Young boy *literally* strip searched by TSA

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

But GA isn't wholly absent from terrorism, as the family of the IRS employee who was killed in the above Piper attack might confirm.
-harry

And what about the families of all the IRS employees that survived because he chose to use a small G.A. aircraft instead of a more effective weapon that likely would have killed dozens?

This guy was a failure as a tax cheat, and a failure as a terrorist.

Off the top of my head, I can think of three suicide attacks involving light aircraft. One messed up the grass on the white house lawn. One broke several windows. And one resulted in a fire and killed one unfortunate innocent victim.

If more terrorists used light aircraft, the world would be a safer place.

 

[mantakos]

And what about the families of all the IRS employees that survived because he chose to use a small G.A. aircraft instead of a more effective weapon that likely would have killed dozens?

The original premise was that there's no terrorism in GA because pilots can carry weapons on the plane, so therefore airline passengers should as well.

Except there is terrorism in GA, and there are hijackings of GA planes, and it's the limited effectiveness of a GA aircraft as a weapon and the "I know everybody on my plane" nature of GA that prevents it from being a popular tool for terrorism.
-harry

 

[tonycondon]

why does everyone seem to think that a terrorist's goal is to kill people? I always figured their goal was to inconvenience millions of people daily for years to come. seems to me that is what they accomplished at least.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Well, the point being -- I don't remember that one. Wasn't a big deal, I guess.

Remember this one?

Part 1: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...squawks+hijack

Part 2:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...squawks+hijack

Part 3:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...+hijack+part+3

They tend to be "not big deals" because no one is able to take down a large building or kill large numbers of people with light G.A. aircraft.

Remember Jan. 5 2002?

 

[EdFred]

He killed an IRS employee, made two big fires, got a lot of publicity with a big news story, a lot of people read his manifesto, and he went out with a bang. When you fly a Dakota into a building, that's your goal.
-harry

So, not a terrorist then. Didn't think so. I can purposely hit a cyclist with my truck killing one single person, that doesn't make me a terrorist, it just makes me a murderer.

 

[mantakos]

So, not a terrorist then. Didn't think so. I can purposely hit a cyclist with my truck killing one single person, that doesn't make me a terrorist, it just makes me a murderer.

That would be true, if we had a really poor understanding of the key characteristics that differentiate "regular ol' murder" from terrorism.

A man with a 6-page manifesto decrying the evils of government and a specific government agency in particular, who announces his intent to take an action with political motivation, who sees his action as the first of many as he calls for others to follow his lead, and who launches a high-drama attack against an office building for that government agency, killing one employee of that agency and injuring many others? You're having trouble distinguishing that from "plain ol' murder"?

How about the guy who blew up the federal building in OKC? Was that terrorism or just murder?
-harry

 

[gkainz]

Like this guy?

He has all of those qualifications that you mentioned, well he DID have those qualifications up until the moment he started shooting up Ft. Hood. But if the plan you stated was followed he could have easily been shooting up an airliner at 37,000 feet.

and sadly, the rules of the local and the day ensured the only armed resistance he met was the base police/security. Seems rather ironic that the Army does not allow weapons carry on base. I guess we can trust the soldiers to carry in battle only?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

So, not a terrorist then. Didn't think so. I can purposely hit a cyclist with my truck killing one single person, that doesn't make me a terrorist, it just makes me a murderer.

Along these lines, I've been waiting for some ambitious prosecutor somewhere to charge something as "terrorism" when it's just a "regular" crime (there are plenty of people that would jump all over me for calling something a "regular" crime, by the way).

Sooner or later, it's gonna happen.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

and sadly, the rules of the local and the day ensured the only armed resistance he met was the base police/security. Seems rather ironic that the Army does not allow weapons carry on base. I guess we can trust the soldiers to carry in battle only?

Well, I see what you're saying and kind of agree...but, is there any good argument for applying any different laws to members of the military, simply by virtue of being in the military, then what is applicable to the rest of us?

 

[Missa]

What has become of America? We sacrificed almost 500,000 in WWII, I understand to preserve our freedoms and liberty. And, now we are not even willing to accept an occasional loss of a few hundred or thousand and quickly give up our freedoms and liberty! What has changed? The terrorists must be grinning from ear to ear how we just give them Victory...

+1...

 

[gkainz]

Well, I see what you're saying and kind of agree...but, is there any good argument for applying any different laws to members of the military, simply by virtue of being in the military, then what is applicable to the rest of us?

On a military installation, military laws, UCMJ, et al all trump local, state and federal law, I believe? Ok, maybe not trump, but have higher priority?

