Even if honest muslim americans join the Secure Flight program, you can bet they'll all still be double checked and asked personal questions in front of everyone else. And that would defeat the purpose of Secure Flight.

I agree with the critique and also with Howie's commentary but what would the LP propose as an alternative? Do such explosive-detecting machines curently exist? Would they be practical in reality?

ENIMA TIME

CORRECTION. ENEMA TIME

Next it will be chip implants.

Hmm, I'm conflicted. The idea of the government collecting this information I don't like, but then again, it seems like it's completely voluntary.

of course, once they say how great it is and convince the populace to go about using the program willingly, then it is easy to pass a law and force everyone else to give this information as well. That's how democracies end, to resounding applause.

I feel stuff like this should be completely up to individual airlines. I feel a lot more comfortable giving information to a private company then I do the government.

The airline industry is so heavily regulated I do not see how it would be different to give that info the "private" company.

Line up for your identity tattoo, there's nothing to fear....unless you're a terrorist.

What I mean, ofcourse, namelsee poster, is for there to be little to no regulation(except maybe air traffic control for national security reasons) in the Airline industry. Then if people feel more comfortable having their bags chacked and knowing that every passenger has been interviewed, they can fly one of those airlines and go through that airline's security checks.

If, however, they want to fly from one place to another without being grilled, they can fly an airline that isn't as rigorous.

I'm saying the government should play a very small role in the whole thing.

When searched twice, I am embarressed for the airport security associate. Because it appears as ridiculous as it actually is. Furthermore, my full name and birthday is no secret and can be found on the internet easily, I'm sure. However, that may not be true for every one so it seems. Assuming the social pressure compels enough of us to go ahead with the secure flight initiative, are we all still benefiting from faster lines at the airport? No! At that point we are where we started, too many travelers for beauracracy to handle. I suggest, save our privacy while we have it. In the mean time, we can slow down the process of destruction of made order.

The TSA is too paranoid about Terrorism. The Government believes if it is not Terrorism, then they think they should ruin other people's privacy for fun. I did not know about the TSA untill this letter what will the Bush create a department about next. George W. Bush creates more cabinet departments and encourgages Congress to more deficit spending in it's budget for his departments more than Lyndon Johnson or any Liberal Democrat could dream of. The US is a major era of Big Government for the first time since the 1960's.

Paul,

The collection of this information isn't voluntary. You are denied fundamental human rights by not providing the information, i.e.,

a) the right of movement and travel
b) the right of choice in purchasing, i.e., being allowed to choose a mode of travel and carrier that meets YOUR safety and economic requirements
c) the right to privacy

Then there is the unwarranted search and surveilance aspect of the program, along with electronic dossier they collect on you in their database.

Our taxes are being wasted on a gov't mandated program that should be the responsibility of the carrier anyway. Plus, they basically absolve the airlines of any responsibility for security and liability.

And that Secure Flight program is a crock...participants still get investigated, questioned, and searched just the same as anyone else.

Despite all the security measures, there will probably be another incident. Hell, there was a story about some guy carrying a bomb on a plane today. Next, we'll be strip searched and x-rayed.

I would take less issue with searches or identification validation conducted by the carriers or their delegates (as it was before), but when you put these functions in the hands of gov't, there is a lot of waste and too much potential for abuse.

I don't know what to think when it involves terrorism.
If the Pentagon lawyers hadn't stepped in and blocked the FBI's nabbing of Mohamed Atta, there wouldn't have been a 9-11.

"According to Pentagon documents, the information was not shared because of concerns about pursuing information on "U.S. persons," a legal term that includes U.S. citizens as well as foreigners legally admitted to the country."

When the facts are obvious, we should put B.S. aside and do what is right to protect Americans. If you can't "pursue information on suspected 'U.S. Persons'", then how in the hell do you propose capturing these terrorists before another 3,000 people die here?

Bperry,
So the pentagon lawyers stopped and prevented the arrest of the same people who flew a airliner into their building. I agree with your statement. The Pentagon was playing games before 9/11 by helping Mohamed Atta escape capture by the FBI in return Mohamed Atta sends a another group of hijackers to fly in and destroy the pentagon. our world is insane. I hope the pentagon learned not to prevent capture of suspected terrorists. It tells me the Pentagon does not know what it was doing as a result 3,000 americans die.

Hrnm, well the article itself seems to say passengers will not be required, but encouraged to participate in the program. I still think it's a pretty dumb program.

Why can't TSA just get your full name and birthdate right off of the ID that you must already present.

Chris, because that doesn't arbitrarily abuse our rights.

What a stupid idea!

Setting aside the privacy concerns, all the terrorists would have to do is get someone on the approved list, and his or her bags won't be checked as carefully as they might be otherwise.

Or is everyone just supposed to forget that most of the 9/11 terrorists were in the US legally?

