I know very well that YOU aren't advocating such a thing, but our government is perhaps not as ethical and does not think at deeply and rationally as you do.

The current one certainly doesn't.

You know, all it would have taken were security measures already in place to find Atta's boxcutters and prevent the entire event.

The security cameras show him passing through Logan airport unstopped. Where were the metal detectors that have harassed us since that first jerk hijacked a plane to Cuba in 1961?

All it would have taken was sticking air marshals on every flight for a bit. We have that now? Why not then, when the threat was utterly disregarded? Why was it disregarded when Bush had intel from the CIA, Clinton, Israel, and Germany stating that we faced an imminent threat by terrorists wanting to use our passenger jets against us.

The Bush administration was well briefed on the threat that Al-Queda posed, but they utterly disregarded it.

That was Bush's utter failure and hence the reason he goes down as one of the worst presidents in this nations history.

I think you are unrealisticly blaming Bush...Why did Clinton not place air marshals on every flight? Why didn't Bush Sr? Reagan? You know the answer, Stone...accepting it gets in the way of blaming Bush is all and so you wont.

However, it does raise an interesting issue. I wonder just how much we are spending on the entire TSA and the air marshal program? I begin to wonder if it would not just be better to allow the air lines to arm the entire flight crew? Allow for the training and the arming of flight crews. Allow the airlines to create security teams that serve as adjuncts to the air marshal program. Share with the airline security offices information on developing threats so they can efficiently employ those teams. Hell, give participating airlines a small tax break to offset the added costs of the program so as to not discomfit the travelling public with extra fare hikes.

Hell, make it even easier...instead of reinforcing cockpit doors retrofit the plane so that there is no access to the cockpit from inside the passenger compartment.

I am not totally against the idea of preemptive action, but the circumstances under which its used should be much more narrow and ethically based than the circumstances that the current US administration has used it under. The invasion of Iraq for instance; I cannot see how that would fall under any narrow or ethical justification, for preemptive action of the kind that was used.

As for the US doing what it wants because it has interests, well in in psychology, people who constantly act violently in their own interests with out consideration for the rights and feelings of others, or without any residue of moral unease, are called psychopaths. So, unless the US thinks a world of fear and hate is in its best interests, modeling US policy upon a mental illness might not be a good idea.

As it happens, Myr, I am in agreement with you.

I think that is a moot point as there were existing and legitmate reasons to act against Iraq completely divorced from any need to invoke a doctrine of pre-emption. I have argued previously that existing UNSCR resolutions provided all the legal justification necessary to resume the 1st Gulf War after Irq refused to abide by the terms of the cease fire that temporarily suspended combat actions in that war.

Well, nations are not people and such considerations do not necessarily apply. I do however agree with your general point. The decision makers in the US ought to consider the consequences of their decisions and make decisions with that in mind. In short, they need to weigh competing interests and decide if a particular action has negative consequences that outweigh its potential positive results. The perception of the US in the rest of the world is one of those factors that need to be considered. In the military we call these concerns Information Operations and they are a continuing part of battlefield preparation and consequence management. They are a significant aspect of overall strategy and one that is ignored at a commander's peril.

A few years ago in a radio interview on ABC, Penn Jilette (of Penn & Teller) suggested that every airline passenger who wants to be allowed to carry a gun on board.

With many armed passengers (and crew) there would probably no longer be a need for air marshalls. I see nothing wrong with this idea, and I expect gun rights advocates will see the wisdom of this proposal.

Penn also had a small metal card which set off the metal detectors at airports. When asked to show what it was, he hands it to the security officer. It's a card which contains the Bill of Rights printed on it.

He lets them confiscate it.