How would we know if terrorists were being prevented from bringing weapons onto planes though?
I flew somewhere a few years ago, carrying a backpack as my carry-on. A backpack I had used to go camping a few weeks before. Turned out I hadn’t emptied it out as fully as I thought, and there was a fairly sizable and sharp pocketknife in there. Got caught by security, at which point I was given the option of not flying at all, having the knife confiscated, or going back to check-in and checking the bag. I chose the latter, but during the conversation (I was questioned a bit) the security guy pulled out a bin for me to throw the knife into if I was going to relinquish it, and it was full of other stuff. Sure, most of that stuff was nailclippers and tweezers, but there were a few other knives and whatnot. Any one of those could represent a terrorist foiled in their attempt. Hell, if I had been planning on doing some highjacking that day, I would have been out of luck too. And that’s not to mention the number of people with weapons who decided to check the bag, leave the airport, or ditch the weapon somewhere pre-security.
Now - do I believe most, or even many, of those knives were going to be used in nefarious schemes? Of course not. But it’s ridiculous to claim that we know for sure that *no *terrorist has *ever *been prevented from getting their weapon onto a plane. I’m not necessarily a big defender of the TSA, but there is just no way that anyone can claim with certainty that they’ve never disarmed a single terrorist.
What is today’s terrorist going to accomplish on a plane with a knife? terrorist attempt? Is it not your understanding that an individual with a knife - or even several individuals with knives - are not going to be allowed access to a cockpit after 9/11?
Perhaps a terrorist who succeeded in smuggling a knife on board a plane might succeed in killing a passenger or 2, but he’d have to be a pretty amazing knife fighter to avoid buying his own blade pretty damn quickly at the hands of the infuriated mob.
Hell, I could take my belt or shoelaces off and strangle my seatmate, or use my pen to stab a couple of passengers or a stewardess in the throat or heart. But I ain’t gonna get the plane to fly into any buildings that way. I’d have a better expectation of making a bigger bang bringing a pistol or a bomb into any crowded public place, or just driving my car into a crowd of pedestrians.
I know the cockpit is now locked. I’m not a criminal mastermind, so I don’t know what a terrorist would plan to do nowadays, but I do feel like any plan to bring down an aircraft would likely be seriously benefited by having a weapon. Besides which the TSA also confiscates other stuff than just knives.
Anyways, I’m not saying I support the TSA entirely in everything they do - in fact I think some of it is absurd. Nor am I saying that the present measure (or indeed any possible measures) will prevent all future terrorists. I was just disagreeing with the blanket statement that no terrorist has ever been prevented from bringing a weapon onto a flight by the TSA. There is just no way to know if that is true, short of removing all security and just seeing what happens.
The first time I flew after 9-11, I was unsure about precisely what the new regulations allowed, so I called the airport to ask.
Me: The rules say that nothing sharp is allowed. Will I be allowed to carry a pencil?
Airport: Oh, yes, there’s no problem with a pencil.
Me: But a pencil is sharp, and the rules say nothing sharp is allowed.
Airport: No, nothing sharp is allowed at all.
Me: But a pencil is sharp.
Airport: That’s OK, pencils are allowed.
Were they foiled terrorist attacks? Who knows? But this absolutely destroys the position that TSA checkpoints never find anything worth finding, stuff that no sane person wants on their airplane in the hands of other people.
I would further note that
Guess that settles that. Steve MB, you still want to stick to your ridiculous position that the TSA is ‘security theatre’ (a term I see you never credited to it’s originator, Bruce Schneier.)
Well, I dunno. I’d need to know more about the “artfully concealed prohibited items” - because they could easily be little more than a full sized bottle of shampoo…
And I often talk with the security guards at the courthouses i frequent, and they regularly laugh about how frequently idiots walk through the magnetometers with guns and knives. I think stupidity is more prevalent - and a more likely explanation - than intended mayhem.
Moreover - I don’t think too many folk have seriously proposed doing away with the metal detectors. I am no expert, but I would suspect that just about any gun would be detected with measures far short of what we are experiencing in airports today. I wonder how many of those guns were detected because travelers had to take off their shoes…
So, no sane person wants guns in their vicinity in the hands of other people? Why not? I thought that gun owners were responsible citizens, and that we should feel safer around them because they deter criminals. Are you opposed to gun rights, Mr Smashy?
