6 ms·

> Immediately there should have been an armed response. Heavy weapons, > armored cars to the area that the perimeter was breached. The > airport should have

by pyre 14y ago

> Immediately there should have been an armed response. Heavy weapons, > armored cars to the area that the perimeter was breached. The > airport should have been locked down. I realize the need to protect the security of the airport, but "heavy weapons" and "armored cars?" Someone watch a little too much Die Hard 2? If a terrorist (or terrorist group) wants to breach airport security, I have a hard time believing they will be storming the airport with artillery and automatic weapons.

droithomme 14y ago
They don't even need to "protect the security of the airport" to the extent of stopping lost people from wandering in. Because they can't totally lock it down, so they should assume sometimes (and this is extremely rare) people will wander in, just like anywhere else in the world. It's not a maximum security prison. Will they establish a mine field with robotically controlled laser beams next that fries any wayward dog that happens onto the runway? Arresting the guy is a crime against humanity, and shows the complete lack of moral authority or common sense held by the various paranoid autocratic and senseless state and federal agencies within the US. The guy making the comment about a military response involving armored cars and heavy weapons is completely insane and should be removed from his position. He is a danger to the public.
- pyre 14y ago
  > Arresting the guy is a crime against humanity > The guy [...] is completely insane and should > be removed from his position. He is a danger to > the public. Hyperbole much? > Arresting the guy is a crime against humanity, and shows > the complete lack of moral authority or common sense > held by the various paranoid autocratic and senseless > state and federal agencies within the US. 1. He was likely charged by local police without the involvement of State or Federal authorities. 2. The charges will never stick, even if they decide to push them through the system (and if they do, I'd like to see a campaign against all of those involved in that decision -- e.g. prosecutor, attorney general, etc). 3. The guy lost his ID,etc when his jet ski sunk, so it's understandable that he was at least initially arrested. > The guy making the comment about a military response > involving armored cars and heavy weapons is completely > insane and should be removed from his position. He is a > danger to the public. 1. Armored cars make sense (even for a single intruder) if you're expecting a suicide bomber. That said, I don't think it's reasonble to expect a person with a bomb strapped to them every time there is a breach at the airport. 2. The 'heavy weapons' and 'armored cars' bit is likely a justification for the police presence there. If they aren't flashy the few times that they're needed, then the public won't be reminded of why they are there. If that's really the case, it's a bunch of political posturing BS that is wasting taxpayer money.
  - natrius 14y ago
    Can a suicide bomber do significantly more damage at an airport than on city streets? A hijacked airplane won't make it off the ground, and if the bomber is on the ground, what's the big deal? You can't prevent suicide bombings from happening everywhere, so it makes sense to focus the effort on where the damage would be particularly bad (e.g. 1 WTC). A bomb at the airport on the ground doesn't seem worse than Times Square.
    - pyre 14y ago
      Personally, I don't think that we should worry about lone suicide bombers unless it becomes an issue. Israel is justified in considering lone suicide bombers in their security planning, the US... not so much. Also, it's a matter of practicality/trade-offs. A lot of airports are isolated, and it takes less money to secure an airport perimeter than it does to secure (using your example) Times Square. There is a middle ground. The attitude doesn't have to be "we can't protect everything from suicide bombers, therefore we should attempt to protect nothing."
- grannyg00se 14y ago
  "Because they can't totally lock it down, so they should assume sometimes (and this is extremely rare) people will wander in" According to the article there is a one hundred million dollar security system in place that is supposed to prevent people from just wandering in. That system failed in a public and embarassing way.
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    There was also a fence, older technology but apparently it was a bigger hurdle than the million dollar system
    - freehunter 14y ago
