Slashdot Mirror
Slovak Police Planted Explosives On Air Travelers
Entropy98 writes "Slovakian Police have planted explosives on 8 unsuspecting air travelers. Seven were stopped by airport security, including one man arrested and held upon arriving at a Dublin airport. Unbelievably, one innocent traveler made it home with 90 grams of explosives, and had his flat surrounded by the police and bomb squad."
To the Slovakian Minister of the Interior,
I wish to express profound regret on the part of the US for failing to categorize and properly label DVDs obviously sold to your country. Odd as it may seem, the "Police Academy" video series was never intended as instructional.
Sincerest apologies,
I. M. Spending
President of Physics
They must have had CIA assistance.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Really? In the shoot-first-ask-questions-later world of "fighting terrorism," you ask how planting explosives on somebody in an airport without their knowledge could get them killed?
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
TFA doesn't explain why the explosives were planted. One obvious reason is to test security but in that case you would have a "wicket keeper" to catch the undetected explosives.
It may just be bad English or a translation error, but the Slovakian Police were quoted as saying "Someone set us up the bomb".
#DeleteChrome
How about the US just flat out denies all air travel to, from and/or through the US. It'd be far less inconvenient for everyone involved.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
The only conspiracy in 9/11 .... here on EXPIRED VISAS. Where the hell was ICE on enforcing this?
ICE? Seriously? Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, that was formed in March of 2003? Yeah, they f'd up big by not preventing 9/11 in...2001.
Using innocent and unsuspecting members of the public to do it though seems like a pretty fucked up thing to be doing and I hope whoevers idea this was gets punished appropriately.
If you are a goverment want to do a test of airport security systems then fine but use someone who has agreed to do it, agree it with the governments of target countries first and give that person ID so that they can prove that they are doing an official test.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
How about we realize that we are far more likely to be killed by our car or the food we eat then by terrorists?
How about we quit giving away all of our hard won freedoms like a bunch of scared pussies?
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
Give you communion and call you a patriot.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Hey, if the TSA guys tell him to get in the floor (and don't shoot it while in the floor) then they are not too bad... in the UK it could have been way worse. Just out of my memory:
No punishment for anyone, all of the people responsible for these killings (and intents of cover-ups) still work for the Government.
Nothing like a little perspective, don't you think?
Why can't
Yes.. testing of security systems.. madness.
Yes madness. If you're going to test the security system, you do it using government agents operating in plain clothes, you don't just go planting shit on regular passengers.
If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about!
Maybe NOW people will stop saying that. Probably still wishful thinking on my part, I admit.
I'm Slovak. The version presented in our press goes as follows. Planting and then detecting the explosives was a part of a dog training security exercise of the Slovak police. The exercise was a disaster. Out of the 8 items planted in the travellers' luggage only 7 were found successfully. These are probably the "seven stopped by airport security" from the summary. The seven do NOT include the guy in Dublin. That is the unlucky guy that got the eighth piece. His luggage passed all security checks and he unknowingly brought the piece of explosives with him into Dublin, where he was then detained by the Irish police. This more or less matches the BBC version linked from the summary, only the summary is wrong. Please update it.
How about we realize that we are far more likely to be killed by our car or the food we eat then by terrorists?
I don't understand - if you're killed by your car or food, aren't you already dead? How is a terrorist supposed to kill you if you've already been killed by your car or food?
Ok, a bit of karma whoring, but couldn't keep from telling that someone has already tested the fails in airport security:Reporters Expose Airport Security Lapses By Blowing Up Plane
Why can't
How about we quit giving away all of our hard won freedoms like a bunch of scared pussies?
Sadly, time and time again, the population has shown itself more than willing to lie down and meow.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
That is the stupidest thing I think I have ever heard.
For one, this would make security theater even more pronounced, at least with the way it is now there is a chain of blame meaning that no one person is usually blamed for a certain incident. For another it would make policy even stupider than it already is, its bad enough when you can't take liquids on the plane, whats next? Them searching through your laptop, prying off every key to try to find explosive residue underneath it? Already, human and civil rights are raped when you travel by air, adding more stupid policies aren't going to make us any safer. If someone really wants to blow up a plane they will find some way to if they are reasonably intelligent, unafraid of death, and we aren't velcroed naked to the plane during takeoff.
Plus, in some countries airport security is bad, they don't have as much security theater as the US but somehow they manage to have avoid hijacking and terrorism. The US is about the only country that requires passengers to take off their shoes, has that made us any safer? Have you seen shoe bombings all across Europe, Asia and Australia because of this? No. It is security theater. The US tries to be high and mighty in security theater yet other countries have a lower rate of air incidents and have a "poorer screening record" than the US.
Your policy would effectively deny entry to the US from many, many, many different countries. Effectively a travel ban. This is a bad thing to both the security, foreign policy and economic rights of the US.
There comes a time when you have to look at the US travel screening system and realize it takes away a bunch of human rights, puts us an a 1984-style dystopia where people are afraid to look, talk, act or even think "suspiciously" thinking it will cause alarm and destroys the US economy. No one wants to fly on planes when the TSA wants to treat us all like criminals. No matter how well the airline treats you, your basic rights to not be treated like a criminal are violated by the TSA. Then because no one wants to fly, the airlines lose money, when they lose money they try to squeeze every single penny out of you, when you do that you don't want to fly even more then, and it repeats.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Except that this already has happended in the UK and he was carrying a lot less than planted explosives. A coat was enough for Jean Charles de Menezes to be shot seven times in the head.
And yet the reports into the shooting of an innocent men found no members of the police guilty and security measures in the UK have continued to become more invasive.
