Posted on 12/08/2005 8:55:00 AM PST by JTN
it's obvious that YOU don't get it.
You answer you own question. What about checking and ID will stop the terrorist from detonating the bomb?
The claim that security is so important that they need to pester people with ID checks, but also so trivial that they can allow public buses to run through the grounds, is absurd sophistry.
There's no evidence that that particular threat existed the day she was checked. There's no evidence that checking an ID would stop that scenario. Palestinian bus bombers in Israel all carry ID. All other buses are equally at threat of bus bombers as well, so why don't you advocate checking ALL bus riders' ID ALL the time if that scenario is something you seriously worry about and you believe that checking ID would prevent it?
"So if someone comes on the bus without ID, do they stop the bus and make him get off"
What are the specifics of the threat? If they are looking for a 5'5" asian man wearing a black tenchcoat, and this happens to be the person they find on the bus who does not have an ID, then my answer would be yes, absolutely.
Many federal offices are in buildings that are on public streets rather than on campuses. Do you feel that all traffic passing by the buildings should be checked for IDs because any of them could potentially be a "threat"?
I appreciate your resolve, but turning the nation into a police state is not the way to go.
I was thinking the same thing!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gee, because I didn't have my ID checked passing on the street in front of the WTC on 9/11, those planes were able to hit it. If only they would have stopped me.
That's ridiculous. The WTC's were brought down by planes.
Bingo.
well, let's see. I don;t know. Maybe catching him before he does it? I haven't answered my own question. Neither have you.
"There's no evidence that that particular threat existed the day she was checked"
I never said there was, and it is possible there was and we don't know about it. There is no evidence of a lot of things. Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.
How does checking an ID stop him? It doesn't. And since the presented ID's are not being recorded and used to check against watch lists, for instance, the ID check is useless.
He is still going to detonate and kill people.
And all the hijackers presumably had to show ID to board the planes.
In that case, the security checkpoint where people have to show ID is reached after the passengers disembark.
The level of bus traffic through the station is another issue -- every time security is enhanced above normal levels (e.g. last Inauguration Day), it creates a cascading bus backup (AFAIK, the bus passengers aren't checked, but vehicles are rerouted somewhat within the outer Pentagon complex). The only real solution is to reroute some of the buses to other Metrorail stops, but Metro is too hidebound (and too desirous of charging outer-NoVA commuters $3.00 for ferrying them on an "express" route to the Pentagon instead of getting only $1.35 to drop them off at the nearby stations at the southern end of the Metrorail system).
Do you think that terrorists carry IDs that say "I'm a member of Al Qaeda - I am carrying a bomb but if you arrest me within 20 seconds I will not detonate it."
A cursory look at an ID isn't going to protect anything terrorist related.
I walk by dozens of Federal buildings every day. No one asks for an ID. Buses, cabs, cars, drive by these buildings constantly. No is stopped to asked for an id. The commuter bus drives up Capitol Hill, pass the Capitol and the Library of Congress. They have only stopped the buses during certain threatcon conditions, checking the under carriage and the baggage holder, but never stepped onboard to ask for id. This is bull! They only stopped the case so the Supremes will not overturn it. They know they would lose.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"
--Benjamin Franlin
From you arguments, it's obvious on which side you fall.
Which means you still don't get it.
It's similar to protecting our southern border. Of course each and every single building cannot be protected, so decisions are made on how to place different layers of security at different places. At one facility, a routine ID check might be sufficient. At another, more intrusive security might be necessary. We don't go through metal detectors to get on a greyhound bus, for example, because the threat is not as great and the cost outweighs the benefits. What is frustrating here, again, as in the prior post on granny, is that there seem to be a lot of people who want to do abolutely nothing. I am the last person here who wants anything resembling a police state, but I am for reasonable precautions in a time of war...
Exactly correct. This is why I support every rider of the bus to refuse to show IDs.
No; only if they actually enter the Pentagon.
In the interests of security, Metro should reroute most of the buses so that people who are simply trying to get into the Metrorail system would do so at some other point, and only people actually traveling to the Pentagon would have any reason to take a bus that goes there. Given the crowd levels on the platform, I can't for the life of me see how the Pentagon police can spot trouble in time to forestall it without constantly disrupting the day's commute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.