GolfBall

AA, I'm no expert in American history, but I seriously doubt that Islamic terrorists were trying to kill every Christian and U.S. citizen in the U.S. and abroad during our founding fathers' time. And I agree with you, ChatNoir, anyone can fingerprint me at any time. It's a different world now.

caribtraveler

stop complaining! let the airlines do what they want/need to do, even if it's an inconvenience to me, you or anyone else.
i'd rather that than be stuck on a plane with a terrorist. you know why? if the terrorist doesn't manage to crash us into a building/mall full of people, the u.s. military will shoot us down...understandably so. better to shoot down 100 people on a plane, than losing 1,000 people from a plane crashing into a building (remember the 4th plane that "crashed" in pennsylvania?)

BrimhamRocks

Something we all need to keep in mind....

Many many more terroristic acts are PREVENTED than actually happen. And the vast majority of those we will never hear about. Personally I'm glad of that, but that's just me. If we knew about ALL the threats, if we knew about ALL the groups and individuals out there who have the hatred and the means to cause destruction, I think we would probably all become so paranoid and fearful that we wouldn't be able to function in our everyday lives.

I am with some other posters...I would gladly give up my shoes for testing, and I would gladly (of course with some grumbling, I'm only human) have my flight delayed or cancelled if it meant that I'd actually MAKE IT ALIVE to my destination, eventually.

Having a husband who used to be in the military and who, now as a civilian gov't employee, still has one of those jobs that he can't talk about, and having had many military and civilian friends in security and communications positions, I tend to leave those matters to the people who have WAYYYY more information than I do. But again, that's just me.

Patrick

The other day someone was talking about how they don't think the "terrorists" really plan to do much else. Their current terrorism is simply constantly warning about attacks and letting the US drive ourselves crazy, spending all our money and time for defenses and ruining our way of life worrying about the constant threat of terrorist acts. I thought it was a "funny" idea. The more I've thought about it, it actually sounds possible. It sure seems to be working if that's the case.

TuckH

A lot of folks here are taking for granted (and at face value) that THERE IS INDEED A REAL THREAT. And of course - if the threat IS real - these strict measures should be taken.

But what if, just what if, it isn't real and we're being manipulated into this belief?

Why would this be done to the gullible American public, you ask? Because we need four more years under the security-minded and paternal leadership of George W. Bush, that's why.

Sue_xx_yy

ira: Regarding your thought experiment: "You are told by your country's intelligence service that the US and the British intelligence services claim to have "credible information" that terrorists could be on one or more of your airplanes which are scheduled to depart within 2 hours."

One or more airplanes - this as worded could mean the entire fleet. While I might be willing to accept the credibility of this information, it's the precision of the information and it's useful predictive value that I would question. It's so imprecise as to be all but useless. One might just as soon say that one has credible information that a traffic accident will occur in the next hour in the US. This prediction will, sadly, likely be validated as true, but isn't very helpful for solving the problem.

Would I let the planes fly? Yes, especially given the a) reinforced cockpits b) security screening at airports and c) a public that will no l onger sit passively during a hijacking.

Using similar reasoning I'd let cars on the roads, knowing full well that somewhere out there there's a drunk or even nmerely incompetent driver out there. We can't rely solely on external professional help - we have to be willing to do some of the work of eensuring safety ourselves. Taking responsibility is part of taking threats and hazards seriously.

Degas

Tucker, are you saying there is no security threat out there? And that its all being done to get GWB re-elected? Please tell me you are not that naive or that partisan.


AMERICANS, from ALL walks of life, and ALL political parties, are at risk! We need to stand together and support our government. This is not the time to take cheap shots and try to score silly political points for one party or another.

ira

AAFrequentFlyer wrote,
>So basically you're saying that security at the airports is useless.<

No, dear colleague, I am not.

How about if the purpose of the terrorists is not to destroy the plane they are on, but to congregate at some other place to perform an act of terrorism?

ira

Koshka wrote,

>Your right to travel with your checked luggage locked is gone, ....Libraries now have to give up records of patrons' reading choices......People are fingerprinted for no apparent reason.<

Sorry to hear about your flu.

Where is it written that you have a right to travel with locked luggage, library records are sacrosanct, or that aliens may not be fingerprinted?

Here in Georgia,USA we are photogrphed and fingerprinted in order to get a driver's license. Are our rights being violated?

