I could start with conspiracy, perhaps also interference with a flight crew. If you really believe that this was a probe, then I am sure you should be able to come up with some charging offense. As Sol Wachtler, former chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, said, a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. If these were truly of import, the war on terror would have come crushing down on these "probers."

Based on your statement, it would appear that in the instances since 9/11 the management has had the better view.

Even people within the gov't often have differing opioions on the same data. Ever heard of competitive analysis?

Conspiracy to commit what crime? Where is the overt step?

Interference? It needs an element of violence or threat of.

That's one opinion.

Yep. There's also the difference between the doers and those who don't.

From what I saw on the inside, I saw mostly those who don't.

And those who view everything as a nail

There is a group who believe, with the best of intentions, that the citizens of the USA need to be protected from shadowy, yet unsubstantiated, threats.

IMHO, the "doers" can either prove that they they themselves are not threats to our civil liberties, or they can stop spending millions of taxpayers dollars to spar with ghosts.

That is my basic point. If you believe that it is a threat, but can't find any violation, then I do not believe it is much of a threat (ham sandwich ).

The traveling on the plane for the probing by more than one is enough.

If there is probing, then words or actions of that probe would be most probably be sufficient to bring a charge. And, as we have seen on other threads, it doesn't take many words to make the crew pursue such a matter.

To judge by the alleged probes etc. which have made it to the press, one can only conclude that these secret phantom events were even less credible. Hard to believe, but there you go .

I think you stumbled across something and perhaps didn't realize it. I'm speaking in strictly military terms.

Terrorism, in terms of casualties, has a low gain. The number of people directly affected by acts of terrorism is very minimal. Look at the 9/11 attacks and use the working figure of 3,000 killed out of 300 million Americans; that's .00001 percent: a relatively small spike when you account for the number of Americans killed in car accidents or murdered on our own streets on any given weekend. Look at the casualties in Iraq, and the numbers or American soldiers killed is very low when compared to conventional combat actions; and it's a small spike when you compare the numbers of Iraqis killed and not even a significant figure when you compare those killed as a result of terrorism to those who were killed by Saddam's henchmen during his reign.

However, when you look at the overall psychological effects, then it shouldn't be too difficult to understand how the deaths of 3,000 Americans would affect a significant majority of 300 million Americans or how the deaths of two or three American soldiers here and there would affect the 150,000 American troops still deployed in Iraq. It would be impossible for the terrorists in Iraq to kill every one of the 150,000 troops in Iraq or even 15,000 troops. However, each one of those 150,000 troops understands that there is a risk that he or she may become one of the relatively few killed or maimed by an IED.

It's not a matter of chasing ghosts. Terrorists do exist, Virginia. And they're really out to kill as many Americans in whatever spectacular manner that will advance their cause. Will anyone in this forum become a victim of terrorism? The likelihood is very remote given the number of flights per day, number of passengers, number of various destinations, etc. However, each passenger clearly understands that there may be a remote chance that their particular flight going to a particular destination may have drawn the unlucky short straw.

So where do we draw the line between spending resources to stop something that is statistically remote and accepting the fact that the odds statistically favor the attackers in terms of choosing the time and place for such an attack? Do we bury our heads in the sand as you suggest? Do we flop our arms up in the air and declare it too difficult as you suggest? Do we question the moral integrity of those who undertake these efforts as you suggest in the name of civil liberties?

I'll stick with the doers.

1) liberty comes with risk - people need to accept that
2) liberty is more important than security - people need to accept that
3) life itself offers neither security nor any guarantee

I only expect the government to make its best effort, while respecting the law, the Constitution, my liberty and privacy - and without trying to push the envelope in respect to those items, nor singling people out for special attention because their background or appearance makes them 'suspect'

I expect the government to spend MY money wisely and not pi$$ it away on wild goose chases or by unjustly enriching political supporters

I expect the government to use the resources of intelligent, learned and experienced people to create policies and procedures which balance effectiveness with efficiency, security with liberty, and risk avoidance with risk aversion

I expect the government to leverage available and feasible technology to aid in this endeavor - not fund pie-in-the-sky nonsense or roll out devices which are potentially harmful to my health in the name of security

I expect the government to embrace proactive thinking by developing processes and procedures which are not just attempts to counter past events, but rather take a holistic approach to protection and security regardless of what schemes or plans a future attacker might have - with the understanding that I accept no process or procedure is foolproof, guaranteed nor absolute

I expect the government to take terrorism and dangerous people seriously, and not just use them as vague shadows to generate universal fear for political gain

I expect the government to respect both our laws as well as international laws and treaties, and the traditions of democracy and the free will of men which date back to the Magna Carta - and not use vague or unsubstantiated threats or the fear of potentially threatening people to ignore these traditions

I'll stick with those who recognize that life is risky, liberty requires sacrifice, that bogeymen are not hiding under every bed and making a "best" effort is sufficient, provided that effort is realistic, fair, and effective

True, but we do place restrictions on things to minimize risk to, or do you generally drive on the left side of the street?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Notice the order.

