The Implications of Homeland Defense

No.

Whenever something catastrophic happens, people (especially those in power and those held somewhat responsible) tend to want to cram new rules, new regulations, new laws in the books as fast as they can before anyone has time to know what's going on.

The truth is, that had the airports simply followed their existing rules something like this could've been avoided. Of course, the one rule about allowing knives is/was obviously a mistake. But, taking away the right to carry a knife onboard an airplane doesn't infringe upon our rights (very much), and is an acceptable compromise.

 

<B>The truth is, that had the airports simply followed their existing rules something like this could've been avoided. </B>

Which existing rule did the airports/airlines not follow?

 

I thought that it was very interesting that groups as diverse as left wing liberals and right wing conservatives forged a coalition to oppose Attorney General John Ashcrofts new homeland security measures. In particular, they were concerned about the fact that foreigners could be rounded up and deported WITHOUT A TRIAL and that evidence wouldn't even have to be presented to anyone other than the supervising officer. They could also be held without trial or an attorney for as long as the governmental agency wanted.

In addition, if a person was thought to have sympathies for a terrorist organization (a newsletter with viewpoints contrary to anti-terroist feelings was given as an example) could be detained indefinitely with no trial and no attorney. They also used the example of Islamic groups who were conservative but not necessarily linked to terroists or right wing militia groups (Christian mostly) who gather to discuss their views.

There was a very good story on MSNBC about opposition to the rules - I'll have to find the link - and why there is such opposition.

There is almost always an overreaction in situations like this. Since there is little support for the farthest reaching measures in Congress, it will likely get stripped of those things before it reaches the President's desk.

 

shanna,

I guess there were no specific rules that were "broken" by the terrorists prior to the hijacking, but the incident can be indirectly blamed for the overal lax security at airports (and specifically those utilized by the terrorists) across the U.S.

Had the rules that were already in place been strictly enforced, the terrorists may have chosen a route different from the one they chose.

Again, I said before that allowing the small knives aboard was an obvious and unfortunate oversight. But, taking away that "priviledge" is not going to get even the most "civil liberty aware" person, like myself, upset.

The FAA or the U.S. gov't can add 1,000,000 new rules and regulations, but if they are enforced with the same inadequacy as the original rules, then the only ones to suffer are the innocent citizens that utilize air travel, not the terrorists.