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_at_verizon.net>
To: <classiccmp_at_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.
>
>
>
Received on Wed Sep 12 2001 - 08:08:34 BST