New security measures causing travel woes

[Mellyrose]

I understand increased security procedures, but not being allowed to bring bottled water and hand lotion in your carry-on?


NYTimes
New Security Rules Prompt Confusion

By JOHN HOLUSHA
Published: August 10, 2006
Changed security rules produced long lines and confusion at American airports today, with passengers missing flights and enduring intensive inspections in reaction to the arrests of alleged bomb plotters in Britain.

Dennis McDermott, 53, a certified public accountant who lives in Hunterton County, New Jersey, arrived at Newark Liberty Airport at 5:15 a.m., expecting to board a Delta flight to Vancouver, British Columbia.

The security wait was so extensive that he missed the flight. “The plane left without me,” he said. “My luggage is in Vancouver.”

He said his daughter Jennifer, 14, was forced to remove her perfume from her handbag and put it checked luggage.

Mr. McDermott said he missed a second flight to Vancouver and was planning to fly to Seattle and then drive three hours to Vancouver after clearing security at 9:35, over four hours after arriving at the airport.

In Detroit, employees of Northwest Airlines, the dominant carrier there, handed out photocopied sheets explaining the items that could not be taken aboard planes, as the lines grew longer this morning.

Passengers were told they could check a third bag without charge; normally only two are allowed.

Bobby Mathew, 36, and Michael Durso, 27, were returning to Philadelphia after a business trip to Detroit. Like many business travelers, they said they never check baggage and did not consider checking their rolling suitcases.

As a result of the new rules, Mr. Matthew threw away a bottle of lotion and toothpaste, but kept shaving cream and allergy medication on the assumption they would be allowed aboard. Mr. Dennis threw away his after shave lotion and other liquids.

“It’s another wake-up call,” said Mr. Matthew. “I grew up in India, and it’s not rare to have 14 checkpoints and spend three hours at the airport.”

Outside the Detroit airport, Kelly Crane, 17, a high school student from Stamford, Conn., was repacking as she prepared to leave Michigan after a sailing trip. She pulled nail polish, sunscreen, lotion and water out of her pink and blue backpack and stuffing them into a large duffel bag she planned to check.

“I don’t really mind not bringing my sunscreen on the plane, but that I can’t bring my water, that’s a little ridiculous,” she said.

[T-Bird76]

I agree, these regulations are ridiculous and silly. I find it hard to believe (well maybe not) that Homeland security just found out that bombs can be made out of liquids.

So does this mean you can't even buy a bottle of water on the other side of the checkpoints and bring it on? I also wonder how credible this threat is. If these guys were anything like the boobs they arrested in Miami who couldn't pick pocket a 90 year old woman, I'm not too worried. Candidly I don’t put to much stock into anything that comes from that talking jaw Michael Chertoff.

[PhilDernerJr]

I don't understnad the big deal. Who can't live without lotion? The airlines serve water on board.

This is because of a threat that terrorists were specifically using liquids to carry out attacks. This kind of regulation sounds like a given, at least for these few days as the facts start to settle about the attack threat that's coming public.

I'd think that people would choose a little more safety over dry hands.

[hiss srq]

I tend to agree with Phil, anything that you need will be onboard the airplane and obviously the regulations will be just slightly less than they are for any of GTW, LHR, STN, and MAN flights leaving the USA. I completely support these measures. I just came home from SRQ where I have been since 7 A.M. Observing the events. A few bitchy pax but most are being pretty good about it all. We will see, I doubt very highly that this is going to be a lasting regulation. If it is than I am sure Amtrac sales are going to skyrocket

[Mellyrose]

I tend to agree with Phil, anything that you need will be onboard the airplane and obviously the regulations will be just slightly less than they are for any of GTW, LHR, STN, and MAN flights leaving the USA. I completely support these measures. I just came home from SRQ where I have been since 7 A.M. Observing the events. A few bitchy pax but most are being pretty good about it all. We will see, I doubt very highly that this is going to be a lasting regulation. If it is than I am sure Amtrac sales are going to skyrocket

This coming from the guy who thinks "hovering 30 feet above an ex-girlfriend's house in a helicopter" is not dangerous.

[T-Bird76]

Phil I think the issue is how close we're these guys from really pulling this off? If they were caught in the airport with the devices then by all means liquids should be banned at least until they can reasonably say they eliminated the threat.

However if this was anything like the boys in Miami then Homeland security is totally overreacting. If this plot was months away from being launched why step things up the day it was uncovered? The two dates are totally unconnected.

The other issue behind the scenes is that the TSA has dragged its ass and wasted tens of millions of our dollars on installing screening machines that don't screen for explosives. This event in itself should be proof to everyone that the TSA and Homeland security is a total and complete failure. It’s a blatant admission that "opps we didn't think of that scenario."

