But he can ask, and the guy can do whatever he agrees to do, good police work stops a lot of crime before it happens.

Again....there is no evidence that terrorists are plotting against aviation. Most of the nation's anti-terror focus is on aviation. There is plenty of analysis which states the next terrorist attack will be ground-based in a public venue - yet almost nothing is being done to prepare for that while our attention is still focused on the skies. While everyone continues to huddle in fear while pointing skyward, what will the response be when some nut detonates a few pounds of plastic explosives in a football stadium or shopping mall somewhere?[/QUOTE]


I have a feeling that you would not consent to a search before entering a stadium or shopping mall any more willingly than you do at the airport. As for no intelligence pointing toward another avaition attack, how many times must America or Americans be attacked before it is o.k. to start becoming proactive? None of the evidence in past attacks was identified and/or acted upon before the attacks. Should we not have police patrols because there is no evidence of a robbery at the bank? How about closing the fire department because there is no smoke in the neighborhood? While we are at it, there is no evidence that I will ever use 911 on my phone, so we should stop that program also. No evidence of a traffic accident on your way home? Cancel your auto insurance. This, of course, is being silly, but to defend the country only on evidence of what may or may not occur (despite was HAS or has not occurred) is just as silly. We have all of these programs not because of evidence of what may happen to you in the future, but because what HAS happened in the past. To allow the same mistake to happen twice is unforgivable. I am so tired of the American attitude of "we would rather die than to hurt someone's feelings". If we don't start changing, we just may.

Have a great day all!

Problem is, there are a lot of patriotic Americans out there for whom "common sense" includes a reduction in the number of marshals to the 33 who were flying on September 11.

Of course, their paychecks aren't completely dependent on the current climate of fear, cowardice and paranoia that grips our government. Yours, of course, are, so of course to you, "common sense" means whatever is in your best interest. Completely understandable. The difficulty is in distinguishing the selfishness (marshals' desire to sit on airplanes every day doing essentially nothing for pretty good pay with which to feed their families) from honest concern about our nation's safety.

My guess is that many of today's sky marshals really don't want to go back to the Border Patrol (or the other dirty jobs they occupied prior to their current cushy gig). Who can blame them?

Working outdoors in AZ, NM, TX or CA, trying to stem the endless tide of illegal immigrants or sit on airplanes, often in First Class, "protecting" everyone everyday. Plenty of wannabe-Mr Incredibles would, of course, choose the latter.

But that doesn't mean the current system makes any sense, let alone evidences "common sense."

Open window, rack 12 guage shotgun from out of sight.

Odyssues: You just cannot compare the situation in Isreal with the one in the US!!! They totally different. What you are sugesting would mean the US looses one of it's most important ideals. Freedom as a lawabiding Citizen! This is an ideal that is broadcast to the world as something they have and every nation in the world should try to achieve. History tells us that every war or conflicht the US has ever been involved has had freedom for lawabiding citizen in some form of another as a basis.

Americans correct me if I am wrong but did your Forefathers not declare the United States the land of the free - It is a trait that allows the US the postion that it has today - destroy that and you destroy everything the USA stands for. Oh and the bad guys win!!

hmmm, never had this problem on WN...

not that true - in the civil war Grant ordered jews out of the western war theatre because he believed that some jews were traficking between northern markets and the south; and of course in wwii the US interned japanese.

neither of these were the brightest or best examples of american democracy, but spending two minutes talking to people to insure that terrorists can't kill off a few thousand americans seems like a very minor matter.

and yes, israel is in a very differnet position from america, right now, but that will change. terror is now going to be coming to the US n a regular basis. it can be addressed in any number of ways. I think (and I believe that my opinion has good weight due to some of the experinece that I have picked up in life) that by adding a few of these types of programs America could cut out all of the wasteful programs like the campaign against nail clippers and lighters. nail clippers and lighters don't kill people, terrorists do. and you can identify terrorists, if you take the time to talk to them.

I am not against security. As a frequent traveler, I want to feel safe and I want to be safe. We need smart and effective security, not rules made seat-of-the-pants style. I will not, however, surrender my rights and freedoms as an American in exchange for security or worse, false security. I am both a realist and someone with a background in aviation, so I know where the weaknesses are and the likelyhood I can be protected. Defending our country includes more than just protecting its physical existence - it also includes protecting its values, traditions and freedoms which have been in place for centuries and for which countless people have sacrificed their lives. Using the pretexts of protection and fear to stun our population into compliance is not what I consider good public policy. I recognize that my Government will never be able to guarantee my security or absolutely protect me. I want them to make their best effort WITHIN the law and abiding by the principles of our country.

