Sept. 25, 2006

Ah, finally, they're going to 'relax' the ban of liquids on airplanes. Starting tomorrow, America's airline passengers will be able to bring eye drops on board. Even a little mouthwash, maybe some hand lotion. As long as each liquid is less than three ounces, and it is carried inside a zip top plastic bag. Sad to say this is called progress, but there it is.

In an article about this, a passenger returning from Thailand was unhappy about fellow passengers carrying concealed mouthwash on flights. He said "You can never have enough security". This man, of course, is a complete moron.

In fact, you most certainly can have too much security. You can grasp hysteria with both hands and immerse yourself fully in a vat of security. Shaving everyone's heads, making them fly in the nude, and chaining people into their seats would be having too much security.

I would like to posit that you can never have too much common sense. What is wrong with people's heads these days? Let's quickly look at the overwhelming need for some simple common sense with this quick and handy quiz.

Q. How many airplanes have been blown

up in America?

A. None.

Q. How many knitting needles, toe nail

clippers, or Frappucinos have been

used in acts of violence on domestic

air flights?

A. None.

Q. How many terrorists have been caught

red handed in their evil plot to

high-jack an airplane?

A. None.

Q. Are there legions of American

citizens with the overwhelming desire

to high jack an airplane or blow one

up?

A. No.

Considering the above, can anyone explain why there is such an outcry for more, or continued restrictive, abusive and oppressive controls being placed on passengers today? Aren't we coddling paranoia here? Yes, airplanes were high jacked 5 years ago and used in the Sept. 11 attacks. But it was a completely unheard of situation. It was unique. It only happened once. It is extremely unlikely to ever happen again.

What is actually being gained by all this invasion of people's privacy? What benefit is coming from making people remove their shoes? Most of all, how can it possibly be justified to treat every man, woman and child, even the elderly, even people in wheelchairs, like terror suspects? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Anyone remember that?

The loss of respect for the rights of the 99.9% of Americans who are in no way inclined to ever cause harm to anyone on an airplane, to me, is a continuation of the terror of 9/11. When an entire nation is held under suspicion of the worst kind of human behavior and intent, without any reasonable cause to think so, the price is a loss of freedom and dignity that we can ill afford. Why does the government feel the need to treat all of us like potential terrorists? This is not even sane. What frightens me most though, is the cowardice and lack of common sense that makes so many Americans so quick to accept this brutality against them as acceptable or understandable in any way.

People like Mr. I Love Security astound me. Make no mistake America, when the government talks about security they are talking about having control. Sure, if they had total control over every move we make, it would be real secure around here. But would life be worth living?

For all the hysterical hand wringing and fear, do take the time to notice that there have been absolutely no occurrences of danger or harm on a single airplane since 9/11. The problem dear friends is not with the American people. WE have done nothing to justify being patted down and violated. I think we would be a great deal safer if the government was putting it's time and energy into more appropriate places, and doing the good old fashioned, time tested and provable police work that produces results.

First, they need to get specific. Who the heck is it they are so worried about being dangerous? Clearly, it is not every man, woman and child. That's completely asinine and it speaks loudly to their ineptitude in clearly having no idea whatsoever who or what "the enemy" is. Just shooting everything in sight is a fear reaction. It is devoid of reason and it self justifies by saying, "how are we supposed to know who's a good guy and who's a bad guy? We can't take any chances!" This is grounds to be dismissed from security positions.

No one ever said being in law enforcement was an easy or safe job. On the contrary, the very reason we once held such respect and admiration for people in this field is that they were willing to risk their own lives to do the hard work of bringing criminals to justice inside the constraints placed on them by our constitution. The constitution is not irrelevant, nor is it optional. It must be upheld, and these officials all take an oath to uphold it, even to protect it with their very lives.

Why do they do this? Because, those who understand the reason that we even have a constitution know very well, that ONLY when people are ensured it's protections can there be any possibility of justice and freedom. The constitution guarantees that innocent people will not have their lives ruined by gung-ho gun toting idiots who abuse their positions in government enforcement jobs. When they do abuse their authority, look at what happens. It affects everyone.

If this were really America, we would never stand for it for one second. Unless and until authorities have some reasonable need to interfere with the lives of simple Americans, they have no business even asking us what our names are. To be free, means being free of control by authorities. That is what freedom means.

Under the protections of the constitution, sometimes guilty people go free because there is not enough evidence to put them away. But the reasons behind this are extremely important. It's goal is to protect the innocent. It is better to let an occasional guilty person go free than it is to imprison one innocent person. We have to believe in this more now than ever. It is specifically in times of war or other national stress that our constitutional protections must be respected. We do ourselves no favors by believing a loss of rights or REAL protection afforded us by law be over ridden by people who don't seem to have any interest in doing the hard job of focusing on finding only the guilty. If we don't believe in and demand the constitution be upheld to protect the innocent, if we think it's unacceptable that a guilty person goes free to uphold our protections, then do consider the price. The guilty will likely continue to go free, but in addition the innocent will be harassed and imprisoned. I don't see the benefit here, do you?

5 years after 9/11 the nation is still steeped in fear. It is unhealthy to say the least. 9/11 was traumatic, and after any trauma people need to begin to feel safe again as soon as possible. Otherwise they begin to feel constant paranoia and it ruins their lives. For the most part, feeling fear to the extent we do now is a choice. It's the wrong choice. It would have served us much more to not become paranoid, suspicious and racist after 9/11 but instead to ratchet up even more freedoms for Americans.

