PDA

View Full Version : Oklahoma man held before boarding plane with bomb



savafan
08-11-2005, 02:33 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/security_oklahomacity_dc;_ylt=Ar_4S_W5XnGD9oQAKncF NkIDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

OKLAHOMA CITY (Reuters) - An Oklahoma man was taken into custody after he tried to carry a bomb on board an airplane on Wednesday in Oklahoma City, an
FBI spokesman said.

Charles Alfred Dreyling Jr., 24, was detained on Wednesday morning after a security screener using an X-ray machine saw the device in his luggage as he tried to board a flight to Philadelphia at Will Rogers Airport in Oklahoma City.

"Although the investigation is in its initial stages we have found no apparent connection to any type of terrorist activity or group," FBI spokesman Gary Johnson said.

Johnson said the screener saw an "improvised explosive device" in Dreyling's carry-on luggage.

A woman answering the phone at Dreyling's home on Wednesday night declined to discuss the matter.

Johnson said Dreyling would be charged in federal court on Thursday with possession of an explosive device at an airport.

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20050811/capt.okso10108111449.airport_arrest_okso101.jpg

Heath
08-11-2005, 02:40 PM
Idiot.

RedsBaron
08-11-2005, 03:02 PM
I don't want to be too harsh on this guy. If he's guilty I would favor letting out of jail after 200 years or so.

Johnny Footstool
08-11-2005, 04:04 PM
What part of the Middle East was he from?

RedFanAlways1966
08-11-2005, 04:06 PM
Kudos to the airport screeners who never seem to get any compliments.

If this guy wants to blow up a plane with himself in it, then put him in one of those old war planes that sit in that desert. Put some TNT under him and blast away. Give 'em what he wants.

registerthis
08-11-2005, 04:11 PM
What part of the Middle East was he from?Mid-Eastern Oklahoma, I believe.

Redsfaithful
08-11-2005, 04:26 PM
What part of the Middle East was he from?

Beat me to it.

Jaycint
08-11-2005, 04:38 PM
What part of the Middle East was he from?

Good thing he was screened huh?

traderumor
08-11-2005, 05:01 PM
Beat me to it.Hey and me too. So do I get one free religious or conservative post without comment? :D

Little Alex
08-11-2005, 07:14 PM
What part of the Middle East was he from?

Exactly. So much for the profiling argument from the conservatives. :D

paintmered
08-11-2005, 07:41 PM
For once can we make this discussion more insightful that a "us vs. them" dung-slinging fest?

Surprise me. Give the front office here a reason to keep these threads open.

RBA
08-11-2005, 08:41 PM
For once can we make this discussion more insightful that a "us vs. them" dung-slinging fest?

Surprise me. Give the front office here a reason to keep these threads open.

I don't know what you been reading but I have seen many well in-depth analysis on issues from both sides of the aisle many with valid points. "For once" means that there has never been an insightfull discussion in your opinion and I strongly disagree with that assessment.

GAC
08-11-2005, 09:51 PM
Gee! A Oklahoma man caught in his home state of Oklahoma, trying to board a plane with a bomb, and this proves that OVERALL profiling doesn't work? What was his intent in doing so? It's not yet known. Obviously a deranged or mentally disturbed individual. If it is discovered that it was due to a radical Islamic teaching telling him to do so, and he wanted to kill as many American infidels as he could, then some may have an argument. I doubt that is the reasoning we'll discover as to why though. In other words, its not something we are seeing as a consistent pattern. Can we say the same with the other?

I'm glad he was stupid enough to hide it in his luggage.... where at AIRPORTS all luggage is screened. So he was bound to get caught. Why? We have implemented the technology, in this particular instance, that was pretty much gonna catch him - an x-ray machine.

The fact is - we have a situation/climate in this world now were foreign terrorists from a particular ethnic region/background, and following a perverted form of Islam, have already done so, and continue to target mass transit systems and heavily populated areas, in order to kill as many innocent as possible.

And if some want to naively dismiss that fact, then so be it.

