I have followed the correspondence on enhanced scanning with usual mixture of shock and incredulity. Do people object because it’s offensive or because it’s ineffective? It would be unpleasant but, for me, unpleasanter to be blown up by a device that had avoided the enhanced scanner. But I haven’t enough info to make any definitive judgment. In particular on two matters. It seems that new bomb compounds can be concealed by flesh masses in exotic parts of the body without detection by the old scanners. I thought that the Xmas underwear bomber had proved this. It seems that old folk, handicapped people, children and infants are ideal subjects for planted bombs, with no adverse fall-out for the Bad Hats if detected. In this wicked world the innocent are always punished.
If correct this is pretty awful news.
The strategy is for a bomber to finesse that he’d be directed through the old system, pass and end up undetected on his planned flight. If an enhanced scan is required, then he should avoid this by all means while offering to take the old, ineffectual scan, and withdraw, undetected, unidentified and with his powder dry, to try again another day.
In such circumstances he should behave like a gullible but superior person (e.g. a Friamer) and behave with all the histrionics necessary for the exasperated TSA to simply tell him to get lost. So this dramatic response, that some objectors seem to have chosen, and others to approve of, would make the objector highly suspect, and rightly so.
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |