El_Gringo_Grande

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols would easily fit the "white business man with laptop" thing. Both where very clean cut young and middle age men. One was a decorated veteran. And since this incident never went to a security check point, a laptop bomb would probably never be detected.

__________________
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

xTYBALTx

Drug warriors have been targeting various groups from nuns to Orthodox Jews for decades. This is nothing new. Once the police have a profile, those smuggling contraband - whether it be for profit or for ideology - will adjust to take advantage. Then the police adjust their profiles. Cat and mouse game.

When you hear people saying that "Profiles don't work," this is sometimes what they mean.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

tHa_KhAn

You are very correct, but as I said typical, in a global sense. There will always be specific exceptions. The laptop at the air port won't be, unless we are talking about a very high powered explosive that fits in a laptop bag and the terminal is the target as opposed to the plane which requires a security check. The whole idea of security is to try and find specific clues that threats have in common. Otherwise it would be too overbearing, but potentially safer if they did detailed inspection of everyone and everything.

This MIT student would have never gotten through security without being scrutinized. The reports indicate she didn't answer the staff initial when asked her intentions. Again, she does not have to do so, it is her right. However, couple that with her odd devices and initial question about arriving flights there is some suspicion about her intentions. The threat of force against her is only used to get her to comply and divulge her intentions after appearing to be a threat. Yes she could have had a bomb where her holding the device keeps it from detonating, but that's a little too hollywood for a specific bomb target. Too many variables, unless the bomber would just be trying to blow up anything, as opposed to something. Remember, the guards were acting on the information they knew, suspicious electronics, suspicious compound in hand, questions about a specific flight and avoidance of any return questions.

There's not a catch all for security. There is no perfect solution. I think most people appreciate the effort to try to make the place safer, as opposed to a lack of effort. Perception plays a big role when it comes to feeling safe. The perception can be used against us. Perception plays a big role in deterrent as well. It's like the expression about "Locks only exist to keep honest people honest." If someone is a pro, they'll get in. Same with security, it's meant to cut off the novice and hinder the pro.

__________________

Ferris Bueller

And they acted appropriately. The idea of blowing up random targets isnt "hollywood" at all. Car bombs placed in crowded areas are an example of such an act that targets non-specific objects. The bomber doesnt know who is going to be there, the bomb is placed with the intent to cause chaos, damage and inflict harm. Also, a deadman's switch, which is what you referred to CAN be made with a 9 volt battery and any variety of pressure switches that you can get for 37 cents at any hardware store. So its very possible that a possible attack doesnt have to be directed at a certain target. Imagine the pandemonium it would cause if someone detonated a bomb at a crowded airport.

The difference is that this person chose actively to make this situation blatantly obvious, and then proceeded to act in noncompliance with the rules. Stupid. As stated in my post in the UF thread, stupidity is not an excuse.

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

Gillespie

I'm going to show up to an airport stark-naked.

I am a work of art, so I'll call it performance art.

Bc2ID

Do the personal attacks ever stop? These people were not guards, in fact they are highly trained Massachusetts State Police Officers. Ones who responded to 9/11, Richard Reid, etc. etc. etc. Some of these Troopers are extensively trained in many areas that are not fit to discuss in this platform. If you want to discuss the facts or hypotheticals of the issue then please do. Keep the personal attacks on public servants to yourself, you never know who you are insulting...*raises hand* No one has insulted your profession, whatever that may be. Remember these people are public servants who have sworn to protect and serve. Maybe you have been hassled at the airport, or a police officer gave you a ticket once, or maybe your true surpressed feelings are bleeding through... who knows? There are some of us out here who could show you how easily it would be to construct a device out of household items, just image what you can do with a simple circuit board.... jeez man do some research before you psot.

Getting off Soap Box Now

__________________

sordavie

Um, why don't you guys accept the blatantly obvious explanation for why it wasn't a piece of performance art nor was it an intentional hoax. The more you read about this story, the more obvious it becomes that she just had no clue, and the obvious explanation for that is that she's one of these people with very little common sense.

