London synagogue installs bulletproof entrance

'West London Synagogue has installed a bulletproof entrance amid security concerns.

The entrance will now allow only one door to be open at a time, allowing security to identity and investigate visitors more thoroughly. Shabbat locks were also installed.

The steel-reinforced entrance was installed by a security company which said: "With the increasing threat of terror from around the world, synagogues need to take security more seriously than before."'

More here http://everydayantisemitism.stfi.re/2016/03/09/london-synagogue-installs-bulletproof-entrance but not on the BBC.

Are we insane

Last week I blogged about the 57 workers at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris who were on a French terror watchlist, not very reassuring.

Today I read that:

'Back in August, we did an investigation—the inspector General did—of the Department of Homeland Security, and they had 72 individuals that were on the terrorist watch list that were actually working at the Department of Homeland Security. The director had to resign because of that. Then we went further and did and eight-airport investigation. We had staffers go into eight different airports to test the department of homeland security screening process at major airports. They had a 95 percent failure rate. We had folks—this was a testing exercise, so we had folks going in there with guns on their ankles, and other weapons on their persons, and there was a 95 percent failure rate.

I have very low confidence based on empirical data that we’ve got on the Department of Homeland Security. I think we desperately need another set of eyeballs looking at the vetting process. That’s vetting that’s being done at major airports where we have a stationary person coming through a facility, and we’re failing 95 percent of the time. I have even lower confidence that they can conduct the vetting process in places like Jordan, or Belize or on the Syrian border, or in Cairo, or Beirut in any better fashion, especially given the huge volume of applicants we’ve had seeking refugee status.'

Happy flying now? How about living or working within a couple of hundred miles of any airport, or under a flightpath  or indeed just about anywhere.

Are our governments really that inept?

57 Paris airport workers on terror watch list.

How stupid are we in the West?

'The security passes of 86,000 workers at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris will be reviewed after it was found that 57 employees with access to airliners were on a terror watch list, according to a report.

Security badges were taken away from dozens of workers at the airport after terror attacks in Paris in January — but others continued working, the Sunday Times of London reported.

Police official Philippe Riffault told the paper that the review of airport passes will begin with 5,000 security personnel.

"It's a question of verifying what these people might have been doing since they obtained their authorization," Riffault said.

Police carried out extensive searches of the airport under state-of-emergency powers after the Nov. 13 Paris attacks in which 130 people were killed and 350 injured by Islamic State militants.

Belgium, where several of the Paris attackers had lived, also has pulled security badges from several airport workers after discovering that some had links to jihadis who had traveled to Syria.

Meanwhile, anxiety has been brewing about radicalism among bus, Metro and railroad workers.

Samy Amimour, who blew himself up in the Bataclan concert hall in Paris, managed to get a job as a bus driver while on a watch list.'

Why don't we take this terrorist threat seriously?

More here at Jihad Watch but not on most of the MSM especially not the dhimmified BBC.

Security Sharm el-Sheikh style

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6728835/Security-lapses-at-Sharm-el-Sheikh-airport.html

Morrissey claims sex assault by security at US airport per BBC News

'British singer Morrissey has claimed he was sexually assaulted by a security officer at San Francisco International Airport, who he says "groped" him.' 

Heaven knows he's miserable now...

More here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33731489

South African Airways pilot arrested after stripping in protest over airport security | Mail Online

'A South African Airways pilot stripped to his underwear in front of crew and passengers in protest over rigorous airport searches.

Captain W Van Ginkel, who was about to board the airline's Flight SA 025 jet to fly to Johannesburg, reportedly removed all his clothes except his pants at Harare International Airport, Zimbabwe '

I know how he feels...

More here, with some poor spelling  here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2679008/South-African-Airways-pilot-arrested-incident-exposure-stripping-pants-passengers-protest-airport-security.html

Israel's 'Apartheid Wall' in context

'97% of this "wall" is only a fence, and it was erected IN RESPONSE to terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. More than a dozen other countries use the same thing to defend against terrorist attacks, prevent weapons trafficking, and curb illegal immigration, among other things.

Israel is no different.

Get more TRUTH at:
- FuelForTruth - http://www.fuelfortruth.org
- Twitter - https://twitter.com/fuelfortruth
- Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/FuelForTruth'

It's odd how only Israel's fence gets criticised by @lynnejones_exMP and others.

