Perhaps this is a problem with some TSA screeners -they are still stuck on 9/11.

What you are doing is not going to prevent another 9/11 as there never will be another attack like that.

And if you feel that passengers need to be reminded of that day, all you are doing is mongering fear in an attempt to justify your job.

Where were you that day? Did you see the smoke from the fires that day and for days after any place other than on the television? Did you know anybody personally who didn't come home that day. I did. I will never forget that day.

But none of that is reason enough to justify the waste of time and effort that has become the DHS and most especially the TSA.

If you need reminding.....

http://attacked911.tripod.com/

I can't view this site without crying.

Wish I had that kind of confidence.

I have more concern about an attack in a terminal by suicide bombers on the Wednesday night before a Thanksgiving weekend.

I have more concern about an attack at the mall the day after Christmas.

However, if malls ever tried to establish checkpoints with TSA-type screening, they'd go out of business real fast.

Red: I didn't know anybody who died so, my feelings about 9/11 are somehow less significant? Is that what you're trying to say? It sure seems like it. I'm sorry you lost somebody, but how dare you try to make my feelings about the event less significant because I wasn't there or didn't lose anybody? I grieved with the nation that day and I still grieve.

Red: I also remember a day in college when I started a debate because I predicted that terrorism of some sort would hit America in the next decade. People laughed at the idea. Even the professor... Never in America they said... Did I want to be right? Of course not... But look around the world. Terrorism is a way of life for many countries. It was only a matter of time before it came to America. And as much as I hate to say it, it's only a matter of time until it happens again. So how can you be so sure that an attack like this will never happen again?

No, I'm not trying to say that your feelings are insignificant because they certainly aren't.

But your initial post came across as saying that passengers need to be reminded and need to be afraid and need to be reminded that the TSA is protecting them from this happening again. That's just not true.

First of all, you don't know what passengers remember about that day and how they have internalized it.

And maybe, just maybe, more of the flying public than any of us realize know that what is going to prevent another commercial plane from crashing into a building is the sealed cockpit doors, not the TSA.

I, too, have no doubt that another attack will occur, but it won't happen the way the first one did.

Fighting the last war is an almost sure way to lose. Al-Qaeda is a very adaptable bunch of terrorists. I do not think that Americans have forgotten 9/11, but TSA needs to stop focusing on the methods that the foreign terrorists used that day and start looking at the big picture. There are many ways to attack the transportation infrastructure of our country. Concentrating so much on American passengers at airports is not a wise use of resources to safeguard our country, which would be one of the best methods to pay respect to those who died on 9/11.

This is quite ironic. Some law enforcement professionals (using the term loosely) constantly downplay the ability of passengers (or bystanders to any incident) to defend their own lives, or, in extemis, ensuring they do not die in vain.

Much of the time, this ability is deliberately downplayed - i.e. the passengers WON'T do anything, therefore all responsiblity must reside with law enforcement. The rest of the time, they are claiming that any action by a non-LEO will make matters worse, such as "getting more people killed in the end". This reinforces the passivity that they cite as a reason for non-effectiveness! We have been trained not to take action by LEO's and their bosses who routinely arrest folks for self-defense actions and urge the passage of gun control laws.

The sad thing is that people don't realize that this is not altruistic behavior by the LEO community. They aren't doing it to make the public safer. Rather, they are making themselves more valuable to society by enforcing the idea that only a peace officer can protect you from harm.

This all might have worked, once upon a time. However, in the era of suicide terrorism, the equation has changed. Frequently, there is little time for a LEO to react, or the terrorists strategy essentially factors the LEOs out. As an example - we all know how to identify air marshals, one way (profile) or another (knife to the FA's throat). Terrorists are smart, as we discovered on 9/11. The first thing they'll do is eliminate the FAMs. At that point, folks like Bart had better hope that the herd mentality gets dispelled, and rapidly. Funny that the LEO's take civilian incompetance as an article of faith, while many civilians (especially ex-military) find that attitude laughable.

Dan

I view the response of passengers to resist a hijacking as a crap shoot. Maybe you'll have someone (to be effective, several someones) that will step up to the plate and take on the bad guy, and maybe not. I can tell you that if a hijacker decided to make an example of someone and shoot/stab/slash them as a reward for their efforts, or even pick someone at random to victimize, the deterrent effect would be increased dramatically.

