An outdated list, oh my. Still doesn’t rise to the level of abuse, or malfeasance. Unless you think that Republican TSA agents are targeting Democrat travellers for political purposes. If that IS what you believe, you may want to loosen the tinfoil hat a little, sport.
[QUOTE=milroyj]
An outdated list, oh my. Still doesn’t rise to the level of abuse, or malfeasance. THIRTY-FIVE TO FORTY TIMES IN ONE YEAR.
To any rational person, making the same mistake on a near-weekly basis is evidence of at the least “malfeasance.” Making the same mistake over and over, being aware that the mistake is happening and not caring enough to fix it rises to the level of abuse of process.
Of course I never said any such thing or anything remotely like it. But, in true Republican fashion, you haven’t let the facts stand in the way of an attempted smear.
Look, sparky, the libs are usually the ones in favor of a big government solution to just about everything. Of course, big government is bureaucratic, wasteful, slow, and myopic. But why complain when you reap what you’ve sowed?
Gee, Liberal, I’m not sure I want my tax dollars going to “prove” that the tens of thousands of people on those watch lists are actual terrorists - and given your fiscal conservatism and dislike of big government, I’m surprised you would propose that. Seems easier to me that we inform people sometime after they book their flight that they’ve been tagged and if they should give themselves an extra hour in the airport to show that they have the identity they claimed - and if so - be removed (with their birthdate, social security number, etc. - after all there may be a real terrorist running around thinking its funny to use Edward Kennedy as an alias).
Of course, you may be proposing getting rid of the watch lists altogether - which does make for smaller government and more freedoms. But I kind of am relieved to know it wouldn’t be so easy for Mohammed Atta to board a plane nowadays. (Still pretty easy, identity theft isn’t too difficult, but not as easy).
One of the things that was proposed early on was that we give people some sort of identification that they could use every time they booked a flight. Your id number (and maybe you’d key in a pin as you board to assure the system your number wasn’t stolen) would be cleared. People without numbers would be subject to being cleared by name - with a greater risk of getting a cavity search for having the wrong name - but only once, because once you cleared, you’d get your number. Names are really hard - there are a lot of people out there with the same name. Basically, the airlines would share a database of people who have taken flights in and out of the US - including non-citizens like Coldfire. You’d clear each person once - unless their status on the watch list changed.
Actually, we’re just the ones who are willing to admit we want a big government solution. The Republicans want them, too, they just like to pretend that they’re in favor of smaller government. Why you would trust someone who’s part of the government to actually work towards making said government smaller remains beyond my comprehension.
But why? Has that approach ever proved to be the most efficient use of limited resources?
You know, I honestly can’t tell leftists from rightists anymore. It all blurs together. So could you remind me whether or not you were bothered that innocent people in Florida were either disenfranchised or hassled because their names resembled the names on a list of felons? And could you remind me whether you believe that a man named Mohammed is guilty until proved innocent?
Well, that answers one of my questions. What I would propose is letting the owners of airports provide whatever security they see fit to provide, and let passengers vote with their pocketbooks what sort of security they prefer.
Yeah, God knows nobody every stole a PIN number before.
I dunno. Why don’t you ask your president?
Do correct me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t one George Bush (whom I believe to be a Republican) the current US President? The one who is ultimately responsible for PATRIOT? Because unless I’m wrong, it’s a fairly, um, interesting position to take that the Democrats are somehow responsible for this particular shambles. I guess it’d be too much of a stretch for you to acknowledge the rule of thumb that Democrats tend to favour the social program style of big government, while Republicans seem to like their large authority structures to have more of a surveillance flavour. I might also ask why you seem quite so happy to put up with Republican-inspired monoliths but not Democrat ones, but I think the answer to that is fairly plain. How do you defend such systems to people who aren’t in favour of big government? You certainly seem rather happy with them as long as they’re made by your “side”…
Quite ignoring big government concerns for a moment, though, this system just seems dumb. Do we really have no better methods of tracking suspects than initial and surname?
Well, I wouldn’t want to speak for Liberal, but the principle as I understand it is that innocent citizens should not be called upon to prove themselves to be such; it is not the government’s place to regulate their lives to that extent. One should be free to do what one wishes unless one is actually guilty of something. By contrast, tracking down actual terrorists falls well within the libertarian government’s purview of protecting its citizens from coercion, and as such is a reasonable use of taxpayer money. It’s when the government places the burden of proof on the individual that the line is crossed and we start living at the government’s convenience, and not vice versa. Hence the opposition to identity cards here in the UK, and the government’s apparent principle that “we are all subjects and citizens” (David Blunkett’s words, there). Not to hop on a personal hobby-horse or anything. 
Ah, I see Liberal’s replied anyway. Fuck it, I’ve typed it now…
Your reply was better than mine anyway, Dead Badger. I’m glad you posted it.
Oh, you mean the big government solution of federalizing these employees which passed under a Republican-controlled Congress and was signed by a Republican president? That kind of big government solution?
Simple question, you worthless partisan dirtbag: is stopping a Congressman 40 times in a year because his name is similar to an alias allegedly used by a terrorist a good thing? Yes or no?
Um, no. The Patriot Act, as is all other legislation, was passed by Congress, acting as representatives of the people, not by some nefarious Presidential fiat on the part of Mr. Bush. FTR, the vote was 98-1 in the Senate and 356-66 in the House, which is overwhelming support as these things go.
And who was in control of both houses of congress at the time?
I don’t think he has any business being on that plane.
You’re even more stupid than I look. 98-1? 356-66? Pratically everyone voted for the act. What difference does it make which party was in control? They ALL voted for it.
Yeppers. Dems and Pubs both voted overwhelmingly in favor of big, clumsy, inefficient, intrusive government programs. How is it that your party is the party of “small government” again?
How is that after 70 years of advocating big government that your party is complaining that it finally bit them in the ass?
That’s nice. Never mind that the Assistant Attorney General was the Act’s primary architect; forget the fact that Bush merrily signed it into law. It’s good to know that the President can therefore be held utterly free of responsibility for any legislation passed during his tenure, be it written by members of his administration and sponsored by members of his party or no. Never mind that the implementation of said law very much is Mr. Bush’s responsibility, for now is the time not only for government without limit, but also without accountability. Heaven forfend we should hold the President responsible for the actions of his own agencies. And naturally, the near-unanimity of the Act’s passage is a crushing argument in its favour. No right-thinking American would dare consider that a reflection of the unusual political atmosphere following 9/11. Nor could anyone in good conscience disagree with such a vote; after all, we’ve all got to take immutable sides these days! No dissent! You picks your side, and God help you should you have an original thought from there on in, eh?
Doesn’t it bug you that you are completely unable to mount a reasonable defence of this sort of system on ideological or pragmatic grounds? That you are reduced to simply trying to “disqualify” opponents from complaining, on the ground that their “side” is just as bad? I realise that this is entirely par for the course on both sides of the fence, but really; is there nothing more that you aspire to than this scoreless draw in which everyone is a loser?
Hey, if it took seventy years for big government to bite us on the ass, maybe there’s something more to the idea of big government than you think. How many failed political philosophies take seven decades to backfire on the people who put them into place? That’s some pretty solid governing, if you ask me.
I’m not understanding this. Most airports are owned by the government, mostly cities, or some city/state/fed combination. Or are you proposing that we privatize the airports as well? I don’t think that’s a practical solution.