[PhilDernerJr]

When did Amtrak start trains to London? ;)

I agree that many security measures are silly these days, and are just there as a way to imply that things are secure. But come on...it's not a big deal to not be able to take water, lotion or perfume on a flight.

[RDU-JFK]

I'm flying down to Fayetteville tomorrow for the weekend and as a result I need to leave my toothpaste, deodorant and shampoo at home since I'm not cheking a bag (tight connection). It's an inconvenience, and add on the fact that when I get to LGA tomorrow I need to deal with all the uninformed travelers with their huge rollaboard suitcases bringing the kitchen sink on the plane. So I'll have to leave like 4 hours before the flight. So yes, it is an inconvenience.

Another thing...what if you're airside-checking your luggage on an RJ? It's unfair cause you're checking your bag anyways but then again you're not.

[Mellyrose]

I didn't mean that it was such a huge inconvenience to not be able to take those items on a flight, but it really does mean changing the way you plan and pack for a trip....and even if you are as careful and conscious as you can be, with these measures, I'm sure you'd still have to throw things out at security.

Pretty much just seems like a pain in the ass...I wasn't implying that it was anything more than that.

[Midnight Mike]

Well, blame to ACLU for this one, not allowed to racially profile:


He said his daughter Jennifer, 14, was forced to remove her perfume from her handbag and put it checked luggage.


As far as the liquids, they said the bomb plot involved liquid explosives, the airports are not equipped correctly to detect liquid explosives, so, airport security has to adjust.....

Liquid explosives, do not leave the same residue trail as powdered type explosives....

[Matt Molnar]

Liquids should already been banned as Al-Qaeda demonstrated their ability and motivation to do exactly the same thing long ago. A plot hatched by Ramzi Yousef to bomb a dozen trans-pacific flights with liquid explosives assembled in-flight was thwarted in the Phillippines in 1995. The plot was unraveled when Yousef's Manila apartment/bomb factory caught fire.

[MarkLawrence]

I talked to family in the Uk a while ago - the whole basis of the attack was based on a liquid explosive - up to 10 flights - close together in time of explosion and far enough away from land so crews could not turn around - that's what they've been told in the UK (and I think it's also reported on MS-NBC).

What would frustrate me more is - the HUGE delays getting home to the US - apparently, at one stage, all out-bound trans-Atlanstic flights from LHR, LGW, Stanstead, Birmingham and Manchester were grounded with no take off time - what does that do to the lines at check-in. I haven't listened to the live feeds from JFK today, but I expect they are very deviod of Trans-Atlantic flights....

[Jonesbeach]

Walking through AA's terminal at JFK, you would think it was Thanksgiving weekend, there are so many people milling around. They have it set up that you have to go through a pre-screening station to enter the line for security where they make you throw out your beverages. Only then you are allowed to get on the line for screening. The line for security looks like it would take at least an hour to get through. Anybody that's flying these next couple of days has some real fun times in store.

[RDU-JFK]

Jonesbeach,

So you'd recommened me to get to LGA extra early? Was the security line really crawling?

[Jonesbeach]

I'm at JFK, but over here it looked pretty bad. I would anticipate lines simlar to the holidays (Thansgiving, Christmas).

[Derf]

We can not bring water on an airplane!!! WOW! and as for those who
say they do not care, I DO. If I have my wife and two children on an
aircraft, I want a big bottle of water with me just in case we sit on the
ground for 3 hours!!! due to fog, snow or just a panzyass leader that is
coming in. They will not serve the drinks unless there is an overthrow by
the passengers because there will not be enough for the flight... I can
understand checking toothpaste and lotion, but water?

Oh yea, were not letting the terrorists win! We can no longer bring
bottled water on an aircraft! THEY WON ALL-READY!


I wonder if they are going to make parents drink their own breast milk
still or if that is now banned.....fcuk the kids, let them starve!!! YEA!!!

(if you could not tell, I am pissed off by this)

[Jonesbeach]

They're actually letting parents with young children bring up to three bottles on board. How thoughtful of them!

[mirrodie]

the whole situation is bloody disgusting.

I'm waiting for the day the TSA or government realizes that clothing is flammable....get ready for butt naked flights.

Or, well, since we are looking at suicide bombers, I wonder how easy it is to just swallow a bomb or plastic explosive and remotely detonate it from within your gut. So what then? ban flying all together?

Nude flying ! Get ready!

thats right folks, get ready for clothing to be banned at one point.

The whole response is a typical knee jerk reaction and I doubt that ban will last long.

But if it does, get ready folks. bare butt naked flying is around the corner.

Wonder how comfortable those Jble leathers seats will be then?!

