The folly is much the same with respect to the liquids and gels restrictions, introduced two summers ago following the breakup of a London-based cabal that was planning to blow up jetliners using liquid explosives. Allegations surrounding the conspiracy were revealed to substantially embellished. In an August, 2006 article in the New York Times, British officials admitted that public statements made following the arrests were overcooked, inaccurate and “unfortunate.” The plot’s leaders were still in the process of recruiting and radicalizing would-be bombers. They lacked passports, airline tickets and, most critical of all, they had been unsuccessful in actually producing liquid explosives. Investigators later described the widely parroted report that up to ten U.S airliners had been targeted as “speculative” and “exaggerated.”
“The notion that deadly explosives can be cooked up in an airplane lavatory is pure fiction,” Greene told me during an interview. “A handy gimmick for action movies and shows like ‘24.’ The reality proves disappointing: it’s rather awkward to do chemistry in an airplane toilet. Nevertheless, our official protectors and deciders respond to such notions instinctively, because they’re familiar to us: we’ve all seen scenarios on television and in the cinema. This, incredibly, is why you can no longer carry a bottle of water onto a plane.”
Yet that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. The three-ounce container rule is silly enough — after all, what’s to stop somebody from carrying several small bottles each full of the same substance — but consider for a moment the hypocrisy of T.S.A.’s confiscation policy. At every concourse checkpoint you’ll see a bin or barrel brimming with contraband containers taken from passengers for having exceeded the volume limit. Now, the assumption has to be that the materials in those containers are potentially hazardous. If not, why were they seized in the first place? But if so, why are they dumped unceremoniously into the trash? They are not quarantined or handed over to the bomb squad; they are simply thrown away. The agency seems to be saying that it knows these things are harmless. But it’s going to steal them anyway, and either you accept it or you don’t fly.
Stikkord: <span>law enforcement</span>
Debbie Nathan skrev i fjor sommer i sin blogg om at hun mente journalister burde ha rettslig immunitet til å oppsøke og undersøke barneporno som en del av sitt arbeide. Hun har i mine øyne svært mange gode poeng, bl.a:
I’m worried that the government has declared an entire field of law enforcement and public policy off-limits from empirical critique by academia and the fourth estate. I want a process that allows non-governmental investigators and journos to be vetted and qualified as child-porn researchers. I’m not sure who would do the vetting or what the criteria would be. Neither is Penn State’s Jenkins. Still, says Jenkins, if front-line research and reporting remains prohibited, “if there’s no garbage filter, no independent means for checking, verifying or criticizing the government, that’s very worrisome. As an analogy, just imagine if every word we knew about terrorism came from the FBI or the White House.”
Jeg tør ikke tenke på det en gang. Når vi vet hvordan Bush og co har fortiet og manipulert fakta om global oppvarming, evolusjon osv, så ser vi hvor viktig det er med en aktiv presse som kan rette et kritisk søkelys på den informasjonen folket serveres av myndighetene. Vi ser eksempler på det samme når det gjelder barneporno og pedofile overgripere også fra norske og europeiske myndigheter.