Bu as Jaycint pointed out - how was he caught? Is it feasible to use such screeners at subway stations, such as NYC for example, where large amounts of people are going to and fro? If so - GREAT! Do it!

That is all, and any American, regardless of ideology, is asking. But the fact is - civil liberties group think that even those search methods are an intrusion and unconstitutional. ;)

Jaycint
08-11-2005, 10:08 PM
Gee! A Oklahoma man caught in his home state of Oklahoma, trying to board a plane with a bomb, and this proves that OVERALL profiling doesn't work? What was his intent in doing so? It's not yet known. Obviously a deranged or mentally disturbed individual. If it is discovered that it was due to a radical Islamic teaching telling him to do so, and he wanted to kill as many American infidels as he could, then some may have an argument. I doubt that is the reasoning we'll discover as to why though. In other words, its not something we are seeing as a consistent pattern. Can we say the same with the other?

I'm glad he was stupid enough to hide it in his luggage.... where at AIRPORTS all luggage is screened. So he was bound to get caught. Why? We have implemented the technology, in this particular instance, that was pretty much gonna catch him - an x-ray machine.

The fact is - we have a situation/climate in this world now were foreign terrorists from a particular ethnic region/background, and following a perverted form of Islam, have already done so, and continue to target mass transit systems and heavily populated areas, in order to kill as many innocent as possible.

And if some want to naively dismiss that fact, then so be it.

Bu as Jaycint pointed out - how was he caught? Is it feasible to use such screeners at subway stations, such as NYC for example, where large amounts of people are going to and fro? If so - GREAT! Do it!

That is all, and any American, regardless of ideology, is asking. But the fact is - civil liberties group think that even those search methods are an intrusion and unconstitutional. ;)

Amen.

GAC
08-12-2005, 09:13 AM
I don't want or even like profiling. I hope they do come up with the technology that makes it obsolete. Possibly thermal imaging devices to detect explosives and weapons. Machines are great; but they can't subdue the suspect. ;)

Unassisted
08-12-2005, 10:38 AM
Machines are great; but they can't subdue the suspect.
This one can.

http://www.cientifica.com/archives/robocop.jpeg

Johnny Footstool
08-12-2005, 10:40 AM
Gee! A Oklahoma man caught in his home state of Oklahoma, trying to board a plane with a bomb, and this proves that OVERALL profiling doesn't work?

No, it simply offers further proof that profiling *in and of itself* is ineffective. It offers further proof that *everyone* needs to be screened, not just people who look like they're from the Middle East.


Is it feasible to use such screeners at subway stations, such as NYC for example, where large amounts of people are going to and fro? If so - GREAT! Do it!

There's no question -- it has to be done. We need to make the money available and make it happen.

registerthis
08-12-2005, 10:46 AM
There's no question -- it has to be done. We need to make the money available and make it happen.
Are you referring to baggae screening security lines, or simply random screeners who will check people?

Because one thing you will NOT see is baggage screening at public transportation stations. It is simply not feasible or practical in any way to expect to be able to screen, for example, the 200,000 people who pass through the Metro Center station in DC each day. You might see sensors, you might see police, you might see random bag screeners roaming around, but the implementation of anything remotely close to what exists at airports would cripple the public transportation system.

Johnny Footstool
08-12-2005, 11:02 AM
You might see sensors, you might see police, you might see random bag screeners roaming around, but the implementation of anything remotely close to what exists at airports would cripple the public transportation system.

So would a bomb.

If this Oklahoma nutcase had decided to take a subway (luckily, they don't have subway stations in Oklahoma), he never would have been caught.

If we want the subways to be safe, we have to install security checkpoints. The other options are simply lip service.

GAC
08-12-2005, 11:06 AM
This one can.

http://www.cientifica.com/archives/robocop.jpeg

Alaways love your sense of humor Johnny! :lol:

registerthis
08-12-2005, 11:06 AM
If we want the subways to be safe, we have to install security checkpoints. The other options are simply lip service.Trust me, that is not going to happen.