[Matt Molnar]

Remember it's believed the female suicide bombers in Russia a couple of years ago hid the bombs up their hoohahs. Maybe we should give everyone a full cavity search.

My dad is flying JFK-MSP on Northwest at 6:20am tomorrow. I guess he'll have to leave the house before 4. :?

[T-Bird76]

So here's one to ponder, in a few days or a couple of weeks when we can bring laptops and drinks back on board, what BS will the TSA and Homeland security give as to why we're allowed. Will we be any safer then? Somehow I doubt it. If this isn't the biggiest reason to can Michael Chertoff and sack the TSA I don't know what is.

[cancidas]

and even through all this, when trying to find a pax's carry-on that wasn't claimed planeside i was forced to look through pockets for ID, and instead i found mace. interesting eh?


and there is no chance in hell that i'm checking my daughter's bottle!

[RDU-JFK]

Remember it's believed the female suicide bombers in Russia a couple of years ago hid the bombs up their hoohahs.

Please explain what a hoohah is. :wink:

[Midnight Mike]

When it rains, it pours....

'Hijack' Attempt Foiled
Updated: 16:59, Thursday August 10, 2006

A man has been overpowered by airline staff after trying to enter the cockpit of a Qatar Airways plane.

He was carrying a cannister of liquid in what could have been a hijack attempt.
Security officials said they did not know what was in the container.

"Just after takeoff, one of the passengers moved towards the cockpit and, when one of the flight attendants stood in his way, he hit him (the attendant)," passenger Samir Samri told the Al Jazeera TV network by telephone.

He said the man appeared to be about 20 and from an African country.

"It might not have been a hijack attempt ... he might have been mentally unstable," he said.

The flight was heading to the Qatari capital Doha from Jordan's capital, Amman, but turned back after the incident.

The man was eventually detained by Jordanian officials.

The incident came hours after the UK said it had foiled a major terror plot to blow up airplanes headed to the US.

[PhilDernerJr]

That hijack liquid turned out to be medication, and all that happened was an argument on the plane.

[PhilDernerJr]

Oh yea, were not letting the terrorists win! We can no longer bring
bottled water on an aircraft! THEY WON ALL-READY!

I don't think a bottle of water off of planes is what the terrorists wanted, nor a good sign that they've won already. I think fear, which many seem to NOT be feeling today actually, is one of the goals.


I wonder if they are going to make parents drink their own breast milk
still ....

I didn't know airlines allowed woman to to that to themselves on planes to begin with. I thought it was only available on websites that I pay $5.95 a month for.


They're actually letting parents with young children bring up to three bottles on board. How thoughtful of them!

They are also allowing medication with proof of what's inside. I think that's logical and fair given the circumstances.


I'm waiting for the day the TSA or government realizes that clothing is flammable

But it's not explosive, which is what the concern is.


So here's one to ponder, in a few days or a couple of weeks when we can bring laptops and drinks back on board....

We're allowed to bring them on board NOW. We just can't bring liquids on. Only in England can they not have any carry-on...from what I've been reading on the news.


I am really shocked that people are getting upset over the procedures that are being practiced today. What is so bad about it? A little more time before your flight? Big deal. These safety measures won't be in place for that long I'm sure.

I think people should be happy that this plot was foiled instead of only talking about the negativity. I've yet to read anyone praise the intelligence agencies involved for being on top of ****.

The same government that is being accused of being stupid with this...is the same government's agencies that saved thsouands of lives by preventing the attack.

Many of the people complaining now, are the same who would be pointing fingers at the government if the attacks had been carried out.

I also ask you all what measures the airports SHOULD be taking these days that they aren't.

[Alex T]

I agree with Phil as well.

I mean guys, you don't need your cell phone on board, nor do you u need your laptop. its a conviencey yes, but come on, you always wanted to go back to the old days of traveling, where you had no IFE, you could stare out the window, hear the engine vibrate, talk to your seatmate, learn something new about them, read the magazines provided on board.

Based on all these rules anyway I see no difference from what i do, I dont have an ipod or a laptop, so thats out, i never carry liquid on board anyway because I know I will get it on my flight.

CNN confirmed they are NOT making women drink their forumals, but it will be searched.

So good job to the gov't for possibly saving many lives.

Alex

[Midnight Mike]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14286217/


Fact file Airport security measures

The Transportation Security Administration instituted the following measures after a terror plot in Britain was thwarted:

Liquids are banned from carry-on luggage and cannot be taken through security checkpoints. That includes drinks, toothpaste, perfume, shampoo, hair gel, suntan lotion and similar items. Drinks purchased in the airport cannot be carried onto flights.

Medications will be allowed but must be presented for inspection at security checkpoints.

Mothers can bring baby formula on board, but only after drinking it in front of security officials first.

