• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US 'stopped Dutch installation of full body scanners

The Dutch are saying that the USA did not want just USA bound passengers to be screened, the USA wanted all passengers screened.
 
Hmmm. I wonder why the Bush administration didn't want these scanners.

They say 2008. Not precisely when, but... once Obi from Nairobi took his oath, Obi's administration could have changed the policy.

So... why did Obi from Nairobi not do anything?

That's the question. It's his watch now... you know... he's been elected for over a year.

.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm. I wonder why the Bush administration didn't want these scanners.

:roll:

My question...What in the world makes anyone think that the US could have stopped ANY country from installing anything in their own airports?

As normal any problem that arises is the US's fault. And apparently even more precisely Bush's fault. :roll:
 
:roll:

My question...What in the world makes anyone think that the US could have stopped ANY country from installing anything in their own airports?

As normal any problem that arises is the US's fault. And apparently even more precisely Bush's fault. :roll:

Because the company that makes the full body scanners is American, and the US government can and has prevented sales of technology to anyone they see fit.
 
Because the company that makes the full body scanners is American, and the US government can and has prevented sales of technology to anyone they see fit.

Do you have any examples of cases where this particular product with this technology has been prevented or is this your typical anti-American hyperbole?
 
They say 2008. Not precisely when, but... once Obi from Nairobi took his oath, Obi's administration could have changed the policy.

So... why did Obi from Nairobi not do anything?

That's the question. It's his watch now... you know... he's been elected for over a year.

.

That wins the award for most childish way to refer to Obama that I've seen as of yet. Congrats.

Because the company that makes the full body scanners is American, and the US government can and has prevented sales of technology to anyone they see fit.

If you'd bothered to read the article, you would have learned that that's not even remotely accurate.
 
Do you have any examples of cases where this particular product with this technology has been prevented or is this your typical anti-American hyperbole?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Industry_and_Security]Bureau of Industry and Security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Many sensitive goods and technologies (for example, encryption software) require a permit from the Department of Commerce before they can be exported. To determine whether an export permit is required, an Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) is used.

I aint saying that body scanner technology is on this "sensitive goods and technologies" list, but if it were, then this would be one way for the US to prevent the Dutch and anyone else in getting their hands on the technology since it is made by a US company. And considering the history of the Bush administration in bullying nations to do their bidding, then I would not be surprised one bit that they blocked sale because it was only to be used on US bound flights.

Among the technologies that have been stopped by the US include encryption software made by US companies. The most well known example is PGP which the US government opened a formal investigation into for exporting illegally but no charges were ever filed. This was mostly because of the reaction of the inventor and the old term.. the cat is out of the bag.
 
Bureau of Industry and Security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I aint saying that body scanner technology is on this "sensitive goods and technologies" list, but if it were, then this would be one way for the US to prevent the Dutch and anyone else in getting their hands on the technology since it is made by a US company. And considering the history of the Bush administration in bullying nations to do their bidding, then I would not be surprised one bit that they blocked sale because it was only to be used on US bound flights.

Among the technologies that have been stopped by the US include encryption software made by US companies. The most well known example is PGP which the US government opened a formal investigation into for exporting illegally but no charges were ever filed. This was mostly because of the reaction of the inventor and the old term.. the cat is out of the bag.

Just a few minutes with google would have solved this mystery:

Detroit terror attack: delay over airport X-ray scanners 'risking lives' - Telegraph

The Department for Transport has claimed it cannot introduce full body scanners without first getting EU approval, and said the European Commission is meeting next week to discuss the issue with member states.

But the Tories and Lib Dems argued that EU approval is not needed where national security is an issue.

Theresa Villiers, the Conservatives’ transport spokesman, said: “If the DfT has been caught napping on getting EU approval for trialling full body scanners, then they will have serious questions answer when Parliament returns in a few days' time.

"EU bureaucracy should not be allowed to slow down our efforts to fully consider all the options when it comes to improving security at UK airports.”

BBC News - Dutch press EU to adopt passenger scanners

Privacy concerns have delayed adoption of the scanners at EU airports.

Last month, the EU Transport Commissioner, Antonio Tajani, told Euro MPs that further testing was required to determine how such scanners might be operated.

