5 ms·

I wanted to reduce the amount of time that officers spent searching for low-risk objects, but politics intervened at every turn.... And despite the radically re

by dkarl 15y ago

I wanted to reduce the amount of time that officers spent searching for low-risk objects, but politics intervened at every turn.... And despite the radically reduced risk that knives and box cutters presented in the post-9/11 world, allowing them back on board was considered too emotionally charged for the American public. Ugh. Was that true? What if the TSA had announced they had determined that knives and lighters no longer posed a significant risk? It might have helped the American psyche a little bit to hear the government reassuring people instead of stoking their fears. It sucks that all our confidence-building Bush-giving-us-our-mojo-back demonstrations of "strength" were military operations in foreign countries thousands of miles away, while at home citizens were taught to be afraid of pocket knives and nail clippers.

Cushman 15y ago
It may well be the case that "allowing knives and box cutters back on board is considered too emotionally charged for the American public"... according to whoever decides these things. There are people in the political arena who stand to gain from citizens living in fear. And we as citizens would do well to remember that.
true_religion 15y ago
Knives and box cutters never posed a significant risk. You can't take over a plane with a knife if everyone on board is against you. I bet you'd have a hard time keeping command with a machine gun if people are swarmed against you knowing (a) they will die anyways and (b) if they don't stop you people they love will be killed as well.
- kevinchen 15y ago
  Actually, knives were a "significant risk" before cockpit doors were reinforced and required to remain locked.
  - daeken 15y ago
    No, that may help keep a guy with a gun out, but a guy with a knife is screwed even if the cockpit doors are wide open. Why? Pre-9/11, the wisdom was to let hijackers go ahead and take control of the plane -- they just want to detour it and land it somewhere to get away from the police and whatnot. Post-9/11, a guy pulling out a knife will end up beaten to death before he makes it half a dozen rows; when people start crashing hijacked planes into buildings, the wisdom changed. Cockpit doors have nothing to do with it.
    - taligent 15y ago
      That is the stupidest logic I've heard in a while. Do you really think someone trying to kill the pilot would be waving the knife around in the air causing a scene ? No. They would do so quietly. You know. So passengers don't know what they are doing.
      - tomjen3 15y ago
        And you win for the most stupid response. Fuckhat. Do you really think it will make any difference whether the hijacker kills the pilot or not? He is still going to be beaten to death (and the control tower os going to tell whomever pilots the plane exactly which knobs to turn to land the plane, if the autopilot can't.
        christianmann 15y ago
        Play nice.
      - mattmanser 15y ago
        There's more than one pilot you know. We don't live in a world where a hijacker can pull on a cardboard mask and magically disguise himself and make a body disappear. The 9/11 hijackers had crowd controllers for a reason.
      - dkarl 15y ago
        You're right that a guy with a knife might be able to bring down the entire plane, but that's only one of many ways to mass-murder people. Security lines at the airport, political rallies, crowds outside concerts and sporting events, and other concentrations of people are easy targets for an unsophisticated suicide attacker under the direction of a bomb-maker. You can't stop that kind of attack. Planes are special because (we now know) they can be extremely effective weapons in themselves, not because bringing down a plane is an effective way to kill the people on it. Ironically, reinforced cockpit doors are a necessary part of any terrorist's plan post 9-11, because that's the only way they can protect themselves from the passengers. I think there are now protocols to take control of the plane remotely in case an attacker infiltrates the cockpit and barricades himself inside. Unfortunately, trying to search the web for that information only gets me conspiracy pages about how the government remote-controlled the planes in the 9/11 attacks. Information pollution FTW :-/

by dkarl 15y ago

Cushman 15y ago

It may well be the case that "allowing knives and box cutters back on board is considered too emotionally charged for the American public"... according to whoever decides these things. There are people in the political arena who stand to gain from citizens living in fear. And we as citizens would do well to remember that.

true_religion 15y ago

Knives and box cutters never posed a significant risk. You can't take over a plane with a knife if everyone on board is against you. I bet you'd have a hard time keeping command with a machine gun if people are swarmed against you knowing (a) they will die anyways and (b) if they don't stop you people they love will be killed as well.

kevinchen 15y ago
Actually, knives were a "significant risk" before cockpit doors were reinforced and required to remain locked.
- daeken 15y ago
  No, that may help keep a guy with a gun out, but a guy with a knife is screwed even if the cockpit doors are wide open. Why? Pre-9/11, the wisdom was to let hijackers go ahead and take control of the plane -- they just want to detour it and land it somewhere to get away from the police and whatnot. Post-9/11, a guy pulling out a knife will end up beaten to death before he makes it half a dozen rows; when people start crashing hijacked planes into buildings, the wisdom changed. Cockpit doors have nothing to do with it.
  - taligent 15y ago
    That is the stupidest logic I've heard in a while. Do you really think someone trying to kill the pilot would be waving the knife around in the air causing a scene ? No. They would do so quietly. You know. So passengers don't know what they are doing.
    - tomjen3 15y ago
      And you win for the most stupid response. Fuckhat. Do you really think it will make any difference whether the hijacker kills the pilot or not? He is still going to be beaten to death (and the control tower os going to tell whomever pilots the plane exactly which knobs to turn to land the plane, if the autopilot can't.
      - christianmann 15y ago
        Play nice.
    - mattmanser 15y ago
      There's more than one pilot you know. We don't live in a world where a hijacker can pull on a cardboard mask and magically disguise himself and make a body disappear. The 9/11 hijackers had crowd controllers for a reason.
    - dkarl 15y ago
      You're right that a guy with a knife might be able to bring down the entire plane, but that's only one of many ways to mass-murder people. Security lines at the airport, political rallies, crowds outside concerts and sporting events, and other concentrations of people are easy targets for an unsophisticated suicide attacker under the direction of a bomb-maker. You can't stop that kind of attack. Planes are special because (we now know) they can be extremely effective weapons in themselves, not because bringing down a plane is an effective way to kill the people on it. Ironically, reinforced cockpit doors are a necessary part of any terrorist's plan post 9-11, because that's the only way they can protect themselves from the passengers. I think there are now protocols to take control of the plane remotely in case an attacker infiltrates the cockpit and barricades himself inside. Unfortunately, trying to search the web for that information only gets me conspiracy pages about how the government remote-controlled the planes in the 9/11 attacks. Information pollution FTW :-/