 

[EdFred]

That would be true, if we had a really poor understanding of the key characteristics that differentiate "regular ol' murder" from terrorism.

A man with a 6-page manifesto decrying the evils of government and a specific government agency in particular, who announces his intent to take an action with political motivation, who sees his action as the first of many as he calls for others to follow his lead, and who launches a high-drama attack against an office building for that government agency, killing one employee of that agency and injuring many others? You're having trouble distinguishing that from "plain ol' murder"?

How about the guy who blew up the federal building in OKC? Was that terrorism or just murder?
-harry

I know of a place to rent a backhoe if you like, keep digging. I'm bored this morning and am quite enjoying your failure post after failure post. Yes, the idiot in Texas was just a plain ol' murderer. If I write a six page suicide note about all the women that wronged me, and go out and kill one of them that did, I'm still just a plain ol' murderer. They guy in Texas failed to drive fear into everyone like 9/11 or OKC, so yes, that makes him a plain ol' murderer. Why? Because it's one guy with a few loose nuts and bolts. It's over. Done with. There's no repeatability, because he didn't belong to any sort of group or faction.

Are you always this dumb?

 

[EdFred]

Along these lines, I've been waiting for some ambitious prosecutor somewhere to charge something as "terrorism" when it's just a "regular" crime (there are plenty of people that would jump all over me for calling something a "regular" crime, by the way).

Sooner or later, it's gonna happen.

You mean like everything that's being pursued as a hate crime just because there was an interracial murder. That always cracks me up. Doesn't 1st degree murder already have some sort of hate tied to it? Well, it's white on white, it's just regular murder, but now white on black, that's "hate murder"? Ummmm, ok????

 

[Everskyward]

I know of a place to rent a backhoe if you like, keep digging. I'm bored this morning and am quite enjoying your failure post after failure post. Yes, the idiot in Texas was just a plain ol' murderer. If I write a six page suicide note about all the women that wronged me, and go out and kill one of them that did, I'm still just a plain ol' murderer. They guy in Texas failed to drive fear into everyone like 9/11 or OKC, so yes, that makes him a plain ol' murderer. Why? Because it's one guy with a few loose nuts and bolts. It's over. Done with. There's no repeatability, because he didn't belong to any sort of group or faction.

Are you always this dumb?

Who cares if he is a plain old murderer or a terrorist? If he kills you you're just as dead either way.

 

[EdFred]

Who cares if he is a plain old murderer or a terrorist? If he kills you you're just as dead either way.

Evidently Harry does, since he wants to show us that GA is used for terrorism. Luckily he is full of his usual fail.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

On a military installation, military laws, UCMJ, et al all trump local, state and federal law, I believe? Ok, maybe not trump, but have higher priority?

Yeah - I've forgotten the details, but I'm pretty sure that's the case. At least for members of the military.

But, just as a matter of policy, is that something that's a good idea? It can certainly be argued either way.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

You mean like everything that's being pursued as a hate crime just because there was an interracial murder. That always cracks me up. Doesn't 1st degree murder already have some sort of hate tied to it? Well, it's white on white, it's just regular murder, but now white on black, that's "hate murder"? Ummmm, ok????

Yeah, same idea.

 

[mantakos]

... If I write a six page suicide note about all the women that wronged me, and go out and kill one of them that did, I'm still just a plain ol' murderer...

Yes, you are correct, because your suicide note would not be a political manifesto, the motivation for your murder would not be political, and the act would entail no political message.

They guy in Texas failed to drive fear into everyone like 9/11 or OKC, so yes, that makes him a plain ol' murderer.

Actually, it makes him a low caliber terrorist. The guy who shot up Fort Hood didn't drive fear into everyone, but many describe him as a terrorist because they believe his motivation to be political.

Are you always this dumb?

What I find amusing about this group is that we've partitioned off a specific area for political discussions, because such discussion is often "heated", and the population at large apparently too sensitive to be exposed to such dialogue (it gives them the vapors, I am to understand), but the discussion there is far more "grown-up" and respectful than the obviously political discussion that occurs outside of it. We certainly get some of this "in lieu of making sense, I will yell at you and call you names" in there, but it's far less egregious.
-harry

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

You mean like everything that's being pursued as a hate crime just because there was an interracial murder. That always cracks me up. Doesn't 1st degree murder already have some sort of hate tied to it? Well, it's white on white, it's just regular murder, but now white on black, that's "hate murder"? Ummmm, ok????

Yeah, same idea.

At the same time, I do believe it's worth considering a person's subjective intent in committing a crime.

