Thousands dead, millions deprived of civil liberties?

Does it bother anyone besides me that Congress is using the terrorist attacks as a blank check to take away civil liberties? As we all know, a bill has been proposed that would require back doors in all encryption products, which is NOT okay in my book. I'm all in favor of heightened security carried out in an intelligent manner, and I'm willing to give up some liberties for security, but the way this whole thing has been blamed on the internet is completely ridiculous.

This post is a very interesting experiment with the Slashdot community. The message carbon-copies RMS's statement above (enough to warrant a -1: Redundant).
No flamers about "just trying to grab attetion" here, however! Far from pointing out the obvious equality between the opinion expressed by BConway and RMS's, the conversation is intelligent and focuses on the facts.
Why do we bitch about RMS making a statement and respond positively to a rehash of the same statement from someone else?
I thought the Slashdot community prided itself on being a little bit open-minded. Kneejerk condemnations of people's opinions based on their identity is not only rude, it's stupid. Hats off to BConway for making this so clear.

Sometime last week, I suggested voluntary biometrics as must one small measure to help facilitate idendification of the average joe. The thought is that as we are routed to more automated inspections, enforcement officers are freed up to perform more thorough human inspections. I've seen facial recognition and other technologies suggested as well.

Perhaps what's needed is NOT legislation as the article suggests. For as with toll bridges, once set, they are very difficult to repeal.

Instead, why not voluntary programs? For example, my enrollment in the above program would automatically expire in a year's time, unless I opt out right away. No harm is done either way, as I choose to go the long route.

Granted, we are temporarily suspending some of our civil liberties, in return for safety, but in a way where we control the duration and participation in the program.

Okay, so the UK have CCTV cameras all over the country. Net result ? they can squelch pretty thefts in high streets and issue speeding tickets automatically. Yet the IRA still strike. Gee, I wonder why the camera didn't pick them up.

British citizens have "chosen" to give up their freedom for nothing.

That's only one example. In France, there is a law that forbids people to use any kind of encryption. Net result ? Algerian terrorists, the ETA, the FLNC still plant bombs in the country. French people too have given up their freedom for nothing.

I'm all for giving up things that make it possible to catch terrorists, but freedom is not one of them. Watching people is not the solution.

I said very clearly that we don't always do the right things. The principle is the important thing, the law, as it was intended, is just. The problem is how individuals carry out the law, as in the situations you describe. We're not perfect, nobody is, and terrible things happen here, but we try, we have good intentions, and we're the best thing going if you look around the world.

Stallman is making a very good and important point here.

It seems like every time I hear the media covering the terrorist attacks, I hear someone saying "Of course I'm ready to give up some freedom to improve security." These people don't seem to realize that if we give up civil liberties in response to these attacks, the terrorists have succeeded! Giving up those freedoms means the terrorists have forced us to change our way of life - that should be the LAST thing we want or allow.

On the specific subject of flight safety, I've heard two proposals that (especially combined) would eliminate the threat of this type of attack almost completely without requiring additional airport security at all:

• More armed air marshals in plainclothes randomly on flights.
• Armored (Kevlar) secure bulkheads for the flight compartment of commercial planes.

The only other flight related measure that would impact airport/airline employess (but not the general public) would be greater security measures for them to eliminate problems like the ramp access that one terrorist team apparently had, allowing them to get a bomb on board.

Instead of these relatively unobtrusive measures, we will likely get very expensive, intrusive and draconian measures like automated chemical sniffers and millimeter wave "x-ray" machines. My prediction is that the terrorists will not attempt this type of attack again, and the public will absorb the cost and inconvenience for no gain whatever. Also we will likely be faced with fairly massive domestic surveillance, which will be useless if the enemy has half a clue, and will only serve to further erode our personal liberties (see the proposed encryption backdoors, for instance).

Don't forget the words of a great American (the only person to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution):

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Ben Franklin--

I hope that our current leaders can step up to the plate and make the right decisions, so that America can remain free, while eliminating the international terrorist threat to the extent possible.

186,282 mi/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

Okay, maybe it's time for a more nuanced opinion on civil liberties in wartime and afterwards.

RMS, and Roblimo before him, [slashdot.org] correctly argue that we must not let our freedom of speech (and freedom to control our personal property!) be compromised by mandatory crypto backdoors. Putting aside the fact that such a decree would be totally unenforceable, and that users would surely revolt (I know I would), and that it would surely be found unconstitutional as prior restraint on speech, nonetheless this is a terrible idea that we need to fight.

