I agree with most of what you said, except that there should be a punishment for the TSA people who let through the terrorists. If you wanted to punish the TSA, then you would have to punish a whole lot of people.

I'm not sure I understand. TSA did not exist on 9/11. The private contract screening companies not only were replaced by TSA, but by the provisions of the ATSA, are specifically prohibited from ever being used for airport security screening IF the decision was ever made to go back to private security screening.

The screeners themselves followed the procedures that existed at that time, and box-cutters were not prohibited items. This isn't meant to shift blame from those who came up with the strategies that existed at that time. However, what you're looking at is a cultural mindset. The working assumption in the counterterrorism world was that terrorists would hijack airliners to a safe location and play the negotiations game to publicly embarrass the leaders of a target nation, to publicize their cause and/or to otherwise show how ineffective a certain nation's policies are against terrorism. This meant that the terrorists would stay alive until they at least had the opportunity to land the hijacked plane to show the world that they did it. Never crossed anyone's mind that the hijackers would intentionally kill themselves before even advertising why they hijacked the plane. It just wasn't in the realm of even remote possibilities.

So I don't know how you would assign blame. Yes, someone failed to anticipate the threat, but I think you'd have to admit that it wasn't just the FAA. The FBI, CIA, DoD, NSA, INS, and list of other alphabet agencies also played a role in failing to anticipate, detect and neutralize the threat. Add to that our own cultural bias and the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty that drives our justice system. The cultural bias is that of political correctness. In the immediate hours of the Oklahoma City bombing, we as a society, were already firmly convinced that it was the fault of Middle Eastern terrorists. In fact, there are some today who have this strange conspiracy theory that McVeigh cooperated with some Middle Eastern group to pull off the bombing. Point is that we've since cooled down our law enforcement approach since the OKC bombing. In addition to that, if the FBI had arrested a group of Middle Eastern men because they were attending flight school, the civil liberties groups would be up in arms about how racist, oppressive and out-of-control the federal government is in abusing its arrest powers. There are many other tangents that all amount to my one point: in a society where we base our justice on innocent-until-proven-guilty and firmly believe in due process, there are certain loopholes that will always work against us. I happen to believe those principles to be good things, and I do not advocate us abandoning these fundamentals. But we have to accept the consequences that with that comes those who will exploit these principles to their advantage. Much of that played a role on 9/11. I don't think you can sit back and fix blame on one single event, policy or entity. It's a combination of factors.

In the struggle against fanatic jihadist terrorists, we cannot treat the terrorists like criminal suspects or defendants. This is not a criminal matter, of mere violations of statutes. We are in a war for the survival of our Western civilization. If we try to counter these Islamofascists with criminal prosecutions, the survivors in the West probably will be facing east 5 times per day on their prayer mats. IMHO, to fight the terrorists vigorously with special forces and our military in general, while treating Americans with due process and recognizing the presumption of innocent unless proven guilty, is the best way to remember what's important and to honor those murdered on 9/11/01.

The corner you've painted yourself into is by not mentioning where airport security screening falls. On the one hand, you demand that security screeners follow due process. On the other hand, you demand that "in the struggle against fanatic jihadist terrorists, we cannot treat the terrorists like criminal suspects or defendants." Can't you see the contradiction? Or do you put airport security screening as the one exception to your rule? Or, could it be, that as long as security screening doesn't inconvenience you, then you really don't care one way or the other? Hmmmm?

Listen. They are criminals plain and simple. They are not fundamentally different than somebody who practices extortion or kids who drop rocks on cars from viaducts. They are different is thier scope of the damage.

The terrorists are not a sovereign nation so it really cannot be considered a war. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we could have sent a post card to one of their embassys at any time.

These guys are no different that the drug lords in South America. The drug lords are interested in money and these guys are driven by ideology.

They are criminals plain and simple. As such they (and we) are entitled to due process. It is proven that it works. There is no need for detention with no trial. Remember the guys who tried to blow up the WTC the first time? Are they walking the streets? No. They were tried, found guilty and are now serving life in prison. There was no need for "secret evidence" etc. The system works.

No, we cannot sidestep due process! You're quite right about that. It's fine and dandy to have a terrorist caught in the act and say, "He's guilty!" but there are many who are suspected of being terrorists--and that's where the due process comes into play. There has to be a fair evaluation (i.e. trial) of the evidence against them.

