Obviously it does since 9/11 happened. And it doesn't have to be through a creative new method. Sometimes old tricks are better than new tricks. Also I used pearl harbor as an example. Nothing more. There have been attacks since then.
What's your point? Do you think you're going to prevent all terrorist attacks everywhere in the country through ridiculous airport security? What's to stop them from blowing up a metro instead where there's no security, or just blowing themselves up while they're waiting to be checked in the security line at an airport?
Kal'Stang said:
Your analogy would work better if you expanded on it to include the whole country since there are thousands of planes with thousands of flights going to a thousand different destinations...oh wait don't we have cops that patrol, stand guard and arrest criminals 24/7/365?
See, here's the problem with this. If we want to deter murder in general, we have a lot of cops on duty to deter murder, rather than staking out a specific place where the LAST murder occurred. But if we want to deter terrorism in general, we have ridiculous devices that deter a SPECIFIC KIND of terrorism (e.g. smuggling explosives in your underwear) in a SPECIFIC PLACE (e.g. behind the secured line at an airport). Do you really not see the silliness of that? What do you think a terrorist is more concerned with - killing as many people and causing as much carnage as possible, or the specific method and place through which he does it?
This does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to deter terrorism in general. It just deters terrorists from loading their underwear with explosives and trying to go through security at an airport. And even THAT isn't a problem that needs deterring, as it's happened a grand total of ONE TIME in the history of air transportation.
Kal'Stang said:
Actually no it's not bull. While you don't have a right to use a phone you do have a right to a private conversation from your home to another persons home. That is where the privacy clause in the Constitution steps in.
Nope. You're using public airwaves, so why shouldn't the government be allowed to listen in to every phone call you make? :roll:
Kal'Stang said:
A library is a service provided by either normal citizens or the state...in both cases they can refuse to give you any service..or they can just close up shop if they wanted.
If it's owned by the state and you don't have a right explicitly enumerated in the Constitution to be in a library, why shouldn't the government be allowed to monitor every book you read?
Kal'Stang said:
And you don't have a right to not be watched while walking down the street. Cops do it all the time without having to get a warrant. Paparazzi do it all the time to any celebrity that they can get a picture of.
So then you're OK with Minority Report-style sensors being installed in every nook and cranny of sidewalks and streetlights so that the government can keep tabs on you at all times while you're outside?
Kal'Stang said:
You don't have a right to drive an automobile. That is why you are required to get a drivers license. If you don't have one then you can be arrested and charged with driving without one.
Since you don't have a right to drive, just like you don't have a right to fly, would you be OK with the government installing a GPS on your automobile without a warrant?
Kal'Stang said:
Having a GPS put into you would also violate your privacy when you are in your own home, at a private business confrence, or going to any destination as you can keep that private as well.
But you don't have a right to surgery, so you're OK if the government mandates that a GPS chip be implanted in your skin whenever you get surgery? You'll be free to remove it at any time, as soon as you get home if you like. Best of luck! :2wave: