4 ms·

I feel like everyone expects a reaction and increased security and such, but sometimes this type of reaction won't be fruitful. What could we learn from this --

by jenius 14y ago

I feel like everyone expects a reaction and increased security and such, but sometimes this type of reaction won't be fruitful. What could we learn from this -- check every trash can for a bomb at every big event? There are an unlimited number of places you could hide a bomb. If someone trying to blow people up saw the 'reaction' being checking every trash can, they would just learn not to hide their bomb in a trash can. There's just no chance we can prevent disasters like this with security increases alone. I feel like at this point that we should be examining who did it, and what caused them to do it rather than how it could have been prevented with security measures. Get to the root of the problem and solve it there, rather than a surface-level patch. Was it a mental health thing? Was it spurred by our culture of violence and/or attention to violence? Was the attacker after a specific person? Certainly not easy to find out these answers, but would probably be effort better spent than checking trash cans. I'm sure there will be some silly knee-jerk response that serves no good for the public and likely just inconveniences everyone. I'm also sure that people working in the government understand these short-term reactions are almost always useless. Why does it continue happening?

rayiner 14y ago
Is there some "silly knee-jerk" response to every such event? I don't remember the knee-jerk response to the Oklahoma City bombing. Or the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Or the first WTC bombing. Or the attempted 2010 Times Square bombing. The response to Sandy Hook is better described as "belabored" rather than "knee-jerk." As for 9/11, that involved 3,000 people dead and the collapse of a major American icon. It killed more people than the Pearl Harbor bombing and involved direct costs and losses approaching $100 billion.[1] Jury's still out on whether it was a "silly knee-jerk" response or a reasonable wake-up to the threat of global islamic terrorism. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57292565/cost-of-911-in-dollars/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57292565/cost-of-911-...
- wtallis 14y ago
  The response to even the most serious disasters can qualify as a "silly knee-jerk" if the response does little or nothing to ameliorate the disaster or prevent another one. 9/11 was bad, but that still doesn't justify security theater.
- drgath 14y ago
  > I don't remember the knee-jerk response to the Oklahoma City bombing. nor the 1996 Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, which may almost mirror this in terms of venue, injuries, & deaths. But, I think the fear is that we're now in a post-9/11 world where knee-jerk reactions are far more common.
- betterunix 14y ago
  We did not have a knee jerk response to the Oklahoma City bombing? What would you call this rights-contracting law then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_De...
  - agwa 14y ago
    Thank you. I was literally about to post the same thing.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    AEDPA is designed to keep people from spamming the federal courts with frivolous habeas petitions, particularly in capital cases. It has 'anti-terrorism' in the name, but it's almost entirely about the 'effective death penalty' part.[1] Among other things it's heavily focused on forcing federal courts to give more deference to state court judgments and avoiding situations where prisoners invoke minor technical violations in order to argue that their detentions are "illegal." It doesn't limit habeas rights--it creates stricter procedures for invoking that right that are less susceptible to abuse. [1] The "terrorism" part seems to come from using the example of people like McVeigh to argue for procedures to keep people from defeating a death sentence by filing endless habeas petitions.
    - betterunix 14y ago
      "It doesn't limit habeas rights--it creates stricter procedures for invoking that right" Much like free speech zones don't limit free speech rights, they just create stricter procedures for exercising those rights. AEDPA was not just about habeas corpus rights. It covers penalties for conspiracies that involve explosives and for hacking into government computers. It covers counterfeiting activities. It covers law enforcement training and assistance. It covers international terrorist funding and investigation. It is like an embryonic version of the PATRIOT act.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        Not every attempt to address security and terrorism can be deemed "rights-contracting." The other stuff in AEDPA doesn't contract any rights, just addresses particular kinds of crimes. The only thing that arguably contracts rights are the habeas portion, and that's more appropriately seen as improving habeas procedures rather than contracting rights.
cjbprime 14y ago
> check every trash can for a bomb at every big event? Actually, I think they already do that, with bomb-sniffing dogs. But they have dubious reliability, and don't catch someone who's willing to place the bomb shortly before it detonates, as may have been the case here.
r00fus 14y ago
> What could we learn from this -- check every trash can for a bomb at every big event? There are an unlimited number of places you could hide a bomb. France, in response to terrorist attacks in the 1995 mandated that all public locations have transparent bags held by posts [1] [2]. I don't think that's a unreasonable compromise, considering the alternatives. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_container#Media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_container#Media [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trash_bin_in_Paris.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trash_bin_in_Paris.jpg
- jacquesm 14y ago
  how does that help? You could still stick a bomb in amongst the trash. Ok, it's no longer enclosed in a container that will make the blast worse but you could stick plenty of malice into a bomb the size of a football which would easily go into that bag.
  - jenius 14y ago
    totally agreed that this hardly helps with hiding a bomb, but still a really interesting response, upvote from me : )
    - stevekemp 14y ago
      Annoyingly the UK decided that the sanest solution to bombs-in-bins was to remove bins from places like airports and train-stations. A real pain if you've got food and rubbish to dispose of.
  - r00fus 14y ago
    You're right - it's not going to solve an inherently unsolvable engineering problem. What it does do is solve a political problem: "What the hell did you do in response to terror attacks" in a way that does't compromise liberty much. It does make it just that bit harder to stow a bomb, because now the bomber needs to have it packaged properly, and hope that the package doesn't a) ruin the bomb or detonating device and b) that the bomb doesn't slip out and become visible. It also helps the police identify - they can just machete all trash bags and grab/dump the contents and sort - compared with opening up the can - which might in some areas be locked or difficult to open. Compared with moves like the creation of the TSA, I prefer this kind of security theatre - at least there's some plot here. It's like locking out the pilot doors from the cabin.
saryant 14y ago
Due to the sarin gas attacks in Japan in the early 90s Tokyo no longer has trash cans in public areas for the most part. The attackers hid the canisters in trash cans in that instance as well.