I have a much better idea. Why not get rid of the TSA and airport screeners and depend on the best defense---an armed citizenry. I would be a hell of a lot more confident on a plane armed and knowing that myself and fellow passengers could take out any threats.
If anything, just have minimal screening to check for bombs, including screening of checked luggage.
But absolutely no taking of names, or asking any questions of any kind.

"Mr. Abujahabarabima, are you affiliated with any terrorist organization?"

"No, sir. As you can see here, I was born on February 19th, 1965, and here's my birth name."

"Okay, you're free to get on the plane."

It isn't about the data you give. Your name and birthdate are not so secretive. The problem is that giving your name and birthdate will allow the govt to link you up with other databases of information they have on you, correct or not. Also, in a country of > 300 million people, chances are many people will share the same name and birth date.

If the govt/airlines do their job in screening for bombs and weapons, there is no reason to even ask for the ID of the person, unless you want to use the airports as a government checkpoint and constitutional free zone.

"If the govt/airlines do their job in screening for bombs and weapons, there is no reason to even ask for the ID of the person, unless you want to use the airports as a government checkpoint and constitutional free zone."

I almost agree 100%. I would just say that it is just as important to nab a terrorist also, not just his weapons. If a known terrorist is flying the friendly skies without weapons because he's not ready to launch his attack, are you saying we should just ignore him?

BPerry,

You can't arrest a person because they are likely to commit a crime in the future. You can only arrest someone if they've actually committed a crime.

I'd like to amend that to say that if they are a known terrorist, if by that you mean to indicate that they've committed a crime in the past, of course they should be picked up, if they've committed a U.S crime.

BPerry,

Going further with your scenario, gov't should park outside of bars and force all customers leaving to take a breathalyzer. Gov't should wiretap any felon that has been released from prison. After all, it is quite likely that such people are up to no good. And why stop at felons, I'm sure there are plenty of other people up to no good that just haven't been caught yet. And while we're at it, let's put up road blocks everywhere and ask for ID, I'm sure we'll catch a lot of wanted criminals that way.

UGH!! NO!!!!

Whether or not a known terrorist is planning to fly, gov't has no authority to accost innocents, invade their privacy, and abridge their rights. Yeah, that might mean a terrorist actually gets to fly somewhere. If the gov't/airlines focus on the real threats, i.e. ensuring that bombs and weapons don't get on the plane, it doesn't matter as much whether a known terrorist actually flies.

I'm only talking terrorism. This is not a slippery slope. This is a staircase. You stop at the step called terrorism.
I GET the "if you take it to its infinite end, then" excuse. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, but NOT if you ARE a proven terrorist.

And before the Timothy McVeigh questions come out, I am talking about what is going on today with Muslim extremists. Yes, I know anyone can decide to terrorize. The difference between any Tim McVeigh and Al-Qaeda is that Tim McVeigh and any other angry American is too chicken to blow themselves up, When you deal with people that want to kill themselves too, you have to change your approach to how you deal with the problem. You talk about searching for bombs. Well, in this case, the Muslim extremist people are bombs. They are weapons. You need to check them too, if you have the facts. Atta was on the FBI's radar. He was a factual known terrorist.

I don't know how much more to say.

"Airline passengers will not be required, but encouraged to participate in the Secure Flight initiative ..."

I'd bet my bottom dollar that "encouragement" will eventually morph into a requirement. We'll all get our own personal file at Homeland Security, complete with fingerprints, mugshots, and how many guns we own (if this is still allowed in the future).

Warrantless and suspicionless searches on mass transit, now they're building a "voluntary" national database on a vast swath of Americans ... I guess it ended up being terrorism that slew our liberty. Congratulations, Osama. May I suggest you see to that obsolete statue standing on Ellis Island?

Chris,

That is the plan...that is what the Real ID act is all about. You'll have to present machine readable ID whenever you fly, visit gov't facilities, open a bank account, get a job, etc. etc. Your national ID (under the guise of a driver's license) will be scanned and gov't will collect a electronic dossier on you for whatever purposes it can get away with.

So, when you show up to fly, they will know much more about you than just your name and birthdate. They'll know where you work, how much money you have in the bank, who you're living with, where you've been lately, how many guns you own, who your family is, etc etc etc. The crap gov't already has planned makes Nazi Germany look tame.

Read up on Real ID, gov't plans for RFID in passports, etc. There is a lot of law that has passed or is in the works that will make use of these forms of ID in ways that you'd probably rather they didn't.

BPerry,

"I'm only talking terrorism"

Yeah, you and all the neocons. I AM NOT AFRAID OF TERRORISTS. You know why? Because I look out for my own safety, mind my own business, and don't give terrorists any reason to cause me harm.

Given what happened 9/11, do you honestly believe a terrorist could take over a plane without any weapons? There would be so many people sitting on the 1st guy that tried he'd be lucky to get off the plane alive.

The stuff that is already being done in the name of terrorism prevention proves this is a slippery slope. It will never stop under all your rights are GONE.

