(function() { var a=window;function e(b){this.t={};this.tick=function(c,h,d){d=d?d:(new Date).getTime();this.t[c]=[d,h]};this.tick("start",null,b)}var f=new e;a.jstiming={Timer:e,load:f};try{a.jstiming.pt=a.gtbExternal&&a.gtbExternal.pageT()||a.external&&a.external.pageT}catch(g){};a.tickAboveFold=function(b){b=b;var c=0;if(b.offsetParent){do c+=b.offsetTop;while(b=b.offsetParent)}b=c;b<=750&&a.jstiming.load.tick("aft")};var i=false;function j(){if(!i){i=true;a.jstiming.load.tick("firstScrollTime")}}a.addEventListener?a.addEventListener("scroll",j,false):a.attachEvent("onscroll",j); })();

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Question of the Day: Day 343

Since 911, security has increased in the U.S. At the airport, for example, we must remove our shoes, jackets, and sweatshirts. Items such as cigarette lighters & cuticle scissors are now prohibited. Do you think that such increased security is absolutely necessary or that it infringes on some of our basic rights/freedom?

4 Comments:

Blogger aussiemike said...

It would seem to me that the security restrictions are more invasive than effective. As one who has travelled across the USA a lot since 9/11, and overseas to the UK and Australia, I see the whole idea and the execution of the idea as an invasion of privacy. What worries me more is that this will be extended at some time in the future - certainly if Newt Gingrich has his way - to vetting our dinner guests, our phone calls, and our mail! To say nothing of logging all our internet activities!

12/05/2006 7:53 AM  
Blogger AlwaysThinkin said...

First I would caution against lumping all increases in security into the same category as the largely symbolic changes mentioned. But the examples given are trying to solve yesterday's problems while failing to address tomorrow's. I believe the only real way to prevent terrorists from wreaking havok on planes is to prevent terrorists from getting on planes.

As to whether the restrictions on what can be carried on a plane infringe on basic rights or freedoms, I don't believe so. Some seem to think that they have the "right" to not be inconvenienced, this is not so. Could airline security still be increased without as much inconvenience? Certainly, which is why I was disappointed that the congress insisted that it be handled directly by the government instead of the private sector.

12/05/2006 8:32 AM  
Blogger WiNgS said...

It is the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens.

I believe it's worth the hassle if I were a passenger. I could be saving my own life by sacrificing a few minutes of travel time.

Dead people don't have rights. So, I'd rather be alive than dead.

12/05/2006 8:54 AM  
Blogger teresa said...

I can relate to the thoughts of the first three posts. I've mixed feelings on the matter of heightened security, and to date, have not come to decisive conclusion in my own mind.

12/07/2006 6:23 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home