Body scanners coming to Canadian airports

[Muddy]

Our country is going to great expence to do body scanning. Why?

We know that for the past thirty years it has been young Muslim men who have been responsible for blowing up or trying to blow up aircraft. That is not racist ! That is a fact. The majority of young Muslim men are much like the rest of us. They want get on an aircraft knowing it is safe and they will reach their destination. So do the rest of the Muslim world.Surely they can see the reason for profiling! Then why is it we refuse to profile? If it was old white Christian Wasps blowing up aircraft for some dopey cause I would want to be profiled.

[Wilber]

As you say the great majority of Muslims want nothing to do with this so treating them all like potential terrorists would definitely be counterproductive. Behavioral profiling I am all for. How you act is more important than what you look like. Scanning people and their luggage will always be a component of airport security as well. It was originally started in the seventies to prevent hijackings and it did.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't buy that for a second. I don't see much evidence beyond southern Iraq that the 1953 coup had any substantial effect on the rest of the Muslim world. If you want to look for the cause of modern Islamism, it dates back to the Wahabi sect in Arabia during the last couple of centuries of Ottoman rule. The descendants of the Wahabis shifted their hatreds from the Ottomans after WWI to the Brits, and ultimately, to the Americans, for a complex number of reasons. The House of Saud, itself Wahabi in origin, has no small part in this, considering it became their stock answer to their own fundamentalist whackos to export them, and ultimately the fundamentalism with it. What it comes down to is this. The Saudis control what Muslims view as the holiest of lands, in particular Mecca. The Saudis, in part, stand because the US props them up in an alliance that guarantees the most valuable substance on the planet doesn't get controlled by some really crazy people. Those crazy people resent what they view as an American occupation. Further they resent Israel, in part because they view that as an occupation of the second most holy place on the planet. So, to please these nutjobs we would have to depart from Saudi Arabia and let Israel to its own devices.

Some good points.

The question isn't "why do Muslims hate us?". A lot of people don't like us, Americans most of all, including many countries the U.S./West has mucked around with but which has not resulted in the militant blowback Islamists have resorted to in recent decades. The question is rather then "Why do they hate us and attack us?"

Certainly, U.S./West fudging in the affairs in Muslim countries has fueled the fire. The Iran coup. The U.S. military occupying holy Muslim land in Saudi Arabia near Mecca and Medina during the 1991 Gulf War.

But underlying all of this, as you mentioned, is fundamentalist Muslim ideology. The Muslim fundamentalist beliefs of Qutbism has been a massive inspiration to Islamists. The violent, intolerant, and anti-American fundamentalist writings and beliefs of Sayyid Qubt is the most prominent factor in inciting jihad among modern Muslim radicals since the 1970's, including al-Qaeda leaders bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. It is clear that fundamental/radical Muslim beliefs is the difference in why Muslims have gone on such a violent terror assault on the West compared to the many other people/countries across the globe that have been similarly occupied and mucked with by West/U.S. foreign policy but haven't resorted to such persistent and violent retribution.

To all, here's a fantastic peer-reviewed academic journal article on the subject(even though i hate the term "Islamic-Fascism"/"Islamofascism"), from the journal "Parameters": Qutbism: an ideology of Islamic-Fascism

Edited January 9, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[William Ashley]

Let the airports and airlines deal with security issues of their equipment and facilities. If it is the planes that are at risk let the airlines cover it. The facilities shouldn't be paying for it if there is no risk to the facilities.

They should be able to choose how to inconvience thier customers bearing the risks and requirements. Airlines should be able to offer that added security and get the tax write off for their business costs.

Why is the general tax payer getting stuck with this multi million dollar bill,

and has anyone figured out there the extra 3 million went on this purchase yet?

[Wilber]

Let the airports and airlines deal with security issues of their equipment and facilities. If it is the planes that are at risk let the airlines cover it. The facilities shouldn't be paying for it if there is no risk to the facilities.

They should be able to choose how to inconvience thier customers bearing the risks and requirements. Airlines should be able to offer that added security and get the tax write off for their business costs.

Why is the general tax payer getting stuck with this multi million dollar bill,

and has anyone figured out there the extra 3 million went on this purchase yet?

As I said before, the traveling public pays. CATSA is a crown corporation, Nav Canada is a crown corporation. The airports are operated by the airport authorities which are expected to operate in the black by their municipal governments. If the government and bureaucracy is going to set the rules, they should take some responsibility for the consequences. I agree that the airlines should have a say in how things are done as they are the ones who take the biggest economic hit when something like this happens but tell me, what good is an airport with no aircraft? On many flights in Canada taxes and fees add up to half the ticket price already.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Deleted

Edited January 9, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

FYI, when it comes to fees, in 2005 Pearson Airport had the second highest landing fees in the world after Tokyo Narita and paid 150 million to Ottawa in rent.

[William Ashley]

... If the government sets the rules, they should pay for it.

If the government sets rules there should be a reason for it to enforce its expectations on a private entity.

