Is that not what terrorism is the result of? Shoddy Security? Shoddy Homeland Security? And we have come full circle...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Terrorism is most definitely not the result of shoddy security. You make it sound as if Osama woke up one day and said "Hmmm...airlines have poor security so I think I'm going to hijack a plane and crash it into a building."
Terrorism is most definitely not the result of shoddy security. You make it sound as if Osama woke up one day and said "Hmmm...airlines have poor security so I think I'm going to hijack a plane and crash it into a building."</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, he likely looked at the state of security in the US airline industry in general and then planned out how to take advantage. You notice that they did not come heavily armed, so they were not expecting guns on the plane. They moved easily thorugh the security that was there and they succeeded with disastrous results. If the security had been better as it is on airlines such as El Al the attempt (if it would have been done at all) would have been different and would likely have failed.
I read somewhere that if you should have air marchalls on every plane from, to and in US (like El Al) it would cost $10 billion and involve +100.000 people.
BTW: El Al serves the best egg plant salad in the industry.
<strong>I read somewhere that if you should have air marchalls on every plane from, to and in US (like El Al) it would cost $10 billion and involve +100.000 people.
BTW: El Al serves the best egg plant salad in the industry.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what is your safety worth?
Actually, lets take that number and extrapolate a bit.
10,000,000,000 / 100,000 = 100,000 /year each. So those agents would get 100,000 a year each? Or are we accounting for government overhead as well?
I think 100.000 people could do good somewhere else. Give them first help training and place them on the most busy corners on your streets and 10 times more people would be saved than if you placed them in your flying tin cans. Give them educational training and place them in schools etc.
But if there is a correlation between egg plant salad and air marshalls I say go for it.
Comment to your after edit: Training, loss of airplane seats, transportation, pesion, health care, guns etc.
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>
<strong>It would take 120,000 marshals or more--men and women who usually work in teams--to cover the 30,000-plus daily flights in the United States, security experts and former government officials said. Such a program could easily cost more than $10 billion a year. Budget figures for the current program are classified.
<strong>Is that not what terrorism is the result of? Shoddy Security? Shoddy Homeland Security? And we have come full circle...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shoddy private security. They should've detected the box cutters.
And sometimes shit just happens and for my sake don't ask daddy government to take my rights away so you can feel more comfy.
To me, the US Constitution is more important than any individual, even if every individual in the US has to die fighting for the survival of those principles.
<strong>To me, the US Constitution is more important than any individual, even if every individual in the US has to die fighting for the survival of those principles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
An extremely strong position that I think you will find many people on both sides of the arguement will agree with you 100%.
Question: Does your constitution and bill of rights allow the govenment to temporarily suspend rights granted by those documents? And if so, can this suspension be applied individually, or does it have to apply uniformly to everyone? If these documents do allow for temporary suspension of rights, what checks and balances are in place to restore rights?
Not trying to bait or anything here, just wondering about justification that might be used for these holdings etc.
As a follow up to my above questions, if the temporary suspensions of rights are allowed by the constitution/bill of rights, doesn't that make them constitutional by definition. And therefore a part of the principles that are more important that any individual?
<strong>To me, the US Constitution is more important than any individual, even if every individual in the US has to die fighting for the survival of those principles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is, in essence, totalitarianism summed up: from the reduction to nought of the value of a human individual to the enthusiastic willingness to sacrifice every one of those individuals for one's beautiful (or ugly) ideas.
<strong>I agree to the last point. Actually the 9/11 hijackers lived by the same credo that human lifes is less important than some ideal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd say they were right in principle, wrong ideals.
Question: Does your constitution and bill of rights allow the govenment to temporarily suspend rights granted by those documents? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe the President could sign an executive order curtailing any right even for an individual at any time. I don't believe the right of an executive order actually exists in the Constitution though, but I could be wrong.
The best I can say is that any individual that puts his or her life on the line to defend the ideals in the Constitution gets a big thums up in my book.
"safety" is an illusion....when you take a breath (and you could be breathing cancer causing chemicals), when you step in the shower (and you may slip and break your neck), when you start your car and drive to work (and a drunk driver is heading your way)....there is no such thing as "safety", so live your life and enjoy it...yes, take precautions, yes keep your eyes open and your head up, but no one can be 100% "safe"...please don't take away my freedoms and rights to chase an illusion of safety that is impossible to achieve...
we are doing great, we are fine, we are strong....g
That is, in essence, totalitarianism summed up: from the reduction to nought of the value of a human individual to the enthusiastic willingness to sacrifice every one of those individuals for one's beautiful (or ugly) ideas.
Last century was rife with such nonesense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
I'd say they were right in principle, wrong ideals.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is surprising kind of rhetoric from you Bunge. Especially considering your past exploits into the world of process vs substance, or means vs ends, and the world of a million shades of grey and moderation. Why wouldn?t we (Israelis) be justified sacrificing those millions of Arabs to defend our freedom against the ever-encroaching wave of Islamic totalitarianism and domination?
Comments
<strong>9/11 was a result of shoddy security, not abuse of freedom.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is that not what terrorism is the result of? Shoddy Security? Shoddy Homeland Security? And we have come full circle...
