fighing now is against people who are obsessed with destroying our way of life. It is not a war for 'independence' or 'freedom.'

    By the way, the last thing the Palistinians want is peace. Their entire political and social system is built on hate for the Israelis the and goal of destruction of the State of Israel.
    There is something truely perverse about sending your children out to blow themselves up.
    Good try, but nothing about this is like George Wahshington and his 'goons'.

    --
    There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    1. Re:Big Difference by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      So what's the difference between George Washington and the non crazy Islamists ?

      Also I am fairly sure the Americans attacked Scarborough at some point during the war with the intention of destroying the Baltic merchant fleet.

    2. Re:Big Difference by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do seem to recall something about issuing papers to privateers for the specific purpose of harrassing the British fleet. And I'm sure if George had had the opportunity he would have carried the war to Britain itself. Somehow, the Battle of Trenton doesn't impress me as a standard military operation. I mean, attacking the enemy on Christmas Day when they were drunk as a skunk? Is this your idea of the proper rules of engagement?

      "You cannot make this comparison logically. The war we are fighing now is against people who are obsessed with destroying our way of life. It is not a war for 'independence' or 'freedom.'"

      You, Sir, have been watching too much Faux News. These guys couldn't care less about our way of life, except to the extent that it requires us to steal their oil to keep it operating.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    3. Re:Big Difference by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      It is not a war for 'independence' or 'freedom.'

      Yes it is. Have you even READ what Bin Laden wants? He wants Saudi Arabia to be freed of US military control.
      George W Bush has propagated the "destroy our way of life" lie. One can't win a war without learning the enemy's objective.

      By the way, the last thing the Palistinians want is peace.

      Both sides want peace. The peace that comes when the other side is completely gone (either dead, or no longer trying to re-enter the region). The Zionists can't kill the Arabs, because that'd cause trouble with the USA/Europe/Pakistan. (Pakistan would and could kill ALL Israelites in retaliation) The "Palestinians" can't kill the Zionists because the USA has given them too much defensive weaponry.

    4. Re:Big Difference by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By the way, the last thing the Palistinians want is peace.

      I think you really should draw a distinction between Palestinians in general, and their nominal leaders. Sure, if the war ended tomorrow, Arafat would suddenly have to account for a couple of billion in embezzled funds, and sharia law is pretty clear on what happens to thieves, but I'd expect most ordinary Palestinians would much rather see an end to the whole fracas.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    5. Re:Big Difference by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have you even READ what Bin Laden wants? He wants Saudi Arabia to be freed of US military control.

      There's a bit more to it than that. He also wants to impose a global theocracy, starting with all the muslim countries. As far as I'm concerned, that's destroying *my* way of life.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:Big Difference by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      I heard that bin Laden is on the board of some or many defense contractors. He supposedly has NOT been removed.

      If this is true, then it means a WHOOOLLLE lot of people, from the cadge/cabal in the WH all the way down to various defense contractors are in cahoots.

      Apparently, OBL is able to hide and survive because maybe he simply owns way too many people who need him a live. Once he's bombed, and assuming no martyrs will surface, then the hunt will effectively wither until someone else purportedly or actually as menacing steps up to be chased by Predators, Raptors, Vipers, Tomahawks, and more.

      Moreover, (some in) the Military, until recently, (have) has been standing in line, probably like guys in an eff-fest, just itching for an opportunity to 'expend' all that 'ordnance'. Until Afghanistan and Iraq, lots of missiles and shells have just been in bunkers, on rail cars, or in missile silos aboard ship, or rotating from CVN to AEs etc, unused, unexploded.

      There's nothing like firing off real salvos, and unfortunately, war or ass-blasting seem to be akin to intramurals -- ass-kicking in great or grand fashion.

      So, if anybody knows on what boards OBL might really sit, and if he's not been ejected, and if his money's not been frozen, the I'll guess that he's needed to be alive to keep ordnance manufacture rolling along.

      Pessimistic? Far-fetched?

      David Syes

      (Linux... Part of increasingly more businesses' daily diets.. Make it part of yours...)

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    7. Re:Big Difference by krewemaynard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These guys couldn't care less about our way of life, except to the extent that it requires us to steal their oil to keep it operating.

      steal the oil? are you f***in kidding me? have you BEEN to a gas station lately? have you seen the price for one barrel of oil nowadays (nearly $50)? there's no way that these middle-eastern countries want us to leave....we're funding them! the terrorists, however, just want us dead. period. you think they wouldn't blow up moveon.org convention just as quick as they would a pro-war group? they don't care. deal.

      --
      I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
    8. Re:Big Difference by wnstitw · · Score: 1

      By the way, the last thing the Palistinians want is peace. Their entire political and social system is built on hate for the Israelis the and goal of destruction of the State of Israel. There is something truely perverse about sending your children out to blow themselves up. your brilliant assessment of the situation and analysis of people's psyches is awe-inspiring. extreme poverty, homelessness, destruction, death predisposes (to put it mildly) people to hate and religious extrimism. The war we are fighing now is against people who are obsessed with destroying our way of life. It is not a war for 'independence' or 'freedom.' oh wow. the american propaganda machine of today really is impressive. back on topic, im sure it was just a "glitch", a "bug" that the prominent edward kennedy was held up. just an unfortunate coincidence that one of the most vocal, left-leaning democrats in the senate was inconvenienced repeatedly. (although i concede, given the extensive beurocracy its not entirely impossible)

    9. Re:Big Difference by conradp · · Score: 1

      So what's the difference between George Washington and the non crazy Islamists ?

      The primary and indeed only important difference between the two is that George Washington won, but the Islamists will lose.

      History is written by the winners.

      --
      "To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
    10. Re:Big Difference by sean.peters · · Score: 2, Informative
      I do seem to recall something about issuing papers to privateers for the specific purpose of harrassing the British fleet.

      These were known as "letters of marque", and although they're not considered legal under current laws of armed conflict, they were completely acceptable in those days.

      I mean, attacking the enemy on Christmas Day when they were drunk as a skunk? Is this your idea of the proper rules of engagement?

      Absolutely. War isn't a game, and if you let down your guard (by getting drunk on the battlefield), you have no right to ask the enemy to wait until you're better prepared.

      Sean

    11. Re:Big Difference by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --The difference between George Washington and the crazy Islamists today is that G. Washington didn't have his friends in other countries blowing up buildings and killing innocent people far from the fighting. I don't rememember Thomas Jefferson saying it was ok to take the war to the civilians back in Britan or France or kidnap Britsh merchants and cut thier heads off as a 'message to others.'--

      But maybe, I don't know that we should have went to war with them over this. I think a much cheaper and effective idea would be to set up some secret assination sqauds to take out the planners. If they can hit us anywhere, why can't we do the same to them without sending in an entire army.

    12. Re:Big Difference by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      I don't rememember Thomas Jefferson saying it was ok to bypass the legal system by setting up prison camps in Cuba and denying innocent people access to a lawyer either.

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    13. Re:Big Difference by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1

      Please don't compare the current incompetent American Administration with Thomas Jefferson. I am sure he is rolling over in his grave at the state of American rights and liberties today.

      --
      There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
    14. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorists don't get squat. However, big oil companies, all of which are american are getting big time money, as are their cronies in the american and middle eastern governments.

    15. Re:Big Difference by hkhanna · · Score: 1

      VThe war we are fighing now is against people who are obsessed with destroying our way of life. It is not a war for 'independence' or 'freedom.'

      Yes, because they are 'evil' and have no capability of rational thought. You, my friend, are a victim of George Bush propaganda.

      --

      Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
    16. Re:Big Difference by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Their entire political and social system is built on hate for the Israelis the and goal of destruction of the State of Israel.

      And the Israelis would like nothing better than to wipe the Palestinians from the face of the Earth. The hatred flows both ways here.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    17. Re:Big Difference by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      And you, sir, have been reading too many made-up stories in the New York Times.

    18. Re:Big Difference by rickbrodie · · Score: 1
      I don't rememember Thomas Jefferson saying it was ok to take the war to the civilians back in Britan or France or kidnap Britsh merchants and cut thier heads off as a 'message to others.'
      I don't think so. The idea of a war is to win, not to be a gentleman. If one were to find oneself in a war (and nobody does, it takes two to tango), one would do absolutely whatever it took to win, losing would be unthinkable. However enlightened and advanced a culture might be, once it's at war it will fight as dirtily as is required to win, because a moral victory is simply not good enough.
    19. Re:Big Difference by jmccay · · Score: 1

      Do you know anything? Or do you plan on just spewing the lies of the liberals?

      Yes it is. Have you even READ what Bin Laden wants? He wants Saudi Arabia to be freed of US military control.
      George W Bush has propagated the "destroy our way of life" lie. One can't win a war without learning the enemy's objective.


      Bin Laden, like a lot of Islamic terrorists, want all the world to be Islamic states with Islam controling all of your life.

      Both sides want peace. The peace that comes when the other side is completely gone (either dead, or no longer trying to re-enter the region).

      That is simply not true. Palestinians don't want peace. They continue to blow up inocent people whose only crime is getting on a bus or going out to eat. Until that stops, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

      The Zionists can't kill the Arabs, because that'd cause trouble with the USA/Europe/Pakistan. (Pakistan would and could kill ALL Israelites in retaliation) The "Palestinians" can't kill the Zionists because the USA has given them too much defensive weaponry.

      This is Islamic propaganda. The fact that you use the word Zionists proves it. Pakistan cannot stand up to Isreal! Isreal is only doing what Europeans, and Americans, would do in similar circumstances! They are defending their people. How would you like to go get a pizza only to get blown up?!?
      Isreal is not occupying Palestian land because there never was any country called Palestine! It is as simple as that. Isreal's neighbors use that line to assist in trying to extreminate Isrealies!
      People just don't get it. Isreal doesn't care what any country thinks. The US is the only thing holding them back from defending themselves completely. Isreals listens to the US somewhat, but why should they listen to Europe? There is a lot of hostility towards Jews and Isreal in Europe--especially in France!

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    20. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're joking, you definately have a very narrow minded view on the rest of the planet.
      Go read some (good) books.

    21. Re:Big Difference by rickbrodie · · Score: 1

      Just because it was "legal" than, but "illegal" now did not make it any more acceptable then.

    22. Re:Big Difference by ShinmaWa · · Score: 2, Informative

      *sigh* Take off the tinfoil hat, for Pete's sake. Your brain is beginning to cook.

      I heard that bin Laden is on the board of some or many defense contractors. He supposedly has NOT been removed.

      That would have been MOHAMED bin Laden. He's the former head of the Bin Laden Group, an international construction conglomerate that has large corporate interests in many different industries. He is no longer on the board of any company, since he has passed away.

      Mohamed was Osama's father, but there was no great love between them. Mohamed disowned his son decades ago and helped pressure the Saudi royals to yank his Saudi citizenship. The etire family has turned its back on their most famous member because he's a serious embarassment to them and very, very bad for their business. Mind you, the bin Laden family is quite rich and very happy with the status quo in Saudi Arabia. The absolute last thing Mohamed's family wants is the idiology that Osama promotes.

      --
      The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.
    23. Re:Big Difference by rickbrodie · · Score: 1
      Bin Laden, like a lot of Islamic terrorists, want all the world to be Islamic states with Islam controling all of your life.
      "Bin Laden" >> "Bush"

      "Islamic terrorists" >> "Western Leaders"

      "Islamic states" >> "Western Style Democracies"

      "Islam" >> "Capitalism"

      Hmmmmm...

    24. Re:Big Difference by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      That IS a big difference, and yields a big WHEW, RELIEF!

      I thank you for at least responding. My tinfoil probably was charred. I was fed erroneous information, but it seems you have set me in the right direction.

      Thanks!

      David Syes

      (Linux... Part of increasingly more busineesses' daily diet... Make it part of yours...)

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    25. Re:Big Difference by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Isreal ? Where is that exactly ?

      I seriously doubt you have ever been to France and witnessed this hatred of Isreal first hand but if you have in fact been there the French were probably just taking the piss out of your stupidity and winding you up.

    26. Re:Big Difference by jmccay · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      You, Sir, have been watching too much Faux News. These guys couldn't care less about our way of life, except to the extent that it requires us to steal their oil to keep it operating.


      If you watched more Fox News and/or listened to Conservative talk radio more, you'd know that it's the liberals that are trying to destroy our way of life. You should read the Drudge Report. You might be awakened from your liberal brain washing! From the site:
      Kerry's campaign announced it had 'filed a legal complaint against Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for violating the law with inaccurate ads that are illegally coordinated with the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign'

      This is just the tip of the iceberg! The DNC (Democractic National Committee--the Democratic party) has sent legal letters threatening lawsuits against any TV stations who play the Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry TV add!!! They are attempting to suppress the American publics write to free speech. Key top Democrats have also sent letters to bookstores, like Barnes N Noble, suggesting they remove the book Unfit for COmmand (see here and here for more information). Just try and go into a Barnes N Noble and buy the book. The bookstores near my town have been "out of" the book for four weeks--mean while they have plenty of copies of the Bush bashing books.

      You liberals will say anything to make people believe you even if it is all a pack of lies! John Kerry can prove these people are wrong by releasing his ENTIRE military records like he, and other Democrats, demanded of President Bush, but he will not release all of his record because he knows that it would prove that he is a liar! He has admitted to committing war crimes. That alone should disqualify him from becoming President!
      I know I will get modded down for this, but I am sick of you liberal geeks whining! You complain about losing free speech. You say you are fighting against those that would take away free speach, but you are not. You are nothing but a bunch of whining geeks who have no idea that you have been brainwashed. It is worth it if I get modded down!
      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    27. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously, you haven't paid attention to the news about the rise in anti-Semitism in France.

    28. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You, Sir, have been watching too much Faux News. These guys couldn't care less about our way of life, except to the extent that it requires us to steal their oil to keep it operating.

      Apparently you are unfamiliar with the demands of the Islamist terrorists. Here is an extract of Bin Laden's letter to America in which he lists his demands. You might notice that most of them, for better or worse, are contrary to life in America today. If the United States were to convert to Islam as a whole, abolish the separation of Church and state, drop the Constitution for Sharia law, stop charging interest on bank loans, stop the production and sale of alcohol, drugs and pornography, stoned adulterers (President Clinton is mentioned for his immorality and lack of punishment), stood idly by while the Arabs completed genocide against the Jews, etc., we would be on the road to winning their approval and they might stop attacking us. Otherwise, there isn't much hope.

      (Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

      (1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.
      (2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

      (a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

      We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

      (b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

      (i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

      (ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

      (iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

      (iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

      Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?

      (v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminal

    29. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The difference between George Washington and the crazy Islamists today is that G. Washington didn't have his friends in other countries blowing up buildings and killing innocent people far from the fighting.

      Maybe a better comparison is George Bush instead of George Washington. GW certainly does have people blowing up buildings and killing innocents. Did you know that 11 THOUSAND Iraqi civillians have died because of the Iraq war?
      http://iraqbodycount.net

      Were those 11 thousand people obsessed with "destroying our way of life?".

      I don't know about you, but if some foriegn power invaded the USA and killed that many people, I'd fight back as well. We act as if we had some "right" to invade. Do you think the Iraqi people see us as "liberators"? Do you think they'll be more or less likely to commit acts of terrorism now that we've killed that many people, burned their buildings, and disrupted their way of life?

      Some folks have no perspective. You should try traveling outside the USA sometime. There are other contries in the world, and the people living in those countries are just as human as you.

    30. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking retard.

    31. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a lot of similarities. Destroying piplines in Iraq is the equivalent of the Boston Tea Party.

      Also you seem to be overlooking the tiny fact that the Palestinians have been living in a state occupied by a hostile military force for decades. That and the roughly 3 million Palestinian refugees living in refugee camps for the last several decades seems to be driving some people to desperation. Go figure.

    32. Re:Big Difference by subtropolis · · Score: 2

      > people who are obsessed with destroying our way of life
      i was with you up to that. Look, new york and washington were not attacked because they "hate our way of life". Not specifically. Bin Laden was pissed that the us military presence in their area had become massive. Among other things, he saw it as propping up the al-Saud dynasty. And the Israelis.

      If, by "way of life", you mean allowing ourselves to be pimped to the likes of the oil, plastics, and defense industries, then sure - you're correct. But George Washington et. al were not fighting for SUVs, shopping, and "who wants to be a millionare". I imagine that Thomas Jefferson would frown mightily at the way we've collectively lost touch with what freedom, democracy, and community can be. Everyone just assumes that they did it because "they hate freedom". No, they hate all the shit we do to prop up our little racket.

      > By the way, the last thing the Palistinians want
      > is peace. Their entire political and social
      > system is built on hate for the Israelis the and
      > goal of destruction of the State of Israel.

      rubbish. Their land is being occupied and they want it back for themselves. Full-stop. Bombing pizza restaurants is but one of the methods being used to try to achieve that. There are some very good people on both sides who are trying to resolve the problem in a peaceful, rational manner. Say what you like about the hari kari business but it ain't exactly something the average Muslim would like to try nor approves of. It would also be just as false to suggest that Israel's "entire political and social system is built on hate for the Palestinians...", btw.

