I have mixed feelings on this one, myself. On the one hand, I don't want the federal government involved in more than it already is, but on the other hand, SO has already flown home once since the attacks and he said that security hadn't changed at all. I think SOME changes are in order, but how this should be accomplished is still vague in my mind.

Airport security

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 15, 2001

Answers

I can't find the article I read this morning on this, but it's been reported that the National Guard troops at airports basically stand around doing nothing while the standard security people look for nail files in carry-on bags.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 15, 2001.

Personally, it wouldn't bother me. In fact one of the functions assumed by the federal government is the regulation of interstate travel. Isn't ensuring safety of the travel a form of this type of regulation?

However, I think that it would be a huge logistical adjustment for the federal government to provide this service. How would the service be provided? Through the military (I can see it now, NWO in action)? By the US Marshall's (same song different verse)? I think that it would take a huge psychological adjustment in our political bodies to ever get it implemented.

I am more curious as to why you state that you would not like the federal government more involved than it already is. It is apparant that the current system for providing security is not effective and that something will be done at the federal level. Does it matter that much if that is by regulation or direct provision of the service? Besides, as a scum sucking liberal I kinda figured you to be pro big government. You surprise me by having faith in the free market to provide for your safety, especially from companies that can't guarentee that you and your luggage will end up in the same place at the same time.

Keep in mind that my opinion on this matter is weakened by the fact that I don't like to fly and have no plans to board any aircraft operarated by anyone. The few times I have been FORCED to fly have been in small private aircraft that seated 6-8 people. Security on these flights was a simple matter since we all knew each other and I didn't have to fear some complete whacko being on the flight. Well, a couple of my fellow passengers were probably whacko but we figured that they were mostly harmless.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 15, 2001.

Last I heard, Dumbya's plan was to put armed Federal Marshals on flights that any of his cabinet members were boarding, but not on all other flights.

I don't think I'm in favor of this idea, since it is going to cost the taxpayers a lot and they are not likely to get any better security except when they happento fly on the 1 out of a million flights where there happens to be a cabinet member on the same flight.

-- No Thanks (I don't usually fly @ in. Nazi class section), October 15, 2001.

Hey Abdul, they won't let you on anyway.

-- (towelheads gott@take a.bus), October 16, 2001.

JBT: I don't think that anyone [even Congress] is recommending that military forces, national guard or otherwise be used in this endeavor. I think that what's being suggested is that airlines are parceling out these jobs to folks who haven't had background checks and have little interest in the position due to the low pay involved. The thought seems to be that if airport security positions were under the federal umbrella, there would be a standard procedure through which all candidates would pass/fail and maybe the pay would be better, encouraging a force that would actually care about the position.

Regarding my thoughts as a "scum-sucking liberal", lots of folks think we're all for bigger government. It's one of those misconceptions we all hear about.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 16, 2001.

Damn, another stereotype shot to hell.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 16, 2001.

We've posted a workable economic solution here on this board.

Why is there any further discussion?

- Greybear

-- Got Glasses?

-- Greybear (greybear@worldemail.com), October 16, 2001.

Anita, raspberry scum is quite tasty.

My buddy's two daughters visited this weekend from DC. I asked them about security. They said there were guards at Dulles with machine guns. I assumed the guards were military. I hope they weren't rent-a-cops.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 16, 2001.

Most people I hang with are fairly liberal, and I don't know anyone who wants bigger government! That's just another crock of shit that Rush Limbaugh spreads around to get people to vote for the extreme conservatives. Just another dirty tactic used by Repugs since they would never win if we dealt strictly with the truth.

-- (big government @ my. ass), October 16, 2001.

>>However, I think that it would be a huge logistical adjustment for the federal government to provide this service. How would the service be provided? Through the military (I can see it now, NWO in action)?

The issue of course is that the military is forbidden from acting as domestic police by the hundred-year old Posse Comitatus Act. The national guard at the airports comes close to violating that, but I think the president got around it by not calling up the national guard, but by asking the state governors to post the guard at the airports. Since there is no present civil unrest, even this might raise some eyebrows.

The national guard isn't just a civilian militia, it's an integral part of the modern army, and that's why units are mobilized at the drop of a hat, not as the final stage in an overall campaign. Mobilized national guard = the army.

I'm sure if you asked the soldiers they'd wonder why they are serving as security guards to back up the people sitting around looking at the xray tv's, arguing with you about your eyebrow tweezers.

-- SonataSlapsy (SlapsyMaxie@Rosenblum.com), October 16, 2001.

Yeah, I was reading about this in the paper (hysterical about the Repub. fear vs. Demo lust over 30k new union members) and I just think there's no reason to take anything on a plane with you. I mean, hell, you know your destination? Why not UPS second-day your luggage to the Hotel (or any logistic group that might want to handle it) in advance?

This could remove a large piece of the security pie. And I think it's workable....?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 17, 2001.

Sounds good to me. How come you haven't e'd me yet?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 17, 2001.

OOOh, my own baby troll! How precious!

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 17, 2001.

Alright. Who is the troll? He/She/It has been following me around to my Catholic boards making fun of my religion and this is not funny anymore!

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 17, 2001.

Do not use my name againl I am not catholic, and I am tired of you showing up at my boy's baseball games. You want beef? I got

beef!

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 17, 2001.

You blew it. I don't do bold.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 17, 2001.

YOU blew me. I don't do large font.

You are starting to look like my blow up doll. Pucker you face, precious little one!

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 17, 2001.