If a white murderer's intent is to, say, put fear into a black community by killing, isn't that intent worthy of punishment beyond the murder?

That requires really looking at what happened, instead of merely saying "he's white, killed a black person" or "he killed a lot of people and is therefore a terrorist." In both cases, you've got to look at the criminal's subjective mindset - the former isn't *necessarily* race-related (maybe it was a card game, for instance), and the latter isn't *necessarily* terrorism (might just be sick in the head).

I'll also say that I've never even looked at a hate crime law before (fortunately, have never had to) - it may very well be that this is exactly what they do. But, based on news accounts, we'd probably never know it....

 

[mantakos]

... Doesn't 1st degree murder already have some sort of hate tied to it? Well, it's white on white, it's just regular murder, but now white on black, that's "hate murder"? Ummmm, ok????

The idea of hate crime hinges on the motivation for the crime. It's not just "interracial crime", it is crime whose primary motivation is racism. Why is this special? Because when there's no other motivation beyond race, the crime becomes very _random_. If a blue man kills a purple man simply because he is purple, then we understand that any purple man is equally "eligible" for that crime. As such, the crime has a chilling effect on the purple community.

Murder doesn't necessarily entail hate. If I kill you because you have some money and I want to take it and I don't want you to be able to identify me as the murderer, then I might certainly kill you and it would be "nothing personal". That murder might be interracial, and it would have nothing to do with "hate crime".

If a purple person who hated purple people killed a purple person simply because he was purple, that would be construed as a hate crime. This would be unusual, because bigotry is generally based on xenophobia, we aren't generally bigoted against those who are similar to us.
-harry

 

[EdFred]

At the same time, I do believe it's worth considering a person's subjective intent in committing a crime.

If a white murderer's intent is to, say, put fear into a black community by killing, isn't that intent worthy of punishment beyond the murder?

That requires really looking at what happened, instead of merely saying "he's white, killed a black person" or "he killed a lot of people and is therefore a terrorist." In both cases, you've got to look at the criminal's subjective mindset - the former isn't *necessarily* race-related (maybe it was a card game, for instance), and the latter isn't *necessarily* terrorism (might just be sick in the head).

I'll also say that I've never even looked at a hate crime law before (fortunately, have never had to) - it may very well be that this is exactly what they do. But, based on news accounts, we'd probably never know it....

Nah, to me murder is murder. I don't care what the intent behind it was. Whether it's a mugging gone bad, finding out you got cheated on, planning a three week revenge which kills your spouse and their partner, picking out Navin R Johnson in a phone book, or just knocking someone off because he's Maori. In the end, you purposefully killed someone - cook em.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Nah, to me murder is murder. I don't care what the intent behind it was. Whether it's a mugging gone bad, finding out you got cheated on, planning a three week revenge which kills your spouse and their partner, picking out Navin R Johnson in a phone book, or just knocking someone off because he's Maori. In the end, you purposefully killed someone - cook em.

If punishment for murder is death (or life in a place that doesn't have the death penalty), I agree. It's not like you can execute someone twice (or lock them for longer than they live).

It always amuses me, in a dark way, when you hear about someone getting two consecutive (not concurrent) life sentences, or "life plus 180 yrs."

Of course, the practical reason is that in those cases, you've got convictions for more than one crime (say, murder, plus bank robbery - two separate crimes, two sentences) -- if one conviction is reversed but the other isn't, the defendant doesn't get out of prison.

 

[dmccormack]

Like this guy?

He has all of those qualifications that you mentioned, well he DID have those qualifications up until the moment he started shooting up Ft. Hood. But if the plan you stated was followed he could have easily been shooting up an airliner at 37,000 feet.

Actually, if my suggestion that free carry by anyone that is qualified was in effect at Fort Hood, Hassan might have had one or two victims.

Instead, he had lots of unarmed targets.

Oh -- and what finally stopped him, pray tell?

Yep -- a mean ole ugly gun.

 

[mantakos]

Nah, to me murder is murder. I don't care what the intent behind it was...

That's certainly among the set of reasonable opinions. Traditionally, though, in many places there are distinctions between first and second degree murder, and as a society we tend to differentiate between, say, a murder in the context of a drug deal gone bad versus a murder of a child solely because of race.

But this notion of "hate crime" isn't limited to murder, of course. Should there be a distinction between vandalism that consists of spray-painting "Snookie + Pookie, 2 gether, 4 ever" on the side of an abandoned building as compared to spray-painting "all jews must die" along with a swastika along the side of a synagogue?