All shoes must be removed and placed on an X-ray belt for screening.

Passengers are also asked to arrive at least two hours early to allow for additional screening.

Passengers traveling to the United Kingdom should contact their airline for information about any extra security measures or precautions that might be required. Laptop computers, mobile phones and iPods are among items banned on British flights.

[Midnight Mike]

I am really shocked that people are getting upset over the procedures that are being practiced today. What is so bad about it? A little more time before your flight? Big deal. These safety measures won't be in place for that long I'm sure.

I think people should be happy that this plot was foiled instead of only talking about the negativity. I've yet to read anyone praise the intelligence agencies involved for being on top of ****.

The same government that is being accused of being stupid with this...is the same government's agencies that saved thsouands of lives by preventing the attack.

Many of the people complaining now, are the same who would be pointing fingers at the government if the attacks had been carried out.

I also ask you all what measures the airports SHOULD be taking these days that they aren't.

Welcome to the new world Phil, complain about a situation, no matter what happens.

As you said, a Hijacking was stopped, and for a period of time, we will be inconvienced for a little while, we can all survive with the increased security....

[Mellyrose]

I agree that it's a good measure to not allow outside drinks, etc on the plane...but to ban drinks bought inside the airport seems out of line. If they are bought passed security, and from an airport vendor, how can they not be safe?

Also, it does say that mother's are asked to drink the formula...a lot of new mothers put breast milk in those bottles, therefore making them drink their own breastmilk. It's just a bit weird.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the extra precautions, I just think the above points are a bit out of line.

[RDU-JFK]

Unfortunately it will be more than just a little time in the security lines. People are still going to bring gigantic wheelaboard carry-ons chock full of liquids, slowing things drastically. Especially with it being LGA tomorrow for me, the TSA will be slow and the passengers will be even slower. I'm leaving the house at 6:30 for my 9:30 flight just to make sure.

I hate people with those huge rollaboard bags, but sometimes a carry-onn is necessary. Overnight business trips or trips with extremely tight connections or inter-airline connections deem it safer to carry bags on rather than check them. You can guarantee Acela will be getting more business this week.

[moose135]

These safety measures won't be in place for that long I'm sure.

It's been how many years now, and you still have to take your shoes off going through the metal detector? What procedures have they relaxed in the past 5 years?


Don't get me wrong, I agree with the extra precautions, I just think the above points are a bit out of line.

It's the TSA, it doesn't have to make sense.

[Alex T]

Mel- I have heard 3 times on CNN watching they are NOT requiring mothers to drink their forumlas so not sure how the reports are conflicting, the reporters are saying "no matter what you hear or read the TSA are NOT (big urgency voice here) focring the mothers and fathers to drink the forumals" so we will see. I never have trusted MSNBC when watching them.

MSNBC.com needs to re word the ban statement, you can still take them to British Airways just you have to check them, according to britishairways.com. they are not banning them from the flight just from carrying it on board.

[T-Bird76]

We're allowed to bring them on board NOW. We just can't bring liquids on. Only in England can they not have any carry-on...from what I've been reading on the news.

I should have clarified a bit more. I meant the carryon’s in England and the liquids here. However my point still stands what will the TSA tell us in a few weeks when we go back to normal?

I never said I wasn't happy, but Phil look at what happened here. All of a sudden since this threat became real we ban carryon’s that just yesterday were allowed? What was the difference between yesterday and today? Absolutely nothing, this threat was as real yesterday as it was today. So Homeland security decides to take us to the brink of an attack and cause chaos at the airports. If this was surprise to them and they didn't know liquid bombs were a real threat then I'd be real scared.

Why the negativity from so many and not just on this board, because people are sick of being handed a load of **** from the gov't. For years now and millions of tax payer dollars later Homeland security has said our airports are safe and in a blink of an eye a relative simple plot is uncovered and all hell breaks lose. If this was a real threat then why were we allowed to bring liquids onboard up to today? That's the question at hand here and why did the TSA and Homeland security fail at identifying this threat.

You want to make it simple, ban carryon’s all together send all luggage through explosives detectors and be done with it. Install explosive metal detectors as well and make the task of carrying out an operation like this so difficult it would not be worth it. We're spending money ***** footing around, lying to the public, making knee jerk reactionary decisions all the while the ability to blow up a plane with a cup of explosives disguised as a can of coke still exists. Its time for some real leadership and accountability at Homeland Security. I’m sorry this was to close to call and my figure is pointed squarely at the TSA and Homeland security.

[PhilDernerJr]

The ban on things like nail clippers and other small metalic objects that was once banned is no longer that way.

As for the shoes thing, is that really a big deal? Sounds ok to me to have them x-rayed separately.

