I would just like to point out that you have been greatly mis-informed.
I’m with you Sam but there is no going back now. When you step into an airport these days you must give up any dream of civil rights. If you don’t do as you are told by any and all authorities you will be treated like a criminal and you can’t just get your money back and leave if you don’t like it. Don’t go in there. Take a train or drive.
It helps if you look at the TSA as sort of an axillary terror cell. The bad guys put a bomb in a shoe, the TSA implements 100% shoe inspection. The bad guys put a bomb in their underpants, the TSA has to check underpants. We can only wait and see what the bad guys will have the TSA do next or we can stop going to places where the TSA holds power.
There are two interesting and competing forces here.
One is the TSA. Given the chance they will keep tightening the screws until we no longer even have the right to assemble. It’s for our own good. They would divide the world into two classes - those with security clearance and the rest of us: the potential terrorists.
The other is the airline industry. They serve a function that the TSA interferes with. Eventually, I hope, the business interest will win out, this is American after all, but so far the TSA seems to be ahead.
The only way to accomplish this would be to have a national strike by all people planning to fly. Nobody flies until this crap is done away with - period.
The TSA’s sole function in life is to harass the paying passengers. They do not do one goddamn thing to make our travel safer.
Wha? Ever flown out of Tampa? There may only be a hundred people in line, but there’s probably a dozen lines all weaving next to each other. I’ve seen two or hundred people in those lines easily, and I try to fly at non-peak times.
People with a bomb don’t need to sneak anything or do anything complex, all they need to do is load up a bunch of explosives in a bag - and it can even have wheels so they can make it a bigger bomb.
Hell, I remember a couple years back when I was sitting at the gate waiting for my flight and they forced everyone to leave and come back through security because a metal detector was unplugged. How many flights took off between that happening and them noticing?
-Joe
Just wondering what Amphol is. I’ve never heard of it. Did you mean ANFO?
It’s just not gonna happen. People who have to fly – are going to fly, no matter what.
And I count myself among those.
Sure it is, if you’re on a plane. Go in the bathroom, remove said bomb. Your body as an absorber of energy is no longer an issue. The terrorist only needs to get it on the plane in his body. It doesn’t have to remain there.
Experts agree that stronger cockpit doors are awesome. As for everything else…
You missed a trick. Send a dozen well-armed maniacs into various shopping malls across the country and you will get panic. But you will also get survivors. Worse from the bad-guy perspective, you will have heroes, who will be the subject of much international coverage. The advantage of air disasters is they leave nobody for the media to interview, except the usual telegenic but vacuous commentators. Al Queda doesn’t like the human interest angle.
The fact that aircraft fall from the sky also helps, as it makes the threat immediate to everyone.
A grumpy-looking guy with a flashlight waves at you, and then waves at you slightly more emphatically, and then prods over to you and waves REALLY emphatically while actively frowning?
I’m not sure what the argument is here. Are you saying that there should be no screening at all? Or that they should just go back to metal detectors and x-raying luggage?
If there were two airports, one with no screening at all, and one with the new back-scatter, show you nude and silver on screen, or submit to a pat-down, I know which one I’d fly out of.
I know which one I’d fly out of, too. Except I suspect that my answer is different from yours.
What is needed is legislation. Said legislation would have a clause saying if an incident happens under the reduced security, the victims can not sue the airlines arguing the reduced security makes the airlines liable.
Say that hypothetically, you run a reduced-security airline. One of your flights is hijacked and crashed into my office building. Are you saying I shouldn’t be allowed to sue you? And if you’re saying I can’t sue, why not? The people who fly on your airline may have been comfortable with the lower security, but I wasn’t given any say. This is a security issue more than it’s a liability issue.
Any victim, or just those who have agreed to fly that airline?
Yes – their new plan would be don’t bother trying a hijacking again; do something completely different. Duh.
I don’t think trying to blow up a plane counts as “completely different.”
The number of people who have to fly is not enough to sustain the airline industry.
Say that hypothetically, you run an enhanced-security airline. One of your flights is hijacked and crashed into my office building. Are you saying I shouldn’t be allowed to sue you (on the obvious grounds that the enhanced security reduced the passengers’ ability to carry tools suitable for the tenderization and perforation of the terrorists)?
The argument works both ways, and thus cancels itself out.
Well, now we’ll find out.
Wait, what? Was there such an incident today? Any news stories on it?