Originally Posted By RoadTrip Screening is a complete and total waste of time. What do we screen against? What was used last time. After 9/11 we were paranoid about sharp things, so we outlawed fingernail scissors and nail files and other dangerous things like that. Then after Richard Reid and his shoe bomb we started making everyone take off their shoes. How many dangerous pairs of shoes have we found since then?? That would be exactly zero. So now we are checking for liquids, which the terrorists have undoubtedly now abandoned for their next tactic. After all, only a terrorist who was a complete idiot would continue to use a tactic which had been discovered. And only a government agency FULL of complete idiots would continue to guard against a tactic which is unlikely to be used again. How do we get the bad guys? The same way we ALWAYS have. Cops. Smart cops. That is how the Brits caught the bad guys this time. That is how the U.S. could have PREVENTED 9/11 if only anyone in Washington had been smart enough to listen to a smart G-Man from Minnesota. But hey… why hire a couple hundred smart cops when you can waste BILLIONS every year creating the biggest government agency in existence whose sole purpose is to check for nail files and make people take off their shoes? No wonder the bad guys think they can win. Can you imagine how damned stupid we look to them?
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy <How many dangerous pairs of shoes have we found since then?? That would be exactly zero.> How do you know? Maybe some security guards have had to be rushed to the hospital after fainting. After all, at my shoe job today an associate of mine was rather nonplussed by a customer she had. Apparently his foot odor was a weapon of mass destruction. ;-)
Originally Posted By patrickegan Actually it’s there legal system (UK) that lets them profile. The ACLU Cindy, Move on and the rest of the bongsmoke crowd would go nuts if we tried that, plus it’s a lot easier just to take a toke and blame Bush!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ I don't know that I disagree. That is one place where I think many liberals are off the mark. What is a greater invasion of privacy for the average American? 1) Having phone taps on suspected terrorists. 2) Having $8 per hour junior g-men shuffling through the dirty underwear in your suitcase at the airport. I think #2 is the greater invasion of privacy while #1 is MUCH more effective at catching the bad guys.
Originally Posted By hopemax I agree. My Dad used to tell me all the time, anything can be a weapon in the hands of a trained individual. The terrorists have shown that they will work within the rules of what is allowed. Tightening the rules is only going to make them more creative. In 9/11 they brought people into the country to do their work. This time they had a British national, employed at the airport. And I don't believe for a second that he is the only member of a terrorist organization currently employed by the airlines. And we can limit people to bringing only a wallet and a passport onto the plane, but there are still things on an airplane which will be available for "Trained individuals" to exploit. Or put on a plane by a mechanic, a baggage handler, a pilot. Are we supposed to ban people of certain ethnithicies from certain professions? If they are citizens? If their families are multi-generational? Something tells me that if necessary, blond hair, blue-eyed, whose family have been upstanding citizens for generations can be recruited to the cause. All it will take is time, and that doesn't seem like much of an issue with them.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <^^^ I don't know that I disagree. That is one place where I think many liberals are off the mark. What is a greater invasion of privacy for the average American? 1) Having phone taps on suspected terrorists. 2) Having $8 per hour junior g-men shuffling through the dirty underwear in your suitcase at the airport. I think #2 is the greater invasion of privacy while #1 is MUCH more effective at catching the bad guys. < absolutely agree -- this whole loss of liberties thing means little if we're blown up...I have said it before - if someone wants to listen to my phone calls ( eventhough they'd have no cause for suspicion) - go nuts - listen away...they'd be bored in a few minutes..I'll take the safety.
Originally Posted By TexasTeaIII "And only a government agency FULL of complete idiots would continue to guard against a tactic which is unlikely to be used again." lifting security because it has been tried has got to be the most crazy idea I have heard about in 17 months.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I totally disagree. You may be so willing to give up your freedom and Liberty. But I'm not. I'm against the Patriot Act. First Secure the borders then we can talk about the Patriot Act. I really can't understand an Administration that insists on an "honor system" when it comes to national security but insists on the necessity of the Patriot Act. Heck, we just had 12 Egyptians disappear who were suppose to be in class in Montana. As for Airports. I'm all for security measure. I have already stated my disguist with airports that are built like shopping malls instead of being built like "Check Point Charlie".
Originally Posted By woody >>Screening is a complete and total waste of time. What do we screen against? What was used last time.<< Of course it is because we haven't used screening to its fullest potential. We need profiling, body searches, and full interrogations!!!! >>How do we get the bad guys? The same way we ALWAYS have. Cops. Smart cops.<< >>That is how the Brits caught the bad guys this time.<< The Brits are not restricted by our Constitution. They can do more extensive checking without running afoul of the sissy liberals like The New York Times, who can't wait to cry foul about the invasion of our civil liberties and post our secret monitoring efforts!!! So what are you really proposing?