(Note that all discussion of this in connection with this incident is 100% theoretical anyway. If the bad guys used crypto, we don't know it yet - only grandstanding politicians have suggested anything of the kind.)

But I must say that I feel very differently about face recognition - particularly in airports. Such a system could have caught some of the hijackers - several of whom who were WANTED BY THE FBI and FLEW UNDER THEIR OWN NAMES! - before they killed 5000 people. Extending it to public spaces such as Times Square is more questionable to me, but particularly in airports where the possible harm is now much greater than we ever imagined, I think this is a technology that would be welcome.

Remember that you already give up a lot of rights while you fly. It's too bad, and I don't enjoy having to check potentially hazardous luggage (e.g. knives) any more than the next guy, but flying is materially different from all other forms of transit. You can't crash an Amtrak train into much more than another train, or a station. You can't do that much with a bus. But you can kill thousands with a plane, and as such we need to exercise extreme caution there.

What is the big deal with face recognition? WTF is wrong with that? Personally, I am not WILLING to give up any of my liberties because of this terrible act of terrorism, but how does face recognition computers infringe on my liberties? You are already in a public place, you're in the open, people can see you, so can cameras(which are already there anyway), what difference does it make if there are cameras connected to computers doing face recognition to be sure that no known criminals/terrorists board a plane?

Privacy can be important, especially for someone acting justly who has enemies, but in public there is no privacy. You are already out in the open, anyone who wants can snap a picture of you. Everyone sees you picking that monster weggie, everyone see you wipe that hanger off your nose, everyone sees you checking out that hot chick's ass while you're walking with your wife...

The day someone puts a camera in my house(or in too close a proximity), forces dna sampling, forces me to turn over personal information, etc., then I'll be pissed.

Personally, I'm not sure what I think about gun registration laws, and other such things that exist already, but complaining about face recognition is like complaining about putting up a website with pictures of you and people coming to download them, YOU PUT IT THERE, just like being out in public.

note: I'm still open to any arguments about why it's bad, but right now I just don't see it as a threat in any way at all.

"Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help."

Ok, just how fucking stupid are you RMS? Do you really think that these two methods can be compared? Exactly how much faith do you have in a ticket counters person ability to recognize known terrorists? Stick to software please.

There is no completely free society. The closest one can get is anarchy. In every society with a form of goverment, certain freedoms are given up in exchange for certain benefits. Citizens in America are not "free" to speed, there have been laws made against it. But rarely do people complain about this law. Why? They have agreed to trade this freedom for a measure of safety. Many Americans wish to give up their right to own a firearm. They do this with the belief that it will increase the safety of society overall. Now, I realize these two examples are not the same as giving up certain rights of privacy, but they are examples of giving up certain freedoms none-the-less. I give these to examples to make the point that it is quite common to exchange rights, or "freedoms", for increased safety or order in a society. The issues before us in light of the recents attacks are not easy ones to answer. Do we sacrifice certain freedoms, such as privacy over e-mail and phone conversations, in an effort to stop further attacks such as this? Or do we take the belief that such measures will only hurt what America stands for without really damaging terrorists ability to wage further attacks? It is an issue I can see both sides to.

If many of our "American" rights are taken away, are we still "free?" Will some people still believe this is America if they cannot believe in their fundamental right of privacy?

If we as Americans live in fear of another attack, are we still "free?" Will some people still believe this is America if they cannot believe that their government is doing all they can to protect them?

How do we reconcile these two different, yet vital parts of the United States of America? With great difficulty. I urge people, on either side of the debate, to let your representatives know how you feel. And pray that our elected leaders will make the right choice.

God be with America and her people.

on the internet!

Please, tell me where it has? Last time I checked, most informed (not speculative) news analysis in mainstream papers (not Wired News) has discussed $6/hr rent-a-cop airport security, unpreparedness of the Pentagon, the years of flight training taken by the bad guys, and Osama bin Laden's ability to finance all of this and create terrorist cells around the world. Where's this clamor against the net that I haven't seen on the 10+ websites I read daily on the subject?

To save our civil liberties and more, we should come to a full stop. Do not invade Afghanistan and others. Immediately pull out of Iraq, without even bothering to tell Sadaam.

