Terrorist? Not a Problem!

[BHS]

So the proposed new rule is, you actually have to have a history of trying (presumably unsuccessfully) to commit violence against an airliner (read "plow it into a skyscraper") before they'll ban you from flying in Canada. Merely having a history of trying to kill civilians by whatever means are available isn't reason enough to prevent you from boarding what amounts to an enormous Molatov cocktail.

Link

Needless to say, eleven-year-old boys who jokingly say the word "bomb" while waiting to board a flight to Orlando will still get their entire families ejected from the premises with maximum prejudice.

In case you haven't got time to read the article but you've read this far and you're waiting for the other shoe to drop, here it is: You'll be happy to know that there will be a full appeals process, but no, the proposed regulations do not allow for financial compensation to terrorists who have no history of using planes for their killing sprees but were wrongly added to the new no-fly list anyway.

Here's a typical American response to the proposed regulations (warning: not worksafe).

[Leafless]

All the criteria to be put on the proposed 'no fly list' pertains 'offences or threats' against civil aviation.

This policy effectively leaves out (estimate) 99.9% of all potential terrorist who would want to or would like to cause to destruction and mayhem.

The logical question to ask : "What REAL purpose does this ludicrous policy serve?"

Answer: This LEFTY policy 'serves no purpose' other than to say" 'Yes, we do have a policy to protect our air passengers against potential terrorist strikes.'

[geoffrey]

Who gets banned then Leafless?