" I AM NOT AFRAID OF TERRORISTS. You know why? Because I look out for my own safety, mind my own business, and don't give terrorists any reason to cause me harm."

Just like the people in the twin towers didn't give terrorists any reason to cause harm? A terrorist terrorizes. He doesn't care how freakin nice you are! You head would easily be chopped off if we put you in a room with those extremists.
What would you yell? "Hey, I was minding my own business!"?

The middle east is our enemy because of the US's action in the area before 9/11. The US brought the Shah of Iran into power. The Shah had a secret police who torturted Iranian people. The US is a mainly involved ally with Isreal. US gets too much involved with other countries's affairs. This is the reason why the Middle East hates the US and kills our people in the first place.

TLR,
No argument here.
I will say that Muslim extremists have been killing for centuries. Even if we pulled out of everywhere in the middle east (which I think we should), the terrorists won't put their bomb belts away, wipe their hands and say "good. now we can go back to practicing the religion of peace." There are groups who believe that Islam should and will be the religion of this planet. Not every bombing going on out there is related to the U.S.

"A terrorist terrorizes."

You've over simplified, and obviously missed the entire purpose and motivation for terrorism. It is a political device intended to move a party or country from a position that is contrary to the terrorist's position. It isn't done just for grins and it usually serves its purpose.

In so far that 9/11 killed many, and we've failed to gain any real understanding of the cause beyond some idiotic statements like "They hate our freedom", terrorism will continue to occur. The terrorists have succeeded in disrupting our lives and imposing on our freedoms....and they will continue to do so until we move from our position(s). It is serving the intended purpose.

Most of the people in the twin towers were Americans and the towers an American symbol/landmark. They were high profile targets. The people in the buildings assumed risk by working there, especially considering past attempts to bring them down. I usually recognize such risks and act accordinly.

As for putting me in a room with terrorists, not much of a point to make there. You're assuming that you have some power to put me in such a position? If so, that is probably bad assumption to make. I'm able to defend myself when provoked.

Its not just a history of U.S. interventionism, bad enough as that is. But the European, particularly British interventionism during the post World War I era, during the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, set the stage for much of the troubles that exist today.
During 1918/1919, British forcibly established a mandate in Palestine, an area which at the time had a quite prosperous Palestinian population and a very sparce Jewish population. If they had left things alone, a State of Palestine would have developed and we would have no problems today.
However, under heavy influence of the Zionists, Britain cooperated in the Zionists goal of establishing a Jewish state. Events in Europe accelerated that goal and the State of Israel was established in 1948. Of course, it was established on the backs of millions of Palestinians who's property was stolen and millions of whom were forced into exile, never to be allowed to return.
In the course of things, the U.S. replaced Britain as Israel's main lifeline. And people wonder why so much hate is directed at the United States.
I think the first step is ousting the Zionist control in the U.S. Government, namely the neo-conservatives who kowtow to the Zionist's every wish. The second step is a 100% cut in all U.S. aid of any kind to Israel.
The ideal solution would be the replacement of the State of Israel, with a State of Palestine, with a secular government, jointly governed by Jewish, Arab and Palestinian interests and full right of return of all exiles. This arrangement has worked in Lebanon, between Arab and Christian interests.
But back to the main point, much of the problems in the Middle East were caused by European interventionism, after the fall of the Ottoman's in 1918. So Europe has just as much guilt as the U.S.
Interventionism has much the same effect as government domestic programs. It rarely achieves its desired effects and usually causes more harm then help. I think the proper Libertarian response is to just say no to interventionism.

If you're afraid a terrorist will blow up or hijack your plane, then don't get on. Let the rest of us who aren't driven paranoid by the media and the Bush administration go about our business in peace and haste.

Man, what an easy solution for an easy problem.

Now, for those of you who want to regulate what I can watch on TV and are too irresponsible to watch what your kids watch: either don't have kids or get a V-chip. Hell, most TV's today come with them already built in. And, a trained chimp can work them, so you morons should have no problem.

Another thing: would you rather find your child in possession of pot and punish the little brat accordingly, or have a cop find your child in possession of pot and arrest the little brat? What would your Moms Against Everything Fun group say about the latter?

If you need me to solve any more problems, feel free to ask :)

"As for putting me in a room with terrorists, not much of a point to make there. You're assuming that you have some power to put me in such a position? If so, that is probably bad assumption to make. I'm able to defend myself when provoked."

relax,
The obvious point was that they don't care who you are. They would kill you or any of us if they had the chance.
I obviously didn't specifically mean I was planning to... Oh forget it. Do I really need to explain?

As for the terrorists themselves.

A change in U.S. policy won't dissuade already active terrorists. They are already committed and won't change. We will just have to deal with them when and if they strike.

However, the end of interventionism will dry up much of the sources of recruiting. Without U.S. presence, it will be harder to whip up hatred and the pool of potential terrorists will shrink. At the same time, Arab governments, free of interventionism and wishing to keep it that way will likely take stronger steps to rein in these groups, including cutting off funding.