Well airport security can be trying

The rigmarole at British airports of removing your laptop and/or tablet from your carry-on bag, but not your pda (why the distinction? when does a pda become a tablet? 4", 5", 7", 9"?), then removing your coat or jacket but not always a cardigan or windcheater, removing your belt and sometimes your shoes can be rather trying.

Putting everything back into place whilst not holding up the queue too much is also extremely irritating but we'll leave that for the moment.

Many is the time that I've joked to Mrs NotaSheep and other nearby passengers that before long they'll require us to all strip completely before going through the magic arch. Well according to the Daily Mail two passengers at Manchester Airport tried to just that. Apparently:

'Hadfield-Hyde told the court that security guard Abdullah Mayet had indicated that she should take off all her clothes before passing through the scanner. She said: ‘He was pointing at me saying, “Off”. I said to him, “Do you mean just my jacket?”, but he was saying, “Off, off, all off”.’

I think I see the problem, I've also experienced the occasional security guard whose grasp of English is somewhat shaky and whose attitude is rude and dismissive. Indeed Mrs NotaSheep almost got into a serious row with one such security guard at a London airport when they put her carry-on bag to one side for manual checking but then just left it there for almost half  an hour rather than check it. That security guard seemed to be of a similar racial background to the guard in this instance, as Mrs NotaSheep says, some of these people just don't know how to deal with modern women.

This is why Israel needs secure borders and to search Palestinians

'It's a tiny story; insignificant really, except for those of us with some imagination... andpersonal experience.

It very likely was not reported at all in the news channels which reach most of our readers. But it happened, and it has implications.

A Palestinian Arab male (at this stage, no further details) was stopped at the IDF security checkpoint at Bekaot, south-east of Sh'chem (Nablus) in the northern Jordan Valley yesterday (Tuesday), the first day of Passover.

The personnel manning the checkpoint found four improvised explosive devices (IEDs) on him [Times of Israel].

Army sappers safely detonated the IEDs in a controlled explosion. The man is in the custody of the security forces who have some questions for him. '

More here http://thisongoingwar.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/27-mar-13-instead-of-minor-footnote.html

If there had been no security, how many Israelis would have been killed?

Why no reporting on the anti Israel BBC?

The one hundred and fifty-eigth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's award is presented to Alasdair Palmer for this Telegraph article which tells us that

'Our border staff must be allowed to discriminate over which travellers they check

Blanket checks of pensioners and school children only result in long queues and bored officials.'

"No shit, Sherlock"

In 2010 I reported that

'the government are to consider allowing the security services to use racial profiling in the fight against terrorists getting onto a plane, exploding a device and killing a couple of hundred or more people. Apparently

'Passenger profiling would see selected travellers given tougher security checks before a flight.

Those behaving suspiciously or having an unusual travel pattern could be picked out

I presume that fears of upsetting the 'Muslim community' prevented the introduction of such profiling in 2010 and will prevent it in 2012.

As I said in 2010:

'"This has sparked concern Muslims will be disproportionately targeted." - Disproportionate to what? Disproportionate to the number of Muslims in the UK population? Probably. Disproportionate to the number of Muslims flying out of the UK on any particular day? Probably. Disproportionate to the proportion of terrorists who are members of the 'religion of peace'? Probably not.

Racial profiling is not racist, it simply recognises who are likely to pose the greatest threat to the population in general. Racial profiling does not mean only searching Muslims, it does not mean ignoring the threat posed by such as Richard Read. It does mean concentrating more resources on the six young nervous looking Muslims sitting together with one way tickets to Detroit, Chicago and New York and less on the family of four flying to Alicante for a week's package holiday. Yes it also means not concentrating on searching the two eighty year old nuns flying to Rome but maybe giving the two Imams flying to Washington DC a second look.

Yes this may mean that totally innocent Muslims get searched more often and/or more thoroughly than totally innocent non-Muslims. It may mean that totally innocent Muslims find travelling by air more onerous than do totally innocent non-Muslims. But I am afraid that whilst a sizable proportion of Muslims both within and without this country are fixated on killing as many Westerners, including Muslims, as they can; security needs must be prioritised.

I presume that totally innocent Muslims would rather be subjected to stricter security checks than risk dying in an Islamic terrorist attack.

