The law of unintended consequences is a wondrous thing. Excellent though it is that a possible aerial massacre has been avoided, perhaps it is only if air travel becomes once again difficult, uncomfortable, expensive and dangerous can we be prevented from destroying global climatic equilibrium. I am told it was the Duke of Wellington who deplored the arrival of the railways because they would only 'encourage the working classes to move around', which he thought could lead to nothing but trouble. How right he is when this is extended to modern air travel. Never mind the classes, there are only two now that count in this context: those with a regular income without excess debt and those on skid row. All those with a job consider it their right to travel either on business or on escape from it. Whole economies are being built on tourism and luxury global food transport, in spite of the fact that this is ecological and social madness.
[addendum Sept 14th 2006 - see: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/13092006/323/ultimate-belfast-new-york.html for example of this insanity]
The quicker the tourist business goes into reverse the better. The money can be spent much better in different ways to benefit all and economic growth need not be tied to travel and transport as it is now. It was right that tourism should boom and right now that it should bust. Most of us know the world far better from books, films, TV and very modest occasional visits than the frantic and obsessive aerial excursions that waste the planet's resources and wreck the environment it. In the future technology will enable us to know it far better without travelling at all. Our incessant and escalating daily commuting and wider travelling could be seen by any serious student of biology and sociology as the death throes of a certain phase in the development of human life on earth, or at least hysteria. A good slap in the face should bring us to our senses. Of course it takes desperate fanatics to administer the slap, which they do for reasons neither they nor most of the unfortunate recipients understand. Hitler was the cause of the EU. Although G.W.B. always manages to use the most simplistic unhelpful language 'Islamic Fascism' is actually reasonably accurate.
The first tourists I would like to see curtailed are the British football hooligans. A passport is not a right. Inside the cover it states: "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary." Such a document (which remains the property of the state) should be assigned only to those who can prove their identity and citizenship and who undertake unequivocally to reciprocate in their respect for the institutions and laws of the state and to represent it with at least a minimum of dignity. Failure to do this should have the passport withdrawn for a year for a first offence and 10 years for a second. Nobody should have the right to a passport. Those UK citizens without a UK passport would be free to travel to any country that will accept them without a UK passport. If there are none, well, tough, but it is absolutely ridiculous that our Offices of State should supply the travelling credentials to those who are not worthy of them. The liberty to travel the world is for the different nations of the world to give, to those who respect the conditions imposed by the sponsoring nation.
Once a UK passport is in a modern format and part of a proper identity system (which will include non passport holders, those who have not applied and those who have had them withheld or withdrawn), it will become apparent that this is a reasonable way forward.
AUGUST 18th
Mr O'Leary of RyanAir as threatened to sue the Government over the cost and serious losses caused by onerous security checks and limits imposed on the passengers on his aircraft. Since the government do not own his aircraft, I am not sure that they have any right to impose these procedures if neither he nor his passengers want them. Rather than sue the government, he should advertise flights with the normal check-in procedures or his own variant.as well as flights with the government approved methods, giving passengers a choice, He would have to set up his own access channels for those flights, but why not? The passengers are free individuals and the aircraft are not government property. He would need to carry his own insurance unless he could find an insurance company to carry the risk for the aircraft and the passengers would have to waive any legal rights to claim against terrorist actions. Or perhaps the freedom George Bush claims to be defending is just a myth,,,,
AUGUST 19th
Ditch US in terror war, say 80pc of Britons
A majority of British people wants the Government to
adopt an even more "aggressive" foreign policy to combat international
terrorism, according to an opinion poll conducted after the arrests of
24 terrorism suspects last week.
However - by a
margin of more than five to one - the public wants Tony Blair to split
from President George W Bush and either go it alone in the "war on
terror", or work more closely with Europe.
Article at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent and
Philip Johnston - Filed 17th Aug, Edition 20th Aug 2006
JULY 26th 2007
2 weeks ago Stelios, the founder of EASY JET, was asked if the inexorable expansion of his business was reconcilable with the steps we need to take to limit CO2 emission effects on climate change. He started his defence as follows: "I think we can all agree that travel is a good thing". Therein lies the error in the premise which is at the root of the problem. Travel is not a good or bad thing. At the moment, we do far more than is appropriate in the circumstances.
A report by the Commons transport select committee said queues of hundreds of passengers in cramped spaces could become a security hazard.
The committee recommended that reducing queues at security and speeding up check-in times should be a priority.
The Department for Transport (DfT) said baggage security rules introduced last August met "a very real threat".
