Is this why...
..they've recently increased the security threat level around here?
Australia's Federal Police force has apologised for leaving explosives in a suitcase at an airport. The force says the explosives – all 230 grams of them – were a “canine training device” inadvertently left in a suitcase used during a training exercise at Sydney Airport. The suitcase was then forgotten but eventually “a woman …
What, the officer who supplied the explosives had no responsibility for ensuring they had all been recovered? And no-one was in charge of this exercise? Maybe they like the idea of Bring Your Own (Explosive) Device.
Plus, if the dog handler had to plant the explosives as well as recover them, surely all he's training his dog to do is locate baggage he's handled?
Plus, if the dog handler had to plant the explosives as well as recover them, surely all he's training his dog to do is locate baggage he's handled?
This is normally a 2 man exercise, so that the handler doesn't inadvertedly helps the dog (canines are fairly quick at picking up subconscious clues) - this should never be done by one man on his own, especially since it's not exactly the first time explosives have gone astray.
Wasn't there a case in Japan a few years ago? Where they went even further. Instead of using identified test suitcases, they were inserting explosives into random peoples' cases. I presume this was between check-in and baggage security screening.
Apparently they didn't take note of which bags, so they could remove it afterwards. At least one bag evded the dogs, and some poor bloke got home with a very naughty suitcase. Imagine explaining that to US police on your return? "Oh no officers, I don't know how that got there. The only time the case left my sight was when I checked it in. Honest. Why don't you believe me? What's that elbow length rubber glove for?"
> Wasn't there a case in Japan a few years ago?
Don't know about Japan, but there was a case in Slovakia relatively recently.
> The force has also defended the fact that it takes explosives to airports, saying the public was never in danger
Well, no. The chances of there ever being a bomb at an airport is extremely small. The chances of there being two bombs is infinitesimal. Therefore it makes complete sense for the security forces to take bombs to airports as it vastly reduces the chances of another one being there.
[ 'scuse me while I dig out my copy of Probability for complete idiots ]
I like Benny Hill's thinking - At least when I use an old joke I either post anon or give credit where it's due.
“The odds against there being a bomb on a plane are a million to one, and against two bombs a million times a million to one. Next time you fly, cut the odds and take a bomb.”
Well, no. The chances of there ever being a bomb at an airport is extremely small. The chances of there being two bombs is infinitesimal. Therefore it makes complete sense for the security forces to take bombs to airports as it vastly reduces the chances of another one being there.
I think we have a winner for QotW, hahaha. Brilliant :).
This post has been deleted by its author
This doesn't ring true. So someone just gave her a suitcase that had been laying about for a while without knowing it had something in it. I've had luggage go missing and found and was told it's standard practice to inspect all lost luggage. You could say the explosives were hidden in the suitcase but she didn't have any difficulty finding them so they can't have been. Besides for a training exercise there is no need to do this.
Most probably nicked it then did a deal with the police, give back the explosives in return for no charges.
But I suspect that its most likely a story made up by the cops to resolve internal issues. A bit like "the prisoner walked into a door" or "the prisoner cut himself shaving", these are bullshit stories that suit the circumstances whilst minimizing the culpability of those involved. It happens every time officials are caught with their pants down. For example, I would not be shocked to learn that this is a cover story for an actual loss of 230g of high explosive, where they 'find' it by having a friend of a friend 'discover' they have the wrong suitcase.
The explosives aren't the only bit that need to be stable. Even old fashioned TNT is more stable than some of the plods who are responsible for stopping the bad guys who use the stuff. Granted, it is Australia, so odds for stable go up some, but not enough for my liking.
> Only a mistake that could have killed her.
My wife worked for an oil company at a time and place where bombs really were going off, not just "threat level" possibilities. One security Rambo thought he'd test the level of vigilance of the staff, so put what appeared to be plastic explosive and a detonator into the centre of a cut-out book, leaving it on a table in a reception area. My wife walked past, saw the book, wondered whose it was and opened it. She carried out all the procedures for this type of thing, and the building was duly evacuated, but the shock took days to wear off, and indeed, her boss wouldn't let he come in for quite a while. By the time she got back, Rambo had been fired, mostly for the effect his little pointless stunt had had, but also I suspect because the business effects were as bad as a real bomb.
