Obama: U.S. will never bow to ‘siege mentality’

[KneelandBobDylan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34746138/ns ... r_security

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama said Thursday that "shortcomings occurred" in sifting through intelligence that prevented agencies from connecting the dots leading to the attempted Christmas Day jet bombing.

"We must follow the leads that we get," he said in a news conference. "We must do better at keeping dangerous people off airplanes."

He said he's telling the intelligence community to assign "clear lines of responsibility" for immediately pursuing leads on those threats
In response to the failed bombing attempt over Detroit, Obama also wants to strengthen the way people are added to the terror watch list and the no-fly list. And he's calling for intelligence reports — especially those that deal with threats — to be distributed more quickly and widely.

Obama said there needs to be a stronger process for analyzing and processing intelligence.

But he acknowledged that no system is foolproof and that terrorists are continuingly looking at ways to beat the system. He reiterated that the terror plot represents a system failure and that no one individual was to blame.

"Ultimately the buck stops with me," he said.

Imagine that.. a President that says the buck stops with him.

[JakeYonkel]

It is nice to hear him take responsibility, no doubt.

If we would just keep brown people off airplanes altogether, this really wouldn't be an issue and I woudn't have to take my fucking shoes off.

[lerxstcat]

It is nice to hear him take responsibility, no doubt.

If we would just keep brown people off airplanes altogether, this really wouldn't be an issue and I woudn't have to take my fucking shoes off.

Considering that the President is a brown person, that might not be workable for him...

[Thebottomline]

Obama can speak good words but it will be a wait and see if it comes true.

[Hames Jetfield]

If he will just use the word terror more this all could be averted!

[VinnieKulick]

Why didn't his state department revoke the guy's visa?

Instead of harping on how great he'll be at preventing this shit in the future, why can't he hold the state department accountable?

[bane]

It is nice to hear him take responsibility, no doubt.

If we would just keep brown people off airplanes altogether, this really wouldn't be an issue and I woudn't have to take my fucking shoes off.

Considering that the President is a brown person, that might not be workable for him...

Meh. He's got Air Force One. He's covered. On a serious note, I think Jake's on to something. It may be discriminatory and unfair, but once airport security starts seriously checking out anybody who even looks like they could be a potential threat, this shit will stop. You don't see a lot of scandanavian looking terrorists, you know?

[JakeYonkel]

Yeah, every time they pulled my mom aside to dig through her bags and made sure she wasn't carrying anything bigger than travel size toothpaste, the country was REALLY safe that day.

Get over it, profiling is the only way.

Fuck, 15 years ago you could walk all the way to the gate with whoever you were traveling with. No biggie.

But talk about the terrorists winning... our lives, as normal non-terrorist Americans, are fucked up and inconvenienced now. How about instead of punishing the innocent (us) we just disallow anybody of Arab descent from flying at all? And tell them, "sorry, it's either piss off the few of you or ruin it for the other millions of people in the country, tough shit."

I'm fully aware that a lot of innocent Arabs would be fucked over this, but I'd rather it be a handful of them than an entire country of us.

[bane]

That last dude wasn't arabic. He was a black guy from Nigeria. That kind of spoils that plan huh? What we really need are some of those Total Recall scanners. Barring that, they are going to have to either search the fuck out of everybody like a jailhouse entry or they're gonna have to profile more.

[VinnieKulick]

That last dude wasn't arabic. He was a black guy from Nigeria. That kind of spoils that plan huh? What we really need are some of those Total Recall scanners. Barring that, they are going to have to either search the fuck out of everybody like a jailhouse entry or they're gonna have to profile more.

Or, put ANYBODY who's on the SUSPECTED TERRORIST list on the No Fly list.

Silly, but it makes sense, no?

[bane]

That last dude wasn't arabic. He was a black guy from Nigeria. That kind of spoils that plan huh? What we really need are some of those Total Recall scanners. Barring that, they are going to have to either search the fuck out of everybody like a jailhouse entry or they're gonna have to profile more.

Or, put ANYBODY who's on the SUSPECTED TERRORIST list on the No Fly list.

Silly, but it makes sense, no?

Yes and no. I don't think you should ban anybody from flying no matter what the're suspected of, but I do think thourough screening should be put into play for anyone that smells remotely fishy. I'm talking seriously thourough screening like back room custums type searches. It's inconvenient as all hell, but it will stop airplanes from exploding.

[lerxstcat]

The scanners we need are made here in Mississippi. They expose everything that's under the clothes but there are protests because it basically exposes passengers' bodies, which are clearly visible under the clothes.