There's little evidence that it was either an intentional hoax or a piece of performance art. What would the point of an intentional hoax be? She complied immediately when cops surrounded her. Presumably, if it's an intentional hoax and she's got some common sense, then she did it for a reason. What is that reason? If there's no plausible reason around, then we should think that she just has little common sense and that it wasn't an intentional hoax. So, to argue that it was an intentional hoax, you should be able to point to some evidence of some point that she was making or some reason for why she would do such a thing. In the absence of such evidence, the next best hypothesis is that she just didn't realize--for which we have a perfectly good explanation.

You might, as some have suggested, that the point was a piece of performance art. However, the evidence does not bear this hypothesis out. Nobody made the claim that it was a piece of performance art. Neither her nor the reporters. How did it get into your minds that she's claiming that this was an act of performance art? She claimed, and it is reported that she claimed, that this (the LED device, perhaps a reference to her name, and perhaps shirt) was a piece of art. That's much different than claiming that the act of walking in to an airport with a fake bomb is an act of performance art. They claimed the former, not the latter.

To bring more evidence against this hypothesis, consider that MIT is not an art school. Indeed, we know generally MIT students are of a certain kind--the kind that has a higher incidence of what I called the theoretically brilliant but practically or common sensically retarded--and not the abstract artist kind. Not many performance artists graduate from MIT. A lot of theoretically brilliant but practically and common sensically retarded people do. Given this, why isn't it blatantly obvious that the more likely explanation is the one I gave?

When considering which hypothesis to believe, one should consider which one is more likely to be true and which better explains the phenomena. The hypothesis that she did it intentionally as a hoax does not explain why anyone in their right mind would do such a thing. If she wasn't in the right mind, then there's no reason to suppose she did it intentionally. The hypothesis that it was a piece of performance art is not likely to be true as we have little evidence for it and some good evidence against it. The hypothesis that she's one of these theoretically brilliant but practically and common sensically a retard both is likely to be true, given what she did, and is a superior explanation for why the incident happened. It explains why the authorities are quoted as stating that she apparently didn't understand how serious a situation she was in until after she was brought in for questioning. It explains why she was surprised and upset that what happened happened--someone intentionally doing a hoax or performing this kind of art would expect to be arrested. It explains quotes about her by people who know her. It's clear that the reasonable hypothesis here is the third one.

__________________

Ferris Bueller

B is right. A circuit board, a 9 volt battery, a certain type of explosive that I wont reveal, ball bearings, and some high-heat filament resistor wire and I can create a bomb that will take out most anything in a 100 foot radius and do decent damage out to about 300 feet. That would be a very effective bomb at an airport where it's crowded. Not to mention that I could completely leave the circuit board out. Theres about 1000 different ways to create bombs from household items and make them compact enough that you could walk into a crowded place in a pair of baggy jeans and nobody would notice it until you went boom. They took appropriate precautions and should be praised for the handling of the situation.

Re: Sordavie - I agree completely. I think the term you're looking for is idiot-savant. And as I have stated before, stupidity, regardless of its motivation, is not an excuse. She should be punished.

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

Atomic Dog

People with less serious conditions have been freed of murder charges they should have otherwise been found guilty of. I don't see why she should be punished for not comitting a crime.

__________________

sordavie

No, I don't think she's an idiot savant. That's a term in use for something completely different: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autistic_savant

Lack of common sense or whatever isn't an excuse per se. Rather, in the same manner that we shouldn't punish a child when she does something unknowingly wrong, it's why we shouldn't punish her. It's no an excuse the child makes--for they don't understand or know what they did that was wrong (at least not at the time). Consider a child who can't read yet, who touches a statue in a museum with a sign clearly labeled 'don't touch'. Do we spank the child or tell her that she's never allowed to come back again? No, we explain to her why it was wrong to do so and forgo punishment because she didn't know better. That's the situation here if you think the theoretically brilliant but practically and common sensically retarded hypothesis is correct. In fact Star Simpson did something wrong (the child did too when she touched the statue), but we forgo punishment because they didn't understand what they did that was wrong.