Over the next few years, unilaterally pull out of the rest of the middle east and eastern europe. Tell Israel we won't even try to stop them from doing whatever they think is necessary to survive. Say so long to NATO. Start weaning Japan and Taiwan. Do whatever it takes to become independent of imported oil. Tell the disappointed war-mongers in the US that they're being good Christians.

Let the Palestinians crow over their "victory" - at least until they realize we aren't going to be there to stop the Israelis any more. Let the terrorists claim they they've won and are great heroes. Let Sadaam strut and probably brag that he was behind the WTC attack. Let the international media record it all.

Then, about 3 years from now, after all the bragging and celebrating is over, and we know who our enemies are, strike with no warning, with deliberate and massive force.

Or would you rather salve your ego, toss aside your civil liberties, and go into an impossible war on terrorists that has potential to quickly escalate into WW III?

I am of Asian Indian descent. I was born in the United States and, thus, am a citizen.

I was driving and ran a yellow light in metro Washington, DC. Unluckily, a police pulled me over and proceeded to interrogate me with questions:
50: "Which are you from?"
me: "America."
50: "I mean where were you born?"
me: "America."
50: "I mean where are your parents from?"
me: "....."

I agree with RMS in that the Incident somehow gives law enforcement officials to question everyone based on racial stereotypes and profiles. It is as if we have rolled back all progress.

-ac

Where are all the Slashdot Libertarians? The majority of posters during last year's political fracas claimed to be Libertarians, but all the posts I'm reading are reactionary.

America hasn't felt this vulnerable since WWII, but the current politicians' answers are no different than they were in the paranoia of the 50s. There is no need for more massive intelligence, just better organization and focus of the current system.

The Boston Globe has an article showing that the US government knew terrorists were training in US flight schools from as early as 1990. The government just didn't guess what the terrorists might end up doing with their training. That's just plain dumb.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/258/nation/Off ic ials_aware_in_1998_of_trainingP.shtml
(take out the space)

The NYTimes has an editorial that explains how the Bush administration's requests for more unfettered intelligence is not necessary & won't help. Before all you reactionary types start complaining about the NYTimes being liberal, the editorial page editor is a conservative liked by Bush & William Safire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/17/opinion/17MON2 .h tml

Do you think now that we have utterly failed in the drug war we could perhaps stop the insanity? This way we can at least get some of our freedom back and we can reassigned the focus of the DEA to terrorism instead of racism, I mean drug arrests.
Cat Jesus

Actually, that is not correct. As I understand it, the Supreme Court did not decide the outcome of the Electoral College. Instead, they pointed out that Congress has the ultimate responsibility for resolving disputed elections. The Supreme Court sent the decision back to the Florida Congress where it belonged in the first place.

Your comment that Bush "took a short-cut" is actually backwards and bares your bias. It was Al Gore who took the case into the Florida courtroom, not George Bush. The Florida court overstepped it's bounds and showed their clear bias by not throwing out the case. The case then went through the normal process of climbing up to the Supreme Court. Al Gore attempted to subvert the process and, as you put it, take "a short-cut" by going to through the courts, but he failed. Yet many people keep saying it was the exact opposite.

Many people are upset because Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election. The fact that so many people find this unthinkable shows that many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of our election process. No matter how you look at it, the popular election was very close. The fact that the electoral votes should fall in favor of the candidate with slightly fewer popular votes is not surprising and not relevant. The popular vote does not matter currently; only the results of the electoral process matter. If someone were to say that the electoral process needs to go, then I would have no argument, but to try to go around it when the election does not go as some people would like is not right.

The hand counting that was pressed for by the Gore supporters was another attempt to subvert the process. This notion was borne of the concept that counting by humans is less prone to errors and bias than a computer count. Both notions are unreasonable. Computers don't care who wins, they just tally things up in the way that they were programmed. I've also heard the related suggestion that there was no defined standard before the election for how to count the famous chads. Many people felt that it was therefore reasonable to determine a standard _after_ the election took place. However the way the computer was designed _defined_ the standard for how to count the chads. The fact that more Gore supporters had trouble filling out the ballots properly as opposed to Bush supporters does not mean that we should redefine the standard so that we could try to get a more accurate reading of what we believe the voters wanted. Permitting such things opens up a Pandora's box of potential abuse; such a concept would be laughed at if attempted in any other country.