Both consist of defacing property, but the latter serves to instill fear, and is arguably a very low caliber act of terrorism. That's the idea of a hate crime law.
-harry

 

[LearDriver]

Actually, if my suggestion that free carry by anyone that is qualified was in effect at Fort Hood, Hassan might have had one or two victims.

Instead, he had lots of unarmed targets.

Oh -- and what finally stopped him, pray tell?

Yep -- a mean ole ugly gun.

It's really too bad that he has made it this far and gets the opportunity of a trial.

 

[EdFred]

That's certainly among the set of reasonable opinions. Traditionally, though, in many places there are distinctions between first and second degree murder, and as a society we tend to differentiate between, say, a murder in the context of a drug deal gone bad versus a murder of a child solely because of race.

But this notion of "hate crime" isn't limited to murder, of course. Should there be a distinction between vandalism that consists of spray-painting "Snookie + Pookie, 2 gether, 4 ever" on the side of an abandoned building as compared to spray-painting "all jews must die" along with a swastika along the side of a synagogue?

Both consist of defacing property, but the latter serves to instill fear, and is arguably a very low caliber act of terrorism. That's the idea of a hate crime law.
-harry

I still look at it as destruction of/damage to property regardless of what was written. I don't feel that the context of what was spray painted/burned into a yard should have any bearing on the punishment for that crime.

 

[ScottM]

Actually, if my suggestion that free carry by anyone that is qualified was in effect at Fort Hood, Hassan might have had one or two victims.

Instead, he had lots of unarmed targets.

Oh -- and what finally stopped him, pray tell?

Yep -- a mean ole ugly gun.

Nice attempt at revisionist history.

Your suggestion was not about CCW at Ft. Hood. Your suggestion was to allow carry on board airplanes. Your suggestion also would have allowed Maj Hassan to board that airplane armed. Your suggestion would have subverted security that has demonstrably been able to keep guns off of planes. So if he was able to shoot and kill, in your words, two people, before getting killed himself that is two more people than would have been dead if the current security measure had been kept in place.

Your suggestion is a failure. The simple fact is that the metal detectors did and do keep guns off of airlines. Letting people on with guns, however well intentioned, is only going to allow the nutty people to get guns on board.

 

[ScottM]

What I find amusing about this group is that we've partitioned off a specific area for political discussions, because such discussion is often "heated", and the population at large apparently too sensitive to be exposed to such dialogue (it gives them the vapors, I am to understand), but the discussion there is far more "grown-up" and respectful than the obviously political discussion that occurs outside of it. We certainly get some of this "in lieu of making sense, I will yell at you and call you names" in there, but it's far less egregious.
-harry

I have noted that before as well. Interesting isn't?

 

[dmccormack]

Nice attempt at revisionist history.

Your suggestion was not about CCW at Ft. Hood. Your suggestion was to allow carry on board airplanes. Your suggestion also would have allowed Maj Hassan to board that airplane armed. Your suggestion would have subverted security that has demonstrably been able to keep guns off of planes. So if he was able to shoot and kill, in your words, two people, before getting killed himself that is two more people than would have been dead if the current security measure had been kept in place.

Your suggestion is a failure. The simple fact is that the metal detectors did and do keep guns off of airlines. Letting people on with guns, however well intentioned, is only going to allow the nutty people to get guns on board.

Incorrect.

I suppose you're perfectly happy with the security regime that so effectively thwarted...

oh, wait.

Yeah, that system didn't work so well, did it?

In addition, perpetrators typically seek taregts that can't respond in kind (except in the rare "suicide by law enforcement" case).

I'm willing to wager Hassan would have skipped a planeload of Texans packing heat.

 

[steingar]

I still look at it as destruction of/damage to property regardless of what was written. I don't feel that the context of what was spray painted/burned into a yard should have any bearing on the punishment for that crime.

Fortunately it's just you. Or maybe its a Michigan thing.

 

[mantakos]

... I'm willing to wager Hassan would have skipped a planeload of Texans packing heat.

I didn't know suicide attackers were so risk-averse.

But one thing I wonder, I'm hearing that the Israelis have the secret to airline security and also that a planeload of Texans packing heat would increase airline security. So I wonder, do Israelis allow you to pack heat on their planes? If not, then how do we explain the contradiction?
-harry

 

[ScottM]

Incorrect.

No a reading comprehension fail on your part.

I suppose you're perfectly happy with the security regime that so effectively thwarted...

Never said that. I said that the metal detectors have kept guns off of airplanes and have done so extremely effectively. Since the 1970s which was when they were implemented there has been a 100% reduction in hijackings due to gun carry hijackers.

oh, wait.

