US Ends Controversial Laptop Ban On Flights From Middle East

The United States has ended a four-month ban on passengers carrying laptops onboard US-bound flights from certain airports in the Middle East and North Africa, bringing to an end one of the controversial travel restrictions imposed by President Donald Trump's administration. From a report: Riyadh's King Khalid international airport was the last of 10 airports to be exempted from the ban, the US department of homeland security (DHS) confirmed in a tweet late on Wednesday local time. Middle East carriers have blamed Trump's travel restrictions, which include banning citizens of some Muslim-majority countries from visiting the United States, for a downturn in demand on US routes. In March, the United States banned large electronics in cabins on flights from 10 airports in the Middle East and North Africa over concerns that explosives could be concealed in the devices taken onboard aircraft. The ban has been lifted on the nine airlines affected -- Emirates, Etihad Airways, Qatar Airways, Turkish Airlines, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Royal Jordanian , Kuwait Airways, EgyptAir and Royal Air Maroc -- which are the only carriers to fly direct to the US from the region. A ban on citizens of six Muslim-majority countries -- Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, -- remains in place, though has been limited after several US court hearings challenged the restrictions.

Re:

[Darinbob]

Not true. I value freedom. People are vastly less likely to be injured or killed by a terrorist attack than by being killed in an auto accident. I did not support the dismantling of the constitution as a response to the 9/11 attacks.

Re: The push for profit backfired.

[Rujiel]

"Get back to the herd"? Funny to hear that from someone who is scared of a variety of terrorism that has *never* occurred, only because TV told him he should be afraid.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[nedlohs]

You should do some remedial logic, since that doesn't make any sense.

Has the short lived ban been consequential at all?

[bogaboga]

Does anyone know whether this ban, (now no longer in place), has been of consequence under any measure one can think of?

I personally doubt.

Re:

[Darinbob]

Oh no, everyone back up, he's armed with a Galaxy Note 7!

Re:

[cayenne8]

Yes, the travel from muslim countries is now just a fraction of it used to be and it will stay that way, since nobody wants to run the risk of buying a plane ticket, booking a holiday and getting a visa, just to have entry refused at the last moment.

And this has affected life in the US exactly how??

Hmm....so far, it looks like we haven't missed them any.

Re:

[Darinbob]

It certainly affected the life of people who's family and friends were banned from visiting, or those residents who were delayed being allowed to come back to their homes, business trips to and from the US were canceled, and so forth. Yes, big changes to life in the US for some people.

Re:Has the short lived ban been consequential at a

[freeze128]

What's worse is: Why have the ban if you're only going to implement it for a couple of months? Did they think that the terrorists were using frequent flyer miles that would expire?

Re:

[aicrules]

So you're openly admitting to being a moron? The ban was only temporary if the airports listed actually made the changes to security that caused the ban in the first place. You're just too fucking stupid to understand that, and I appreciate you publicly announcing that fact.

Re:

[interkin3tic]

The ban was only temporary if the airports listed actually made the changes to security that caused the ban in the first place.

Oh, so it's temporary because all the airports got those new magic rocks that keep away laptop shaped bombs. Got it.

Re:

[aicrules]

Read what each airport on the list had to do to be granted the exemption from the law. Doesn't make them perfect but it makes them better than they were. It was temporary because they were found to be lacking in that area, they all corrected the issue, and they were thus returned to normal status. Why is this so hard for you and the other morons on this post to understand?

Re:

[interkin3tic]

The new requirements include enhanced passenger screening at foreign airports, increased security protocols around aircraft and in passenger areas and expanded canine screening.

Still sounds like security theater. Measures which have no tested effect against non-existent threats.

Were there bombs that dogs could sniff out being loaded onto planes in the form of laptops? Because if not, guess what, it has as much effect as my magic rock that keeps away tigers.

Re:

[Darinbob]

That's standard for Americans. There's the general security check for all passengers done first. Then for those flying to America there is a second check because we have added additional checks because they don't trust foreign airports to be as diligent as their minimum wage TSA agents.

Re:

[aicrules]

Dear lord almighty...how do you go through international customs and not know why it's two separate steps? Or was this a veiled attempt at one world government? Nope pretty sure you're just another one of the complete idiots on this post.

Re:

[mjwx]

What's worse is: Why have the ban if you're only going to implement it for a couple of months? Did they think that the terrorists were using frequent flyer miles that would expire?

Well its first aim was to make people think the Trump government was doing something(TM) about terrorism without having to spend money. Here it failed.

Now it's keeping you distracted from the other great failures of the Trump government. Security theatre is an integral part of bread and circuses.

Re:

[asylumx]

I can't speak for overall measures, but anecdotally it was pretty annoying to be on a 15 hour flight back from Dubai to Chicago and be unable to use my surface pro or iPad to actually get any work done.