And by the way, there was no conspiracy. George Bush is not responsible for the obvious fact that Florida has serious problems with their voting system. People are too paranoid. The voting problems could just as easily gone in Al Gores favor. Al Gore and his supporters should stop complaining; if Gore had won the popular vote by a large margin but lost the election, then he might have some ground to stand on. But Gore only won the popular vote by roughly 0.4 to 0.5 percent (depending on how you do the math). The fluctuation in the voting varied by far more than that from day to day; on another day, it is quite possible that George Bush could have had the popular vote as well. People keep acting like the popular vote was a landslide in favor of Gore; not even close to the truth. Al Gore needs to gather more support if he wants to win in the future.

Seems to me that if US citizens were not stripped of their second ammendment rights when they step into an airport that this couldn't have happened.

Can you imagin if just 1/10th the passengers had handguns on them at the time of a hijacking? How many slugs would the hijacker have in him by the time he got one round off? Would hijackers even dare target aircraft?

Citizens arm yourselves - for the good of your country.

Given that the human face recognition performed by the check-in agents did not keep the hijackers out, there is no reason to think that computer face recognition would help.

This is the only real argument that Stallman puts forth save, "I don't want big brother is watching me!!!"

Does anyone else see this as ridiculous. The whole purpose of putting computerized facial recognition in place is because humans aren't perfect. Neither are computers for that matter, but humans are much more flawed. What are you going to do, make all of the Security Guards memorize faces of all suspected terrorists? I wouldn't trust myself to pick out one, why should I trust a $6 rent-a-cop?

You could use this to identify "possible" suspects, and then rather than just gang probe them, place an armed air marshall on board, like they have in Israel. The air marshall can supervise the flight, and has one leg up on the competition, should anything happen, because he/she is prepared.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want everyone tracking all of my personal travel, but if you're travelling, that information is already in a database, the airline you're flying with, who I'm sure has no beef sharing this information with the goverment. What possible civil liberty encroachment is there?

Seriously folks. You guys need to calm down.

Captain_Frisk

Of course the people doesn't want war. But after all it is the leaders who
determine its politics, and it's very simple to bring the mass to follow you,
whether you live in a democracy, a fascist or a communist regime.
The people can always be brought the the leader's will. It's easy, you only
have to convince them that they're being attacked. Then you denounce the pacifists
for their lack of patriotism and because they put the country at risk.

Hermann Goering

(during the Nuremberg trial)

Since someone else has previously said something similar, I'm going to respond with almost the same answer I gave before.

You don't need to posit an attack on G.W.B. by that statement -- it can be interpreted to mean that this issue will be very important in political arena over the next few years, and not just today. That was, in fact, how I understood it on reading it initially.

For example, considering that G.W.B. is well into his first term of office, isn't this topic something likely to be of import in the next (not-that-far-away) U.S. presidential election? And therefore, in a short time, someone who is not currently elected will be president (even if it is the same person who won the previous election).

Furthermore, considering that the law of the land says that a man can only be president for two terms...Isn't it reasonable to suppose that our next president (i.e.: whoever succeeds G.W.B. -- Democrat, Republican, or otherwise...be it the next election or the one after) is someone currently in politics, and is involved and watching this situation develop?

I'm assuming that nobody here believes that Bush will suspend the "terms-of-office" law and install himself as imperator or somesuch, but I am saying that there are reasonable -- and non-inflammatory -- ways of interpreting that line, even if you're a fan of G.W.B. (which the author may not be).

While bullet holes in the hydraulic system would certainly be a bad thing, a few holes punched through the skin very close to each other (go look up the firing rate of an Uzi) would be a much worse thing. Airplanes are pressurised. A single hole is a very bad thing. Go look up "explosive decompression" on Google. More than one hole basically acts as a much bigger hole with a diameter approximately the distance between the two farthest-spread little holes (within a reasonable distance). A big enough hole and you get a catastrophic failure (back to Google again).

Yes, I'm a pilot.

How many times do you have to point out that Franklin never said the quotation contstantly mangled here (the one about security and liberty)? Ludwig Thoma. Ludwig Thoma. Ludwig Thoma.

And so I don't get shot down for being off-topic, not a single one of the suggested and/or planned "security measures" would have made the slightest difference last Tuesday. I can make a weapon with a plastic spoon and an emory board or with a shoelace and the in-flight magsazine. The only way to have truly safe flights is to strap all passengers down like in slave ships, not that we're that far removed already. Lose your rights and gain NO security.

