What is the reasoning behind the smaller radius vice presidential TFR?

In article , "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:

Is it just arbitrary, or an absurd "mine is bigger than yours" thing?

I think it's the latter. The prez is arguably more important than the
second
fiddle, so he gets a bigger TFR.

the reason is probably more related to the perceived publicity
"benefit" of hitting the president being more spectacular than
hitting the VP.

Note that part of the purpose of the terrorist is to make
a public statement wrt the fact that the US can be attacked
rather than trying to inflict actual damage.

--
Bob Noel

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:15:23 GMT, Bob Noel
wrote in Message-Id:
:

In article , "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:

Is it just arbitrary, or an absurd "mine is bigger than yours" thing?

I think it's the latter. The prez is arguably more important than the
second
fiddle, so he gets a bigger TFR.

the reason is probably more related to the perceived publicity
"benefit" of hitting the president being more spectacular than
hitting the VP.

Note that part of the purpose of the terrorist is to make
a public statement wrt the fact that the US can be attacked
rather than trying to inflict actual damage.

Do you feel that it's appropriate and constitutional for the TSA to
possess the power restrict citizens' right to the use of navigable
airspace BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than sound science?
If that is truly the rationale behind the difference in size between
the presidential TFRs, that needs to be corrected pronto. I am
incredulous at the thought of such and audacious act of governmental
hubris. Tell me it ain't so. :-(


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

Larry Dighera writes:

Do you feel that it's appropriate and constitutional for the TSA to
possess the power restrict citizens' right to the use of navigable
airspace BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than sound science?

If you read the U.S. Code, you'll find that the President can declare
anywhere off limits to the general population, for any reason, and
without justification. You can even be thrown out of your own house if
the President decides that you don't belong there. These laws are
regularly used, but they have never undergone a Supreme Court test for
Constitutionality.

There are lots of other scary lots like this, too, and new ones are
being enacted all the time.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:35:47 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote in Message-Id: :

Larry Dighera writes:

Do you feel that it's appropriate and constitutional for the TSA to
possess the power restrict citizens' right to the use of navigable
airspace BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than sound science?

If you read the U.S. Code, you'll find that the President can declare
anywhere off limits to the general population, for any reason, and
without justification. You can even be thrown out of your own house if
the President decides that you don't belong there. These laws are
regularly used, but they have never undergone a Supreme Court test for
Constitutionality.

There are lots of other scary lots like this, too, and new ones are
being enacted all the time.

So appropriateness and reasonableness are not required by law.
Terrific! :-(


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

Larry Dighera writes:

So appropriateness and reasonableness are not required by law.

Worrying about appropriateness and reason would interfere with the War
on Terrorism (formerly the War on Drugs).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

the reason is probably more related to the perceived publicity
"benefit" of hitting the president being more spectacular than
hitting the VP.

Note that part of the purpose of the terrorist is to make
a public statement wrt the fact that the US can be attacked
rather than trying to inflict actual damage.

Do you feel that it's appropriate and constitutional for the TSA to
possess the power restrict citizens' right to the use of navigable
airspace BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than sound science?

no, that wasn't my point at all. I failed to make my point clear.

It's based on the terrorist's view of the importance of the
attack (btw - to ignore the enemy's perceptions is foolish).

--
Bob Noel

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:37:36 GMT, Bob Noel
wrote in Message-Id:
:

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

the reason is probably more related to the perceived publicity
"benefit" of hitting the president being more spectacular than
hitting the VP.

Note that part of the purpose of the terrorist is to make
a public statement wrt the fact that the US can be attacked
rather than trying to inflict actual damage.

Do you feel that it's appropriate and constitutional for the TSA to
possess the power restrict citizens' right to the use of navigable
airspace BASED SOLELY ON PUBLIC PERCEPTION rather than sound science?

no, that wasn't my point at all. I failed to make my point clear.

It's based on the terrorist's view of the importance of the
attack (btw - to ignore the enemy's perceptions is foolish).

At least that has some credibility, but how did they arrive at the
specific sizes they did, intuitively?