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.
> 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."
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...)
"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.
Comments
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.
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.
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."
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_m...
http://casaleassociates.com/
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?
He wasn't an ordinary cop, he was a high-ranking "deputy director of security for counterterrorism" in NYC.
Wow, nice find. Interesting (and damning) background.
Huh, interesting that NPR, bastion of journalistic integrity that it is, would bother publishing the words of this horrible hack.
</sarcasm>
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...)
"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.
There was also a fence, older technology but apparently it was a bigger hurdle than the million dollar system
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.