Secret Laws.

[Bradylama]

But you're still not getting the point. IDs don't identify intent. How would they have known who the terrorists were on the plane so soon after the crash simply based on ID? Racial profiling? Conjecture? They weren't exactly known terrorists, here. They wouldn't have been able to blend in and become citizens otherwise.

What if it was a white person that hijacked a plane and crashed it? An IRA sympathizer? A crazed nut? How would we know who crashed the plane then?

Based purely, keep in mind, on ID.

 

[Voluptuous Pachyderm]

But you're still not getting the point. IDs don't identify intent. How would they have known who the terrorists were on the plane so soon after the crash simply based on ID? Racial profiling? Conjecture? They weren't exactly known terrorists, here. They wouldn't have been able to blend in and become citizens otherwise.

What if it was a white person that hijacked a plane and crashed it? An IRA sympathizer? A crazed nut? How would we know who crashed the plane then?

Based purely, keep in mind, on ID.

A database.

You know each of the people on the plane from ID.

A fake ID has information on it which is fake.

Cross check the information kept from the IDs as much as possible. If an ID says they lived such and such a place, then ring them up and ask if the person actually lives there. The vast majority of proper IDs will be able to be verified the fake one wont be, if it's a fake it'd be a good assumption that the person carrying the fake ID is the terrorist, you now do not know who that person is, but you do have a starting point and can see if the fake ID was used elsewhere. You create a profile of the movements and actions of the person with absolutely no information about the person themselves. From this you can get packets of information quickly.

If it's a proper ID then you can start data mining and cross checking and come up with a list of most likely candidates to start work on. You can mark people from different dangerous countries or ones known for sympathies or contact with terrorists, even better, if they piloted the plane, simply run up a check on each ID against pilots liscence or against flight schools.

If it's a lone nut with proper ID then it's no where near as effective, there are no accomplices to stop and they're dead. However you may get information as to how they did it, where they got materials and when.


If it a first or only strike it wont prevent it except one in a thousand cases, but it means that afterwards you can go after their mates, contacts and equipment quickly which in turn can save lives.



It can also be used as a method to trace, detain and sieze under certain circustances.

It gives you the edge, it may be the only information you have, and it may lead you to a terrorist cell, plans or equipment.



Oh and security isn't the only reason for IDing people before boarding a plane.

 

[Maphusio]

But you're still not getting the point. IDs don't identify intent. How would they have known who the terrorists were on the plane so soon after the crash simply based on ID? Racial profiling? Conjecture? They weren't exactly known terrorists, here. They wouldn't have been able to blend in and become citizens otherwise.

What if it was a white person that hijacked a plane and crashed it? An IRA sympathizer? A crazed nut? How would we know who crashed the plane then?

Based purely, keep in mind, on ID.

A database.

You know each of the people on the plane from ID.

A fake ID has information on it which is fake.

Cross check the information kept from the IDs as much as possible. If an ID says they lived such and such a place, then ring them up and ask if the person actually lives there. The vast majority of proper IDs will be able to be verified the fake one wont be, if it's a fake it'd be a good assumption that the person carrying the fake ID is the terrorist, you now do not know who that person is, but you do have a starting point and can see if the fake ID was used elsewhere. You create a profile of the movements and actions of the person with absolutely no information about the person themselves. From this you can get packets of information quickly.

If it's a proper ID then you can start data mining and cross checking and come up with a list of most likely candidates to start work on. You can mark people from different dangerous countries or ones known for sympathies or contact with terrorists, even better, if they piloted the plane, simply run up a check on each ID against pilots liscence or against flight schools.

If it's a lone nut with proper ID then it's no where near as effective, there are no accomplices to stop and they're dead. However you may get information as to how they did it, where they got materials and when.


If it a first or only strike it wont prevent it except one in a thousand cases, but it means that afterwards you can go after their mates, contacts and equipment quickly which in turn can save lives.



It can also be used as a method to trace, detain and sieze under certain circustances.

It gives you the edge, it may be the only information you have, and it may lead you to a terrorist cell, plans or equipment.



Oh and security isn't the only reason for IDing people before boarding a plane.

I think we are getting more and more off topic. The question was do you think it right or wrong that you are not allowed to see the law because it is labled seceret for national defence.

 

[Voluptuous Pachyderm]

I think we are getting more and more off topic. The question was do you think it right or wrong that you are not allowed to see the law because it is labled seceret for national defence.

Well I've answered that more than once already. I think it's wrong. If people are supposed to abide by a law they should be able to view it. I suspect that there may be exceptions but I cant think of any off the top of my head right now.

It may be that it is not wrong to not be able to see a law because it is labelled secret for national defence, in which case it is wrong that this law has been labelled as such.

 

[Maphusio]

yeah sorry I noticed that. I guess eveyrone was. lol then again... I gues it was prudent to do so.

 

[Brutulf]

A database.

You know each of the people on the plane from ID.

A fake ID has information on it which is fake.

Doesn't help if the ID is valid.

