I wonder if part of this guy's opinion is that he seems himself as a train conductor being in a pseudo-LEO role (in the same way that TSOs seem to see themselves in a pseudo-LEO role, and private security guards). I suspect (though have no way to prove) that most *real* LEOs wish that they could demand ID from people on the street without cause, because they feel it would make their lives easier and perhaps even make the streets safer. Even some (the few?) LEOs who realize/accept the good reasons for not allowing on-demand ID checks may still partly wish they were allowed.

I do think some serious education regarding travel restrictions during the Cold War, Nazi era, and others, is needed. I think (but may be wrong) that 25 years ago Americans "got it" when it came to not requiring internal passports and checkpoints for travel compared to what life was like in "bad" places like East Germany and the USSR. I think part of the problem is that most of the papers-please checks these days don't involve actual papers--you request permission to travel from the government every time you check in for a flight, but it's all electronic and doesn't actually involve getting a form from a government agent granting permission.

What people don't realize is that the infrastructure is in place to add a few more fields to Secure Flight and then start denying travel permission. During the next oil crisis or to combat climate change, the government could add criteria as to if your air travel is "worthy." Business trip? Maybe, but only so many per year. More than one trip to see grandma each year? No. Crazy grad student who starts dating a girl who lives 2000 miles away (my story)? No. Mileage run? Heck no. Travel to attend a rally for the political party in power? Yes. Travel to attend rally for the opposition? No.

Once this happens it will be beyond too late. And it all derives from ID checks.


This phrase outrages/triggers me as much as "an abundance of caution" at this point. There was and is no requirement that 9/11 change anything about our domestic way of life. The USA's reaction to 9/11 has changed a lot of things, but 9/11 itself changed nothing. When someone says "9/11 changed everything," what they really mean IMO is that 9/11 scared them and that they have allowed their fear to cloud rational judgment. Again, people need to learn their history and take a lesson from the British, who endured much worse than 9/11 during WWII and who endured ongoing terrorism over the Troubles for years.

Perhaps it is right to excuse some hysteria and overreaction in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Perhaps for 6 or 12 months. But not for nearly a decade.

Given all that has happened, I think we would have been better off if on 9/12 we had dusted ourselves off, hardened cockpit doors, resumed air travel, obliterated Afghanistan with overwhelming force to the point of making in unsuitable for terrorist activity due to lack of any resources whatsoever including population and arable land that could grow poppies (and then left, not spent 10 years rebuilding the state), made it clear that we would do the same to the next morons who tried something like that, and then moved on with our lives. And perhaps halted issuing visas to citizens the home countries of the 9/11 attackers for 6-12 months as a bit of economic and cultural saber rattling. (If a bunch of prospective students and their rich parents, prospective H1B visa workers, etc., had to defer their plans for a year due to a visa ban, I suspect local vigilante justice would do a lot to address the terrorist subculture in these places.)

If 9/11 happened once per month for a year, it would still be fewer deaths than we have on the highways in the year.

With the money we have spent on DHS & TSA, we could have rebuilt the WTC from the ground up more than 5 years ago, thoroughly compensated victims' & families as best as possible, sealed our borders, stepped up real law enforcement drastically (the kind that uses investigations and search warrants, not dragnets), and still had $ to spare.