Originally Posted By barboy For those of you who are frustrated with security measures here in the U.S. don't go to countries like the Philippines, Indonesia and Brunei. There were 9 layers of security before we were allowed to board a plane. 1)our car was searched inside by armed security and underneath(with a mirror on a stick)just to get to the airport drop off area. 2)all luggage passed through a machine at the curb. while passengers walked through a detector. 3)only passengers with passports were allowed into the airport and we were "patted down" before entering. 4)After check in we passed another walk through detector and we had to show passports and boarding passes. 5)we had to show our passports and boarding passes again at a table where security rifled through the carry-ons(they even opened prescription medicine) 6)a secondary inspection table checked all carry-on again opening everything this time asking questions looking to trip up the unsuspecting. 7)we walked through another detector--the 3rd one! 8) we were separated by gender and had to remove shoes, socks, jackets, rings,necklaces and our belts and we were patted down again this time it was far more intrusive. We had to stand on a small platform and hold our arms out "Cristo" like while these security touched us everywhere even in our privates but on the outside of our clothes. They even looked at any hair that was medium to long. 9) we had to show passport and boarding pass one last time just before we went down the jetway.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> this whole loss of liberties thing means little if we're blown up ... I'll take the safety. << Do you really mean that? I'd have to disagree. The "loss of liberties thing" is one of the most important challenges we face. And it's under attack like never before by - US! The threat of loss of our own constitutional protections comes from the GOP. Care to dispute? >> I'm against the Patriot Act. << I'm opposed to 'portions' of the patriot act - the ones that are a naked power grab. << >> I really can't understand an Administration that insists on an "honor system" when it comes to national security << Especially from an administration that doesn't even know what honor is.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Do you really mean that? I'd have to disagree. The "loss of liberties thing" is one of the most important challenges we face. And it's under attack like never before by - US! The threat of loss of our own constitutional protections comes from the GOP. Care to dispute? < I do mean that if by loss of liberties we are talking about the ability of a roup like the FBI being able to listen to phone calls in the US where there is belief that potential terrorist activity is taking place... that is what we are talking about..and I view that as a very small trade off in these times. Tough times call for tougher measures...and this trade off is one I am willing to make .... When Lincoln withdrew habeas corpus as a right in order to try and keep this country together , it was unpopular also - how did that work out ? ""As the Civil War started, in the very beginning of Lincoln's presidential term, a group of "Peace Democrats" proposed a peaceful resolution to the developing Civil War by offering a truce with the South, and forming a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to protect States' rights. The proposal was ignored by the Unionists of the North and not taken seriously by the South. However, the Peace Democrats, also called copperheads by their enemies, publicly criticized Lincoln's belief that violating the U.S. Constitution was required to save it as a whole. With Congress not in session until July, Lincoln assumed all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend habeas corpus. In 1861, Lincoln had already suspended civil law in territories where resistance to the North's military power would be dangerous. In 1862, when copperhead democrats began criticizing Lincoln's violation of the Constitution, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus throughout the nation and had many copperhead democrats arrested under military authority because he felt that the State Courts in the north west would not convict war protesters such as the copperheads. He proclaimed that all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law. ""
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... the FBI being able to listen to phone calls in the US where there is belief that potential terrorist activity is taking place << If that's all they were doing, they'd have no trouble getting a warrant from the FISA court - even after the fact. But that's not what they're doing - they're blowing off the FISA court as irrelevant and unnecessary. It's not - it was put there for a reason, a "check and balance" against absolute power between two co-equal branches of government. The fact that the bush administration is circumventing the court is a strong implication that they're engaging in activities that are a direct breach of the constitution - otherwise why wouldn't they comply? Why do you want to cede to them this kind of power? What's in it for you?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 When they are able to intercept calls that contribute to the stopping of a terror plot like the one that just occurred, what's in it for me is I stand a better chance of not taking the wrong flight one day...or the wrong train etc.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom This Administration seems to be more concerned with telephone calls then they are with that is coming accross ALL our borders. Pardon me, but I think they have the priorities reversed.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Oh and telephones don't kill people. Bombs do. If ABC can sneak radioactive materials into this country ( twice ). I fail to see whats stopping a terrorist. Now explain to me again how monitering phone calls is going to save us?
Originally Posted By gadzuux There's absolutely nothing standing in the way of this administration engaging in intelligence gathering, whether via wiretaps or other means. And I don't believe they've ever claimed otherwise. And I've been seeing references here lately that bush's wiretaps being somehow connected to discovering the british plot. But I haven't heard any reliable source say so. Once again, people who are supportive of the bush administration are left to flail around searching for justifications after the fact in an attempt to justify actions of bush. This seems to happen all the time.
Originally Posted By planodisney And once again liberals are left to stick their finger in their ears crying "LALALLALALALALA, I cant hear you"!!!! England uses much of the techniques that people like yourself have been calling Bush fascist for. many of those techniques were used to uncover this plot. DEAL with it!!!! Mind you, dont face reality or anything, but deal with it!!!
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I'm against the Patriot Act and I'm not Liberal. I think its a gross invasion of privacy. All the Administration has to do is to get a search warrant and they can search anyone, listen to any telephone conversation they want. Instead they want to be able to "spy" on anyone at their whim. I would be complaining about this regardless of who is sitting in the White, Clinton or Bush. Its wrong. When all they have to do is get a search warrant. And this still doesn't justify leaving our borders virtually unprotected.
