> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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."
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...
</sarcasm>
I wonder which technique was deployed here? (The article actually doesn't give it away, but I'd be willing to bet...)
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.
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.
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.
> "I have a hard time believing they will be storming the airport
> with artillery and automatic weapons."
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.
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).
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.
...etc...
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.
1. The FBI flew across the world to NZ. 2. They performed an assault on the Dotcom house with an armed chopper.
Not saying that you are wrong, but the posters sentence was textually correct.
> 1. The FBI flew across the world to NZ. 2. They
> performed an assault on the Dotcom house with an
> armed chopper.
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).