Redstate

Darksyde's remarks (I read them on dKos; they're short and on the front page) were about FEAR. Darksyde and I both lived through the Cold War, and we both agree that the risks we faced then were by any standard much greater than anything Al Qaeda has to offer. If we were able to deal with the USSR's nukes pointed at us without surrendering our civil liberties, why should we be willing to surrender them just because of Al Qaeda?

to acknowledge the utter depravity and the true goals of the Islamofascists is to tacitly endorse the War on Terror.

If by "the War on Terror" you mean the surrender of my right to charges and a trial if I am arrested, or the use of torture on prisoners held by America, then No, acknowledging A doesn't mean I endorse B. The USSR was also depraved and had the goal of eradicating the U.S. It was a much greater threat and we dealt with it much less hysterically. We were tougher then.

was not controlled by a bunch of cut and run weenies, led by traitors and supported by an ignorant and subversive media.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

The civil liberty of smuggling a liquid explosive onto an airliner? Or the civil liberty of using a cheap cellphone to detonate a bomb? Or maybe the civil liberty of inciting biomedical students to commit murder using their wives and babies as cover? Or perhaps it was the civil liberty of entering the United States on a student visa, not showing up for studies at the university that sponsored you, and disappearing into the woodwork?

I, too long for the days when we were fighting the Soviets. It's very difficult, after all, to get through airport security -- regardless of the threat level -- with an SS-18 in your backpack.

It seems to me that since you are posting your thoughts in a public forum here on the Internet and saying practically whatever you want (note: RedState's profanity restrictions are *not* mandated by the Department of Homeland Security) and travel to most places around the world whenever you please, and write letters to the editor, and purchase whatever you wish, and write poetry that will be published in our enormous national media, or attend whatever college you can get into, and choose whatever career you wish, and speak as loudly as you want to through a megaphone from your front lawn, that your civil liberties haven't been "eroded" as much as you might think. Have you lost the right to a lawyer (if you are an enemy combatant, I guess you think you have) or due process or a jury of your peers in case you misexercise your civil liberties? Have you lost the right to dissent? Have you lost the liberty of buying property in Texas? Have you lost the liberty of voting for the candidate that best represents your worldview? It seems that Ned Lamont thinks that people exercised their right to vote in Connecticut awfully well.

So, which is the greater threat, I wonder, according to DarkSyde, if he were to ponder the question: the risk of his civil liberties being violated under the Bush Administration or the risk of getting on a plane en route from London to the United States last week?

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

"Have you lost the right to a lawyer (if you are an enemy combatant, I guess you think you have) or due process or a jury of your peers in case you misexercise your civil liberties?"

The problem is, I don't have to actually BE an enemy combatant to be denied those rights. And without representation or a hearing, how do I prove otherwise? As long as you or any of your family or friends don't look "swarthy," I guess that's okay with you.

"Have you lost the right to dissent?"

Yes - if I'm within half a mile of anywhere Bush or Cheney are speaking.

"Have you lost the liberty of buying property in Texas?"

No, but I could lose the liberty of KEEPING my property in Texas. You might have read about a recent Supreme Court decision that says anyone with a lot of money who wants to build condos on my property can take it away from me with the help of the local government?

"Have you lost the liberty of voting for the candidate that best represents your worldview?"

No, but that doesn't mean my vote is COUNTED.

Any other questions?

You've been here 28 minutes. Will you make it to an hour?

Or a different question. Does this sort of cheap trolling provide you with some sort of emotional satisfaction?

"You've been here 28 minutes. Will you make it to an hour?"

If this is one of those "open" forums where you delete and ban anyone who doesn't agree with you, I suppose I won't.

Nope! Your intentionally absurd answers to legitimate questions you obviously knew the intent of, speak volumes!

"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude"

My answers aren't absurd at all. These are things that are happening in our country. Believe it or not, our leaders don't have haloes over their heads.

You're just mad because we rigged the voting machines to steal all the elections. Get over it.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Is that what I meant? You read a lot into that. Guilty conscience?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I have other "troll" posts in this thread that are begging a factual and logical refutation. Would you like to respond to one of those or would you rather take the coward's way out? Anyone? No, I didn't think so.

I've heard this song sung so many times, I know it by heart.

You've said nothing of substance; it's merely so much repeated garbage, again and again.

Ok, now I'm banning you. I'm not banning you because of your ideology, I'm banning you because you're not one of those rare people of your ideology who come here and actually politely make us think. You're just a rude prig. Farewell.

