Originally Posted by
JakiChan
So what level of screening is acceptable?
I'm willing to say that I will accept a lower level of security, fully acknowledging that it could very well lead to a situation where the plane lands with no one left alive but the pilots. I'm ok with that. I'm ok with saying, "WTMD is fine", knowing that ceramic blades with plastic handles could get on board and be used to kill several/all passengers. As long as they don't breach the cockpit then it's an acceptable risk.
What level of "incident" would you be willing to get up in front of the families of the victims and say: "We're sorry that this happened, but this is the sort of risk we were prepared to accept?"
Because WHEN something happens, not IF, folks will be wondering "how the system failed". No one seems to be willing to say: "The system did not fail." You can't tell me that hijacked planes being used as weapons were not an anticipated thread - Tom Clancy had it in one of his books. But no one was willing to say: "This was a risk we were willing to accept. And it happened. Bummer.
No one is ever willing to put their money where their mouth is. When something happens, be it a car accident, a crime, or a terrorist incident, no one ever says "This was a known risk, the person who died chose that risk when they decided to do <whatever>." Instead we get screaming, crying, and more stupid laws for things like "gun free zones", shoe carnivals, and more stupid security theater."
I think those are fair points, and the problem comes from the gradual wussification we've had in this country over the last 20 or so years.
Had this happened in the 80's or early 90's, we probably would have had a more reasonable approach to it. However, as a society, we've changed to the point that no one wants to accept risk or responsibility. So instead of acknowledging the fact that yes, there will be risk, and yes, something WILL happen because we are imperfect, we look for someone to blame. No one has the stones to make a stand up and say the hard things. It's "easier" to clamp down and go crazy because then the "hard" things don't actually have to be dealt with. "Reasonable" has also gone out the window. Problem is the more you clamp down, the more likely what you're looking for will slip thru your fingers.
To be fair, that doesn't just happen with security, but it's happening in many areas of government with entitlements, spending, taxation, etc. No one wants to stand up and do the hard thing so we keep going down the road to hell.
I risk analysis needs to be conducted, factoring in 9/11 but not treating it as a sacred cow either. Take a real look at risk, incidents, and safety before and after. Compare overall safety then and now. If air travel was now as it was then, then security can be scaled back. That will never happen though. Government doesn't give up power willingly.
No check will. So we treat everyone the same. That's fine, but if you want to lower the level of screening on EVERYONE and not try to apply any sort of analysis towards threat identification then you're going to, by definition, let more through. I'm willing to say that in order to do that we, as a country, have to say that "Yes, we realize this has the following risks, and we're good with that" like when your doctor gives you a consent form before surgery. The problem is that we never ever seem to be willing to do that.
Maybe that should be part of the CoC then. I'm willing to give the airlines some limited immunity from liability provided they did due diligence and due care to mitigate security risks and weren't grossly negligent. Human error, while unfortunate, is forgivable. Gross negligence isn't.
We as a society need to grow a set again. We lost our balls in the last 20 years.