      It's interesting that they bothered to put up an 8ft fence but not line it with razor wire. Barring wire cutters, I doubt this guy would have gotten over.
      - droithomme 14y ago
        Well, you're right, razor wire would cost a few tens of thousands for the 10 miles or so, and would be effective in stopping the casual intruder, meaning more attention could be focused on those that do get in. The hundred million dollar electronic security system is likely part of this - obviously there is no need for razor wire (or guns held by pilots in cockpits, something many pilots want) since the electronic system from the defense contractor that costs tens or hundreds of millions will save the day.
- JonnieCache 14y ago
  Arresting the guy is fine, he was in an airport without authorisation. However, there is a big difference between informing a non-resisting person they are under arrest and leading them to the car, and throwing that person on the floor, putting a knee in their spine, screaming their rights into the back of their head and then having to go for a discreet wank afterwards to calm down. I wonder which technique was deployed here? (The article actually doesn't give it away, but I'd be willing to bet...)
- uvdiv 14y ago
  The guy making the comment about a military response involving armored cars and heavy weapons is completely insane and should be removed from his position. He is a danger to the public. It appears he was already fired, some allegations about fabricating evidence. He's a private investigator now. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2003-04-02/news/18218527_1_mta-informant-accusations http://articles.nydailynews.com/2003-04-02/news/18218527_1_m... http://casaleassociates.com/ http://casaleassociates.com/
  - pinko 14y ago
    Wow, nice find. Interesting (and damning) background.
  - GauntletWizard 14y ago
    Huh, interesting that NPR, bastion of journalistic integrity that it is, would bother publishing the words of this horrible hack. </sarcasm>
  - droithomme 14y ago
    Wow that's really interesting and now I'm confused. So in 2003 Casale is fired for being a lying dirty cop, and in 2012, he is commenting to the AP about the jetski case calling for a military response against lost jetskiers, but in what authority? The way the article presents it he seems to have something to do with the story, but perhaps he is just a random person the journalist has decided to quote for no particular reason?
    - uvdiv 14y ago
      He wasn't an ordinary cop, he was a high-ranking "deputy director of security for counterterrorism" in NYC.
Animus7 14y ago
Considering the billions spent on "national security". Considering all of the privacy violated in the name of airport security. Considering that it's considered okay to fly across the world to and assault someone's house in an armed chopper because they may have been accessory to copyright infringement. I don't think an armored car is too much to ask when someone actually could have terrorized an airport with no resistance.
- pyre 14y ago
  > Considering that it's considered okay to fly > across the world to and assault someone's house > in an armed chopper because they may have been > accessory to copyright infringement. Kim Dotcom was arrested by NZ authorities at the request of the US government so far as I understand it. Do you have something to point to US government agents flying an assault helicopter to NZ to participate in the arrest of Kim Dotcom?
  - lsh 14y ago
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMas0tWc0sg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMas0tWc0sg
    - pyre 14y ago
      "FBI members were present" at an operation undertaken by NZ officials, using NZ-owned equipment. I'm failing to see where the US performed a tactical strike on Kim Dotcom. The parent post to mine implies that the arrest of Kim Dotcom was akin to the assassination of Osama bin Laden (i.e. the US flew a US-owned helicopter manned by US Navy Seals into a foreign country to assault the compound of a foreign national).
      - moe 14y ago
        So when the US hires someone to do grunt work for them then it's not an US operation anymore?
        14y ago
tikhonj 14y ago
Moreover, any sort of active assault on an airport by terrorists presumably defeats their actual goal--sneaking something or someone onto a plane. Even if they manage to fight their way into the airport, planes would be grounded and outside forces alerted before the attackers could do anything useful.
dfc 14y ago
> "I have a hard time believing they will be storming the airport > with artillery and automatic weapons." Me too. I have hard time believing anyone is storming the gates of any place with artillery.

