From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Jul 28 2002 - 02:24:37 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> 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!
If there is nothing to be gained from the hijackings (i.e. no
way to turn planes into bombs or fly them to a destination of
one's choice or hold the passengers for ransom), then the number
of hijackings will decrease. At the least arbitrarily searching
passengers is not terribly likely to decrease hijackings in
proportion to the hours lost, massive inconvenience and
fundamental damage done to the Fourth Amendment and citizen
expectations as to what is "reasonable" and "for their own good".
>
> 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.
>
In point of fact, this is correct. The danger is much smaller
than the amount and type of "prevention" applied.
> So let me go on record as calling for more hijackings and less
> personal inconvenience.
>
It is not about "inconvenience". It is about right to be secure
in one's person and effects.. It is about not granting the
government the power to stop, detain and search anyone/everyone
simply on suspicion. That used to be considered important in
this country.
>
>>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.
>
I did not say this by itself would turn us into a police state.
Please stop your own exaggerations for effect.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:43 MST