- Nov 28, 2001
- Total Time
What is the source of this information? I haven't been able to find any official details released yet.avbug said:The "nut" did have explosives in the shoe. Clearly, he had available a deadly weapon, on board the aircraft, and he sucessfully carried it past several levels of security. He wasn't trying to ignite the shoe, but a fuse which was embedded in the explosive material inside the shoe. Therefore, this was a bonafide threat. One quickly learns that professional soldiers are predictable and may be dealt with. Amateurs, however, are infinitely more dangerous. This man was an amateur. Draw your own conclusion.
I should add that the shoe didn't have flour or blackpowder. It wasn't quite that amateur. It contained a plastic explosive with the appearance and texture of C-4. It also appeared to contain a detonator or cap. This wasn't someone trying something off the cuff, nor someone getting excited without having the equipment to back it up. The event itself ended peacefully, and by appearances, the suspect didn't exercise very good judgement in executing his plan. However, we have a valueable look at the potential.
I couldn't disagree more with this statement. It's been repeated over and over lately the quote (I believe from Ben Franklin) "Those who give up their civil rights in pursuit of security eventually end up with neither".Don't cry about being searched. Security is about a sterile environment. Anything that goes in our out should have the same policies and proceedures applied. That environment is critical to our jobs. Don't malign it; its keeping you employed. If you have to endure being searched to maintain the integrity of the SIDA and the terminal environment, then do it without hesitation, without question, and in a manner that demonstrates the leadership and sense of example that passengers rightfully can expect. It's your job. Do it.
We're not in Kansas any more, folks.
I'm not talking about special treatment for crews, I'm talking about equal treatment. Please cite where I asked for special treatment in my original post. However, since you bring it up, you fail to mention one big difference between me and your average passenger. I have undergone a 10 year history and background check. They haven't. This along with being employed by an air carrier allows me to be given "unrestricted access to the SIDA of any airport with airline service when on duty" as stated in the regulations. For me to pass through security while uniformed and appropriately badged is repetitious and unnecessary. It is nothing more than the "eyewash" you described earlier.avbug said:As for your rights, you have no right to fly an airplane. You have a privilege. You have no right to fly. You have a privilege. In order to assure the equal placement of this privilege among all (including your true employers; your clients, who are your passengers, and who are ultimately paying your salary). we are all subject to the same precautions. A secure area is designated, and it doesn't matter that a crew member enters or a passenger; everyone must be cleared in to maintain the sanctity of the secure area. Let one person in who is exempt, and the concept of a secure area is compromised and worthless.
When did going to work become a "privillege"? Name one other industry where you are subjected to as much scrutiny by just reporting to work. Another big difference is that the passenger can refuse the search and leave the airport. I can do neither.Don't speak of giving up rights; you're following guidelines to ensure that you may keep your privilege. Your privilege is not to walk into a secured area unfettered. Your privilege is to walk into a secured area after being subjected to the same precautions as everyone else, and get on an airplane, and not be killed. Where has anyone hindered your rights??
My "so called" rights? Excuse me?No comparison may be remotely made with George Orwell's fantasy. We have no doubt, no question that the security precautions are necessary. I'm convinced. How many more airliners would you like to see blown up to satisfy your personal minimums? How many more folks with semtex in their shoes do you need? What places you higher than everyone else? What makes your needs greater, and your so-called "rights" more important?
Re-read the Bill of Rights, specifically the part about protection from unreasonable search and seizure.Which specific civil rights have been violated? Can you name them? It sounds good, but I surely don't see it. Help me out.