The contact form is your friend. Bye.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

See The World In HinzSight!

"The problem is, I don't have to actually BE an enemy combatant to be denied those rights. And without representation or a hearing, how do I prove otherwise? As long as you or any of your family or friends don't look "swarthy," I guess that's okay with you."

Well, I could probably pass for "swarthy" when I haven't been shaving, but since I don't take attend "weddings" in tribal Pakistan or attend paramilitary Kill the Jews When the Time is Ripe Camp in the summer, I think I'll take my chances with the black helicopters, thanks.

right to
"Yes - if I'm within half a mile of anywhere Bush or Cheney are speaking."

Gosh, if only we had some medium by which expressions of dissent could be transmitted around the world in convenience, instead of pushing twenty-foot papier-mache heads into the street during rush hour. Perhaps someone will invent one.

eminent
"No, but I could lose the liberty of KEEPING my property in Texas. You might have read about a recent Supreme Court decision that says anyone with a lot of money who wants to build condos on my property can take it away from me with the help of the local government?"

Yes, the one dissented from by those awful conservative justices, including that Neanderthal Thomas. And let's not even discuss the sort of greedy Randroids who form organizations to fight eminent domain and thwart the construction of useful public infrastructure. (Way to choose a really bad example to illustrate our sins.)

"No, but that doesn't mean my vote is COUNTED."

I think I'll just say, "Cite?" (Or ask your local election officials to buy from Sequoia, so the right sort of people will be behind any sinister conspiracy to fix the vote.)

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

even though it assumes this individual votes and owns property, two dubious propositions if there ever were any.

I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.-Ronald Reagan

There is no question that the USSR had, by far, the greater material capabilities when it came to killing us off and eradicating America. But, as history has proven, was not their goal. They wanted to prove the strength and power and righteousness of Socialism over the weakness and corruption and evil of Capitalism. But, as the English noble who created Obedience Trials did so to show off the intelligence of Poodles over all other kinds of dogs failed 200 years ago, so to did the USSR fail to prove how an inferior system was stronger than its superior.

Now we are faced by terrorism. By a Religious fanaticism that is willing to give up lives of Any number. Willing to sacrifice its members, its members families and friends and children with the Sole purpose of wiping out Judaism and the West.

Which is the greater threat?
The guy with his finger on the button to fire enough nukes to wipe out America but is worried about America's nukes coming back and killing him and his wife and his children?

Or the guy with a bomb in a backpack or a tube of toothpaste who doesn't care if his wife and kids are on the plane or in the building (or might even have bombs themselves) he is about to blow up?

Me? I'd rather face the guy with the nukes. When I demonstrate my ability and willingness to retaliate to him firing his nukes, he will be willing to talk. The other guy, not so much...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

"Peace had a chance"

as a one-way ticket to paradise. Yes, DarkSyde addressed fear. He just doesn't seem to realize the fear of terror is well-grounded, while the fear of John Ashcroft checking my reading list is, well, a little overblown.

The Soviets were a very real threat (although one that the Left never acknowledged). In retrospect, the threat was manageable because the Soviets were not willing to commit suicide in their quest for world domination.

You brought civil liberities into the discussion, as equated with the War on Terror. That's a discussion of tactics, not strategy, and while I agree with the Administration's policies (Patriot Act, etc.), the trade-off of civil liberties for internal security is a legitimate topic for debate.

What troubles me is that the Left will not acknowledge the threat posed by al Qaeda: these people were successful in bringing down the World Trade Center, attacked the Pentagon, and had either the White House or the Capitol building in their crosshairs. These attacks might have easily killed 50,000 instead of 3,000. We have foiled any number of follow up attacks, the most recent behind the coordinated plot on transatlantic passenger jets.

Pres. Bush adopted the strategy of taking the war to the terrorists, getting it off of American soil, and "draining the swamp". This is the "War on Terror" to me, and it is a strategy that I endorse. What do you offer as an alternative?

holy water/garlic/a crucifix, according to legend, is supposed to ward off/harm vampires. Similarly, conservatives are supposed to flee with much comical wailing and hissing when charged with racism/sexism/threating civil liberties-ism. That we find the war on terror serious enough that we challenge these self-evident truths of progressivism is unconscionable. So they will repeat the charges louder and more often-as we must not have heard them the first time and as a rallying cry to fellow progressives(as we know it doesn't matter of the charges are TRUE, the meerest hint in the general direction of a posibility that an ism is threated will suffice). Hopefully we will be able to debate this rationally once they realize we heard them the first time-but from what I've seen to date, I'm not holding my breath.