<strong>
Is that not what terrorism is the result of? Shoddy Security? Shoddy Homeland Security? And we have come full circle...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Terrorism is most definitely not the result of shoddy security. You make it sound as if Osama woke up one day and said "Hmmm...airlines have poor security so I think I'm going to hijack a plane and crash it into a building."
<strong>
Terrorism is most definitely not the result of shoddy security. You make it sound as if Osama woke up one day and said "Hmmm...airlines have poor security so I think I'm going to hijack a plane and crash it into a building."</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, he likely looked at the state of security in the US airline industry in general and then planned out how to take advantage. You notice that they did not come heavily armed, so they were not expecting guns on the plane. They moved easily thorugh the security that was there and they succeeded with disastrous results. If the security had been better as it is on airlines such as El Al the attempt (if it would have been done at all) would have been different and would likely have failed.
[edited for clarity and spelling]
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
BTW: El Al serves the best egg plant salad in the industry.
<strong>I read somewhere that if you should have air marchalls on every plane from, to and in US (like El Al) it would cost $10 billion and involve +100.000 people.
BTW: El Al serves the best egg plant salad in the industry.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So what is your safety worth?
Actually, lets take that number and extrapolate a bit.
10,000,000,000 / 100,000 = 100,000 /year each. So those agents would get 100,000 a year each? Or are we accounting for government overhead as well?
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: NoahJ ]</p>
But if there is a correlation between egg plant salad and air marshalls I say go for it.
Comment to your after edit: Training, loss of airplane seats, transportation, pesion, health care, guns etc.
[ 02-19-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>
[quote]<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-011402marshal,0,2997642.story"; target="_blank">LA Times</a>
<strong>It would take 120,000 marshals or more--men and women who usually work in teams--to cover the 30,000-plus daily flights in the United States, security experts and former government officials said. Such a program could easily cost more than $10 billion a year. Budget figures for the current program are classified.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Is that not what terrorism is the result of? Shoddy Security? Shoddy Homeland Security? And we have come full circle...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Shoddy private security. They should've detected the box cutters.
And sometimes shit just happens and for my sake don't ask daddy government to take my rights away so you can feel more comfy.
<strong>9/11 was a result of shoddy security, not abuse of freedom.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So why did they use box cutters and not guns or even knives?
<strong>So why did they use box cutters and not guns or even knives?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because those two things are harder to sneak by security.
Or is there an element to the question I'm missing?
<strong>
Or is there an element to the question I'm missing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you're missing the implication that because it was easy to bring box cutters on a plane, terrorism was spawned.
No, it doesn't make sense to me either.
<strong>To me, the US Constitution is more important than any individual, even if every individual in the US has to die fighting for the survival of those principles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
An extremely strong position that I think you will find many people on both sides of the arguement will agree with you 100%.
Question: Does your constitution and bill of rights allow the govenment to temporarily suspend rights granted by those documents? And if so, can this suspension be applied individually, or does it have to apply uniformly to everyone? If these documents do allow for temporary suspension of rights, what checks and balances are in place to restore rights?
Not trying to bait or anything here, just wondering about justification that might be used for these holdings etc.
As a follow up to my above questions, if the temporary suspensions of rights are allowed by the constitution/bill of rights, doesn't that make them constitutional by definition. And therefore a part of the principles that are more important that any individual?
[ 02-20-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>To me, the US Constitution is more important than any individual, even if every individual in the US has to die fighting for the survival of those principles.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is, in essence, totalitarianism summed up: from the reduction to nought of the value of a human individual to the enthusiastic willingness to sacrifice every one of those individuals for one's beautiful (or ugly) ideas.
Last century was rife with such nonesense.
<strong>I agree to the last point. Actually the 9/11 hijackers lived by the same credo that human lifes is less important than some ideal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd say they were right in principle, wrong ideals.
<strong>
That is, in essence, totalitarianism summed up: from the reduction to nought of the value of a human individual....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like giving riddlin to a hyperactive child, if you push far enough to one extreme you end up on the other side.
<strong>
Question: Does your constitution and bill of rights allow the govenment to temporarily suspend rights granted by those documents? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I believe the President could sign an executive order curtailing any right even for an individual at any time. I don't believe the right of an executive order actually exists in the Constitution though, but I could be wrong.
The best I can say is that any individual that puts his or her life on the line to defend the ideals in the Constitution gets a big thums up in my book.
we are doing great, we are fine, we are strong....g
<strong>
That is, in essence, totalitarianism summed up: from the reduction to nought of the value of a human individual to the enthusiastic willingness to sacrifice every one of those individuals for one's beautiful (or ugly) ideas.
Last century was rife with such nonesense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>
I'd say they were right in principle, wrong ideals.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is surprising kind of rhetoric from you Bunge. Especially considering your past exploits into the world of process vs substance, or means vs ends, and the world of a million shades of grey and moderation. Why wouldn?t we (Israelis) be justified sacrificing those millions of Arabs to defend our freedom against the ever-encroaching wave of Islamic totalitarianism and domination?