And I don't think a bomb would cripple the system like security checkpoints would. You can have security systems in place that don't require everyone to go through a checkpoint, and they could be quite effective. I ride the subway every day here in DC, I don't even give it a thought. But I can't imagine what would happen if everyone had to go through a metal detector/baggage screening, or what that system might cost. Londond seems to be dealign very well with the aftermath of the bombings there, because they understand that it's simply not feasible or possible to prevent against every type of attack. Security measures must use a balance of common sense.

Otherwise, they would just make the entire plane out of whatever material is used to construct the "black box".

GAC
08-12-2005, 11:13 AM
No, it simply offers further proof that profiling *in and of itself* is ineffective. It offers further proof that *everyone* needs to be screened, not just people who look like they're from the Middle East.

And I agree with you on this 100% Johnny. But does the technology exist that enables us to monitor our airports and other mass transit systems without causing massive delays and stoppages?

I wold love to see everyone screened, somehow via technology at the gate/entrance, before they even enter that main terminal/subway station.

My whole viewpoint was simply based on the practicality of the situation at hand, and what we already know concerning WHO is committing these terrorist assaults on mass transit/public areas around the world. And if the technology does not yet exist to catch someone using hidden explosives on their person, or in their carry-on, then the best means available to do so is by a personal search. And since you can't search everyone (implausible), you narrow the search by eliminating the less obvious and focusing on the obvious - basded on recent years/history.


There's no question -- it has to be done. We need to make the money available and make it happen.

Again I agree with you 100%.

creek14
08-12-2005, 11:17 AM
I read a lot of *stuff* at work. To the point where I am almost immune to it all.

I read some stuff yesterday that made my palms sweat.

Just sayin.

RBA
08-12-2005, 11:24 AM
Having everyone screen at a checkpoint before they enter the subway is not going to happen. In fact having people wait in line to get checked is a "target of opportunity" Why would a bomber even bother going by security and into the subway when they can cause even more deaths by attacking the checkpoint? This is what's happening in Iraq. Iraqis are waiting in line for jobs, food, gas, etc and they are being blown up.

RedsBaron
08-12-2005, 11:24 AM
I read a lot of *stuff* at work. To the point where I am almost immune to it all.

I read some stuff yesterday that made my palms sweat.

Just sayin.
I think I wish you could share this "stuff" with us Creek, but maybe I don't. I probably sleep better not knowing.

Johnny Footstool
08-12-2005, 12:27 PM
Having everyone screen at a checkpoint before they enter the subway is not going to happen.

OK, if security checkpoints aren't feasible for mass transit, that's fine. But beyond that, having a few more guards and hassling people with "random" searches will be a waste of money and time. We're basically considering our mass transit systems to be acceptable risks.

But if (God forbid) terrorists do hit one of our subways, you can bet there will be a huge public outcry blaming the government for not setting up security checkpoints.

M2
08-12-2005, 12:37 PM
The dirty secret with subways is you can't secure them. If you put in security screens you've just made it so that no one will use the subway.

Since subway cars really can't be used as much of a weapon I think the sane response to possible underground terrorist attacks is to have the same minimal security we've always had in our mass public transit. There comes a point where you've got to jsut get on with life and not worry about every possible bad scenario that could befall you.

And I say this as a frequent subway/trolley rider.

Aside from that, what the hell's in the water in Oklahoma?

registerthis
08-12-2005, 12:49 PM
OK, if security checkpoints aren't feasible for mass transit, that's fine. But beyond that, having a few more guards and hassling people with "random" searches will be a waste of money and time. We're basically considering our mass transit systems to be acceptable risks.Pretty much, yes we are. As much as we are considering malls, theaters and other mass-gathering places to be acceptable risks as well.


But if (God forbid) terrorists do hit one of our subways, you can bet there will be a huge public outcry blaming the government for not setting up security checkpoints.Honestly, I don't know what the public outcry will be.

