On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:37:36 GMT, Bob Noel
wrote in Message-Id:
:

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

the reason is probably more related to the perceived publicity
"benefit" of hitting the president being more spectacular than
hitting the VP.

Note that part of the purpose of the terrorist is to make
a public statement wrt the fact that the US can be attacked
rather than trying to inflict actual damage.

Do you feel that it's appropriate and constitutional for the TSA to
possess the power restrict citizens' right to the use of navigable
airspace BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than sound science?

no, that wasn't my point at all. I failed to make my point clear.

It's based on the terrorist's view of the importance of the
attack (btw - to ignore the enemy's perceptions is foolish).

At least that has some credibility, but how did they arrive at the
specific sizes they did, intuitively?