More Nonsense on the Security Front

Salon’s Ask the Pilot column takes another look at the thwarted London terrorism situation and finds that the news of the possible attacks was way, way overblown.  The column quotes and article from the New York times which suggests that no attacks were imminent:

"Questions about the immediacy and difficulty of the suspected bombing
plot cast doubt on the accuracy of some of the public statements made
at the time," the article concludes. That’s a convoluted way of saying
the plotters were likely months from pulling off the massive,
synchronized attack we’ve been told was only days away. "The reactions
of Britain and the United States," the story continues, "… were
driven less by information about a specific, imminent attack than fear
that other, unknown terrorists might strike." As for the scope of the
attack, British investigators described the widely parroted report that
up to 10 U.S. airliners had been targeted as "speculative" and

Smith, who writes the column, has said that he can’t believe the lack of outrage about the way this whole incident has been handled.  I’m outraged, and you should be, too.  Just now the US is considering scanning all cargo on passenger planes.  If you didn’t know, the US only requires random screening of cargo being loaded on passenger planes.  Yes, you read that correctly.  Your toothpaste is a threat, but a giant box of unopened cargo is not.  That’s what it’s come to.  It’s a joke, and it’s time we do something about it — and you can, come Election Day in November.

(and that’s one to grow on…)


  1. I agree with Pilot until the end when — in perhaps a nod to Salon’s likely readership — he suggests the stupid new rules are some sort of political conspiracy.

    To be blunt, stupidity knows no political party. The dumb rules remain in place because it’s easier to maintain the status quo, and there is not a natural constituency for logical carry-on rules. Just look at the media silence. I think we’re pretty much alone on this one, and we’ll have to wait for the bureacracy to get around to reforming the rules. They will do it, albeit not as soon as we’d like.