Mike there are going to be these mishaps. What I am saying is, I belive it is better to have these type of incidences than to have us erroring the other way and letting terrorists into our skies and country once again.

 

And it's better to have refinements made to the system which will keep terrorists out and not affect people who have no reason to be on the list. Is that too much to ask, that we make improvements? I think not.

 

Is it better to pull someone out of line for a security check, search my smelly shoes, or deport Cat Stevens because he is on a terrorist watch list or is it better to be more relaxed in security and let a terrorist sneak through and fly a Cesna loaded with TNT into a nuclear power plant or a van packed with fertilizer into the Holland Tunnel in NY and blow it up, or more airliners flying into our buildings?

But hey, if it happens you can just tell the friends and families of the dead people it was OK because the US government did not infringe on anyones 4th ammendment rights.

 

So very true Tom. This is exactly my point on this topic. I didn't think it was too hard to grasp

 

Why are there so many muslim groups against the US?

 

It's not hard to grasp, it's just stupid. Justifying the mistakes because the overall system is a good idea is not any sort of worthwhile response to calls to refine the system.

No one is saying to scrap the system. We're saying to make it better. But I guess it's just better to sit on our asses and spend money to keep track of people that don't need to be kept track of, not to mention violating their fourth amendment rights due to a kink in the system.

 

You're right, we don't know what kind of credible information lead them to believe it actually went to HAMAS, but with that mindset - you have to also give the conclusion that it did in-fact get there as a reasonable possibility.

That said, do you want people getting onto airplanes whom we have probable cause to believe that some of their money funded a terrorist, simply because it's not 100% proven and you're not "entirely sure how credible the information is?"

Or is the real thing you just want an exception made for Cat Stevens because in your heart you just know that he wouldn't have knowingly supported terrorists?

I'll tell you what I think, and that is that I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, I don't care who you are. If your money has traces to HAMAS or any other terrorist organization, you are going on a list and are not welcome in this country. I'm not going to give those people the benefit of the doubt, not one of them, that they didn't "intend for it to get to HAMAS."

Sorry, my life, and 3000 other American Lives, are not worth me giving them the benefit of the doubt, regardless who they are.

 

That's not what I'm saying at all but it seems like this thread has turned into the trying to disagree with me festival, so perhaps I should elaborate or rather elucidate on the original point.

The no-fly list is singling out people who for whatever reason shouldn't be on it. Case in point: Ted Kennedy. Senator, Ted Kennedy. He ended up on the no-fly list because of a mistake. There are plenty of normal every day business travelers who have gotten stuck on the list too.

Because of this, I am skeptical when someone who is a known left-winger peace activist type that also happens to be a well known muslim, ends up on the same list.

 

If it makes you feel more secure...who am I to disagree. Doesn't make me feel any more safe though.

 

i agree with bonzo. i would much rather a few people be inconvenienced, than our country being attacked.

the system works. so it's not perfect....but it works.