[Mellyrose]

Not that I think it should be this way, but I do agree with Tommy about how the threat was just as present yesterday as it is today. If there are concerns, these rules should stay in place for good. As soon as there is leniency or the ban is lifted, it's just as dangerous as it was before the ban. Terrorism is not going to go away no matter what rules they make....especially if it's half assed.


edit: P.S. I just read this...
Among those arrested were....and a Heathrow Airport employee with an all-area access pass, according to Britain's Channel 4.

In which case it doesn't even MATTER what security measures are taken...airport employees aren't put through security on the hour, or made to throw their drinks out, right?

[hiss srq]

When did Amtrak start trains to London? ;)

I agree that many security measures are silly these days, and are just there as a way to imply that things are secure. But come on...it's not a big deal to not be able to take water, lotion or perfume on a flight.


I ment on the stateside of things.

[FlyingColors]

This crap keeps up were all going to start taking pics of abandoned terminals!

Total bull, out of line and order.
But its OK, you just have to give up your basic human rights.

Like Derf said "they won"

[PhilDernerJr]

While laws and measures implemented since 9/11 all over might be over the line, I don't think anything at the airport has been that out of control in temrs of being over the top for safety.

Taking water on a plane isn't a basic human right, and I don't think anything of the new rules at the airport do so either.

[Midnight Mike]

This crap keeps up were all going to start taking pics of abandoned terminals!

Total bull, out of line and order.
But its OK, you just have to give up your basic human rights.

Like Derf said "they won"

Do nothing, & they win as well :wink:

I certainly would not say that Air Travel is a basic human right, so guys, let's not exagerate....

[markg]

Total bull, out of line and order.
But its OK, you just have to give up your basic human rights.

Like Derf said "they won"

From what I can understand reading various UK and US websites today, this was more than your average knee jerk reaction to a message picked up on Al Jazeera.net or whatever. This was a full blown attempt to kill a lot of people.

The people of the UK are not known to react to terror threats in such a way. We are used to living with the threat of the IRA. (I was once very close to being in the wrong place at the wrong time, when 2 boys aged 11 and 3 got killed while shopping for a Mother's Day gift) The 2nd time I was 3,000 miles away when my office building was severely damaged by a bomb.

Forget human rights. I'd rather forsake a bottle of water and my Ipod on a flight than become a victim of these Paki a**holes (apologies to anyone on here from the Indian Subcontinent, it is not a generalized statement aimed at everyone)

If you think it's a breach of your human rights, then please choose not to fly.

Apologies for the rant!

[Matt Molnar]

Please explain what a hoohah is. :wink:

It's somewhere between the bushy bowl and the Hershey Highway. :)

[T-Bird76]

Please explain what a hoohah is. :wink:

It's somewhere between the bushy bowl and the Hershey Highway. :)

MMMMM Hershey highway......... :P

[Mateo]

It's somewhere between the bushy bowl and the Hershey Highway.
That's Route 322, right? Oh, wait, what were we talking about?

If the terrorists hate our freedom so much, why is it that you can board a flight in Saudi Arabia carrying a bottle of water?

[Midnight Mike]

Effective Immediately - New Airport Security Directives

The national security threat level has been raised from yellow to orange and passengers may not take liquids, gels, or creams through the security checkpoint or on an aircraft. Below are the restrictions for air travelers in the U.S. There is some confusion as the restrictions in Great Britain are more stringent.

Restrictions for departures in the United States

Liquids, gels and creams may be packed in checked, but not carry-on luggage
Beverages purchased must be consumed before boarding an aircraft
Liquids include beverages, shampoo, lotions, creams, toothpaste, gels and other items of similar consistency.


There are two exceptions and these items must be presented for inspection at the checkpoint.

Passengers may bring baby formula or breast milk if an infant is traveling.
Prescription medicine will be allowed on the aircraft if the name on the prescription bottle matches the passenger's ticket. Insulin and essential other non-prescription medicines will be
allowed.
The new procedures may result in longer lines at security. Travelers should get to the airport two hours before departure and of course not take any restricted items through security.



Restrictions in Great Britain

Many people are confused about the requirements for carry-ons because the news is really focusing on what's going on in Great Britain; -- their requirements are very different from those in the U.S. In Great Britain, the airports on are Red Alert, the highest alert. That is not the case in the U.S. We are on Orange Alert. In Great Britain, passengers are not allowed to have carry-on luggage. That is not the case here. Carry-ons are allowed -- just no liquids /gels in the carry-ons. In Great Britain, passengers are not allowed to bring electronic devices -- PDAs, laptops, cell phones, etc. That is not the case here. They are allowed. In Great Britain, passengers have been encouraged not to fly unless absolutely necessary. That is not the case here -- our airlines are trying to acommodate travelers.