There is one country that uses racial profiling to great effect; Israel. As I quoted in late 2010

'The first layer of actual security that greets travellers at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport is a roadside check. All drivers are stopped and asked two questions: How are you? Where are you coming from? 

"Two benign questions. The questions aren't important. The way people act when they answer them is," Sela said. 

Officers are looking for nervousness or other signs of "distress" — behavioural profiling. Sela rejects the argument that profiling is discriminatory. 

"The word 'profiling' is a political invention by people who don't want to do security," he said. "To us, it doesn't matter if he's black, white, young or old. It's just his behaviour. So what kind of privacy am I really stepping on when I'm doing this?" 

Once you've parked your car or gotten off your bus, you pass through the second and third security perimeters. 

Armed guards outside the terminal are trained to observe passengers as they move toward the doors, again looking for odd behaviour. At Ben Gurion's half-dozen entrances, another layer of security are watching. At this point, some travellers will be randomly taken aside, and their person and their luggage run through a magnometer. 

"This is to see that you don't have heavy metals on you or something that looks suspicious," said Sela.

You are now in the terminal. As you approach your airline check-in desk, a trained interviewer takes your passport and ticket. They ask a series of questions: Who packed your luggage? Has it left your side? 

"The whole time, they are looking into your eyes — which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds," said Sela. 

Lines are staggered. People are not allowed to bunch up into inviting targets for a bomber who has gotten this far. 

At the check-in desk, your luggage is scanned immediately in a purpose-built area. Sela plays devil's advocate — what if you have escaped the attention of the first four layers of security, and now try to pass a bag with a bomb in it? 

"I once put this question to Jacques Duchesneau (the former head of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority): say there is a bag with play-doh in it and two pens stuck in the play-doh. That is 'Bombs 101' to a screener. I asked Ducheneau, 'What would you do?' And he said, 'Evacuate the terminal.' And I said, 'Oh. My. God.' 

"Take Pearson. Do you know how many people are in the terminal at all times? Many thousands. Let's say I'm (doing an evacuation) without panic — which will never happen. But let's say this is the case. How long will it take? Nobody thought about it. I said, 'Two days.'" 

A screener at Ben-Gurion has a pair of better options.

First, the screening area is surrounded by contoured, blast-proof glass that can contain the detonation of up to 100 kilos of plastic explosive. Only the few dozen people within the screening area need be removed, and only to a point a few metres away. 

Second, all the screening areas contain 'bomb boxes'. If a screener
"This is a very small simple example of how we can simply stop a problem that would cripple one of your airports," Sela said. 

Five security layers down: you now finally arrive at the only one which Ben-Gurion Airport shares with Pearson — the body and hand-luggage check. 

"But here it is done completely, absolutely 180 degrees differently than it is done in North America," Sela said. 

"First, it's fast — there's almost no line. That's because they're not looking for liquids, they're not looking at your shoes. They're not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you," said Sela. "Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes ... and that's how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys." 

That's the process — six layers, four hard, two soft. The goal at Ben-Gurion is to move fliers from the parking lot to the airport lounge in a maximum of 25 minutes.'

Airport security - there is another way

I posted this last November  and think it's time for a re-post...

'The Star reports on why security is so much better and less intrusive at Israel's airports than in the USA (and indeed Europe). Here's an extract, do read the whole piece:

'"The first thing you do is to look at who is coming into your airport," said Sela. 

The first layer of actual security that greets travellers at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport is a roadside check. All drivers are stopped and asked two questions: How are you? Where are you coming from? 

"Two benign questions. The questions aren't important. The way people act when they answer them is," Sela said. 

Officers are looking for nervousness or other signs of "distress" — behavioural profiling. Sela rejects the argument that profiling is discriminatory. 

"The word 'profiling' is a political invention by people who don't want to do security," he said. "To us, it doesn't matter if he's black, white, young or old. It's just his behaviour. So what kind of privacy am I really stepping on when I'm doing this?" 

Once you've parked your car or gotten off your bus, you pass through the second and third security perimeters. 

Armed guards outside the terminal are trained to observe passengers as they move toward the doors, again looking for odd behaviour. At Ben Gurion's half-dozen entrances, another layer of security are watching. At this point, some travellers will be randomly taken aside, and their person and their luggage run through a magnometer. 

