So Kenderina, you want to go back in time to before the London bombings? before the Spain rail bombings? before 9/11? We would all like to do that...however, there is reality to deal with unfortunately!

The reason we mock these plans is that there's very little evidence that they do improve security & more to do with

a) panicking people into accepting even more restrictions
b) giving the illusion of better security
c) making money for the FOB (Friends of Bush).

Most of the proposals seem to consist of little more than fishing trips in the hope that if they get enough information they'll detect terrorists.

In reality it may INCREASE the risk of a successful terrorist attack because there's too much information to process - a case of can't see the wood for the trees.

If you want a good example of the farce of security just look at the no-fly list which contains names - and names that are similar - that might be used by terrorists. In fact it doesn't contain many terrorist suspect names because the US is scared it's leaked to terrorists who'll then know that they've been rumbled

No, not necessarily go back in time. But I think there should be a middle point between how things were handled before and how they are trying to handle them now, I don't think treating everybody as a potential criminal is going to solve the problem. Neither a visa (electronic or not).

Kenderina, I feel you know this, but I'll say it anyway: We live in a world in which the few can destroy the lives of the many, and can do so with impunity if not constrained in some way. Personally, I would be happy to get a visa as long as I know that proper controls are exercised by the country I enter, to ensure that ALL persons are subjected to the same procedures.

Unfortunately, there are those who will always want to find a way around any system, and I suspect this is just another brief hurdle that will deter a few of them for a while.

Kenderina, I want what you want, but prudent security demands that we allow ourselves to be slightly annoyed so that we can hopefully prevent major disasters, no matter what the country may be. It's a shame there is no infallible method of detecting honesty, purity of intent and purpose, and overall goodness. Until there is, I vote for carefully examining every stranger entering every country, and for real control of borders no matter what the cost.

How do visas or retinal scans prevent terrorism? The 9/11 attackers had legal visas. The London and Madrid attackers were there legally. Retinal scans would have done nothing to stop them.

It's Security Theater. They must appear to be "doing something" even if what they do has zero impact on actual security.

In the meantime the real security threats go completely unnoticed. Every plane you've ever boarded was crawling with totally unscreened people just moments earlier -- baggage handlers and cleaners. Not to mention the havoc that a bomb would do in the airport, at the line for "security".

<i>They must appear to be &quot;doing something&quot;</i>

As opposed to &quot;doing nothing&quot;? I'd rather they err on the side of too much caution.

And, while I sympathize with all the sentiment expressed above, I still haven't heard a plan for how we can screen those entering the country without gathering <i>some</i> information on them...yes, even on the innocent and pure of heart.

AlanRow,
I would agree that security is a sham--not for the same reasons as you. We can all make assertions, so please make SOME attempt to back up what you said with documented proof.

I totally agree with you Kenderina--we would all be a lot less inconvenienced if they only inspected those who fit the &quot;profile&quot;, but that idea doesn't seem to be too popular either.

JeanneB, I don't know if you've heard of this organization, it's called &quot;the police&quot;. They investigate crimes?

What you are advocating makes no sense. You want &quot;caution&quot; but the procedures you want DO NOTHING. They'd get more useful results if they took everybody's pulse at the gate.

Wayne, I do agree with you. But I still wonder how these things will help security ...I have an identity card (every spaniard has one) with all that info and the fingerprints at the police computers..ETA is killing in Spain since the year I was born, they all have their identity card also.
I mean, I don't discuss to have one..just if it is of any utility and will be more a hassle for travelers that any other thing.

As Al Gore famously said: &quot;There's no need to get snippy!&quot;.

I'm all for profiling. How would the posters here feel about it? I also understand that any system involving human beings is going to have flaws and will occasionally inconvenience the wrong person. Yet if someone is wrongly identified on the terrorist list it makes the front pages....as if to say it's useless.

If US security measures are such a sham, then why hasn't the US been attacked since 9/11? The terrorists think that would be passe? Or, that crafty Bush has fooled them into attacking us in Iraq?

Seriously, all the preaching about how security measures are a joke is extremely silly. No set of measures will be foolproof, but the US security apparatus has apparently either done something right, or gotten incredibly lucky. Then again, someone once said that luck is where opportunity meets preparation.

As to the specific proposals, keep in mind that the US is being asked to make access to the US easier for certain EU countries, and is proposing to do that, but will make it a little bit more difficult for other EU countries in the course of adopting uniform rules that apply for all EU visitors to the US. I've got no problem with the EU requiring the same from US citizens when they visit the EU.

The reason we haven't been attacked is because they have already achieved their objective: to panic us, to set us down the road of abolishing the freedoms we supposedly stand for, and to goad us into wasting trillions of dollars on fool's errands.

If you're talking about the airport, it's because not even the dimmest terrorist is going to attempt to commandeer a plane again; it wouldn't work. He'd be taken down by the passengers, even if it meant the plane crashing -- as we saw ON 9/11, in Pennsylvania.

JeanneB, I'm sorry if I sound snippy but I get that way when people suggest giving up our rights for completely useless security functions.

And profiling DOESN'T WORK. Ask the world's security experts, the Israelis. When they profiled for Arab men, they started using Rabbis. When they started profiling them, they started using women, and children. You can only successfully profile behavior, not appearances.

On the one hand, I don't see why everyone gets so upset about fingerprinting (or requests of airline passenger lists) on the way into the US. The US does have a right to know who is asking to come within its borders. Does fingerprinting establish identity? Not unless your print matches one already in the database. So, while it is probably a waste of time and effort 99.999% of the time, the practice of fingerprinting may well identify someone who is wanted by law enforcement.

Should Europe retaliate? Sure, why not? I wouldn't object to being fingerprinted upon landing at CDG. I'm certainly not one to sacrifice rights in order to fight terror, but I don't see that fingerprinting does any more harm than showing a passport or being asked to show ID.

I don't like the word &quot;retaliate&quot;. I prefer to say it is fair if we all (both europeans and americans) are treated the same way. I don't mind fingerprinting ..but I wouldn't like to have an MRI made each time I travel..and looks like someone would think about it anytime LOL

I hope this is not going to be like the no-fly list: over zealous in denying entry to anyone resembling another suspicious person with no way to clear your name off the list.

&lt;&lt;&lt; If US security measures are such a sham, then why hasn't the US been attacked since 9/11 &gt;&gt;&gt;

It's easier &amp; cheaper to kill Americans in Iraq.

Given the time between the 2 WTC attacks why should the lack of an attack (though there have been several attempts) be of any comfort to you. Just because there hasn't been an attack doesn't mean that the security is working

Too bad we had to stray into politics on a travel issue...the thread probably doesn't have long to live knowing the censors we have here.

Of course all this security is a sham; we all know it. But we all have to show we're doing something.

And indeed if you read that article in the Times about the paranoia felt at the American Canadian border you can understand what we're living through day to day.

How do these types of programs usually work? I mean, if this goes into effect, let's say in March 2008...is it just going to be like, from now on everybody travelling here needs a visa, thereby screwing over people traveling in March and April, or do they say that this will go into effect in 6 months, if you travel between now and 6 months from now, the old laws apply? I'm planning to go to Europe early next year and am now wondering if I should cancel and wait until this whole issue is settled. I can't exactly afford the financial loss if I need to cancel last minute...the article posted is remarkably short on details...

Visa requirement-&gt;possibly fees-&gt;revenue raiser. Why not? Thinking from the government perspective. If the US government is doing it to the European travelers, the EU will have legitimate reasons to exercise their reciprocity. Only makes it more burdensome to innocent travelers, like us!