We will be safe as soon as we realize, we're fine. We are all right. A terrible thing happened, it is over now. We are still trying to find answers, and it doesn't help that the government insists on unprecedented secrecy, refusing to share information about the events of that day. Because we can't get all of the answers we need, it makes it very difficult to come to terms with what happened, make sense of it, and then take the appropriate steps to ensure it won't happen again. It's time to come at this with our heads, not with raging, uncontrolled fear.

Fear causes people to do stupid things, that's why being level headed is a good thing. I'm sorry to say it, but this government really likes to push fear. It shows no interest at all in speaking to us like responsible adults, sharing it's information and encouraging America to be strong and courageous, participate and get back to having normal lives.

Unrestrained controls over us, wireless phone taps, no more privacy, being forced to submit to searches not because there is reasonable cause but just because, this is dangerous territory. There is nothing good that can come of it, and nothing has. All that can honestly be done to be safe when flying is to take reasonable precautions, but not to become hysterical cowards that think stripping the constitution from us will make us safer. It will not.

Fear is what must be brought under control, not the entire nation being treated like suspects. We can see that from the beginning these airport clamp downs were nothing more than forcing the nation to submit to more fear. It will not relieve fear, it will only support fear. It will also teach an entire new generation to think that it is normal to be stopped and searched. My God, it is not. Freedom is freedom from exactly that.

In the wake of 9/11, no one has been brought to justice. No one involved has been arrested. But our country is jumping through security hoops on command. Does this sound reasonable? Is it too much to expect the legions of security officials to actually track down the guilty and deal with them without disrupting our lives? I don't think so. When security is well done, it should be invisible. It is not a security nation, it is a free country where we are sovereign and want to have our lives free of nonsense and red tape and stupid rules. We're becoming hostages in our own country.

It is time to address the foolishness of punishing everyone just in case they may make a false move. That is straight out hysteria. We can fly freely. It's a choice and a right. There is no way to make ourselves 100% safe. I'm sorry there just isn't. People need to face that. The odds are high that we'll be just fine, but we'll come a lot closer to knowing that when we can finally let go of unrealistic, fear based behavior and demand more results and less national surveillance. There is no exploding shampoo. Come on. Let America fly clean and let's get back in touch with reality.

U.S. to Relax Ban of Liquids on Planes

2006-09-26 Passengers will be able to carry lotions and gels onto airliners again after a six-week ban _ but only in tiny containers of 3 ounces or less and only if they're in clear zip-top plastic bags.

Starting Tuesday, air travelers also will be able to buy drinks or other liquids or gels at shops inside airport security checkpoints and carry them on board under partially relaxed anti-terror rules.

If a passenger brings a container larger than 3 ounces from outside, it will still have to be put in checked baggage.

The outright ban on such carry-on items, ordered Aug. 10 after an alleged plot to bomb U.S.-bound jetliners was foiled, is no longer needed, Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley said Monday.

The FBI and other laboratories tested a variety of explosives and found that tiny amounts of substances _ so small they fit into a quart-size plastic bag _ can't blow up an airliner, Hawley said at a news conference at Reagan National Airport.

Lisa Cohen, a congressional staff member who flies weekly between Denver and Washington, said the changes should make flying easier.

"I understand the concerns, but it's been a colossal pain this last several months," Cohen said as she lugged a large carry-on bag through the airport.

At Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Aubrey Hux wasn't as happy to hear the news. Just back from a vacation in Thailand, he said, "You can't have enough security as far as I'm concerned."

Doug Zink, who traveled to Washington from Denver on business, doubted whether the average passenger would remember that containers have to be 3 ounces or less, that plastic bags have to be one quart or less and that the bags have to have a zip top that's closed.

"It's just ridiculous," Zink said.

Up to 4 ounces of a few items will be permitted in carry-on bags: eye drops, saline solution, nonprescription medicine and personal lubricants.

Larger bottles of liquids and gels from outside _ including shampoo, suntan lotion, creams and toothpaste _ are allowed only in checked baggage.

The Air Transport Association, which represents major airlines, said the TSA has carefully assessed which items can be brought aboard safely.

"It will reduce passenger inconvenience," said ATA President James May.

Passengers will have to take out the clear bags with toiletries in them so they can be checked separately by the X-ray machine. Though the machines can't identify whether a substance is an explosive, they can pick out anomalies that may indicate a substance is intended for use in a bomb.

The TSA is testing new equipment that can detect explosive substances at checkpoints, Hawley said. He said he hopes machines that use magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology can be deployed at the nation's 753 checkpoints located in 452 airports.

"A year from now you will know a whole lot more," Hawley said, declining to give a timeline.

He said the TSA has money to pay for such equipment.

However, Massachusetts Rep. Ed Markey, a senior Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, criticized the Bush administration for failing to make progress on technology to detect explosives, though a plot to blow up airliners was uncovered 10 years ago.

A Homeland Security spending bill expected to pass this week will provide only a fraction of the money needed for bomb-detection equipment, Markey said.

"Passengers need more than just press conferences, but real progress to upgrade explosive detection equipment at our airports," he said.

Tougher airport screening procedures were put in place in August after British police said they broke up a terrorist plot to assemble and detonate bombs using liquid explosives on airliners crossing the Atlantic Ocean from Britain to the U.S.

At the time, the Homeland Security Department briefly raised the threat level to "red," the highest level, for flights bound to the United States from Britain. All other flights were at "orange" and will remain at orange, the second-highest level, for now.

"Obviously, there's been a lot of unhappiness," said Richard Marchi, senior adviser to the Airports Council International, an airport trade group. "They're right to find a way to ease the burden and maintain a reasonable level of security."

___

Associated Press Writers Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington and Greg Bluestein in Atlanta contributed to this story.

Last update: 2006-09-26