"This is to see that you don't have heavy metals on you or something that looks suspicious," said Sela.

You are now in the terminal. As you approach your airline check-in desk, a trained interviewer takes your passport and ticket. They ask a series of questions: Who packed your luggage? Has it left your side? 

"The whole time, they are looking into your eyes — which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds," said Sela. 

Lines are staggered. People are not allowed to bunch up into inviting targets for a bomber who has gotten this far. 

At the check-in desk, your luggage is scanned immediately in a purpose-built area. Sela plays devil's advocate — what if you have escaped the attention of the first four layers of security, and now try to pass a bag with a bomb in it? 

"I once put this question to Jacques Duchesneau (the former head of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority): say there is a bag with play-doh in it and two pens stuck in the play-doh. That is 'Bombs 101' to a screener. I asked Ducheneau, 'What would you do?' And he said, 'Evacuate the terminal.' And I said, 'Oh. My. God.' 

"Take Pearson. Do you know how many people are in the terminal at all times? Many thousands. Let's say I'm (doing an evacuation) without panic — which will never happen. But let's say this is the case. How long will it take? Nobody thought about it. I said, 'Two days.'" 

A screener at Ben-Gurion has a pair of better options.

First, the screening area is surrounded by contoured, blast-proof glass that can contain the detonation of up to 100 kilos of plastic explosive. Only the few dozen people within the screening area need be removed, and only to a point a few metres away. 

Second, all the screening areas contain 'bomb boxes'. If a screener spots a suspect bag, he/she is trained to pick it up and place it in the box, which is blast proof. A bomb squad arrives shortly and wheels the box away for further investigation.
"This is a very small simple example of how we can simply stop a problem that would cripple one of your airports," Sela said. 

Five security layers down: you now finally arrive at the only one which Ben-Gurion Airport shares with Pearson — the body and hand-luggage check. 

"But here it is done completely, absolutely 180 degrees differently than it is done in North America," Sela said. 

"First, it's fast — there's almost no line. That's because they're not looking for liquids, they're not looking at your shoes. They're not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you," said Sela. "Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes ... and that's how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys." 

That's the process — six layers, four hard, two soft. The goal at Ben-Gurion is to move fliers from the parking lot to the airport lounge in a maximum of 25 minutes.'

Why are we so fixated on looking for liquids and bombs rather than doing some intelligent profiling?' Why do we inconvenience the majority?

Another victory for Islamic terrorism?

Lori Dorn relates a harrowing experience she had at JFK recently. I have not edited her story but will comment at the end:

'At what point does the need for security eclipse human dignity and compassion?

Yesterday I went through the imaging scanner at JFK Terminal 4 for my Virgin America flight to San Francisco.  Evidently they found something, because after the scan, I was asked to step aside to have my breast area examined.  I explained to the agent that I was a breast cancer patient and had a bilateral mastectomy in April and had tissue expanders put in to make way for reconstruction at a later date.  

I told her that I was not comfortable with having my breasts touched and that I had a card in my wallet that explains the type of expanders, serial numbers and my doctor’s information (pictured) and asked to retrieve it. 

This request was denied.  Instead, she called over a female supervisor who told me the exam had to take place.  I was again told that I could not retrieve the card and needed to submit to a physical exam in order to be cleared.  She then said, “And if we don’t clear you, you don’t fly” loud enough for other passengers to hear.  And they did.  And they stared at the bald woman being yelled at by a TSA Supervisor. 

To my further dismay, my belongings, including my computer, were completely out of sight. I had no choice but to allow an agent to touch my breasts in front of other passengers.  

I just didn’t understand why these agents were so insensitive to the situation. I would have been happy to show her which bag was mine and have her retrieve the card, but she did not allow even that. I have been through emotional and physical hell this past year due to breast cancer.  The way I was treated by these TSA agents added a shitload of insult to injury and caused me a great deal of humiliation.

I understand the need for safety when flying, but there is also a need for those responsible to be compassionate and sensitive to each situation.  These agents were neither.

I can only comfort myself with the fact that Karma is always circular.'

Lori Dorn is right to complain at the treatment she received but the blame should be laid firmly at the door of Islamic terrorists. The security personel at airports around the world are (over)reacting to the efforts of Islamic terrorists to hide explosives in more and more devious ways. We have had explosives hidden in shoes and in underwear and also rumours of explosives hidden by surgery.