You're wrong on two counts. Intervention by non-LEOs usually does result in more people getting killed in the end. Of course, the people that get killed are often the bad guys, so you may not care much (and I wouldn't blame you). But the private citizen, or even the off-duty cop, that intervenes is likely to have very limited force options, where on-duty LEOs have a whole range of them. They can also muster enough other cops to contain a situation and wait it out, if that appears necessary. Although it's frustrating to see, it's almost always better in the long run to wear down the bad guy by negotiation and time than it is to go in with guns blazing. In the hijacked airplane scenario, I would much rather see the situation handled by a FAM or an armed pilot. Most adults have not been in a fight since they were children, and have never been in a fight for their lives. Moreover, fighting in the close quarters of an airplane cabin would have its own special problems. Someone very skilled in the martial arts and very physically fit might pull it off, but that doesn't even describe most of the cops that I know, much less the private citizens.

And, the majority of cops that I know are fervently anti-gun control. There are some police administrators, people who haven't been on the street for years (and those that were typically weren't there long), that advocate gun control, but very few line cops discourage people from having guns. Cops tend to be pro-guns and pro-Bush. Of the cops I know personally, and I know hundreds, I can't think of one that is in favor of gun control.

I don't know where you are getting this notion. In my experience, John Q. Public wants the cops to takle care of all the little unpleasant chores that go with maintaining order in a community. This goes double in a litigious society where any transgression is seen as an invitation to file a lawsuit and take a shot at the Big Casino.

The FAMs are at least as good at spotting the bad guys as the bad guys are at spotting them. And, unless the rules of engagement have changed, hostages are not recognized. If the only way to stop the bad guy is to shoot through the hostage, you do it. You might lose the hostage, but you save the plane and its other passengers. Harsh stuff, but that's the way it is.

Regarding the last few posts, we only have to look at the 9/11 flight that crashed in the Pennsylvania field to see how effective passengers are. I only wish that more Americans had been on the flight on which Richard Reid tried to light his shoe bombs. That idiot even resisted initial attempts to apprehend him, so passengers would have been justified in beating him to a pulp. I hope that Richard Reid is incarcerated in a cell block or pod with some white supremacists who make every day a living hell for him.

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, non-Airborne. You missed the point I was responding to. Someone said better-trained passengers and unless there are a bunch of secret schools out there, I don't know of any airline or government program that has trained passengers how to react to terrorist situations. Do you? As far as passengers defending themseleves, I said it isn't necessarily a good thing and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. It is an unknown quantity. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't there an incident recently involving a mentally imbalanced man who behaved erratically on a flight? If I recall correctly, the passengers beat him up when all that was needed was to restrain him. These untrained people took action and may have overreacted in this situation; not a good thing. Yet there was another similar situation when a different person who also suffered some sort of inflight behavior charged the cockpit and had to be tackled and restrained by the passengers. Those untrained people flight may have prevented a disasterous result; this is a good thing. You can't rely on it always being a good thing or bet against it as always being a bad thing. (Your comments cause me to question your military background. Not meant as an offense; just curious about what it is in your military background that makes you think civilians can be relied on 100% of the time to take appropriate action.)

You seem to have glossed over what I actually said by trying to pull something from between the lines that I never said. But just to set you straight: I am as anti-gun control as they come. I do not believe law enforcement directly prevents crime or protects citizens. (Effective law enforcement will indirectly influence crime rates by reducing them, but that's different than directly preventing crime.) Law enforcement investigates crimes. Protection is an individual responsibility. (The police are designed to respond to crimes once the first step towards commission of the crime has taken place; in some instances, they may actually prevent a crime in time to save lives; however, for the most part, the police are called in well after the crime has been committed; they have to find out who did it and prove it.) My philosophy about being easier to seek forgiveness goes hand in hand with rather be judged by 12 than carried by six: if I believe that my life is in danger, I'm going to take action on that belief until I am convinced I'm no longer in danger; passivity is for pussies. And I wouldn't hang my hat on ex-military for physical reaction to threats; a lot of ex-military let themselves get fat and out of shape; some don't. That's not laughable, it's sad. (Which category do you fit in?)