      Since i'm way off-topic, anyway: spend a moment to ponder that all that oil we wan^H^H^Hneed is also being eyed by China. In a very big way. Like, 1.3 billion people big. India has just over a G as well. Oh, and N. Korea has major energy problems, so they're paying pretty close attention to what's going on in Iraq, etc.

      --
      "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
    33. Re:Big Difference by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      By the way, the last thing the Palistinians want is peace. Their entire political and social system is built on hate for the Israelis the and goal of destruction of the State of Israel.

      The same cannot be said of the Israeli's (confiscating Palestinian land for settlements and encouraging militants to live there) how?

      There is something truely perverse about sending your children out to blow themselves up.

      You know, I have been thinking about this problem quite a bit for a while, and here is what I have to say.

      We are *very* blessed to live in a country based on a rich cultural mixture of Indo-European and Christian values. We value diversity, peace, tolerance, etc. and many of these values only arise from the mixture of the pagan and Christian approaches. Sure there are a few crazys who would teach their children to shoot at abortion doctors, but I think that they are rare in European cultures and decendent ones such as Australia and the US. But wasn't always this way.

      The early monks described Irish women going into battle and hacking eachother to pieces while carrying their babies. Given the other information we have about the Celts, I am more inclined to believe that this was NOT just propaganda, but arose from a combination of warrior-pride and loyalty to the Tuatha (state, tribe). If you read the Viking sagas, they relate extremely gory aspects of battles as if they were common place and it is not uncommon for children to be killed in battle or kill others out of revenge (see Egill's Saga). I could very easily see a historic Viking or Celt blowing him or herself up in an attempt for greater victory.

      But the motivation would have been different. I think the Celt or Viking would have been motivate by, in the words of Calvert Watkins "Imperishable Fame," with the idea that one's life is short anyway, but fame can last many lifetimes. The Palestinian seems, also to be motivated by status (and in a structural way) but also by the idea that this status (Shaheed) is somehow ordained by Allah. Shaheed doesn't exactly translate as martyr in the sense that it also includes, say the Palestinian children killed by the 1 ton bomb dropped on an apartment building by the Israelis, but it does carry the same moral weight.

      I suspect if you live in an environment of such violence and oppression, such elevated status can become very appealing.

      My question is how the Tamil Tigers (largely Buddhist, iirc) frame the question of suicide bombing. After all, they pioneered the tactic and have used it to MUCH greater effect than any Palestian ever has. Is it with the idea that the bomber will simply be reborn and that this is a noble cause? I don't know.

      Mahatma Ghandi's grandson will be going to the Middle East soon to teach Palestinians about how to resist Israeli forces without resorting to violence. I think he has a positive message to share, but I fear that by simply saying "you have a choice not to act like the Israeli's" he will have no effect. The message *should* be:
      1) One can *fight* without violence.
      2) Instead of smuggling guns, smuggle digicams and fight a second war on the internet as a documentation war.
      3) Force them to either kill palestinians who are unarmed, and lightly clothed (thus OBVIOUSLY not carrying bombs) or give up key outposts, settlements, and checkpoints. This could be done with a peaceful seige and blockade.
      4) Non-violence is a misnomer. It is actually the purest attack on the character of an adversary. Forcing violence in response to non-violence and continuing the nonviolence inevitably leads to victory because the party who resorts to violence loses credibiliy both foreign and domestic.
      5) Israel cannot sustain such a war.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    34. Re:Big Difference by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      I'm certain than the vast majority of Palestinians want peace and their country back. I'm also certain that most Israeli want peace and the whole of Israel under their control. The two appear to be mutually exclusive. Logic dictates that there are only three possibilities for peace: a total destruction of one, of the other, or a compromise on land issues.

      When you have Arafat on one side and Sharon on the other, how likely is it that a compromise will take place? It will take a miracle.

    35. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise that Jerry Fallwell asks for about the same thing, don't you?

    36. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These would be the same anti-Semitic Brits and French who helped establish the state of Israel in the first place, I assume... against US suggestions.

    37. Re:Big Difference by jmccay · · Score: 1

      You're a liberal coward with no clue what is really going on around you! When evidence that challenges your view of the world is shown to you, you call people names.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    38. Re:Big Difference by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1
      I don't rememember Thomas Jefferson saying it was ok to take the war to the civilians back in Britan or France or kidnap Britsh merchants and cut thier heads off as a 'message to others.'
      Well, the Continental Congress did issue letters of marque, aka licenses to pirate.
      --
      Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    39. Re:Big Difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      extreme poverty, homelessness, destruction, death predisposes (to put it mildly) people to hate and religious extrimism.

      So- Your conclusion leads to an assumption that if these factors didn't exist, the group of Palestinians that embrace hate and religious extremism (add to that: primary targeting of non-combatant civilians en masse) would quietly change their ways? Please. Study the culture. This behavior will not stop. If they managed to destroy the state of Israel, I put it to you that these people would find another target and display similar behavior- The culture that has dominated this region for 1000's of years will not be denied so easily, my naive friend.

    40. Re:Big Difference by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      They continue to blow up inocent people whose only crime is getting on a bus or going out to eat.

      The Zionists invaded someone else's property, killing and driving out the previous residents. From the "Palestinian" perspective, all that terrorism is striking back at invaders.

      Both sides value the territory for religious reasons, so probably neither will back down. The Zionists have an advantage in money and technology today, but someday the tide will shift and they'll be out-numbered and out-gunned. The best result we can hope for is that beforehand they'll see reason and give "Palestinians"

      The fact that you use the word Zionists proves it.

      I can't use the word Israeli, because that means anyone living in Israel (including Christian and Muslim citizens today). I can't use Israelite, because that means anyone descended from someone living in Israel. Zionist, however, means someone supporting the establishment of a Jewish nation in Israel, and that's exactly what I meant to say.

      (There are even some Jews in Israel who support giving "Palestinians" voting rights, so not all Israeli Jews are Zionists)

      Pakistan cannot stand up to Isreal!

      Pakistan could nuke Israel into a crater. Israel is so small it would only take 3 of their atomic bombs to destroy the whole country.

      If the Zionists were to kill the "Palestinans", Pakistan would kill them in revenge, without too much fear of the USA retaliating back. Of course that's all hypotheticals that'll never happen.

      Isreal is not occupying Palestian land because there never was any country called Palestine!

      Palestine was the name used by the British Empire to refer to their territory containing Israel, prior to WWII. Notice how I put quotes around "Palestinian" whenever I use it. That's to show I don't really agree with the term, but acknowledge that it is the most popularly accepted word for what I'm talking about. (Those Arabs, born in Israel, whom are denied suffrage according to official religious bias)

    41. Re:Big Difference by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Of course terrorists care who they kill. Dont be naiive. Why aren't there more bombings in South Dakota? You think they can't drive there rather than fly? I think the answer is that there's no signifigant political point to be made doing it. C'mon na, think it through.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
  202. Hacker. by Positive+Charge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out that Kennedy's name ended up on that list as a form of political protest?

    I should probably shut up now...

  203. that's too funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe someone in DC doesn't like him and wanted to play a joke. not like he's ever done anything to piss off others in DC.

  204. Obligatory Simpsons Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ha ha

  205. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

    I think the number "13" and the words "hole" and "Punched" had something to do with them.

    --
    Wanted : A Signature.
  206. Your hands don't count! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You're kidding, right? I've been with 12 people in my life ... no way could I get through the US population in my lifetime. However this does work good as a blanket statement for the following.

    Dude, how many times have we told you that each of your fingers does not count as a "person"! This is /. after all - get real!

    1. Re:Your hands don't count! by Jahf · · Score: 1

      If I was counting fingers it would have been 24 (though only 20 not counting thumbs), not 12.

      --
      It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
  207. as I've said before by yuud · · Score: 2, Insightful

    freedoms are lost in incremements. this is one. Props to John Gilmore for fighting a worthy fight. What I'm scared of is flying through your soon-to-be police state of america, and getting stopped/detained on the way through because I'm on some vague, secret list. American customs officials scare me. I've been through US airports many times, and I always have had negative experiences. Apparently, walking up to customs with your girlfriend and handing over 2 passports is too much for them. We handed over our passports, open, showing our photos, and they guy looks at us like we're idiots and says, gruffly, "which is YOUR passport?". I cut short some smart-ass reply due to my own personal fear of having my ass invaded by a latex covered glove....

  208. Gulibility by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People: does anyone really, REALLY believe that a senator of the United States couldn't get Homeland Security to listen to him?

    Kennedy is Enemy Number One with conservatives, and believe me, Homeland (Fatherland? GOD!) Security's political employees are damn near 100 poicent Bush supporters. Remember, HS has no civil service protection -- it's a patronage army.

    Come on, you really think Kennedy's pleas were ignored in the normal course of business? "Conspiracy theory" my tired skinny ass, the honchos who now control our access to air travel are screwing with Bush's political enemies. Kennedy isn't the first one to find himself on the list. And the list is secret, you can't appeal, and no one cares anyway. It's the work of a second for a political shark to tap in a partial string into the database to mess up your life.

    1. Re:Gulibility by Zareste · · Score: 1

      "OMG you wear tinfoil hat and are a conspiracy alien terrrorist out to kill us all!"

      Heh, sorry. There has to be some nutcase to whip out the tinfoil-hat scarecrow whenever someone points out the painfully obvious. "Oh sure, next you're going to tell us there are 'cameras' watching us downtown. Ha ha! Oh please."

      Next: Gaze in wonder as I listen and obey everything the government says, and then call myself a 'skeptic'!

      --
      I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
  209. Re:1. Make vague statement. 2. ??? 3. Point made! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, you've never read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, particularly the 9th and 10th amendements.

  210. First Thing I Thought by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    When I heard this story was that Rumsfield had somehow had a hand in it and was back in his office giggling because he'd managed to get Kennedy on the no-fly list.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  211. Profiling? Hello? by DeVilla · · Score: 1

    This seems to take lack of discrimination to a new unhealthy level. Sounds like these guys need to take a lesson out of "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead".

    "Don't you discriminate!"

  212. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our experiences in the line for those marked with the scarlet S has been very different. First of all, the only guaranteed way to get in that line is if you have one way tickets. I go on multi-destination trips quite often and every time I wind up in the extra security line. For the record, I'm a 26 yr old white guy. Actually, the extra time spent in line doesn't bother me. I've noticed that security seems to go out of their way NOT to pull in the "people with dark skin or funny clothes" as you say becuase they are scared of being accused of discrimination.

  213. Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How many times have you tried to cross the border into Canada? I'm willing to bet the answer is none. Do you really think that Canadian Customs has nothing to fear from people entering from the US? Just because you are not greeted with an MP5 being shoved in your face at the border, doesn't mean you aren't being checked. Just because the Customs agent treats you like a human being instead of a terrorist, doesn't mean you aren't being screened. It is quite funny when reading these posts about how "lax" our border security is. Many americans mention it, but can't give any reasoning for the position. I suspect it relates to the statements made by one of your politicians following 9/11 that "some" of the terrorists had entered from Canada. Of course the actual events were not discussed much later. One of the terrorists entered (actually re-entered) from Canada, after living in the US for months, going to Maine, crossing our border, staying for a couple of days, then recrossing back to the US. So we missed him once, you missed him at least twice, but it was our fault for not getting him?

    How about answering three questions for me. How many people from Mexico make the nightly crossing of the Rio Grande? How many of them check in for screening with INS? Which border is the bigger problem?

    Its a shame that in post 9/11 America, you can't even see who your friends are anymore.

    The funniest thing about this whole thread, is the other day, I got ripped for suggesting that the US has become/is becoming a police state. Now it turns out that the most recognizable senator in the US is turned away at the airport because of this abusive "no-fly" list. Enjoy your freedom, that is the freedom to sit the fuck down, shut your fucking mouth, and answer my questions before we send you to Cuba for a long vacation in an orange suit.

    Remeber way back, when you actually had freedom to do what you want, and say what you felt. I hope you get it back some day.

    1. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ted Kennedy is the most recognizable senator in the US? More recognizable than the Dem candidates for President and Vice President that are TV every single day?

    2. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think so. Lets see, over the last 40 years, how much face time has Kerry had on the tube. 40 minutes in the 70's as some kind of strange hippy/warrior cross, plus the last 6 months daily, or any of the Kennedys. Ted Kennedy has been on TV more discussing anyone of the "exploding head" Kennedys than Kerry ever has, including his run for President. Shit, last week, I saw Kennedy on TV about 10 different times, in about 4 different contexts, and he isn't running for anything. Once discussing the Cuba fiasco, once talking about Bobbys murder, once discussing his enduring thanks to the Solomon Islanders who saved JFK on PT109 in WW2, once discussing the Presidental run, once discussing JFK's assasination, and once talking about John John or whatever that faggy assed nickname is that JFK jr got. That is in the past week. Multiply that times what 40 or 50 years, ya I think its safe to say that he is the most recognizable Senator in the US. And that coverage is OUTSIDE the US for christs sake. I have never even been to Washington DC or Mass, shit I've only been to the US about a dozen times, and even I could recognize Kennedy from across a room.

      Let me ask you this, lets say Kerry loses, and in 10 years you hit the streets showing photo arrays of 10 people, and Kerry, Edwards (god I hope is is the running mate, I'm not American), and T. Kennedy are three of the choices. What percentage of people would be able to ID the 2 candidates, vs those who would be able to ID Kennedy? Exactly. How many would recognize Gore's running mate (I don't even know his name, let alone his face, and that was probably the MOST covered election of all time due to the fiasco that followed), and that was only 4 years ago. Ya, I think its pretty safe to say, that Kennedy is THE most recognizable US Senator, if you give it a little thought.

  214. Just don't fly any american owned airlines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are the main target of terrorists, so use foreign airlines. Only americans are afraid of everything, have to implement costly and stupid plans that always fail so they can blame their fuckups to other people.

  215. maybe this is no accident by Yonder+Way · · Score: 1

    Kennedy is, after all, a radical leftist. He goes off on angry tirades about the president on public record. He is alleged to have murdered an American.

    " Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty? "
    ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973

    Apparently the latter is true; the rest of us can't just pick up the phone and ask Tom Ridge to fix the no-fly list.

    Maybe next time he flies he should use a pseudonym. Something really innocent sounding. Like maybe Mary Jo Kopechne.

  216. The whole no-fly and TSA concept is broken by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The 9/11 attacks were made possible because the natural right of carrying weapons for self-defense and defense of others was denied the (regular, law-abiding) passengers. So a puny box-cutter was enough to threaten a planeful.

    There ought to be gun-checks at airports -- to make sure you've loaded the right sort of ammo.

    ("frangible" ammo breaks up on impact and won't punch holes in walls, nor ricochet.)

    1. Re:The whole no-fly and TSA concept is broken by praedor · · Score: 1

      Nutcase. You would have all sorts of innocent bystanders shot and killed when all you really need is a safely isolated pilot compartment. Without access to the pilot compartment, the 9/11 attack wouldn't have been possible.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    2. Re:The whole no-fly and TSA concept is broken by SoTuA · · Score: 1
      No, the attacks were made possible because the passengers thought all they had ahead of them was a prolonged stay on some shitsplat landing field somewhere in the middle east while the terrorist's partners were released from this or that prison, so sit tight and everybody will be ok.

      Try waving around a box-cutter in a plane right now. You'll be at the bottom of a 6-feet-high passenger pile-up in no time; next time someone hijacks a plane, he'll find passengers that won't act like sheep, but like cornered cats.

    3. Re:The whole no-fly and TSA concept is broken by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

      "No, the attacks were made possible because the passengers thought all they had ahead of them was a prolonged stay on some shitsplat landing field somewhere in the middle east"

      There had to come a point where it became pretty obvious the contrary. That's the point where passenger guns could have saved lives.

    4. Re:The whole no-fly and TSA concept is broken by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Further more (and I do say this as a european, who also thinks 'the right to be armed' is dangerousnonsense which gets a lot of people killed), you don't need special ammo; a plane will not violently decompress when punctured with anything so small as a bullet; you need to make a hole at least as large as a window for a plane to even notice the extra drag and loose enough internal air so the pilot has to get the plane to a lower altitude.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    5. Re:The whole no-fly and TSA concept is broken by n8_f · · Score: 1

      This is insane! Who the hell marked it interesting instead of troll or flamebait? Because it is marked up and because the other replies haven't covered all the holes, I'll reply. But if you have moderation points, just mark the parent down.

      So a puny box-cutter was enough to threaten a planeful.

      Read the 9/11 report. They had six inch knives! There was only a couple of box-cutters. And they claimed to have bombs. If some one claims to have a bomb, are you going to challenge them if you think you have a chance of making it out alive? Do you play Russian roulette often?