1 + 1 Is the Rule for Carry-On Luggage

Travelers with luggage in hand are allowed to take two items on board their flights - one bag plus one personal item such as a purse, laptop or briefcase.

There are a few exceptions to this rule. The items below can be carried in addition to one bag and one personal item:

Crutches, wheelchairs and other medical assistance items
One musical instrument
Duty-free items
One bag of photographic equipment.
More details and key travel tips are available on the Transportation Security Administration's Web site

[Iberia A340-600]

I hope things die down some before Wednesday. I was hoping to spend some time in Terminal C at EWR before my flight to SJU doing some spotting from inside the terminal but I'm sure secuirty will be tight and me with my camrea could be called upon.

So when they say ban all liquids does that mean I can't bring a bottle of Pepsi aboard?

[hiss srq]

From my experince today no, you are fine to go early and do spotting I was doing today after I got back from PBI but as for drinks, no they cannot be brought aboard. I got chewed on by an AirTran gate agent for going on the jetbridge with a bottle of Pepsi though I am SIDA badged etc... No joy on pepsi but spotting go for it. I did it for 3 hours today in the terminal and on the ramp. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

[Sulman]

From what I understand this was very much a real threat, involving some pretty hefty intelligence from Pakistan, UK, and US security services. The information that has been released has been somewhat reserved, which would suggest there are some loose ends yet to be tied up.

You can't really be surprised from a simple risk-management point of view that the prudent thing to do is eliminate carry-on items. I don't think it will last forever but in the meantime, it's a small price to pay.


James

[moose135]

So when they say ban all liquids does that mean I can't bring a bottle of Pepsi aboard?

Sorry, you'll have to leave it behind...not only that, but I hear they are making sure you urinate before boarding - can't have any liquids on board :)

Why is it this has become a huge issue in the last two days with bans on liquids on flights, when 10 years ago :!: terrorists actually managed to set off one of these on an aircraft, killing a passenger, as part of a plot to blow up a bunch of airliners over the Pacific?

[pgengler]

What really bothers me about the whole thing is that it's not being done for security, but it's all to give the illusion of security:


The CIA, the Homeland Security Department, and several top lawmakers knew "for days" of the [recent] terror plot.

Many hours after British police announced they had foiled a plot to simultaneously blow up planes over the Atlantic on their way from London to the U.S., ... [Bush] approved raising the alert to red on flights from England.

Source: CBS/AP (http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5268887&nav=QEMt), brackets, ellipses, and emphasis mine

If you knew about the plot days in advance, to increase security, you need to start banning liquids on planes days in advance. Doing so after the plot has been "foiled" (perhaps completely, perhaps not) is doing very little to make anything more secure, at the expense of everyone flying. This is just a symbolic gesture to make everyone feel safer about flying.

[Midnight Mike]

What really bothers me about the whole thing is that it's not being done for security, but it's all to give the illusion of security:


The CIA, the Homeland Security Department, and several top lawmakers knew "for days" of the [recent] terror plot.

Many hours after British police announced they had foiled a plot to simultaneously blow up planes over the Atlantic on their way from London to the U.S., ... [Bush] approved raising the alert to red on flights from England.

Source: CBS/AP (http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=5268887&nav=QEMt), brackets, ellipses, and emphasis mine

If you knew about the plot days in advance, to increase security, you need to start banning liquids on planes days in advance. Doing so after the plot has been "foiled" (perhaps completely, perhaps not) is doing very little to make anything more secure, at the expense of everyone flying. This is just a symbolic gesture to make everyone feel safer about flying.

If they knew about the plot in advance, you remain quiet as you not only want to capture the people conducting the attack, but, you want to capture the leaders, the planners, and everybody else connected to the attack. That is why 24 people were arrested at once.

The next plan, is to make an announcement as loud as possible, that no liquids are allowed on the aircraft, ends any other attacks that could be planned out...

If they stopped allowing liquids on the aircraft last week, they may have not been able to arrest everybody or none at all....

[pgengler]

If they knew about the plot in advance, you remain quiet as you not only want to capture the people conducting the attack, but, you want to capture the leaders, the planners, and everybody else connected to the attack. That is why 24 people were arrested at once.

The next plan, is to make an announcement as loud as possible, that no liquids are allowed on the aircraft, ends any other attacks that could be planned out...

If they stopped allowing liquids on the aircraft last week, they may have not been able to arrest everybody or none at all....

But in not doing anything to stop the attack vector, you've left yourself vulnerable. If the alleged planners had been able to get a tip on Monday that the government was closing in on them, they're probably ready to go, and could push their timetable ahead while they'd still be able to get liquids on the plane. In this case, they didn't know that anyone was on to them, so it all worked out, but there's no guarantee of this for any future plots.

