Resolved: If you are a passenger on a plane that is hijacked, you have a moral obligation to resist the hijacking with violent force, as much as necessary to stop the hijacking, up to and including killing the hijackers.
At first blush, after the events of 9/11, you might look at this and ask, so what’s the debate? But I have become aware that there are a number of posters here who espouse the philosophy of pacifism, and I am quite interested to hear what they have to say.
IANAP (I am not a pacifist), but I would say even a pacifist should resist in this circumstance. If you know that everyone on board is going to die anyway, your obligation is to make sure as few people on the ground as possible are taken down along with you.
Until 9/11 a hijack ment you were going to go to a destination not printed on your ticket (in the early days this might mean Cuba).
Given that scenario the conventional thinking was to not interfere.
No one ever thought that a commercial airliner would be used as an offensive weapon. Obviously that thinking is changing.
I am not a pacifist either.
I have discussed this with several people. Whilst I am not the bravest person in the world I am certainly no coward. I would like to think I would take on a hijacker, given the support of other passengers.
Somene pointed out to me that the terrorists of September 11 would certainly have tried to inhibit passenger action by an act of extreme personal violence. I know that one or more stewardesses on at least one flight were killed at an early stage of the hijack.
I would imagine that the sight of a cut throat with a great deal of blood is a disincentive to other passengers on the plane, who are already in a state of shock because of the hijack itself.
So, if I knew that the plane was going down if I and others failed to act, I would do something about that.
But it wouldn’t be easy.
I am a pacifist.
I would have fought even before 9/11.
I am NOT a pacifist. But you have to wonder what is going to happen in the future.
If the plane is hijacked, how do you tell that it is the type of terrorist who parks you on a runway and makes you sit in a hot tin can for a week or the type that wants to go all kamakazi on your ass?
If you make the wrong decison and act the consequences could be worse than had you done nothing at all.
But having said that, Bush has said that he would shoot down the plane. Well if the plane is going to get shot down no matter what then what have you got to loose.
Me? I’m a small woman. I would not be all that effective. But if a group of people were willing to try? You bet your ass I would help in any way I could, even if it meant pelting them with bread rolls (better than bullets).
Li
Wht do you think the chances are that this would happen again? Has bin-what’s-his-name already proven his point or does this act have to be repeated over and over? Repeated by copy cats for other purposes?
Jois
Prior to the events of 9/11, being hijacked was, bizzarre as it may seem, relatively safe. 99 out of 100 hijackers merely wished to divert the plane to a different location, or to hold the passengers captive until either his demands were met or until he was taken out by an assault team. If a terrorist wished mass destruction, a bomb would be planted on the plane and the plane destroyed without warning.
Therefore, the passengers on the planes of 9/11 had every reason to sit down and accept their fate without resistance. Resistance would lead to death, and it was assumed that acceptance would lead to survival once the plane was landed and either Delta Force had taken out the hijackers or the hijackers had taken the plane to a ‘safe’ ground like Libya or Syria.
We can no longer assume that.
Therefore, being hijacked at this point should be met with massive resistance, even at the cost of the lives of the passengers and/or crew, because we now know that the plane could be used as a giant bomb to kill hundreds or thousands more. Whatever assumption of “don’t resist, and it’ll be all right” is now forever gone.
I almost pity the poor, deluded fool who gets it into his head to pretend to be carrying a bomb or a gun or a box cutter so he can get on the news. Almost.
Since we already have “suicide by cop,” would that be “suicide by mob?”
I suppose that the interesting debate to come out of this question is: will the old style of hijackers ever be able to hijack a plane again? If all they want to do is go to Cuba then will it now be simply to dangerous for them to attempt a hijack?
Or will people still believe that they’ll be alright if they just sit tight?
pan
Just this morning I heard an interesting bit on the way to work, very timely for this thread.
This is a radio report, I have no cites for it (I’ll see if I can find it anywhere), but oh so good.