The victims on UA flight 93 responded heroically. Had the passengers not reacted, the terrorists certainly would have taken out another target and would have killed more innocent victims located inside the target as well as bystanders within the immediate vicinity. The passengers on UA flight 93 paid the ultimate sacrifice to save lives. I don't think there could have been any other outcome in order to stop the terrorists on that flight.

I don't know if others would do the same thing knowing that they are essentially going to get themselves killed in an effort to prevent others from getting killed. I don't mean this as any sort of affront against the passengers of flight 93. I'm just pointing out that charging a cockpit and either risking that the terrorists may really have a bomb and will detonate it or that the terrorist pilot will deliberately crash the plane or that the plane may end up crashing anyway due to loss of control or other factors, is a helluva decision to make. I personally think that many people are determined to fight back. However, I also think that there are a number of people who might hesitate, thinking that perhaps the terrorist doesn't intend to crash the plane. The real question that comes into play is the combination of mentalities at a given critical moment and who will prevail.

Combat troops who take unusual risks do so without thinking about it. It just seems like the right thing to do at the time. Once they've survived the encounter, perhaps even receiving a medal for their actions, they look back, think about what they did and become a little more careful the next time. It's human nature. There are those who are truly fearless, but for the most part, many will not be so bold the next time around. Many of the troops on D-Day pretty much figured out that they were already dead, and it was just a matter of time before their fate was sealed. There were many extraordinarily brave deeds on that day. Those who survived it suddenly realized that they loved being alive and began to take more precautions on their next combat engagement. Not saying that they lost their nerve. Just saying that the closer they got to the point of realizing that they were indeed going to go back home alive, they became more and more careful. The passengers on UA flight 93 knew their fate was sealed. Not so sure another plane of passengers would take the same action. They may, they may not. There are too many dynamic factors as varied as the different personalities that board any given flight.

As for the rest of your post, you illustrate my point exactly about my criticisms of vigilante passengers. Reid was subdued, restrained and handed over to law enforcement authorities so that he could stand trial for his crime. But you would go the extra step to beat him to a pulp because, after all, he has it coming. You're not interested in justice; you crave the emotional satisfaction of beating someone up to compensate for the fear and terror they instilled in you and others.

Not exactly becoming of someone using the handle of a patriot whose name is associated with the fundamental American principles of rights, due process and fair treatment under the law.

The TSA serves one purpose - to provide an image of safety for the public. The government is wisely using a large amount of resources fighting the terrorists outside of our country. For example, in Iraq. So what if al-Qaeda is an adaptable bunch of thugs. The US is superior and we will win as long as we keep taking the fight to the enemy and destroy them.

If only the above fiction were reality.

The current US government foolishly created the best training ground possible for terrorists since a) the Soviets left Afghanistan and we let the Pakistanis et al play their own games in Afghanistan and b) we belatedly addressed that power void/issue after 9/11 (in piece-meal).

Where is the terrorist-training ground & haven that is today�s version of Afghanistan on the eve of 9/11? Iraq.

The comment on FA's wasn't about taking hostages to neutralize the FAMs - sorry I wasn't clear. I meant this situation: FA's know who the FAMs are under current (foolish) procedure. The bad guys just need to forcefully interogate the FAs to get the FAM's seat numbers. My viewpoint on this is that if FAM's should be REALLY undercover. I suspect everyone except upper level management of the FAM program agrees.

My apologies for the gun control comment. It was aimed at police executives rather than the individual LEO, whom I know to be quite anti-gun control. My town police chief is best known for her rather extreme pro-gun control stance. It was completely unfair for me to generalize in this way.

I also agree that intervention by non-LEOs does usually result in more deaths, in an absolute sense. I'm just not terribly concerned about bad guys getting killed rather than captured in a transportation security sort of scenerio, which probably reflect the reality that I've never been a law enforcement officer. I can live with that

One thing I take serious issue with is the comment about armed pilots - they should never attempt to resolve such an incident. The whole idea is for them to keep the cockpit door closed and only use their weapon to defend control of the aircraft. If they are willing to leave the cockpit to rescue folks (which they may be, being human and generally good folks), the bad guys get access to the cockpit. I have no good answer for that.