Taking into account these things won't stop the issue what is the point? Do these machines - of which were installed at the Airport in Amsterdamn stop this NO! So what is the issue? Where is the need? Where is the benefit? It is madness you had the Overseeing power of the CIA tipped about a potential Enemy of State to which the President admits there were failings of the Security apparatus of the US of A, and you expect Canada to pay 11 Million dollars and suddently the non existent threats to Canadian airports vanish? This isn't about terrorists, it is about adequette security training for operational officers, and the capacity to do body scans and profiling to add to facial recognition databases by flipping a switch on these things. Do you want your body scanned? It is much akin to the biometrics requirements that are phasing into the air transport requirements. First phase it in, next thing you know, only people who have the right biorythm (Each human has a unique one) and other biometric catagorizations will be able to travel. While security measures can be good does Canada actually need this stuff?

ones who take the biggest economic hit

Insurance?

when something like this happens but tell me, what good is an airport with no aircraft?

More people to stay and spend?

On many flights in Canada taxes and fees add up to half the ticket price already.

I know. More than half in some cases.

Edited January 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[Wilber]

If the government sets rules there should be a reason for it to enforce its expectations on a private.

Taking into account these things won't stop the issue what is the point? Do these machines - of which were installed at the Airport in Amsterdamn stop this NO! So what is the issue? Where is the need? Where is the benefit?

I don't believe the machines in Amsterdam were used because of EU privacy considerations but I could be wrong.

Insurance?

Insurance for what, a bureaucracy which sets knee jerk rules which cripple them every time there is an incident like this? Good luck.

More people to stay and spend?

Less people to come and spend. Less people doing business to provide the incomes for others to spend.

I know. More than half in some cases.

Yes, taxpayers spend little or nothing on the system. You can't say that about highways, railways or any other form of transit.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Wilber

[William Ashley]

I don't believe the machines in Amsterdam were used because of EU privacy considerations but I could be wrong.

Insurance for what, a bureaucracy which sets knee jerk rules which cripple them every time there is an incident like this? Good luck.

Less people to come and spend. Less people doing business to provide the incomes for others to spend.

Yes, taxpayers spend little or nothing on the system. You can't say that about highways, railways or any other form of transit.

Not exactly it, Airports still cost billions to build.

Also your IT WAS CATSA WHO BOUGHT THEM thing is a little false here...

"The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) had announced plans to purchase a few scanners last spring, after it implemented a pilot study at the Kelowna International airport in 2007 and 2008.

The government rushed its order after the Christmas Day scare.

"

Also they are buying them at almost $80000 more than the low price quote for them? Who are they buying them from? and why are they paying so much more than is needed to buy them?

Also how are these effective if some person can put bombs on little tommy and not be scanned.

as children under 18 won't be subject to the search

or why not send a 17 year old operative or other child soilder in?

Edited January 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[Moonlight Graham]

I think the gov't should pick up a some of the bill in airport security. It is a matter of national security, and the Canadian gov't also owns all major airports to my knowledge so has a responsibility there as well. If the gov keeps upping the security measures eventually more airlines are going to have trouble staying in business.

[Wilber]

Not exactly it, Airports still cost billions to build.

And the federal government collects millions in rent from them.

Also your IT WAS CATSA WHO BOUGHT THEM thing is a little false here...

I never said IT WAS CATSA WHO BOUGHT THEM but I maintain it will be the traveling public which eventually pays for them.

The government rushed its order after the Christmas Day scare.

"

Also they are buying them at almost $80000 more than the low price quote for them? Who are they buying them from? and why are they paying so much more than is needed to buy them?

Ask them, do you think they should force the airlines to do it?

Also how are these effective if some person can put bombs on little tommy and not be scanned.

as children under 18 won't be subject to the search

or why not send a 17 year old operative or other child soilder in?

A reasonable question but nothing to do with the airlines.

[William Ashley]

Ask them, do you think they should force the airlines to do it?

No it is a waste of money.

If the airlines care about the security of their air planes then let them write it off as an operating expense. I don't intend to penalize the airlines, I think they should have the advantage to buy them themselves and write it off, if it honestly is worth it for asset protection. The government should have to crack down on people who arn't doing anything. There is no history of this happening in Canada. This is another reason why Afghanistan was a bad move. It has 0 objectives other than to radicalize a greater portion of the occupied population. It isn't localized so why stir up a hornets nest unless you want to impede and restrict people more. Thats not the society I support building.

Edited January 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

No it is a waste of money.

So was the Gun Registry, but you "feel" safer, right?

[William Ashley]

I think the gov't should pick up a some of the bill in airport security. It is a matter of national security, and the Canadian gov't also owns all major airports to my knowledge so has a responsibility there as well. If the gov keeps upping the security measures eventually more airlines are going to have trouble staying in business.

If you've been to other countries it is obvious Canada doesn't have a noticable military presence at the borders.. that is what Customs is for. An Airport is no different than any other port of entry - except it is potentially MORE secure due to having the benefit of security checks and prescreening potentials.

