I've done it quite a few times, as a way of understanding how the photo ID requirement works. What would you like to know? In my experience, yes it really was trivial to fly without ID, as long as you're prepared to go through the SSSS + dump-search experience. That was all before 9/11, so I can't guarantee things haven't changed.

In my experience, when I said that I forgot or lost my ID, they typically didn't blink an eyelash, but when I said that I have ID but was refusing to show it on privacy grounds, I frequently got a ground security coordinator (is that the right term?) treating me in an unpleasant, disapproving way and asking questions like "do you want to fly today?".

It's quite an educational experience to demand your rights like this. I knew I was in the right (I did my background research -- I even got confirmation from the FAA that I was allowed to fly selectee, if I didn't have ID). But even though I knew I was right, I still found it very difficult to resist the pressure to conform, when faced with authority that was determined to treat me as some kind of horrible person if I didn't want to show my ID. Perhaps I just have a meek personality, or perhaps I'm overly affected by disapproval from a legitimate authority figure, but I found the experience intimidating and stressful. Looking back, it doesn't make any sense why I should be so intimidated when I knew I was in the right -- when I try to write it down, it sounds downright irrational -- but I did not find it a pleasant experience. It sure was educational, though.

Right. But the airline is free to, of their own initiative, decline to transport you at their own discretion. Or, at least, that's what airline representatives have claimed to me. The problem is that airline security staff often view anyone who declines to present ID on privacy grounds as "suspicious, subversive characters" and thus might refuse transport. So if you absolutely have to get there, I would be leary of following the "don't show ID and fly selectee" route -- it might work 95% of the time, but that 5% is a ......

I don't think I'd hold my breath on this one.

Actually, wouldn't a cash payment for a ticket trigger SSSS anyway?

Please do not insult my intellect by comparing it to the 9th - what a bunch of bozo judges!

This past October, I left my house in the Midwest at 4:45 a.m. to make a flight to Arizona for a deposition at 12:00 noon PST. When I arrived at the airport parking lot I realized that I left my wallet with driver's license and credit cards at home. I checked in at the ticket counter, which was no problem because I had earlier booked the flight and have status with American. The boarding pass had the SSSS marking on the corners, but that secondary was no more intensive than the many others TSA has performed over the past 40 or so months. For this trip I had only my briefcase, because I made the round trip all in one long day. In short, it is possible to fly without an ID.

Exactly my point.

However, just because some action is possible, and because a government agency takes that action, does not automatically make that action correct. The additional search because no ID is presented presumes that ID adds an appreciable positive element to security. If memory serves correctly, all 19 terrorists on 9/11 presented IDs at the checkpoints. The supposedly defective screening process detected boxcutters on some of these slimes who presented IDs. So much for showing IDs.

Incorrect. Based on the overall security procedures in place on 9/11, they were able to fly on that date.

Procedures in place now as a multilayered web would likely have disrupted their plans entirely or significantly. At the very least, it would have introduced operational risk at a level to them that would have changed their approach ina way that elevated our opportunity to capture them.

Given the choice between showing ID and going through full secondary, I, personally, prefer the former.

A bigger issue is the whole SSSS charade and secondary searches without even a shred of suspicion, reasonable or otherwise. Next time it happens to me, I will file Bivens acting as my own attorney. It can be done. There are some ready to fill forms for that purpose available through Federal Courts websites.

Superb idea, and I mean that sincerely. We need a body of precedent to establish what is and is not legal.

Unlikely. Many of the 9.11 people were known to the government as threats for quite some time and they were ignored. I can't possibly believe that is not being done now. The operational risk they would suffer now is obvious: reinforced flight deck doors and passengers and crews unwilling to surrender themselves. 9.11 as a future threat is done and buried - not going to happen. Yet we still focus on it...we still fear it...it consumes our national psyche and that in itself, creates risk in other areas.

What concerns me is the unknown threat - the one we continue to ignore. Security continues to focus on passengers and their possessions while ignoring cargo. The national security apparatus is intentionally and blindly tilted towards aviation while our ports and energy facilities go unprotected.

It's business as usual in Washington. Just more money being shuffled around and lots of showmanship for the folks in the heartland (sorry, Homeland), but as far as substantive changes that are actually going to protect us from something we can't necessarily plan for or forecast? It just isn't there. Big words in governmentspeak won't make it so either.

Tonight is going to be interesting. If the entire State of the Union address continues to focus on terrorism here and terrorism there while ignoring domestic issues, the Homeland is going to start yawning. They are beginning to grow weary and tired of the same old show with little substance.

Which parts of that web do you think would have been most effective against them?

The nuclear threat, for example, is substantial. Not nearly enough is being done about that.

A few weeks ago, Primetime did an expose on how easy it was for 'students' to get access to the various nuclear facilities housed at many of our nation's colleges and universities.

I am sure of this: 90% of Americans (probably more) have absolutely no idea that many of our colleges and universities have LIVE nuclear fission reactors and other atomic technologies housed within their campuses. None of these facilities are properly guarded.

Any hue and cry come out after that broadcast? Nary a peep.