Who is this "we" that you speak of? The Democrats bailed out against the Soviets in 1968 and spent the following twenty years saying the exact same things about the anti-Soviets that they are now saying about the anti-jihadis.

to the immediate aftermath of JFK's murder so Johnson, not the golden child, could be attacked in his stead over Vietnam.

Tomorrow it will be a mortal danger caused by George W. Bush. As I said to Robert Hahn the other day, I took a wild guess that we would soon be witnessing the deeper logic (such as it is) behind the New York Times' publication of the bomb-recipe: it was meant to prepare the ground for a more comprehensive set of articles, which would cast the blame for terrorism on none other than the America, and by extension, the President.

And as surely as the sun rises, that view is materializing in the wake of publishing the bomb-making article:

A critical debate in America today — among political candidates and among national security experts — is whether five years of war declarations and war-making have helped to make the United States more secure. Or, even in the absence of a major attack on American soil since 9/11, has this strategy created greater danger by providing terror groups with exactly what they crave: the sense that they are a unified army of jihadists? And has the strategy radicalized large swaths of the Muslim world in ways that were not imaginable as recently as 2003?

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

DarkSyde is just behind the media spin curve a little bit. His first reaction in the wake of the London plot is to claim that the risk of being killed by a terrorist doesn't rise above the background noise. That's one way of casting doubt on the GWOT, but he's slightly off-key, because if the risk is insignificant, then the GWOT is itself harmless. That explanation will not last long -- it must be demonstrated that the President and the Republicans have made the world more dangerous, not just that they are worried about background noise -- and therefore I would predict that within a few days DarkSyde will be writing long, highly-embellished lapidary pieces talking about just that. Give him a couple of days to catch up with the New York Times -- eventually their stories will coincide.

DarkSyde's position forms the bookend, or rather it constructs the other side of the frame, for the New York Times' position: If terrorism is a miniscule risk, the GWOT is a spectacular waste of money and energy and a horrible example of George W. Bush's foolishness that must be stopped. If, on the other hand, it is decided that the risk of terrorism has now actually increased as a result of the GWOT, then it is not just a spectacular waste of money, etc., -- it borders on criminal incompetence. Either way, you can see where these two arguments are going to eventually intersect in the complex plane.

[Side note: Sorry for the sig line in the middle of the previous post.]

"If terrorism is a miniscule risk, the GWOT is a spectacular waste of money and energy and a horrible example of George W. Bush's foolishness that must be stopped."

Assuming the terms "GWOT" and "Iraq" are interchangeable to you, as they are to most Conservatives, this is a true statement.

"If, on the other hand, it is decided that the risk of terrorism has now actually increased as a result of the GWOT, then it is not just a spectacular waste of money, etc., -- it borders on criminal incompetence."

Likewise, this is true. One fact you can't run away from or spin is this: Before we attacked Iraq, NO Americans were being killed by Iraqi terrorists. Now it happens almost every day. I challenge you to claim otherwise.

This is a response to comment #30.

Your challenge is only meaningful if we are fighting a defensive war in Iraq - we're not. Remember the phrase "Pre-emptive war"? What do you think that means? We attacked before being attacked. It seems a very simple concept for anyone to get their head around.

What I think - it's just my guess - that you are trying to imply through a poor allegory is that we decided to attack, without provacation, a sovereign state in the international system. This would be a convenient history for someone who is against the GWOT/Iraq... except that it isn't true.

Saddam violated countless UN resolutions, up to and including 1441, he violated the cease-fire agreement his government signed with the coalition in the first Gulf War by firing at aircraft enforcing UN mandated "No Fly Zones" and he used Sarin Gas (which IS a WMD) against both the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ia muslims in the swamps to the south AFTER the first Gulf war when he was supposed to have proven himself "disarmed".

Correct me if I am wrong but two thoughts come to mind: A) Violating a cease-fire agreement is a declaration of war, is it not? and B) Can you agree that the world is better off with Saddam out of power??

"Evil is powerless ... if the good are unafraid." Ronald Reagan

Didn't we just have a case come before a judge and be decided in the Republicans' favour on Just That Topic after Democratic lobbyibg groups sued to make it stop? It was just on the front page this weekend...
...You maybe might want to keep up with the happenings...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

I noticed many of the KosKids complained about the next restrictions on air travel in the wake of last week's terror plot. So while you may be right about expenditures, you also need to acknowledge the childlike mindset of the Left that views any inspection or restriction as a civil liberty infringement.