The false sense of security people are getting from all these knee-jerk actions is actually more dangerous than being scared and therefore attentive. People in the US are too busy waving their flags right now to remember the hundreds of thousands who fought and died for the rights they're now ready to simply give up. THAT is shitting on the memory of far more people.

woof.

perspective: 5,000 dead is the monthly toll on US highways.

Here, he is saying that a massive computer database of faces could not possibly do better than a minimum-wage drone looking at people and going of half-rememberd police sketches like those you see on the post-office wall.

Civil liberties aside, the problem is not with the face recognition, but with the database that backs it. I know, one of the attckers was wanted by the authorities, but assume none are wanted and in fact seem to be perfectly innocent. From what I read in the german news (e.g. www.spiegel.de) some of the terrorists where not suspect at all. What will face recognition accomplish against such people?

The question also applies the other way round:
Is face recognition needed after they are in the database? Stolen ID's can be identified. Correct ID's will identify people in that database. So where does the face recognition come in?

IMO this is just one of these ghoulish efforts to make a profit using all the pain, death and suffering.

I have seen a report that, in response to the events of last Tuesday (including the passengers who resisted and downed the fourth plane on its way to DC), Brazil has legalized gun-toting by airline passengers.

The flight-attendant speech is being revised to add instructions on how to plug a hijacker with minimum risk of puncturing the pressure hull, crew, and other passengers.

(This may be a bow to the inevitable. I understand that well over 60% of the Brazillian population already carries concealed pistols, often in violation of their existing gun laws.)

FYI: If this is ever legalized where you fly, I recommend the Charter Arms .44 special Bulldog model. It was developed for the US Air Martial program. Fires a big, slow bullet to avoid puncturing the hull or the windows. Kicks like a mule, but a bruised hand is better than a crash. Reasonably easy to conceal.

(Try Glaser Safety Slugs, too - in this or anything else. Think of pistol-round sized shotgun shells that spread out in the first thing they touch, rather than a jacketed bullet that penetrates and damages whatever is behind the target. That's also what "Black Talon" slugs were REALLY about.)

I'll second that emotion.
It would be particularly unsettling if the same government that is now demanding sweeping domestic spying capabilities also ignored good evidence that a major terrorist attack was coming via the airlines to American soil, wouldn't it? It might be enough to make you wonder just what they want the increased surveillance powers for if they intentionally ignore the critical intelligence they're already getting from sigint and allied spy networks.

Did administration officials receive advance knowledge of attacks with frightening indifference ? [newsbytes.com]

Did administration officials smother a friendly, timely warning with shocking obtuse ness [jpost.com]

Did adminstration officials shitcan a timely bipartisan report on America's vulnerabilty to airborne terror because it did not suit their political agenda [independent.co.uk] of pressing for utterly irrelevant Buck Rogers style intercontinental missile defense?

These people simply do not deserve to be trusted with broader powers. Take your pick of reasons to distrust them, they're all equally valid, probably. We should be considering instead how to limit the further damage they can do of granting them a permanent, legislated hold on what should be only "National State of Emergency" wartime powers to be granted in the last resort in a fight against a dangerous foe like Nazi Germany/ Kaisarean Germany before that or the Confederacy even earlier.

I have now on my desk a copy of a document prepared over a decade ago detailing our nation's vulnerabilities to terrorism and what should be done about it. It is rare both in the sense that not many groups had the foresight to have put together such a thorough analysis so far in advance; and because while the document was not classified, not many copies were made (for obvious reasons). In the wake of last week's tragedy I took the document out of its file and read it again with new eyes. Last week's attack could have been much worse. Thank God the people who wrote that document are on our side. It is a shame we didn't listen to them.

If you are feeling bad about the role encryption plays in allowing terrorists to act freely, perhaps some excerpts from this document will ease your mind and open your eyes to the usefulness of encryption systems in combating terrorism. Also keep in mind that this was written in the mid 1980s. I apologize in advance for not giving proper credit to the authors, but I'm sure that they understand why.