Re:

[Darinbob]

There are people who consider time on a plane to be prime work hours. I think it's stupid. It's the one and only time you can tell your overbearing boss that you can't work and instead have yourself a nice nap or read a good book. It seems like sometime in the last couple of decades that the number of people doing last minute work on the plane has, er, taken off. We've turned into a country of self inflicted workaholics.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

The short term bad was put in place because security procedures at certain airports were not enough to guarantee the security of flights departing from those airports.

That the ban has been lifted is likely due to the practices and procedures at those airports being improved such that the methods that would have previously gone undetected will now be detected.

Whether this is just tools used by staff in the airports or also staff themselves isn't clear. And I don't expect that they will say.

Given that whateve

Re:

[Darinbob]

What likely happened is that someone rich and important complained.

Re:

[aicrules]

Since you failed 3rd grade reading, yes it did. The goal was to force those listed airports to change their security procedures. They have now all changed and therefore all are exempted from the ban, effectively ending the ban. That was the entire point. Was it because the guardian idiots included the travel ban as part of the story (completely unrelated) that you couldn't wrap your pea brain around that?

Success

[parallel_prankster]

Its main aim was not to improve security so much since any idiot can figure out that people can re-reroute their flight plan to circumvent this ban. Its main goal was to create hysteria over terrorism, to point the blame at specific countries and to show that the guvmint is trying to do something about it.
It was not well researched or implemented but its goal was never that.

changing airports or airlines?

[unixisc]

How? The original concern was that these airports/airlines were doing an inadequate job in screening potentially explodable materials, and so had this put in place. If someone flying from Riyadh to Dulles decided to change airlines & airports at, say, Brussels, wouldn't the Belgians already be managing that differently?

Re:

[Zocalo]

Depending on the routing you may not have to go through security screening again - the assumption being that your originating country has taken care of it to suitable standards. Since the ban was selective, a terrorist could therefore have still brought a laptop bomb airside in one of the banned airports, flown to an intermediate airport that was not impacted by the carry ban and does not require further screening, then boarded an onward flight to the US. With a few exceptions re-screening carry-on baggag

Re:

[thegarbz]

If someone flying from Riyadh to Dulles decided to change airlines & airports at, say, Brussels, wouldn't the Belgians already be managing that differently?

I've only ever experienced clearing security again once mid-flight, and that was a change over from an international carrier to a domestic carrier that required among other things using a different terminal that wasn't connected from within the security zone.

Re:

[sabbede]

Beating the Democratic candidate?

They're certainly acting like that was the worst crime ever committed.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

US customs agents have been stationed in Canadian airports for decades. I assumed the reason they didn't do this overseas was more due to cost.

Re:

[RotateLeftByte]

AFAIK, if you fly from Dublin to the USA, you clear US Immigration and Customs before you get on the plane. I think that there are other airports where this happens as well.

The US's actions are stupid with this stuff.

[Zombie Ryushu]

Here is the thing.

The US War on Terrorism, is really the war against Saudi funded Wahabi Sunni Aggression. Saudi Arabia is the philosophical Nazi Germany (bad analogy) of the War on Terrorism. They are behind the ideology that started all of this. What we are seeing as "The Islamic Invasion of Europe" Is more like an attempt by the Saudis to expand their colony states, to Europe and beyond. Many refugees from Syria are exactly that, Refugees. Some are Saudi Sunni Colonists.

The Saudis have made "colonies" of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Maldives, and a few other places. They are indirectly funding Proxy armies, like ISIS, the Taliban, and Al'Queda. While ISIS has been pretty much defeated in Iraq and Syria, eventually, a new Sunni Proxy Army will show up, they will attack the Shia first, the west second. A vague Analogy to this is Protestant vs. Catholic conflicts during the 16th Century. Its the closest Christian Parallel I can draw.

Wahabi Islam is as incompatible with Liberal Western Democracy as Oliver Cromwell and 16th Century Protestantism would be if it existed today.

The thing is, this has the potential to threaten the very existance of the Human species circa Global Warming/Climate Change. The US Protects Saudi Arabia, despite the fact they are possibly the worst Regime on Earth except for maybe North Korea. The Saudi controlled Sunni states have no concept of Environmentalism or concept that their actions in Green House gas production could render the entire world uninhabitable. They have a Fatalistic cult like view of history and will drive the Human species into extinction if not stopped. For them, Fossil Fuels made them rich. If the cash flow due to the energy demands of the west stops, they die poor. Alternative Energy isn't even a question.

The issue is, all the US Does is make it worse and sell them Weapons. The US Representative Democracy has imploded into a Right Wing Oligarchy. Congress is filled with lunatics that are in entrenched Gerrymandered districts who have been there for decades that are impossible to remove. They have put a complete incompetent in the Presidency. They just ram-rodded a far right Corporatist into the Supreme Court.

