MIT student at Logan

[Carol]

There has been an unrelated story in Canadian news about indictments against 16 terror suspects that were caught in 2006 in a major plot against the Canadian government.

The story is here. Attached the the story is a photo of Canadian police on patrol at what looks like Pearson International Airport in Toronto (yes, Rush fans, it's YYZ), with submachine guns at the ready. They are certainly prepared to take action at gunpoint...

 

[Cruentus]

Good for them.

A lot of people don't know, but Canada has some pretty kick-*** military and LE units, and have been boosting up CANSOFCOM with the recent awareness of the intl terrorist threat.

http://www.cansofcom.forces.gc.ca/en/index_e.asp

 

[Big Don]

Art is something someone must work at, foolishness comes naturally...

 

[rutherford]

I think some of you guys are ill-informed at best. Those of you who have any training with Improvised Explosive Devices will agree with this point. If you haven't, then you'll just have to take my word on this.

There isn't a single person in this thread who says that the concern wasn't justified.

Andrew has said it, and to clarify, I'll say it as well. I'm glad that people at the airport were concerned and investigated the incident.

 

[rutherford]

Hmm. No deletion of messages anymore? Please ignore this one.

 

[MJS]

I'm in Canada, and I would hope that the person would be questioned on it, possibly warned not to wear it, hell even told to remove it, but not at gun point, and not had charges pressed over it for simply wearing it.

Question for you. Until its deemed that its a fake, why do you think that gun point is too harsh? I refer back to my fake hand gun being pointed out the window of a moving car. Do you honestly think that the cops would not draw down on the person? Of course they are. Many toy guns today look very close to the real deal.

Just curious.

 

[Kreth]

I think the fact that she initially walked away from Security when questioned had something to do with the escalation.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

If I were armed airport security and saw someone with what I thought was a possible bomb strapped to their chest, they would get ONE strongly worded order at gunpoint and any response other than what I ordered would be met with lead to the CNS. The slightest move could result in the deaths of many. This kid was lucky.

Folks who think security should hold a nice conversation with someone they suspect is packing a bomb remind me of those who ask why cops dont shoot to wound when someone gets killed by LE.

 

[rutherford]

I think the fact that she initially walked away from Security when questioned had something to do with the escalation.

This is false.

She initially walked aware from an airport employee who refused to answer her questions about an arriving flight.

When confronted by the state police she cooperated fully.

Airport Security was never involved.

 

[shesulsa]

This is false.

She initially walked aware from an airport employee who refused to answer her questions about an arriving flight.

No, it's debatable.

The Boston Globe reports:

Star Simpson, 19, was wearing a black hooded sweatshirt and approached an airport employee in Terminal C at 8 a.m. to inquire about an incoming flight from Oakland, according to Major Scott Pare of the State Police. She was holding a lump of what looked like putty in her hands. The employee asked about the plastic circuit board on her chest, and Simpson walked away without responding, Pare said.

CBS News reports:

A Massachusetts Port Authority staffer manning an information booth in the terminal became suspicious when Simpson — wearing the device — approached to ask about an incoming flight, Pare said. Simpson then walked outside, and the staffer notified a nearby trooper.

She's well-decorated, well-educated ... in short, she's no dummy. I *doubt* she did not understand how this could have been dangerous or illegal for her to do.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Does anybody doubt this was some misguided "statement" about airport security/the "war on terror" etc.

Come on.

 

[Cruentus]

There isn't a single person in this thread who says that the concern wasn't justified.

Andrew has said it, and to clarify, I'll say it as well. I'm glad that people at the airport were concerned and investigated the incident.

Really? Because I keep reading statements like "it doesn't look like she was intentionally trying to cause trouble," and "Her shirt was not intended to look like a bomb, it didn't really look like a bomb, doesn't seem there was any malicious intent in wearing it," and "what exactly is it that everyone thinks she did wrong" and "She's just a person who wore something they never in a million years thought anybody would be stupid enough to think was a bomb." And so on and so on.

But apparently no one is saying anything like that, everyone thinks that it indeed looked like a detonator to an explosive device, and everyone thinks that the airport and police behaved reasonably. So, something must be wrong with my computer, cause I keep reading all these other comments.

My bad...

 

[Sukerkin]

Well, to be fair, Crue, until you pointed out certain salient truths about it's appearance (and I saw a more 'in context' picture), I do have to say that I thought it looked nothing like a bomb - it looked like a little LED guy giving 'the finger' to me.

I have friends who delight in wearing (more polished) examples of that sort of illuminated, animated and otherwise technological-looking clothing. Thankfully I'm too old for that sort of thing - I much prefer suits and frock-coats .

If the reports are straight, then she was lucky not to get 'ventilated' in the current security climate.

The subsequent furore is out of proportion to the offence, however. A stern talking too about the narrowness of the margin between larking about and being a corpse, followed by sending the foolish mare on her way with the promise of her idiocy being plastered all over the national news would suffice just as well.

Unless, of course, she really is a secret terrorist trying out the limits of what you can get away with. Given that she wore the darned thing openly rather suggests otherwise tho'.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I dont think that was the device used in this instance. That was a device that caused an uproar in Boston when they were posted up en-mass around the city. That was last year or so ago.

 

[CoryKS]

Meanwhile, Indianapolis International Airport closed a concourse this morning to investigate a suspicious package which consisted of a battery, wires, a switch, and a modeling-clay-like substance. The report says it appears to be a simulated IED. Or maybe it's a "performance piece".