End result is a drop in terrorism, with just a few isolated incidents.

So, instead of attacking more middle eastern nations, we train the Iraqi military and sick them after the rest of the terrorists while we're safely back home. The lack of U.S. presence in the middle east will discourage terrorists, maybe even make them think they "won" something, and let the middle easterners take care of themselves. Sounds too perfect; the president will never go for it.

Coming back to the subject of the TSA... the agency in general kinda creeps me out. .
The last time I went through airport security (early July 2005), I took a look at the TSA personell's nametags -- the name placards they wore all displayed were name-number combinations, like "Allan 01654."

When did people lose the dignity of being called by real names? If this is now the TSA views of it's employees, I shudder to think of how they consider the rest of us...

-- Seth 24601

Man, I think I'm going to change my name because of you, Seth. That's awesome. Would the courts allow me to change my name to a number?

"The obvious point was that they don't care who you are."

Quite the contrary. How many Swiss citizens have been killed by terrorists? Tibetans? Mexicans?Name a non-interventionist country?

The terrorist have specific targets and US citizens are on the list for a reason.

I think he meant that they don't care who you are, as long as you're american.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" -Benjamin Franklin

Anyone can wish for a past that would make things different today but blaming the British because there is a state of Israel is like blaming America for slavery. It happened! So let's put our heads together and see how we can change things today. Our Government is using the approach to security by finding ways to keep tabs on it's citizens. This is the wrong approach because it leads to facism and control. They need to look at the borders and use proven ways to identify the bad guys and then keep an eye on them.I'd rather be left alone and take my chances with life just the way it is. Making a monthly pledge to the LP might be a good place to start if our party leaders can get us into the political discussion.We need to start making a difference!

"The middle east is our enemy because of the US's action in the area before 9/11."

Muslim aggression and conquest began in 624 by Mohammed himself. By 632, Muslims had conquered western Arabia and Palestine. Abu Bakr merely intensified this on Mohammed's death. Islam spread via the sword across north Africa, into the Iberian Peninsula and was finally stopped in France (of all places) at the Battle of Tours in 732. You will note this all occurred a millenium before there was even a United States. The war against the West was raging long before we backed the Shah of Iran.

Islam seeks to conquer the West. It always has. The War on Terror is merely a small battle in the 1400 year Islamic conquest. It really has nothing to do with US intervention. It has to do with the strange inability for Islam to coexist with non-Muslims. Personally I hate American intervention. Let the Muslims kill each other for all I care. But they have this annoying habit of killing non-Muslims as well. Muslims killing Americans on US soil is something I cannot abide.

And Islam conquest of the world is different from Christian conquest... how?

I'm confused,what Christian miltant terriost group is trying to establish Christianaty as the one world religion?

Muhammad wasn't the bloody murderer fundamentalist christians like to portray him as. He preached that muslims should be kind to their jewish and christian neighbors. He believed they are basically good, since they worship the same god, but that they have just "lost their way." He did, however, preach that pagan (any religion not Judaism, Christianity, or Islam) people should be converted. In fact, during the crusades, the christian crusaders slaughtered many jews and christians as well as muslims (mostly accidentally), and when they actually conquered muslim-controlled christian territories, the local christians often found that they were better off under muslim control (they were nicer).

matt,

Most christians may not be militant, but find me one that doesn't believe the entire world should be christians. It's natural to believe that you're religion is the correct one (or you wouldn't believe it) and that everyone else should convert. What I'm refering to is the conquests in these forms: the crusades (the mass slaughter of muslims), the conquest of the americas (including the slaughter of millions of natives from the Inuits to the Aztecs), and the various missions all over the world (not violent, but still forcing various natives to believe in christianity). The muslim terrorists make up such a small percentage of the world's muslims.

I agree that in the past Christians have been just as violent as muslims. But modern Christians giving aid to third world countries so the natives would have to listen to a sermon is a big difference then islamic fantics killing innocent people.They don't force the natives to convert. They offer food in return they must listen to a sermon. Not a bad deal if you ask me. Like Bill Marh(?) said, their fantics kill thousands ours just complain that the purple teli tuby is gay.

matt,

I agree that today's christians aren't violent. However, it's unfair for Jayhorn to have claimed that all muslims want to take over the world, especially not militantly. If you look at the non-fanatic (which an enormous percentage of muslims are) responses, you'd find that they have condemned the fanatic muslims for what they've done. Middle Eastern nations don't have the money or resources to give aid and convert native peoples, but if they did and they had, you can bet that the christian fanatics would be pissed.

Our country would be far more compassionate towards the middle east if they were taught the truth; that most muslims are peaceful and want to live alongside us. My high school history teacher taught his classes that. The show "30 Days" has taught us that. There are a great deal of fanatic christian media that's been teaching americans the contrary in hopes that it'll rally us against all muslims. So far it's been working. An even greater deal of people in the country simply don't know anything about the muslim faith and people, for lack of an education in world religions and cultures.

