Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Isn't It About Time?

More and more information is coming out that proves the government agencies responsible for national security had all of the tools needed to prevent the attack last September, but that there were institutional systems problems that precluded the information from being properly compiled and analyzed. Clearly, enough information was available that could have "connected the dots" but the FBI and INS are simply incompetent.

So, it seems, the problem really was not with airport security, lack of appropriate laws, lack of ability for surveillance, too much freedom of movement and access. Rather, the problem was one of how to properly use the laws and information that were already in place before the attack.

So, the question I have is...can't we simply use those laws and procedures properly to protect us -- they would have last September, after all -- and get rid of all of the excess airport security arrangements, demand back our freedoms from unwarranted serach and seizure, eliminate the Attorney Generalissimo's ability to pry into our private lives, and stop the Bush2 Administration's mad dash to deny our privacy rights?

We had all we needed last September. The government was just incompetent.

You are right. We can get rid of the long lines. But not for the reason you mentioned.

We know the murderers are young middle eastern men. They are the ones who should be scrutinized, searched and patted down, not anyone else. A separate checkout system for men who fall into this category should be set up, leaving the rest of us alone.

George

I am glad you are back; the forum has been like a newspaper with the comic section missing without you.

I do agree with you though that we had enough laws in place to prevent what happened on 911. But enforcing those laws, because of attitudes of people like you, was like walking a tightrope.

There was another incident that happened last year that contributed to the disaster. This couple with a rowdy kid were in the boarding area at an airport. The couple was letting their kid run rampant and the kid went into a restricted area. When the mother also went into the restricted area and an airport employee tried to stop her he was attacked by her husband. You all know the story, the husband was injured and he sued the airport, and won. If this were to occur today the man, wife, and kid, would all be arrested.

I spend a lot of time in airports, and there was a noticeable backing off on security and the freedom of travelers when the verdict was announced. With the same laws and rules in place why would the airline employee be guilty on 9-10, and the family on 9-12. I hate to think that because of this liberal court decision our security procedures were compromised enough to allow the terrorist to pass through. The Generalissimo is only enforcing laws that were already in effect, isn't that what you are asking for.

George I don't know what airlines you fly on, or what airports you go into, but I think that I fly more than the average person and I haven't experienced any of what you have. I have logged 51,000 miles so far this year, and 76,000 miles since 9-11. I have never been violated, fondled or unconvinced at any time by the security procedures or airline employees. I have said before that everything in life is a choice, and if your expectations are to high, try Greyhound.

Well, I don't fly nearly as much as either one of you seem to (only 4 times since 9-11), I did go through several major airports (Phoenix and Sea-Tac) and I must say that it was not nearly a bad as I expected. In fact, the last time, it was down right easy. I've never been a last minute type of person, so I am used to getting to airports with time to spare. The lines at security were not long at all, and even though I did have to take my shoes off at one checkpoint, I certainly did not feel violated. I did watch one guy get completely ticked off because they wouldn't let him through with his pair of pliers. Was that you, George? Jodi

I think that George was the guy I saw that had on high top lace boots with steel toe and shanks. He also had on a studded belt. He was bitching because he had to take off his boots.

I have been through security 70+ times since 9-11 and I have never set off any alarms.

It is just common sense.

lb

Pliers? Boots with steel toes? Those thing I understand. But when they tell me I cannot bring my machete on board, then I really get ticked! <g>

What do you mean because of people like me, lb?

George,

Would you rather be searched by airport personnel or sent to your horrible demise in an airplane crash?

I don't see it as an either-or, Brendan. In fact, the more that comes out, it is now obvious the attack on 9/11 would likely have been averted if the FBI had been doing its job. Which is exactly my point. Now that this information is being allowed to be released (or forced out because some FBI agents have more concern for the country than they do for the Bureau) it is clear that all of this foolishness at the airports, with email intrusion and everything else is far too excessive. The procedures, processes, laws and tools have been there from before 9/11. We simply need to use them -- not place additional burdens and deny our freedoms.

I don't think Sept 11 would have been necessarily averted if all the agencies had been doing their job. It might have been delayed a day or 2, but these guys were patient. There's probably not a single person in Israel that isn't doing their damndest to prevent suicide bombers, but some get through anyway.

However, I think all of the supposed extra airport security is not working either. Someone well trained in the martial arts will walk through airport security with their weapons in plain sight (hands and feet) and not be stopped! When I practiced judo we learned strangleholds that will render a person unconcious in seconds (never practiced it!). There was a cartoon in Saturday's paper implying that anyone in the US can arm themselves with the gun of choice..............except airline pilots! I still think every person boarding an aircraft should be given their choice of a can of mace or pepper spray or a Tazor. Sure beats the official suggestion of throwing pillows or you laptop at the hijacker.