In the US, our justice system, flawed as it is, generally works out, and seems to always do so for cases of terrorism. The feds may grumble if they are ordered to let someone go that they don't have a good case against, and we may grumble that we've just let a terrorist go free to carry out acts of evil (and that may later prove to be the case!), but conversely, it is incredibly unjust to hold an innocent person without evidence or charges merely on suspicion.

Unfortunately, in some places overseas the scales of justice are completely unbalanced and stand nearly on end. Look at the Bali bombers who got a couple of years for killing hundreds of innocent people... and then the same Indonesian courts put an Aussie accused of drug trafficking in prison for 20 years.

Remembering what's important:

... not to take innocent people at gunpoint and hold them in solitary confinement, harass or in some cases physically abuse them .... only to release them two months, six months or more than a year later without consideration of a trial or even a more impartial judge's involvement.

.... not to arrest people without informing them of the reason for their arrest, denying immediate access to a lawyer, and denying the arrested permission to see the evidence being used against them or even knowledge of the charges being levelled against them.

Of course, it's important to note that the above happens in the "New America" in the "New American Century".

Were the "Bali bombers", of whom you are talking, found guilty of killing hundreds of innocent people? Or were they found guilty of something else and for some other reason?

... speaking of Australia, is it true that someone in Australia who has had their house raided by police or intelligence services is breaking an Australian law if they even so much as mention that such happened to their own property & persons?

In the US, such raids/searches are not to be mentioned by "businesses" (apartments, homeowners/condo associations, hotels, etc.) whose business facilities and services are being monitored/checked up on under certain provisions of post 9/11 laws. Any revelation of such is threatened as legally punishable (even where it may not be).

Here is an article in todays Chicago Tribune. There is no excuse for this treatment. Once they are satisfied that he has no weapons all they need to do is verify that he is who he says he is. Once again if there is the slightest suspicion a US citizen is treated as a possible terrorist.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...l=chi-news-hed

It's going to be more important than ever to build in additional legal safeguards for the rights of Americans, in America, or travelling to/from America or these wrongful lockdowns and manhandling are just going to become more frequent and routine.

My position is not an internal contradiction. During aviation screening, TSA should treat Americans as innocent unless there is some indication of criminal activity. If someone has an obvious lump, sets off the WTMD, has something suspicious on a backscatter X-ray or puffer (if those ever are implemented on a large scale), then extra screening is necessary. I have no problem with extra screening if and only if there is an objective reason for it. The current system treats everyone like a terrorist, which goes against our American values of innocent unless proven guilty and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, in the 4th Amendment sense.

Moreover, the current system is outrageously expensive and of marginal effectiveness precisely because no there is no differentiation between, for example, elderly Americans and young Middle Easterners jabbering away in a foreign language. In fact, I have personally witnessed secondary screening, because of SSSS designation on a boarding pass, for an obviously American grandmother in contrast with two young Arab males who waltzed right through the checkpoint. On that flight, I clutched a sharp pencil the entire time the door was closed because I was seated right behind those two and thought I could disable one if they tried something.

If we apprehend terrorist suspects in this country, I have confidence in our judicial system. Safeguards such as presumption of innocence and due process should apply in these criminal prosecutions. However, the American justice system is no deterrent to fanatical terrorist masterminds like OBL or Abu Abbas or any of the others who have attacked Americans overseas during the past 3 decades. They are the ones we need to target, whether by special forces or conventional military, because we cannot wait until another large attack occurs. As I have posted before, the Clinton administration used the criminal prosecution model, which ultimately led to 9/11 and exteme negative changes to our country.

I agree with you 100%. This man is a U.S. citizen, born here, with no apparent ties to any suspicious group. He should be treated far better than he has been over the course of several trips. As a citizen, he has rights that the government has violated. He deserves restitution and this policy must change.

Already being done. You're just not willing to admit it. Anyone who is arrested for a crime pursuant to airport security screening is guaranteed every single Constitutional right, and the government must still prove its case in a court of law unless the suspect voluntarily admits guilt or makes other arrangements with the DA to settle the matter. No one is presumed guilty; it still has to be proven through legally obtained evidence.