I'm not worried guys. They told me that if I agree to call them right away if my parents start saying unpatriotic things at dinner then I don't have to go through all those security checks. AND they gave me a cool patch! :)

I agree with the poster who said that the best defense against terrorism on an airplane is an armed citizenry. If the victims of 9/11 had been allowed to arm themselves on the planes as the second amendment guarantees, 9/11 would be a date of celebration of the individual's victory over an attempted terrorist attack, rather than a day of mourning.

Furthermore, if we had, we would probably have never gone to Iraq, and our country might have been a whole lot better off for it.

I may be called a conspiracy theorist but 9/11 could have been stopped using the technology available at the time without taking our rights away. The governemnt has also not been honest with us about this and has refused to tell us who was on the planes (hijackers).

There are many reports Israel warned us, France warned us, Russia warned us and even a mayor was told not to travel to nyc on 9/11, and one company bassed out of Israel is said to have told their employees not to show up to work at the WTC that day. I find it odd that all these people knew and it wasn't stopped or the people not being warned about it.

Jake, those are all a bunch of highly unsubstantiated rumors, with less than an ounce of truth betwixt them.

On the armed citizenry aboard air planes:

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of airport security? Wouldn't it take even longer to explain to the guards that the gun you're wearing is legal? Wouldn't you have to give even more information to prove you should be allowed to have it? Couldn't anyone who doesn't have a criminal record bring one on and then use it to hijack the plane? How would you make sure that there would be enough people with guns on the plane at all times? Aren't there already air marshals that fly planes just to have someone on the plane with a gun to protect the passengers? Wouldn't it be smarter to just make sure there are a couple of those on every flight? What if airlines started hiring only pilots and crew that knew how to handle a hijacking situation and wore guns?

I'm just asking for more explanation. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I will say that most people will hear it and think you're nuts, though.

Well, the LP believes that you shouldn't really have to have a license to have a gun(correct me if I'm wrong, guys). It's a fundamental human right. Imagine if you had to go get a license for free speech.

You wouldn't have to explain that the gun you're wearing is legal, because all guns should be legal. It would be completely up to each airline whether they allowed guns on board, just like smoking/non smoking airplanes.

When I read that back it does sound crazy, but when I think about it for a few minutes I know it isn't crazy. A well armed citizenry is the nation's best defense.

As for criminals, yes, criminals shouldn't have guns. EX-criminals on the other hand is a different matter. People use the label to denote anyone who has an arrest record. These "criminals" have the same rights as everyone else, as guaranteed by the constitution. If they've served their time, that is.

On conspiracies, keep in mind that many people now believe that the US government knew about and could have prevented the Pearl Harbor attack, but chose not to because they felt they needed an excuse to get into WWII.

And as far as guns on planes, I don't recall if it was ever confirmed or if it was just hypothesized, but wasn't the fourth plane that crashed in Philapdelpia brought down by UNarmed passengers who fought the terrorists?

I think guns on planes are a good idea, it may sound crazy but it is no more crazy than having police with no guns.

I don't think criminals and some ex-criminals should have guns.

KB,

I don't know if FDR knew when the Japenese were going to attack but I think he lured them into attacking. And then placed all our ships in a nice neat row and people were reported to be fired because they refused to do this. They could have been placed anywhere in the Pacific Ocean. It is hard to start a war with 80% of the people against you.

What do you think?

Paul,

If people were allowed on planes with guns, how many people do you think would be on a single plane with a gun, on average? Do you think it would be enough to prevent a terrorist hijacking? When terrorists hijack a plane, they would know that there are at least some people on the plane with guns to stop them, and after a while it might put a halt to all hijackings, since terrorists would think twice about going through with it. But, it could also mean that the terrorists would immediately start taking lives on the plane to be on the safe side. When I picture a terrorist hijack attempt that is met with an armed citizenry, I picture a bloody shootout in which many innocent people die. Remember, not all hijackings end with a crash into a building; most are ended with a safe landing into the country of their choosing.

We are told by authorities (the police, FBI, etc.) to let the authorities handle a situation and to "not be a hero." The reasoning is that the authorities are trained in handling the dangerous situations, and that the public generally is not. If a bad situation gets worse, and innocent people die, all on account of a civilian trying to "be a hero," who is to blame? Should we place all blame on the bad guys (of course they'll get the maximum punishment; I'm not trying to defend them), or does some of it lie on the person trying to "be a hero."

Of course, like you said, some airlines would ban guns, and if you do not like the idea of any regular joe having a gun on their person, you can just ask for the "non-gun plane." But, if I feel safer on a plane that allows guns, and some citizen tries to "be a hero" and gets people killed when the situation could have been taken care of without people dying, then what?

I don't really know what to think about FDR but I do not for one second believe that 9/11 could not have been prevented.