Yeah, that system didn't work so well, did it?

It worked perfectly. The 911 terrorists used knives. These weapons were allowed on the planes by FAA security guidelines. Had the rule changed to say no knives. We probably would have also had as much success as we did with the banning of guns. But instead we went in a whole other direction.

In addition, perpetrators typically seek taregts that can't respond in kind (except in the rare "suicide by law enforcement" case).

I'm willing to wager Hassan would have skipped a planeload of Texans packing heat.

He would have also skipped the plane alltogether because he would not have been able to get a gun on board.

You keep missing the point. You would have let him on the plane with a gun.

 

[dmccormack]

You keep missing the point. You would have let him on the plane with a gun.

Good grief, Scott.

What's so hard about understanding my point?

Here's the Oprah Book Club version:

One bad guy on/in an/a airplane/ train/ bus/ school/ post office/ house /whathaveyou is a bad thing.

One bad guy confronting X number of armed good guys armed equals less overall carnage. <--- period

 

[Everskyward]

In addition, perpetrators typically seek taregts that can't respond in kind (except in the rare "suicide by law enforcement" case).

I'm not sure how "rare" that is among people with causes, like, um, the 9/11 guys. They knew they were committing suicide.

I'm willing to wager Hassan would have skipped a planeload of Texans packing heat.

What makes you think so? Do you think he seriously thought he would make it out of Fort Hood alive? Besides, he wouldn't have been able to get his own gun on the airplane as it is now so there would be no reason for Texans to be packing heat.

 

[dmccormack]

I didn't know suicide attackers were so risk-averse.

But one thing I wonder, I'm hearing that the Israelis have the secret to airline security and also that a planeload of Texans packing heat would increase airline security. So I wonder, do Israelis allow you to pack heat on their planes? If not, then how do we explain the contradiction?
-harry

Deflection and diversion do not an argument make.

 

[Everskyward]

You keep missing the point. You would have let him on the plane with a gun.

No kidding...

 

[dmccormack]

What makes you think so? Do you think he seriously thought he would make it out of Fort Hood alive? Besides, he wouldn't have been able to get his own gun on the airplane as it is now so there would be no reason for Texans to be packing heat.

As a Major in the Army medical field he would have known that medical and induction/ processing facilities are gun-free zones.

There's a reason why he didn't take his allah akbar to the Fort Hood Range B.

 

[EdFred]

Fortunately it's just you. Or maybe its a Michigan thing.

I'm not saying there can't be an intimidation law, or something similar. But vandalism is vandalism. End of story. If someone burns "Die Cracker!" into my front lawn, I'm going to be upset that I have to replace the turf, not that someone doesn't like white people. Then again I've lived my life with most people hating me, so it's no big deal. Maybe people need some thicker skin. Words are just that, words.

Someone should get the same punishment if they burn "you suck" into my yard as if they do "die cracker" although I suppose there would be more damage from "die cracker" just because it would ruin more grass.

 

[mantakos]

Deflection and diversion do not an argument make.

Neither does evasion.

So why do you think Israelis don't allow guns on planes?
-harry

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

One thing going unanswered - is a gun really the best solution for a terrorist on an airplane? My question about structural damage was answered, seems like a low risk. But what about the risk of...missing, in an area where there are plenty of people, all within the same plane (of view), who stand a pretty good chance of eating that bullet?

I've met very few people who can shoot with the kind of accuracy that might be necessary, particularly when under stress, particularly in unsettled situations, etc., etc. I'm not exactly sure your a CCW-holder, regardless of how well he punches holes in paper pictures of OBL, is going to be able to hit what he means to, particularly when you look at the windshield of the cars that were sitting still during traffic stops and realize that those bullets came from people who have to meet certain standards as a part of their jobs.

I know, I know, the response is "well, how do you know your average CCW-holder doesn't practice more than those yokel police officers." Shooting at people ain't shooting at paper targets, no matter what kind of practice you do for it. I'm just not particularly confident that your average...anyone...would be able to get it done, and I'm not particularly hopeful for people in the line of sight or out of it by a considerable margin.

In other words, I frankly don't like the idea that some guy with a gun might shoot me accidentally (though out of the very best of intentions) when I'm sitting next to a guy intent on hijacking the plane, when I could just punch him in the jimmy and he's got no significant weapons because no one can get on the plane with a gun or knife. Sometimes the cure can be worse than the problem.

Which is why I asked the question about why a taser is not an option. Is there some reason that tasers are practical for ordinary law enforcement use, but not on an airplane?