> 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.
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.
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.
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?
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...)
> 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.
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.
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."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
"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).
If the US says "please arrest this man, and send him to us" and the New Zealand government says, "sure we'll do that." How does the arrest of the person by the NZ government become a "US operation?"
Are you claiming that the US led the assault and had full operational command? Are you claiming that the US made the decision for the NZ government? Are you claiming that money changed hands somewhere?
Do you have proof of anything beyond, "This is a shocking turn of events, and I don't like it?"
Here are a number of other posibilities:
1. The NZ authorities don't have a lot of experience with assaulting a multi-million dollar compound to make an arrest.
2. The NZ authorities saw this as an excuse to perform a paramilitary operation.
3. The NZ authorities saw this as an excuse to justify the budget for their 'toys.'
4. The NZ government did this favor expecting to be able to ask the US for a favor later.
Paramilitary operations imply quite a bit of paperwork. That doesn't just happen at a whim. Especially not on a multi-million dollar compound at the risk of legal backlash.
If NZ wanted an excuse to walk their toys then there's never a shortage of drug dealers
and other obvious targets with better publicity.
Why would they go ballistic over bagging an overweight computer-fraudster?
There is no plausible explanation other than somebody demanding special effects.
Who cares if someone is demanding special effects? They had the option to say no, and run the arrest in a normal way. The US making demands/requests was probably a convenient excuse for them, IMO.
> 1. The FBI flew across the world to NZ. 2. They
> performed an assault on the Dotcom house with an
> armed chopper.
I find these statements disingenuous though. This makes it sound like the FBI led an FBI assault on the Dotcom property using FBI property. The reality is:
1. The FBI (+ other US government offices) convinced the NZ government to arrest Kim Dotcom.
2. It's unclear if the decision to make this arrest so over-the-top was made independently by the NZ officials or influenced by the US.
3. The FBI were there at the assault, but everything that I've read states that the assault team were NZ authorities. The reality is that the FBI were probably there as observers (seeing as this arrest was being made to extradite Kim Dotcom to the US).
It amounts to "Hey, can you arrest this guy for us and can we be there to watch the arrest?"
This may or may not be excusable depending on your persuasion, but attempting to say that the "US assaulted Kim Dotcom with an armed helicopter" is horribly misleading. It draws up images of some US cowboy operation where a bunch of FBI agents piled into an assault chopper, flew to NZ, and just started attacking the Dotcom compound out of nowhere (possibly unloading heavy machine guns and missiles on the compound... it is an 'assault helicopter' after all).