      The 9/11 attacks were made possible because the natural right of carrying weapons for self-defense and defense of others was denied the (regular, law-abiding) passengers.

      Hmm, as I recall most of the terrorists were regular, law-abiding passengers with the exception of a couple visa violations. And before you suggest profiling brown-skinned people from Muslim countries, don't forget that Timothy McVeigh and his friends would also love your new carry laws.
      Besides, even if you are miraculously able to keep all weapons out of the hands of terrorists before letting them on board our airplanes, you've still made their job infinitely easier. How much chance do you think the average person would have against somebody who has been training for years in warfare and hand-to-hand combat, who has likely even been involved in combat? You might as well put guns on the snack tray and run them down the aisle as allow people to carry them on board. And have you ever tried to use a holstered weapon while crammed between two other people in an airplane seat? How do you expect that to work?
      The real key to preventing another 9/11 is to not allow the terrorists on our planes in the first place. Of course, your suggestion does nothing to prevent that and instead makes it easier when they do get on.

      "[F]rangible" ammo breaks up on impact and won't punch holes in walls, nor ricochet.

      Even at extremely close range? Do you really think an airplane is made to resist an internal gunfight, even if the ammunition is frangible?

      Besides all of those problems, do you really think they are going to do the exact same thing they did the last time? Do you think that was the only hole in our homeland security? The really sad part of this whole suggestion is that I have seen other people make it. Can we setup a remote island for all the people who think they are G.I. Joe so that the rest of us can live in peace?

    6. Re:The whole no-fly and TSA concept is broken by MadHungarian1917 · · Score: 1

      Get out the TROLL mod points

      For everyone who thinks people with guns want to play GI Joe. two points

      First an armed society is a _polite_ society
      second in the land of milk chocolate and the gnomes of Zurich everyone has a FULLY AUTOMATIC RIFLE in their hall closet. not the toys the pols call "assault weapons" here in the USA.

      The Swiss have real assault weapons and somehow we do not hear about "gun violence" tearing apart the fabric of their society. This might reflect the fact that if you shoot at someone they can shoot back with a military grade weapon. Increases the risk for the criminally inclined of winding up dead this seems to be a deterrent

  217. Did he use the S word? by Facekhan · · Score: 1

    How long do you think he waited to tell the airline people he was a US Senator? How long after he said the S word was he allowed on the plane. How many levels of airline idiots did he have to go through before he got to one who knew what a US Senator is?

    In the event an airline says they can't let me on the plane and they can't tell me why. I will just tell them that I work for Haliburton. I will probably fly for free.

  218. "Attack: Terror kills brains" by cavac · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is great. Just as stupid as this forms you have to fill in on the plane when coming from europe and you're not an US citizen.

    There are actual questions in the form of "Are you a terrorist?". Yeah, sure, if i were a terrorist i'd check the "Yes" box? And i would check in with my real name at the airport?

    Dear security guys: How stupid do you think your average terrorist is?

    --
    Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
  219. Ridiculous by WhoseHouse · · Score: 1

    The reason we (the US) went into this war is simple. France, Germany and Russia were being thoroughly uncooperative with catching the "baddies". Any why would one suggest that they took this stance? Simple. They spent millions (billions) on Iraq in arms and supplies. The reason we knew they had WMD is because our "allies" had sold WMD's to Iraq. The reason for our "allies" wanting more time for inspections was to allow more time for the weapons to be moved. I don't think there was any false information, the US knew, our Allies knew, Iraq just had forewarning.

    The outcome of this is two fold, we stick it to our "allies" with veto power in the UN and show them that their investments are not worth as much as protecting everyone, and secondly, to make an example out of Saddam. There are alot more people that this administration would love to go after, but by taking on Saddam, they may have accomplished alot more.

    I like to hope that this, in 20 years maybe, will help bring a moderate level of peace to the middle east. If the Iraqi reform is successful it would set a powerful example.

    1. Re:Ridiculous by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      The reason we knew they had WMD is because our "allies" had sold WMD's to Iraq.

      So where are the WMD's?

      /obvious

    2. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason we knew they had WMD is because our "allies" had sold WMD's to Iraq.

      The we are now our own allies?

  220. Re: Florida voter registration records by volgers · · Score: 3, Informative
    I'm terrible sorry to inform you about this from the other side of the Atlantic, but they did do it on purpose. This was big news 4 years ago, discovered by the BBC. By an American journalist btw.

    See: www.gregpalast.com

  221. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by FenderGeek · · Score: 1

    *Ahem*

    Bullshit...

    I'm about as close as you can come to being the average 20-something white guy (the frat-boy image comes to mind), and I get pulled for the "random" thorough screening process at pretty much every check-in. And I've never seen this so-called special line at any airport I've been in. For the record, that includes Denver, Detroit Metro, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Salt Lake City, and a handfull of small town airports.

    If I had to guess, I'd say that I get picked so that the screeners don't get accused of profiling, but maybe they just like to feel me up.

    --
    One only needs two tools in life: WD-40 to make things go, and duck tape to make them stop. ~G.M. Weilacher
  222. Re: Florida voter registration records by gorbachev · · Score: 1

    Yes, I read his book ("The Best Democracy Money Can Buy") on it. Great book, bought copies as gifts to my friends. Don't read the book, if you suffer from high blood pressure, it will make it worse...

    The information in the book is not conclusive. It hints that it might've been on purpose, but I certainly did not come out convinced that it was. I'm not a republican or a conservative, btw, quite the opposite.

    At the very least there should have been some serious investigation on the issue. Of course there was none, because the whole thing was effectively kept out of the news in the US. The US media really dropped the ball on this one.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  223. This should be unconstitutional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whatever your political views, this is clearly something that should NOT HAPPEN in America. The fact that it does should greatly concern anyone who believes in American ideals. This country was founded on some fundamental beliefs. For example, that you are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. That citizens have the right to life, LIBERTY and pursuit of happiness. How does a "no-fly" list support these American axioms?
    Be afraid, comrades, be very afraid. I for one, greatly fear our new overlords.

    1. Re:This should be unconstitutional by intnsred · · Score: 1

      What liberty?!

      Seriously. It's a rapidly evaporating concept.

      this is clearly something that should NOT HAPPEN in America.

      While I agree it shouldn't be happening, one really has to wonder what the purpose is of making such a high-profile issue out of this. How many people are now intimidated as a result of Kennedy's treatment?

  224. No, *YOU* GET *YOUR* FACTS RIGHT FIRST. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Clinton was impeached BECAUSE HE LIED UNDER OATH.

    If you watch the deposition, when he was asked "did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky", he asked the questioner to define "sexual relations", to which he was told "sexual intercourse."

    Now, if you have some proof that he *DID* have sexual intercourse with Lewinsky, please come forward, otherwise STFU.

  225. Except that... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..he was never actually prohibited from flying. His name was flagged. The counter clerk bumped it up to the next level. That person checked him out, found he was not the person they are looking for, and cleared him to get on the plane.

    Yes, it took 3 weeks to get his name off the list, but during that time, he was still flying.

    For an analogy, let's presume there is a warrant out for a person that goes by the name MysticalFruit. No address, no other info. All they have is the name. Should you get stopped by the police (running a stop sign, maybe), should the police officer check you out a little further, to determine if you are that MysticalFruit named in the waarrant? Or should he just blow it off?

    Because this particular T. Kennedy is not the person they are looking for does not mean that there isn't a T. Kennedy that they ARE looking for.

    1. Re:Except that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His name was flagged. The counter clerk bumped it up to the next level. That person checked him out, found he was not the person they are looking for, and cleared him to get on the plane.

      Yes, it took 3 weeks to get his name off the list, but during that time, he was still flying.


      The first point is he shouldn't have had to been 'bumped to the next level'. The man is a senator! It's blatantly obvious he's not a terrorist. The airline clerk should have given him a ticket right away.

      The second point is, once they realized he wasn't a terrorist, they should have cleared his name immediately. It shoudln't have taken 3 weeks of phone calls.

      Duh.

    2. Re:Except that... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      The airline clerk should have given him a ticket right away.

      NO! It's not the ticketing agents job to subvert the system, no matter who it is. Bump it up, and let a supervisor handle it.

      once they realized he wasn't a terrorist, they should have cleared his name immediately. It shoudln't have taken 3 weeks of phone calls.

      Again, that's not their job. They don't create or allter the list, they merely use it. Removing someone, even a Senator, should be DHS.

    3. Re:Except that... by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Interesting
      For an analogy, let's presume there is a warrant out for a person that goes by the name MysticalFruit.

      Twice, while returning to the country from foreign travel, I was questioned by Immigration. The first time, they asked me things like "have you ever lived in Colorado?" The second time, I started out by saying "Good morning, I'm not the one from Colorado" and I was waved through without further delay.

      I feel so violated. How dare they question me!

  226. Re:OT - BugMeNot by ChairmanMeow · · Score: 1

    I've noticed the same thing. What's going on with it?

    --
  227. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is too dangerous to DRIVE and FLY?

  228. I have this theory ... by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 1
    which you have somewhat alluded to in your post.

    My theory goes that the Homeland Security honchos are in a dead panic. They've been given enormous fiscal and human resources to 'make America safer' and they have been telling everyone that this is exactly what they are doing. At the same time, they are coming to some hard conclusions that you just can't engineer security into a society overnight.

    Presto - wave of the wand, and what have you.

    My theory goes that they are panicked because they are realizing that it takes more than a big Washington budget and a staff of a few thousand highly trained agents. It takes lots and lots of time. Years worth of time.

    And meanwhile? Well, you're just as insecure as you were yesterday.

    I think a lot of what the public is shown in terms of 'steps' HS is taking to ensure their safety is for show. Meanwhile HS is beating their collective heads against the factual wall that a democratic (democratic-republic, sure, whatever) society will, by definition, have traded personal safety for personal freedoms.

    And just how do you engineer around that? Certainly not by matching passenger manifests against a list of "known terrorist aliases."

    Cheers,
    -- RLJ

    1. Re:I have this theory ... by GSloop · · Score: 1


      have traded personal safety for personal freedoms.


      Quibble...

      It's not a trade in the way you descibe it. I don't think having real freedom costs you any security.

      When you trade freedom to get security, you don't get either. Why speculate the other way round.

      Truely free societies are not less safe than those that aren't free. In fact, I think the risk of an out of control political system is much more risky overall than the risk an open society brings.

      So, please don't promote the myth that security and freedom are in opposition to each other. They aren't. (Not trying to dog you here...just complaining in general.)

      An open society has more difficulty tracking everyone, and that's *seen* as a risk, but I don't think there's any proof it's true. And overall, the less open society has higher risk, IMHO, from those who control it not having meaningful checks on their power.

      Cheers,
      Greg

    2. Re:I have this theory ... by Rev.LoveJoy · · Score: 1
      You have a good point. I think it is debatable, but nonetheless, a good point.

      "It's not a trade in the way you describe it. I don't think having real freedom costs you any security."

      There is a problem of terms here. What you and I might define as "freedom" and "security" might mean something totally different to Tom Ridge or a CNN news correspondent. For instance, I agree with the gist of your statement, but I understand that on a long enough timeline some quacks are going to eventually hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings (to use the cliché example). I am appalled by their actions, but I am not willing to endorse blood samples and a full cavity search for every person flying through US airspace in order to prevent a possible future attack.

      The system which would have to be put in place in order to be 100% effective at keeping hijackers from taking planes would be too costly on the flying public. To costly to their freedom to move about as a people. In this sense, we will trade freedom for perceived security. Freedom from over engineered airport checkpoints, freedom from inane lists of names which some high school drop out gets to match against the passenger manifest.

      Again, we are suffering from a terminology problem. The word freedom is too malleable in this usage. I do not use 'freedom' in the 'liberty' sense which you are - I am using freedom as it applies to people's ability to go about their lives without constant reminders that some day some place something bad might happen to someone.

      Cheers,
      -- RLJ

  229. You can't win when you are wrong. by DM9290 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can't win... just the other day was a slashdot story about NOT having to present ID in order to travel...

    Are you suggesting that people should not complain when the system which has been imposed upon America (and quite frankly the world) by this administration, without any public consultation, and with implied threats against other nations which dont get on side, and in contradiction with historic American values of liberty and freedom, don't function as advertised?

    The root of the complaint is that this administration is causing disruptions in people's lives, without accomplishing the stated objective (beneficial or otherwise). i.e. America is not safer. It is absolutely impossible to secure every single mile of road, every train track, every building, every hospital, every boat, every mail parcel, every nook and crany inside or outside of America. And as long as Al Qaeda or islamic fundamentalists still exist, there will be unsecured targets to attack.

    Unless you consider the fact that you can be detained for having initials which match those on some terrorist list to be a form of "safe". This process is misdirected. It is a huge waste of resources to detain the WRONG PEOPLE.

    Americans used to think of freedom as a right, and a threat to that freedom as a form of danger.

    People, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. I personally don't think showing ID to travel on a plane is that bad.

    What about traveling on a train?
    What about walking on a public road, or visiting a doctor?
    What about being present in a public place?
    What about being present in a private place?

    What if your ID had been deleted from the database?

    You don't think it is bad because you dont think you have a RIGHT privacy, and you don't appreciate that in this information age, privacy is just as much a necessary protection against tyranny as the right to bare arms.

    The right to bare arms is actually meaningless without privacy. You can't possibly win a war, when the enemy knows everything about you. Once privacy is abolished, then the environment is ripe for a tyranny to empower itself. A tyranny, supported by information technology the likes the world has never seen before.

    Comparing it with the former Soviet Union is a joke... you don't get stopped on every road at every state border with people asing for "papers, please".

    But then again, the Soviet Union was communist.

    You don't get stopped at every road at every state border with people asking for papers *YET*.
    Wait for it.

    But this administration has reserved such authority for itself. Not to mention complete and absolute surveilance over all communications.

    Imagine what will happen, the next time the terrorists make a strike against America. It will be lock down time.

    Thats what they do in prisons. Every hour or so.. everything locks down, including guards, nobody can leave their section, and everyone reports a body count in their sections. So if a single person is missing, it will be detected before the escaped inmate can get to far.

    However in america's future, the number of people in jail or on parole will increase from 6 million, to over 300 million. Everyone will be on parole.

    Afterall... aren't we all born in sin? There is all the moral justification you need to put everyone on parole from day 1.

    That is America's future, if America keeps going down this path of fear.

    Would you like a Department of Home Security Officer to visit your house each day to make sure you haven't moved or left with ciy without reporting in?

    Perhaps, a friendly high speed internet video phone call, secured by longhorn. It would only take 30 seconds of you and your families time each day. A small price to pay for freedom.

    Of course, "terrorists" need not check in.

    --
    No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    1. Re:You can't win when you are wrong. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood what I was saying...

      Let's say you have no security requirements at all... people will complain.

      You ask for ID: people complain.

      You search for potentially dangerous items: people complain.

      There's NO happy medium anywhere in there, no matter what happens, half of slashdot is going to complain.

      Furthermore, I don't think the constitution guarantees a right to anonymity in a public place. A right to privacy, sure, but not a right to anonymity.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:You can't win when you are wrong. by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, I don't think the constitution guarantees a right to anonymity in a public place. A right to privacy, sure, but not a right to anonymity.

      I do believe the American constitution does guarantee the right to life, liberty and also freedom from unreasonable search or seizure.

      In terms of liberty and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, that would seem to imply that provided that you are not causing a disturbance or infringing on anyone else in anyway, you should have the right to anonymity.

      If you must identify yourself to merely exist that would seem to suggest that such existence is actually a legal priviledge, rather than a right.

      And using the terms in public to mean, "place with fewer rights", is to suggest that only property owners have full rights, and that security of person or liberty is not a true right, but a side benefit of the priviledge of owning property.

      If the owner of an airplane wants to ask for ID, that is of course his business. I am opposed to the state mandating that I must ask you or anyone else for ID.

      The next step is to make it illegal to communicate with anyone without proof of ID.

      Because of course in the information age, communication can be even more dangerous than an airplane.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
  230. Re:Blacklisted? Ted Kennedy? by DavidTC · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yup. They were obviously worried he'd get drunk and fly the plane into a river.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  231. Or, possibly, a joke... by SnapShot · · Score: 1

    Given the rabid right-wing politics of most of the people in the defence and intelligence communities, I'm not surprised that a prominant "lefty" like Ted Kennedy was targeted It was probably some mouth-breathing contractor at the TSA's idea of a joke.

    --
    Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
  232. a good thing by wardk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it's a very good thing this is happening to those in power, especially someone as powerful as Senator Kennedy.

    Only when idiot laws begin to affect those in power will something usually be done to correct it.

    Maybe the Honorable Senator and John Gilmore can get together and work to getting TSA to be an organization that doesn't resemble authority from a Charlie Chaplin movie.

  233. Vote registration not at county anymore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Minnesota the secretary of state just changed the rules to change the vote lists at the state level,
    no more pesky county only control.