The US Does stupid, ineffective things like Trump's Travel Ban that doesn't address the problem, and scapegoat's Minorities. I suspect that this will be how Humanity dies. Earth rendered uninhabitable because the US's Oligarchs were too addicted to Fossil Fuels and Saudi cash.

The end

[Okian Warrior]

...and after everything was said and done, it was all Trump's fault.

The end.

Re:

[luis_a_espinal]

...and after everything was said and done, it was all Trump's fault.

The end.

That's not what he said. That's what you chose to read.

Re:

[Rakarra]

The US War on Terrorism, is really the war against Saudi funded Wahabi Sunni Aggression.

Yeah, but the US also claims Iran funds international terrorism, and the non-Sunni Iran is even more on the USA's shit-list than the Wahabbi's are.. for some reason.

Re:

[HornWumpus]

GP only sees half.

The real, and best, plan is keeping the Sunnis fighting the Shia until oil is irrelevant and they are all broke again. We just need to manage the stalemate.

Re: The US's actions are stupid with this stuff.

[DNS-and-BIND]

This makes absolutely no sense. The Left has gone full-bore supporting Islamism. Just watch the reactions when the next terror attack happens in a few weeks. They'll be out in force defending them. Opposing Islam is pure bigotry, Trump style. I mean, think about it, if you support Western civilization in its struggle, that makes you a racist and white supremacist.

Re:

[david_thornley]

Supporting Muslim rights, yes. Supporting terror attacks, no. Don't confuse the two. Remember the recent attack in Britain? The mosque involved warned the authorities, and they were not allowed to be buried as Muslims. That's pretty definite opposition.

Exactly Reflected Attitudes

[Tenebrousedge]

I mean, think about it, if you support Western civilization in its jihad, that makes you a stupid tribalist.

FTFY. The ironic thing is that the West already won. There were vast Islamic empires a few centuries ago. Russia and Britain bought and traded them, and the United States has continued the tradition of arbitrary regime change.

I saw an image caption the other day, you know the type. Flag and gun waving, text read something like "I'll die before I let myself or any of my family submit to Islam." Not only is this pretty well described by the word "jihad", but it's also the case here that we hate most those we

Didn't think the laptop ban was controversial

[Solandri]

Inconvenient, yes, but it was in response to specific intel that terrorists had been plotting to hide bombs aboard common electronics like laptops. Obama instituted a similar temporary ban on Iraqi immigrants in response to specific intel that terrorists were trying to infiltrate the country by posing as Iraqi immigrants. That they've lifted the ban presumably means they think they've captured/killed the terrorist groups working on this.

Trump's temporary ban on immigration from certain muslim countries

Re:

[aicrules]

Exactly, no one thought this was controversial. It also has nothing to do with the separate travel ban. This is just more fake news as much as that term feels like a joke, this is clearly entirely made up to sound like a story. Reality is the required actions were taken by all airports on the list, so the associated result was the ban on laptops on flights from those airports was lifted. It's really depressing how stupid people are...

Re:

[Rakarra]

When the entire Democrat party and its sponsors fight everything Trump does, anything Trump does becomes a controversy. It is like the party only has one purpose nowadays. Such a waste. I can see no reason to vote for them next election if this is all they can do.

Everything Trump does? You can't be serious. The Democrats are pussies, way too much to play by the Total Obstruction playbook that the Republicans used with Obama. The Democrats will do what they always do: wring their hands, talk about how mean the other side is, and roll over / compromise.

Re:Didn't think the laptop ban was controversial

[interkin3tic]

Trump's temporary ban on immigration from certain muslim countries is controversial because it isn't based on specific intel.

Christians from those areas were exempt, and the people pushing the proposal were straight up calling it a muslim ban. So it's controversial not just because it's complete nonsense (AKA not based on specific intel) but also because it's outright promoting one religion and discriminating against another. A double whammy violation of the establishment clause, pandering specifically to christian islamophobes.

Re:

[tipo159]

You should probably get news from a wider variety of sources because the ban sure as hell was controversial at the time.

Re:

[sabbede]

The travel ban is, not the laptop ban. The only "controversy" there was Trump telling Putin about the threat, which didn't phase me in the least. I put it in quotes because it was an invented controversy. Worse, the paper publishing the report on it basically revealed to the world everything they thought was too troubling/dangerous to share. Reading the article was all you needed to do to know that it was an Israeli asset in one of two cities (but almost certainly Raqqa), while insisting that revealing

Who

[dohzer]

Does anyone know who supplied the intelligence that triggered the ban?

Probably annoying, but a good idea.

[sabbede]

Yeah, it would suck to not have my laptop on a long flight, but the ban made sense. Even if there wasn't evidence that terrorists were planning to pack them with explosives, it seems like an obvious method for getting a bomb on a plane. And it's not like someone is going to cancel trip to the other side of the world just because they can't bring their laptop in the cabin. If you don't have a tablet (couldn't they carry explosives too?), bring a damn book!