Lensman says "the paragraph structure and attitude makes it difficult to agree with many of the good points, disagree with some generalizations, yet express some disapproval of my personal feeling of being lumped into the portion of the populace that has been whipped into frenzy by the media."


Well, what do you agree and what do you disagree? Com'on - thats waffling. You are not telling us anything by your own statements....

Lensman says "I would like to note that it seems like prior vetting would increase the bias against non-residents."

On my humble view, if the Americans do the vetting as they have been doing so far, every non-resident has been and will be treated like a potential terrorist. :-( The american authorities should do their homework and check regardless of nationality only if the passenger has a history which may trigger such suspicion and the checks shd be done before the passenger lands/board and NOT to interrograte and cause agitation by checking toilet bags at every point. The point is made that other airports which are just as vulnerable do not do these irritating tests. The Americans shd remember that terrorists comes in all nationals. So, I SAY : (1) there shouldnt be a bias in the prior vetting. (2) Check if there is a reasonable suspicion, dont check if there is none. (3)Dont take foreigners as easy targets for checking and interrogation. (4) forget about random checking. Work on reasonable suspicion instead as a basis

Lensman says "Also, maybe it is the times I fly or the stations I fly out of, but I don't think things have gotten that much more inconvenient. Maybe 1-10 minutes more inconvenient, but getting to the airport is still much more of a hassle for me than traversing the security checkpoints."


Lucky you if you find security checks not much more inconvenient. I can tell you that many many are not so lucky to just being inconcenience and are quite fed up. Irritation and harrassment even for one minute should not be acceptable.

Sorry if my English not so good and fluent.