We're taking the fight over there so it's really not necessary to do anything here.

believe anything done here to make us safer is not necessary. Congrats. You don't hide your trollness.

Many of "us" believe just the opposite. I believe in putting MORE resources to work to protect us HERE. Can you with any honesty claim we're doing enough? Or even the minimum? Our commercial planes are a whole lot safer. That's great, but is anything else in this country? I don't see any evidence of that. Our borders, for example. NOTHING has been done there except a lot of hot air blown in that direction. Trains, busses, subways, ports - nothing. We'll probably never solve this completely, but a little effort put somewhere besides our airports would be a start.

at the borders, ports, and points of entry. But you know what, when I read the DailyKos this morning, was the main gripe? The minimal restrictions the Administration implemented in the wake of the most recent terror plots.

You guys are pathetic. If you were on fire and Bush splashed you with water, you would complain about the change in temperature.

about "us guys." We're all in lockstep behind that one guy who wrote something on DailyKos. Congrats, you cracked the code! How about we all start caring more about our government acting responsibly than about what some jackazz said on DailyKos? It's nice to hear you admit that we need to do more about our security situation here at home. We have a responsibility as Americans to hold our representative's feet to the fire... even the ones we voted for. ESPECIALLY the ones we voted for! Agreed?

This article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, early last year, suggests that threat reduction is ticking along pretty well -- the "crisis" they mention is the U.S. and Russia arguing over liability issues in the decomissioning process, which seems like pretty small potatoes, all things considered. Air and sea cargo screening is very difficult to do economically, without bringing the whole process to a grinding halt. So says a maker of detectors in an article two years ago, an admission against interest if ever I heard one.

I'm not terribly impressed with the tentacled, top-down behemoth of Homeland Security, but given the political framework they're operating in -- where changes that actually inconvenience people or put them to some expense will lead to speculation that the threat is overblown, and why don't we give more money to the Consumer Product Safety Commission -- I think the particular aspects you've mentioned are moving along OK, if not in a spectacular fashion.

terror and the time, place, weapon of choice,{ consider the options and range of same} we don't know about. Or if and when we do it's on a case by case basis and founded on intelligence operations anterior to the incident. Hardly the stuff of which acturial tables, predictions, cost-benefit analysis and coherent patterns lend themselves to.

May I suggest that you be cautious in suspecting that anybody over at Kos and other subterranean locations posseses a normal brain.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

Just look at all the OSHA stickers on a new ladder warning of the dangers of falling off. We just need to put warning stickers on airline tickets that say you may become fish food in the mid-Atlantic Ocean and, BTW, don't stand under a tree in a lightning storm.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

out more Americans than every car wreck and disease combined, I would agree his logic was sound. Given that a cost/benefit analysis in this case would require an acknowledgement that one WMD would throw the equation out of whack, and this point really isn't addressed, DarkSyde's claims are beyond reason. They are about fear without an honest evaluation of whether it is justified with that little problem looming in the background.

Many more Americans were killed in combat from 1942 onward than died at Pearl Harbor. Using darksydes cost/benefit analysis FDR should have accepted that it would be much cheaper to come to terms with Japan in 1941 and simply written off the Americans killed on December 7.

The trouble with this kind of cost/benefit analysis is that it effectively puts control of our actions into our enemies hands.

So what are the chances? As great as a terror attack, probably more so. Do you change your beliefs or give up your rights because of the chance of these things happening? Do you let your fear of these events drive your life?

Nobody has given up any rights. Maybe you can stop repeating this.

I have given up the right to carry liquids on a plane for now. I have given up the right to carry a small knife on planes (which I did for years just because it was in my backback). These are small things that are being taken away due to fear. It will continue unless we control our fears.

You have the opportunity to buy a ticket if you have the money. You buy the ticket per the terms and conditions imposed by those who own and fly the planes per the terms and conditions imposed by those who run the airports and control the airspace.

The left thinks everything is a right. Heads up dude. The only rights you have are those granted to you by those who are willing to defend them from someone wanting to take them away from you or those you can defend yourself. You don't appreciate the first and I doubt you have the guts for the second.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

The snarky commenter will point out that you never had a right to do those things, just a priviledge afforded to you on behalf of the airlines and the State that regulates them. They would point out that you can contend with the the revocation of such priviledges by opting not to fly.

I think the ban on liquids, gels, deoderants, etc is quite an absurd over-reaction*. But is it an infringement on "rights"? No, although it may qualify as a minor negative change in the quality of air travel in this country. Multiply those small changes over time and we may indeed end up with a much different way of life.

