The thousand pound canary is that we should meekly allow more encroachments because someone who shouldn't be in the country might bring pressure cookers into Gillette stadium and the security staff might miss those pressure cookers when they inspect bags?
That's quite a theory.
Yes. We do have to give up a few of our liberties in the name of a greater societal good.
Yes, it is reasonable to debate where the line should be drawn in that regard.
Yes, I do think that drawing the line at high profile sporting events is legitimate, especially in the Boston area.
Yes, people might bring IED's into Gillette or any high profile venue.
Yes, unless the security staff is well-trained, diligent and plentiful they are more likely to miss such devices.
Yes, this is an admission that the NFL has determined that the current security arrangements are inadequate to detect such devices.
Yes, there are professionals who are in a position to make that judgment.
Yes, as a member of the public, I am willing to accept their judgment in this case.
Yes, this appears to be an attempt to increase the likelihood that the existing security staff will detect a threat.
With which of the above do you take exception?
My view, stated several times in this thread, is that the measures could be less draconian if the league and owners were willing to invest more in gameday security. I suspect that the Kraft's, Mara's and Lurie's in the league would be willing to do so, but not so much the cash-strapped owners of marginal franchises, who are unlikely to go along with the additional expense.