Airport Security in San Francisco

The hole in security that exists around ground staff is one that has worried me for quite some time and one day I fear that we will all have to take more notice of this matter.

Security Profiling

Thanks to Dry Bones for the great cartoon and Theo Spark for beating me to the spot.

Airport security - a geek's view

"First, it's fast — there's almost no line. That's because they're not looking for liquids, they're not looking at your shoes. They're not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you,"

I think that I may have blogged a piece along these lines before but with all the TSA related news doing the rounds I thought a repeat might be in order.

The Star reports on why security is so much better and less intrusive at Israel's airports than in the USA (and indeed Europe). Here's an extract, do read the whole piece:

'"The first thing you do is to look at who is coming into your airport," said Sela.
The first layer of actual security that greets travellers at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion International Airport is a roadside check. All drivers are stopped and asked two questions: How are you? Where are you coming from?
"Two benign questions. The questions aren't important. The way people act when they answer them is," Sela said.
Officers are looking for nervousness or other signs of "distress" — behavioural profiling. Sela rejects the argument that profiling is discriminatory.
"The word 'profiling' is a political invention by people who don't want to do security," he said. "To us, it doesn't matter if he's black, white, young or old. It's just his behaviour. So what kind of privacy am I really stepping on when I'm doing this?"
Once you've parked your car or gotten off your bus, you pass through the second and third security perimeters.
Armed guards outside the terminal are trained to observe passengers as they move toward the doors, again looking for odd behaviour. At Ben Gurion's half-dozen entrances, another layer of security are watching. At this point, some travellers will be randomly taken aside, and their person and their luggage run through a magnometer.
"This is to see that you don't have heavy metals on you or something that looks suspicious," said Sela.
You are now in the terminal. As you approach your airline check-in desk, a trained interviewer takes your passport and ticket. They ask a series of questions: Who packed your luggage? Has it left your side?
"The whole time, they are looking into your eyes — which is very embarrassing. But this is one of the ways they figure out if you are suspicious or not. It takes 20, 25 seconds," said Sela.
Lines are staggered. People are not allowed to bunch up into inviting targets for a bomber who has gotten this far.
At the check-in desk, your luggage is scanned immediately in a purpose-built area. Sela plays devil's advocate — what if you have escaped the attention of the first four layers of security, and now try to pass a bag with a bomb in it?
"I once put this question to Jacques Duchesneau (the former head of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority): say there is a bag with play-doh in it and two pens stuck in the play-doh. That is 'Bombs 101' to a screener. I asked Ducheneau, 'What would you do?' And he said, 'Evacuate the terminal.' And I said, 'Oh. My. God.'
"Take Pearson. Do you know how many people are in the terminal at all times? Many thousands. Let's say I'm (doing an evacuation) without panic — which will never happen. But let's say this is the case. How long will it take? Nobody thought about it. I said, 'Two days.'"
A screener at Ben-Gurion has a pair of better options.
First, the screening area is surrounded by contoured, blast-proof glass that can contain the detonation of up to 100 kilos of plastic explosive. Only the few dozen people within the screening area need be removed, and only to a point a few metres away.
Second, all the screening areas contain 'bomb boxes'. If a screener spots a suspect bag, he/she is trained to pick it up and place it in the box, which is blast proof. A bomb squad arrives shortly and wheels the box away for further investigation.
"This is a very small simple example of how we can simply stop a problem that would cripple one of your airports," Sela said.
Five security layers down: you now finally arrive at the only one which Ben-Gurion Airport shares with Pearson — the body and hand-luggage check.
"But here it is done completely, absolutely 180 degrees differently than it is done in North America," Sela said.
"First, it's fast — there's almost no line. That's because they're not looking for liquids, they're not looking at your shoes. They're not looking for everything they look for in North America. They just look at you," said Sela. "Even today with the heightened security in North America, they will check your items to death. But they will never look at you, at how you behave. They will never look into your eyes ... and that's how you figure out the bad guys from the good guys."
That's the process — six layers, four hard, two soft. The goal at Ben-Gurion is to move fliers from the parking lot to the airport lounge in a maximum of 25 minutes.'