Whether plane flights are where we should be most worried about these small changes adding up is also a good question. I'm personally more concerned about fear leading to acceptance of small incremental changes in behaviour by State authorities and increasingly militarized civil police - becoming so often through use of substantial amounts of homeland security grants to communities that are by no means even second tier terrorist targets.

* - Where are all those "potentially dangerous" liquids and gels going just days after this plot was uncovered? Untested(!?!?), they end up in the garbage, or are given to homeless shelters. Sigh.

If you think that banning carry on of liquids is an over-reaction to the discovery that terrorists have plans to use liquid explosives to bring down airliners, then what mechanism would you propose to prevent them from accomplishing their goal? If you were running American Airlines, what would your policy be?

I suppose we could simply ban all Muslims from coming within a mile of a plane, but while effective that would be a rather more serious infringement of liberties then having to buy a can of Coke on board the aircraft.

You can't bring liquids on-board if you've ever gone to a mosque? That's a happy compromise.

The TSA has this ridiculous program where a few of the people standing around apparently doing nothing are observing for suspicious activity. They have a list of things with point values assigned to each, and if they total up beyond some value, you get questioned. All this so they can't accidentally use any kind of profiling, either racial or religious.

I like the mechanism that was used to dispose of this plot, personally. The suspects didn't even make it to the airport (or buy tickets, according to the last news reports I heard), let alone any liquid explosives getting near the jetway. It wasn't a generalized wholesale ban that did the job, it was a focused, targetted intelligence operation aimed at those posing a credible threat.

Look, if indeed they were using TATP, then this isn't a new threat. Richard Reid apparently used TATP and I don't recall a ban on shoes after that. And in 1995 there was a remarkably similar plot to blow up 11 planes using liquid explosives. We havn't banned water bottles, contact lens cases, and mascara since these incidents (or even immediately afterwards as far as I can tell), yet clearly there's been the *possibility* all along that someone might try this kind of thing again.

But regardless of my own speculation as to the inefficacy of wholesale bans on any liquid/gel substance in thwarting terrorist activities, look at what is being done here. These items were banned, presumably because authorities believed that there was a risk that one or more items discarded at the gate/security could contain liquid explosives. They didn't track who threw away what. It was all collected haphazardly, and then disposed of as if common trash, or in some cases, apparently saved for charity - in spite of the apparent risk that any given item might have been explosive. Had an item gone off after shaking or some amount of time, perhaps still in the immediate collection bin at the gate, how would authorities have connected the explosive item with the person who discarded it? What if an item blew up several hours or days later, injuring someone else nearby?

So: (1) Do they really believe these items might pose a risk, and (2) if yes, do you think they operated with any degree of competence in handling these items in light of said risk?

If we believe (1) then I'm quite concerned about the competence at TSA up the chain of command - that someone didn't say, wait, if these items might be explosive, we have to handle this differently. Personally, I suspect they didn't really believe there was a risk but "something had to be done" to show they're on top of it and "people are safe". It's not a poor intention of course, but good intentions don't correlate to sensible policy or competent execution.

And you still did not manage to answer my question. What would you do if you were in charge of security and you received word that terrorists planned to use liquid explosives to destroy aircraft? Carping about what was done does not cut it, you need to come up with some better ideas.

The trouble with a "focused, targetted intelligence operation aimed at those posing a credible threat" is that it only works when you have intelligence on those planning an attack. We got lucky this time. Sooner or later our luck will run out, again.

So the second question is, what is your solution for dealing with the problem in a more systemic way, and not relying on intelligence to pick off the small fish.

You know the problem as well as I do. There are nundreds of millions of airline passengers each year. Some tiny fraction of them, say a few thousand, are out to cause mayhem. How do you stop them?

And you still did not manage to answer my question. What would you do if you were in charge of security and you received word that terrorists planned to use liquid explosives to destroy aircraft? Carping about what was done does not cut it, you need to come up with some better ideas.

The trouble with a "focused, targetted intelligence operation aimed at those posing a credible threat" is that it only works when you have intelligence on those planning an attack. We got lucky this time. Sooner or later our luck will run out, again.

So the second question is, what is your solution for dealing with the problem in a more systemic way, and not relying on intelligence to pick off the small fish.

You know the problem as well as I do. There are hundreds of millions of airline passengers each year. Some tiny fraction of them, say a few thousand, are out to cause mayhem. How do you stop them?