"It is the Commission's view that the application of imaging technology as means of security screening at airports must be optional and passengers must be given the choice between them and physical control by airport screeners," he told the European Parliament.

He said the scanners currently in use "are demonstration means and cannot replace mandatory passenger screening through hand searches".

In October last year MEPs passed a resolution which said body scanners "cannot be considered mere technical measures relating to aviation security, but have a serious impact on the fundamental rights of citizens".

They asked the Commission to assess the scanners' impact on fundamental rights, health and travel costs.

It's not the US that is preventing implementation in Europe - it's the EU.
 
Bureau of Industry and Security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I aint saying that body scanner technology is on this "sensitive goods and technologies" list, but if it were, then this would be one way for the US to prevent the Dutch and anyone else in getting their hands on the technology since it is made by a US company. And considering the history of the Bush administration in bullying nations to do their bidding, then I would not be surprised one bit that they blocked sale because it was only to be used on US bound flights.

Among the technologies that have been stopped by the US include encryption software made by US companies. The most well known example is PGP which the US government opened a formal investigation into for exporting illegally but no charges were ever filed. This was mostly because of the reaction of the inventor and the old term.. the cat is out of the bag.
WTH? You have no idea if anything in your claim is true, but if it were.... Well guess what, if the dog hadn't stopped to crap he would have caught the rabbit. :roll:

.
 
Just a few minutes with google would have solved this mystery:

Detroit terror attack: delay over airport X-ray scanners 'risking lives' - Telegraph

BBC News - Dutch press EU to adopt passenger scanners

It's not the US that is preventing implementation in Europe - it's the EU.

Well that explains it some what if it is true. If the article in the OP is correct then there was some sort of blocking by the Bush administration, else the whole article is false, which is highly doubtful. I may not like the Times but it has never to my knowledge published a fully false report on something. So there has to be something about what they are writing. But lets look on.

As for the EU part.. that would be far more logical up to a point. As you can read there are serious privacy issues with such scanners. I am glad that someone takes privacy and the rights of the individual seriously in an age where government tends to piss on both in the pursuit of the holy grail of "security".

As it says in the BBC link

Privacy concerns have delayed adoption of the scanners at EU airports.

But as usual the Telegraph miss interprets the whole situation and frankly is highly biased. It goes after the EU for "slowing down" the implementing of the scanners, but does not explain why. You have to go to the BBC article for a much more balanced view on the situation.

But if you read the BBC article, you would see that it IS the US that slowing down the scanners for US flights.

Schiphol's scanners are only used for European flights, and the US "still has to agree on the privacy issue," Ms Snoerwang said. "But this incident may make that quicker," she added.

So yes, the US has delayed the implementation of scanners for US flights, not the EU so your attempt to debunk my claim has some what failed. So the Telegraph article is biased and false, where as the Times article is much closer to the truth.

And lets not forget, these scanners would most likely NOT have spotted the crotch bomb of the Christmas day bomber.

And lets not forget, that most US airports also dont have these scanners because of... the same privacy issues that are delaying them in the EU.
 
WTH? You have no idea if anything in your claim is true, but if it were.... Well guess what, if the dog hadn't stopped to crap he would have caught the rabbit. :roll:

.

No I dont, but the article in question does not explain much on why and how the US "stopped Dutch installation of full body scanners". Using this restrictive laws by the US for such matters is only logical and has been used before to attempt to stop the spread of high technology. That is why I brought it up.
 
No I dont, but the article in question does not explain much on why and how the US "stopped Dutch installation of full body scanners". Using this restrictive laws by the US for such matters is only logical and has been used before to attempt to stop the spread of high technology. That is why I brought it up.
To be correct, you should have said That is why I made it up. :roll:

.
 
Before making comment on who is to blame for what I want to know whether having or not having this type of technology in place would have detected this type of BOMB. Can you tell this type of BOMB from "Depends" and what if the Depends has a full load on board when passing through the detector? Then think about the poor person who gets the task of checking to see which kind of bomb the seemingly suspicious mass is. Naturally man made or chemical.

Technology should be used and consideration for personal privacy will have to take a back seat to safety for now.