Btw, if someone is standing outside my home at 1am looking inside, I have no problem with the police asking the person what they are doing - their behavior is obviously suspicious, and I would do the same if I saw a person doing that. I recognize the police may ask to search the person and the person can consent to the search, where anything found on them can be used as a grounds for arrest - I also recognize the person may refuse the search and they are free to go unless the police can obtain a search warrant or find a legal means to detain or arrest them. I do not agree that people who are not exhibiting obvious suspicious behavior should be stopped, questioned, searched or detained - regardless of how noble some people might think the benefit might be. If it means drugs flow within our country, then so be it.

Odysseus, Israel and the US are not the same, nor will they ever be. Our positions will not change. I dont see any swarms of terrorists entering the USA to attack us on a regular basis. Perhaps your experiences in Israel have left you somewhat fearful, but that is no reason to export that fear here. Terror is not 'now' coming to the US on a regular basis. We have had three attacks in recent history - Oklahoma City which was hatched by our fellow citizens, the WTC garage bombing and 9/11. Although there are reports that other planned attacks were stopped in advance, I dont see this as evidence that our country is under siege from terrorists. Other countries have suffered far worse than us without resorting to panic, fear and turning their fundamental values upside down.

BS,

good luck to you. I think that you will be suprised, in the coming years, at what comes to visit the US, and the effect that it has on the economy and on society. or, I may be wrong. time will tell.

I mentioned before that cops are generally able to pick other cops out of a crowd. Bad guys have the same skill, as a matter of survival. Cops are also pretty good at picking out bad guys. Granted, some "picks" turn out to be nothing untoward, but lots of legit, up-to-no-good bad guys have been apprehended by this kind of observation. The U.S. Supreme Court even went so far as to recognize the observation skills of experienced officers in the decision of Terry v. Ohio.

Is there potential for abuse in deploying a covert observation system in an airport? Sure. Would it be effective in stopping people who were planning to do something illegal on an airplane? Probably. However, I suspect that relatively few innocent parties would be stopped, and that the system would be effective. I am constantly appalled at the attitude of many of the members of this forum that regard the first class section of an airplane as their birthright, and kick and scream at the mere suggestion of anything that might keep them for getting to the big seat as quickly and surely as humanly possible. There are people out there that want to do us harm, and we are foolish to drop our guard and make it easy for them to do so.

We're not talking about training teachers, who don't have experience in observing people and vehicles for unusual behavior that indicates a violation of the law. Cops already know how to observe - this kind of training just alerts them as to what to look for. And, in fact, this sort of thing can be very effective, even if it inconveniences the occasional innocent party. No system is foolproof, but I'll put my money on the observational powers of an experienced and well-trained cop over an expensive piece of technology any day.

You mischaracterize the procedures of profile stops to deter narcotics trafficking. First, stops are not made purely on profile. They are made for legitimate traffic violations. Granted, the officer might not stop a non-profiled vehicle for the same violation, but probable cause is still required.

Secondly, absent probable cause to search the vehicle, most searches were "consent" searches, where the motorist gave permission for the search. If the motorist doesn't know enough to say, "No officer, I don't want you to search my car. May I go now?" I think that's their problem.

But, to bring the examples together, if you saw an unfamiliar person loitering in front of your house at a late hour, I think you would be uneasy about it, and you would be justified in feeling that way. And I, as a cop responding to that call, would try and have a chat with the individual. Most people would view that as a legitimate function of the police. If you choose to regard it as a constitutional affront and decide to hire an attorney for the poor put-upon prowler/peeping tom, that's your privilege. People invest money and time in silly things all the time.

buy you a beer sometime ^

Law enforcement officers and their "security" brethren seem to have major trouble identifying terrorists, insurgents, militants, etc.; and even counter-terrorism specialists have major trouble identifying such persons. Unless there is the possibility of a weapon being used in pretty plain sight against them, the "security" community makes mostly mistakes when it comes to individual
"terrorism suspects".

That is to say, more often than not, such "law enforcement" and "security" types are generating errors (unless a weapon is in pretty plain sight and about to be used against them). The "we are here to save the day"-types produce more false positives than anything else productive while the violence continues there or nearby. [And in certain cases, the "we are here to save the day"-types are directly responsible for fueling the next wave of violence.]

Terrorism "on a regular basis" in the modern context is rarely defeated by violence (or threat thereof) alone; a political (or marketing) solution plays a large part if not the largest part.

For those who believe that they can identify all terrorists (by "talking to people"): if you can actually demonstrate an ability to read minds precisely (showing intent to engage in terrorism), Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory will fund a venture that will provide you with a highly-paid job in the mind-reading field. And if you can teach others this miracle skill of telephaty, others will even make sure you get nominated for a Nobel Prize (in the sciences if not the Nobel Peace Prize itself).

That certainly is not the case when it comes to "terrorism suspects" in the world's largest democracy (and several others). [Plenty of innocent parties stopped and harassed. And the greater the level of "stopping", the greater the violence in the following year measured by "law enforcement officers and security forces killed".]