A passenger flying from Denver last Saturday said the Captain made the following announcement before takeoff (not exact quote):
This is the captian. Since we have not received any new instructions from the Federal Government, we are on our own. … If someone stands up and announces that they have a bomb, please know there are no bombs on this plane. If they brnadish a weapon, like a plastic knife, everyone else please stand up and immediately start throwing anything you can get your hands on at them, to disorient them, innncluding pillows, …, shoes, etc. Most important, get a planket over them and subdue them, and keep them dowm. We will land the plane somewhere safe and…
He went on to say some more, and encouraged people to get to know their neighbor since they would be a family for the next few hours. A round af applause followed the announcement. Needless to say we know how pilots feel about this.
My own two cents - not only should we resist, but I would say resist with deadly force - I know that the capture of one of these cretons may yeild some information, but I’d rather see them dead.
However, isn’t it possible that by resisting you raise the possibility of the jet crashing and possibly into a highly populated area? Still, I think you need to resist, because the worst thing that can happen if you don’t is far worse than the worst thing that can happen if you do (maybe).
I am both a pacifist AND a pathetic, blubbering coward, so don’t be lookin’ at ME when the shit hits the fan, because I’ll be curled up in a fetal position mewling for my mother.
stoid
The situation won’t come up again, IMHO. This was a one-shot terrorist act, which depended largely on the element of surprise. Since the element of surprise is now gone, there would be no point in trying something along the same lines. Potential hijackers know that if they tried it now, they would get rushed.
While we’re wasting time worrying about how to prevent airliners from being turned into missiles, the terrorist planners have already moved on to some other plot, involving a method of attack which has not yet occurred to us.
Sorry, just read Freedom’s Archi Bunker thread, he’s got the complete (exact) quote in there…
I’ll be your surrogate mother. After the blood-curdling events of last week, I would have zero problem attacking and killing a hijacker on a plane. My only hope is that Congress enacts legislation that makes lethal force justifiable in EVERY case.
I also wouldn’t discount the possibility of a repeat performance sometime in the future.
Every time I’ve ever been on I plane I’ve thought about what I might do if it were hijacked. I have superhuman fantasies about overtaking anyone who threatens me, even on the ground…
As soon as this flight crashed in Pennslyvania I’d figured there were true heros aboard. Best to them…
Spoke said that we need to be mindful of their next move:
Tell you what, everyone who has children should be acutely aware of them and train them to respond too. Terrorists prey on the innocent. In the Jackie Chan movie Rush Hour, the little girl fights her attacker with all her might. I told my kids to do the same. Fight hard right away. Don’t give anyone the chance to take you down on their terms.
Having said that, I LIVE FOR PEACE. I don’t look for trouble, I don’t need a weapon. I am aware. But if I were ever threatened look out…I’ll be all over you like a mother bear… (And this was before the 9.11 attacks.)
I say kill them and kill them quickly. A suicidal maniac will not stop trying until you permanently disable them. I attempted to cover this in my “Revised Plane Hijacking Protocol” thread at:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=86844
On top of this, any cases of “air rage” should be treated as an attempt to disrupt the flight and be seen as no different from a hijack. Such an diversion could merely be a ploy in prelude to commandeering the plane. If someone is fortunate enough to survive instigating an “air rage” incident they should be charged with an instant felony whose penalty includes mandatory hard time.
If the hijacker has a blade, wrap a coat around your non-dexter arm and try to snag the blade in the fabric as you go for their eyes or throat. Kill hijackers and kill them quickly. Passenger planes have now become weapons of mass destruction.
As a pacifist, I would do my damnest to restrain the hijacker and/or injure him or her until he or she was unable to continue his or her bad activities. I could not, however, kill him or her.
As a realist, I probably would not actively stop someone from doing the deed…
Zenster you are so right, but don’t stop at planes…Make a list: blocked tunnels, bridges, people parachuting into stadiums…unbalanced copy cats or wackos in schools and large corporations…etc. The list goes on. The best protection is awareness.
I remember being in Norway and feeling like everyone was staring at me. They were. I was looked at very directly, unlike in the US where we tend to not make much eye contact. We need to look at our neighbors, embrace our communities, appreciate our friendships more…
BE AWARE
STAND UP FOR YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS
LIVE FOR PEACE
WATCH YOUR FRIENDS BACK
COMMUNICATE
TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS
GET A CELLULAR PHONE
KNOW THAT YOUR LIFE IS PRECIOUS