I would accept this as a truism. I would also say, just because you'll never reach it doesn't mean you should just throw up your hands and give up. You do what you can to minimize risk while balancing that against civil rights. Its a razor edge at times. To stick to my driving comparison, there's no guarantee I'll reach my destination alive but we do have speed laws, to minimize traffic accidents. We don't say, "oh well, we'll never have perfect safety so drive however you want."

The totality of law enforcement is looking for those things that are not like the other. You establish a norm (65 mph) and then look for those things that aren't what you've established. Most times you look it will be nothing. But many times you look it will be. For instance, that perfect driver. Going under the speed limit, perfect everything. Most times, they are what they appear to be. Other times there drunk as lords and overcompensating, like a drunk who enunciates each word trying not to appear drunk.

Define "wisely" in terms other than "what you personally agree with."

See above.

See above.

Ditto to the above.

All this reminds me of the George Carlin line "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"

So long as you agree with what's happening you'll consider it "wise" and "intelligent" and "learned" and "experienced", etc. If you don't, then we're back to idiot land.

Cupcake (I love how we have all adopted these pet names ),

I'm not suggesting we bury our heads in the sand, I'm suggesting there is no sand. I'm suggesting that the TSA and FAM programs cannot justify their existence (as currently implemented). I know that you cannot justify the expenditures and hassle either or your would be able to quote numbers rather than "statistically remote".

I can't speak for my fellow airline passengers, but being a victim of terrorism doesn't even enter my mind when I board a plane. Note that I still count seats to the nearest exit and watch the safety dance even though I've seen it hundreds of times before.

I do this despite knowing that odds are a FAM won't be on my flight, that the screeners probably missed several edged weapons, and that multiple cellphones remain on in the overhead compartment.

I board that plane as easily as I would take the London Underground, cross the Golden Gate bridge, or drink tap water, untested.

Where do we draw the line between spending resources to stop something that is statistically remote and accepting the fact that the odds statistically favor the attackers in terms of choosing the time and place for such an attack? Today. At least as far as the TSA and FAM programs go, or show me the numbers that prove they make a measurable difference. At least we can then debate the numbers.

Cheers,

Virginia

There is a pretty wide lane between prudent measures to mitigate an obvious risk and measures taken to mitigate one with a low probability of fruition.

The order is not relevant - unless you happened to be present when the document was written and asked the author if there was any intent with the order of the list. There is no ranking of importance - liberty and security do not outrank each other in the document, although I place liberty above security because without liberty, our country is no longer what it was created to be.

I've never advocated giving up - but I have to say that a good number of our current aviation security efforts appear to be in that league - nothing but theater to keep the masses impressed, resulting in almost no quantifiable benefit - except by dumb luck.

I think wisely is self explanatory - for example, not investing millions in puffer machines to satisfy a politically motivated contract, and then abandoning what could be promising technology. Another example, not wasting untold billions to create the TSA (against the viewpoint of this Administration, no less) in order to unjustly enrich the pockets of a certain crooked Democratic Senator's wife and her cronies.

So we're not allowed to challenge these decisions? I call it as I see it. When I see something resembling a 'best effort' combined with realistic expectations and good spending habits, my criticism is likely to subside - although I reserve the right to call out things that just don't look right to me.

I agree wholeheartedly about the need to have an open dialog about what is needed. If its needed, is it effective? If its effective, can it be made more so? If that's up to snuff, what, if anything, else is lacking?

On the other hand security is always one of the least funded mandates because 1) it adds nothing to the bottom line, it only takes away and 2) its hard to justify something you can't measure.

In other words, how do you quantify something prevented or deterred?

Of course. Then again, there is a wide lane between those that are statistically more common and those that, while less common, have a greater impact. What was the impact on this country after 9/11? Economically, socially, etc.?

I would place security slightly above liberty because without a country there is no liberty. There is no "right to liberty." You can only have it if you can defend it.

My point is that, while I think I might agree with you regarding much of what "wisely" would be, many other people would disagree, as we might disagree with their version of "wisely."

So, unless we wish to show ourselves the elite, the intelligentsia, and make the decisions for those little people too stupid to know "wisely" spending money from "unwisely," where does that leave us?

As well you should. My point is that there are a lot of people out there who disagree with you who think things are just hunky dory as they are right now.