If the terrorists win because we have to do this, well they'd win a lot more of we didn't do it and they were blowing planes out of the sky regularly. You have to adapt to a changing world, such is life.

[bane]

They should start using those scanners in every airport in America in the near future. I wasn't aware that the tech was available yet. I'm all for it. Those that are opposed to it due to modesty reasons etc. don't have to fly. Their choice. I'd be all for spending whatever amount of money was needed to get them into every security checkpoint in the country ASAP. That would be money well spent IMO. I think they'd still have to do more though. They need more dogs and more explosive "sniffers". The random checks aren't working well enough. They need to have them at EVERY check point, just like they do metal detectors.

[VinnieKulick]

Yes and no. I don't think you should ban anybody from flying no matter what the're suspected of, but I do think thourough screening should be put into play for anyone that smells remotely fishy. I'm talking seriously thourough screening like back room custums type searches. It's inconvenient as all hell, but it will stop airplanes from exploding.

I can't understand the logic. If we have enough intel to put them on a list of suspected terrorist, why would we let them fly into our country?

Keep them off of planes would be a great first step in helping eliminate a lot of threats.

And, revoke the fucking visa's of anybody on the suspected terrorist lists.

[bane]

Yes and no. I don't think you should ban anybody from flying no matter what the're suspected of, but I do think thourough screening should be put into play for anyone that smells remotely fishy. I'm talking seriously thourough screening like back room custums type searches. It's inconvenient as all hell, but it will stop airplanes from exploding.

I can't understand the logic. If we have enough intel to put them on a list of suspected terrorist, why would we let them fly into our country?

Keep them off of planes would be a great first step in helping eliminate a lot of threats.

And, revoke the fucking visa's of anybody on the suspected terrorist lists.

The problem is the word "suspected". Banning somebody from flying all together because of something they may or may not have done is just un American dude. Visas and entry into our country is a whole different ballgame though. I'm with you on that, but that isn't enough. We'll start having problems with American whack jobs soon enough. See Fort Hood. You've still got to screen them.

[VinnieKulick]

Well, I think that keeping people who we think may do us harm, from flying into our country is just good policy.

If we "connect the dots" like Obama keeps saying, why wait until somebody has a bomb on them before we say "they shouldn't be flying"?


And, while home grown, we can't forget WHY Ft Hood happened.... it's that peaceful religion.

[bane]

I'm not opposed to keeping them out of the country. Not even a little bit, but once you start saying "you can't fly because you're suspected of this or that" you start a precedent that I'm not comfortable with. I'll give you an example: I used to have a room mate that was on the road all the time running sound for this band or that band. He carried a pistol in his bag most of the time because he found himself in a lot of unsavory situations late at night etc. Anyway, he was rushing to catch a flight home for his daughter's birthday one time and forgot about the pistol. They found it at the check point and he got in a world of shit over it. It was a stupid, stupid, stupid mistake, but it was just that, a mistake. With a "No Fly" rule like you're suggesting, he'd never be able to travel by plane again. The guy's a roadie. He travels for a living. See where I'm going?

[VinnieKulick]

Bane, I think there's a big difference between somebody who the government has no idea who he is (other than collecting taxes on him) and somebody that the CIA has information linking him to people who want to hurt us, as a country.

I'm in favor of being allowed to transport firearms (IN CHECKED LUGGUAGE) and would have no problem with anybody doing so.

[bane]

Bane, I think there's a big difference between somebody who the government has no idea who he is (other than collecting taxes on him) and somebody that the CIA has information linking him to people who want to hurt us, as a country.

I'm in favor of being allowed to transport firearms (IN CHECKED LUGGUAGE) and would have no problem with anybody doing so.

I think we have a different idea of how a No Fly List works. They won't just put suspected terrorists of foreign origin on it. They'd put anybody who has ever done anything suspicious related to potential terrorism on it, like my old room mate. Again, I have absolutely no problem with refusing entry or revoking a visa for any foreigner that the CIA suspects. They aren't American citizens and therefore aren't entitled to the same rights as an American, so, you can effectively keep them off of American bound air planes simply by denying entry. I'm more concerned with how this would affect citizens though. I don't think you can tell a guy he can't fly just because he's suspected of something. You can put his name on a list that gets him a flagged or different color bording pass or something so you guarantee he gets extra scrutiny at the security check point though.

[pooldude]

I vote they round up every dark, unsavory character in the US (especially with foreign sounding names) under the "Suspicion of Being Suspicious Act".














Vinnie 1st.

