Comprehensive security

Peter Duniho wrote:

"Roger Long" wrote in message
...
[...]
No one can take freedom from a country as great as this one but we are
free to give it up.

Interesting timing for your post. I, of course, wholeheartedly agree with
everything you've said.

I also have to agree.

I'm trying to be optimistic, but frankly...it's difficult.

I'm finding it impossible.

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

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
The only question now is, will our government and citizenship wake up and
smell the coffee? Or will they do the typical "human nature" thing and
just
dig in harder, refusing the accept that there might actually be some truth
in what bin Laden says, when he discusses how easily the US citizens are
fooled into sacrificing their own rights and economic well-being?

I'm trying to be optimistic, but frankly...it's difficult.

Polls showing that most Americans have confidence in Bush and his policies
in the "War On Terrorism" give me a dismal outlook, as well.

Sadly, Kerry seems to have no ideas that differ in any substantial way from
the Bush administration's, although one hopes he may have better sense than
to hand al Qaeda a massive propaganda victory like the war in Iraq.
--
Dan

"Shut up! Shut up!"
- Bill O'Reilly

"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

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


I went to this website, and while I am concerned over the cost of the
war,
why is it that when someone points out it's cost, they point to ways
they want to spend it.

Why is a person who want to keep his own money and decide how to spend
it is called greedy and the person who wants to take it away at gunpoint
and give it to someone else, generally to buy votes, is not?

Why is taking away my money to buy the votes of people who didn't earn
it not included when we talk about liberties lost?

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.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:28:12 GMT, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

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

*hehe* ... your election is coming up. Here (Austria, Germany) the TV
coverage of the US election starts off with Fahrenheit 9/11 on Nov 1st as
an intro. We have some stations with coverage all night long [1] (due to
the time shift). Maybe they will find the 30,000 (?) voting cards in
Florida or maybe Bush's website will be accessible outside the US [2] by
then. Hm, maybe Kerry will bring home many/all US troops from Iraq ... but
this will then cause another vacuum.


#m

[1] at least 1 TV station has some special reports during this week with
very good insight views on the US.
[2]
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/10/26/bush_campaign_web_site_rejects_nonus_visitors.html

--
Buck Fush!

I don't think we'll ever REALLY know how much the war is costing us.

But quite frankly, I think the financial burden is not the highest price we
are paying for the war...

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in
:



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.

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.