[Arkinsaw]

They had to have a working and functioning mode C transponder. So ATC knew exactly where they were, whether they were talking to them or not it wouldn't have made any difference at all, Zero, zip, nada.

Did they know who they were? Who the passenger was?

So you don't think the Green Bay Packers playing the Dallas Cowboys wouldn't make a great symbolic target? Or a nuclear plant? How about the Sky Dome. If you were the mayor of a city wouldn't you be pissed if you didn't qualify for protection? Do you honestly believe that it would end with 5 places being protected?

I would say that 1 protected place is better than 0...5 protected places is better than 1.

Is there any freedom that you don't mind giving up for a little extra safety?

Have you stopped beating your wife? I stated that I favored restriction of totally unnecessary entertainment overflights of places like the Statue of Liberty, Gateway Arch, and other potential targets that are important to our nation. Your response is a fallacy that broadly insinuates that any efforts at security are by definition an assault on liberty.

It is not unreasonable to put up restrictions and to provide air defense for likely targets when your nation is at war. If you have a need to get somewhere, you can take a path other than over the Statue of Liberty or some other national icon. The only reason for circling the Statue of Liberty or other national icon is your personal entertainment. I think personal entertainment is one area probably worth giving up a little of for the security of your country...but thats just me I guess.

[LeGrande]

Did they know who they were? Who the passenger was?

I have never flown in NYC. But I have flown in a lot of class B airspace, and the normal procedure even outside of Class B, is to utilize flight following. Then the ATC knows who you are and where you are going. They may not know exactly who is on board, but are you likely going to tell them that you are a terrorist?

I would say that 1 protected place is better than 0...5 protected places is better than 1.

It is simply sad that you think that it is important to put a couple of phlanxes around the Statue of Liberty so that sight see'ers (sp) can't enjoy it.

I think personal entertainment is one area probably worth giving up a little of for the security of your country...but thats just me I guess.

Hopefully it's just you. I fear that way to many people are willing to give up too much for a little perceived "safety."

To me the idea of protecting the Statue of liberty with a missile system or phalanx is repugnant on many different levels. Restricting freedom to protect a symbol that stands for freedom is idiotic. I would rather see a terrorist blow it up than lose any iota of freedom because of it.

The day America takes our freedom away to protect the symbol of freedom is the day I am no longer an American.