KiwiNZ:
"- Prior to domestic terrorists attacks in the US against the US, NZ had zero domestic passenger screening." are you saying it is ok to ignore the current regulations because of that? if so, then following that logic we should ignore breath testing drivers because before we woke up to the results of drink driving we didn't do alcohol testing.
-" You have to hand it to National, they know how to handle these situations" if this was say Mr Cunliffe or Mr Norman what would National be calling for? ( disclosure I am a National supporter)
As for your first point, I was merely alluding to the fact that NZ was a pretty safe place to fly domestically prior to that (and by definition safer now). I'm not sure about your logic though, are you suggesting all car passengers must go through a breath screening test before they can get in to a car... every time? Let's not do analogies :-P. Also, when I said there was zero screening, I'm wrong - there was screening, it just wasn't designed to profile everyone on a flight and check carry on.
Your second point is hypothetical, maybe it will be answered next term?
I read one persons comment which I like: "Once rules are being applied just because they exists, rather than because there's a good reason for them, they cease to be of any use at all."
Trusted