I agree with you that the passenger selectee screening system is broken. I don't agree with it; never have; I've consistently advocated getting rid of it. You and I have also discussed on other occasions how it is pretty much here to stay because it was fully embraced by the 9/11 Commission, making it a political liabilty for anyone who tries to get rid of it. This has more to do with the nature of American politics than it does with the bureaucracy of TSA. However, even so, the screening system treats everyone exactly the same. What you don't see is that the young Middle Easterners in your scenerio were screened. They did not just waltz through the checkpoint; they had to waltz through a walk-thru metal detector; they had to put their accessible property inside the x-ray machine; and if they alarmed or if there was something suspicious on the x-ray screen, then they underwent secondary screening.

Actually, we agree on this point; however, you do have a couple of misperceptions. It's a combination of criminal prosecution and military action that is needed to win the war on terrorism. This is a tricky proposition because it means drawing the line between maintaining the prosecutabilty of a criminal case and operationally exploiting a situation either for intelligence gain or target elimination. It's a delicate balance. I happen to be a firm believer in the "final option" scenario. It's also a misperception to believe that the Clinton administration didn't operationally exploit certain situations. However, I do believe the Bush administration has been more upfront about it. I disagree with your rationale for what led to 9/11; it's a bit more complicated than the policies of a single administration.

Thank you for clarifying your position; there are still points where we disagree. For example, your obsession on skin color, ethnicity and nationality reveals a weakness that could easily be exploited by the bad guys if we were to do things your way. You'll never admit to this because your racial hatred is pretty strong. You don't have the objectivity nor patience to think outside the box. In other words, you're average. No offense meant.

I can't say that surprises me. There's a guy I work with that's been stopped the last three times he's tried to come back into the country. He has an Indian name ... a very common one that would be like Smith here. He's of Indian descent, but was born here in Jersey.

What was really interesting what the last time he was stopped, he was on an official passport (not a tourist one) and had travel orders from his agency. Interestingly enough, this guy has a high level clearance too. None of it helped.

He made some calls when he got back. I'll have to see if he got it straightened out.

Paragraph 1: I refer to the current practice of searching Americans who did not alarm the WTMD or have suspicious bulges on their persons. No court opinion has yet addressed this issue, but I think a good argument can be made that this type of search, without any indicia of involvement with criminal activity, runs afoul of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. If this type of search is allowed at airport checkpoints, then why not on urban street corners where drug deals and murders occur? Your response misapprehends my point. I do not know of any curtailment of our constitutional rights regarding criminal prosecutions. TSA fines, on the other hand, probably do violate due process, on several grounds: separation of powers, procedures, punishment for contesting the fine (increased fine), among other reasons.

Paragraph 2: Of course the two Arabs in my example were screened, but so was the elderly American woman. If all were adequately screened the first time, then why the additional search? Why search an elderly American woman, a member of a group that has never committed terrorist acts? Political correctness may make some feel better, but it does not make effective security policy. Hence the term "Kabuki security". Oh well, at least we are doing something, even if it is abridging our constitutional rights and wasting billions of our tax dollars each year.

Paragraph 3: What situation did the Clinton administration operationally exploit? With our 24 hour news cycle, we would have heard about something other than the cruise missile attack on the aspirin factory the day before Monica testified before the grand jury. Of course 9/11 is more complicated than referred to in my posts, hell in almost every post on FlyerTalk; however, the Clinton administration did nothing to deter al-Qaeda or other foreign terrorists. (They sure were tough on the Cuban-American population in Miami and religions that were not sanctioned by ATF).

Paragraph 4: I have friends who are not white males. I actually have some acquaitenances who are not of European descent. I do NOT have racial hatred. What I do have is common sense. When one looks at the history of non-domestic (i.e. other than IRA, Basque separatists, Red Faction, Oklahoma City, Unabomber, etc.) terrorism over the last 30+ years, a common denominator emerges. That common denominator is Muslim radicals, starting with the Munich Olympic massacre and moving forward through the years to the Madrid train bombing. Yes, some terrorist organizations will try to recruit individuals from groups other than Middle Easterners. But until they do, it makes more sense from a risk management perspective and cost effectiveness analysis to pay more attention to Muslims from overseas than American citizens.