> Arresting the guy is a crime against humanity
> The guy [...] is completely insane and should
> be removed from his position. He is a danger to
> the public.
Hyperbole much?
> Arresting the guy is a crime against humanity, and shows
> the complete lack of moral authority or common sense
> held by the various paranoid autocratic and senseless
> state and federal agencies within the US.
1. He was likely charged by local police without the
involvement of State or Federal authorities.
2. The charges will never stick, even if they decide to push
them through the system (and if they do, I'd like to see a
campaign against all of those involved in that decision --
e.g. prosecutor, attorney general, etc).
3. The guy lost his ID,etc when his jet ski sunk, so it's
understandable that he was at least initially arrested.
> The guy making the comment about a military response
> involving armored cars and heavy weapons is completely
> insane and should be removed from his position. He is a
> danger to the public.
1. Armored cars make sense (even for a single intruder) if
you're expecting a suicide bomber. That said, I don't think
it's reasonble to expect a person with a bomb strapped to
them every time there is a breach at the airport.
2. The 'heavy weapons' and 'armored cars' bit is likely a
justification for the police presence there. If they aren't
flashy the few times that they're needed, then the public
won't be reminded of why they are there. If that's really
the case, it's a bunch of political posturing BS that is
wasting taxpayer money.
Can a suicide bomber do significantly more damage at an airport than on city streets? A hijacked airplane won't make it off the ground, and if the bomber is on the ground, what's the big deal? You can't prevent suicide bombings from happening everywhere, so it makes sense to focus the effort on where the damage would be particularly bad (e.g. 1 WTC). A bomb at the airport on the ground doesn't seem worse than Times Square.
Personally, I don't think that we should worry about lone suicide bombers unless it becomes an issue. Israel is justified in considering lone suicide bombers in their security planning, the US... not so much.
Also, it's a matter of practicality/trade-offs. A lot of airports are isolated, and it takes less money to secure an airport perimeter than it does to secure (using your example) Times Square. There is a middle ground. The attitude doesn't have to be "we can't protect everything from suicide bombers, therefore we should attempt to protect nothing."
2. The charges will never stick, even if they decide to push them through the system (and if they do, I'd like to see a campaign against all of those involved in that decision -- e.g. prosecutor, attorney general, etc).
3. The guy lost his ID,etc when his jet ski sunk, so it's understandable that he was at least initially arrested.
1. Armored cars make sense (even for a single intruder) if you're expecting a suicide bomber. That said, I don't think it's reasonble to expect a person with a bomb strapped to them every time there is a breach at the airport.2. The 'heavy weapons' and 'armored cars' bit is likely a justification for the police presence there. If they aren't flashy the few times that they're needed, then the public won't be reminded of why they are there. If that's really the case, it's a bunch of political posturing BS that is wasting taxpayer money.