by jenius 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

Is there some "silly knee-jerk" response to every such event? I don't remember the knee-jerk response to the Oklahoma City bombing. Or the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Or the first WTC bombing. Or the attempted 2010 Times Square bombing. The response to Sandy Hook is better described as "belabored" rather than "knee-jerk." As for 9/11, that involved 3,000 people dead and the collapse of a major American icon. It killed more people than the Pearl Harbor bombing and involved direct costs and losses approaching $100 billion.[1] Jury's still out on whether it was a "silly knee-jerk" response or a reasonable wake-up to the threat of global islamic terrorism. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57292565/cost-of-911-in-dollars/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57292565/cost-of-911-...

wtallis 14y ago
The response to even the most serious disasters can qualify as a "silly knee-jerk" if the response does little or nothing to ameliorate the disaster or prevent another one. 9/11 was bad, but that still doesn't justify security theater.
drgath 14y ago
> I don't remember the knee-jerk response to the Oklahoma City bombing. nor the 1996 Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta, which may almost mirror this in terms of venue, injuries, & deaths. But, I think the fear is that we're now in a post-9/11 world where knee-jerk reactions are far more common.
betterunix 14y ago
We did not have a knee jerk response to the Oklahoma City bombing? What would you call this rights-contracting law then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_De...
- agwa 14y ago
  Thank you. I was literally about to post the same thing.
- rayiner 14y ago
  AEDPA is designed to keep people from spamming the federal courts with frivolous habeas petitions, particularly in capital cases. It has 'anti-terrorism' in the name, but it's almost entirely about the 'effective death penalty' part.[1] Among other things it's heavily focused on forcing federal courts to give more deference to state court judgments and avoiding situations where prisoners invoke minor technical violations in order to argue that their detentions are "illegal." It doesn't limit habeas rights--it creates stricter procedures for invoking that right that are less susceptible to abuse. [1] The "terrorism" part seems to come from using the example of people like McVeigh to argue for procedures to keep people from defeating a death sentence by filing endless habeas petitions.
  - betterunix 14y ago
    "It doesn't limit habeas rights--it creates stricter procedures for invoking that right" Much like free speech zones don't limit free speech rights, they just create stricter procedures for exercising those rights. AEDPA was not just about habeas corpus rights. It covers penalties for conspiracies that involve explosives and for hacking into government computers. It covers counterfeiting activities. It covers law enforcement training and assistance. It covers international terrorist funding and investigation. It is like an embryonic version of the PATRIOT act.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Not every attempt to address security and terrorism can be deemed "rights-contracting." The other stuff in AEDPA doesn't contract any rights, just addresses particular kinds of crimes. The only thing that arguably contracts rights are the habeas portion, and that's more appropriately seen as improving habeas procedures rather than contracting rights.

cjbprime 14y ago

> check every trash can for a bomb at every big event? Actually, I think they already do that, with bomb-sniffing dogs. But they have dubious reliability, and don't catch someone who's willing to place the bomb shortly before it detonates, as may have been the case here.

r00fus 14y ago

> What could we learn from this -- check every trash can for a bomb at every big event? There are an unlimited number of places you could hide a bomb. France, in response to terrorist attacks in the 1995 mandated that all public locations have transparent bags held by posts [1] [2]. I don't think that's a unreasonable compromise, considering the alternatives. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_container#Media http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_container#Media [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trash_bin_in_Paris.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trash_bin_in_Paris.jpg

jacquesm 14y ago
how does that help? You could still stick a bomb in amongst the trash. Ok, it's no longer enclosed in a container that will make the blast worse but you could stick plenty of malice into a bomb the size of a football which would easily go into that bag.
- jenius 14y ago
  totally agreed that this hardly helps with hiding a bomb, but still a really interesting response, upvote from me : )
  - stevekemp 14y ago
    Annoyingly the UK decided that the sanest solution to bombs-in-bins was to remove bins from places like airports and train-stations. A real pain if you've got food and rubbish to dispose of.
- r00fus 14y ago
  You're right - it's not going to solve an inherently unsolvable engineering problem. What it does do is solve a political problem: "What the hell did you do in response to terror attacks" in a way that does't compromise liberty much. It does make it just that bit harder to stow a bomb, because now the bomber needs to have it packaged properly, and hope that the package doesn't a) ruin the bomb or detonating device and b) that the bomb doesn't slip out and become visible. It also helps the police identify - they can just machete all trash bags and grab/dump the contents and sort - compared with opening up the can - which might in some areas be locked or difficult to open. Compared with moves like the creation of the TSA, I prefer this kind of security theatre - at least there's some plot here. It's like locking out the pilot doors from the cabin.

saryant 14y ago

Due to the sarin gas attacks in Japan in the early 90s Tokyo no longer has trash cans in public areas for the most part. The attackers hid the canisters in trash cans in that instance as well.