Professional / Military grade non-detonating explosives are not particularly dangerous, and the greatest risk is probably the toxicity of heavily nitrated hydrocarbons. They need a detonator to make them go bang. If you manage to set them on fire, they do burn well, but probably less well than gasoline (and they're solid, not liquid).
I do wonder why the police used a significant amount of (presumably well-wrapped) explosive, rather than a minuscule smear, unwrapped. Both would give out the same concentration of vapour so they'd both smell the same to a dog. Maybe they were actually testing a scanner (which failed!), rather than training a dog,
If you're a 'Merkin you do. Because that's part of the questions they ask you at security when you pass through:
"Did you pack your bag? Has anyone else handled the bag since you packed it?"
The implication being that you and only you have put things into the bag.
This post has been deleted by its author
What if they had used a suitcase going out of the country ? How would the poor passenger explain *that* to the security people at the other end.
And if they are doing it with explosives, you can bet they're doing it with drugs.
If I was executed by one of the more draconian regimes for a half grain of heroin planted in my luggage by OzCop inc. I'd be very cross when I got to heaven, and wouldn't enjoy it.
I see The Australian Federal Police have strict controls on booking out/booking in explosives what with nobody noticing 230 grams of KABOOM! being booked out of a secure.lockup (the drawer on reception) but not booked back in. I wonder how secure the prison keys are (hung on the back of the toilet door) or how secure the drugs are fro the last drugs raid (on the back seat of a police car). Cracking job there ozz police!
Suppose they'd removed the explosives, then later gave her the bag.
Then a long time later the security people somewhere else swab the bag for explosives residue and get a positive.
How is she going to explain that? People have been convicted on the basis of microscopic amounts of explosive.
Same problem with that one a few years back where the French planted explosive in a passenger's suitcase and then lost it. Even they didn't know whose the case was. And apparently that's a common tactic. How many people are carrying suitcases with detectable explosive residues and no possible way to explain them?
The French once planted a bomb in the grounds of their London ambassador's official residence. Apparently they were having a hissy-fit at the time, as we wouldn't let them use their own armed security to protect the visit of President Mitterand. So the idea was to catch out UK police. And embarrass them.
We found it, and there was a huge debate within government as to what to do. Complaining was decided to be too embarrassing, as we'd still have to be nice to the French afterwards. So it was hushed-up instead.
This sounds like total balls to me.
I'm no conspiracy factualist but how come every large "terror" event in either the US or UK in the last ten years has been either during or right after a "drill", or the security services "knew" about the perpetrators beforehand? Don't believe that? Check the facts. 9/11; 7/7; Boston; Sandy Hook etc etc. All had "drills" running concurrently with the event. Lee Rigby's attackers were "known" to both MI6 and MI5. A mate of the perps went public right afterwards saying he had also been approached to be "recruited" by SIS. He was arrested straight away for "terror offences". Funny that.
A suspicious person might think they had picked up the wrong bag in another "drill". Also funny the threat level was raised right afterwards. Another suspicious person might speculate the two were supposed to be connected. Not me, obviously.
Also, when did airports start handing out replacement suitcases?
Nonsense.
"I'm no conspiracy factualist but how come every large "terror" event in either the US or UK in the last ten years has been either during or right after a "drill""
Drills happen all the time, the chance of a drill occurring within a week of a significant event is near 100%.
Being 'known' by an intelligence agency is nothing significant, it only means that they got on a list or two for one reason or another (Usually really simple stuff like buying fertilizer with a high nitrogen content; looking up weapons and explosives online; or sometimes just reading middle-eastern news sources).
As for 'a mate was recruited'; the intelligence agencies will buy lists of people who have taken cryptography or information security classes and send them a generic letter/email/phone call and ask them to apply.
The threat level was raised due to the anniversary of Sept 11.
Airports don't give out replacement suitcases, but some airlines do. The suitcase used for the drill was probably given a tag by that airline, but was missing proper passenger info and thus ended up in the airline's 'lost and found'.
If I was in charge of any amount of explosives, let alone 230 Grams of the stuff, I would require it be equipped with a GPS+Sat transponder anytime it left my sight. They have devices like that in the goddamn SkyMall catalog FFS...
There really is no excuse for things like this. Although every time I see something like this, it reinforces my beliefs that government conspiracies are complete malarkey (If they fuck up this badly on a drill, how badly would they be in trying to pull of a major operation)