“The ban should be lifted once authorities are confident that the specific threat, in this case the plot to blow up 10 planes, has been dealt with.”

Didn’t the plot in question deal with planes out of the UK? Wouldn’t that mean the “specific threat” didn’t affect domestic US flights? If we only need a temporary ban on liquids when there’s a specific threat, why have we banned liquids on US flights at all. Furthermore, why are box-cutters still banned? Or lighters? There isn’t a known plot involving them, is there?

As for ignoring Gatorade in favor of attacking the root of the problem, I can only say, well duh. Why shouldn’t we do both? Why can’t we try to cure the disease while also treating the symptoms? I mean, if that’s the way you’re approaching this, why bother trying to thwart specific terror attacks at all?

You think we should have the ban now, and it should be lifted at some point. At what point, and on what basis?

They why “agree with the current measures”?

I think it’s prudent, in this case, to ban liquids as the investigation is focused on a plot that included liquid explosives, it was shown that the plot was nearing completion, and so a ban may do some good in the short term as there is no time for potential terrorists to change course. But to extend that indefinitely would, once again, merely prolong a climate of fear and make us no safer in the long run.

The ban should be lifted once authorities are confident that the specific threat, in this case the plot to blow up 10 planes, has been dealt with.

Check out that link I mentioned a few comments up. He explains it better than I can.

This threat has existed more than 5 years, more than 10 years. We have always been the target of fanatic terrorists, therefore the threat will remain no matter what power is in the white house. That is something people forget: the threat has been here for decades and will continue to exist. We can ban everything, outlaw guns, etc., and the threat will remain unless the root cause is addressed.

The questions should be: How long should the American people live in fear before the root cause is addressed, and how should the root cause be addressed? At what point is enough?

I don’t think it makes it any safer to fly.

They why “agree with the current measures”?

At what point, and on what basis, should they discontinue the ban even though the threat still continues to exist?

You think we should have the ban now, and it should be lifted at some point. At what point, and on what basis?

Not sure if you’re being facetious, but yeah, Kottke is pretty good at the link thing, although this guy is the king. You probably already know of him. He must spend every waking hour online, he posts things before anyone else. Kottke gets much of his stuff from him.

Because I don’t think it prolongs a climate of fear

Should be this:

Because I think it prolongs a climate of fear

If those tasked with protecting us knew ten years ago that it was possible for someone with a digital watch and a bottle of faux-Gatorade to blow up a plane, why on earth would they not ban those items in carry-on luggage right along with box-cutters, fingernail-clippers, and RPGs?

Because I don’t think it prolongs a climate of fear and I don’t think it makes it any safer to fly. I believe that, and it appears some others do, too. I’ve already stated as much.

i provided a forum for an expert to expose the threat, and then recommended said expert’s book probably a dozen times. that’s really not enough?

I already said you go above and beyond in that regard.

and whether someone considers something extreme has fuck all to do with it. the government has the right and responsibility to restrict what gets on and doesn’t get on airplanes. they have neither the right nor the responsibility to break international law by torturing people.

I agree they have the right to decide if an item is potentially dangerous and therefore, restrict it. However, I disagree that permanent restrictions are effective. And of course, there is a difference between FAA restrictions, which are entirely legal, and torture, which is not. Although, like torture, permanent bans and other such methods don’t seem to be that effective other than giving the appearance that something is being done. Once again, I’ve already stated as much.

So no, I’m not conceding anything. I simply disagree with you on this.

I stop by there daily.

i never understood why people do that. now i think i get it.