What do you think all those customs officers are for? Maybe you have just never been put through secondary screening - personally I go through it every time, sometimes three levels of questioning - eg. first instance, immigration and security clearance. The only difference is you don't see military with assault rifles, but police actively patrol places like pearson on their segways.

I don't understand how you can say - there is no security at Canadian airports when it is clear there is some level.

Do you really want to see people with assualt rifles before you get to your vacation destination?

I completely agree though any regulation the government places on them beyond make sure they buckle their seatbelts is a little too excessive. Airlines should be able to settle security based on their needs and destination needs.

There really hasn't been very many air incidences in the history of air travel, so why all the wasting of tax dollars on securing a system that is already secure? It isn't Canadians who are effected, so why reduce our efficiency and money?

There are all levels of policing including foreign policing at Canadian Airports. Most people just don't encounter it until they need to.

Edited January 9, 2010 by William Ashley

[Wilber]

No it is a waste of money.

If the airlines care about the security of their air planes then let them write it off as an operating expense. I don't intend to penalize the airlines, I think they should have the advantage to buy them themselves and write it off, if it honestly is worth it for asset protection. The government should have to crack down on people who arn't doing anything. There is no history of this happening in Canada. This is another reason why Afghanistan was a bad move. It has 0 objectives other than to radicalize a greater portion of the occupied population. It isn't localized so why stir up a hornets nest unless you want to impede and restrict people more. Thats not the society I support building.

If it is a waste of money, why should the airlines be forced to waste it?

Airports are a competitive business just like any other and the economies of cities rely on them. An airport like Pearson is a huge economic engine and airports in large cities are often one of if not their biggest employer. The more expenses we pile on to Canadian carriers the more passengers head down to fly out of BUF or SEATAC rather than YYZ or YVR. American carriers and businesses get the benefit at the expense of ours. The port of Vancouver is in direct competition with the port of Seattle for cruise ship and container traffic. The less competitive we are the more business we lose and the whole economy suffers.

[Argus]

As you say the great majority of Muslims want nothing to do with this so treating them all like potential terrorists would definitely be counterproductive.

So it's better and more efficient to treat EVERYONE like a potential terrorist?

[Argus]

The only way to address our insecurity is to address the grievances that underlie terrorism.

What if you CAN'T address those grievances? What if the grievances are spiritual and not worldly?

Do we really understand these young men who want to kill us? How did they get that way? Why do they do it? Wouldn't they stop attacking the West if we just abandoned our meddling in Muslim countries and went home?

Probably not. Suicide attacks against the West, the experts say, have at least as much to do with existential issues of identity as they do with history or politics. “ ‘Happiness is martyrdom' can be as emotionally contagious to a lonely boy on the Internet as ‘Yes, we can,' ” writes anthropologist Scott Atran, who has been studying terrorism – and interviewing radical young men – for years. “That is a psychologically stunning and socially far-reaching development that scientists have hardly begun to explore.”

Globe and Mail

[Wilber]

So it's better and more efficient to treat EVERYONE like a potential terrorist?

I think it is a mistake to go out of your way to alienate people who need to be part of the solution.

[Michael Hardner]

Our country is going to great expence to do body scanning. Why?

We know that for the past thirty years it has been young Muslim men who have been responsible for blowing up or trying to blow up aircraft. That is not racist ! That is a fact.

Wrong. The single case that happened in Canada was Sikh terrorists, not Muslim.

[Wilber]

Wrong. The single case that happened in Canada was Sikh terrorists, not Muslim.

One the other hand that was not a suicide bomber. The bombs were put in luggage before the days of bag matching. All I am saying is that you need a bit more reason than just a persons ethnicity to single them out for special attention.

[Born Free]

Al-Qaeda's plan has surely got to include putting the NA airline industry out of business.

If true, it seems to be on track. I agree with a previous posters comments re the Israeli model. A friend of mine just returned from Israel and the comment was that the airport security is not only top notch, its as efficient as can be.

Onward & upward...

[Rue]

I think if it is for protecting US, US should pay for it.

And with the privacy lost cost as well.

Right when the terrorist blows up the plane you are in they will ask if you are American first.

Hello anyone home?

You seem to have missed the point.

[eyeball]

What if you CAN'T address those grievances? What if the grievances are spiritual and not worldly?

If they can't EVER be addressed no matter what I guess we'd have to round up anyone that isn't an atheist send them away and isolate ourselves. Either that or exterminate them.

[Wilber]

How would you profile Muslims at an airport anyway? They come in all races, colours, shapes and sizes. The last two attempts were not made by Arabs or anyone else from the Middle East. One was a white Brit and the other a Black African. That's why you need intelligence, behavior profiling and screening.

On edit: The liquid bomb plot did involve Arabs so it is actually the last two out of three were not. Point still is, it could be anyone.

Edited January 9, 2010 by Wilber