Holly_uncasdewar

Patrick, if your buddy went over to Turkey and spread that idea around right about now, I'll bet he wouldn't live to come back and tell you about it.

ira

sfowler wrote
>...Heathrow [and El Al] have been using people trained to detect problems with a passenger without resorting to the above-mentioned methods.<

I agree with you, but how do you defend against the charge of "Racial Profiling"?

ira

TuckH wrote
>But what if, ...it isn't real and we're being manipulated into this belief?

Why would this be done to the gullible American public, you ask? Because we need four more years under the security-minded and paternal leadership of George W. Bush, that's why.<

Actually Tuck, I think that this is a vast conspiracy by the radical left to disrupt the American economy and destroy our American way of life because Al gore, who would have given the Arab tyrants a stranglehold on the world's oil supply and reduce the West to mere serfs, wasn't elected.

Is my conspiracy theory any more ridiculous than yours?

ira

Dear Sue,

If you were one of my students, you would get an A.

Please allow me to adjust my experiment. There is only one plane.

Is your answer still the same.

TuckH

Degas, please re-read what I wrote. I said "what if?"

Do you believe everything this governemt tells you? Don't you think we get to know what they want us to know?

Do you honestly think that Mr Bush does not know who leaked the name of that CIA agent to Bob Novak?

beachbum

sfowler wrote, "Heathrow [and El Al] have been using people trained to detect problems with a passenger without resorting to the above-mentioned methods."

I think they call that profiling. Choose your poison.

Degas

Tucker, do you still hear those black UN helicopters with the orange search lights circling your fortified house?
And don't go outside unarmed, there might be some Feds hiding in your flower beds with a warrant for your library card!

Sue_xx_yy

Ira

I'm too old to be one of your students. (For that I'll bet you'd give me an A plus )

Yes, my answer would be the same. As I am about to point out to BrimhamRocks, despite the government's best efforts, one can't easily determine if even precise information is significant, when the information concerns terrorism. More to the point, such information doesn't necessarily indicate the grounding of the plane as the best and most effective response. I'll try to explain further and respond to BrimhamRocks simultaneously:

******
BrimhamRocks: You state: "Many many more terroristic acts are PREVENTED than actually happen."

While your husband might be an expert on terrorism, he is not the sole such expert, such that no authority exists who would disagree with him (or you). Actually, I think it might have been Donald Rumsfeld who said "we [the government] don't know what we don't know." So it seems Rumsfeld would maintain that it is impossible to claim what percentage of acts the government manages to prevent, if by its own admission it isn't even fully aware of the full scope of terrorist activities in the first place.

But even if your statement is correct, it was as likely correct for the thirty-one year period preceding 9-11, when no planes were ever grounded as a rule, as it is for the two-and-a-half year period since 9-11, when grounding of planes began. Consequently, your statement neither proves nor disproves the efficacy of grounding planes as an anti-terrorism measure.

As for the government's having more information, that could be precisely the problem. Even though they don't know everything, they might still have so much information that it is impossible for them to tell what of this information is significant. Clues to 9-11, while the government might have received them, could have been buried in the noise of all this other information. Again, these experts' having more information neither proves nor disproves the efficacy of grounding planes as an anti-terrorism measure.

WillTravel

Does anyone remember how the Pan-Am flight that exploded over Lockerbie was only half-full, because there were sufficient rumors going around that military and diplomatic families avoided the flight? Was it fair to withhold that information from the general public? I'm thankful the FBI is willing to take the chance of being wrong.

The Lockerbie terrorist attack occurred around Christmas time, as have some other attempts I can think of off the top of my head.

I am exceedingly grateful we passed through the holiday period without any planes downed due to terrorism. We'll probably never know all of what happened, and maybe there is a lot of luck involved, but there certainly was a lot of work put in to avoid any disasters.

Yawn_boring

Can you imagine if someone like Tucker was in charge of security? Yeah, I can too. It's called the pre-9/11 world.

"Oh yeah, this will never happen..." get real, pal.

jsmith

Bitter says:

"I also heard that the US now requires people from other countries -- and even its own citizens -- produce picture identification when coming into this country."

I just looked in my US passport and, by golly, my picture is there. It is also in my 1948, 1958, 1967 and 1991 passports. Is there no end to this madness?

My wife's UK passport issued in 1952 in Glasgow while she was a member of H. M. Foreign Service has a picture also.

When did this massive intrusion of privacy begin?

By the way, she is a beautiful today as in 1952.