Look, if indeed they were using TATP, then this isn't a new threat.

It doesn't sound like it... the reports I've seen make it sound as if this is a more unusual and sophisticated concoction... one you can't find the recipe to on just any jihadist website. TATP is very crude, very hazardous, and I believe has to be vented... giving off odors that can be detected. This plan called for an unvented container.

Richard Reid apparently used TATP and I don't recall a ban on shoes after that.

You don't remember all the futzing around with shoes and forcing people to take them off (that still continues to this day)? Or the ban on lighters (that also still continues)? This was all Richard Reid fallout.

And in 1995 there was a remarkably similar plot to blow up 11 planes using liquid explosives. We havn't banned water bottles, contact lens cases, and mascara since these incidents (or even immediately afterwards as far as I can tell)

There were certainly bans on liquids put in place in some places (though not the US) for a few months after the discovery of the plot.

They didn't track who threw away what.

Are you seriously suggesting collecting and maintaining paperwork on each tube of toothpaste thrown away? We might as well have just done a nationwide groundstop, because that would've been the effective result.

It was all collected haphazardly, and then disposed of as if common trash, or in some cases, apparently saved for charity - in spite of the apparent risk that any given item might have been explosive.

You think a terrorist is going to throw away his explosives when he could just leave the airport and take them home for another day? You think this is worth having a bunch of people spend months or years going through a mountain of trash looking for something that won't be there?

Now... Do I think the TSA is competent? No. Do I think the liquid ban is an overreaction? Yes. Is it atypical of a government response to anything? No. Is it atypical of TSA behavior every other time there was any kind of incident? No.

Some precautions are necessary. You can't count on intercepting every plot that comes along. I would've preferred if they restricted this to likely types of containers, likely sizes of containers, or inspected the containers if they were of the approrpriate size. Just like the fingernail clipper confiscations after 9/11, government always overreacts. There will be a correction to this policy down the road.

Or the ban on lighters (that also still continues)? This was all Richard Reid fallout.

Not so much...

Congress enacted the ban in late 2004 in response to concerns that a terrorist could light explosives on an airplane, as "shoe bomber" Richard Reid attempted on a trans-Atlantic jetliner in late 2001. The ban took effect in April 2005.

Unless it just took them 4 years to "respond" with some "fallout"... a little slow in comparison to last week's crackdown, and oddly enough, no worries about matches! And according to TSA from the same article:

"The lighter ban does not add to security anymore," Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley told USA TODAY on Wednesday. Forcing screeners to confiscate lighters at checkpoints "is a distraction from the serious nature of finding (bomb) components."

Are you seriously suggesting collecting and maintaining paperwork on each tube of toothpaste thrown away?

If TSA believed there was a credible threat that someone from the same cell might try to board a plane at an American airport with covert liquid explosives, then the possibility that a terrorist may have attempted to board, got to the point where items were being discarded, and decided to dump and act innocent is absolutely a possibility. Yet the items weren't tracked, weren't disposed of with the care due to potential liquid explosives, and ended up in public trash bins or in the hands of homeless persons. Are you seriously suggesting that it was competent and safe to do that if TSA believed there was a credible threat?

To answer Jon's question directly - in TSA's shoes if I had evidence suggesting a credible threat that someone was going to board a plane at American airports wth liquid explosives, I would have called in personnel actually experienced with the handling of explosives (e.g. bomb squad types) who might be able to advise how potentially deadly materials should be handled, assessed and disposed of and what materials are actually even feasible for such an operation - since apparently baby formula is mysteriously impervious to use as a liquid explosive and welcome to board, I assume maybe certain brands of shampoo might also be zero risk candidates [rolls eyes]. If I didn't have evidence of a credible threat at American airports I'd have done nothing beyond the standard precautions used everyday.

If TSA believed there was a credible threat that someone from the same cell might try to board a plane at an American airport with covert liquid explosives, then the possibility that a terrorist may have attempted to board, got to the point where items were being discarded, and decided to dump and act innocent is absolutely a possibility. Yet the items weren't tracked, weren't disposed of with the care due to potential liquid explosives, and ended up in public trash bins or in the hands of homeless persons. Are you seriously suggesting that it was competent and safe to do that if TSA believed there was a credible threat?

