Any amount greater then zero is sufficient reason to keep the security checks.

When did a knife become any less of a weapon then a gun, or a canister of unknown subtances, etc?

Somebody gets onbaord, kills a few people, maybe crashes the plane, maybe not, it's still going to put a huge dent in the flying business. Have it happen in a coordinated effort of say a dozen planes at once, you have pretty much shut down the airline industry in this country. Open a container of smallpox or something else on a plane on the way into a major hub, and you have spread whatever across the country with no effort at all.

Guns are only one thing to worry about.

I disagree.

Passengers will not let someone hijack a plane with a knife. And just because one has found a knife or a gun does not mean one has found a terrorist. Someone can kill a few people any place, any time. But hijack an airplane? No way.

Bioterror? Oh, please. You don't need to keep any airborne viruses in metal containers. The issue is viability of the organisms as most do not live long enough without support to cause widespread infection. In fact, they're virtually undetectable unless someone goes running around with a flask labeled "SMALLPOX" in big red letters. Let us not waste time on threats we can do nothing about.



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

But you really discount the terrorists and their intelligence, it seems to me.

Part of the planning that went in to 9/11 in the first place was finding a low-load flight in order not to have to fight off too many passengers.

If we eliminate security checks, what's to stop them (aside from prayers) from doing it again, with knives, only this time bettering the terrorist/passenger ratio? They'd have to fight to the death, but so what, they were prepared to die anyway.

That is not and should not be unthinkable. If I've thought about it, they have, too.
It is a real risk which should be addressed SOMEHOW.

I've never been in favor of eliminating security checks. I am very much in favor of removing many of the items from the banned items list, as well as only searching passengers and their belongings with probable cause. I am willing to trust the passengers to resist the hijackers, whether they are armed with pointy objects or not, and the pilots to land the plane quickly before the cockpit door can be broken into, rather than waste time, money and passenger patience trying to keep this miniscule probability of such an event from happening.


------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

It would seem that SPIFF's reasoning is falling on deaf ears.

Yes, terrorists are ingenuitive; however, mental intelligence is hampered by resources. My previous points regarding effective weapons that can be created from items that presently pass through security was not addressed by those who disagree with me. It must be recognized that a creative mind will make an effective weapon out of innocuous items. We must accept that wherever we go we could be injured by those who have a dislike of Americans.

People may be injured but the terrorists will fail. They (terrorists) have limited resources so they must pick their fights where the high liklihood of prevailing exists lest they risk everything in failure.

On a flight, the cockpit and the plane's integrity are all that matters. To expect more is to deny the reality that harm and death are too easily projected on an individual basis.

Well, I don't know if you are addressing me, but let me respond. I did indeed read your post about makeshift weapons; however, that's not really my point. If they were strong and trained in the martial arts, they could kill with their bare hands, so the weapons aspect isn't the crucial one for me. Rather, I'm looking at the big picture.

Your reasoning is much more clear, and makes sense to me. I'm beginning to see what Spiff's point is.

I am the dumbest FTer you will ever debate with, didn't I already post that here?

That's because his reasoning is that the only reason for security is to prevent a hijaking of an airline. Kill three or four passengers for no reason, cut off a baby's head, even if the rest of the passengers kill you, you have severly damaged the business of flying. Think about the graphic details of that on the 6 pm news, not a single family will board a plane for a vacation for a year.

Require Atlanta, Chicago, or DC to cleared and thousands of people reprocessed every day for a week because you stashed a hunting knife in a chair, and you will chase away so many people those airports may as well just shut down.

It's not about just hijacking a plane anymore (and you can still hijack a plane with a knife), it's about making people afraid to go to airports or afraid to get on planes.

A friend of mine, now retired, was the Captain on a flight which was hijacked back in the 1970s. He doesn't talk about it much, though.

Brings back too many bad memories, I suppose - does he still fly during his leisure time?

Remember in 1995 when that plane was flying from Algiers to Paris, and terrorists hijacked the plane and threatened to crash it into Paris? Am I correct in thinking fighter jets escorted the plane to land and the hijackers were arrested? What must the passengers been thinking?

I realize NOW, post-9/11, the dimensions of that type of experience would be different, but nonetheless, what was going on in the passengers' minds? What were people doing?

The hijackers aren't going to spend years training and risk their lives to get up in an airplane and kill three or four people!

The reason why we have all that security at airports is precisely to prevent a hijacking. It's to prevent people from blowing up a plane in mid-air or, now, using it as a weapon to take out a densely populated area.

If a terrorist wanted to kill three or four people at random, he'd have an exponentially better chance of doing it at a shopping mall or office complex. He'd probably even get away!

If he wanted to make headlines, fine ... he could walk into CNN world HQ with a Semtex vest and blow a dozen people to kingdom come. Wanna bet that would lead the nightly news?

So where are your arguments for a security camera on every corner, and armed marshals in every building?

Your argument is sadly representative of the American public as a whole who, right now, is perfectly willing to toss out the Bill of Rights in its entirety in exchange for feeling just a little bit safer.

And that's a darn shame.

Mook

------------------
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

-- Thomas Jefferson

When did anyone say that? Maybe we have no arguments, because we weren't aware that anyone was advocating "a security camera on every corner, and an armed marshall in every building." Tell me who proposed this, and where I can find the quote. It didn't happen.

No, Mook, the American people are NOT prepared to toss out the Bill of Rights in its entirety just to feel a little bit safer. The only right that seems to be coming into play with this issue is the right against illegal search and seizure. Furthermore, no one has advocated curbs on that right. IMO, what we have been trying to figure out is a way to hold sacred this right while at the same time keeping air traffic safe.

Spiff has suggested asking permission of travelers to search their belongings and/or persons. While he went no further with that, my assumption is that his remedy to the dilemma is to ask permission, if permission is denied, deny boarding to those passengers. No violation there of your right not to be searched without probable cause.

With one important caveat: permission to search should only be requested when their is probable cause to do so. Otherwise, leave the passengers and their belongings the hell alone!



------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry

It might be interesting to talk to those involved in older hijackings, but I don't know if it would shed much light on how passengers would react post 9/11. After all, one of the main reasons 9/11 succeeded was the fact that nobody had thought about hijackers turing an airplane into a weapon.

We have only one example of what passengers aboard a hijacked flight did once they knew about this new form of hijacking: United 93.

It bears mentioning that one of the most important measures taken to avoid another 9/11 was fortifying aircraft flight decks. Secure doors will play a big role in foiling another 9/11 style hijacking, yet I don't recall anybody mentioning them. Even if there are no other pax aboard, a secure cockpit makes it hard for a group of terrorists to gain control of an airplane before the flight crew can notify authorities and get the plane on the ground or, God forbid, sacrifice themselves to prevent another 9/11.

[This message has been edited by Kubla (edited 09-25-2002).]

As far as I know, he never did. He lives in the FL Keys and spends much of his time boating and diving.

I B*.*'ed in another forum about during my last trip, I was "searched" 3 out of 4 segments, but the wildest thing happened, at of all places, DFW: a US Marine private first class, travelling in UNIFORM, was secondarily-searched. What a waste of time/resources!