The regulations resulted in disruption and delays and, although the situation has improved, passengers still face longer queues and increased waiting times.
New targets
The committee heard from security experts that the resulting queues presented a significant security threat.
Prof Alan Hatcher, principal of the International School for Security and Explosives Education, said that with bags not being searched when people entered a terminal he was concerned that queues of hundreds of people were effectively creating new targets.
| |
HAVE YOUR SAY
Airport security is a silly joke. It creates absolute
chaos and doesn't hinder the terrorists one bit Joe Bloggs |
Committee chairman Gwyneth Dunwoody said: "Because of the necessary measures that are now in place, passengers are finding it more uncomfortable and time consuming to begin their journeys.
"Security is the issue which currently has the most significant impact on passengers' experiences of air travel."
The committee heard evidence before the recent suspected attack at Glasgow airport took place.
'Arrive prepared'
Chris Goater, from the Airport Operators Association, said the view of experts is that the primary terrorist threat is from explosives getting onto aircraft.
A DfT spokesman said: "The government has already launched a £1.5m advertising campaign in the national press to remind passengers to 'arrive prepared' and, where possible, is introducing changes to help make the security process quicker.
"But we have to be satisfied that any changes will not compromise the safety of passengers."
The committee made a series of other recommendations, including:
- Airlines should always advertise additional fees, taxes and charges up front
- There should be a government review of telephone charges for ticket bookings
- Airport operator BAA should cease to be run as a monopoly
- There should be a review of airport car parking charges
- More robust systems are needed to stop the loss and mishandling of baggage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/6916739.stm
Published: 2007/07/26 02:12:56 GMT
© BBC MMVII
SEPTEMBER 8th 2008
The UK Security Services, Police and Prosecuting Authority must be very disturbed about the lack of more serious verdicts in these cases which they though were watertight. I imagine that where no verdict was reached they will ask for a retrial. It is inconceivable that these guys intended just to cause some trouble for which they would certainly be caught and imprisoned, to absolutely no positive effect for them, Their defence made no sense at all. However, at least this proves the independence of juries and the principle of the benefit of doubt. The problem remains that juries can be swayed by advocacy into believing the impossible. They convict a harmless, incapable local of murdering Jill Dando with cool professionalism, while believing a defence in this case which cannot possibly fit any believable scenario that includes all the evidence brought to court, even if it would have been nice to have even more cast iron proof of the exact intentions, .
Three men have been found guilty of a massive terrorist conspiracy to murder involving home-made bombs.
Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Assad Sarwar and Tanvir Hussain's convictions follow a huge terrorism inquiry, which led to sweeping airport restrictions.
The three, and a further five men, were not convicted on charges of plotting to bomb transatlantic airliners.
Seven men admitted plotting to cause a public nuisance. An eighth man was cleared at Woolwich Crown Court.
'Inspired by al-Qaeda'
The group had been accused of plotting to bring down transatlantic airliners with home-made liquid explosives disguised as soft drinks.
| |
VERDICTS
Conspiracy to murder:
Abdulla Ahmed Ali
Assad Sarwar
Tanvir Hussain
One man not guilty
No verdicts on four others
|
The jury was unable to reach verdicts on charges relating to the alleged plot to blow up aircraft in respect of Ali, Sarwar and Hussein.
And jurors were unable to reach verdicts on those charges or conspiracy to murder charges against Ibrahim Savant, 27, of Stoke Newington, Umar Islam, 30, of Plaistow, and Waheed Zaman, 24, and Arafat Waheed Khan, 27, both of Walthamstow, all London.
Mohammad Gulzar, 27, of Barking, east London, was found not guilty on both counts.
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said the police and security services had saved "countless" lives by disrupting the group.
The court heard prosecutors allege that the eight men were planning to carry liquid explosives on to planes at Heathrow, knowing the devices would evade airport security checks.
Police said the plot had been inspired by al-Qaeda in Pakistan - and the August 2006 arrests caused chaos at airports throughout the country.
The court heard that the alleged plot could have caused unprecedented casualties, with a global political impact similar to the 9/11 attacks on the United States.
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
Jacqui Smith welcomes the verdict But in their defence, the seven men who had recorded videos denouncing Western foreign policy said they had only planned to cause a political spectacle and not to kill anyone at all.
The ringleader, Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 27, of Walthamstow, east London, created home-made liquid explosives in a flat which prosecutors said were designed to evade airport security.