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070926/LOCAL/709260492

 

[Cruentus]

Well, to be fair, Crue, until you pointed out certain salient truths about it's appearance (and I saw a more 'in context' picture), I do have to say that I thought it looked nothing like a bomb - it looked like a little LED guy giving 'the finger' to me.

Hey, I can appreciate that. That is why I stated that "I think some of you guys are ill-informed..." I realize that not everyone might know that this in fact looks exactly like a type of detonator, especially at a glance. But, when I posted that, there seemed to be some objection, as if I was wrong in the assumption that some are no well informed on this. I find that weird, because as you just stated and based on other comments, many people don't know that this looks exactly like a type of detonator.

I have friends who delight in wearing (more polished) examples of that sort of illuminated, animated and otherwise technological-looking clothing. Thankfully I'm too old for that sort of thing - I much prefer suits and frock-coats .

If the reports are straight, then she was lucky not to get 'ventilated' in the current security climate.

The subsequent furore is out of proportion to the offence, however. A stern talking too about the narrowness of the margin between larking about and being a corpse, followed by sending the foolish mare on her way with the promise of her idiocy being plastered all over the national news would suffice just as well.

This is I think where my frame of thinking differs from many of you, which is where the disagreement is. She isn't a teenager. She is an adult who is not insolated in any way, and who is attending a reputable university and has been functioning in society for long enough to know the current security enviroment we live in. I have a difficult time believing that a responsible adult with her background would knowingly wear something that could even be questioned as a security risk to the airport in an environment where you can't even have nail clippers on a carryon bag. I think that most of us agree that the item on the shirt is odd and questionable, even if we don't know that it looks exactly like a detonator. So, it is very difficult for me to think that she wasn't up to something.

Because of this, in my mind, she deserves the response she got and the potential fallout afterwords.

Unless, of course, she really is a secret terrorist trying out the limits of what you can get away with. Given that she wore the darned thing openly rather suggests otherwise tho'.

I disagree here. Most of you are thinking from your own frame of reference, and not that of a suicide bomber. Your thinking that if you were to want to see if you could get a device past security, that you would try to not get caught and therefore would do a better job of hiding it then pasting it on your shirt.

This is not how many suicide bombers think, however. If they do a test run, they want to do it in a vary blatent way to see how far they can get past security before they are stopped. They fully expect to be stopped; what they are trying to see is exactly when that would occur and how long it would take security to catch on. That is why they pick something "harmless" like a block of cheese with wires attached to it, or a simple circut board with silly putty and a battary. They can't be detained for very long for a block of cheese or a silly gimick on a shirt. So the thought is that they will be able to do the real thing, or assist in the real thing at a later date.

Furthermore, suicide bombers aren't thinking about there personal future as members of our society. So, they don't care if they face criminal charges, fines, and so forth. In fact, the more the better, because it is all for their cause. And as far as suicide bombing goes, the idea isn't to "get away with it" like most people think; it is to attract as much attention as possible. Attention is even more important than producing mass casualty, although they usually go hand and hand.

So getting all the way into an airport, attracting a lot of attention from law enforcement and personell, and getting arrested would be considered a successful test run. By itself without an explosion, it sends a message. And a real suicide bomber would want exactly that; to get far into the airport and to attract a lot of attention and people - only then end result would be an explosion and loss of lives rather then an arrest.

When you get into the psychology behind terrorists and specifically suicide bombers, you see this incident from a whole different perspective. I just think that it is a good thing our law enforcement is on to this, and remains one step ahead. They definatily deserve our respect for that, IMO.

But, perhaps this was just a stunt, or an incident of someone not thinking things through? This is equally as possible. But, consequence for her actions as well as investigations need to be in place.

C.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

If she did something stupid like run into the airport, she could have wound up like that gate jummper in London who ran from cops and got shot in the head. And I would say the same thing about her as I would have said about him.

 

[Cruentus]

Meanwhile, Indianapolis International Airport closed a concourse this morning to investigate a suspicious package which consisted of a battery, wires, a switch, and a modeling-clay-like substance. The report says it appears to be a simulated IED. Or maybe it's a "performance piece".

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070926/LOCAL/709260492

This has been going on a lot; I think a lot more than people realize. And the media attention and so forth is actually a part of terrorist's strategy. I am just glad our LE is on top of this ****.

 

[Andrew Green]

Really? Because I keep reading statements like...

No one is claiming they shouldn't have investigated and figured out what it was. However, upon investigation it should have been very clear that it was not an explosive device, and just a harmless light up shirt. At that point the issue should have been closed and everyone gone back to what they where doing.

The idea of arresting and charging a person because they wore something that you thought might be a bomb but really wasn't nor was it intended to be seems to be opening a door I would not want opened.

How would you draw the line? If there is no intent or accompanying actions to warrant the arrest where does the line between harmless homemade property and "hoax device" get drawn?

A person being arrested for having a bomb, no argument at all. A person being arrested for having something that someone thought might kinda look like what a bomb could look like? That is a law I don't want, and one that would have gotten everybody that took a electronics course in junior high school arrested for if they got spotted with it in the wrong place.

The simple circuit board, wiring, and 9-volt battary is all that is needed for a detonator.

Yup, that covers everything I produced in Junior High electronics.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

This has been going on a lot; I think a lot more than people realize. And the media attention and so forth is actually a part of terrorist's strategy. I am just glad our LE is on top of this ****.

Never doubt the stupidity of homegrown wack-jobs that just get off on doing stuff like that too. I dont doubt that some are terr. dry runs, but I think many could be nutters too.