Willit-the issue of PNR data sharing on inbound flights to the US is nothing new-the basic agreement was hammered out between Homeland Security and the EU in May 2004-it is a US law that such PNR data collection must take place. You can read the terms called "Undertakings" of the 2004 agreement here:

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display...p;content=3629

Not all of the information can be shared on a public site for obvious reasons, and there have been some amendments to this agreement, but the court's ruling on the 34 data elements will not materially alter its foundation-the ECJ's ruling has to do with procedural issues regarding transfer, the agreement itself will remain mostly intact, as there are no substantive disagreements in this area between the executive body of the EU and the USG.

It's also one of the few positive measures taken by the USG that will materially advance the nation's homeland defense system-it will not be long before Europe institutes a similar system-as far as that goes, (and given the recent arrests in Canada) Europe can act on this none too soon-because it's Europe and its home-grown terrorists where lies the threat to this country and to its own -and the EU is only too aware of this fact.

Moreover, the USG has agreed in principle that it will reciprocate with any data sharing measures imposed on inbound flights to EU countries as well. In sum, PNR data sharing is a non-issue, in fact it's already been taking place in a limited form since 2004.

I don't really understand your point, Spygirl, particularly regarding the Canadian arrests. Every single one of the persons arrested was a Canadian resident or a Canadian citizen. How would a collection of PNR data affect them?

keruac-

It surprises me that you fail to understand the basic premise, or how it relates to the arrests in Canada. Do you seriously think that "home-grown" terrorists do not have connections in other countries? That's not really the way it works-home-grown does not mean unconnected to other parts of the world.
Read today's papers concerning the ongoing Canadian investigation for further clarity on this issue.

PNR data sharing is not an issue between this country and Canada-we work in concert on terrorism-related matters and aviation security.

The Canadian arrests should be giving everyone serious pause-a collection of fertilizer seized that is three times the amount it took to blow up the Murrah fed. bldg. in Ok. City.

Farmers use many times that amount each day. Should they be arrested as well?

And what were Timothy McVeigh's connections to foreign countries?

Is this same data being requested on internal flights?

"Farmers use many times that amount each day. Should they be arrested as well?"

Maybe authorities got suspicious because they weren't farmers? Do you think that's possible, huh? Or do you think we should just assume that they were going to get into the farming business and let them go their way?

It's always an interesting sight when those who compalin about "the liberals" are the first in line to scarf up the benefits some of those "liberals" have brought about like Social Security benefits.


Please find a better example. SS is a classic case of ineffective use of money. Give people private retirement acounts and we can create real wealth and not have seniors depending on a small government dole each month. POLs use it to buy votes and scare old people.

>SS is a classic case of ineffective use of money. <

Oh, Lordy, Lordy, Lordy!!!!

So, Prince Otto von Bismark was a free-spending, bleeding-heart liberal, eh?

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html

((I))

I don't think giving average people control of their retirement funding is a very good idea. Given the level of financial sophistication of the typical maxed-out credit card/overleveraged home owner, the inevitable result of such a policy would put the taxpayer in the position of bailing out the retirees. You might as well send wage-earners to Las Vegas and cover their losses out of public funds.

The present system of forced saving only needs a little tweaking to work properly. Leave Individual Retirement Arrangements optional, as intended.

"I don't think giving average people control of their retirement funding is a very good idea."

"Average" people by the millions have control of it with IRA and 401K accounts. Horse is out of the barn.

"The present system of forced saving only needs a little tweaking to work properly.'

Agree. Put the money in private acounts. Suggest it be like a TSP account that millions of government workers already have. Cheap, simple, and covers all the investment bases.

Result: wealth that can be passed on to future generations, superior market rates of return, transparant accounting.

Are you referring to the people whose life savings were wiped out by the Lincoln Thrift disaster? Or the ones whose Enron and Worldcom shares became worthless overnight?

There has to be a base account to keep people with no investment savvy from losing everything and dropping the bill on you and me.

Yes, there are millions of people with IRAs - but Americans’ personal savings rate in 2005 was <i>negative</i> overall. On the average (and that's what matters), people aren't investing.

Force Joe Sixpack to save, and give him his money back when he is no longer in the work force. Leave in place the current healthy incentives for the more sophisticated to save.

Robes, I thought you were an enlightened soul. Open up your mind and think through this issue. Most people may not be as smart as you, but they are not stone cold stupid.

Ownership and personal control are the wave of the future.

Your gloom and doom examples are flawed - these acounts would invest in market index funds, not individual stocks. Additionally, forced savings would still be required.

<i>Ad hominem.</i>

Bye.

Robes, sorry to see you fold so quick. I thought you knew a little more than just computers.

Your article link begins saying &quot;President Bush wants to &quot;privatize&quot; a portion of the Social Security program.&quot; It so conveniently fails to say that this so called &quot;privatization&quot; is <b>voluntary</b>.

Have you ever thought why your elected representatives (Congress) opted <b>out of social security?</b>

That's because it's a social welfare system that is broke -- no one could live on it. It's good enough for you, but not good enough for them. ((b))

&gt;Ownership and personal control are the wave of the future. &lt;

Not necessarily.

Those who are enthusiastic advocates of private savings plans seem to forget that the stock and bond markets do go down.

It would have done do me no good to know that over &quot;the long term&quot; the stock market returns a much higher rate than my SS plan if I had wished to retire in Nov, 2002 when the S&amp;P 500 had dropped from 1500 (Jan, 2000) to 875.

Yesterday's close was 1263.

Even if I had retired at the peak of the market, my income would be lower than it was in 2000.

In the meantime, I have received COL increases on my social security.

A further point to keep in mind is that SS is not just a retirement savings account - it is a &quot;social security&quot; plan.

It provides income to the disabled, widows and orphans.

Finally, I don't wish to have some &quot;financial advisor&quot; taking a commission to churn my retirement savings for me.

This &quot;wave of the future&quot; is only one more way for Wall Street to grow richer.

((I))