To know that an attack in imminent, to know the way the way that it's going to be carried out, and to do nothing to stop the attack vector, instead counting on being able to round up those involved, is not good security.

[PhilDernerJr]

You're talking as though the attack was going to be carried out yesterday. It wasn't.

They didn't even have the flights booked yet. It WAS in advance and the measures were put into place at the right time.

Also, from what I've read, the exact procedure that they would have used on these flights were NOT what were going to be used on those Pacific flights, and yesterday's "cocktail" was one that was not known of or expected in the war on terror.

[moose135]

Also, from what I've read, the exact procedure that they would have used on these flights were NOT what were going to be used on those Pacific flights, and yesterday's "cocktail" was one that was not known of or expected in the war on terror.

From Time.com:

Though details are still sketchy, the broad outlines of the foiled plot to bomb airliners plying the Atlantic are eerily reminiscent of a decade-old attempt by an al-Qaeda-linked group to massacre hundreds of airline passengers — in that case aimed at U.S. airlines flying over the Pacific. That plot too targeted a dozen or so airliners and aimed to use a liquid explosive, a nitroglycerine-based concoction that was to have been smuggled on to the aircraft in hand baggage. The plot, codenamed Bojinka — a play on the Serbo-Croatian word for explosion — by its Pakistani planners, came frighteningly close to fruition. In December of 1994, according to U.S. court documents, Ramzi Yousef and Wali Khan Amin Shah, were instrumental in the bombing of a Philippine airlines flight en route to Japan that was a dry run for their much more ambitious attempt to blow up a dozen jets simultaneously. They managed to smuggle a container of liquid explosive concealed in contact lens solution aboard the airplane on an earlier flight, leaving it under a seat in row 26. The explosion killed a Japanese man and forced the plane to make an emergency landing.

<snip>

The parallels between the two attempts underline just how vulnerable airliners remain, says Zachary Abuza, a terror expert who teaches at Simmons College in Boston, Mass. "The amount of explosive you need is really very small," Abuza notes. "It doesn't take much to bring a plane down. And the return is huge. They are targeting the global economy and this remains a huge way to make a dent very quickly by disrupting business and tourism." He and other experts warn that bombs on airplanes will always remain one of the most tempting targets for terrorists, who have killed almost two thousand passengers over the last three decades.

The foiled plot also underlines the fact that, for all the talk in recent years about al-Qaeda focusing on coming up with a new form of terror attack — be it with weapons of mass destruction or against a target other than air travel — the group tends to stick with what they believe is a good plan, notes Rohan Gunaratna, author of Inside al-Qaeda. "They think in the long term, over decades," Gunaratna says. "They will keep trying the same plan until they get it right, as was the case with the World Trade Center." From "Richard Reid the shoe bomber to the arrest by Philippine police last year of Islamic extremists in Manila who had manufactured explosives they managed to get into toothpaste tubes, the pattern is there," concurs Abuza. "They will keep trying. And we don't know the chemical composition of this latest attempt, but if they have come up with something that is stable and easily disguised we could really have a problem."

Yes, the EXACT procedure or chemicals may have been different, but the fact remains the same type of attack was planned (and tested) 10 years ago, yet today it's a crisis and we have generated mass hysteria in the airports.

That's like after 9/11 when all these goverment officials said they never imagined using aircraft being flown into a building as a method of attack, yet during the G-8 summit earlier that summer, they installed anti-aircraft weapons around the site to guard against just such an attack.

[PhilDernerJr]

oh poops. :(

[Midnight Mike]

But in not doing anything to stop the attack vector, you've left yourself vulnerable. If the alleged planners had been able to get a tip on Monday that the government was closing in on them, they're probably ready to go, and could push their timetable ahead while they'd still be able to get liquids on the plane. In this case, they didn't know that anyone was on to them, so it all worked out, but there's no guarantee of this for any future plots.

To know that an attack in imminent, to know the way the way that it's going to be carried out, and to do nothing to stop the attack vector, instead counting on being able to round up those involved, is not good security.

Your comment, would hold water, if the attack went through as planned. By the way, the UK Authorities had control over this one, the United States & Pakistan was providing assistance.

Since they had a date of the attack, 16-August, they had complete control over the situation.

According to reports, they had an insider who was proving information.

This is damn good news, they stopped an attack, arrested 24 people & 6 in Pakistan.

Good Security is finding out about an attack, stopping the attack, finding all those involved, & arresting or shooting of all involved.....

