Slashdot Mirror


US Ends Controversial Laptop Ban On Flights From Middle East (theguardian.com)

The United States has ended a four-month ban on passengers carrying laptops onboard US-bound flights from certain airports in the Middle East and North Africa, bringing to an end one of the controversial travel restrictions imposed by President Donald Trump's administration. From a report: Riyadh's King Khalid international airport was the last of 10 airports to be exempted from the ban, the US department of homeland security (DHS) confirmed in a tweet late on Wednesday local time. Middle East carriers have blamed Trump's travel restrictions, which include banning citizens of some Muslim-majority countries from visiting the United States, for a downturn in demand on US routes. In March, the United States banned large electronics in cabins on flights from 10 airports in the Middle East and North Africa over concerns that explosives could be concealed in the devices taken onboard aircraft. The ban has been lifted on the nine airlines affected -- Emirates, Etihad Airways, Qatar Airways, Turkish Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Royal Jordanian , Kuwait Airways, EgyptAir and Royal Air Maroc -- which are the only carriers to fly direct to the US from the region. A ban on citizens of six Muslim-majority countries -- Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, -- remains in place, though has been limited after several US court hearings challenged the restrictions.

7 of 79 comments (clear)

  1. changing airports or airlines? by unixisc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How? The original concern was that these airports/airlines were doing an inadequate job in screening potentially explodable materials, and so had this put in place. If someone flying from Riyadh to Dulles decided to change airlines & airports at, say, Brussels, wouldn't the Belgians already be managing that differently?

    1. Re:changing airports or airlines? by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Depending on the routing you may not have to go through security screening again - the assumption being that your originating country has taken care of it to suitable standards. Since the ban was selective, a terrorist could therefore have still brought a laptop bomb airside in one of the banned airports, flown to an intermediate airport that was not impacted by the carry ban and does not require further screening, then boarded an onward flight to the US. With a few exceptions re-screening carry-on baggage for onward connections is still quite rare in Europe, especially in countries that are not significantly high on the terrorist's hit lists, so with the right combination of airports the ban was pretty much useless.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  2. Re:Has the short lived ban been consequential at a by freeze128 · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's worse is: Why have the ban if you're only going to implement it for a couple of months? Did they think that the terrorists were using frequent flyer miles that would expire?

  3. The US's actions are stupid with this stuff. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here is the thing.

    The US War on Terrorism, is really the war against Saudi funded Wahabi Sunni Aggression. Saudi Arabia is the philosophical Nazi Germany (bad analogy) of the War on Terrorism. They are behind the ideology that started all of this. What we are seeing as "The Islamic Invasion of Europe" Is more like an attempt by the Saudis to expand their colony states, to Europe and beyond. Many refugees from Syria are exactly that, Refugees. Some are Saudi Sunni Colonists.

    The Saudis have made "colonies" of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Maldives, and a few other places. They are indirectly funding Proxy armies, like ISIS, the Taliban, and Al'Queda. While ISIS has been pretty much defeated in Iraq and Syria, eventually, a new Sunni Proxy Army will show up, they will attack the Shia first, the west second. A vague Analogy to this is Protestant vs. Catholic conflicts during the 16th Century. Its the closest Christian Parallel I can draw.

    Wahabi Islam is as incompatible with Liberal Western Democracy as Oliver Cromwell and 16th Century Protestantism would be if it existed today.

    The thing is, this has the potential to threaten the very existance of the Human species circa Global Warming/Climate Change. The US Protects Saudi Arabia, despite the fact they are possibly the worst Regime on Earth except for maybe North Korea. The Saudi controlled Sunni states have no concept of Environmentalism or concept that their actions in Green House gas production could render the entire world uninhabitable. They have a Fatalistic cult like view of history and will drive the Human species into extinction if not stopped. For them, Fossil Fuels made them rich. If the cash flow due to the energy demands of the west stops, they die poor. Alternative Energy isn't even a question.

    The issue is, all the US Does is make it worse and sell them Weapons. The US Representative Democracy has imploded into a Right Wing Oligarchy. Congress is filled with lunatics that are in entrenched Gerrymandered districts who have been there for decades that are impossible to remove. They have put a complete incompetent in the Presidency. They just ram-rodded a far right Corporatist into the Supreme Court.

    The US Does stupid, ineffective things like Trump's Travel Ban that doesn't address the problem, and scapegoat's Minorities. I suspect that this will be how Humanity dies. Earth rendered uninhabitable because the US's Oligarchs were too addicted to Fossil Fuels and Saudi cash.

  4. Re:Has the short lived ban been consequential at a by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    The ban was only temporary if the airports listed actually made the changes to security that caused the ban in the first place.

    Oh, so it's temporary because all the airports got those new magic rocks that keep away laptop shaped bombs. Got it.

  5. Re:Didn't think the laptop ban was controversial by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Trump's temporary ban on immigration from certain muslim countries is controversial because it isn't based on specific intel.

    Christians from those areas were exempt, and the people pushing the proposal were straight up calling it a muslim ban. So it's controversial not just because it's complete nonsense (AKA not based on specific intel) but also because it's outright promoting one religion and discriminating against another. A double whammy violation of the establishment clause, pandering specifically to christian islamophobes.

  6. Re:Has the short lived ban been consequential at a by Darinbob · · Score: 2

    That's standard for Americans. There's the general security check for all passengers done first. Then for those flying to America there is a second check because we have added additional checks because they don't trust foreign airports to be as diligent as their minimum wage TSA agents.