He and five of the others - Savant, Islam, Zaman, Hussain and Khan - had recorded what the prosecution alleged were "martyrdom videos" denouncing the West and urging Muslims to fight.
Prosecutors said the bombers would then have completed and detonated the devices during their flights once all the targeted planes had taken off.
'Political spectacle'
Sarwar, 28, of High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire, was said in court to be the quartermaster of the plot, buying supplies needed to make the bombs.
Prosecutors said that Mr Gulzar had flown into the country to oversee the plot's final stages - something he vehemently denied during the trial.
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
The plot came to light after the largest ever surveillance operation involving officers from both MI5, the Metropolitan Police and other forces around the country.
Ali, Sarwar and Hussain told the jury they had wanted to create a political spectacle in protest over foreign policy. It would have included fake suicide videos and devices that would frighten rather than kill the public.
Ali, Sarwar and Hussain, along with Savant, Islam, Khan, and Zaman, also admitted conspiring to cause a public nuisance by making videos threatening bombings.
'Considering retrial'
The home secretary said: "I am indebted to the police and security services who, by successfully disrupting this group, have saved countless lives.
"I would also thank the Crown Prosecution Service which has worked tirelessly to ensure that these individuals have been brought to justice.
"I am sure they will now consider what to do where no verdict was reached."
The Crown Prosecution Service said the case "is still the subject of ongoing proceedings, and the prosecution is considering a request for a retrial in respect of the plot to blow up airliners against all seven men upon which the jury could not agree."
SEPTEMBER 08 2009
Exactly a year and millions of dollars after the first trial recorded above, we now have a more considered verdict, one whcih justifies the draconian measures that were taken subsequent to the original event; there would probably be further retrial of those who seem to have escaped justice, but the expense may be such that it is not in the public interest.
Three men have been found guilty of plotting to kill thousands of people by blowing up planes flying from London to America with home-made liquid bombs.
A Woolwich Crown Court jury convicted Abdulla Ahmed Ali, 28, Tanvir Hussain, 28, and Assad Sarwar, 29, of conspiring to activate bombs disguised as drinks.
Four other men were found not guilty of involvement in the suicide bomb plot.
The arrests in August 2006 caused chaos to international aviation and prompted the current restrictions on liquids.
The jury heard that at the time of his arrest, plot ringleader Ahmed Ali had identified seven US and Canada-bound flights to blow up over the Atlantic within a two-and-a-half-hour period.
They were flights from London's Heathrow airport to San Francisco, Washington, New York, Chicago, Toronto and Montreal. Had the planes taken to the air with bombers on board, there would have been little chance of saving them.
Sue Hemming Crown Prosecution Service
His "quartermaster", Sarwar, had secured bomb ingredients at his home and in woods in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. A flat in the Walthamstow area of north-east London became the bomb factory.
There the men put together a special home-made mixture of chemicals that they planned to take onto planes in ordinary sports drinks bottles stored within hand luggage. Ahmed Ali, of Walthamstow, Hussain, of Leyton, east London, and Sarwar had been found guilty previously of a conspiracy to murder involving liquid bombs.
The jury in that first trial could not decide whether their plans extended to detonating the devices on planes. But a second jury was convinced.
The plot became the biggest terror investigation in the UK and intelligence officers believe it was directed by al-Qaeda figures in Pakistan.
The BBC understands that the key contact for the plotters was a British man, Rashid Rauf, now thought to be dead.
'Daring plot'
Security officials on both sides of the Atlantic believe the men wanted to kill thousands in the air and possibly more on the ground in a wave of attacks causing more devastation - and political fall-out - than the 11 September attacks.
John McDowall Head of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command
Home Secretary Alan Johnson welcomed the verdicts, saying: "This case reaffirms that we face a real and serious threat from terrorism.
"This was a particularly complex and daring plot which would have led to a terrible attack resulting in major loss of life.
"The police, security services and CPS have done an excellent job in bringing these people to justice."
Sue Hemming, from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), said the plot had been sophisticated and calculated to create a terrorist attack event of "global proportions".
"The CPS is committed to prosecuting to the full extent of the law those who would use terror to try to achieve their aims, whatever their motivation and their perceived justification," she said.
"This trial has been another demonstration of that commitment."
Other defendants
Umar Islam, 31, from Plaistow, east London, was convicted of conspiracy to murder, but the jury failed to reach a verdict on whether he was involved in a plot to blow up aircraft. He, like the ringleaders, faces life imprisonment.
Three others were found not guilty of plotting to bomb aircraft: Ibrahim Savant, 28, Arafat Khan, 28, Waheed Zaman, 25.