My best guess is that the loudest outcry will come from people who live in municipalities that don't have a subway, and thus would be less likely to recognize the crippling effect that adding security checkpoints for all riders would have. And, as RBA posted, why wait until you're on the train to blow up your bomb, when you can take out a couple thousand people hung up at a security checkpoint?

Would a bomb going off on a subway be a terrible event? of course it would...if it happened in D.C. I'd probably be driving the next day. But all security actions must be tempered with a dose of reality and common sense. You can't prepare for every conceivable scenario, so put in place safeguards to prevent as much as you can, and be a dilligent as possible. It's an unfortunate reality we live in, to be sure.

Johnny Footstool
08-12-2005, 01:37 PM
And, as RBA posted, why wait until you're on the train to blow up your bomb, when you can take out a couple thousand people hung up at a security checkpoint?

If they just wanted to kill people, they could do it any number of places. But their M/O hasn't been simply to kill people. They also want their attacks to do millions of dollars worth of damage and disrupt our daily lives.

I still don't see why they have security checkpoints at baseball and football games (thousands of people entering a site all at once) and not at train stations. Must be the luggage thing.

I don't live in a mass-transit town, so I have no idea about the volume of people using it. Would it really grind things to a halt, or would it just force people to get up 30-45 minutes earlier every morning?

Roy Tucker
08-12-2005, 01:53 PM
We could be like the Israelis and put armed troops with Ouzis and live ammo on all public transporation. The Israelis don't screw around.

Johnny Footstool
08-12-2005, 02:01 PM
We could be like the Israelis and put armed troops with Ouzis and live ammo on all public transporation. The Israelis don't screw around.

I doubt we'll ever get there, and I'm glad.

Plus, those armed troops don't really deter suicide bombers. They can hit the bomb switch before the troops even know what's going on.

RedsBaron
08-12-2005, 02:05 PM
I doubt we'll ever get there, and I'm glad.

Plus, those armed troops don't really deter suicide bombers. They can hit the bomb switch before the troops even know what's going on.
I honestly don't know where we might "get to" if terror attacks on our soil become bad enough and frequent enough. I can recall reading an interview with General Tommy Franks a year or two ago where he expressed concerns regarding what the reaction of the American public would be if a terror group ever denotated a nuclear device on American soil or otherwise succeeded in a WMD attack here.

M2
08-12-2005, 02:19 PM
I don't live in a mass-transit town, so I have no idea about the volume of people using it. Would it really grind things to a halt, or would it just force people to get up 30-45 minutes earlier every morning?

In Boston, local subway/trolley/commuter rail lines carry more than 750,000 riders a day. New York, Philadelphia and Chicago are orders of magnitude greater than that.

You'd have to get up before the crack of dawn every day to wait in crazy long lines to take a mass transit that now costs you an arm and a leg to pay for the salaries of all the new security personnel.

BTW, I don't know anyone who'd wait in a 30-minute line to ride a subway. You'd have an angry mob on your hands if you made it a five-minute line.

registerthis
08-12-2005, 02:38 PM
In Boston, local subway/trolley/commuter rail lines carry more than 750,000 riders a day. New York, Philadelphia and Chicago are orders of magnitude greater than that.

You'd have to get up before the crack of dawn every day to wait in crazy long lines to take a mass transit that now costs you an arm and a leg to pay for the salaries of all the new security personnel.

BTW, I don't know anyone who'd wait in a 30-minute to ride a subway. You'd have an angry mob on your hands if you made it a five-minute line.
I'll second what M2 said...

The D.C. Metro averages about 600,000 riders per day--significantly more during tourist season. People tend to get annoyed when lines back up at the farecard machines...and that is generally for just a couple of minutes at the most. If you add a security lin on top of that with 5, 10 or 20 minute back-ups, people would riot. And the system would fall into disarray.

As I've said, we'll protect public transportation to a degree, but we've made the determination that they are an acceptable risk. And coming as someone who rides arguably one of the most targeted lines in the nation - the red line - into D.C. every day, I feel rather qualified to make that assessment.