__________________

Bc2ID

Leave OJ out of this....

__________________

Atomic Dog

LOL you read my mind.

Can't forget Blake!

Throw Spector on that list now too...mistrial.

__________________

Gillespie

Indeed.

For example: what's a coffee can, a couple of cans of expanding foam, a 1/2 inch-thick sheet of copper, some explosive material, a random electrical-conducting wire, and a garage door opener have in common?

They combine together to make an easily-concealable device that can defeat uparmored Humvees.

Atomic Dog

Someone better get those cans of coffee off the shelf ASAP! Wouldn't want some old lady carrying a can of coffee home from the store to come under suspicion of terrorism!

Wires, circuitry, batteries, plastic...these things are everywhere. This whole nation is just scared out of their wits since 9/11. They don't need to blow themselves up here...they've already got us beat in our collective minds.

__________________

Tarenth

That could be argued as a case of Jury Nulification and not an act of society as a whole. Jury Nulification is the ability of the jury to rule on a case any way they feel even if it goes against the letter and spirit of the law. If I'm the foreman of a jury and I convince my fellow jurors that a 19 year old accused of murder is innocent against overwhelming evidence then that would be jury nullification. Even if my sole reason was because I believed no one showing up to court half naked would be intelligent enough to commit the crimes she is accused was put up against a video, three eye-witnesses, and a written confession entered into evidence. In the case you are refering to the act of a trial being held shows that society was willing and ready to punish the accused, however it was the people who declared him not guilty under the law.

The law serves two purposes in theory for society. The first, and most obvious, is to punish offenders. The second is to act as a detterant to others. As someone mentioned for locks, its to "keep the honest, honest". To not press charges against her would be against the spirit of the law because it would set a precedent that it is okay to take unrecognizable and potentially dangerous constructs into airports, refuse to answer questions about them, then get away without any penalty.

Ferris Bueller makes a good point about how sometimes the innocent can be made to be deadly. Of course, he leaves out rat poison which can be added to the 'shrapnel' portion of the explosive to act as an anti-coagulant which would aggrevate any wounds caused (cheers for information from L&O:CI). Where do you hide a tree? Why...in a forest of course. I could strap a circuit board to my chest as a joke or I could do it to hide a bomb. How would you know unless you detained and questioned me just like the troopers did in this case? Can you really visually identify the difference between play-dough (which she never fully explained why she had) and other plastic explosives of the same appearance?

If I wore a T-shirt in public showing a dead pig wearing a sherrif's uniform and badge with the caption "Down with the Pigs!" do you think I would be looked upon favorably by LEOs? What if I could explain that the shirt was actually in reference to a school wide competition we had where the team I was favoring was against a team comprised of both the FFA and YSD clubs? FFA being the Future Farmers of America club who had the mascot of a hog in our area and YSD being the Young Sherrif Deputy club represented by the uniform and badge. Makes perfect sense in that context and environment...not so much outside with people not in the know. I never went to MIT so if I saw "Socket to Me" and "Course IV" on a T-shirt my first assumption would be a play on words with the bread board and some religious text passage. Its not like I've read every religious and quasireligious text ever published to be able to say "Nope, that particular word and number combination means nothing". In fact, it baffles me when people say things like "Genesis XII" or "Numbers IV". I still can't tell if they're talking about the genetic's class experiment, or math department groups, or if they're babbling around something religious.

Unexplained substance in hands. Unexplained device on body. Unwilling to cooperate with initial questioning. Cryptic and potentially religious reference on clothing. They better throw something at her even if she lived a sheltered life.

__________________
My sanity is not in question...
It was a confirmed casualty some time ago.