On conspiracies:

What's the difference between your conspiracies about Pearl Harbor and your conspiracies about 9/11? About sixty years. That's all. Don't dismiss any conspiracies about either. There are some logic behind all of them.

I've heard that the radar operators at Pearl Harbor, (or was it some other Pacific base?) found a whole bunch of blips that would represent an attacking fleet. There are different scenarios for what happened next. One is that the radar operators were incompetent and could not comprehend a massive assault on the U.S. Another is that the radar operators' message reached the Pentagon too late, within hours after the attack. Yet another is that the Pentagon (or FDR) prevented a reaction to the massive fleet in order to justly join the war.

Whether or not the president or the Pentagon knowingly put americans at Pearl Harbor in danger is important. However, the fact is that we joined the war and defeated one of the most brutal dictators in the history of mankind. And, everyone involved in the Pearl Harbor "cover-up" would be very old or dead, so what can we do about them? The public still needs to be educated in just how deceiving the government can be.

The fact about 9/11 is that we're still in that era, something can be done. If there was a cover-up of any kind on any level, there should be some action. But, the most likely situation is that no one will find anything substantial (even if it's true) and it'll be forever covered up or in debate.

Howie,

I think you are asking a question that needs to be answered. I don't have an answer on how many people would have guns on them but I do think it should be decided by each airline.

KB,

I would like to discuss this more with you but I don't think the Libertarian Parties blog is the appropriate place for my conspircay theories.

That last comment was mine.

I also would like to say that since 9/11 we as a nation have been to willing to give up more liberty for securtiy.

Howie,

In respect to the "hero" scenario gone awry, I view this no differently than a person administering CPR to an accident victim and failing to achieve the desired result. We have "Good Samaritan" laws to absolve people acting with good intentions of liability in such cases.

Howie,

The documented and most probable explantion concerning the Pearl Harbor radar blips issue is that the radar operators reported the blips to their supervisor and the supervisor dismissed them as an incoming flight of replacement bombers (US) that was expected (and actually arrived during the attack). So, no big conspiracy issue on this.

If you want to read some good, fun, conspiracies try picking up Rule By Secrecy, by Jim Maars I believe. It paints a lot of conspiracies without bias, including government conspiracies, conspiracies for the duality of government, all the way to crop circles and the illuminati, JFK and Reagan's assassins, and Pearl Harbor and 9/11.

Very entertaining read, and the author takes more of a scholarly "Isn't this odd?" kind of approach rather than a crazy "Only I know the truth!" kind of approach.

Hm, actually I just checked and the book was written in 2000. That's older than I thought it was. So obviously it wouldn't have any conspiracies relating to 9/11.

Come on guys, we've been moving towards this for years. Let's not get squimish now.

I'm an american indian, and although I've never flown commercially, I've been in airports to meet/send off friends a few times since 9/11. I've been pulled aside and questioned every time. I realize that they're trying to protect public safety, so i've been cooperative every time, but I feel that may not always be the case. The primary drive of these searches and interrogations is within reason right now, as there are hundreds if not thousands of lives at stake if someone with militant motives slips through. And I feel that the creation of identity cards for airline use is well intentioned for the time being. However, such a system would, as have all other things we have made for ourselves, be weaponized. It would become a tool for those who are always waiting in the wings, eager to control. So I for one will always be cooperative, even if I feel racial profiling is occuring, but the day they start passing out identity cards, there will be no cooperation from me. I urge anyone in a similar situation to behave in the same way. Don't get uncooperative until they overstep their bounds. And once they do, don't budge an inch.

I can't believe you people call yourself libertarians. I am thoroughly disgusted with how willing you are to surrender private information to a government (or private, for that matter) agency for a miniscule potential gain in security.

First of all, how many events have there been since 9/11? How many were prevented because of surrendering more tracking information (there is no other reason to collect it) to the government? Right - none, because it hasn't been collected, and there haven't been any events.

No amount of searching luggage, confiscating tweezers, triple checking passenger ID cards will stop a single dedicated terrorist from getting on a flight. I would actually argue that anything that makes you feel more secure makes you less aware of your surroundings and potential dangers, and therefore reduces the likelihood of our best defense preventing a problem - namely, an aware and observant fellow passenger watching for possible/probable security breaches. All of these tactics are expensive window dressing to make stupid people think they are more secure

Yet, it was March of 2005 before the first efforts were made to check the people working behind the counter (as I was told by a friend who works for the TSA). We know that thousands of people with criminal backgrounds, and a large number of illegal aliens are handling baggage, working the security machines, checking your ID, and probably working for the airlines. Now, here are people who we have a perfectly legitimate reason to check (they are working in a privileged and supposedly secured area), but instead of protesting this and trying to chase down real potential threats, you would rather further harass legitimate passengers and give up more unnecessary private information to the government for what reason?