Johnny Footstool
08-12-2005, 04:03 PM
They said the same things about security checkpoints at the airport. But I guess air travel isn't the same daily excursion as mass transit.

If the last attack had been in Chicago instead of London, no one would complain about waiting in a security line.

But that's just the way it is, I guess.

GAC
08-12-2005, 09:48 PM
I honestly don't know where we might "get to" if terror attacks on our soil become bad enough and frequent enough.

Good point. And I think that is the reason why we haven't or aren't taking the measures to really tighten things up like we should. The lack of consistency/frequency in attacks on our soil. We've done some things, due to 9-11, which in alot of ways are superficial and want to give the appearance to the public that we are trying, and to give them some sense of security.

But if the attacks were to gain in frequency and momentum at some point in the future, then you'll see more drastic measures taken. Right now, due to that infrequency, maybe it is not necessary. Similar to what the Israelis do? (and I'm not referring to having Uzzis on planes). Maybe. You have to do what you can to provide your citizens with safety and security. Even if it does prove an inconvenience. That "inconvenience", even though you don't like it, is something you have to learn to live with, or endure, for the sake of saving lives.

paintmered
08-12-2005, 10:47 PM
I read a lot of *stuff* at work. To the point where I am almost immune to it all.

I read some stuff yesterday that made my palms sweat.

Just sayin.


I take the "how are we all going to die today" approach. Because that's pretty much what the terrorism briefing is.

Like creek said, you get immune to it. Most of it is stuff that hollywood wishes they could think up.

savafan
08-13-2005, 12:29 PM
Charged with trying to take device on plane, he says it was meant for fun

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8918879/

OKLAHOMA CITY - An Oklahoma man told federal investigators he forgot a pipe bomb he built for fun was in his luggage when tried to board an airplane, according to court documents released Thursday.

Charles Alfred Dreyling Jr., 24, was charged Thursday with trying to carry the bomb aboard a Delta Airlines flight from Oklahoma City to Atlanta on Wednesday, according to the documents.

Dreyling was released Thursday on $10,000 bail. If convicted, he faces up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

FBI agents and Oklahoma City police officers said the pipe bomb contained a metal cartridge filled with gunpowder attached to a detonator made from model rocket parts, according to an affidavit filed by the FBI.

Dreyling, a student at the University of Oklahoma, could have detonated the bomb using his cell phone battery, according to the affidavit.

Dreyling told investigators he made bombs for recreation and had recently set off several devices with friends in rural Oklahoma, according to the affidavit.

GAC
08-13-2005, 09:13 PM
Charged with trying to take device on plane, he says it was meant for fun

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8918879/

OKLAHOMA CITY - An Oklahoma man told federal investigators he forgot a pipe bomb he built for fun was in his luggage when tried to board an airplane, according to court documents released Thursday.

Dreyling told investigators he made bombs for recreation and had recently set off several devices with friends in rural Oklahoma, according to the affidavit.

I hope no one is gullible enough to believe that. :rolleyes:

He makes bombs for recreational purposes? Man I miss the days of Tinker Toys and Erector Sets. :lol:

registerthis
08-15-2005, 11:05 AM
I hope no one is gullible enough to believe that. :rolleyes:

He makes bombs for recreational purposes? Man I miss the days of Tinker Toys and Erector Sets. :lol:
When he's REALLY bored maybe he messes around with some anthrax or bubonic plague to pass the time.

registerthis
08-15-2005, 11:08 AM
They said the same things about security checkpoints at the airport. But I guess air travel isn't the same daily excursion as mass transit.
Well that's exactly right. Lengthy security lines are something people are willing to tolerate at airports because they can plan accordingly--they know that in order to make an 8:00 flight from Dulles to Chicago, they need to be in the airport at 6:00. but the very idea behind mass transit is to get you where you need to go quickly and efficiently, with as minimal interruption as possible. If people who rode the subway to work had to tack on an additional 20-30 minutes to pass through a security screening, they would simply quit using it.

