Comprehensive security

"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message
...

Is this all "window dressing?" Sure it is. But it's a relatively small
price
to pay to enjoy the freedom we have.

It's is NOT, NOT, NOT, a relatively small price. You've got it all EXACTLY
backwards.

The terrorists could never take our freedom. Only we (or our government if
completely ceases to become "we") can do that. The terrorists are not
powerful enough. They can knock down buildings, shut down city transit
systems, kill millions, and we will still be free if the country has the
guts to keep ourselves free.

You are not talking about freedom but only the illusion of infinitesimally
greater safety from violent acts that, while they have a huge impact on the
national psyche, are almost vanishingly unlikely to happen to any
individual. This illusion is created not by actually making us feel safer
but by creating a pervasive atmosphere of fear such that having freedoms
taken away brings us back to where we were before. When something is taken
away and then given back, you haven't gained anything.

The price for this illusion is innumerable changes in small things that used
to enrich our lives like parents stopping along the airport runway to watch
the planes with their children. Each may be inconsequential but in sum they
make up the essence of the freedom that this nation has always cherished.

The tragedy is that these changes have nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do
with increasing our safety and everything to do with an illusion that is
being increasingly manipulated by the government for purposes of achieving
the power to change the society in ways that would be considered radical if
the party currently in power were not labeled conservative.

Hitler, Sadam, and his ilk got their first grip on power by getting people
to say, "Sure, the storm troopers are obnoxious but they make the trains run
on time and I've got a job now."

The increasing and widespread adoption of exactly the point of view
expressed in your post is a far, far greater threat to our nation than the
terrorists will ever be.

No one can take freedom from a country as great as this one but we are free
to give it up.

--

Roger Long

Roger Long wrote:
"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message
...


Is this all "window dressing?" Sure it is. But it's a relatively small
price
to pay to enjoy the freedom we have.


It's is NOT, NOT, NOT, a relatively small price. You've got it all EXACTLY
backwards.

The terrorists could never take our freedom. Only we (or our government if
completely ceases to become "we") can do that. The terrorists are not
powerful enough. They can knock down buildings, shut down city transit
systems, kill millions, and we will still be free if the country has the
guts to keep ourselves free.

You are not talking about freedom but only the illusion of infinitesimally
greater safety from violent acts that, while they have a huge impact on the
national psyche, are almost vanishingly unlikely to happen to any
individual. This illusion is created not by actually making us feel safer
but by creating a pervasive atmosphere of fear such that having freedoms
taken away brings us back to where we were before. When something is taken
away and then given back, you haven't gained anything.

The price for this illusion is innumerable changes in small things that used
to enrich our lives like parents stopping along the airport runway to watch
the planes with their children. Each may be inconsequential but in sum they
make up the essence of the freedom that this nation has always cherished.

The tragedy is that these changes have nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do
with increasing our safety and everything to do with an illusion that is
being increasingly manipulated by the government for purposes of achieving
the power to change the society in ways that would be considered radical if
the party currently in power were not labeled conservative.

Hitler, Sadam, and his ilk got their first grip on power by getting people
to say, "Sure, the storm troopers are obnoxious but they make the trains run
on time and I've got a job now."

The increasing and widespread adoption of exactly the point of view
expressed in your post is a far, far greater threat to our nation than the
terrorists will ever be.

No one can take freedom from a country as great as this one but we are free
to give it up.


Well said, Roger! Freedom is under attack, and not (mainly) by the
terrorists.

-Aviv

The "price to pay" that I'm talking about is dealing with the "window
dressing" security measures. That price includes fighting these security
measures being put on us as a society and on general aviation in particular.
We should fight it tooth and nail. The real battle for our security (read:
prevention of another terrorist attack) however is being fought in places we
will never know about.

Marco

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message
...

Is this all "window dressing?" Sure it is. But it's a relatively small
price
to pay to enjoy the freedom we have.

It's is NOT, NOT, NOT, a relatively small price. You've got it all
EXACTLY
backwards.

snip

Excellent, Roger, thanks for the post!

"Roger Long" wrote in message ...
"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message ...

Is this all "window dressing?" Sure it is. But it's a relatively small price
to pay to enjoy the freedom we have.

