Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Airport screenings waste our homeland security resources

I, as much as anyone else, want air travel to be safe, but I think that the TSA's reaction to the recent threat in England is excessive.

We were banned from bringing nail clippers on board for a couple of years after 9/11, although the likelihood of an attack by a nail clipper-wielding terrorist was much less than an airliner being brought down by geese being sucked into its jet engines.

Now, because some homegrown terrorists in Britain planned to build bombs with fluids, an American mother can't bring a gel-filled teething ring aboard for her infant, nor can an elderly grandmother bring aspirin and a bottle of Zephyrhills water. It's time that Homeland Security made better use of its limited resources.

We would be safer if TSA agents were trained to analyze the passengers and assess them for potential risks, as is done in Israel, rather than just arbitrarily pluck all fluids from everyone's carry-ons. The reality is that an American-born mother carrying her baby is much less likely to be a suicide bomber than is a young man visiting from a Mideast country. We live in a new and perhaps more dangerous era, and some profiling is both reasonable and necessary.

Marvin I. Honig, Palm Harbor

Carry-ons are unnecessary

Why, in this day and age with the experience we have gathered, allow carry-on anything? Is it too much to ask for a little inconvenience to possibly save 200 or 300 innocent lives?

I am not a frequent flier, but I can see no reason people cannot sit in an airplane without cell phones, computers, drinks, etc. Why do you need sunscreen in a carry-on bag? Why would you need to carry drinks aboard an airline that serves drinks? It is long past time to bring checks and controls to the aviation industry, and we must be able to accept the consequences!

There is, in my opinion, no need to carry anything aboard a commercial airliner. Nothing is more important than the safety of the passengers and crew.

Don Mott, Largo

Gratitude for terror plot spoilers

I know I speak for millions of Americans when I say, "Thank you, thank you, thank you" to the intelligence personnel in England who uncovered the terrible plot to blow up several airplanes while in flight. We express our heartfelt gratitude to all the folks who continue to monitor and use sophisticated techniques that result in the protection of innocent people.

Nick Morana, Spring Hill

Show no mercy for terrorists

Re: How to tackle terror, editorial, Aug. 11.

British security officials deserve utmost praise for breaking up a plot directed at American airplanes flying out of London. Jihadist terror is becoming a wide-open field.

There are two main things America can do: We must reshape the antiterror bureaucracy and make it more efficient, and we, together with our allies, must be more aggressive and crush the radical Islamic groups without mercy. If we don't break them up now, before they develop nuclear capability, the funeral wreath of the West is a distinct future possibility.

America and the West must never acquiesce to mass killers - the safety of our people is enough justification to use every weapon at our disposal to preserve our people, freedoms and civilized culture.

Robert B. Fleming, St. Petersburg

GOP hasn't made us safer

On Thursday, we learned that a terror plot in England had been foiled by good police work. The suspects are British residents, mostly of Pakistani descent. The news was about five minutes old before the Republican propaganda machine started playing politics with it. Only Republicans, they'll tell you, can keep you safe.

But how much safer are we than we were five years ago? How much security have we gained by the expenditure of hundreds of billions of our tax dollars in Iraq, not to mention thousands of lives? More importantly, will an endless occupation in Iraq prevent future bombings? Obviously not.

But Republicans are already playing the fear card, claiming that anyone who wants a change of direction in Iraq is "weak" on terrorism. The irony is that with the disastrous U.S. occupation of Iraq, there actually are terrorists there now.

This is the same crowd that presided over the worst security failure in American history. And when their performance was analyzed by the 9/11 commission, the results were startling: four F's and a D.

The talking heads and slick politicians have the nerve to look at the American people with a straight face and claim they are protecting us by pouring additional lives and dollars down the drain in Iraq. Judge for yourself - are you really more secure?

Scott Cochran, Tampa

Lieberman's agenda

Re: Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

Before the rush to elevate Joe Lieberman to sainthood grows into a frenzy, let us keep in mind that Lieberman has always had another agenda. When he ran for vice president, he refused to give up his Senate seat. So, even if he and Al Gore had won the election, the Democrats would have lost a Senate seat because the Republican governor was sure to appoint a Republican to replace Lieberman. It comes as no surprise that Lieberman would now run against his party's nominee after losing the Democratic primary.

It is clear that Lieberman bought the neoconservatives thesis that the way to democracy in the Middle East was through the invasion of Iraq. It is also clear that that approach has been a military, political and diplomatic disaster. Now, by running as an independent, after having lost his party's primary contest, Lieberman is acting as a spoiler who can only help the Bush administration as it continues to carry out a poorly conceived and a poorly executed war.

Robert Monroe, Tampa

We need a new party

Re: Clowns to the left, jokers to the right, Aug. 11.

David Brooks seemed to be suggesting that there is a need for a new political party. I'm for it! Let's call it "The American Party" - John McCain for president, Joseph Lieberman for vice president.

Let's all join in. We need change!

Leon H. Sellers, St. Petersburg

[Last modified August 15, 2006, 01:05:23]