ScatterX

Security pre-9/11 was not the problem. Getting knives on board a plane was not the problem. Preventing someone from getting a knife on board a plane now is not a solution (which is good, given the failure rate of the TSA).

The most important change from our pre-9/11 security world to our post-9/11 security world happened DURING the flight of the fourth plane, when passengers stood up for themselves. The "government can do anything for security" charade conveniently ignores the fact that passengers will no longer permit someone taking over a plane. The TSA security theater has nothing to do with this. The likelihood of someone taking over a plane is incredibly small, yet TSA and DHS use this threat to grab all the power and money they can. It's disgusting.

If the plane cannot be taken over, the security threat becomes one of killing the passengers. Even on a large plane, this is less than 500 people (and is typically well less than that). Gatherings of ~500 people occur all the time. Should we x-ray and grope everyone going into a middle-school basketball game? No, it would be seen as a gross violation of our rights. Do we do nothing? No. Police and security remain vigilant, they look for suspicious activities, and they occasionally check bags. The point is to do what is reasonable. It's a fact of life that we must accept some risk to live in a free society.

The big question you need to ask yourself is why are we sacrificing our rights and spending an obscene amount of money? Are we really protecting ourselves in a reasonable manner or is the government taking advantage of fear to grow more powerful and make the insiders rich?

trvlr64

DING DING DING.....We have a WINNER!!!

The previous administration took an opportunity to create an atmosphere of FEAR and FED off of it. Leaving us cowering in the corner begging our government to keep us safe.

Instead of "WE THE PEOPLE" taking a stand and saying NO MORE!!......we have continued to allow those in power, even in this current administration, to use this atmosphere of fear to keep us begging to keep us safe.


Please Sir can I have some more?


@:-)

fun321

I was reading the NY Times daily in 2001. On 9/11, of course the attacks were THE big headline. For about 1 week, 9/11 was always on the front page, which felt appropriate. But when it became two weeks, three weeks, one month, two months, and the events of 9/11 WERE ALWAYS, ALWAYS front page news, I started to feel really strange. The story was well known by then, and I felt people should get a "rest" from it, to recover psychologically.

It never happened. Terrorism and 9/11 CONTINUALLY stayed front-page news for years. The NY times even added semi-permanent daily sections to "The WTC Attacks", to "The War Against Terror", etc. For the first time in my memory, it was attempted to nail down an event permanently in people's minds. To not let them "get over it". To brainwash them into feeling constantly at unease, threatened, and insecure.

I wondered at the time what this can accomplish, instead of making people mentally sick. Now I know... it has been leading to the current supervision state.

Congrats to the clique who pulled this off!! Poor America!!

RosemaryT

Oooh my, what a coinky-dink.

Highway fatalities are up 13.5% the first quarter of 2012.

How many of these fatalities are directly attributable to America's desperate travelers avoiding the sexually abusive TSA gropers?

The post above shows that there were ZERO aviation/terrorist deaths in America in 2009 (and 2010 and 2011).

How many people died in car accidents because they refuse to be sexually molested by pizza-box-recruited, intellectually-challenged TSA folks?

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...ercent-in-2012

mahohmei

The TSA points out that they provide zero security benefit every time they openly admit that a knife found on an airplane was "not a risk".

You want to go where?

"Security pre-9/11 was not the problem."

This should really be restated as "Airport Screening" pre-9/11 was not the problem."

Of course, the overall Security Framework was the problem, if you include (as I would) secure cockpit doors, airline policy regarding hijacking, etc. as part of the Security Framework.

On the question of whether the psychological impact of 9/11 should be taken into account in preventing a recurrence - yes it should. Why? Because the increased psychological impact does have a financial impact, whether we like it or not. It may frustrate logical people that people make irrational decisions based on emotion, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I would posit, that in fact, one death does not necessarily equal another, however much we might like to make it so.

I don't have a problem we may spend more to prevent another 9/11 than to prevent other risk events which have a higher likelihood, but lower overall impact. However, I do have a problem with spending that money on 'feel good' measures rather than something that is effective, and I do feel there is a line that we must not cross in terms of sacrificing civil liberties. There also has to be a balance in how much more money we spend to prevent another 9/11 than other risk events and there has to be a rational risk/reward calculation. Spending a billion dollars to reduce a very small likelihood by a very small amount doesn't make economic sense, even if the impact is high.

mahohmei

Sadly, I think a lot of people want "feel good measures", even though they know they're useless. They know that, before 9/11, there was no TSA, and since the TSA, there has not been a 9/11, therefore, they're related. Of all the people I know, I'd say I feel >50% support for the TSA, mostly revolving around "It's worth it for the security", "It makes me feel safer", and my personal favorite "Everyone has to do it, and it's even worse in other countries!"