I really enjoy reading comment boards like this one where so much is left to opinion:
"How do I know they're all false alarms? Because this administration makes a press splash with every arrest, no matter how scant the evidence is. Do you really think they would pass up a chance to tout how good the watch list is?"
Still, it would be useful to define "know" vs. "think".
@Durable Alloy: Does 1993 ring a bell? How about USS Cole?
@pecunium: I think we should impeach Hillary. She said Iraq had WMDs a lot during the 90's.
Why should we even watch airplanes? it is far easier to fly, legally, into Mexico or South America, then walk in. That's how some of the 2001 bombers did it, under Clinton's watch.
If there weren't so many idiots in the U.S., we'd all be safer. Profiling works for the Israelis, but since we are so PC, we aren't allowed to do it. Securing borders works, but we aren't allowed to do that, either. Gubment agencies sharing data (data reuse) works, but someone thought up the fallacy of "Constitutional Right to Privacy."
Here's some education about the Constitution, phrased in a way most here will understand:
The Constitution is like a firewall ruleset. Everything in the main body of the Constitution is an explicit power granted to the Federal Government. Everything in the "Bill of Rights" is, as Hamilton wrote, "various exceptions to powers not granted." In other words, they are explicit restrictions on actions the government hasn't been given the power to do anyway. The 9th Amendment is the "Default deny" clause:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
So, all in all, we have NO "Constitutional Rights", only "inalienable rights." That will make some of you happy, considering it means the Government can't take away rights it didn't grant us. It will make others angry because it implies that we have certain inalienable rights endowed upon us by our Creator. Gee, I wonder whether I'd rely on rights that can't be taken away, or rights that can be taken away by judicial fiat...
If we did security right, all of the Bush haters would be screaming. Since he's not allowed (or capable, the jury is still out in my opinion), the Bush haters scream.
The funny part is that if Clinton or Gore were in office and were telling us that terrorism is a "law enforcement" matter like we heard throughout the 90's, all of the Bush haters would be more likely to die, but less likely to be angry.
Look up Jamie Gorelick.