The jury failed to reach verdicts on a more general conspiracy to murder charges against Mr Savant, from Stoke Newington, east London, and Mr Khan and Mr Zaman, both from Walthamstow. The CPS has a week to decide whether to try the men for a third time.
An eighth man, Donald Stewart-Whyte, 23, of High Wycombe, was cleared of all charges. His lawyers have called for an inquiry into why the Muslim convert was prosecuted.
The security services installed a hidden camera in the Walthamstow bomb factory and saw both Ahmed Ali and Hussain preparing devices and making arrangements for the jihadist suicide videos, recorded in the same property.
The men's defence was that they had been planning a political stunt, including small explosions intended only to frighten people at airports.
These political demonstrations, they said, would be backed up by a documentary they were making about western injustices.
The videos they had made were part of that documentary, they said. No other material from the alleged documentary was ever uncovered.
SEPTEMBER 14th 2009
Airline bombs trio given life sentences for 'wicked' plot
The airliner bomb plotters were jailed for life today for planning what judge Mr Justice Henriques said was an atrocity comparable with the September 11 attacks.
British-born ringleader Abdulla Ahmed Ali was told he would serve a minimum of 40 years for his role in "the most grave and wicked conspiracy ever proven within this jurisdiction".
Accomplices Assad Sarwar and Tanvir Hussain were also given life sentences. Sarwar was told he would serve a minimum of 36 years. Hussain will serve a minimum of 32 years.
The al-Qa'ida-inspired terror cell planned to detonate home-made liquid bombs on flights bound for major North American cities.
Ali, of Walthamstow, east London, was found guilty along with Sarwar and Hussain last week at Woolwich Crown Court of conspiracy to murder on a mass scale following the largest-ever counter-terrorism operation in the UK.
Mr Justice Henriques said: "The intention was to perpetrate a terrorist outrage that would stand alongside the events of September 11, 2001 in history."
The judge added that the airline bomb plot had "reached an advanced stage in its development".
He said the men had "sufficient chemicals for 20 home-made detonators of commercial strength".
"I'm satisfied that there is every likelihood that this plot would have succeeded but for the intervention of the police and the security service," he said.
Referring to a video of a mock explosion on board an airliner, Mr Justice Henriques said: "I could only conclude the chance of an aircraft surviving such an explosion at altitude was remote.
"Had this conspiracy not been interrupted, a massive loss of life would almost certainly have resulted - and if the detonation was over land, the number of victims would have been even greater still."
The judge said the emails at the centre of the retrial - which were unavailable to prosecutors in the first trial last year - "are a vital source of information as to the control, progress and scope of this conspiracy".
"They establish beyond question the ultimate control of this conspiracy lay in Pakistan."
He said others in Pakistan controlled, monitored and funded the plot.
Ali, Sarwar, from High Wycombe, Bucks, and Hussain, from Leyton, east London, were "high-level executives within this country", the judge added.
Mr Justice Henriques told Ali: "I have concluded you are a driven and determined extremist with boundless energy and an ambition to lead a terrorist outrage of boundless proportion.
"By this conspiracy you sought the attention of the world, and you now have it."
The judge went on: "Not only did you recruit, but you also obtained much of the bomb-making equipment."
He said Ali was "producer, director, cameraman, part-author and actor in six martyrdom tapes" which warned the British public to expect "floods of martyr operations" that would leave body parts scattered in the streets.
"You made it as clear as can be that innocent people were going to die - men, women and children," the judge said.
He went on: "You have embraced Islamic extremism and it is that burning extremism that has motivated you throughout this conspiracy and is likely to drive you again."
Mr Justice Henriques said that, from watching Ali give evidence, it was clear he was "intelligent" as he "argued the unarguable over many days with senior Treasury counsel" and "sought to justify the mass killing" in videos.
"This was a viable and meticulously planned conspiracy and I conclude it was imminent," the judge said.
He said the plot was not an attempt by Ali to change the Government's foreign policy, but "an act of revenge inspired by extremist Islamic thinking" and aimed at the "governments of several allied forces in Iraq and Afghanistan".
"The extent of harm would have been unprecedented," he said.
He added that grave economic consequences should follow.
Mr Justice Henriques also said the plot caused "massive expenditure" and "huge inconvenience for the travelling public" as extra security measures were brought in to airports.
"Tons of liquids are confiscated from the public on a daily basis at airports," the judge said.
The tighter security measures, and the restrictions on liquids on flights, was "entirely attributable to this conspiracy".