[hiss srq]

Several food for thought type things here also as far as the investigation goes. Has anyone thought that in light of these events in the UK about the missing Egyptians that came over about a week ago or so? Seriously what is to say that in light of the fact that these terrorists in the UK had no previous record and were even lifetime British citizens might not be as much a risk and even tied to this event? I know the goverment has stated that these individuals were not a risk to our national security in public releases but perhaps there is more to it than they are actually saying? I found it odd that they would announce this in particular that these people were missing in the first place without some other underlying suspision maybe.

my other peice of food for thought is now a moot point in light of the fact that at the boarding gate they are now going to start searching all pax again after the initial searches but I was thinking about how the terrorists could potentially fly through connections internationally on say a flight that starts out in say SRQ than goes to EWR before going to London or another city that is not under such tight raps right now and in that time frame once they have cleared TSA at SRQ they are not subject to the same scrutiny again minus the normal international flying procedures before jumping on a 757 across the pond. They could potentially in that intrim have stolen some cleaning materials etc... from on the jetbridge or from a custodial persons cart at EWR and created a concoction that would possibly knock out all aboard including the flight deck crew possibly and there ya go the plane just runs out of fuel or somthing and crashes . I mean there are a hundred scenarios but these are some intresting ones I came up with.

No need to flame me just thought i would put it out there.

[pgengler]

Good Security is finding out about an attack, stopping the attack, finding all those involved, & arresting or shooting of all involved.....

Well, yes and no. In this case, what they did worked, and they were able to stop the attack despite not closing the vector until after they'd picked up some/all of those believed to be involved. I maintain, however, that this is not good security, despite that it seems to have worked here.

Let's look at the way things could have gone in this case. Suppose that the planned date of the attack is August 16. With less than a week to go, I think it's reasonable to expect that nearly all, if not all, of the necessary supplies are on hand and that nearly all of the people needed are where they're supposed to be. I'm not sure what a bunch of terrorists would spend a week doing before an attack, but if they're reasonably well-organized, they're not waiting for crucial resources to come in this close to the designated time.

So, I think it's reasonable to expect that the attack could have been pulled off at any time in at least the week before the planned time, subject to the availability of last-minute tickets on flights. At this point, all it takes is for one indication, real or perceived, that the government is on to them, and some could decide to push things ahead by a week.

Meanwhile, the government has caught wind of the attack, and have reason to believe that it could be carried out in a week, and have a good idea about the method that will be used. At this point, it becomes a race: can the government pick up everyone (or at least enough people) involved before they're able to pull it off? If the terrorists surprise the gov't by striking a few days ahead of schedule, and before the government decided to move against them, then the attack is going to succeed, because there's nothing stopping it.

In this case, the government's plan worked. If, as we're constantly being told, there are hundreds of other terrorist cells and groups, all out to get us, then sooner or later one of them is going to either get a tip from somewhere, or get spooked by something (even a wrongly-perceived surveillance) and change their plans. If you haven't taken any action to stop the plan, only the people, then there's a much better chance of their plan succeeding than if you took action against both.

That said, I think I can understand the point that you're trying to make. Certainly, it's not in the government's best interest to stop an imminent attack only to let the masterminds of it get away so that they can formulate a new plan.

Good security is a combination of both. You should make a plan to apprehend the people behind the attack, but you should also be working to render the attack impossible/unfeasible, just in case the people slip away before you can grab them, or if you can't get all of them. The institution of the "no liquids" policy after the arrests likely means one of two things: 1) that there's a possibility that not everyone involved was arrested, and there's a risk of a (smaller) attack, or 2) that the government is trying to show people that it's taking measures to keep them safe from such an attack.

The first case there is basically the same thing I mentioned (at great length) above: that you can't always be sure of getting all the people, and so you have to take steps to close the attack vector. The second case is pretty self-explanatory: it's the government wasting resources on pointless "protection."

(One thing I really don't understand is why, if the government knew about this in advance, and probably expected they'd institute a "no liquid" polict, there wasn't at least some sort of plan to get a consistent message across and to do so without sprining it on everyone, including screeners, all at once.)

[GrummanFan]

So I guess that Red Bull can give you wings, and take them away too. :wink:

[moose135]

oh poops. :(

Thanks Phil, that was a well thought out, reasonably argued point :D

[mirrodie]

Just one solution...

fractional jet ownership.

[Mellyrose]

Ok...this is DIRECTLY from the TSA website:

We encourage everyone to pack gel-filled bras in their checked baggage. We recognize the sensitivity of the issue and we are reaching out to key women’s medical associations to assist passengers and make information available to them while respecting their privacy. Passengers with medical gel prosthetics will be permitted through the security checkpoint.

What I want to know is HOW they would be able to identify if a woman didn't follow this direction? I think this is a bit weird.

[moose135]

What I want to know is HOW they would be able to identify if a woman didn't follow this direction? I think this is a bit weird.

Hand searches :D