First, just because the government has a bunch of information they don't share doesn't make it good information. Second, you are, as usual, confusing information with wisdom and knowledge. Folks can provide all sorts of info about how astrology is real, but that doesn't make the information true or the conclusions worthy of consideration. The government can come out with all kinds of justifications for collecting info, but for most people with any kind of understanding of the human condition, that doesn't trump privacy and the Bill of Rights. Third, some of the "info" I use to disagree with these stances can be found on Amazon. Simply go to "Books' and do searches on 20th Century European History with particular attention to Italy, Germnay, and the Soviet Union. Now, please answer my question.
Max, I understand where you (and B-Bob) are coming from, but I guess I made my post a little too simplistic. To me, we had a tragedy that no one will ever forget in 9-11. If these measures were in place back then, it would have not happened. Well, there would have been less of a chance as the terrorists would have had to come up with alternate plans to do what they wanted that could take years to fully realize. Hopefully, the security measures continue to get better in this country and would thwart their plans. I know that is an unrealistic dream on my part, but I think you see what I mean. Now, if there is really not a need for the government to know stuff about me, then I agree with you completely. But if I am getting into a situation that involves other people and there is a risk that one of them can harm me or anyone else to the point of killing me, then the government can know whatever they want about me because I know that they are doing (or they better be) the same thing with everyone else who is with me. And that would put my mind at ease. And thank you again, Clutch, for edit!
So, if you were a German in the 1930's, Hitler's policies would be no big deal because you're not Jewish? If you were an American in the 1940's, the Japanese-American camps would be of no concern because you're not Japanese? Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the governments purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. --Louis D. Brandeis Ask not for whom the bell tolls Manny... it tolls for thee.
you're absolutely right...there is a balance between security and liberty..and we're foolish to fall too far on either side.
rimrocker, See further clarification to Max above your post. Oh you crazy D&D guys! I actually have to type paragraphs in this forum for people here to understand where I am coming from - no more cryptic messages!
Manny, aside from the whole if you don't have anything to hide argument, which scares the crap out of me that people feel that way, Why do you think more information would help the government. How many of the 9-11 terrorists were already being tracked by the government. Point is, the information the government has seems to already have been sufficient. Information isn't the problem. The problem is usage of the information. We learned this immediately after the terror attacks, one of the things our government has been forthcoming on. Its the reasoning for setting up the Department of Homeland Security, not for information gathering, rather for centralizing that info and putting it to effective use. Hell if anything, they can't use the information they have now which is the problem.
By the way, there's this quote from the current New Yorker... ____________ "No president has ever done more for human rights than I have." --George W. Bush to New Yorker writer Ken Auletta
So all the liberals have to lean on in this argument is the slippery slope argument? Very weak. The liberals are dealing in the hypothetical. The rest of us are dealing with a *REAL* terrorist threat. If you liberals have such strong feelings on the topic, then surely you are basing that on hard evidence, correct? Let's see it! Or is this just another hollow criticism of anything that Bush or Ashcroft does?
LMAO! Exactly. Toe the line, and quit all that thinking for yourselves. I guess by the same logic, I've lost my status as a liberal.
Why don't we just do what El Al does? They haven't had an incident in my adult lifetime. If security is so important, I would rather put up with three hour check in procedures for every flight and higher ticket prices. With the half steps we are planning we essentially are subsidizing airlines - and still leaving ourselves vulnerable. The whole mindset on airtravel will just have to change.
what is the US government going to do with such a list? are they going to decide who's filght travels are suspicious? what are they going to do to these people?
That's what I'm wondering about. I agree with B-Bob in that this specific step doesn't really bother me, as long as it's not used in a discriminatory manner. This seems like information they should have already, honestly. I'd really like to see their criteria for who will be marked red, yellow, or green. To me, they should just make sure that every bag that enters a plane is searched and that planes are searched numerous times before taking off. If it requires more employees, more government subsidization, a three hour wait at the airport, then so be it. I'd see it more as an inconvenience that we'll soon get used to rather than a violation of our privacy.
pgabriel, Playing devil's advocate here - you say that the government was already tracking the 9-11 terrorists. I take it that you are referring to how they had this database with all these suspicious people and the 9-11 terrorists were in that database. But they didn't act on this, did they? If they did, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. If this checking your background before you can get on a plane was in place back then, the Towers would have not been destroyed. Now, there is no doubt in my mind that they would have come up with some other alternate plan to do what they felt was necessary. But at least, it is highly unlikely to involve airplanes. And I know that it is easy for me to say this in hindsight, but it took me a LOOONG time to get on a plane again. I just want to feel safe and secure. If the government feels that is the best way to accomplish that, then I don't have a problem with that; however, as mentioned to Max, I do have a problem if they feel that they need to bug my phone and install cameras in my house, etc. The key is not only safety for yourself, pgabriel, but other people's safety as well.
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death. (A little out of context, but still worth thinking about.)
Exactly. Well put, I totally am in agreement. Three hours of check-in (and elimination of the just plain ridiculous ban on knitting needles and other harmless items the idiot "baggage screeners" go bananas over) to inspect everyone for REAL weapons and explosives, not silly little keychain knives and nail clippers (Either take the plane down onto Minute Maid Park or I'm going to clip that cuticle, you infidel! ) would be worth it for complete safety. El Al has had zero terrorists attacks because of it. When it is private sector, it will be done right because if it is not, it will cost the company profit. Whereas when govt gets in involved, doing it right just isn't an important part of the equation. Hence my family and I drove to the Keys (besides I wanted to take my boat). I just don't want my govt. knowing who I am, where I'm flying and other such information they have no business knowing. Just because I'm not doing anything wrong doesn't mean I want to give them info I feel they are not entitled to. And yes, Mr. Ashcroft, that means YOU!!!!!
This step isn't a big deal. As yall have already said, airlines are already doing this. But they are doing it in a (mostly) discriminatory manner. I spend way more time than any of my co-workers in security at the airport. I'd prefer the government have a more complete profile of me - at least I'd be a little less likely to be stopped. The only concern here is the slippery slope, but I rarely buy that argument anyway. Let's worry about those things when we get there. If I have to spend 3 hours to check in for a flight, I and many other business travelers will begin to find new alternatives. Say good-bye to the already troubled airline industry. The added cost and the inconvenience will kill any incentive for me to get on a number of my flights. I can't imagine getting at the airport at 3 am for my 6 am flights.