The jury of nine women and three men failed to reach a verdict on a fourth man, Umar Islam, in connection with the airliner plot last week.
Prosecutors are not seeking a retrial and the charge will be left to lie on file.
But Islam, 31, of Bushey Road, Plaistow, was convicted of conspiracy to murder and was sentenced to life with a minimum of 22 years today.
DECEMBER 27th 2009
An apparently guilt-ridden rich young Nigerian failed in a bid to bring chaos to air travel and the motor city.
Obama wants to look again at the security at airports
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8431732.stm
I can understand that religious fundamentalists have no patience with the slow political procedures required to modify and control human behaviour so that we might return to the ancient Greek respect for moderation, but I am really not in favour of blowing up airliners. I wrote this some weeks ago...
The reason why the security checks are done before air travel and not (for instance) on the underground or trains are many.
1. Because they can be. On most trains it is just not possible without destroying the timetable and whole system.
2. Because if a train explodes there is no difficulty in locating it and finding out the cause
3. Because of public demand and airline response. Competitive security is eliminated.
4. Considered opinion in the insurance industry on which much depends.
There are other reasons of course. However, as has been pointed out a determined and expert terrorist would not be stopped. Fortunately there are few expert suicide bombers for obvious reasons and expert bombers are, by reason of this security, deflected to easier targets on the ground.
There are huge lacks of consistency and logic of course. There is no way to deal with terrorism in a free society other than to take some steps to enable the public to continue as best they can. Air raid shelters in the blitz were far from 100% effective.
Naturally the civil liberties lobby is what makes anything sensible quite impossible. What could be done?
Regular travellers and anyone who chooses to should be able to get themselves onto a list of seriously pre-checked, profiled individuals, and supplied with a method of presenting themselves for checking in at any flight, valid for 5 years, that guarantees their identity and bona fides beyond doubt (I suggest the modern passport at least or ID card equivalent that can be read to show photo on video screen. Voice print would be good too. They can be put through a fast-check system long before they get to the standard systems. This would actually speed up the process for all the rest, but they could be seriously examined regardless of race or colour.
That would make airports a place terrorists would avoid by choice.
It would not prevent a terrorist organization that succeeded in finding a pre-cleared British citizen who had lost his or her mind, and consented for political reasons or under pressure to be a suicide bomber, but more intelligent technology at the fast checkin should have a good chance of defeating that.
Now, let us see if my proposals would have been effective in this case.
The man in question would have either been:
- on the pre-cleared profile list, in which case he would have been fast tracked but passed the through the high-tech all-body scanner use for all in the category. It would have found his device. Also used for these passengers could be an advanced device to pick up any unusual states, behaviour.
- or not on such a list, or at an airport not equipped to participate in such a scheme, in which case a longer but lower-tech examination involving manual body search would have found the device.
In either case, job done, the man would have been stopped. That leaves only the case of the bomber who sets off his device when challenged before being xamined by either system. Once the pre-cleared list is generally accepted, a fast checkby devices in an automated entrance tunnel, where there is no challenge, could identify suspects in advance.
In an age where incredible privileges are given out universally, only proper ID systems and technology can provide a reasonable level of security, with statistically acceptable failures.
In addition to the above, a negative profile and intelligence list, and a no-fly list should exist and where such exist, be updated and enhanced.
SUMMARY
Every means should be used.
Positive profiling
Negative profiling
More advanced systems at airports, not only at the boarding stage.
Random searches.
None of these need discriminate on grounds of race. They certainly could on grounds of dress, so anyone wearing unusual dress which they need for psychological/cultural reasons should be given the means to pre-clear their travel in advance and make arrangements. They cannot expect to present security staff with unexaminable dress without notice.
Civil liberties do not enter the argument. Anyone who travels on public transport should be ready to submit to any examination that the operators see fit. The offer of transport is not unconditional and is not a right.
JANUARY 22 2010
It is good to see intelligence is not completely defunct in the US of A
TOLEDO (Reuters) – The United States does not want countries to use identical airport security systems which could make it easier for potential attackers to elude them, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.
FEBRUARY 16th 2010
The reason why the Equality and Human Rights Commission is talking through its fundament (see below) is that taking a seat on an airline is not human right. It is a particular and specialized opportunity offered by service provider, on any conditions they decide to impose in the collective interest of a sufficiently large customer base to keep them in business. If any 'government' wished to impose different conditions they would have to run their own airline and take full responsibility, organise an international restrictive licensing scheme for airlines overriding security requirements on the basis of a human right to privacy and supposed equality.
