Rewriting History

In case anyone has forgotten, 9/11 did not involve a lapse in airline security. FAA regs required airlines to allow box cutters on board, without any discretion. FAA policy required airline crews to cooperate with hijackers. The airlines' employees did their jobs, and for that a bunch of them were fired and replaced with US citizens who now work for the very same government that was responsible for the lapses in law, policy, and response that enabled the hijackers to crash those planes into buildings in the first place. In fact, I think the real reason for the taxpayer bailouts for American and United is basically payoff so they will keep their mouths shut about the real lapses.

I have no idea if it would have happened anyway, but I can't imagine how anyone can argue with a straight face that 9/11 is in any way evidence that the airlines are not capable of providing their own security, or that the government is somehow better equipped to do so.

Share this

I've argued several times

I've argued several times (and as a security & privacy officer, I have a reasonable position to speak from) that the likelihood of occurrence for another 9/11 was essentially nil as soon as two things were true:

1. All cockpits had secure doors
2. Passengers and crew were aware of the threat

The reality is that the government run security is not just a joke, it is also a massively unwarranted intrusion into constitutionally guarunteed rights (never mind inherent rights). Not only that, but there are other avenues of entry within airports that just aren't well secured, at least based on my observation when I travel. The TSA is eye candy. The airlines were quite capable of securing airplanes against 9/11 terrorism, had the FAA allowed them to.

I'm not sure we realize just

I'm not sure we realize just how lucky we are that the only actual terrorists we've managed to seriously antagonize have been a poorly-organized bunch of incompetent bumblers and fools.

There is absolutely no chance at all that we'd be able to prevent a well-planned attack from people willing to give up their lives for a cause.

hey joel, thats perfectly

hey joel, thats perfectly true, but when you say we, do you mean 'the government'? maybe private firms would be better suited to policing the airports and skys, and would have prevented these things from happening. maybe they are unpreventable. i dunno.:???:

I'm with Eric on this one,

I'm with Eric on this one, particularly point #2. After 9/11 and what we learned from Flight 93, there won't be another 9/11. People on the plane will put a stop to it.

And how about arming pilots? Who's stopping that? Not the airlines, but the government. If the gov't allowed individual airlines to decide whether or not their pilots could be armed, you'll see the market immediately reward those airlines who choose to do so. I know I'd rather get on a plane where the pilot is potentially packing (and trained), than one where I (and potential terrorists) know that it is against the airline's rules for the pilot to carry.

Qwest has a good point. In

Qwest has a good point. In fact, there are historical reasons to believe that private companies will be better able to deal with terrorism than governments. Any governments. Look, for example, at Ross Perot and EDS getting their people out of Iran who were being held hostage by Shi'ite fanatics, yet a bare year or two later the US government couldn't accomplish the same thing. And EDS didn't undertake their rescue on anywhere near the lavish scale that the US did. Hmmmmm.

"If the gov’t allowed

"If the gov’t allowed individual airlines to decide whether or not their pilots could be armed, you’ll see the market immediately reward those airlines who choose to do so."

I doubt it. Many folks are indifferent toward or slightly suspicious of hypothetically armed pilots. You may see increased demand for "armed airlines" when an "unarmed" plane is hijacked, but otherwise I don't see much reason to expect for them a huge net gain in traffic.

Forget the airlines. They

Forget the airlines. They are the least of your worries.

How about an innocent 20 foot container on the ship coming up the harbour?

How about the guy flying a radio controlled model aircraft?

How about the guy with the fancy fireworks on July 4?

How about you really get paranoid about the possibilities rather than the history - whichever way you want to rewrite it.

Probligo, I think that's the

Probligo, I think that's the point I was making. Airlines are safe from being hijacked and flown into buildings. But, with a little common sense, it becomes clear that there are a wide variety of other means to launch an attack.

Now, here's the rub. If your concern is to provide for security, which is supposed to be a driving force behind the actions of the Bush Administration, then you are failing miserably. But, you are destined to fail. The USSR couldn't protect itself from terrorism and guerilla warfare, Nazi Germany couldn't either. The most brutal and totalitarian states to ever exist couldn't prevent such things, how can a semi-free society do so? Flat out, it's not possible. Once the terrorist/guerilla is in motion, they are quite likely to succeed. You have to get to them before they are in motion.

Further, you have to ask yourself whether it is "worth it" to try to stop them once they are in motion. Is demanding that every single person that travels by public transport for an ID acceptable? How about requiring approved travel passes? Random searches? Shooting down remote controlled model airplanes that are anywhere but over a backyard or open field? The list could go on and on. The question is, is security or freedom more important? I submit that giving government authoritarian powers in order to provide security doesn't solve the problem. It just changes who the terrorist is.

Regarding the article:

Regarding the article: Exactifucitactly.