]
you do have highly selective and/or limited reading skills, do you not?
You are erecting a straw man here.
If that is supposed to be a dig at him, it is rather sad and pitiful. You would appear to be the only person unfamiliar with the phrase, and no one but you seems to have thought he was the originator. Rather more reflective of your ignorance and limited reading than his posting.
Lock the cockpit door. No matter what happens “back there” you don’t open the door and give the terrorists a weapon (the airplane) that can kill thousands.
If a few people get on airplanes with homemade bombs and bring down a couple of airliners each year, that’s very sad for the families, but no different than any other senseless murders in society that we are vulnerable to.
In the same vein, we should never negotiate with a hijacker. “Sorry, Bub, kill yourself and take down the plane. You aren’t getting anything.”
It seems cruel and sadly more people will die. But at least a little sense of freedom might come back into the airports. But people don’t want that. People are sheep and want the illusion of security.
I don’t think your logic matches your rhetoric. If more people will die without the ramped up screening methods in place than the security obtained isn’t illusionary.
It is also obviously not absolute and may not be worth the cost either in terms of freedoms or actual dollars.
I’ve done this - walked through security at an airport with a knife in my backpack. The TSA scanner simply confiscated it and sent me on my way. So, yeah, I agree with Dinsdale that the number of knives and other weapons recovered by the TSA does not necessarily correspond to the number of foiled attacks.
So, who can we complain to about this misheva? I would feel just fine with a metal detector and an explosives dog with the hand baggage going through xray the way it used to be to be perfectly honest. I just want to get on the damned plane and get where I need to go.
I see no compelling reason why we should not be able to bring knives onto planes. You might be able to do more damage with one in the airport than you can on a plane.
While I hope they’re not so stupid as to claim this, those “artfully concealed prohibited items” could include 4 oz toothpaste tubes of doom.
I carry on a prohibited item every single time I fly.
The TSA approach to security is like the way that Thomas Edison searched for materials to make a light bulb filament: he tested hundreds of thousands of substances, which took a ton of time and cost a fortune.
An intelligent scientist would have gone about it differently-by classifying the candidate substances, and testing only the most promising ones. This would have yielded a good result much faster and with less expense.
of course, the TSA knows that it would be sued by groups (like the ACLU), if they were to use logical “profiling” methods (like the Israelis use, successfully). Or if they were to issue guidelines for screening. the info would become public (thanks to groups like the ACLU), and get into the terrorist’s hands.
In a way, the TSA CANNOT use efficient methods to limit the screening, because they would be tied up in court forever…so they use the Tom Edison method: screen everybody, even though it costs a fortune and makes no sense.:smack:
We can be safer. We can change the rules so everybody flies naked. They completely strip down and get a hospital type gown at the door. Luggage will be flown in a separate aircraft ,possibly a drone with no people aboard. We need to feel secure. This will do it.
Right. The proposal to say, in effect, “it’s tolerable to have one or two more PA103/UA93-type incidents a year” itself presupposes that the current security measures indeed DO prevent that. And if that could be determined then it would move the goalposts to the question of OK, how many preventable deaths DOES make certain security procedures worth it.
Of jtgain’s other proposals, #1 is already implemented (and had been asked for since decades back, took 9/11 to finally make it so), and #3 AFAIK is “official policy” – But, sensibly, it will be subject to situational analysis (For one thing, so far real bombers hardly ever make demands, they just bomb. The idea though is that you must not surrender the cockpit, and there’s valid questions of how truly protected is that door and if the locked-and-secured flight crew will be able to steel themselves to the idea that if there’s slaughter going on back in coach class they must let it go on while they divert to land.
This thread really reminds me of the episode of the Simpsons where Bart and other kids take part in a focus group on how to improve a cartoon show:
So, Americans want better security that’s less intrusive, and with better security we should just accept that a few planes are going to be blown up here and there, and anything we do shouldn’t be expensive at all.
I think that even if the TSA was the best-run Federal agency in the world, nobody would be happy with it.