    Say hello to a centralized security hole that will be exploited politically. Our sec of state, Mary Kiffmeyer is the head of the nation sec of state organization. See this centralized security hole spread to every state soon.

  234. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

    Well, it's not like the Democrats haven't been terrorizing poor George Bush.

    You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  235. presumption before thinking by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why presume when you can RTFA? Senator Kennedy wasn't cleared by "second level checking", or even the first 2 of 3 calls to Tom Ridge, Director of Homeland Security. You've obviously decided that the system is good, and aren't interested in having your mind changed by the facts. Sounds like you work for the Department.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:presumption before thinking by Steve+Franklin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did these people NOT recognize Ted Kennedy? Christ, I recognize the local weatherman when I see him at the mall. These are folks who have never learned to think for themselves. They have been taught to follow orders no matter how stupid or banal they are and they would throw their own grandmothers out the window if ordered to do so, and THAT is the real danger to America right now. And these are the ideal citizens in the estimation of the likes of G W Bush--zombies who follow orders and thank their masters for throwing them a few scraps to chew on now and then.

      --
      Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
    2. Re:presumption before thinking by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Eventually the scene turns into one I saw lampooned in a cartoon about 10 years ago. An android is working an assembly line, while a PHB leans against a doorway, watching, and thinking "maybe if I paid it a salary, I could sell it someting". The corporate fascism we're developing in America breeds robots. But it falls apart when human qualities, like compassion and basic justice, are ignored, and we lose the ability to work together. When all we've got is competition, the waste chokes us all. Hopefully we'll survive the current horrorshow of robotic insanity, and the pitfall of corporate automation will be obvious to everyone, for a while.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:presumption before thinking by PW2 · · Score: 1

      People at this level are not paid to think.

      Imagine if the McD's cashier suddenly grew a brain and refused to sell an extra Big Mac to a spherical person out of true concern for her heath.

      It is good to see that these leaders have to follow their own rules -- for once.

    4. Re:presumption before thinking by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Was Senator Kennedy prevented from flying? No. A name on the 'no-fly' list was the same, or similar to his. The ticket agent, following her instructions, did not (could not) sell him a ticket. She referred the matter to airport security, where they cleared Kennedy to get his ticket and fly.

      This happened several times over that 3 week span.

      It took 3 weeks to get his name off that list. Not 3 weeks before he could fly again.

      When someone whose name matches one on the list, what should the ticketing agent have done? Ignore it?

    5. Re:presumption before thinking by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      So the system calls for falsely barred people to be a Senator.

      The list is bad. Enforcing the list is bad. Doing that job is bad. People who follow orders instead of their conscience are bad. If more people spoke their conscience rather than go along with the compilation, distribution and application of this list, it would have disappeared long ago. Making room for actually effective security.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:presumption before thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's better that things worked out the way they did and made the news.

      The real problem isn't this isolated incident where some well-known person is inconvenienced, but the (presumably fairly frequent) problems when less-known people with less connections are, and have nowhere to turn.

  236. good by stoolmaster · · Score: 0

    this guy is a terrorist! this proves the system IS working. keep up the good work Tom Ridge.

  237. MOD PARENT UP! by starcraftsicko · · Score: 1

    I know it is difficult for most /. Freedom-Of-Speech Libertarians, but especially when a topuc is blatantly political, it is necessary to mod UP (or at least leave modded up) posts that you STRONGLY disagree with.

  238. John Gilmore by sacrilicious · · Score: 1

    Seems like a poignant chance to (re)bring up John Gilmore's interview (recently covered by Slashdot). John is highly concerned about the US government's increasing restrictions on the ability of supposedly free people to go from place to place in what was once a free country.

    --
    - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  239. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by woodlander · · Score: 1

    You must have me confused with someone else. I use the work rarely, and I know what it means. Do you need help?

  240. so, perjury is a crime, eh? by mojoNYC · · Score: 1
    according to your logic, then Condoleeza Rice should be on her way as well: 27 instances of Rice perjury

    also, good thing for the Bush regime that lying to the American people isn't considered to be perjury, or Gitmo would be holding mssers Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith et al...

    despite the legal spinning and political bs, the facts remain:

    Clinton lied about a blowjob in the Oval Office--total monetary cost to the American people--$80 Million

    Bush lied about the 'clear and present danger' of Saddam Hussein--total monetary cost to the American people: $130 Billion and growing

    hope you're getting your money's worth!

  241. Japanese lesson: by ajna · · Score: 1
    I capitalize this as it is rapidly becoming synonymous with "Gaijen" or "Barbarian"

    Actually, the correct romanization of the term for "foreigner" in Japanese is "gaijin", note the "i".
    1. Re:Japanese lesson: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      True, but as I understand it "gaikokujin" is more commonly used now, and considered less offensive. Of course, the OP certainly intended the more offensive usage to make the point.

      These days, we're probably verging on "henna gaijin" as the predominant US view of forigners.

  242. or as Richard Clarke wanted by ivano · · Score: 1
    the first thing you do to increase airport security is to replace the rent-a-cop minimum wage workers with trained security.

    ciao

  243. The Real Reasons For Iraq by WombatControl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but it's worth it.

    I'm sick of all the outright lies about the war in Iraq coming from the anti-war left. It's disgusting. Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy. Iraq was not Disneyland before the war. It was a totalitarian hellhole in which people were getting killed by the thousands. Talk to an Iraqi sometime. They will tell you stories about how on their sister's wedding night a drunk Uday Hussein showed up and decided to rape her death and slit the throat of the groom. These weren't isolated incidents, they happened every day.

    What the hell, right? So what if ~1000 American kids are dead and 10,000+ are mangled. So what if tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead and many more are mangled. So what if we jail Iraqi resistance fighters by the thousands and torture people routinely? What's the big deal? They're only people, right?! :-(
    Only 6,000 have been "wounded" and only a fraction of those are serious wounds. Saying that 10,000+ were "mangled" is an outright lie. Let's take the highest number of wartime civilian casualties in Iraq: right around 12,000. Let's take the lowest figure for the number of Iraqis killed each year by Saddam Hussein: 24,000. That's at least 12,000 lives saved in Iraq, and that figure is likely too low by at least half. If you're going to talk about the morality of war, don't gloss over the costs of inaction.
    I'd say Britain doesn't count; Blair is Bush's poodle and he was willing to do or say anything to curry favor with his masters.
    Nice ad hominem attack, but have you ever considered that maybe MI6 has better intelligence than we do and believed that Hussein was a threat. Have you ever tried reading the Butler Report that said that there was no evidence of politicization of British Intelligence? I'd guess no, because that would challenge your worldview. This kind of leftist cant is both prima facie ridiculous, but it crowds out legitimate criticism of the war by those who don't get their rocks off by reading Chomsky. If you're going to increase intelligent public discourse, calling someone a "poodle" for having an informed opinion that you don't like is not the way to go about it.
    1. Re:The Real Reasons For Iraq by intnsred · · Score: 1

      Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy.

      Agreed. But irrelevant. Hussein would have been overthrown by the Iranians during the 1980s except for one reason: The US supplied him and kept him in power! You can't have it both ways; one day he's a great vicious thug, the next day he's a bad vicious thug.

      Saying that 10,000+ were "mangled" is an outright lie.

      Mangled is not very descriptive, it could mean many things. As to the number, this UPI article from Dec. 2003 states almost 11,000 medical evacuations from Iraq. No doubt, some of those evacs are for suicide attempts, post-traumatic stress, and other mental problems. Mangled could mean many things.

      the highest number of wartime civilian casualties in Iraq: right around 12,000

      Are you referring to the Iraq Body Count's stats? If so, those numbers are generally recognized as being low as they refer to deaths only cited by the major media.

      As to whether the Iraqis are better off with the US occupation or with Hussein's dictatorship, the ultimate source of authority on this is the Iraqi people themselves. And based on western public opinion polls, the Iraqi people have spoken: they have run out of patience and a majority want the US out, the vast majority consider the US to be an occupier and a solid majority want US troops gone immediately, 55 percent said they would feel safer if the US left, and Americans polled believe the invasion of Iraq has increased the terrorist threat to the United States, not decreased it. (Note, CommonDreams.Org is a news aggregator; those stories are from wire services and mainstream newspapers.)

      Strangely, in the quick check I did, I did not find a poll bluntly asking Iraqis if they were better off under Saddam or better off under the illegal US occupation. I wonder if I missed it or whether the corporate mass media is afraid to ask the question. (I'd appreciate a link if anyone finds such a mainstream poll.)

    2. Re:The Real Reasons For Iraq by VAXGeek · · Score: 1

      So I guess we should just start bombing North Korea (mistreatment of citizens, mass famine). After then, might as well hit up Cuba (dirty commies).

      --
      this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
    3. Re:The Real Reasons For Iraq by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      I probably shouldn't reply but... when you post crap like "Talk to an Iraqi sometime. They will tell you stories about how on their sister's wedding night a drunk Uday Hussein showed up and decided to rape her death and slit the throat of the groom. These weren't isolated incidents, they happened every day." I just have to question it. Every day? Literally? Even if taken figuratively that is extreme and ridiculous. For you information I *have* talked with Iraqis. Not a single one of them liked Saddam Hussein (one had been part of his government and escaped -- via Italy IIRC -- with his family).

      But these ridiculous excuses to justify the war crimes we have committed... It reminds me of the true golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. What is this, WWF?

      thoromyr

    4. Re:The Real Reasons For Iraq by tupambao · · Score: 1

      I have seen this argument before. Let me give you two scenarios to choose from. If someone gave you the choice of:

      1. Living with a dictator who depending on his mood could get you and your family killed if you said anything against him, or

      2. Living in an environment where bombs regularly blow up in crowded places, you could get shot while walking down the streets, or kidnapped for ransom

      Which one would you take?

      This is a perception issue, for the Iraqis the number of dead people killed then and now do not matter, but the present situation does. Since most people in the US have never experienced a dictatorship they just do not understand what the fuss is all about. Let me try to explain. What were the chances that Abdul the fruit seller in the market would get killed by Saddam? Very low if none. All Abdul had to do was keep his mouth shut and make sure that he did not associate with guys who Saddam did not like. This is something every Iraqi ( or anyone who has lived under a dictatorship ) grew up with.

      In the present situation with the suicide bombers and the kidnappers, Abdul can get killed anytime and anywhere even for selling fruits to Foreigners. The only safe place is the green zone but you can also get killed while lining up to enter. So is life better for Abdul? I dont think so, and exactly this is what is pissing off the Iraqis

      On WMDs there is a nice article in Newsweek quoting Bush attacking Kerry on not being a "better commander in chief" by asking the following question: Bush: "Knowing what we know now, would [Kerry] have supported going into Iraq?"

  244. Oh shut up with that stupid poem already. by FatSean · · Score: 0

    When they came to get me I was happy, cause there wasn't anyone else left to talk to at that point!

    --
    Blar.
  245. good prank by steak · · Score: 1

    i bet it was just some republicans playing a prank

    1. Re:good prank by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      It was either:

      Someone with an extreme dislike of Kennedy

      or

      Someone that wanted to make the administration look bad

      Three guesses.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  246. Two questions by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The first question, if it took Ed Kennedy, a well known Senator, three weeks of calling around to get off the list, what chance would a regular Joe have of EVER getting off the list.

    The next question, will Tom Ridge be personally calling and apologizing to everyone who is improperly placed on the list, or just those who have the pull to make things inconvieniant for DHS in future legislation?

    1. Re:Two questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There is no way off the list.

      I remeber hearing a story of an elderly women who had the same name as a male terrorist's alias. She was unable to fly for years. Even her congressman couldn't help.

    2. Re:Two questions by e40 · · Score: 1
      The first question, if it took Ed Kennedy, a well known Senator, three weeks of calling around to get off the list, what chance would a regular Joe have of EVER getting off the list.

      Answer: 0% chance. I've already read articles (I think in the New Yorker) about people that tried to get off the list but couldn't. In some cases, the data was just wrong (black femalelisted with correct name, but listed as "middle eastern male"), and even though it was obvious, they still would not correct their database.

      It's not like a million of us didn't predict this...

  247. Constitution Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Section. 6.
    Clause 1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. (See Note 6) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, beprivileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

  248. Re:Kennedy's actual record of in-flight disturbanc by pclminion · · Score: 0
    I hardly think bonking one of his own aides on the head with a pillow qualifies as assault.

    So the guy drank a lot. And G.W. snorted cocaine. Your point?

  249. Journalists denied because they had no visa by sideshow · · Score: 1

    This story has be passed around and it has fueled the "The US Gov is evvviiiiiiil" fires for a while. The problem is that it is very misleading.

    These journalists got in trouble because they didn't have the correct visa. In the past the rule that required foreign journalists to fill out some extra paperwork was not enforced but in these times of shoe inspection seems like they would have looked into the immigration rules a little closer.

    --

    Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

  250. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in February of this year, i bought a used Totota 4Runner from a guy up in Denton, TX.

    i decided to take a one-way flight from San Antonio to Dallas to meet the guy and complete the purchase, then drive the truck back to San Antonio.

    now i SUSPECTED i would be flagged for extra searches, and that the "S's" would be on my ticket (purchased at the counter, 1 hour before the flight, 1-way), but what i wasn't prepared for was the strange looks and attitude i suddenly got from people at the ticket counter!

    the security screeners were a little less "personal" about it, but the woman behind the ticket counter literally changed from smile dead-serious when she heard me say "one way" - despite the large manila envelope marked "4RUNNER PURCHASE" i was holding in my hand and explaining to here i was picking up a new car in Dallas..

    fun fun fun.

  251. Interesting ???? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

    Funny if anything.

  252. riiight by DreadSpoon · · Score: 1

    "Fit supertall buildings with anti-aircraft weapons (specially designed for short range so they don't get hijacked)."

    This one is just silly. OK, so it's short range. You can still cause mass amounts of damage to the nearby area. OK, it can somehow only hit planes. Great, you killed all the innocents on that plane. And oh, oops, the plane (or bits) still smash into things after being shot.

    We need to make sure every building has some guns attached. After all, a terrorist with a car in a crowded area could kill hundreds, if not thousands, before he could be stopped. Right?

  253. ot: sugar coke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf? Does the US not use sugar in their coke? What do they use instead, corn syrup?

    1. Re:ot: sugar coke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf? Does the US not use sugar in their coke? What do they use instead, corn syrup?

      The short answer is : Yes.
      The short reason is government price manipulations that drive up sugar prices. I believe the reason for such manipulations have to do with the fact the Cuba, our enemy, relies on international sugar sales to pay for its socialism, which we are trying to discredit.

      It's all very very sick. Right up there with our twisted anti-Vietnam shrimp import policies.

    2. Re:ot: sugar coke? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      wtf? Does the US not use sugar in their coke? What do they use instead, corn syrup?

      Yep. High fructose corn syrup.

  254. USA: Terrorist Haven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only country in north america that anyone has to worry about is the USA. In case your crack riddled mind forgot, it was the USA that let in 19 people who killed thousands (including a lot of Canadians), not Canada, not Mexico. The USA. The USA has also raised numerous NATIVE terrorists inside its own borders. People like Timothy McVeigh who have killed hundreds in the name of their extemist American gun culture philosophies, with no concern for innocent women or children. Frankly I consider Canadian customs lax only in so much that we allow Americans into our country so easily. I think that needs to change ASAP. I'd like to see Americans be forced to be photographed and fingerprinted at the border, even if they are only coming over to partake in our greater level of freedom (marijuana, gay marriage, etc).

  255. Dont forget the 9th Amendment by isolation · · Score: 0

    The Constitution does not grant you rights it enumerates them. The 9th Amendment spells this out.

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    Meaning you have more rights then listed here and the government cannot take those away just because they are not listed.

    --
    Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
  256. Erratic security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the real problem with the airport security measures is that there is a very inconsistant standard.

    Post-9/11 I have taken 13 round-trips between National Airport in DC and LaGuardia in New York, and each time I brought a steel swiss army knife (complete with 3" blade). Each time I put the knife on the tray along with my other personal stuff (magazine, walkman, keys, change, etc.), and only *three* times have the security people asked me to take the knife back and put it in checked baggage; they didn't even discard it.

    Oh yeah, I'm also a young caucasian man: aged 18-21 on those trips. Now I don't have an arabic name, but even so... shouldn't young men carrying knives between New York and DC be on the top of any airport security list?

  257. What actually happened to Rickover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was in Washington, D.C., and decided to do a surprise inspection of a nuclear submarine while it was in dry dock. Upon arrival at the shipyard where the boat was being constructed, he was stopped by a Marine tasked with perimeter security, and denied access to the piers.

    For those unfamiliar with the Admiral, he was, to expaned upon colorful, possessed of a whimsical and horrific temper and flair for the demeaning. The exchange between the guard and the Admiral must have been epic, but in the end, Rickover was turned away.