 

[Voluptuous Pachyderm]

Doesn't help if the ID is valid.

Just out of interest here. Did you even read the rest of my post?





Edited to be more polite.

 

[welsh]

The Prisoner- what a great show. Just rewatched them last Fall. DVD collection even has the episodes not shown in the US.

With regard to the thread.

The problem comes down to the idea of transparency and accountability.

If you have a dictatorship, than transparency isn't a problem because the state, and those who rule the state, govern without public sanction.

But in a democracy, where the government is supposed to represent and act on behalf of constituents, than you have a relationship where the state is the fiduciary of the society. They need to be trusted and need to be held to account.

Of course that's difficult if the law is kept secret from the very people it is meant to serve.

But as noted above, this isn't exactly new.

President of the US has a semi-legal authority in the shape of executive orders. EO's are often deemed similar in effect to law, but can be over-ruled by congressional action. Of course it's easier for the Executive to make an executive order than Congress to pass a law. Executive Orders are often used in issues of national security and defense, some of which are kept secret for reasons of national security. Note that the Congress can also do things in secret, but they are still acting as legislative agents for society- and therefore can be held up to standards of accountability by either their constituents or may even be constrained by other branches.

This raises the problem of "how far does the executive go in making orders that are kept secret." Or constitutionally, "what are the limits to an executive's ability to make legislation." This shows up in odd places- for example, Faith Based Initiatives is mostly legislated by Executive Order.

Controlling these issues should be the court system which is supposed to assure things remain constitutional. Ironic that we have the expansions of secret laws, denials of due process at the same time that the court's "activist judges" are under attack?

 

[Ozrat]

I found out some more information on Mr. Gilmore. Seems like he's not a stranger with recieving special attention at airports.

http://freetotravel.org/terrorist.html

My sweetheart Annie and I tried to fly to London today (Friday) on British Airways. We started at SFO, showed our passports and got through all the rigamarole, and were seated on the plane while it taxied out toward takeoff. Suddenly a flight steward, Cabin Service Director Khaleel Miyan, loomed in front of me and demanded that I remove a small 1" button pinned to my left lapel. I declined, saying that it was a political statement and that he had no right to censor passengers' political speech. The button, which was created by political activist Emi Koyama, says "Suspected Terrorist".

...

The captain requested, and then demanded, that I remove the button (they called it a "badge"). He said that I would endanger the aircraft and commit a federal crime if I did not take it off. I told him that it was a political statement and declined to remove it.

They turned the plane around and brought it back to the gate, delaying 300 passengers on a full flight.

...

I said that I understood that she had refused me passage on the first flight because the captain had refused to carry me, but I didn't understand why I was being refused passage on the second one. I suggested that BA might have captains with different opinions about free speech, and that I'd be happy to talk with the second captain to see if he would carry me.

...

I asked whether I would be permitted to fly if I wore other buttons, perhaps one saying "Hooray for Tony Blair". She said she thought that would be OK. I said, how about "Terrorism is Evil". She said that I probably wouldn't get on. I started to discuss other possible buttons, like "Oppose Terrorism", trying to figure out what kinds of political speech I would be permitted to express in a BA plane, but she said that we could stand there making hypotheticals all night and she wasn't interested. Ultimately, I was refused passage because I would not censor myself at her command.

This guy has an interesting view on Gilmore: Blog entry

In effect, Gilmore was doing a millionaire's version of trolling.

It's a super-scaled-up version of what kiddies do on discussion boards and blog comments.

The sequence is as follows: Do something you KNOW will provoke people (proclaiming "Suspected Terrorist"). Then, when you find someone who bites, when the provocation succeeds, slap your knee in glee that they have been so stupid, so dumb, such idiots, as to react to the obvious troll. ("But I would be hard pressed to come up with a security measure more useless and intrusive than turning a plane around because of a political button on someone's lapel.")

As the reaction progresses, fuel it with liberal amounts of accusations regarding free-speech and I'm-being-censored ("I declined, saying that it was a political statement and that he had no right to censor passengers' political speech ... Ultimately, I was refused passage because I would not censor myself at her command.")

 

[WraithUV]

"Secret laws" are crap. If they can punish me regardless of ignorance of them, they better damn well at least make them available for me to review first.

The whole airport security placebo is equally crap. I have relatives who work for the airlines. They can explain very easily how all this "security" doesn't do a damn thing -except make what used to be a 15 minute process take 4 hours.

That's about all I have to contribute to the issue really. Look for George Carlin's routine about airport security if you want elaboration, I back up what he's got to say on the matter.

-Wraith

 

[Brutulf]

Doesn't help if the ID is valid.

Just out of interest here. Did you even read the rest of my post?

Yep, read it all. I think ID requirement is a good thing (if nothing else, to prevent people from putting a suitcase bomb on the plane without boarding themselves), just wanted to remind that you don't have to have a fake ID to be a terrorist/bad guys. ID requirement is a good thing, but I think you are focusing on the wrong points.