-- begin quote --

Adulteration, the accidental or deliberate injection of undesired material into a network, can cause serious problems. Accidental diversion of unintended liquids into a pipeline system, like accidental switching of a train onto the wrong track, sometimes leads to disastrous results... ...Perhaps the most insidious form of adulteration is the accidental or deliberate entry of false data into a computer network because until the problem is detected incorrect decisions are made and once the problem is discovered user confidence in the system is shaken... ... identifying false information is a critical function that can be seriously complicated by adversaries' use of deception.
...
Leakage from networks is at least... ... But again, the most insidious form of the problem is associated with communications: tapping networks is a primary source of illicit information both in the business world and in foreign intelligence... ... so that communications and database security is of significant importance.
...
MEASURES FOR RISK REDUCTION
Robustness
protective enclosures
solid construction
guards
deterrent laws
human engineering to reduce errors
operator training and practice
ENCRYPTION OF INFORMATION (emphasis added)
Ruggedness
redundancy
excess capacity
backup systems
error correcting coding for communications
emergency response teams
crisis training
alarm systems
automatic diagnosis systems
emergency subsystems
preplanned triage
public or customer emergency instruction arrangements
Resiliency
stores of critical spares
emergency recovery teams
training of recovery actions
insurance
procedures for sharing abnormal resource costs
pre-established plans for implementing improvements rather than return to status quo ante

-- end quote --
The measures listed above were to be encouraged in PRIVATE organizations and amoung the general public. I have reproduced the entire list because unlike the rest of the report it should be shared amoung as many people as possible, especially in business. As you can see public use of encryption is on this list.

It is important that businesses be able to encrypt data securely so that critical vulnerabilities and response plans cannot fall into the hands of terrorists. It is important that businesses be able to encrypt and digitally sign communications so that false data or false orders cannot be transmitted that will cause their facilities to be damaged or an inappropriate action taken that could jeopardize lives and infrastructure. People need to be able to encrypt data and communications so that they will be less susceptible to blackmail (supposedly "no organization is secure from an operative who catches a secretary who is having an illicit affair") or assassination by terrorists.

Encryption is a powerful tool. It is as useful for protection from terror as it is the commission of terror. We cannot prevent the terrorists from having access to these tools; so we must seek to learn to use them better ourselves, and to make sure that they are in the hands of "the right people." With the ever-increasing reliance on data collected and sent over electronic networks in the making of critical decisions by all sectors of society, failure to use encryption and digital signature technology could be very bad.

This morning (Beijing time) US Attorney General was talking to Larry King on CNN.

AG was describing how Congress is working on new legislation and how the justice department is actively seeking new measures. Larry King asked, "Do you mean to say if these measures have been available say one year earlier, you could have prevented these attacks?"

I found this a good yard stick. If some one proposes a new law, ask him/her whether this would have stopped these attacks

(The AG's response to the above questions was just off the topic)

I couldn't agree more with the name check. The biometrics may be feasible, if cost weren't a factor. Maybe a long term goal could be Biometric Identification in major airports, with the understanding that records aren't kept, only comparisons are made against known criminals. Restrict this to the airlines, as they require special consideration.

An airplane is significantly different than a train, bus, or even a van outside of a federal building. The explosive combination of jet fuel and potential gravitational energy is not innate to other forms of travel. I could even strap explosives to my body and go to a crowded public place with similar devastation, despite the train.

The difference is that once the airplane is off the ground, massive destruction is an innate property of most any deviation from standard procedure. To grant such a liability to a non-airborne craft would require extensive and contrived effort, e.g. undetected access to the depot for a "Speed" like rig of the bus. Even then, it takes less expertise than that of the Blue Angels to intercept a two dimentional craft, using a similar craft or even a helicopter. A commercial airplane is for all practicality a hermetically sealed box - there is no viable "backdoor" at 30,000 feet.

(The Blue Angels are highly trained stunt piliots that exhibit feats of synchronized flying -- but even they don't try to board each other's craft mid-flight. Without a breathable atmosphere.
In Speed, the vehicle couldn't stop moving, without a previously rigged bomb detonating. Most aircraft wouldn't need tampering to prove destructive.)

I would hate needing a passport to board a train. I take for granted that I don't need my gov't papers for free unrestricted travel within US borders, as I understand some nations require. I "richly enjoy" all of the liberties defined by our constitution. Any national tragedy is exactly the time that piece of hemp proves invaluable, and deserves the most respect. This is not the time to "temporarily" discount it.

My American prayer - to whichever god it may concern:
Dear Lord, protect us; from those who would protect the constitution at all costs, from those who would protect us at the cost of the constitution, and from your followers who may commit your will upon us. Protect us from zealotry, Christian, Muslim, national and foreign. Most of all, save the Agnostics, and the Citizens of the World.