    Upon arrival to the base's security facilities, he promptly authored a personal letter of commendation to the guard - which coming from Rickover, the man who personally selected the CO/XO staff of each nuclear submarine in the US fleet, held tremendous weight, baring and significance - Bravo Zulu, indeed.

  258. If he weren't a Senator, would he even know why... by jdunlevy · · Score: 1
    Washingtonpost.com story:
    When the senator checked in at the counter, airline employees told him they could not issue him a boarding pass because he appeared on the list

    Given that the contents of the "no-fly" list are secret, would the airline employees even have told him why they could not issue the boarding pass if he hadn't been a US Senator (and somebody they recognized).

  259. Much Broader Problem - Read Linked Article by MooseByte · · Score: 1

    "This story has be passed around and it has fueled the "The US Gov is evvviiiiiiil" fires for a while. The problem is that it is very misleading."

    The problem, however, is that this is not an isolated incident due to a single visa issue. There's a broader pattern of similar behavior on the part of US authorities.

    Please read it, it's enlightening. Note that the article was written this month.

  260. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by bretharder · · Score: 1

    I was unaware of his manslaugther charge.
    Here's a link to Wikipedia's Article on Ted Kennedy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy

  261. None of this matters a damned bit. by RatBastard · · Score: 1
    None of this security matters. At all. Why? Because this isn't going to happen again. The 9/11 attacks only worked for two reasons:
    1. It had never been done before.
    2. In EVERY previous hijacking in the USA all you had to do to survive was sit down and shut up. The people on teh plane were hostages used as tools for getting money, transport to Cuba, prisoners released from jail, etc...
    9/11 was teh first time in US history where the passangers were "collateral damage" and nothing more. We had all been correctly trained to just sit down and let teh hijackers do what they wanted in order to survive. Because until 9/11 they were only killing passangers who tried to get in their way.

    Now the rules have changed. We know that every hijacking could be people trying o turn the plane into a weapon. People won't be so willing to sit down and shut up in the future. And you can bet your ass that the Air Force won't be waiting for orders from above to put an F14 on teh tail of any hijacked plane in the future.

    This whole system is a waste of time and energy.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    1. Re:None of this matters a damned bit. by dynamo · · Score: 1

      Damned good point, sir.

  262. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Or maybe it never really happened...

    Yep, the story is being leaked from the same secret base where they faked the moon landing footage.

    P.S.
    You know all that Mars footage? It's being filmed at the secret moon base.


    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  263. Every T. Kennedy is now cleared? by Anders+Andersson · · Score: 1
    Because this particular T. Kennedy is not the person they are looking for does not mean that there isn't a T. Kennedy that they ARE looking for.

    Were looking for, you mean? If it took the senator three weeks to get the name "T. Kennedy" off the list, doesn't that mean that the suspected terrorist by that name is no longer being looked for? Or, did they simply change the listing to read "T. Kennedy, except senator Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts"?

    It reminds me of the anti-spam measures blocking entire domains from sending mail, then making exceptions for individual legit senders one by one, until everybody is cleared and the blocking has been rendered ineffective (thanks to joe-jobs).

    Blacklisting passengers by initial and last name only sounds pretty crude, but may work to some extent if false positives can be resolved quickly. Whitelisting famous people by initial and last name only is plain stupid. They should have kept "T. Kennedy" listed and used the senator's ordeals as an argument for improving the screening process instead. A security fence with random holes in it is worse than no fence at all, because it provides no security while pretending it does.

  264. must be the previous scrapes with the law by ksheff · · Score: 1

    I'm sure we're all safer that Teddy isn't driving, especially his passengers.

    However, I'm surprised that he doesn't have his own plane.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  265. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, good point... wouldn't be a lot more efficient to just force all the people that require "extra screening" to just wear a little star on their clothing?

  266. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by bretharder · · Score: 1

    Liberal by American standards. :)

  267. It would be funnier if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tom Ridge himself is blacklisted. Then, he would have to call himself and avoid the dumbass caller.

  268. I ain't the nutcase, bro by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    An isolated pilot compartment would be nice, but self-defence is about protecting against the unforseen. A passenger could still hold passengers hostage.

    "Innocent bystanders" -- perhaps you mean, unlike the people in the towers? Or, unlike the people in the plane when, as modern doctrine runs, they scramble a military jet or SAM and blow 200-ish passengers and crew into mincemeat and confetti?

    The nutcases are the ones who think a passenger compartment crossfire would be bad, but a passenger compartment scattered from Kansas to Texas would be fine.

  269. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Heywood+Jablonski · · Score: 1
    I don't fly very often (1-2 times per year), but I'm frequently on the "Screen" list (SSSS on your boarding pass). I am a white bread WASPy-looking male. My tickets are purchased in advance with a credit card, usually from Travelocity. Pretty Mainstream!

    My understanding is that selection is done automatically by some computer system. I don't know what the selection criteria are, but they clearly are not just "dark skin and funny clothes".

  270. LOL! by neptolac · · Score: 1

    They probably thought he would commandeer the plane and fly it off the runway into the Potomac!

  271. DHS not involved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another article mentioned that Tom Ridge personally called Kennedy and told him that he was never on the DHS list. The problem was due to the CAPPS program.

  272. MA Senators and water by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 1

    Well we all know what happens when MA Senators and rivers get involved.

    People die or they can't remember what country they're in (or who's president at the time either).

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    1. Re:MA Senators and water by Salgak1 · · Score: 2

      Kennedy 2008 ?? A Blonde in Every Pond ?? (diving for cover)

  273. Consiparcy and Corruption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The U.S. is, according to my grade school social studies classes, a representative democracy. People are elceted to vaious offices by the will of the people, based upon their abilities, and the trust of the people in them, do represent their interests.

    Given this, what would be a good, objective sign, that the system has been corrupted, by the interests of a powerful few? What would you look for that might be good indications that power has been taken away from the people and given into the hands of some special group?

    The ones I can think of right off are:
    secret laws and policies - check (denied FOI requests, computer errors erasing records, and terrorist watch lists that no one can see.)
    multiple closely related people holding independant offices - check (president of the U.S. with two sons as governors of different states anyone?)
    laws that do not seem to favor any majority, only special interests - check (I think this is pretty obvious.)
    votes that don't matter - check (ask the average person when the last time they voted on something that made a difference.)
    Lack of reform - check (healthy democracies, are always refining the process and giving more power and control to the people. The U.S. has not reformed our voting laws, lobbying policies, or ability to institute referendums in 100 years. Now why wouldn't the people give themselves power?)

  274. Kennedy's IRA Connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative
    Don't forget who this is, Ted Kennedy, not exactly the most honest guy in politics. So expect a lot of self-promoting distortion and Bush-bashing.

    And Edward Kennedy does have terrorist connections. If memory served me right, he has used his political muscle to aid IRA terrorist leaders, getting them into the US to raise money. That probably got him (legitimately) on at least one terrorist watch list and that data was fed into the current one. So, it is phony for him to whine and claim innocence. When it comes to terrorism, he has blood on his hands.

    Don't forget too that Ed Kennedy is very left and it is the left, particularly in Europe, that's providing political cover for so-called "fundamentalist" terrorists. You can read about how how Carlos the Jackal, former Marxist, has converted to Islam and how London's Sunday Telegraph is idolizing him like Marxist revolutionaries were once idolized at:

    Carlos the Jackal

    And recall that when his father, Joseph Kennedy, was UK ambassador after war broke out in Europe, he tilted his remarks so heavily in favor of Hitler that some historians call him "pro-Nazi." FDR had to do some clever manuvering to get him to leave the job quietly. Papa Joe hoped he could build on American isolationism and get himself in the White House. If he'd been successful in his schemes, Europe would still be Nazi. (There was, in fact, a rather badly done docu-drama that built on that theme.)

    Then there is the Kennedy family's close friendship with Senator Joe Macarthy of the repressive Macarthy Era fame. Ed's brother Robert Kennedy served as Macarthy's legal aide and John Kennedy was the only member of the Senate not to vote to censure Macarthy for his demagogery. Ed was a bit too young to get involved in the family's efforts to suppress free speech, but his heart was no doubt with his kin. Witness all the slandering he has done over the years of rather ordinary Americans.

    In short, Ed Kennedy, grossly obese and often drunk, is the last member of a rather vile political dynasty. There's probably no one more deserving of having his flights disrupted by a terrorism watch list. Edward and his kin have thrown their weight around and hurt a lot of innocent people over the years. There's no reason to feel sympathy for him now.

    --Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle

  275. a funny thought by perlchild · · Score: 1

    Didn't I read somewhere parlementarians in the USA 's travel to DC (to meet in congress, I know he's a senator, so it may be different, but I thought it wasn't) was constitutionally protected? Maybe we can hear some funny things coming out due to this mistake.

  276. Priceless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First the Greens (google Doug Stuber and see what hell he's been put through) and now the Democrats.

    Republican shame knows no bounds!

  277. what an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be nice if people here on /. would at least have the scientific urge to research the issue before making loud, confident statements. Of course, people like you are too lazy to do that.

    He didn't lie under oath, you dumb shit. If you watch the videos or read the transcripts, he is asked whether he had sexual relations with her. He asks the court to define sexual relations, and they restricted it to intercourse. He only got a blow job from her, so therefore he answered no.

    You just fell victim to the spin doctors. He said that he didn't have sexual relations with her, so the Republicans spun that (without saying how sexual relations was defined) as him lying about the blow job.

    Here's a clue: never believe what you hear by any politician, or news media until you check the facts out for yourself from independent and even partisan sources (check both sides for their spins).

  278. "But the misunderstanding persisted for weeks "` by bobalu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, you're saying he was flying one-way for weeks?

    --
    The revolution will NOT be televised.
  279. Repealing the No-Fly list by natoochtoniket · · Score: 1

    There is a very easy way to get the no-fly list repealed. Just put the names of all 535 congressmen, and all of the federal judges, on the list. It will be repealed in just a few days.

  280. True enough, the plane won't decompress by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    ...but without frangible ammo, you do run the risk of shooting through delicate control systems, computers, wires, hydraulics, landing-wheel tires, fuel tanks etc. So frangible is still good.

  281. Edward Kennedy by daub815 · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't let him fly either.

  282. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by bretharder · · Score: 1

    I'm a registered Republican;
    I'm conservative about most issues;
    and I normally laugh at conspiracy theorys,
    but it's hard to imagin that the name Ted Kennedy was mistakenly added to the list.

  283. So by Cyno · · Score: 1

    Don't like it?

    Boycott the airlines.

    Make less money.

    Pay less taxes.

    Stop purchasing extra stuff.

    Stop supporting a system that refuses to work for its people.

    If enough people did this they would beg us to be more productive again and improve our economy. Because everyone in power would be losing their jobs too.

  284. lol by hemna · · Score: 0

    The only error was that it was the no fly list. It should have been the no Driving (drunk) list.

  285. The Basis of Gov't. by mefus · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the Government of Men.

    Unfortunately, the Judges appear to be with Them.

    --
    mefus
    In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
    1. Re:The Basis of Gov't. by mefus · · Score: 1

      OMG, I linked to some Randian toe-kisser! God forgive me!

      --
      mefus
      In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
  286. Re:GET YOUR FACTS CORRECT FIRST. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Clinton was impeached BECAUSE HE LIED UNDER OATH.

    Ha. Right != correct...

    No, Clinton *admitted* he lied under oath. Lying, and admitting you lied, are two different things.

    We all know Reagan didn't lie under oath. Not when it came to selling drugs, or arming Iranian terrorists, or right wing death squads in Central America. And *certainly* not when linking the Beruit Bombing of 211 marines to the government in Grenada! Clinton could simply have said "I don't recall" like that cowardly raisen did.

    It's just *amazing* that people who claim to be "more patroitic" are more anti-Clinton than anything else, and are willing to overlook so much worse on their side. Forget blowjobs or LYING UNDER OATH ABOUT BLOWJOBS.

    HOW about lying under oath to start a FUCKING WAR??

    Hell, Bush doesn't even *try* to hide that he collects a paycheck from the Saudi Royal Family.

  287. This is great... by frkiii · · Score: 2, Funny

    It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

  288. mod parent up by drphuck · · Score: 1

    It's stupid, and un-american and it's only matter of time untill they harassed someone important.

    I'm sure Ted Kennedy isn't the first "important" person they have harrassed. This was a while ago but it really pissed me off at the time, because this Canadian preaches tolerance and peace and yet Airport security had no tolerence for him because of his skin colour. He's not an important Senator like Ted Kennedy... ...But that shouldn't matter, because we're all equal and have the same rights, right?...

    --
    "Software is like sex... it's better when it's free"
  289. Why would they? by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

    "It really looks like the TSA simply doesn't care whether innocent civilians are denied the ability to use the nation's airlines."

    To be completely pragmatic, why do they care? Its not as if it costs them money to deny access to transportation. It costs the airlines and the people trying to travel.

    Perhaps if people were unfairly not allowed to fly, and TSA would be forced to reinburse them real costs, then all of the sudden, they would be smarter about it.

    But the way things are set up now, there's no penalty for denying *everyone* access to travel.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  290. I was once thoroughly searched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not an American citizen, and I belong to an identifiable ethnic group that is often associated with terror (being Muslim from an Arab country, and wearing a beard too).

    I do not go to the USA as much now, but I have been visiting for some decade and a half, off and on.

    The only time I was searched in a US airport was one day before the Oklahoma City, and was searched while leaving US soil on an international flight, at the boarding terminal.

    The woman first asked me how much cash I have. I told her. She then asked to see it. I showed her my wallet. Then she said : "OK, we saw this, now put it aside", then proceeded to check my briefcase, and everything else I carried.

    She then handed me to another man who frisked me. I asked why is this being done, he kept joking that one day they do the people with hats, another day the women, and that is the day he likes. Ha ha ha.

    I noticed they searched the African looking people behind me, and they had a Bible in the bag. They did not search any European looking people though.

    I have always wondered if they got news that something was about to happen, and were searching for clues.

    I learned about the Oklahoma City bombing after I flew half way across the plant, and recovered from jet lag. I was really happy that I was not in the USA then, otherwise it would have been hell. At least until they realized it was a white American Christian who did it.

    P.S. There are those who still live in conspiracy theories, adn think it was Muslims/Iraqis/...etc. who did Oklahoma City! Amazing ...

  291. Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ted Kennedy = Jabba the Hut = Edward Kennedy

    Clear now?

  292. Don't be so mean? by useosx · · Score: 1

    Something that won't take decades to bring to fruition ("Don't be so mean to them and cause them to blow stuff up").

    There are things the U.S. could do in a few days that would alleviate the suffering of millions of people within a few days. Of course, they will never do it even if it makes total sense like ending the drug war.

    Think I'm talking nonsense? There's a book about it: Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky. Read it and decide for yourself. Also, "Profit Over People" by him is good as well.

  293. The Real Reason by vwjeff · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Senator was blacklisted to save the airlines money. Free booze in First Class has to have limits.

  294. Or think about David Nelsons: includes a senator by geekotourist · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Using the same math, I calculate that there are about 5,500 David Nelsons in the US. Almost 6,000 if you include Dave, Davis and other close SoundEx matches. They include an Oregon state senator and Ozzie and Harriet's son.

    From this article on the ACLU's lawsuit: [of people on the list] "the "no-fly" list has resulted in routine stops of passengers without terrorist ties who "have no meaningful opportunity to clear their names," said the complaint filed by the American Civil Liberties Union... They are detained, interrogated, delayed, embarrassed, humiliated in front of other passengers."

    "Plaintiff David Nelson, 34, a trial attorney in the St. Louis, Missouri, area, said he has been stopped more than 30 times -- every flight he's taken..." Its all the Nelsons everywhere, although evidently the one bad one is from Tennessee. From another article "...this week 18 men named David Nelson, all residents of Oregon, confirmed they have been repeatedly delayed at airport counters and security checkpoints in the last year or so."

    I do not feel safer that all T. Kennedys or all David Nelsons are being searched. They should hire police to follow the one bad David Nelson around and save those 12,000 searches (assuming 1 trip per year) for random searches of everybody. As Bruce Schneier points out:

    "Profiling has two very dangerous failure modes. The first one is obvious. Profiling's intent is to divide people into two categories: people who may be evildoers and need to be screened more carefully, and people who are less likely to be evildoers and can be screened less carefully.

    But any such system will create a third, and very dangerous, category: evildoers who don't fit the profile... Evildoers can also engage in identity theft, and steal the identity -- and profile -- of an honest person. Profiling can result in less security by giving certain people an easy way to skirt security.

    There's another, even more dangerous, failure mode for these systems: honest people who fit the evildoer profile. Because evildoers are so rare, almost everyone who fits the profile will turn out to be a false alarm. This not only wastes investigative resources that might be better spent elsewhere, but it causes grave harm to those innocents who fit the profile."