[slzrocker]

Those body scanners are horribly wrong. It is an invasion of privacy, and should be thrown out. You know there will be at least one perv who takes a picture of the body scanner and posts it on the internet. How would you like to take a chance at some guy looking at your little kid nude, or your wife nude. These aren't doctors. If we secured our boarders more, and paid more attention to peoples visas we wouldnt have to worry about all this terrorist stuff. I will take the chance to loose a little bit of safety, if it means i have freedom. We have lost so much freedom since september 11th, and i honestly do not think it is worth it.

[bane]

Those body scanners are horribly wrong. It is an invasion of privacy, and should be thrown out. You know there will be at least one perv who takes a picture of the body scanner and posts it on the internet. How would you like to take a chance at some guy looking at your little kid nude, or your wife nude. These aren't doctors. If we secured our boarders more, and paid more attention to peoples visas we wouldnt have to worry about all this terrorist stuff.

Meh. Who cares if they're doctors or not? As long as they make sure nobody can be photographed so that nude images could be viewed elsewhere, who gives a fuck? Do you really think the security guy is gonna be whacking off to your xrayed wife while he's moving her through the security line? Those things are a simple solution, and if you don't want your privacy invaded, don't fly. I'd be far more concerned with my wife or child getting blown out of the sky than I would with somebody seeing them nude through an xray machine for 5 seconds. Securing the borders is all well and good, but we have a few bazillion miles of borders. They'll never be truly secure. It's impossible.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Those body scanners are horribly wrong. It is an invasion of privacy, and should be thrown out. You know there will be at least one perv who takes a picture of the body scanner and posts it on the internet. How would you like to take a chance at some guy looking at your little kid nude, or your wife nude. These aren't doctors. If we secured our boarders more, and paid more attention to peoples visas we wouldnt have to worry about all this terrorist stuff. I will take the chance to loose a little bit of safety, if it means i have freedom. We have lost so much freedom since september 11th, and i honestly do not think it is worth it.

Those scanners do not use visible light like a regular camera does so they do not produce spankworthy pix.

[YokosAssWillEatItself]

Those body scanners are horribly wrong. It is an invasion of privacy, and should be thrown out. You know there will be at least one perv who takes a picture of the body scanner and posts it on the internet. How would you like to take a chance at some guy looking at your little kid nude, or your wife nude. These aren't doctors. If we secured our boarders more, and paid more attention to peoples visas we wouldnt have to worry about all this terrorist stuff.

Meh. Who cares if they're doctors or not? As long as they make sure nobody can be photographed so that nude images could be viewed elsewhere, who gives a fuck? Do you really think the security guy is gonna be whacking off to your xrayed wife while he's moving her through the security line? Those things are a simple solution, and if you don't want your privacy invaded, don't fly. I'd be far more concerned with my wife or child getting blown out of the sky than I would with somebody seeing them nude through an xray machine for 5 seconds. Securing the borders is all well and good, but we have a few bazillion miles of borders. They'll never be truly secure. It's impossible.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

[bane]

I'd hardly consider submitting to a security scan as giving up an essential liberty. Again, if you don't like it, don't fly.

[YokosAssWillEatItself]

Again, if you don't like it, don't fly.

There.

That sentence right there is a perfect example of giving up liberty.

Here are some more:

"Don't like strip searches when you go to the mall? Don't shop there."

"Don't want your telephone conversations being tapped without a warrant? Don't make phone calls."

etc.

Thank you for proving my point.

[bane]

What's your alternative?

[upinsmoke]

Those scanners do not use visible light like a regular camera does so they do not produce spankworthy pix.

That probably depends on the spanker. Every available kink in this world has adherents. That's why there's so many child molesters working in theme parks, or catholic priests abusing young parishioners. The temptation to abuse the public trust comes with the job.

[VinnieKulick]

I've read the constitution a few times, and I never saw anywhere the phrase "travel by air without being screened".

And, 'if you don't like it, don't fly' isn't giving up a liberty. It's making a decision what inconvenience you are willing to put up with.

[bane]

Those scanners do not use visible light like a regular camera does so they do not produce spankworthy pix.

That probably depends on the spanker. Every available kink in this world has adherents. That's why there's so many child molesters working in theme parks, or catholic priests abusing young parishioners. The temptation to abuse the public trust comes with the job.

True, but those pics show images that aren't much more revealing than somebody who's fully clothed. If somebody gets their jollies by it, whatever, but they're not the privacy invading horror that the "liberty" people make them out to be. I think scanner opposition is retarded. It's cutting off your nose to spite ypour face.