This is just the most ridiculous thing coming out of the left this week. Do you think the terrorists are unaware of the prohibition on liquids? Do you think they are going to be showing up at the airport with liquid explosives? Do you think if they somehow forgot and showed up anyway, that they wouldn't just take the explosives back to base to change their plan? Or set them off in terminal if they thought they could generate enough casualties? And if they did want to dump them for some inexplicable reason, what makes you think they'd give them to a TSA employee? There are trash cans all over the airport. So the proper response is to either ignore the threat and leave a known vulnerability in place, or have bomb squads go through the all the trash generated by every airport in America. That is some plan. One worthy of Carter, even.

The ban was enacted while people (and apparently given TSA's reaction, potential terrorists) were still in the airports waiting to board flights. What does a terrorist already at the gate do? Walk out of the airport? Try to board anyway? Does he dump his explosive? You're telling me these terrorists will all act rationally, according to plan?

I didn't make the policy, TSA did. Their reaction indicates that there was a credible threat that a terrorist may have tried to board a plane in America with disguised liquid explosives. But then they take all the potential liquid explosives that were discarded, treating them like ordinairy garbage or giving them to homeless shelters.

Let's cut to the chase. I assert that TSA had absolutely no evidence there was a credible threat that anyone at American airports would board a plane with liquid explosives. The cell in Britain was being tracked for months. We'd have known if they had any functionaries operating in America. The whole thing is a farce, much like banning lighters but allowing matches... and then realizing it was pointless to ban lighters in the first place two years after the fact.

Is there is no need to have intel about a specific threat to change security procedures. Do you think they are still getting intel about people trying to hijack planes with boxcutters or knives? Yet this prohibition stands. Do they need specific intel about people attempting to hijack planes with firearms to prohibit them onboard? Of course not. If we just react to intel about specific threats, why should we have security screening at all? Just do nothing until there is a specific identified threat, then set up the checkpoints for that day at that airport. Sounds like a great plan.

How would you like to differentiate possible threats from credible threats? Do you think TSA has been grossly negligent because, despite the 1995 plot to blow up airplanes with liquid explosives, they hadn't already banned all liquids and gels? Should we include breast milk and baby formula afterall? Do you think the ban on lighters should stand, and include matches - and do you think the lighter ban should have been enacted immediately after the Richard Reid incident, or was it safe to wait four years? What about small electronic devices that can be used as the source of an electric spark such as cell phones, ipods, laptops, and so on?

If we just react to intel about specific threats, why should we have security screening at all?

If we react to possibilities, why should we allow anything on board at all?

Let's just play Wheel of Prohibited Items and randomly pick what will and wont be allowed on. It can't get any worse than current policy.

Let's just play Wheel of Prohibited Items and randomly pick what will and wont be allowed on. It can't get any worse than current policy.

This is a great idea. I should repeat that I really don't care for the TSA or DHS at all, and I have zero confidence the former and not a whole lot in the latter. I think it is appropriate to react with some additional restrictions or inspections on liquids, but, as always, they go too far. They are confiscating items that are far too small or aren't even liquids. At least at some airports, you cannot buy a bottle of soda even in the secure part of the airport. They'll pour it in a cup for you. They haven't sat down to think what you can make a liquid explosive look like or how much you'd need to be able to do anything with it.

I would have called in personnel actually experienced with the handling of explosives (e.g. bomb squad types) who might be able to advise how potentially deadly materials should be handled, assessed and disposed of and what materials are actually even feasible for such an operation

Would you now? And where do you imagine you are going to find the thousands of such people neccessary to staff all of Americas airports? And how long do you intend to have them stay there?

You are utterly confused as to the purpose of airport security. It is not there to try to apprehend bad guys. It's purpose is to try to prevent planes from being blown up or hijacked. Their actions are consistent with their real goals, if not with the ones you imagine they have.

Finding the bad guys is the role of police and intelligence services. The Democratic party has spent the last several years doing what it can to place obstacles in their paths. Note that the British have anti-terrorist laws in place that make the Patriot Act, that boegy-man of the left, look like it was written by the ACLU.

Since Howard Dean thinks that the busting of the British terror ring was a model for fighting terror I look forward to hearing him propose draconian new laws for America.

What is it that I lost? What is it that it looks like I Might lose because of the Republicans?
Please, I want to complain about them too...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

I believe that when we make decisions that are based on fear, those decisions can lead down a road that is not good for us or the ideals on which this country is based. That's all.

My complaint about the current Republicans in power is that they are spending money like Democrats.

The only people in a position to take your rights from your Right Now are the Republicans and they have been for the past several years. So don't try to weasel out of this.

Furtermore, as has been stated upthread already, you haven't lost any rights, only a few privileges.
Your Right is to travel freely within these United States. Your Privilege is to fly or drive or walk or...