Be careful what you wish for.
including one man arrested and held upon arriving at a Dublin airport
He was arrested in his flat, not in the airport. From TFA:
From this article:
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
We can have a lot of "what if" situations. What if terrorists have a space laser that will vaporize half the earth if we don't bow down to Allah? What if terrorists are in the administration of every school district and are indoctrinating our children? What if terrorists have some stock in Apple and every time you buy an iPhone you are supporting terrorism? What if terrorists use Linux, doesn't that make you a terrorist if you are using it?
Yeah, everyone is scared a terrorist group may have a nuke. And no, there is very little reliable data to show it has a nuke. It is a lot more reasonable to say that Iraq, with a simi-legitimate government, large area, and somewhat rich would have WMDs. Oh wait... when we invaded Iraq... they had no WMDs. If Iraq, a nation with many people couldn't get a WMD (or managed to turn these WMDs into ninjas so the US/UN/etc couldn't find them...) how much more unlikely is it that a terrorist group would both A) have a nuke B) have the ability to safely store the nuke in working condition C) have no leaks regarding the nuke D) take the nuke onto US soil E) detonate the nuke F) have the nuke go off G) have an acceptable kill-rate.
Look, we are a lot more likely to be nuked by our own nuclear weapons than for a terrorist group to nuke us (excluding the governments of Iran, North Korea, etc) on our own soil.
Paranoia only gets us so far, we can say "what if" to a number of things, but in the end, can we -really- back those things up to justify loss of human life, loss of an economy, loss of human rights, etc? I think not. There was a lot more hard evidence for Iraq to have WMDs than for a terrorist group to have nukes.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Even if you do win, you probably wouldn't like how they "settle their debts".
What, they sneak the check into my back pocket when I'm not looking?
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Get this and get this straight, using lethal force against someone because they're running away to evade arrest is not acceptable. Whether they're criminal or not is irrelevant.
It is a certainty that any well-funded terrorist group will eventually have access to nuclear-scale weapons, and probably in the next hundred years. We need to fix the social problems that cause terrorism before that happens. In real terms, that involves raising the level of education and the quality of life in all parts of the globe to the point where there are no large groups of people who are still so poor that they have nothing to lose, or so ignorant that they have nothing to believe in beyond what their local preacher tells them.
Iraq didn't have WMDs because it didn't want them. A country is a large, stationary target that can't afford to risk playing dirty. What we should be afraid of are small groups with no allegiance to anything except their crackpot holy war (witness Hezbollah and their use of Lebanese civilians as human shields - they're the military equivalent of a guy who straps a playgroup full of 2-year-olds to himself before going on a shooting rampage, and then blames the police for any harm that comes to them).
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
April 17, 1986: A pregnant Irishwoman was duped by her Muslim boyfriend, Nezar Hindawi, into carrying a bomb onto an aircraft at Heathrow.
Fortunately it was an El Al flight, so they had actual security instead of the pretend type they have for US/European airlines and she was stopped before boarding.
I think it's conceivable that the world's population could have its quality of life raised across the board so that there are not people living in abject poverty who are literally starving to death, although it would be quite difficult and especially problematic to do so without causing the abject poor and working poor to effectively combine (meaning a reduction in quality of life for those presently at the low end of the scale but above the very bottom).
However, raising the quality of life so that literally no one has anything to lose (as you put it) doesn't seem practical. If everyone is a millionaire, then that will be the new poverty as the value of things will adjust accordingly based on their scarcity as already happens.
Put another way, someone will always have more than you in one way or another. More possessions, more political power, more social influence. If you feel that this is unbearable (as in someone who is legally permitted to obtain an abortion) or that you have no power to change this within the system (as with a tyrant suppressing political freedom) then people of a particular disposition will gravitate towards terrorism as a means to achieve their goals. Not to mention those who possess a strong enough dislike for another group of people based on religion, ethnicity, or other factors that their mere existence is offensive to you, which is even more difficult to solve as there is no middle ground.
He was in the country lawfully. He did not run, he stood from his seat when a plain clothes cop yelled 'He's here!' to 2 of his colleagues. The police did not identify themselves before shooting.. Oh, and the police lied about it aftewards.
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
Get this and get this straight, he was shot because he ran and he ran because he was a criminal.
First, the police had no evidence suggesting he was a criminal, and in fact he was not a criminal. He was never tried and convicted of anything, he was not under surveilance for any reason (until that day), nothing. While there were some inconsistancies regarding his Visa, records show that he had entered the UK via Ireland and was well within the automatic 3 month limit granted to people entering the UK via Ireland. The inquest determined he was in the country legally at the time he was shot.
The inquest also determined that Menezes was never running, he had been under surveilance because he lived in the same building as the suspected bombers, but all the suspecions the plainclothes officers had on him were based on that fact and the fact that he had brown skin and "mongolian eyes" as one officer put it. While sitting on the train, newspaper in hand, he was grabbed and shot 7 times in the head. He was not doing anything a normal person wouldn't, his only crimes were living in a building where four suspected bombers lived, and having brown skin.
The inquest determined that the police did not identify themselves before shooting, essentially he stood up, was tackled, and shot before he knew anything was going on. They did this at point blank range, according to eyewitness reports, after having subdued him.
This was an example of where the Police got it very, very wrong, and killed an innocent man for no reason other than they were scared. They did not even give him fair warning, they simply killed him almost execution style. Way to keep us safe, eh?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
I'd be more afraid of a cargo ship full of conventional explosives sailing into NY harbor than a nuke in NYC. Simply more feasible.
Yeah uh we already do that. VOLUNTEER army. He wasn't drafted, he SIGNED UP for that shit. He didn't snap because he was being forced to fight Muslims (he was a damn shrink, not a grunt), he snapped because he was CRAZY.
Draw correlations between his religion and being crazy at your own peril..
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.