It's is NOT, NOT, NOT, a relatively small price. You've got it all EXACTLY backwards.

The terrorists could never take our freedom. Only we (or our government if completely ceases to become "we") can do
that. The terrorists are not powerful enough. They can knock down buildings, shut down city transit systems, kill
millions, and we will still be free if the country has the guts to keep ourselves free.

You are not talking about freedom but only the illusion of infinitesimally greater safety from violent acts that,
while they have a huge impact on the national psyche, are almost vanishingly unlikely to happen to any individual.
This illusion is created not by actually making us feel safer but by creating a pervasive atmosphere of fear such that
having freedoms taken away brings us back to where we were before. When something is taken away and then given back,
you haven't gained anything.

The price for this illusion is innumerable changes in small things that used to enrich our lives like parents stopping
along the airport runway to watch the planes with their children. Each may be inconsequential but in sum they make up
the essence of the freedom that this nation has always cherished.

The tragedy is that these changes have nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do with increasing our safety and everything to
do with an illusion that is being increasingly manipulated by the government for purposes of achieving the power to
change the society in ways that would be considered radical if the party currently in power were not labeled
conservative.

Hitler, Sadam, and his ilk got their first grip on power by getting people to say, "Sure, the storm troopers are
obnoxious but they make the trains run on time and I've got a job now."

The increasing and widespread adoption of exactly the point of view expressed in your post is a far, far greater
threat to our nation than the terrorists will ever be.

No one can take freedom from a country as great as this one but we are free to give it up.

--

Roger Long

"Roger Long" wrote


The tragedy is that these changes have nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do
with increasing our safety and everything to do with an illusion that is
being increasingly manipulated by the government for purposes of achieving
the power to change the society in ways that would be considered radical
if
the party currently in power were not labeled conservative.

Hitler, Sadam, and his ilk got their first grip on power by getting people
to say, "Sure, the storm troopers are obnoxious but they make the trains
run
on time and I've got a job now."

The increasing and widespread adoption of exactly the point of view
expressed in your post is a far, far greater threat to our nation than the
terrorists will ever be.

No one can take freedom from a country as great as this one but we are
free
to give it up.

--

Roger Long

O.K. Roger. What have *you* done to help us keep our freedoms? Have you
gotten to those that are stacking on the restrictions, and made them stop?
Just voting for what you think are the right people counts for nothing.
What else?

Although what you say may be true I, for one, am sick of hearing people (and
you) spout off about it.

Flame away, but come here with something that will make a difference, and I
will start listening again.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004

I have several problems with this theory, and the current implementation of
it.

Most importantly, with respect to the current implementation, the public is
quickly "catching on". Between news media reports of security "holes", and
public realizations like your own, the public is starting to realize that
the "National Security" is mostly for show.

If that's the case, doesn't it by definition mean that the War On Terror is
a losing battle? The government and the media will keep "chasing" each
other until everyone wakes up and realizes what's going on. Then the public
will become so cynical that they don't trust the government to keep them
secure even when real security tactics are implemented. It's a really bad
direction to go, and in the long run will lead to a much worse situation.

I'm not certain what a better strategy would be. But which is better -
being disappointed in a government that recognizes the futility of hiring
cops to watch GA airports? Or feeling betrayed by your own government that
tried to pull the wool over your eyes by dumping money into "feel-good"
security tactics that don't actually make you any safer.

Of course, if it were just hiring cops to watch GA airports, it wouldn't be
so bad. But it seems to me that the current administration believes that
it's better to put anything in the "win" column if it makes people "feel
safer", even if it's completely unjustifiable - both financially and
militarily...

Let them go to Broadway if they want to put on a show...

"Roger Long" wrote in
news
I watched the webcast of the TSA chief's meeting with AOPA. I found
myself going back and forth over his responses to the questions. Why
you have to prove your citizenship to get a glider rating but not to
rent a 14 ton truck? Why can't foreign pilots who fly 747's into and
over Alaska do seaplane training during their layovers?

I'm a writer so have above average understanding of the language that
divides us but I couldn't figure out what his responses had to do with
the questions or even what he was getting at.

