X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.0-r372567 Sender: -4.4 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k7ELVDnw024814 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:31:13 -0400 Received: from guys.mr.itd.umich.edu (guys.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.14.76]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7ELVBoQ015972; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:31:11 -0400 Received: FROM smtp.eecs.umich.edu (smtp.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.43]) BY guys.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 44E0EB97.A811C.17883 ; 14 Aug 2006 17:31:03 -0400 Received: from mail.eecs.umich.edu (mail.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.15]) by smtp.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7ELV20D007945 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:31:02 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (c-24-11-194-131.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [24.11.194.131]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.2/8.13.2) with ESMTP id k7ELV1fJ031752 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:31:02 -0400 Message-ID: <44E0EBF8.4020505 Æ umich.edu> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <44DF6DE6.1010203 Æ umich.edu> <3CE327AF-BB1E-466D-95C9-3F9E6E0F3D89 Æ umich.edu>

In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r372567 (2006-01-26) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:32:40 -0400 To: improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: Brian Magerko Subject: Re: stupid feel-good "no liquids" rule Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 694 I think the reasoning there is to not tip off this organization they were monitoring, for better or worse. The more general question there is why not use all reasonable restrictions all the time (like no carry-on) if these measures are deemed effective (irregardless of whether or not they actually are, per Dan's points). B- Kevin Lochner wrote: > Here's my question: > > seeing as the british intelligence knew about this plot well in > advance and saw no reason to ban liquids on planes leading up to the > publicity stunt regarding the bust, why was it suddenly soooooo > important to make sure that no liquids came through after they > announced it? > > And what about the US? banning liquids on US domestic flights > wouldn't have jeopardized the british bust, so why all of a sudden do > we have to get worked up about liquids on flights? > > - kevin > > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Brian Magerko wrote: > >> >> >> Why stop with explosives. If you really want to being the Western >> world to a halt, do the following: >> - obtain the plague or some other nasty virus >> - infect yourself with said virus >> - buy yourself a few international flights going through Ohare, >> Heathrow, and wherever else >> - cough a lot >> >> If you wanted to target a single country, just use domestic flights. >> THAT is the kind of attack that is scary as hell. But again, what >> security measures will we go through to prevent it? Surveillance...I >> hope they surveil the hell out of terrorist cells to see what they're >> up to, sure. In terms of dealing with the general public though, we >> can either start buying gas masks or try to improve the world (tm) >> and make people consider NOT destroying us. >> >> B- >> >> >> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Robert Felty wrote: >> >>> James, >>> >>> You are right to point out this inconsistency. However, consider the >>> fact that there is very little security on passenger train travel in >>> the U.S. and in most of Europe. In the U.S., not many people >>> actually ride trains, so blowing up a few would not be that big a >>> setback, but in Europe it could be. Blowing up a bunch of railroad >>> tracks in the U.S. could really cripple shipping though (or major >>> highways). I am not trying to give the terrorists ideas here, but >>> let's say that they start targeting some of these outlets as well. >>> We will have to build up more and more security measures. Where does >>> it stop? We will never get one step ahead of the terrorists. That is >>> the advantage of the attacker. >>> >>> I still don't know all the details of the latest attempted attack, >>> but it sounds like these attackers never even set foot in an >>> airport. Their plan was foiled long before that. Evidence recovered >>> after the 9/11 attacks shows that it also probably could have been >>> avoided by similar means, i.e. by using intelligence agencies, >>> without inconveniencing travelers. >>> >>> Rob >>> >>> >>> On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:53 PM, James W Mickens wrote: >>> >>>>> Back to Nate and Danny's ideas. I for one would rather not >>>>> have security in airports whatsoever. I would be plenty happy >>>>> to take my chances. I don't think that every plane would >>>>> suddenly start blowing up. >>>> >>>> I strongly disagree. By your own analysis, "there are lots of >>>> people who hate the U.S." and will do organizations like Hamas "a >>>> favor by harming the evil U.S." If this is true, it couldn't >>>> possibly be the case that our airplanes would be reasonably safe >>>> with no security at our airports. In fact, we can almost be certain >>>> that there would be a huge upswing in terrorists attacks, if only >>>> because Bin Laden is on the record as saying that he *wants* to hit >>>> us again. Every one of the Bin Laden tapes contains ominous >>>> warnings about future attacks. He is not being sarcastic. In >>>> conjunction with addressing the root causes of terrorism, we have >>>> to protect ourselves against the people who already hate us now. We >>>> must be realistic about the dangers that face us. The British, >>>> American, and Pakistani intelligence agencies just broke up a major >>>> terrorist plot against airliners. This is the context for the >>>> entire conversation that we're having now. The threat is real. >>>> >>>> ~j >>>> >>> >>