Agreed. Nothing is guaranteed. The question for me is how big is the risk and how much, if any, of our freedom is it worth giving up for. Yes, in a free society, attacks can happen. Unless we give all of our freedom up, we cannot be completely invulnerable. But most attacks can also be averted if people do their job right. Witness the stopping of the terrorists for the Millenium Celebrations. Apparently the FBI did not do its job at all leading up to 9/11. And, of course, from all the other snafus over the past few years, it appears they haven't been doing it right for a long time.

George

People like you as opposed to people like them or people like us. It was just a generalization.

People that post here for the most part are only known by what they post. They are judged not only by what they say and how they say it, but by the interpretation of the reader and whatever prejudices they may have. I was recently called a rude elitist SB. This was a lot more definitive than just "people like you". This judgment was based not on what I have, since no one knows what I have, but on my being comfortable with what I have and an erroneous interpretation of what I said.

To clarify my statement of "people like you" concerning you, I think that you are a critic, but your criticism is not the constructive kind. It is only meant to evoke controversy. You do not have the passion in your arguments that would indicate that you really believe in what you are saying. You and pique have posted very similar opinions on certain subjects, but I would never categorize you together. She exhibits the passion in her post to indicate that she deeply believes in what she is saying and I have respect for this no matter how different her views are from mine. You on the other hand seem to post just to create controversy without a firm belief in what you are saying. I think that this is counterproductive and I have no respect for these kind of people.

I may be wrong though, but I seldom am.

Keep Smiling

lb

I, on the otherhand, get very tired of peope who wear their passion on their sleeve. They are the ones who get offended at any hint of "disrespect" for what they believe in. It is people like that who have given us all of this politically correct crap. They of course are usually women, who too often wear all of their "feelings" on their sleeves until they find out they can make money by suing someone who made them feel uncomfortable.

Give me someone who can generate controversy for the sole purpose of controversy anytime. It makes for great arguments and a lot of fun. heck, the sports industry makes millions off of generating controversy between fans of opposing teams for no reason at all. Politicians make a mint doing the same thing. Look at how TV uses the creation of controversy to make itself financially successful. Some of the greatest entreprenuers in America are people like Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura who make millions by creating controversy where none need exist. Why do you think there are no successful liberal talk show hosts? They get offended too easily because they actually believe their passion is worthwhile and can't stay focused enough on generating controversy to succeed.

If you are right and George writes what he writes just to cause controvery, more power to him. It makes for good reading, gets people thinking, makes them angry (a passion in itself) and, if he is smart, he might even find a way to make it profitable.

Pllayerpiano9,

Gross generalization, don't you think?

playerpiano9

I see by your profile that you are a musician and a political activist. Your name on the forum is playerpiano9 and that proves something, it takes a player piano to make a musician out of a political activist.

Your crude remark about women also proves something, but I can't post it here. I have 6 sisters, and I would be willing to bet that any one of them have the ability to put you under the table in any field. :p

At least Georges post's are humorous in their ludicrousness, even if he has no conviction for them.

lb

lb

You are joking, aren't you? You spent several paragraphs to declare that you have absolutely no respect for someone on this board, and you are criticizing me for attacking? LOL!!!!

Yes and no.

Most women I know feel it is a strength they have that they bring their feelings (passion) and their logic together to make their arguments. I happen to disagree. I think feelings have no place in most discussions of issues. They are illogical and have no bearing on anything other than that one person's viewpoint.

As far as suing for money when they feel the were made uncomfortable by something? I think we have seen enough of those lawsuits to know they are not that unusual. You don't see a lot of men suing because someone told an off-color joke in the workplace. But you do see women suing for exactly that.

So yes, it is a generalization because not all women do this. But no, because the comment is based in reality. If women do not like being seen this way, then they had better get all of their "sisters" to stop doing this -- the same as the Arabs in this country who do not like being looked at with suspicion. Perhaps they would do well to get the Arab countries to stop supporting those Arabs who blow up buildings here.

Thanks guys for arguing over whether I am to be disrespected or if I am just ludicrous!

As they say in Hollywood, at least they are talking about me!

I vote for ludicrous George, I would never disrespect (exactly how and when did this become a verb?) you.

About the same time "gifted" was introduced as a verb.

Maybe we need a poll.

1. Should George be "disrespected"

or

2. George is just ludicrous

3. George should be respected for his ability to make frequent ludicrous assertions(?)