I got the general drift of some sort of theory of overall security.
Today I had an experience that suddenly made it crystal clear. He
really was making perfect sense. I just wasn't getting it.

Here is how the comprehensive security he was talking about works:

I was buzzed out onto the ramp and checked to make sure my badge was
visible. Oops! It was still tucked inside my jacket and out of sight.
Then, I got into my lethal 172 and flew around above unwitting citizens
heads for an hour.

I landed and turned the plane over to a new member going for his
checkout and decided to stop along the runway to watch him do touch and
gos. There's a nice parking area that the pre 911 design included for
the benefit of people who like to watch planes.

Within 30 seconds, there was a cop behind me asking what I was doing
there. I showed him my ramp pass and told him that was my plane up
there and I was watching a new co-owner fly it. "Well, you can watch
from the terminal.", he snarled. As I pulled away, he moved back into
his cooping spot and I realize he was irritated because I had
interrupted his plane watching with my threat to public safety.

I drove down to the terminal and turned right onto the old access road
that now deadends along the runway. There are some storage containers
along the fence and a number of people were parked and sitting on their
hoods watching planes.

I went over behind the container and watched my plane fly. I was out of
sight of anyone except pilots on the runway, screened by bushes and the
container. If you were going to take a pot shot at a plane with a rifle
or a stinger, this would be the place. Did I see any cops? Hell no.
There weren't even any tire tracks from vehicles turning around to
check this area. The plane watchers up the road, who could easily be
seen from the tower were clearly settled in for a long session of
basking in the sun and watching planes.

Why is plane watching "dangerous" at the most public and intended place
and not at the one where you could set up a mortar, a fox hole, and a
Stinger battery and probably be there for hours before anyone caught
on? If a policeman is needed full time to chase away plane watchers so
they don't provide coverage for terrorists, which spot should receive
priority?

Somewhere in Stone's rambling, I think I got the message. The priority
spot is out by the main road where everyone has to pass by because this
will provide the maximum public reassurance. There aren't the resources
to have cops everywhere. Having one out of sight in the bushes at the
end of the road doesn't meet the true objectives of comprehensive
security.

"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in :

Anyone who knows anything about national security knows that a
terrorist will not be likely caught at the scene minutes before the
act.

Is this all "window dressing?" Sure it is. But it's a relatively small
price to pay to enjoy the freedom we have. Let's just hope the real
***************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^******* *********************

That depends...

Part of the price we're paying is, for example, the Patriot Act, which
affords police the right to arrest you and hold you indefinitely without
charging you, without an appeals process, and without the checks and
balances that this nation was founded on. Basically, it's Martial Law
without any restrictions, and it is up to the individual "soldiers" to
implement it fairly. How such a thing could be considered a tactic of a
Champion of Freedom is beyond me.

keepers of our security that are behind the scenes are doing their job.

This would have been a better bet. If instead of spending 50 Billion
Dollars in Iraq, we should have spent that money on building, staffing, and
promoting a communications system (tip line, maybe?) that allows our
intelligence officials to properly handle, investigate, and take seriously,
for example, calls from Flight Instructors who claimed their flight
students were behaving suspiciously because they only wanted to learn to
fly a 747, but didn't want to learn to take off or land, then maybe I'd buy
into that plan!

I'm not sure what the right tactic is, but I don't think breaching the
trust of the people is a good one... Especially when you have government
officials scaring the public with talk about "terrorist chatter" in the
same breath as they are trying to make the public "feel safer"...

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:11:13 GMT, Judah wrote:

This would have been a better bet. If instead of spending 50 Billion
Dollars in Iraq,

50 billion? - http://www.costofwar.com/

#m

--
Buck Fush!

Sorry - I must have been using last week's numbers...


Martin Hotze wrote in
:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:11:13 GMT, Judah wrote:

This would have been a better bet. If instead of spending 50 Billion
Dollars in Iraq,

50 billion? - http://www.costofwar.com/

#m

Judah wrote:

This would have been a better bet. If instead of spending 50 Billion
Dollars in Iraq, ....

The last figure I heard had a "4" in front of that "50". NPR two days ago.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.