Look, we have a legitimate interest in securing borders, protecting the flying public and trying to stop suicide bombers. But trusting any system that collects private information to make you more secure is foolhardy. This is similar logic to that used by people who willingly give up their social security number to every company and agency that wants it. The excuse is credit checking, but the reason is to track personal information for the purpose of profiling and marketing and other negative uses. Moreover, the theory that the SSN is a unique identifier, therefore anything associated with it must be reliable is exactly the reason why merchants and credit offerers get ripped off and individuals can have their identity stolen. Instead of doing rational double checking of data, we put absolute trust in that number and ensure that it is abused and faulty.

And who thinks that something analagous won't happen when what is introduced as "voluntary" (I won't get into the semantics of whether it really is or not) becomes truly compulsory? You will be cross-checked in real time based on a number, and any incorrect information will be almost impossible to correct and will dog you everywhere you want to go. On the other hand, as at least one observer points out above, if a real terrorist manages to pass through all the scrutiny and get secure ID, then we will trust it because we trust the system, and will have given that person a license to board a plane without doing any more sanity checks. Does that make sense? Trust me, this kind of nonsense happens everyday.

So you will surrender liberty and privacy so that the government can do whatever nefarious things they want to do with your information, you will be no more (in fact, probably less) secure, and you will be needlessly and doggedly harrassed forever if incorrect or corrupt information gets into your dossier - and that's the best case scenario. Don't assume the government will misuse your private data (although there is not a single example of a power that the government owns not being misused) - just assume that everyone is looking out for your best interests. It's not a pretty scenario.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20050812-082018-4885r.htm

Wireless World: Chips track license plates
By Gene J. Koprowski

NEXT THEY WILL PUT CHIP INSIDE OUR BODIES.

The USA will become our PRISON

I second Paul's sentiments. Government has always been a poor steward of personal information. 9/11 didn't change that, either.

Paul,

It seems you are willing to accept a great deal more chaos than most. It also obvious that when lawlessness in a society reaches some level the people will look to government to change those conditions. Centuries ago western societies put aside individual direct action favoring the rule of law and government enforcement.

It is well within libertarian principals for government to do those things that must be done but cannot effectively be done individually. The argument is now and always has been what is an acceptable balance between government intrusion in exchange for how much security. I suggest that what is rational depends quite heavily upon the level of the threats (means & targets) and that has evolved over time.

Such as someone selling Pot to elementary school kid and the pilot in a stolen Gulfstream-4 packed with a nuclear explosives. Assume both threats are both successful. While it is likely the kids will survive the arrested social development of their poor choice, the damage from the latter is certainly of a different magnitude.

Demanding the government fulfill its duty to defend the nation, those charged with that duty have asked its people for the ways and means to do so.

Question. If it were Paul, the American people were depending on to stop both, what resources and authority would he need to succeed?

Paul is absolutely right when asks how much liberty are you people willing to give up for your own security. Many of you are beginning to accept the idea that government knows best in stead of realizing that terrorism would never have come to our shores if the democrats and republicrats had not stuck their noses into the internal affairs of dozens of sovereign nations. If you want security then we need to do several things as a nation. First of all we need to arrest president bush and his entire administration and turn them over to the iraqui citizens for war crime trials. Second, we need to bring all of our troops home and close down every military base that we have in foreign countries. Third, we need to appologize to the whole world for allowing our government to butcher innocent civilians worldwide for many past decades. Fourth, we need to never again allow our government to send weapons of mass destruction to someone such as saddamn hussein or the taliban to be used to butcher innocent human life. Fifth, We need to put our military on our borders and restrict anyone from entering our country who is not an american until we are satisfied that he or she is coming here for peaceful reasons. Sixth, we need remove any and all laws that restrict an americans constitutional right to freedom. Seventh, we need to arrest george bush and send his sorry ass to iraq to be tried for war crimes. Eighth, We need to take this idea of having a national ID card and brand it to the forehead of the jackass who came up with it.(I think the jerks name was sensenbrenner).Ninth, We need to imprison about half of our supreme court nominees and give them lessons on constitutional authority for about two years. If they don't get it, give them two more years. Tenth, We need to have michael badnarik elected to the senate and should put as many resources as possible into meeting that goal. Eleventh,we need to have george bush and his entire cabinet arrested and sent to iraq for a war crimes trial. #Twelve, We need to educate people as to where this whole mess of terrorism started and we may need to show the american people just exactly how many times our government has manipulated the internal workings of sovereign nations over many decades, everything from afganistan,and iraq to venezuela, cuba, nicaragua,iran,south africa and many others. #thirteen, We need to send george bush's sorry ass to iraq to face a war crimes trial. Did I mention that already? #fourteen, We need to realize that as a party, many who post here might actually be republicrats or democrats who feel threatened with this idea of liberty and freedom. Freedom scares the hell out of liberals and republicrats because it causes them to think for themselves. Its pretty hard for some of these people to think for themselves when their mothers set out their school clothes for eighteen years and decided what they would eat each nite for dinner...........Oh I almost forgot, Mr. stockman the chaos that we see in society today is a direct result of government interfearence and manipulation into the lives of others. We don't need our current government fixing the problems that they themselves created. We need them to butt the hell out of our business. It may be within libertarian principals for government to do those things that must be done but the libertarian guidelines do not suggest that we as a government have the right to interfere into everyones lives until we create such huge problems (as the deocrats and republicrats have done) that we need the governments help to correct these problems. Your question to paul was : Question. If it were Paul, the American people were depending on to stop both, what resources and authority would he need to succeed? Answer, He would need the backing of a libertarian government who was dedicated to peace and who would never step on the rights of individuals to cause such hate that we would need to defend ourselves against an aggressor. You have to ask yourself what circumstances would warrant a person to pack a plane with explosives in order to do us harm. After you admit the cause as being a hatred for our governments interference into the internal workings of sovereign nations then you take the nessessary steps to keep these things from happening. As far as selling pot to school children, You arrest the dealer for causing harm to children but you leave the adult alone who smokes pot for his personal use. You dont need uncle sam to protect you from every ailment known to man.

