Replies

I appreciate what you are trying to say, but we already have balance. The place that was selling these phones had a policy about how many phones someone could buy at a time. When these people tried to violate this policy set up by this private business, the business called the police.

I'm sure that the cell phone companies would love to re-engineer their phones to make their use in bombing less likely. I don't think that the Ryder truck company ever fully recovered from the Oklahoma City bombing, and I'm sure that the cell phone people don't want to suffer a similar fate.

I don't like the thought of having lines of communication cut off at all. For every person you save by cutting off the phones to stop the terrorists' activities, you may cost someone else by delaying or inconveniencing the response.

Again, the balance should not be between freedom and security. There is no safety in security. The balance needs to be between safety and how many of our enemies we need to kill to achieve that safety. You talk about putting our enemy down, and I'm saying that the first response to every one of these incidents should be to put more of our enemies down. I want to see the government saying, "Look, we're going to ban liquids for a few days or maybe weeks. We're going to destroy our enemies, and then we're going to get things back to normal. It's unreasonable to prevent someone from carrying contact lens cleaning solution in their carry-on luggage. It's unreasonable to keep someone from carrying a little bottle of Visine eye drops. It's unreasonable to keep someone from carrying a bottle of shampoo. When we go back to normal, we're not going to call it 'getting lax' and pretending that normal is bad. We're going to get back to normal proudly as a sign to our enemies that we will do whatever is necessary to maintain our safety and our conveniences."

Bill