4 ms·

> You can’t allow 9 hijackers to attack just to avoid not allowing one person to fly. Yes you can, and should. That's the entire point of the idea that it is b

> You can’t allow 9 hijackers to attack just to avoid not allowing one person to fly. Yes you can, and should. That's the entire point of the idea that it is better to let 9 guilty people walk free than to unfairly punish one innocent person.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
Not only that, hijackers ceased to be a problem as soon as everyone understood they would crash the planes instead of ransoming them. It has always been the case that a plane full of passengers could overcome half a dozen hijackers, but the historical assumption was that you shouldn't fight them because you could get hurt. If you're going to get hurt anyway, that's out the window, so you fight them, so does everybody else, and the passengers win. You'll notice that there have been no further crashing of airplanes into buildings after 9/11, despite the fact that the TSA's security record is terrible.
- ohazi 8y ago
  Also the steel fucking doors that block the entrance to the flight deck. The TSA shouldn't be looking for anything smaller than a plasma torch.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    You'll have to pry my plasma torch from my cold, dead... Oh, I can just check it and pick it up at baggage claim? Sounds good.
- njarboe 8y ago
  And Americans discovered, updated their thinking, and acted on this fact in about 25 minutes. Fight 93 was hijacked at 9:28am, by calling out the passengers knew that the New York attacks had happened a few minutes later, and at 9:54am passengers were breaking into the cockpit to stop the hijacker by force. Americans should have honored the heroes of flight 93, reminded each other that plane hijackers should now be fought directly, and the TSA never created with all of its waste and violations of civil liberties. Hopefully some near future government can find the strength to do this.
pas 8y ago
That's a false dilemma. Were you to know about the attacks you would do things to prevent them. And at point it's also not about innocents. And there is of course a difference between harm reduction based on risk assessment (what's allowed in the carry on, where planes can fly, when they are escorted by fighter jets) and other active prevention (metal detectors, backscatter Xray, luggage Xray, passenger interviews, up to and including armed air marshalls). And the profiling of somehow dangerous individuals is of course there as an option. But so far all the previously mentioned actions were uniform and prevented no one from flying. (Of course implanted medical devices are an interesting challenge for detectors. But it's much easier to acquire and smuggle a land to air homing missile and aim it at a plane taking off than implanting a bomb into someone and smuggling through security.) So they were just. To infringe on someone's right of free movement we would have to be very sure that there is no other - just - way to minimize the risk. And that's how a lot of regulations (should) work, but ... they don't. They are inefficient and injust in a lot of cases and government has no priority to address these injustices. (As the electorate is also biased, and regulations usually amplify these biases.)

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

Not only that, hijackers ceased to be a problem as soon as everyone understood they would crash the planes instead of ransoming them. It has always been the case that a plane full of passengers could overcome half a dozen hijackers, but the historical assumption was that you shouldn't fight them because you could get hurt. If you're going to get hurt anyway, that's out the window, so you fight them, so does everybody else, and the passengers win. You'll notice that there have been no further crashing of airplanes into buildings after 9/11, despite the fact that the TSA's security record is terrible.

ohazi 8y ago
Also the steel fucking doors that block the entrance to the flight deck. The TSA shouldn't be looking for anything smaller than a plasma torch.
- jMyles 8y ago
  You'll have to pry my plasma torch from my cold, dead... Oh, I can just check it and pick it up at baggage claim? Sounds good.
njarboe 8y ago
And Americans discovered, updated their thinking, and acted on this fact in about 25 minutes. Fight 93 was hijacked at 9:28am, by calling out the passengers knew that the New York attacks had happened a few minutes later, and at 9:54am passengers were breaking into the cockpit to stop the hijacker by force. Americans should have honored the heroes of flight 93, reminded each other that plane hijackers should now be fought directly, and the TSA never created with all of its waste and violations of civil liberties. Hopefully some near future government can find the strength to do this.

pas 8y ago

That's a false dilemma. Were you to know about the attacks you would do things to prevent them. And at point it's also not about innocents. And there is of course a difference between harm reduction based on risk assessment (what's allowed in the carry on, where planes can fly, when they are escorted by fighter jets) and other active prevention (metal detectors, backscatter Xray, luggage Xray, passenger interviews, up to and including armed air marshalls). And the profiling of somehow dangerous individuals is of course there as an option. But so far all the previously mentioned actions were uniform and prevented no one from flying. (Of course implanted medical devices are an interesting challenge for detectors. But it's much easier to acquire and smuggle a land to air homing missile and aim it at a plane taking off than implanting a bomb into someone and smuggling through security.) So they were just. To infringe on someone's right of free movement we would have to be very sure that there is no other - just - way to minimize the risk. And that's how a lot of regulations (should) work, but ... they don't. They are inefficient and injust in a lot of cases and government has no priority to address these injustices. (As the electorate is also biased, and regulations usually amplify these biases.)