Posted on 09/12/2001 10:08:46 AM PDT by Charles Henrickson
I see your point, but how do we decide of whom we will demand proof of citizenship? Then, after requiring that citizens carry proof with them before boarding, won't terrorists find ways to counterfeit that documentation?
IMO, we need to look for other means, but the next attacks won't involve commercial airliners anyway because simple non-intrusive measures -- like skymarshals -- will prevent it.
Your proposal IMO is an example of "fighting the last war." Now we will need to increase our security procedures to defeat bombings and bio/chem assaults.
We are all experiencing anger, fear and hatred, but . . . . . . . . . . . .
You're right.
Let's not ever check anything or anyone.
Anything can be falsified.
Works for me. Makes total sense. Uh huh...
And don't forget all CIA operatives. After all, they're the ones that trained bin Laden in the first place, and who funded the Taliban with tax-payer resources.
Read his posts. He said everyone would be required to carry a passport on all flights.
I see your point, but how do we decide of whom we will demand proof of citizenship? Then, after requiring that citizens carry proof with them before boarding, won't terrorists find ways to counterfeit that documentation?
Are you saying any plan that isn't absolutlely fool proof should be abandoned? Let's stop requiring ID to buy cigarrettes and alcohol, afterall the kids might use fake IDs. Bad logic.
IMO, we need to look for other means, but the next attacks won't involve commercial airliners anyway because simple non-intrusive measures -- like skymarshals -- will prevent it.
While you are looking for other means, a reasonable one has already been offered that will not inhibit innocent people, regardless of their national origin, from using transportation services
Your proposal IMO is an example of "fighting the last war." Now we will need to increase our security procedures to defeat bombings and bio/chem assaults.
And how do you propose we do that without "offending" someone, or being "intrusive"?
Proof of adulthood is entirely different than proof of citizenship. You are now ready to require internal passports? No thanks.
"Your proposal IMO is an example of "fighting the last war." Now we will need to increase our security procedures to defeat bombings and bio/chem assaults."
And how do you propose we do that without "offending" someone, or being "intrusive"?
The first step is to focus on the real problem, rather than on superficial, intrusive, unnecessary steps to solve the problem of "the last war" which can be solved much more simply by non-intrusive means.
Authoritarians love events which stampede people into giving away more freedom in return for a little more perceived security. The measures necessary to make terrorist acts impossible -- or nearly impossible -- would turn this into a country unrecognizable to our founders and not worth living in.
We should be particularly cautious at this time that we don't allow our anger, fear and hatred to lead us into supporting additional and marginally effective surrenders of individual freedom.
As far as the original post, I've always thought racial "profiling" was just good police work in most cases, so I don't see anything wrong with applying the same principles in airport security.
Me, too. However, I don't consider stopping a group of minorities on the road just because they are minorities and without cause, to be good police work. That is unacceptable "racial profiling."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.