In this case the people who allowed this crazy on the plane are to blame and heads should role over it, Homeland Security idiot in Chief Napolitano should be fired along with her BOSS for not calling the radical Muslim terrorists what they are.
 
To be correct, you should have said That is why I made it up. :roll:

.

No. Without facts one must speculate, and that is what I did. It is a fully valid reason as it has been used before to block and delay the transfer of "technology" to other countries.

In fact go to

U. S. Bureau of Industry and Security

and you will see what is required to have an export license.... yes, the US has licences on certain goods to be exported.

In fact when IBM sold its PC division to the Chinese, it had to comply with Federal requirements on security at IBM plants in the US where Levono employees were to be stationed. The levono employees had to be housed in separate secure areas of the IBM campus to win approval.

So it is very real when it comes to technology exports from the US.
 
No. Without facts one must speculate, and that is what I did. It is a fully valid reason as it has been used before to block and delay the transfer of "technology" to other countries.

In fact go to

U. S. Bureau of Industry and Security

and you will see what is required to have an export license.... yes, the US has licences on certain goods to be exported.

In fact when IBM sold its PC division to the Chinese, it had to comply with Federal requirements on security at IBM plants in the US where Levono employees were to be stationed. The levono employees had to be housed in separate secure areas of the IBM campus to win approval.

So it is very real when it comes to technology exports from the US.

But you were making a very illogical leap from controls based on security reasons and extending it to institute controls for political purposes -- something which you have not been able to show.
 
Bureau of Industry and Security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I aint saying that body scanner technology is on this "sensitive goods and technologies" list, but if it were, then this would be one way for the US to prevent the Dutch and anyone else in getting their hands on the technology since it is made by a US company. And considering the history of the Bush administration in bullying nations to do their bidding, then I would not be surprised one bit that they blocked sale because it was only to be used on US bound flights.

Among the technologies that have been stopped by the US include encryption software made by US companies. The most well known example is PGP which the US government opened a formal investigation into for exporting illegally but no charges were ever filed. This was mostly because of the reaction of the inventor and the old term.. the cat is out of the bag.
You have credit sources to support this?
 
But you were making a very illogical leap from controls based on security reasons and extending it to institute controls for political purposes -- something which you have not been able to show.

There is no difference between control based on security reasons or political. What you see as a security reason is in reality a political reason since it is the politicians that have to approve said "security reason" and that is political always. That is why the US has export licensing to prevent that countries or people that are politically opposed in some way to the US get their hands on sensitive technology (not that it stops anything). The US bans exports to Iran for political reasons not security. That it claims security reasons does not change the fact that the original reason was due to a political retaliation against the Mullahs for the embassy hijacking. Same for Cuba. It is not security reasons that Cuba is blockaded.. it is political.

In this case it could easily be some sort of software or technology in the body scanners that would fall under the rules for getting export licence. Saying that, exporting to Holland should not be a problem since it is seen as a safe place, where as to Nigeria.. well.

I am no expert on the technology, but I am pointing out that all technology from the US is subject to the rules and regulation by the Federal government when it comes to export even to Europe and that could be a reason for the US delaying the implementation in Europe. And with the lack of information in the OP article about why, then it is a very valid explanation along with the privacy explanation... which is also political btw.

That is why for a large part of the late 1990s and early part of this century, the PGP software (private encryption) was in 2 versions.. one for the US market and one for the rest of the world. The US market version was more advanced and forbidden for export. That the inventor got pissed and bypassed all the regulations and gave the technology free is another matter :)

So the US attempts to control technology is very real even if you dont seem to believe it. And yes full body scanners are high tech :)
 
Do you HONESTLY believe this?!?!?

Of course I do and I am 100% correct. Prove me wrong. Name a security issue that is not political. I can not see one at all.

Lets take full body scanners are as political as anything. The reason they are not in place in the US airports (and EU) is political. There are privacy issues thrown up by various sides and some sides are pushing the scanners for political reasons as well. Those that are pushing for full body scanners are doing so because they can see easy political points, aka popular politics not because of security, because the fact is that even if the full body scanners were in place they would not have stopped the Christmas bomber. They would also not have stopped the shoe bomber. And those pushing for these scanners are often those who are the first to shrug off privacy laws and the law it self in their never ending quest to "secure" the nation.

