Airport security falls under the Constitutional prerogative of a "common defense," in Conservative terms now that airplanes can be used as weapons of mass destruction. An attack upon our country with an airplane is an act of war. The Federal government has a Constitutional duty to provide for the "Common Defense." Why do we pay for a military if not to prevent attacks upon our nation? When we no longer fear that Al Qaeda will fly a plane into the Pentagon, or use planes to blow up hundreds of our citizens, then you can argue that a profit-driven company without Federal oversight should handle our national defense. Until then, airport security should be handled like we handle other Defense industries.
Oh, and KC_for_Freedom? You say - Now, when there is a failure of the government system, does anyone care? (Sure they will say they care, but is there any penalty to make them sorry for their errors in judgement? Not likely.
I guess that removing the penalty for poor judgment occurred when we didn't call for the firing of any security officers or government heads after 9/11, which was the worst terrorist attack to ever occur here. You can go to lower Manhattan and still see the big hole where the Twin Towers used to be. But no Conservative called for Bush to be impeached, or for airport security to become completely privatized, after that event.
No, the call was for a military defense. It's primarily provided by private companies, if you look at the way the contracts are awarded or the sheer number of "boots on the ground" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's the way national security is provided, and "common defense" is completely Constitutional.
Just what do you define as socialism? Using taxes to pay for services? If you hate taxes so much that even national defense is "socialism" in your eyes, you should move to the wilderness and provide everything for yourself. Until the, enjoy your "socialized" roads, bridges, water and sewer, vaccinated populations, police and firefighters, snow-plowing, and national military. Until you do that, you're just cheapskate hypocrites in my eyes.
Name calling from you is flattering.
As far as your charges, after 9-11 (which was handled in the air as a hyjacking —which we accept as a poor choice in the era of suicide bombers) — there were plenty of calls for the airlines to improve security. (Yes even profiling was mentioned and Bush and Cheney both jumped on the PC bandwagon at that time an campaigned as though profiling was somehow unAmerican.) Security at that time was the sole province of the airlines. TSA is a new and improved approach that I don’t think worked very well.
However I don’t want to debate who should do security as much as determine how security is achieved. As far as I am concerned, a dumb airline approach is equally as wrong as a dumb TSA run system. As far as this goes, I accept that providing for the common defense could be a justification for a government run security system, (and this is particularly true for incoming international flights) but TSA has their head up their posterior. I don’t think their model should be followed. As far as being a hypocrite, I don’t think that charge really applies. I would be cheering for the TSA system if they had stopped this man from boarding the plane. (Incidently, real security results in no incidents and the public would likely not even know how many attacks were avoided — talk about unsung heros). But every time a young man with a prayer rug and compass is searched, we would hear of the injustice of it all. And before you go there, I admit that there needs to be more than profiling, because a terror cell will search until they find a non-profiled type as soon as the profile is developed. I am in favor of high tech searches of all passengers and luggage. I will accept the “invasion” of privacy as long as it has defined limits and legal redress when those limits are trespassed.
Finally, though I did not call for the impeachment of anyone after 9-11, I became a non-Bush supporter after years of bad judgement in office. I am referring mostly to economic positions his administration took leading to massive government spending, similar to what we usually attribute to the democratic party. My understanding of the national security screw-up in 9-11 was that various organizations (FBI, CIA, Etc) did not collaborate largely due to a democrat designed firewall between inteligence organizations authored by Jamie Gorelick. The dept of Homeland Security was established to solve this concern. It clearly did not do its job in this case. Should someone be held accountable? Probably. Will someone, possibly. But will someone please fix the system?
If all they were doing was defending this nation, no. Unfortunately, such is demonstrably not the case. Now the military defends the "interests" of those who control the government, not the people, which is but one reason why our borders go undefended. Sometimes, those people are our creditors, not even Americans. Similarly, those elements of our defense system that provide the entire world a "pax Americana" borne exclusively by the American taxpayer while supporting the export of their jobs operate as industrial subsidies. So those I would also condemn.
Airport security falls under the Constitutional prerogative of a "common defense,"
A bald faced assertion if I've ever seen one.
in Conservative terms now that airplanes can be used as weapons of mass destruction.
Since when did an airplane graduate from the equivalent of a bomber to WMD? Compared to a nuke, that is a huge exaggeration. In WWII, when losing thousands of men in a day was not uncommon, you'd have been laughed out of the forum for hyperbole.
An attack upon our country with an airplane is an act of war.
Only when sponsored by a nation.
Why do we pay for a military if not to prevent attacks upon our nation?
Are you suggesting using a standing army to frisk or screen passengers at every concentrated transportation node in the country? What kind of country would that be? I call it "martial law."
When we no longer fear that Al Qaeda will fly a plane into the Pentagon, or use planes to blow up hundreds of our citizens, then you can argue that a profit-driven company without Federal oversight should handle our national defense.
So magnanimous of you. So instead you'd systematically violate our 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendment rights just so that you can feel safe, just so that you don't have to get your brain out of using government to solve every security problem. And if you think "profit making Defense industries" don't drive political decisions about security, I have news for you. It's but one reason why we have the system we have now. After trillions of dollars spent on national defense against a power with bomber aircraft and REAL WMD, we had a system incapable of taking down a subsonic, unarmed plane with a known location and 45 minutes of warning before it hit... the PENTAGON!!! The irony of such incompetence is overwhelming.
Worse, this is the second time you've argued that a company with a profit motive is a bad thing. Frankly, if they do a better job for less, they deserve every nickel.
So, no sale for me, but for you, it won't be enough. You see, these Islamo-thugs won't stop at airports. Transit stations will be next. What will you do then? Respond with an ever bigger and more invasive police state so that people can get through a two-hour wait on the way to and from work??? How about toll plazas on bridges? I just can't wait until you get your "profilers" standing at every light rail station and bridge in the country. Yep, then when the socialists are elected again, they'll declare you a threat and make sure YOU have no freedom of movement. Care to bet they wouldn't do that with a unionized government bureaucracy in charge of "security"? If you think they don't have a "profit motive" in terms of power, I've got news for you. Such is the history of governments since the dawn of civilization.
When you invest government with the power to violate the rights described in the Constitution, you invest the government with powers ripe for abuse. That's why a private system, capable of employing any screening method that they see fit, is preferable. If you don't like them or have reason to fear their services, alternatives will become available, but at least the scope of the problem remains limited. When government either fails, we reward it with increasing powers to the point where there is no recourse. We all pay for that kind of stupidity.