Why are we so fixated on looking for liquids and bombs rather than doing some intelligent profiling?

Airport security UK and abroad

Jon Worth explains why if he wanted to bomb an airliner he wouldn't pick one leaving a UK airport. Here's an extract:

'I’ve recently taken return flights from the UK to Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt (to go diving in Dahab), and my parents have flown to and from Morocco, returning to the UK from Fez.

On the way to Egypt and Morocco we were subject to the normal checks on liquids in our hand luggage, and obliged to bin anything over 100ml, still in response to the 2006 transatlantic bomb plot.

But what about the other way around?

You can take as much liquid as you like (within reason) through security in both Fez and Sharm-el-Sheikh – I took 2 litres of water through, just to test it. Not an explosives check in sight, just a metal detector, and through went my water. Isn’t there something a bit odd about that, as there are some rather unpleasant groups operating in both Egypt and Morocco? If I wanted to bring down an airliner I sure would do it departing from there towards London rather than the other way around.'

Unusually I find myself agreeing with Jon Worth as I too have flown from airports where security is a joke and where people are allowed to carry what they like through as cabin luggage. I have mistakenly taken a penknife through x-ray machines in my hand luggage without being detected. Yet in other foreign airports I have had my hand luggage checked by sniffer dogs, electronic explosive sniffers and thorough hand searches.

Racial profiling at airports

The Mail amongst other news outlets, reports that the government are to consider allowing the security services to use racial profiling in the fight against terrorists getting onto a plane, exploding a device and killing a couple of hundred or more people. Apparently

'Passenger profiling would see selected travellers given tougher security checks before a flight.

Those behaving suspiciously or having an unusual travel pattern could be picked out
Other factors might include racial or religious profiling. This has sparked concern Muslims will be disproportionately targeted.

The profiling could be carried out by airport security staff or through computer analysis.

A passenger could be given extra screening if they ‘tick boxes’ such as arriving from a high-risk country, being alone or not having a return flight or luggage.

Currently, airport staff act on suspicious passenger behaviour or specific intelligence instead of profiling.'

'This has sparked concern Muslims will be disproportionately targeted.' - Disproportionate to what? Disproportionate to the number of Muslims in the UK population? Probably. Disproportionate to the number of Muslims flying out of the UK on any particular day? Probably. Disproportionate to the proportion of terrorists who are members of the 'religion of peace'? Probably not.

Racial profiling is not racist, it simply recognises who are likely to pose the greatest threat to the population in general. Racial profiling does not mean only searching Muslims, it does not mean ignoring the threat posed by such as Richard Read. It does mean concentrating more resources on the six young nervous looking Muslims sitting together with one way tickets to Detroit, Chicago and New York and less on the family of four flying to Alicante for a week's package holiday. Yes it also means not concentrating on searching the two eighty year old nuns flying to Rome but maybe giving the two Imams flying to Washington DC a second look.

Yes this may mean that totally innocent Muslims get searched more often and/or more thoroughly than totally innocent non-Muslims. It may mean that totally innocent Muslims find travelling by air more onerous than do totally innocent non-Muslims. But I am afraid that whilst a sizable proportion of Muslims both within and without this country are fixated on killing as many Westerners, including Muslims, as they can; security needs must be prioritised.

I presume that totally innocent Muslims would rather be subjected to stricter security checks than risk dying in an Islamic terrorist attack.

Do you have to answer 'their' questions?

Paul Karl Lukacs thinks not and has the story to explain... Here's an extract but do read the whole thing:

'“Why were you in China?” asked the passport control officer, a woman with the appearance and disposition of a prison matron.

“None of your business,” I said.

Her eyes widened in disbelief.

“Excuse me?” she asked.

“I’m not going to be interrogated as a pre-condition of re-entering my own country,” I said.

This did not go over well. She asked a series of questions, such as how long I had been in China, whether I was there on personal business or commercial business, etc. I stood silently. She said that her questions were mandated by Congress and that I should complain to Congress instead of refusing to cooperate with her.

She asked me to take one of my small bags off her counter. I complied.

...

An older, rougher officer came out and called my name. “We’ve had problems with you refusing to answer questions before,” he said. “You think there’s some law that says you don’t have to answer our questions.”

“Are you denying me re-entrance to my own country?” I asked.

“Yes,” he said, and walked away.

