From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Jul 28 2002 - 00:23:22 MDT
Samantha writes
> To get even further off-subject, surely we can think of a lot
> less intrusive but effective methods of assuring as good or
> better level of security than profiling or having one's person
> and luggage arbitrarily searched. For bombs and explosives we
> already have decent detectors in place afaik. For other things
> that might be carried on board it seems to me having an armed
> marshal or two on board and an ability to fly the plane by wire
> if things go amiss are quite adequate to deter most of the rest
> of would be airplane terrorists.
I think that you're totally correct. While this might increase
the number of hijackings, we have entirely too few at present
here in the U.S. (Having vastly fewer flights, however, I can
appreciate Israel's policies.) But as I said earlier, with a
million flights per month, the U.S. can stand a high-jacking
or two. Especially if the precautions you propose are taken!
Okay, so there's a shootout once or twice a month, and once in
a while an airplane actually has to be commandeered via secure
protocols from the ground. The probability that a frequent
flier will be harmed by either is so low, that he or she should
spend rather more time worrying about safely driving to and from
the airport in heavy traffic.
So let me go on record as calling for more hijackings and less
personal inconvenience.
> To go a bit further, if enough of the citizens demanded a way to
> get reasonable safety was found that does not infringe on
> various rights I believe we would be much likely to see such
> methods employed instead of turning the US into a police state.
I don't understand why you exaggerate like this. No matter how
invasive, stupid, and ridiculous airport precautions become, it
just doesn't make any sense to suppose that a whole large nation
is in any danger of becoming a police state thereby.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:43 MST