To virtually the entire U.S. population, the difference between terrorism and auto accidents is self evident, which is why that bird won't hunt.

I'm afraid you don't seem to understand how the no-fly list works.

It's a list of names. Sometimes more than one person has the same name. Puruse your local phone book for an example. Or you may have some friends or family where the first born son, for example, has the same first and last name as the father. If the father's first and last name are on the no-fly list, so are the son's. If the father's first initial and last name are on the no-fly list, so are the son's.

So, you see, having "J. Smith" on the no-fly list doesn't mean that one person is on the no-fly list, it means that everyone whose last name is Smith and first name starts with a J is on the list: John Smith, Joan Smith, Jerry Smith, Jill Smith...

Furthermore, as you may know, there are multiple ways to translate names from Arabic to English, and even multiple spellings of English names. Some people spell it Osama Bin Laden, others Usama Bin Laden. Others Osama Binladen, or Usama binLaden. If "Osama Bin Laden" is on the no-fly list, the computer will automatically catch people who are "Usama Bin Laden" because that's an alternate spelling for the same name. Once again, this means that many more people get caught up by the no-fly list than just the number of names on the list.

Nobody is saying that there's no threat to aviation security. What they are saying is that we shouldn't throw away 230 years worth of progress on freedom, rights, liberty, privacy, etc., all because the bad guys asked us to.

A no-fly list may or may not have caught the 9/11 hijackers. Strengthened cockpit doors and passengers and crew who won't willingly hand over the controls to hijackers would have saved a lot of lives, however.

OK, well why don't you make the argument here so we can analyse it.

A little proactive work by the FAA, the Government overall and the airlines MIGHT have prevented 9/11 (the 8/6/01 memo is an example).

The 9/11 bad guys followed all the rules -- hell, a couple of them got a secondary (as seen on the videotape at IAD).

But like PH1775 correctly said in another post, the hardened cockpit doors and the willingness of passengers to attack any wiseguys on an airplane (what stopped Richard Reid on AA63) is what would prevent any attack within the cabin.

The cargo bin is another story. We're just going to have to wait until an aircraft is blown out of the sky before anything is done about that.

I'm eager to hear the argument too. The only difference between auto accidents and terrorism that I can discern is that the latter has more scrutiny.

Being self evident, it does not require "making." I am sure you disagree with it, as do your other self styled patriots.

The point, of course, is that you are making an argument that to date has been generally rejected.

You sound eager to be proved right.

Any given day, a terrorist can succeed in the right set of circumstances. Unfortunately, the steps required to positively subject cargo to the level of scrutiny required aren't commercially feasible. So we do what e can, with what we have.

The notion that since we have "defeated" all terrorist attacks by hardening cockpit doors and angry passengers is patently absurd.

Actually, it does, if we're going to have a serious and honest discussion here.

So you're appealing to the "authority" of opinion polls? First, it's "self evident" that people make irrational decisions when they're afraid. Second, majority opinion is hardly incontrovertibly correct. A majority thought that blacks should be slaves and women should not have the right to vote. The idea that blacks should be free and women should have suffrage was "generally rejected."

I'd prefer an actual argument, instead of the flawed tactic of appealing to a false authority.

Actually he's not appealing to any authority. He simply made up an unsubstantiated fact and hoped it would not be challenged.

Finding supporting facts takes time, and the act of reading source material has a nasty side-effect of causing one to think. The last thing the far-right wants to do is have an informed debate. It would only slow down the consolidation of power and restraint on freedom it desires.

I can agree with that, having read thousands of pages of "security" related material last semester, and having thousands more pages on my reading lists for this semester.

Umm, the point being that the cockpit doors hardening and having aware pax reduces the chances of an inflight takeover to basically nil.

The no-fly list is so easily defeated that it's utility in no way, shape, or form outweighs the loss of liberty it imposes upon the thousands of innocent people who are placed on it with no reason at all (and no recourse to be removed).

Care to try again?

Your conclusion isn't supported by facts. There are many potential cockpit takeover scenarios that don't rely on the essentially single change you mention. Your willingness to bet your life on it is not one I or many other people are willing to make.

Everyone on your side of the argument makes the specious leap from the reality that it isn't easy to be removed from the no-fly list (at least today), to the notion that it is impossible. This is, of course, untrue, and part of the hyperbole that weighs your side down past the point of credibility.

I'm amazed at how unscreened cargo gets a *shrug* 'we try but it's too expensive, the risks might as well be ignored it's so trivial, lets not talk about this'; whereas the costs (both economic and constitutional) are totally downplayed for the papers-please kabuki process, and in this debate any real costs are 'justified' using any tactics needed.

This, despite the undeniable fact that hardened cockpit doors and the non-sheep pax/hostage mentality have demonstrably mitigated the risks from threats (Reid) that were completely ignored and untouched by the completely ID-checked and kabuki compliant terrorist...

Opps, I used the term Kabuki in a non-hostile context. Guess my phone calls get recorded next :rolleyes:.

And all of them either predicate massive failure on the TSA's part (allowing an object, probably a firearm, past security) or amazing stupidity on the cockpit crew's part (which, outside of training, is essentially uncontrollable were a massive failure in judgement to happen).

It's a well known fact that it's impossible. One's name never really comes off--one get's "clarified." You can search FT to prove this to yourself, or google it if you prefer. It's such that an innoncent person goes from not being able to fly, to merely having to check in with a human every time they want to fly and bring three forms of ID--after waiting months for the "so called" ombudsman to act upon their case. All of this occurs despite no wrongdoing on the victim's part.

So no, it's not a specious leap. Try again.

See above. You can repeat the mantra about a specious leap, but it's a documented fact that "getting off the list" is itself a "specious leap."

Now, I will again point out the part of my post that you snipped (not suprisingly--it proves the galactic futility of the no-fly list)--all you really need to do to beat it is to create or steal an ID. In fact, it's easier than that--alter one's own name (either legally or on a particular booking) such that it's Soundex code is different. It's not rocket science.

So, in short:

1. Innocent people are regularly added to the list, and cannot remove their name. (There is at least one documented instance of a 4 year old on the list--three forms of ID are required to be removed from the list--sort of a conundrum, eh?)

2. The list, by virtue of the primitive technology used to mach names is relatively useless. Secure Flight (the followon) has thus far been unable to overcome these problems, and has failed 9 of the 10 test required by Congress before the TSA can spend money to implement it.

3. Even if #2 might be resolved (unlikely, given the TSA's track record), it really does not matter--it's trivial to fake identification, dummy a credit and job history, etc. Secureflight won't change this, as just about every piece of data it looks at is easily faked, plus the issue that will resolve telling a "sleeper" from someone who just does not do much to get their name in commercial databases.

#3 is the key point here--no matter how invasive and offensive the TSA becomes, the whole idea of "checking ID" being a deterrent is useless to begin with.

Keep trying, though. As I mentioned in another thread, I'll be perfectly happy to explain in great detail to how to defeat the half-baked measures the TSA has bumbled to employ (tromping all over the liberty of US citizens all the while). And if a mild-mannered flyertalker can figure these out, it stands to reason that the bad guys already have.

Keep trying, though. I enjoy whacking a government shill (troll?) around.

If you believe that, you must believe (to be intellectually honest) that the notion we've stopped anyone but 4 year olds, peacenik hippies from Northern California, or Ted Kennedy (D--MA) with the no fly list is patently absurd as well.

Of course, your arguments here have not been exactly chocked full of intellectual honesty or logical consistency.