I read for about five more minutes.

An officer walked out with my passport and ID and handed them to me.

“Am I free to go?” I asked.

“Yes,” he said.

But we weren’t done.

I picked up my checked bag and was told to speak to a customs officer. My written declaration form had been marked with a large, cross-hatched symbol that probably meant “secondary inspection of bags.”

The officer asked if the bags were mine; I handed him my baggage receipt.

He asked if I had packed the bags myself. I said I declined to answer the question.

He asked again, and I made the same reply. Same question; same response. Again; again.

“I need you to give me an oral customs declaration,” he said.

“I gave you a written declaration,” I said.

“I need to know if you want to amend that written declaration,” he said. “I need to know if there’s anything undeclared in these bags.”

I stood silently.

Visibly frustrated, he turned to a superior, who had been watching, and said that I refused to answer his questions.

“Just inspect his bags,” the senior officer said. “He has a right to remain silent.”

...

Principal Take-Aways

1. Cops Really Don’t Like It When You Refuse To Answer Their Questions....

2. They’re Keeping Records. A federal, computer-searchable file exists on my refusal to answer questions.

3. This Is About Power, Not Security. The CBP goons want U.S. citizens to answer their questions as a ritualistic bow to their power. Well, CBP has no power over me. I am a law-abiding citizen, and, as such, I am the master, and the federal cops are my servants. They would do well to remember that.

4. U.S. Citizens Have No Obligation To Answer Questions. Ultimately, the cops let me go, because there was nothing they could do. A returning U.S. citizen has an obligation to provide proof of citizenship, and the officer has legitimate reasons to investigate if she suspects the veracity of the citizenship claim. A U.S. citizen returning with goods also has an obligation to complete a written customs declaration. But that’s it. You don’t have to answer questions about where you went, why you went, who you saw, etc.

Of course, if you don’t, you get hassled.

But that’s a small price to pay to remind these thugs that their powers are limited and restricted.'

Should I try this the next time I travel abroad? Somehow I think the inconvenience caused will be too great.

Strict airport security?

I have lost count of how many people I have seen at UK and foreign airports having small quantities of liquids confiscated at airport security because of the checks instigated a few years back. Mostly pointless as I am sure everyone knows, but it keeps the fear levels up and of course allows the state to exert more control over the population. So I was intrigued to read this BBC article that tells this story:

'An airline passenger claims he was allowed to take more than 200 fireworks on two flights in the United States.

Paul Jones, 29, from Rochdale, Greater Manchester, flew across the US from Kansas to Houston and back to the UK with a bag of bangers - and a lighter.

It was only at Heathrow Airport that officials expressed concern, he said.

Continental Airlines said it did not have a record of the incident, but that it warned customers about hazardous materials prohibited on aircraft.

Bangers, which are explosives packed in a small tube, are banned from sale in the UK under The Fireworks (Safety) Regulation 1997.

US Federal law prohibits hazardous materials, such as fireworks, from being included in either checked in or carry-on baggage.

Mr Jones had been visiting Wichita, Kansas, during US Independence Day celebrations on 4 July and was left with the bag of Black Cat fireworks.

Deciding to take them home to Greater Manchester, he did not consider the security implications.

"I put them in my pocket, walked through then put them on a grey tray at the customs and security. They had to go through the x-ray," he said.

It was when Mr Jones arrived back at Heathrow earlier this month that his prohibited goods were discovered by UK staff.

"I was waiting for my suitcase at the carousel and when I picked it up I'd opened it up and put my tobacco and everything inside to carry it through," he said.

"The customs said I was looking suspicious so they pulled me, emptied it all out, and asked me how I got it through customs."

Despite their concerns, Mr Jones was allowed to leave with the fireworks.

In a statement, the Department for Transport's Aviation Desk said it was not aware of the incident, and that it was a matter for the US Authorities.

A spokesperson for Continental Airlines, the airline Mr Jones flew with, said security screening of passengers was the responsibility of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

"However, our airport agents are trained to respond immediately they become aware of any security breach," they added.

"We warn customers on our website about hazardous materials which are prohibited on aircraft under federal law, and the list includes fireworks."

No-one from the TSA could be reached for comment.'

So most people are prevented from carrying 250ml of water but Mr Jones was allowed through security carrying explosives; security?