I doubt if they would get many customers for this airline and insurance could be problematic. No government is obliged to provide international transport for its citizens or those of other nations except as instructed and authorised by act of parliament to do so at public expense.
The use of airport body scanners in the UK may be unlawful, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned.
Scanners already in place at Heathrow and Manchester Airports may be breaking discrimination law as well as breaching passengers' rights to privacy, it said.
It has now written a letter to Transport Secretary Lord Adonis.
The government said security concerns meant scanners had been needed immediately, but it was carrying out an equalities impact assessment.
The scanners are being introduced in response to the alleged attempt to blow up an American plane on 25 December.
But the commission said it had "serious doubts" that the decision to roll them out in UK airports was legal.
It said one of its chief concerns was over how people would be selected for the scans.
'Vulnerable groups'
Its chairman, Trevor Phillips, said: "The right to life is the ultimate human right and we support the government's review of security policies.
Department for Transport spokesperson
"State action like border checks, stop-and-search and full body scanning are undertaken for good reasons.
"But, without proper care, such policies can end up being applied in ways which do discriminate against vulnerable groups or harm good community relations."
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne MP agreed.
He said: "The government seems intent on pressing ahead with the use of body scanners without addressing any of the privacy concerns and safeguard issues raised by the Liberal Democrats and others.
"The commission is right to suggest that security measures cannot simply be introduced without due respect for the rule of law."
Code of practice
The commission has previously said scanners could breach an individual's right to privacy under the Human Rights Act.
It has also previously written to the home secretary to ask that he set out in detail the justification for bringing in the scanners, and clarify what safeguards will be put in place.
They produce "naked" images of passengers, and the commission then said it was concerned especially for the privacy of certain groups such as disabled people, the elderly, children and the transgendered community.
The Department for Transport said it had published a staff code of practice for the scanners.
A spokesperson said passengers who were randomly selected for screening would not be chosen because of any personal characteristics.
"Given the current security threat level, we believe it was essential to start introducing scanners immediately.
"We are currently carrying out a full equalities impact assessment on the code of practice, which will be published shortly when we begin a public consultation on these issues."
OCTOBER 30th 2010
Two days a go, a UK government minister appeared to be responding to a cockeyed claim by the chairman of BA (of all people) that because the security checks such as removing shoes were not applied everywhere at all times they could be abandoned.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11638825
Then we had people invited to express their views on radio and TV and learned that many thought security ought to be 'standardised' so people knew what to expect. Should we laugh or cry? It is essential that security is NOT standardised and that within the limits of what people are warned they MIGHT expect, what will actually be applied is completely unknown. From time to time the limits of what they are warned they might expect should also be surpassed. No terrorist should ever know exactly what will be asked of them when boarding an aircraft by way of inspection of luggage or their person. If we wish to have the minimum hassle on average, we should let those in charge do their job as and how and when they see fit. Complaints concerning privacy or personal liberty are complete humbug, and anyone who doesn't like it can stay home. However, as a corollary to that, there should be security monitors at all airports to make sure there is no abuse of the powers of search. It only needs a level of intelligence that we should be able to recruit without too much difficulty if the huge number of people now benefiting from a university education are not just wasting our time and national treasure in acquiring what passes for an education.
Today the story is on the other tack, with news of explosive ink cartridges attached to mobile phones being air-freighted from Yemen to synagogues in Chicago. The explosives were of the indetectable variety and indeed the packages were only located due to a humint tip-off from Saudi Arabia. It's quite true that this is an area of risk that could do with a bit of attention but it is hard to work out what the senders of these 'test' shippings (which is what they appear to be) hoped to gain other than to smoke out the humint, which they did, unfortunately, due to the fact that we now by public demand have to tell the whole world what is going on in the intelligence services. If the sender thought the packages had been detected without a tip-off there might have been some deterrent effect. Fat chance now. Of course it can bring some business and excuse for more gadgets to detect circuitry in air-freight I suppose. On the whole transparency is good, the public should be taken into confidence where possible so they can make their own judgments, but if all the methods and reasoning of the security services are required to be public knowledge, along with the thinking of all our military leaders, it is hard to see how we can keep those who wish to destroy our civilisation rathere than improve it, and replace it with dictatorships of one sort or another, from having a quite extraordinary advantage!
UPDATE: The latest news is that the packages were not tests of security but viable explosives that could have detonated. That makes more sense, while adding to the value of the intelligence and to the requirement for surveillance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11657486
nnnn