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

The Democrats held the House when most of the current terror provisions were enacted, so it is bipartisan fear.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

The feds can stop or deter terrorism. The government can't prevent earthquakes, volcanic activity, and asteroid mishaps. Even Clinton and Gore, although they might have claimed to have the ability, couldn't have prevented Mt. St. Helens. They could have done more to reign in Osama bin Laden, of course, but decided those costs exceeded the benefits all through the Nineties.

"The feds can stop or deter terrorism."

Sometimes. And that is the big question. How to stop and deter, isn't it. Are the current decisions and policies working? Seems to be working in some areas, not so well in others.

Look, you can fear many things. I live in California. I fear an earthquake. I make preperations to be as prepared as I can. But I know that it is coming. But my fear does not change the rest of my life. I have the exact same feeling about a terrorist attack. It's chances of DIRECTLY affecting my life is almost nil. So I try not to let it affect the decisions I make in my life.

--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong

Can the feds stop terrorism sometimes or an earthquake any time?

Fearing an earthquake more than a terrorist attack is simply irrational. The odds of being killed in an earthquake in CA are far smaller than the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack. All it takes is a single deployment of a WMD in LA or SFO or whatever part of CA you live in. There hasn't been a WMD attack on the US yet, but as the prospectus writers say, "past performance is no guarantee of future results." You can't spend your life looking in the rearview mirror.

but not an earthquake? And how are you coming up with these odds? This is the same "logic" that got us into this mess in Iraq: Saddam might someday maybe at some point in the future attack us IF he restarts his weapons program and builds the delivery systems with that kind of range and finds the materials and lives long enough to see all of that happen... so we must move to attack and occupy Iraq NOW!

...showing your ignorance of both situations Iraq and California

Please take your PointySticks™ and KnownFacts™ and play elsewhere?

Just a suggestion as your tracking dirt all over the floor here!

"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude"

Instead of simply calling me ignorant, how about taking a shot at proving me wrong? What exactly is the "situation" in California that I'm ignorant of? That they don't have earthquakes? That they do have a terrorist problem? I'd like to hear your theories. And what am I missing about the Iraq "situation?" That they did pose an immediate threat to us? Go ahead and take a crack at that one. Cue sound of crickets chirping.

My portfolio needed a boost... so we need to attack and occupy Iraq NOW!

Of course I got Haliburton (HAL), that's just a no brainer. Then once we get Iraq to buy Diebold machines (DBD is also a critical holding in any VRWC portfolio), Republicans that don't even live there and aren't even on the ballot will be winning races in Iraq. Then they can give fat oil production agreements to XOM for a song. And sign into law requirements that Marlboros (MO) be included in elementary school lunches.

this bunch. They don't respond to anything that requires them to think in ways beyond the RNC talking points and "dittoes."

He can hang, and assuredly doesn't need your advice.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Fortunately, Arizona has an "open carry" rule & the 9mm doesn't even need a permit.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I answered your question.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

That is why deconstruction wasn't necessary. Obviously the USSR (I know the era all too well from personal experience) had a massive stockpile of weapons. The difference was the dictatorship feared death. One nuke in the hands of a jihadist, who has little or no fear of death, would be used precisely because of this different view of life. Why this doesn't register with people like DarkSyde is beyond analysis. It is too absurd to do anything but dismiss such a claim.

Would you argue then that a nuclear weapon in the hands of anyone who doesn't fear death and wishes to attack america, communist, poet, or homeless man, is just as great a risk as the jihadist, whom we assume to know, doesn't fear death and wishes to attack america?

That the greater threat is not the actual threat of nuclear weapons, but that of the intent of the person who might wield such a weapon? Would you agree to that?

Do you fear terrorism that does not have nuclear weapons?

Given that the jihadist is more likely to obtain a nuke from a state sponsor or some oil-enriched madman, no, I don't see a poet or communist as a greater threat. And I thought your point was the cost/benefit analysis?

Given that the jihadist is more likely to obtain a nuke from a state sponsor or some oil-enriched madman, no, I don't see a poet or communist as a greater threat. And I thought your point was the cost/benefit analysis?

Given that the jihadist is more likely to obtain a nuke from a state sponsor or some oil-enriched madman, no, I don't see a poet or communist as a greater threat. And I thought your point was the cost/benefit analysis?

The number of nukes, not the intent, also was DarkSyde's argument or lack thereof.

the government actually can prevent or deter terrorism. Ladder mishaps, despite mandated warning labels, are inevitable.