by pyre 14y ago

droithomme 14y ago

They don't even need to "protect the security of the airport" to the extent of stopping lost people from wandering in. Because they can't totally lock it down, so they should assume sometimes (and this is extremely rare) people will wander in, just like anywhere else in the world. It's not a maximum security prison. Will they establish a mine field with robotically controlled laser beams next that fries any wayward dog that happens onto the runway? Arresting the guy is a crime against humanity, and shows the complete lack of moral authority or common sense held by the various paranoid autocratic and senseless state and federal agencies within the US. The guy making the comment about a military response involving armored cars and heavy weapons is completely insane and should be removed from his position. He is a danger to the public.

pyre 14y ago
> Arresting the guy is a crime against humanity > The guy [...] is completely insane and should > be removed from his position. He is a danger to > the public. Hyperbole much? > Arresting the guy is a crime against humanity, and shows > the complete lack of moral authority or common sense > held by the various paranoid autocratic and senseless > state and federal agencies within the US. 1. He was likely charged by local police without the involvement of State or Federal authorities. 2. The charges will never stick, even if they decide to push them through the system (and if they do, I'd like to see a campaign against all of those involved in that decision -- e.g. prosecutor, attorney general, etc). 3. The guy lost his ID,etc when his jet ski sunk, so it's understandable that he was at least initially arrested. > The guy making the comment about a military response > involving armored cars and heavy weapons is completely > insane and should be removed from his position. He is a > danger to the public. 1. Armored cars make sense (even for a single intruder) if you're expecting a suicide bomber. That said, I don't think it's reasonble to expect a person with a bomb strapped to them every time there is a breach at the airport. 2. The 'heavy weapons' and 'armored cars' bit is likely a justification for the police presence there. If they aren't flashy the few times that they're needed, then the public won't be reminded of why they are there. If that's really the case, it's a bunch of political posturing BS that is wasting taxpayer money.
- natrius 14y ago
  Can a suicide bomber do significantly more damage at an airport than on city streets? A hijacked airplane won't make it off the ground, and if the bomber is on the ground, what's the big deal? You can't prevent suicide bombings from happening everywhere, so it makes sense to focus the effort on where the damage would be particularly bad (e.g. 1 WTC). A bomb at the airport on the ground doesn't seem worse than Times Square.
  - pyre 14y ago
    Personally, I don't think that we should worry about lone suicide bombers unless it becomes an issue. Israel is justified in considering lone suicide bombers in their security planning, the US... not so much. Also, it's a matter of practicality/trade-offs. A lot of airports are isolated, and it takes less money to secure an airport perimeter than it does to secure (using your example) Times Square. There is a middle ground. The attitude doesn't have to be "we can't protect everything from suicide bombers, therefore we should attempt to protect nothing."
grannyg00se 14y ago
"Because they can't totally lock it down, so they should assume sometimes (and this is extremely rare) people will wander in" According to the article there is a one hundred million dollar security system in place that is supposed to prevent people from just wandering in. That system failed in a public and embarassing way.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  There was also a fence, older technology but apparently it was a bigger hurdle than the million dollar system
  - freehunter 14y ago
    It's interesting that they bothered to put up an 8ft fence but not line it with razor wire. Barring wire cutters, I doubt this guy would have gotten over.
    - droithomme 14y ago
      Well, you're right, razor wire would cost a few tens of thousands for the 10 miles or so, and would be effective in stopping the casual intruder, meaning more attention could be focused on those that do get in. The hundred million dollar electronic security system is likely part of this - obviously there is no need for razor wire (or guns held by pilots in cockpits, something many pilots want) since the electronic system from the defense contractor that costs tens or hundreds of millions will save the day.
JonnieCache 14y ago
Arresting the guy is fine, he was in an airport without authorisation. However, there is a big difference between informing a non-resisting person they are under arrest and leading them to the car, and throwing that person on the floor, putting a knee in their spine, screaming their rights into the back of their head and then having to go for a discreet wank afterwards to calm down. I wonder which technique was deployed here? (The article actually doesn't give it away, but I'd be willing to bet...)
uvdiv 14y ago
The guy making the comment about a military response involving armored cars and heavy weapons is completely insane and should be removed from his position. He is a danger to the public. It appears he was already fired, some allegations about fabricating evidence. He's a private investigator now. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2003-04-02/news/18218527_1_mta-informant-accusations http://articles.nydailynews.com/2003-04-02/news/18218527_1_m... http://casaleassociates.com/ http://casaleassociates.com/
- pinko 14y ago
  Wow, nice find. Interesting (and damning) background.
- GauntletWizard 14y ago
  Huh, interesting that NPR, bastion of journalistic integrity that it is, would bother publishing the words of this horrible hack. </sarcasm>
- droithomme 14y ago
  Wow that's really interesting and now I'm confused. So in 2003 Casale is fired for being a lying dirty cop, and in 2012, he is commenting to the AP about the jetski case calling for a military response against lost jetskiers, but in what authority? The way the article presents it he seems to have something to do with the story, but perhaps he is just a random person the journalist has decided to quote for no particular reason?
  - uvdiv 14y ago
    He wasn't an ordinary cop, he was a high-ranking "deputy director of security for counterterrorism" in NYC.

Animus7 14y ago

Considering the billions spent on "national security". Considering all of the privacy violated in the name of airport security. Considering that it's considered okay to fly across the world to and assault someone's house in an armed chopper because they may have been accessory to copyright infringement. I don't think an armored car is too much to ask when someone actually could have terrorized an airport with no resistance.

pyre 14y ago
> Considering that it's considered okay to fly > across the world to and assault someone's house > in an armed chopper because they may have been > accessory to copyright infringement. Kim Dotcom was arrested by NZ authorities at the request of the US government so far as I understand it. Do you have something to point to US government agents flying an assault helicopter to NZ to participate in the arrest of Kim Dotcom?
- lsh 14y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMas0tWc0sg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMas0tWc0sg
  - pyre 14y ago
    "FBI members were present" at an operation undertaken by NZ officials, using NZ-owned equipment. I'm failing to see where the US performed a tactical strike on Kim Dotcom. The parent post to mine implies that the arrest of Kim Dotcom was akin to the assassination of Osama bin Laden (i.e. the US flew a US-owned helicopter manned by US Navy Seals into a foreign country to assault the compound of a foreign national).
    - moe 14y ago
      So when the US hires someone to do grunt work for them then it's not an US operation anymore?
      - 14y ago

tikhonj 14y ago

Moreover, any sort of active assault on an airport by terrorists presumably defeats their actual goal--sneaking something or someone onto a plane. Even if they manage to fight their way into the airport, planes would be grounded and outside forces alerted before the attackers could do anything useful.

dfc 14y ago

> "I have a hard time believing they will be storming the airport > with artillery and automatic weapons." Me too. I have hard time believing anyone is storming the gates of any place with artillery.