    Bad Soundex matches don't make us more secure. Even good soundex matches aren't much better: the bad guys will just learn which names not to use. Random searches: annoying, but results in more actual safety.
  295. Missed the Point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever noticed that when a man points, the fools will stare at his finger...

  296. Ah, bureacracy! by jcr · · Score: 1

    I can't *believe* they took this long to get everone on Dick Nixon's Enemies List on the no-fly list!

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  297. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by UdoKeir · · Score: 1

    He brought it up at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. If you'd read either of the articles you'd have seen that.

    This would be the best time and place to reveal his experience if he wants to effect change in a system which clearly has flaws.

    > Or maybe it never really happened...

    Riiiight... so he was lying along with all those other people (including Tom Ridge).

  298. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by colin_n · · Score: 1

    I am also on this list. I have flown a few times within and out of the US in the past 6 months.
    Houston -> Boston - RED ALERT! SCREENED
    Boston -> London - RED ALERT! SCREENED
    London -> Istanbul - Nothing
    Istanbul -> London - Nothing
    London -> Bangkok - Nothing
    Bangkok -> Sydney - Nothing
    Sydney -> Cairns - Nothing
    Cairns -> Sydney - Nothing
    Sydney -> London - Nothing
    London -> Boston - Nothing
    Boston -> Houston - RED ALERT! SCREENED
    Houston -> Philly (I had no checked luggage and a shopping bag only! -> RED ALERT! SCREENED

    I am more of a threat in MY OWN DAMN country than I am when I am a visitor to countries that dislike (put mildly) the US for their "imperialistic attitude toward the rest of the world" (paraphrasing many people I have met outside the US)

    --

    --------- I have no signature
  299. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by colin_n · · Score: 1

    If my memory serves me correctly, the terrorists on 9/11 had return tickets. So the whole one way thing is ridiculous. If you are willing to die, you arent too cheap to buy a return f*ing ticket.

    --

    --------- I have no signature
  300. Soldiers screened as stunned passengers look on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last week I was in DFW where a sign said that it was OPTIONAL to remove shoes before going through metal detectors. TSA workers badgered everyone to remove shoes and repeatedly told everyone that they would be pulled out of line if they didn't OPTIONALLY remove their shoes.

    A group of 3 uniformed soldiers in desert camouflage attire refused to remove their combat boots. They were taken out of line, seated, ordered to remove their boots, and wanded. Their baggage was hand inspected and their boots were re-xrayed.

    These soldiers probably did not complain about the way they were treated, but it certainly aroused comments from other passengers.

    What do you do about a system that's this broken? It gives me a feeling of hopelessness.

  301. Foolish suggestions by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    I would go further and give the cockpit an outside door, so it is inaccessible from the passenger cabin.

    What happens if there is a problem in flight? Not being able to get into the cockpit can be good and bad.

    Give the pilots (or, for that matter, properly qualified passengers) guns so they can fight back.

    What happens when a pilot decides to hyjack a plane? Or a 'Certified' passenger? Who watches the watchmen? What happens when terrorists decide to forge a homeland security gun permit?

    Put remote control lockouts on the aircraft.

    Good idea, then terrorist wont even have to board a plane to take control of it and crash it. They will all become hackers. And the best part of this idea, is that when such a system is exploited, you will be able to crash EVERY SINGLE PLANE IN THE AIR AT ONCE.

    Fit supertall buildings with anti-aircraft weapons (specially designed for short range so they don't get hijacked)

    Do you have any idea how silly this is? If you want to down a 747, you can't do it when it is about to hit a building. And, btw, most major cities have big airports nearby. If you put AA under flightpaths, terrorists can just take an AA installation, and pop away at incomming flights. Moreover, what is 'short range' AA? A phalanx system? Do you really want to put something like that on top of a building?

    How about this, we just make sure that people getting on planes don't have guns, explosives, and knives. Without a weapon, a terrorist has to wrestle down 200 hysterical passengers who no longer believe that they might live through a hyjacking.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Foolish suggestions by wronskyMan · · Score: 1

      What happens when a pilot decide sto hyjack a plane?

      Umm... the pilot already has control of the plane, I don't think he needs to use force to take it over.

      --
      --- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
    2. Re:Foolish suggestions by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      Umm... the pilot already has control of the plane, I don't think he needs to use force to take it over.

      Really? The Co-pilot might have an objection to the idea of crashing the plane into a large building, so yes, he does have to take it over.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  302. Wait, they be on to something... by Autonomous+Crowhard · · Score: 1

    Think about it... How much better off would this country be if none of the politicians could get to DC?

  303. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by mpaque · · Score: 3, Informative

    You get used to it after a while. What I do is basically:

    1) Don't carry anything valuable. They'll make you dump everything on a table, which they don't watch very well. For security staff, they're pretty slack about other people's stuff.

    2) Wear cheap, flat 'deck' shoes, like $12 pairs fron a cheap show chain. You may lose them at some point.

    3) If you wear a belt, use a cheap flat belt. You may have it torn open at some point.

    4) Wear clean underware, with no holes. You may wind up with your pants around your ankles with 20 strangers there, as you try to stand straight, with no belt, and your arms straight out from your sides. (Happened to me at San Diego, in the hole they call Gate 1.)

    Expect to be laughed at by the wanker TSA employees. Do not make any remarks or show any expression in response. Remarks about a**holes results in an extra hour or two in a small room while you wait for a cavity search 'specialist'.

  304. INSERT INTO NOFLYLIST(NAME,COMMENT) VALUES('T KENN by Serveert · · Score: 1

    EDY','heh heh, silly terror-loving anti-USA democrats!');

    --
    2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
  305. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    London -> Istanbul - Nothing
    Istanbul -> London - Nothing

    It may not be my business, but try flying from London to Constanople and back. Its freakin rough...

  306. A man in Massachusetts was pulled over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    after driving erratically. The Police Officer noticed the smell of alcohol on his breath. He asked the driver, "Sir, do you know what drunk driving gets you in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?"

    The man replied, "I don't know.. reelection to the Senate?"

  307. What a waste of a post. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only surprising thing is Ted put the scotch glass down long enough to board a plane...

  308. When you travel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make sure you pack Tom Ridge's home number.

    It needs to be recognized that the ONLY reason Mr. Kennedy managed to get there at all was that he had personal contacts with the DHS. Someone who was not a member of the aristocracy would not have been able to fly at all. In addition, they would likely still be charged for the denied flight.

  309. Yet another Fascist (sorry, GOP) Dirty Trick? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this yet another execrable instance in the continued of the decades-old litany (beginning with Watergate and running right up to the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" crowd) of subversive activities perpetrated on the American People by a political party which time and again reveals itself to be an enemy of the people. I mean, why Senator Kennedy of all people? Picked at random? Clerical error? One must suspect not.

  310. AFROTC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF?

    1. Re:AFROTC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFROTC = Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps

  311. You have no right to correct your data... by geekotourist · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From This March 2003 Slashdot article: the government has no responsibility or requirement (and thus no incentive) to have correct data or to be corrected. Ted Kennedy gets a rare exception because he's not only famous but powerful. You and I have no chance. Just ask the 5,500 David Nelsons.

    And whatever they claim otherwise, they're still getting data from credit reports and the like. So say you're one of the hundreds of thousands of identity theft victims. With ID theft you have rights, and the credit reporting agencies responsibilities, to attempt to fix bad data. Takes 200 hours of your time and never, ever really finishes, but all you lose is your potential new job and potential new car loan.

    But in the meantime the bad data gets into the gov't files: now you never can fix it. And your taint creeps out to touch all your associates (like how the casino software catches ex-roommates of ex-roommates of card counters). Now not only do you not get hired after the NCIC screen in the background check, but your buddies and grandparents all get extra airport searches (they should add a nurse they way they do some of those searches... add in a breast or testicular cancer lump screen while you're there). And of course as 1 in 2500 of us is a terrorist any close check of you will find those suspicious degrees of separation in your Orkut links. Hi Mr.Tuttle, your new name is Toast.

    From my favorite precient and well-written essay on privacy losses:

    "But there also will be tangible, specific harm.

    The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life...

    "If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent behavior is misinterpreted as suspicious because authorities don't know our reasons or our circumstances, we will be at risk of finding ourselves in trouble in a society where everyone is regarded as a suspect. By the time we clear our names and establish our innocence, we may have suffered irreparable financial or social harm.

    "Worse yet, we may never know what negative assumptions or judgments have been made about us in state files... Decisions detrimental to us may be made on the basis of wrong facts, incomplete or out-of-context information or incorrect assumptions, without our ever having the chance to find out about it, let alone to set the record straight.

    " That possibility alone will, over time, make us increasingly think twice about what we do, where we go, with whom we associate, because we will learn to be concerned about how it might look to the ubiquitous watchers of the state..."

    "The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society..."

    If these errors were merely harmful to the innocent, that would simply be horribly injust and an affront to the ideals of the US. But these errors are also stupidly harmful to safety. From Schneier (via my D.Nelson post)... "almost everyone who fits the profile will turn out to be a false alarm. This not only wastes investigative resources that might be better spent elsewhere, but it causes grave harm to those innocents who fit the profile..."

  312. Real goal is centralized travel permissions... by Invisible+Now · · Score: 1
    Parse the last quote carefully:

    "Administration of the list clearly needs to be changed and consolidated to be government-managed," Hatfield said. "This points out the weakness in having the names checked against passengers at hundreds of different airlines at thousands of different airline counters across the country."

    Sounds like Hatfield's idea of a fix is to centralize the no-fly into a central database with automatic checking. When this is in place even a supervisor who recognizes the esteemed Senator would probably not be allowed to let him board...

    --

    "Knowing everything doesn't help..."

  313. The Reason is POLITICS ... by quarkscat · · Score: 1

    Senator Ted Kennedy )D-MA) was one of the few
    politicians that stood up to George W. Bush
    and voted NO for the Iraqi Conflict. Shortly
    after 9/11/2001 (before the anthrax letters),
    George W. Bush said "If you are not with "us",
    then you are against "us"."

    This puts Senator Kennedy in the same class as
    the Taliban, al-Queda, the opposition forces in
    Iraq, (and AFAIK, the "liberal" NYC news media
    and the Senate Democratic leadership and the
    National Inquirer, who were sent those deadly
    anthrax letters) -- "enemy combatants".

    It has been very nearly 3 years since those
    letters were sent out, and the closest the
    FBI has come to catching the criminals involved
    is to now have 2 "persons of interest", which
    is reminiscent of the Olympic bombing in Atlanta.
    Can anyone say "Keystone Kops"?

  314. Re:"But the misunderstanding persisted for weeks " by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    Very true. But he was still flying.

  315. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    IIRC, they stamped a "J" on every jew's passport

  316. Decedents? by sean.peters · · Score: 1
    Lest we forget, the overwhelming majority of American Citizens are decedents (emphasis added) of immigrants.

    Umm... actually, the overwhelming majority of American citizens are still alive. Sorry, couldn't help myself!

    Sean

  317. Good! by PhilipPeake · · Score: 1

    Couldn't happen to a nicer person!

  318. Post-Election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And anyone who made a loud stink about voting FOR him will have trouble BREATHING. The femtosecond the Repubelickin boot is off the middle class' throat, retaliation will run riot. Payback is a BITCH.

  319. Watch lists REDUCE security vs random checks by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's ALWAYS going to be a good thing to know who someone really is from a security point of view.

    Not true. In addition to impeeding ordinary travelers (thus doing damage FOR the terrorists), it's an innefective waste of resources that could otherwise be used to do something useful.

    Such as random searches.

    A watch list means anybody on the watch list is harrassed, and KNOWS it, while anybody NOT on the list passes through. This means that the terrorists can do a dry run and find out which of them are not on the list and pass through unhampered. Then the ones that succeed get togther and do the REAL hijacking - with no problems.

    And the terrorists already knew this. They did dry runs immediately before the 9/11 event.

    Had the resources been used instead for random checks, being passed through without search once would give no improvement whatsoever on the probability of being searched on the next trip. Mixes of the two are progressively less effective as the fraction of random searches goes down and watchlist searches goes up. (There was a recent paper on this published, and referenced here on slashdot.)

    Meanwhile, having a watch list means having a government black list, selecting out a subset of the population for systematic penalization and harrassment. That's already unconstitutional, in the absense of individiualized evidence of wrongdoing and legal action to determine guilt, under the equal protection clause. But doubly so when it can be shown that a watchlist is not effective for its stated purpose, so no pressing government interest is served.

    And of course there's the issue of harassment of additional people improperly put on the list - with T. Kennedy as the poster child.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Watch lists REDUCE security vs random checks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, random searches won't cut it, There is just too many people to have anything even approaching comprehensive coverage.

      Instead, what they need to do is instead of turning away people on the no-fly list. They need to execute them on the spot. That ought to be enough to stop most dry runs. It's one thing to go down in a blaze of glory for your cause, it is an entirely different thing to get a lethal injection during a strip search. Call it the "do-not-even-try-to-fly list"

    2. Re:Watch lists REDUCE security vs random checks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. We don't need to know who is on the plane, only that they haven't strapped C4 to their chest before bording. And aren't we already checking that?

      Or is the ID check for something more? Maybe we're trying to catch terrorists when they go through security? If so, haven't we broken laws? You can't stop everyone in an effort to catch one guy, it's against our 4th Amendment rights. Isn't it?

      If we can be stopped at the airport to check ID, who's to say we can't be stopped on the street to have our papers checked? I'm pretty sure that's not acceptable. Though I've been wrong before.

    3. Re:Watch lists REDUCE security vs random checks by Six+Nines · · Score: 1

      If T. Kennedy's going to be a poster child, I want to buy stock in a paper mill, because that's gonna be a big poster...

  320. WAAAHOOOOO!!! by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Well thanks for almost making a Dorito fly out my nose...

    I was thinking more like Clinton/Kennedy 2008 - This time the WOMAN'S driving.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  321. How about the U.S. Constitution by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

    Article. I.

    Section. 6.

    Clause 1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. (See Note 6) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, beprivileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

    1. Re:How about the U.S. Constitution by a24061 · · Score: 1

      Being barred from flying is not the same as being arrested; the former is apparently not subject to due process.

  322. Probably you never heard the saying.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Anything is fair in war.

    and Love.

    Ask the British or rather the victims of British war and peace time crimes the world over. Ask Abu Gharibites about what they think about the upkeepers of democracy and freedom. I am sure you will hear a different version. So you saying what you say now is really without complete knowledge of the facts. I am not claiming to know otherwise, but the mere fact that some of these people had slaves should tell you something about their respect for human lives. And sure - No Britisher was stabbed in the back during the Independence War.
    Gimme a break from this holier than thou attitude.

    As far as killing innocents by blowing things up goes, no one ever in the history of man kind, including the Nazis has killed more innocent people than the USA. Now with all this in perspective, what you say is truly hypocritic. More than all the islamists of the world, its your kind that I fear. You will be the creaters of the Animal farm, if its already not in place.

  323. Re:Brainless bureaucracy -OT- by cvd6262 · · Score: 1

    I worked the VIP side of a hockey rink for the 2002 winter olympics. Somehow, Sen. Dodds (Vermont, I think), snuck his uncleared father-in-law into the VIP seats. When they got up to go get something from the VIP tent, one of my volunteers told Dodds that his father did not have the proper clearance, and that if he left the stands, he would not be able to pass the checkpoint to get back in. Dodds' response:

    "But I'm Senator Dodds."

    I was watching the whole thing and about to get involved (which I rarely did), when the volunteer said, "That's nice, but he still doesn't have the proper clearance."

    I'm sure Sen. Kennedy's experience was similar.

    --

    I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.

  324. Re:It's not about inconvienience: it's about justi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go after terrorists.

    And no, Bush hasn't done that, he just created more.

    Then he gives handouts to Halliburton instead of buying body armor and treating people in hopsitals.

  325. "dont drive across bridges" list by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Ted could have used the "dont drive across bridges" list in 1969. Then he might have beat Nixon in 1972 and history would have been different. No Watergate followed by two timid presidents.

    (Same week as first manned moon landing.)

  326. Combined databases? by OgGreeb · · Score: 1

    I thought the point of this system was that they combined disparate databases to create a whole profile for the no-fly listees. If they flag on "T. Kennedy" without cross referencing ImportantPerson.db and FrequentFlier.db and FaceLooksLikeThis.db and ICanGetFired.db, not to mention mundane things like Address.db and Phone.db and SSN.db, etc., then

    1. The database is useless.
    2. The public has nothing to worry about when it comes to privacy.

    --
    -- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD //www.digimark.net/
  327. No no no no no by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1


    They just misread it.

    He was on the no-DRIVE list.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  328. Brazil??? by FrankMTL · · Score: 1

    This makes me think of the movie Brazil. One bureaucratic mistake can make your life miserable.

  329. It is perverse... by FatSean · · Score: 0

    ...these people with no other way to fight against the US-backed Israeli government. Who, by the way, is forgiven her human rights violations by the US.