Or lets take the entrance requirements into the US. Security? not really, political. Politicians had to show they were doing something after 9/11 so they put in place security practices that look good, but in reality dont provide much more security than before since the intelligence services still dont talk to each other to prevent attacks as we see... also this is political. Does announcing a few days in advance the arrival of a Dane or Brit to the US actually improve security? Not really, all it does it make it politically viable to block entrance for certain unwanted persons.. putting in Visa requirements would have done that too and they continue to be required for all the "trouble" areas of the world. There was no reason to put in the arsine "security" issues coming from Europe other than political. The US did at the time not "trust" certain countries in Europe that had free entrance to the US before 9/11. It was 100% political.

How about information sharing between Europe and the US. Security? no, political again. Why do I say that? Because of the information wanted by the US and denied to the Europeans in return. And the fact that in the start the US wanted religions and sexual orientation as part of the information.. that was political big time. In the end the Europeans caved yet again and allowed the US to get tons of private information on any person wanting to go to the US, where as Europe gets almost nothing about Americans coming to Europe... great deal there...pathetic.

Or how about banning people with AIDS/HIV from entering the US for decades? What security reason was that considering people with far more viral diseases were given access to the US? It was 100% political put in place by an ignorant conservative government and renewed by government after government. It was based on religious dogma and ignorance. For example.. how could an American with AIDS be allowed to travel to another country and reenter the country? Or how about an American living in Europe contracting AIDS/HIV, being allowed back into the US just because he was an American citizen? It was political, not a security issue.

So yes most if not all "security issues" are political at the core.
 
:roll:

My question...What in the world makes anyone think that the US could have stopped ANY country from installing anything in their own airports?

Maybe because an international airport like Schiphol can't afford to lose their american lines.
 
Of course I do and I am 100% correct. Prove me wrong. Name a security issue that is not political. I can not see one at all.

Lets take full body scanners are as political as anything. The reason they are not in place in the US airports (and EU) is political. There are privacy issues thrown up by various sides and some sides are pushing the scanners for political reasons as well. Those that are pushing for full body scanners are doing so because they can see easy political points, aka popular politics not because of security, because the fact is that even if the full body scanners were in place they would not have stopped the Christmas bomber. They would also not have stopped the shoe bomber. And those pushing for these scanners are often those who are the first to shrug off privacy laws and the law it self in their never ending quest to "secure" the nation.

Or lets take the entrance requirements into the US. Security? not really, political. Politicians had to show they were doing something after 9/11 so they put in place security practices that look good, but in reality dont provide much more security than before since the intelligence services still dont talk to each other to prevent attacks as we see... also this is political. Does announcing a few days in advance the arrival of a Dane or Brit to the US actually improve security? Not really, all it does it make it politically viable to block entrance for certain unwanted persons.. putting in Visa requirements would have done that too and they continue to be required for all the "trouble" areas of the world. There was no reason to put in the arsine "security" issues coming from Europe other than political. The US did at the time not "trust" certain countries in Europe that had free entrance to the US before 9/11. It was 100% political.

How about information sharing between Europe and the US. Security? no, political again. Why do I say that? Because of the information wanted by the US and denied to the Europeans in return. And the fact that in the start the US wanted religions and sexual orientation as part of the information.. that was political big time. In the end the Europeans caved yet again and allowed the US to get tons of private information on any person wanting to go to the US, where as Europe gets almost nothing about Americans coming to Europe... great deal there...pathetic.

Or how about banning people with AIDS/HIV from entering the US for decades? What security reason was that considering people with far more viral diseases were given access to the US? It was 100% political put in place by an ignorant conservative government and renewed by government after government. It was based on religious dogma and ignorance. For example.. how could an American with AIDS be allowed to travel to another country and reenter the country? Or how about an American living in Europe contracting AIDS/HIV, being allowed back into the US just because he was an American citizen? It was political, not a security issue.

So yes most if not all "security issues" are political at the core.
Breaking into Lowe's. Next?
 
Back
Top Bottom