12 Sep
2001
12 Sep
'01
1:08 a.m.
Keep in mind, Arthur, that you can't have it both ways. You've got to choose
between security and freedom. I think what Sellam is driving at is that every
externally imposed effort to ensure your security impairs someone's freedoms.
Perhaps we don't all see it that way, but it could be argued. Nonetheless, I
don't feel that letting someone look in my carry-on luggage to make sure I don't
have guns, knives, bombs, etc. is a reasonable infringement, partiticularly
since I've effectively agreed to allow this invasion of my privacy as part of
the contract associated with air travel.
I'm sure the "essential liberty" to which Ben was referring didn't
include the
liberty to be irresponsible or selfish to the extent that it risks social order
and encourages terrorists by overtly hiding them in our midst.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur E. Clark" <arthur.clark3(a)verizon.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: OT- Re: World Trade Crash and a bit about computers
At 08:37 PM 9/11/2001 -0400, you wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Sellam Ismail wrote:
> > > "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little
temporary
> >
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
>
> Thank you, Sellam
>
> Those who would destroy the country in the name of protecting it are a
> bigger enemy than those who attacked this morning.
>
> --
> Grumpy Ol' Fred
Yes. That is the other threat posed by the events of today. Some in our
society, the reactionary elements in the federal law enforcement and
"national security" agencies, will no doubt try to use these events as an
excuse to further gut civil liberties which have already been nearly
eviscerated by the miserable failure known as the "War on Drugs." The
congressional reaction to the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah federal
building produced new federal laws greatly expanding the power of the FBI
and other federal law enforcement agencies to surveil and infiltrate
organizations they wish to investigate, even if the organization in
question cannot be connected with criminal activity. The same opportunists
who capitalized on that tragedy will not doubt try to do the same with this
one. Unfortunately, they will probably succeed.
The only way to avoid events like this is to
increase security at
airports -- which often is lax in this country... I've heard
of real security at airlines like El Al which does a serious
baggage and weapons check.
It's sad. At the height of the late 80s wave of terrorist airliner
bombings, I went to the UK on a high school trip. The security at JFK was
a joke. The person tending the x-ray machine wasn't even looking at the
screen half of the time. Gate and checkpoint security were not much
better. In contrast, in Ireland on the trip home to the US, two guards
were glued to the x-ray machine monitor, everyone's passports were
individually checked, and every one of us was questioned extensively before
we were permitted to through _two_ metal detectors. After that we got to
go to another checkpoint to get our tickets back so that we could go to the
gate to then have our tickets checked against our passports. _That_ is
real security.