    --
    Blar.
  330. A trick to attract masochists? by Gathers · · Score: 1
    ... occasionally causes problems because the airlines are responsible for flagging passengers who show up on the list.
    Did anyone else read this as "the airlines are responsible for flogging passengers who show up on the list"?
    Did anyone who misread it as such find it strange?
    Could public flogging be used to make more masochistic exhibishonists fly?
  331. And only arab-looking people are terrorists. by edinho · · Score: 1

    Nice.

    1. Re:And only arab-looking people are terrorists. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Get your politically correct ass the hell away from me...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  332. many stopped, but none arrested. Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somehow this will be used as arguement to get INCREASED information on people, like national id card, "If T. Kennedy had to have an id card, these mixups wouldn't happen...". So make "everyone" get and use national id card, soon for everything. Pretty soon, it will be used for many things , can't enter a public building without a card, say.

    Another thing. The article says numerous people have been stopped from flying, but NO ARRESTS. Isn't that curious, dangerous terrorists allowed out on the loose, but not allowed to fly? (They could seat them next to a marshall..) If they are so worried about these people, they just let them loose? Tells me they are not that worried about them.

    That why I think it's fake. If they have something n these people, they should be arrested, but they are not being arrested, so souuds like they don't believe their own data. They want to increase their power and control, primarily.

    If people haven't commited a crime, our freedom espousing society has always said people should have their freedom, such as freedom to travel. Why are we losing that?

    Almost by definition the entire list is people who haven't done anything, so how can you restrict them. Allowing a secret government list to stop people from traveling, sounds like fascism to me.

    Innocent till proven guilty.

    Likewise CAPS II and info mining. It's pseudoscience. What are they going to do, correlate info on 19 hijackers and from that draw conclusions? No, more like, whatever they don't like, they add to the list. Polictically active-- loudmouth-- journalist--pornographing-atheist- tatooed-middle eastern looking people with Irish names who look at the TSA baggage searchers funny. THat's what it boils down to. I.e. anyone they want.

    I say, search for real weapons, reinforce cockpit door; with current levels of universal awareness, that's enough to prevent sucessful takeovers.

    Anything more is just more attempts at social control.

  333. Makes sense... by john_smith_45678 · · Score: 1

    Ted Kennedy's so far left he's a communist. Plus he probably puts the plane over the weight limit.

  334. the A-hole list by Simple-Simmian · · Score: 1

    This stupid No-Fly list is an aggragte of a bunch of lists. One such list is the A-hole list kept by many airlines. Ted Kennedy is on that list and that is how he got on the No-Fly list. They want to keep "problem flyers" off of flights. Kenedy has been said to be abusively egotistical. It's no suprise he made the list . Just shows how worthless the No-Fly list is. Now I am on it I bet.

    Ted Kenedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

    --
    If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
    Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
  335. Re:The Real Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong Kennedy... you're thinking of Ted, and he quit drinking a while back.

  336. Similar experience in N. Ireland by SdnSeraphim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Although a little late to posting, I had an interesting experience about 8 years ago in Northern Ireland. When crossing from the Republic to the North, I was stopped at a British army checkpoint. It was just after a medium bombing and I happened, unbeknownst to me to be driving near the bombing site. The soldier asked for my name and when I told them, all of a sudden the soldier stood up with a visible change her appearance. There was scurrying around the armored transport with soldiers now grasping their assault rifles and coming towards the car. Fortunately the next question was "where are you from?". When I said "America" things got under control quickly, with the other soldiers turning around and heading back to where they were sitting, and the soldier asking me questions was much relieved. Apparently my family name had links to the IRA with a couple of members serving time for terrorist offenses. Mind you, none of my relatives were/are involved. But because my name is a somewhat uncommon Irish name, the simple reference to the name almost caused me and my family problems. Just simply our names should not enough to cause these problems.

    --
    It is dangerous to be right on a subject on which the established authorities are wrong. - Voltaire
  337. Re:Hello Mr. Strawman by tupambao · · Score: 1

    Iraq is not safe or else the UN, Red Cross even Médecins Sans Frontières would be in the 80% area. My friend worked in Basra setting up an internet connection and he left Iraq to be based in Jordan. I asked him why he left and he said Basra is not safe! We only get media reports from Iraq when there are casualties. The daily armed gang robberies and kidnappings among Iraqis that occur do not get reported. This insecurity is what the Iraqis are pissed about.

  338. Key words... by jrpascucci · · Score: 1
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben

    I don't think this means what I think you think it means.

    Please note that the quote does not read: Those who would temporarily give up a little Liberty to purchase essential safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    1) Essential Liberty - there is no right to privacy when conducting many types of business transactions. For instance, moving millions of dollars around. Or sending a dangerous chemical substance through the mail. Or buying and utilizing a car.

    I am not saying that my icecream preference, bathroom habits, who I voted for in the last election, or my innermost heart's desire should be an open book just because I once got on a plane. That's essential privacy.

    Certainly one has no natural 'right to fly': I am hindered from that by the force of gravity and lack of adequate wings.

    So, I can make a contract with someone who has the ability to move me from one location to another quickly. As part of that contract, they can ask me to prove who I am. Further, since this is (usually) interstate commerce, government has been granted the power to regulate that contract. Thus, government can require that the contract stipulate that I will attempt to prove who I am.

    2) Give up - in fact, in this scenario, I _retain_ my right to privacy: I can accept or reject the contract with (given an ounce of perspective) little or no permenant harm to myself: I trade the expediency of getting on a flight for the 'good old days', where I can get a horse and carriage and clip-clop across the country just like my forebears did. Or the 'good really old days' where I can walk. It's good for the environment.

    3) Little - this one is debatable. Yes, you still have a very small percentage of dying by the actions of a terrorist. But it's become very important that we put up some barriers to avoid making it trivially easy for bad people to do bad things to many people simultaneously. Every time you raise the bar a notch, you increase their chances of getting, as a previous poster called it, 'unlucky' and screwing up and getting caught before they have actualized their murderous intent.

    4) Temporary - Death is permenant for those unfortunate enough to be involved. Death is the fundamental denial of all other Liberties. Conversely, the right to life is the sine qua non of all natural rights and liberties. The Safety (which is, the defense of that right to life) of those innocent non-Combatants on the plane and on the ground is a good thing.

    Remind me again what we're arguing about? Oh...showing your ID and checking it against one of the few records we have about the bad guys: the names or known aliases of a handful of known terrorists in order to board a plane, and if you are, inconveniencing you until it's straightened out. Right.

    I think the correct response to this is "Thank you, yes, here's my ID, and and, please do double-check my bag thoroughly and even make me take off my shoes and twiddle my thumbs while the machine churns - I'm really okay with that, if spending time on my bag at random is the cost to effectively increase the chance you'll stop someone bad before they do something very bad."

  339. Doesn't matter who drew up the papers by jmichaelg · · Score: 1
    Clinton accepted 'full responsibility'.

    His secretary could have drawn them up, his butler could have made the call, and his daughter could think Rich was innocent - none of it matters. What matters is that money slid across the table in exchange for Clinton's signing the pardon.

  340. Obligatory Chappaquiddick comment. by istewart · · Score: 1

    Ted Kennedy sure had trouble keeping his car from falling in a river.

  341. Then tell the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy. Iraq was not Disneyland before the war. It was a totalitarian hellhole in which people were getting killed by the thousands."

    I agree wholeheartedly. Iraq was not a nice place before and I do believe that Iraq is better off--in the long run--with Hussein gone.

    But, you see, that wasn't what we were told. We didn't go to war to free those Iraqis. We went to war because we were threatened. We were told that we had to invade Iraq now or Hussein was going to distribute weapons of mass destruction--which he was currently in the process of building--to terrorist organizations which would then use them against America.

    Only after those lies were exposed did the nature of the war change. Now we're told that we went over there to free those Iraqis from their evil and horrible dictator and to promote democracy in the middle east.

    And they say John Kerry flip-flops...

  342. market forces and a possible solution.... by xquark · · Score: 1

    The US is run by capatilist forces, ie: consumer consumption and
    producer production.

    If say the consumers were to decrease their consumption, then the
    producers would lobby their congress buddies, until changes took place
    which would increase the rate of consumption.

    Now how does this relate to the topic?

    Well people should try their best to travel less, use other means of
    travel or other technologies such as video conferencing and such to
    eliminate travel from their lives as much as possible.

    Doing so would change the market dynamics and would force airlines,
    aircraft manufacturers and all dependent industry players such a fuel
    and equipment providers to begin lobbying congress for changes to
    domestic travel .

    My final word, market forces are much stronger than the principles
    of "true" democracy.

    Arash Partow

    ________________________________________________ __
    Be one who knows what they don't know,
    Instead of being one who knows not what they don't know,
    Thinking they know everything about all things.
    http://www.partow.net

    --
    Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
  343. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Multi-layered is the key - just teasing the american (and alien) public with silly security check points that do nothing but delay the average joe that wants to get home and see grandma is completely pointless, and does nothing to handle an actuall situation.


    Worse than that. It actually creates a point of attack.

    Imagine for a moment wrapped boxes labled "bomb" or some other threatening device left in public restrooms at a number of airports across the country on the same day (maybe staggered by an hour or so). The boxes could very well be empty, but our reaction to them would be to allow terrorists to cause arbitrary damage *anonymously* to our economy by essentially shutting down this nation's airspace. Such a box could be concealed in one's luggage and barring cameras *in* the restrooms, it would be possible to ensure that it would be *very hard* to determine who put them there (no fingerprints, dna, etc).

    Or a more chilling thought. Imagine relatively strong walking canes carried onto an airplane by people pretending to be limping. These could then become very dangerous blunt weapons and used to highjack a plane and possibly even force the cockpit door. But one cannot reasonably ban walking canes on airplanes!

    Therefore one MUST develop a security plan which is as robust as possible and assumes that dangerous people with arbitrary improvised weapons could be on board any given airplane. We also have to carefully plan what to do about false alarms.

    Here is my ideal solution:

    1) X-Ray *all* luggage on *entry* to airport. Make everyone pass through a metal detector at this point too. This way you can be reasonably sure that there is not a bomb in a box sitting in a restroom somewhere. This checkpoint would primarily be to look for explosives.

    At this point, luggage to be checked would be taped shut with special TSA tape and labled appropriately. It could then be locked by the traveler. :-) This is especially important for international travelers who have to deal with luggage theft quite frequently.

    2) Second security check after check-in. Here onyl ticketed passengers are allowed in, and must present their tickets along with a simple form of ID (showing that they are the traveler).

    3) Provide a security infrastructure such that the pilot has a very good chance to get the plane out of the sky and safely onto the ground if a hijacking occur.

    Our current system is a joke, and a dangerous joke.

  344. El Al... by jrpascucci · · Score: 1

    Dude, you've never flown El Al. Beyond checking me against every list known to man and I'm sure several known to nobody, they did everything except a full body cavity search and kept sending different people to see me to ask me the same questions for on the order of an hour before I was allowed to try to pack my stuff back into my suitcase and give it to them so it would make it on the same flight as me to Jerusalem.

    About the only positive part of it was I spent a good half hour talking with (and looking at) a nice looking Sabra (Israeli girl) as she was pawing through my shorts (the ones in my suitcase, get your mind out of the gutter). The time went quickly.

    I'm almost certain they hired a number of fairly attractive youngish women (all of whom have, de facto as Israelis, military experience and whom I'm betting had orders of magnitude better training than the TSA people get) to do such things as a way of keeping people from being irritated - good customer service, in all.

    Also, the guys who came in to talk to me intermittently, who were admittedly brusque and obviously daring me to take offense at it, all had a similar look of sharp, competent authority about them - something I fear our own TSA has not considered a factor for in their hiring process.

    Of course, in America, you're not allowed to hire based on age, sex, or overall prettiness or the appearance of competence (or, in a union shop, actual competence ;-), so last time I flew here, I, my carry-on and my shoes were checked by this big, ugly, chubby gorilla of a guy for five minutes - and it seemed like an hour.

    This is not to say that I minded - I always say 'Good job, thank you, sir', and 'have a good day'. Because I am grateful that someone is doing something to protect what could be my behind, regardless that their getting paid for it. I say "Thank you" when a cop gives me a ticket too. Silly me, perhaps.

  345. Names by Aeron65432 · · Score: 1

    Well that's why it's a bummer to have the name Kennedy. Or Jones. With the amount of people worldwide, whether born with the name or not, there's almost bound to be a terrorist or a felon with that name. That' why it's nice to have a long italian last name. With 12 people in the US with my name, it's doubtful my name will show up on the no-fly list.

  346. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

    I don't think the fact that he was put on the list was politically motivated - but I am wondering why it took three weeks to make the news...

    Did he decide that he wouldn't tell anyone until the issue was resolved?


    If he had brought it up in the media, do you think it would have taken three weeks to resolve? The whole point, I assume, was to make it more how a "normal person" would have to go through getting removed from the list (and make sure it wasn't cut short by media scrutiny). Now, it just looks horrible how long it took. As for the RNC and whatever, sure, that's just possibly icing on the cake.

    --
    Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  347. Private-source data for the gov't: big industry by geekotourist · · Score: 1
    Noticed that the ACLU recently released a report(pdf) on the

    Surveillance-Industrial Complex. It details how the gov't is

    • "Recruiting Individuals." Documents how individuals are being recruited to serve as "eyes and ears" for the authorities even after Congress rejected the infamous TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System) program that would have recruited workers like cable repairmen to spy on their customers.
    • "Recruiting Companies." Examines how companies are pressured to voluntarily provide consumer information to the government; the many ways security agencies can force companies to turn over sensitive information under federal laws such as the Patriot Act; how the government is forcing companies to participate in watchlist programs and in systems for the automatic scrutiny of individuals' financial transactions
    • "Mass Data Use, Public and Private." Focuses on the government's use of private data on a mass scale, either through data mining programs like the MATRIX state information-sharing program, or the purchase of information from private-sector data aggregators.
    • "Pro-Surveillance Lobbying." Looks at the flip side of the issue: how some companies are pushing the government to adopt surveillance technologies and programs based on private-sector data
    This privatized surveillance...
    • "gives the government access to private-sector databases...who hold most of the details of Americans' lives.
    • "lets the government create a system of "distributed surveillance"... in which scattered, individual, independent sources of information are brought together...
    • It shifts costs from the government to the private sector...
    • It creates constant uncertainty whenever people are in a situation where an informant might be present, enormously amplifying the effect of government surveillance on individual behavior and psychology
    • It offers what is a often a path of least resistance to working around privacy laws.
    • It allows the government to carry out privacy-invading practices at "arm's length" by piggy-backing on or actually cultivating data collection in the private sector that it could not carry out itself without serious legal or political repercussions.
  348. Re:Anyone else think this was politically motivate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Further, wouldn't this have made a more favorable impact for the D's if the news came out during the DNC? Maybe they wanted to wait until people forgot about the DNC and started thinking about the RNC...

    Or maybe he's one of the fools that voted to enact the law in the first place. In fact he was. The only Senator to vote against the law was Russell Feinstein from Wisconsin.

  349. Re:The Real Reason by benna · · Score: 1

    Edward = Ted

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  350. Yes, they wanted it to look that way. by Leaf+Node · · Score: 1

    Doesn't anyone find it scary that there are terrorists roaming freely through our country now, because they know as a result of this news story that the alias "Ted Kennedy" is now a free pass through all airport security lines?

    It's a great idea. Kills two birds with one stone.

    1. Allows them to roam around freely using Ted Kennedy's name.
    2. Creates problems between us as we now predictably blame each other for Ted Kennedy's name being on the list.

    They're playing us like a fiddle against each other, and we're making it too easy for them.

  351. nope It wasn't the no fly list by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    it was the "keep Kennedys away from water list"

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  352. and in a related future story ... by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

    George Bush the Third today announced plans to expand the Homeland democratic No Fly Zone to include the States that border Florida and Texas.

    --
    Words to men, as air to birds.
  353. anti-bush game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for wasting the past 2 hours of my life on the anti-bush game. :-)

  354. The ugly past is coming back by dbIII · · Score: 1
    "Kennedy" sounds kind of Middle Eastern, don't you think?
    It's simple racial profiling - instead of filing him under towelhead they've filed him under mick. Watch out Itchy, he's Irish!
    What makes you think your name needs to sound "kind of Middle Eastern" to make it onto the "no-fly" list? Your predjudices, perhaps?
    No, those of the people running this system, which is showing a few holes but like face recognition software has fulfilled the key criteria of giving the contractors dollars. To have something that actually works requires real planning and not just the government throwning money around to show they care.
  355. Re: Florida voter registration records by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Let's just say that even though I think the circumstances are highly suspect, I still doubt republicans would go that far.
    Look at some history, corrupt members of both major parties have done that and more in the past, which is why it is important to have some checks and balances.

    You may not see dead people, but they sometimes vote.

