1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.
2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.
3. Light aircraft are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

I don't disagree with any of them. I disagree that they are significant
statements, and that they form the basis for a "good, clear, and well
defined" reason for the giant restricted area over DC.

To put it in perspective, suppose all the highways into and out of DC
were blockaded, and one needed prior authorization to enter or leave the
DC area - perhaps mediated by EZ-Pass and a RFID tag on driver licenses
(actually, not very farfetched at all). Since rental vans were used for
prior attacks, they are allowed to travel freely (so long as they belong
to one of the larger rental companies). However, every subcompact car
is suspect, since it can carry a bomb in the trunk.

The restrictions are set up for very clear, well defined reasons, and
every driver knows it.

1. There are terrorist groups that wish to carry out attacks in the
domestic US.
2. Government buildings in DC are likely to be preferred targets of
such attacks.
3. Small cars are a possible means of delivering a weapon of some
kind.

Which of these three propositions would you disagree with?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.