X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, 	RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=no version=3.2.0-r372567
Sender: 1.4 (spamval) -- NONE
Return-Path: <improvetheworld-errors &AElig umich.edu>
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 k7EKfLnw007881 	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) 	for <dreeves &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>; Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:41:22 -0400
Received: from jeffrey.mr.itd.umich.edu (jeffrey.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.14.71]) 	by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k7EKfKXF008691; 	Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:41:20 -0400
Received: FROM skycaptain.mr.itd.umich.edu (smtp.mail.umich.edu [141.211.93.160]) 	BY jeffrey.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 44E0DFEC.41F8B.2864 ;  	14 Aug 2006 16:41:16 -0400
Received: FROM [192.168.0.102] (c-68-40-203-88.hsd1.mi.comcast.net [68.40.203.88]) 	BY skycaptain.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 44E0DFAF.82E6D.7791 ;  	14 Aug 2006 16:40:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608141516160.23977 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608131415030.30087 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>  <44DF6DE6.1010203 &AElig umich.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608131725200.20709 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608132232260.18836 &AElig columbus.eecs.umich.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608140446510.18991 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608141055400.30087 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608141132160.25532 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu> <3CE327AF-BB1E-466D-95C9-3F9E6E0F3D89 &AElig umich.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0608141516160.23977 &AElig edinburgh.eecs.umich.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <F0A022CF-1A74-43CC-A751-DBE24B04A967 &AElig umich.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2)
X-Spam-Level: *
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 16:40:16 -0400
To: James W Mickens <jmickens &AElig eecs.umich.edu>
Cc: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Robert Felty <robfelty &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: stupid feel-good "no liquids" rule
Status: O
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 691

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
>
>