  356. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by dbIII · · Score: 1
    The second time it happened to me in the Reno, Nevada airport (which is a freakin horrible airport) they lost my laptop and a $250 watch.
    Chaos brings opportunity. Poorly implemented laws with no recourse enforced by barely trained people on minimum wage who are barely accountable is an opportunity for theft. I bet your loss was never even reported to a supervisor, or if it was there was no follow up.

    Bringing third world style law enforcement to the USA is a bad idea - travellers having to paying bribes to get through checkpoints is the sort of thing that can happen when it is very easy for security gaurds to make things difficult.

  357. Why it took two hours - wrong answer by dbIII · · Score: 1
    they wanted to know how much money we had on us - when I told them none,
    This sort of thing happens a lot in third world countries: when this question is asked it is a hint that a bribe would smooth things over. The USA is in the process of turning into something much nastier than it currently is.
  358. Two powerful reasons by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 1
    So why do they serve alchohol on the flights? Can't be drunk getting ON the plane, but once you're in the air, then it's okay to become drunk???
    To mangle a line from Albert Collins, drunk and drinking are not the same thing. Airlines serve alcohol for two reasons:

    1) Comfort.

    Some passengers are extremely anxious when it comes to flying. Even though it's widely believed that you're safer on board an airplane than you are in your own car, there are people who are terrified of flying. As you can imagine, the number of people with this anxiety has risen since 2001.

    Alcohol is a depressant, it has a relaxing effect on most people. Yes, there are some who become violent when intoxicated, but when it comes to dispensing alcohol, your friendly flight attendant is going to be more anal than the stingiest barkeep you've ever encountered. He or she will cut you off if it's believed that you've had enough, and not only is that decision final, you can face criminal consequences if you get rowdy about it.

    Who would you rather be seated adjacent to, a passenger who's had 3 or 4 shots of the good stuff and is either relaxed or passed out, or a passenger who's enduring a multi-hour panic attack? From the airline's perspective and from the other passengers' perspectives, the guy with a buzz is certainly preferable to the guy who's freaking out.

    2) Profit.

    The little one-shot-worth bottles of hooch and the cocktails that flight attendants mix with them are a lucrative market. You're on board an airplane, maybe you're nervous or maybe you'd just like to pass the next 4 hours calmly, and (assuming you're flying a class without free beverages) you're willing to fork over a little extra for some relief. Five bucks for a six ounce screwdriver? Sure, why not! $7.50 for a 50 milliliter bottle of Jack to mix with your Coke? Hey, it'll relax me!

    Airlines are raking in a lot of money on the Great Bar in the Sky. So much so that the little pony bottles of booze are an attractive target for employee theft. I can't recall which airport, but in the mid-nineties, there was a very well organized theft ring operating with the vending contractor (Dobbs?). Employees who stocked the flight deck food and beverage supplies were pilfering a bag here, a bag there of those bottles. The feds infiltrated the ring, brought them down, some of them had hundreds of thousands in cash along with caches of airplane booze bottles in their homes.

    If stockers could make a few hundred grand selling stolen, tax-free liquor at cut rates, imagine what the airlines are making charging full price per bottle. It's profit, lots of profit.

    And that's why they serve alcohol on flights. Because drunk and drinkin' are not the same thing, there's a lot of money to be had in the booze biz, and some people wouldn't fly at all (read: lost profit) if they couldn't get loose on the plane.
    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  359. oh bullfuckingshit you cock gobbler by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Open your fucking eyes man...endless congressional investigations and an independant prosecutor with an unlimited budget, unlimited staff, unlimited time, and an unlimited scope of investigation. If the government did all that to you, spending 60 some million on the way, that the worst thing they could come up with was making misleading statments about your (perfectly legal) sex life?

    This was not a case of someone being tried for a crime they comitted, its a case of someone being tried for a crime (actually, not even a crime, see below) that they were pressured into making. Thats called entrapment and is illegal.

    As others have pointed out, he was asked if he had sexual relations with Monica. He asked the court to define "sexual relations". The court defined it as intercourse. Now, if all he had gotten was a blow job, to say yes at this point would have been a lie. Stick that in your cock and smoke it. And even if he did have intercourse and lied about it, its still not perjury as the statment has to be relevant to the case at hand.

    position to sell pardons to people

    Yes, he did make some questionable pardons. But nothing compared to Bush I who pardoned heroin dealers and people who could have testfied against him in the Iran Contra trials.

  360. bzzt, you moron by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Bill Clinton was impeached BECAUSE HE LIED UNDER OATH.

    No he didn't, you moron, as others have shown. The court defined "sexual relations" to mean "intercourse". For him to have said that, yes, he had had "sexual relations with Monica" would have been a lie. Eat it, bitch.

    It does not matter what he lied about, the key issue was that he LIED UNDER OATH.

    Of course it matters. For it to be purgery, the lie has to be relevant to the case at hand. And while perjury is illegal, so is entrapment.

  361. No one "pays" for tax cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Actually, they both drastically raised taxes. They just deferred it a few years down the road.
    That's what enormous deficits are."

    You are totally wrong. A tax cut is not a take hike. Do the math. All we need to get rid of the defecits is to cut waste spending. The tax cuts typically help the the situation. It is already well document about how total tax revenue $$$$ coming into the Treasury increased as a result of the tax cuts during the Reagan years.

    Kerry time and again says that Bush is not spending enough on this and that: quite clearly, he would make the defecit worse.

    "It's like when you go out and buy a bunch of crap on your credit card thinking you're getting something for nothing."

    That's apples and oranges. The credit card analogy is totally invalid since it does not involve the situation where tax revenues increase as a result of tax cuts due to economic growth.

    You don't have to "pay" for tax cuts, any more than anyone has to "pay" for it because a mugger decides not to steal your wallet.

    1. Re:No one "pays" for tax cuts by Darby · · Score: 1

      You don't have to "pay" for tax cuts, any more than anyone has to "pay" for it because a mugger decides not to steal your wallet.

      The tax cuts are not the issue.
      The issue is huge increases in spending. Coupling this with tax cuts only makes the situation worse, but it isn't the initial problem.

  362. Democrats caused defecit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correct. The Democrats actually held the purse strings and wrote the budget bills. If Reagan had actually had his way, the budget would have been balanced, and there would have been a lot more tax cuts and spending cuts.

    "The increased, unfunded spending led to the increased national debt we see now, not the tax cuts."

    Correct. We need a balanced budget amendment, coupled with limitations on govenrment greed (i.e. require much larger majorities in order for Congress to vote to overtax us even worse.)

  363. Eskimo Power? by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 1

    "Eskimo power"? WTF?

    --
    Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  364. Deconstructing Reconstruction by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Start rhyming, because your grasp on history leaves something to be desired. Reconstruction was a Republican program. It was misused at times, with Democrats being the ones on the short end of the stick.

    I'm afraid it's you who needs the history lesson - starting with the fact that "Reconstruction" refers, not just to the program, but to the period. It is the latter definition I was using.

    Yes, Reconstruction was a Republican program: Its primary purpose was to protect the newly enfranchised blacks and poor whites, establish schools and roads, and generally rebuild the south and prevent its return to feudalism under the thumbs of a few rich plantation owners.

    And that's exactly what it did. And the newly enfranchised blacks and poor whites (who had previously been unable to vote but subject to conscription as guards to recapture escaped slaves) organized local Republican parties.

    Meanwhile, the rich whites who had run the show and started the war organized the Ku Klux Klan - one of the classic terrorist organizations of all time. After a few years they were reenfranchised. And within a few years after that, with the aid of their KKK terror, their Democratic party had regained control of the southern governments.

    They immediately passed the Jim Crow laws, to consoldate their power and again disenfranchise the blacks and poor whites. "Grandfather clauses" - so only people whose ancesters had voted before the war could vote now. "Literacy tests" for voting - where blacks, poor whites, and known Republicans mibht be given their "test" in Chinese. "Poll Taxes" - so only the rich could afford to pay the tax and thus vote. The first gun control laws - to disarm the blacks and poor whites, leaving them helpless before the KKK.

    ("Saturday Night Special" dates from the debate over one such law - banning all but one of the most expensive guns as being unsafe. The full term is "Niggertown Saturday Night Special", from the claim that it is suitable only for use in "Niggertown on a Saturday Night".)

    And the KKK - the same people as the Democratic party structure - ran rampant, intimidating Republican voters into not voting and potential candidates into not running, lynching or burning those who refused to intimidate. The blacks and poor whites appealed to the federal government for troops to stop their literal slaughter. But they didn't get them.

    Because president Johnson - who had been added pre-war to Lincoln's ticket to balance it by appealing to the southern vote, and succeeded him after the assasination, blocked the further implementation of the Reconstruction - over the voiciferous opposition of the rest of the Republican party. For this he was impeached (but not convicted).

    And the Democrats took over in the south. And were the power structure of the south once again, for over a century - until the civil rights laws, and the freedom rides set the stage, and the burning of the cities in the '60s finally led to the restoration of black voting rights.

    All the way from the Reconstruction era to the 1970s, "Southern Democrat" meant a heavy-handed pro-segregation politician. But once the blacks once again had the vote, they suddenly had a "change of heart". Even the poster-boy of segregation, George Wallace (who bolted the Democratic party and founded his own) eventually "became the black man's friend".

    The first civil rights law was proposed, and signed into law, by Eisenhower, with the Kennedys voting against it (something that historical revisionists conveniently forget). What they WILL tell you about is the SECOND civil rights act, promoted by the Johnson who succeeded Kennedy upon HIS assination.

    LBJ was as much a maveric to his Democratic party as Lincoln's Johnson was to the Civil War era Republicans. He was honestly in favor of ending segregation and promoting full cicizenship for blacks. And he is known to have despised the Kennedies. He promoted the second Civil Rights act as a "memorial to JFK" - ove

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  365. Discrimination at the border by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm from Mexico and live in a border town, and when I was a kid I loved going to the US and visit the toy stores every weekend. But when I grew up I learned how it feels to be discriminated against thanks to the US border agents.

    Simply because I was young and owned my own car, I was singled out every time I tried to visit the US. Not every young man from Mexico who drives his own car is going to be a drug trafficker, but that's how they made me feel every time they told me to pull over so they could go through my car while they locked me in a small room with a video camera.

    Discrimination and overzealous border agents are something we have been dealing with for many years here in my town, and now with the terrorist scare its only gotten worse.

  366. The rich have been given $0 in tax cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The tax cuts made the situation better. For one, they have provided the economic growth we have had (although Tom Daschle was successful in his attempt to blunt the tax cuts in order to damage the economy in the hopes Bush would take the blame). For another, any time the greedy rulers overtax us a little less, it is nothing but good.

    Remember, the rich (and everyone else) have been given $0 in tax cuts (not billions, not even cents). That's right, whenever someone who robs you decides to rob you a little less, this is not charity or a "gift". It's your money in the first place.

    Some of the lies of the left about tax cuts, along with corrections:

    "The tax cuts are a giveaway..."
    (Truth: nothing is given; but less is stolen)

    "Bush wasted money on tax cuts for the rich"
    (Truth: this is a gross mischaracterization. The rich are a tiny minority of those who get to keep more of their own money under the Bush plan. Interestingly, more gays and blacks 'benefit' than rich people)

    "The Bush tax cuts disproportionaly benefit the rich" (Truth: This is quite a baldfaced lie, as after the Bush tax cuts, the rich pay a much higher percentage of income than the non-rich. Check the percentages.)

    "Children will pay for these tax cuts" (Truth: children will pay LESS. They will not fork out more, but will have to fork out less.)

    1. Re:The rich have been given $0 in tax cuts by Darby · · Score: 1

      Some of your points have value, but they all ignore the important distinction.

      Spending has gone through the roof after these tax cuts.

      This affects your points as follows:

      1: Less is taken now, but more is being spent now. This money will have to come from somewhere.

      2: Going to straight numbers here is as misleading as what you are trying to refute. The concentration of wealth is so extreme, that there are less people controlling more money. This needs to be addressed for your point to have any validity.

      3: But far less than they did. Their percentage savings might be less, but in real dollars it is so much larger as to make your comparison laughable. If you are "not taking" enough to allow somebody to afford to eat 3 meals a day, then that will all get spent and keep moving through the economy.
      If you are "not taking" enough to make no difference to somebody's ability to live since they are already living in great luxury relative to most of the citizenry, then they will probably invest more in the stock market, which has some positive stimulus on the economy, but far less than if the money were to be spent on real physical items produced within that economy.

      4: Of course they will pay more. Those bills will come due and they will have to be paid. If spending was kept even somewhat in line with income, you would have a point.

      Your points are not completely without merit, but by ignoring the obvious problems with your points, you are going as far out as the points you are responding to.

    2. Re:The rich have been given $0 in tax cuts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Spending has gone through the roof after these tax cuts"

      Point taken.

      "Going to straight numbers here is as misleading as what you are trying to refute. The concentration of wealth is so extreme, that there are less people controlling more money"

      I disagree that there is anything amiss about this. As the wealth these people control is wealth that they created, earned, or traded fairly for, there is no problem. Certainly it should not be anyone's business unless it is illegally or ill-gotten. The numbers get to the heart of the matter, and I do not find them misleading.

      Too much of the nosey concern over what is in someone else's wallet is a combination of jealousy, bloviators trying to create a social crisis over the difference between the haves and the have-mores (the guys who go nuts because Joe has 2 cars and Jay has 33), and an element of Marxism which argues that all of the wealth should really belong to government elites.

      A term commonly used by these grabby folks is obscene wealth. Well, if it is obscene, then don't look at it. Treat it like private acts in the bedroom. Some consider these obscene, but like with the money, it is really not their business: keep your nose out of others' bedrooms and wallets.

  367. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by Six+Nines · · Score: 1

    MMDV (my mileage did vary)... On Tuesday, they put one "S" on my boarding pass -- oddly enough, this was US Air, the same folks who were so helpful to the Senator. The TSA folks missed that when I went through security an hour before my flight. When I tried to board, the gate agent noticed the flag and denied boarding. Seems my ticket wasn't punched. No kidding. I got one of her colleagues to walk me back to the checkpoint, get a supervisor, and commit to me that he wouldn't close the door on me. I was just a little frosty with the super, and he knew his gang had screwed up. I had a thorough but not intrusive inspection -- wand, no patdown, bag contents examined briefly. I made my flight with minutes to spare... it helped that I was going out of Gate 1 at SFO so the walk was all of 50 feet. I was traveling on miles, for a funeral -- I suspect that having ordered up the ticket on Sunday night is what triggered the Screen flag. I had tried and failed to print a boarding pass from online Monday night, so I figured I'd be jumping through some hoops at the airport. No hassles on the return to SF, yesterday. I wonder if I'll wind up on the list again, unless I fly on short notice. Then, I guess it's safest to bank on it.

  368. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by damaskr0se · · Score: 1

    you know... i hate to say it, but all this is stuff that would never have gone over in my "communist bloc" country of birth. At least not in the 70s/80s/90s (only period i have 1st hand experience from)

  369. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by clambake · · Score: 1

    1) Don't carry anything valuable. They'll make you dump everything on a table, which they don't watch very well. For security staff, they're pretty slack about other people's stuff.

    If they lose it, claim there "MAY BE" a bomb in it and watch how fast they get it back.

  370. US Customs Officials by billstewart · · Score: 1
    I'm sorry, but I can't allow the term "American Customs Officials" to go by unchallenged - those thugs were pretty much the antithesis of American values until the even worse Homeland Security displaced/absorbed them.

    One year I was travelling and saw the customs thugs wearing a badge saying "US Customs Service - Defenders of Liberty", and it was really annoying to have to refrain from telling that thug that my great**6 grandparents ran a revolution to get rid of tax collectors like him.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  371. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by xSauronx · · Score: 1

    actually i think they pretty well sped them along on trains...still in a hurry?

    --
    By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
  372. Re:Not on "No-Fly" list but rather the "Screen" li by McSnarf · · Score: 1
    Hmmm...

    I suppose you are serious. How do the US call themselves ? "Land of the free" ?
    Everybody else conceives your Govt. as freaking oil thieves - but it's always the general population that has to suffer the treatment fit for the evildoers...

    Good luck... I won't travel to the US if I can avoid it. Used to be a nice country, but now ? Stalinist Capitalists.

  373. Re:the real reason by JimFromJersey · · Score: 1

    actually I do

    --
    between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
  374. YOU GO GIRL! by boy_afraid · · Score: 0

    YOU GO GIRL!

  375. Wrong List by mojine · · Score: 1

    ...was supposed to be on the "Do Not Drive" List...

    --
    "It's not how many people I've killed - it's how I get along with the ones that are still alive."
  376. I know, I know, I know, this is a troll.... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    An atrocity, or a few (thousand) people having their noses put out of joint, what's a few thousand out of the entire population of U.S????

    Well, one could point at that said atrocity killed a few thousand people out of the entire U.S. population...

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?