I personally think that the best way to protect yourself from terrorism is to simply stop flying. Thats right. Since the government has deemed flying to be such a hazard to your health as to begin the process of denying an american his right to personal freedom, every american should refuse to fly for at least 30 days. Stay home for the christmas hollidays. Send an I miss you card for thanksgiving or call them on the phone, but do not fly in a commercial plane.Put your travel or vacation plans on hold. If you want to stop uncle sam dead in their tracks......DON'T FLY. See how long this terrorism mentallity continues.....If you want the price of gasoline to come down then stay home or carpool. Give them what they keep asking for, A STALLED ECONOMY. That should help the republicrats in their next election bid.

Terry:

Glad you got all that off your chest and hope you feel better. Intellectual exchanges are best handled in one subject at a time. So lets stay on subject shall we. Now focus like a laser beam! This blog is about TSA interventions and how that compromises individual freedom.

All societies empower a few to identify and apprehend lawbreakers. The level of authority they need to do that varies with the different treat levels. What should the TSA do to effectively increase the safety of air transportation systems. With your intellectual level surely you have something constructive to say. So what is it?

Then if you want to address another subject on ideology I will be happy to oblige.

Stockman. Its hard to stay on point when our government leaders are such a bunch of pathetic scumsucking human butchers. I am focused on a government who is elected by people who are systematically sending my constitutional guaranteed freedoms on a one way trip to the trash heap. I think I did say a few constructive things, just not to your liking. The tsa would better serve the people by recommending that george bush and his regime be turned over to iraq for trial as a war criminal and butcher. Then they should reccommend that our government appologize to the iraqui people for the genocide that our government has committed against the iraqui people. Then they should recommend that we imprison any leader who willfully orders the butchering of innocent people in sovereign nations and make it known publicly that we hold our leaders accountable when they butcher human life.........THEN, MAYBE OUR AIRLINES WILL BE SAFER. When you ask that we give diolog which pertains to the subject at hand, we need to address the problem from its roots. This problem of terrorism started with the united states government screwing with the leaders of sovereign nations. The only way that you or anybody else is going to get to the root of terrorism is to address it at its source instead of trying to fix it by destroying individual liberties now that the government has created the problem. You want safer airlines? PUT BUSH IN PRISON. YOU WILL HAVE SAFER AIRLINES.I will be back with some other ideologies for you very soon.

One other thing stockman. You wrote: All societies empower a few to identify and apprehend lawbreakers. My question is this. Since when has anyone been empoered to identify and apprehended george walker bush jr for lying to congress and the american people about the reasons for going to war with iraq? Since when has anyone been assigned to apprehend our supreme court justices for allowing the patriot act to be used against the american people in direct conflict with our united states constitution and our bill of rights? Since when has anyone been empowered to put a stop to the illegal practices being done by the electoral committees in every state in the union when they deliberately try to silence major third parties from getting their message out to their supporters as the democrats and republicrats did time and time again to mr. badnarik and mr. cobb during the 2004 presidential elections? This two party system breaks laws and steps on the rights of free individuals every time they run an election and nobody is there to apprehend these lawbreakers. Your assumption sounds nice but it doesn't hold a bit of truth.

Terry :

Ok so you don't want to focus on the subject of this blog. Your choice, you know, first ammendment and all that!

The free exchange of ideas is only possible when at least two address the same subject in a logical presentation.

I suspect you are just acting up!

The TSA administrator approves procedures his office used to avoid another plane jack. With the prior warning passengers now have (9/11) unless the plane has few or no passengers I find it hard to see how one could take charge of an aircraft unless: (1) The flight deck door was open (2) Infiltrate & shut the door to isolate the deck (3) disable the crew to seize control of the aircraft. Of the several flights recently taken these doors remained open, so seems the need for passenger screening remains and take your chances. There is no such thing as complete safety, too many variables.