Caveman Techie
08-15-2005, 11:37 AM
JohnnyFootstool,

Go ask any police officer if profiling works. My Dad was a policeman and he always said that profiling was an integral part of his job. Now I'm not talking about the profiling of just detaining someone because of their ethnicity, but if you are looking for a suspect and they are described as a: White male, 30 - 40 years old, 6'2", 225lbs, with black hair. Every guy who fit that description would be looked at twice and may have even been detained for questioning.

Airport security has been put on alert to look for an individual who fits a specific profile. Is it fair? Probably not, but profiling is one of the tools available to airport security to help them keep passengers safe, along with baggage screening (which is what stopped this guy), random checks, and others. It is not and should not be the main tool used, but it is a big one.

Johnny Footstool
08-15-2005, 12:33 PM
but if you are looking for a suspect and they are described as a: White male, 30 - 40 years old, 6'2", 225lbs, with black hair. Every guy who fit that description would be looked at twice and may have even been detained for questioning.

I agree with you, redlegz. I don't have any problem with that kind of profiling, because in those cases the police are looking for suspects who have already committed a crime. That's perfectly legal and constitutional.

The problem arises when you start detaining people but no crime has been committed. You can't perform random searches because you think someone is likely to commit a crime in the future. The 4th Amendment prohibits that.

Redsland
08-15-2005, 12:51 PM
Speaking of random checks, I got the ol' TSA pat-down in Philly on Friday. I haven't had one of those in about two years. My all-day meeting broke early, and I was able to get on a earlier flight home. Since my colleague also got the personal touch, I figure we got flagged for the ticketing change.

BTW, now, in additional to practically stripping you and wanding you, they also physically touch you. As far as I'm concerned, that's a new reason not to become a TSA screener.

As for commuter security, I just saw a demonstration of a booth, essentially, made by GE and others. You step in , it closes and puffs some air on you. Then it samples the air to see if you're packing anything you shouldn't be. If so, you're locked down. If not, you go on your merry way. Looks like it takes about 5-10 seconds per person. Look for them everywhere, once costs come under control.

Caveman Techie
08-15-2005, 03:09 PM
I guess you and I just disagree on what an "unreasonable search" is. The IV Amendment gives us protection against unreasonable search's. In my opinon if your getting on to a plane that has up to a couple of hundred people on it, and also has the capablity to destroy a skyscraper, that it's not unreasonable to search people for things that could help them destroy or take over the plane.

Again I guess we just have a difference of opinion, no law against that :)

WMR
08-15-2005, 03:20 PM
I agree with you, redlegz. I don't have any problem with that kind of profiling, because in those cases the police are looking for suspects who have already committed a crime. That's perfectly legal and constitutional.

The problem arises when you start detaining people but no crime has been committed. You can't perform random searches because you think someone is likely to commit a crime in the future. The 4th Amendment prohibits that.

What percentage of the 9-11 terrorists were Middle Eastern?

If the shoe fits...

If the FBI knows that there are sleeper cells within the United States who are virtually guaranteed to be comprised of people of Middle Eastern descent... What more do you need to know in order to realize that it might be prudent to take a closer look at people matching that ethnicity rather than the 78 year-old grandma?

Johnny Footstool
08-15-2005, 04:59 PM
In my opinon if your getting on to a plane that has up to a couple of hundred people on it, and also has the capablity to destroy a skyscraper, that it's not unreasonable to search people for things that could help them destroy or take over the plane.

I agree -- it's not unreasonable to search people, as long as you're giving everyone equal scrutiny. But when you single out a particular group or ethnicity, that's when problems start.


What more do you need to know in order to realize that it might be prudent to take a closer look at people matching that ethnicity rather than the 78 year-old grandma?

The guy they caught in Oklahoma was a white male.

It isn't prudent to focus on one ethnicity. Equal scrutiny is the only way to ensure safety -- plus it doesn't violate the 4th Amendment.