Air Plane Travel
- Thread starter kmguru
- Start date
Hmmm ....
I'm a little more worried about the efficacy of box knives on airplanes than I am about the Air Force shooting down the plane. Even if the plane loses its transponder, I think the military would choose to wait for severe deviations from flight plan.
The problem I see is that anything we do will have a backdoor; this is not a conspiracy theory, but a natural fact. Let's say we settle for an armed US Marshall on every flight; there still exists the possibility that this agent will be corrupted.
Of civil liberties and air travel: I've always been careful about metal detectors since I'm known to carry small amounts of marijuana on my person, and a glass pipe. This habit will require reexamination, since I'm unsure of what new random-search procedures will be put in place. But by and large, we can say that since I can't smoke a cigarette on a plane, the civil liberty question here is largely abstract, since I won't--since I can't smoke a joint on the plane--be hurting anyone else by my actions. In the case of knives and weapons, any number of principles can be applied to demonstrate civic duty over civil liberty: sure, it's my right to defend myself, but if I can carry a gun onto a plane, I can take the whole plane (self included) down in my defense. Knives are a different queston; as I noted, my primary subterfuge doesn't generally create the dangers of a hijacking, and I don't carry any religious symbols that might be considered dangerous. Theoretically, a wooden stake disguised in a crucifix could cause the same damage the box knives did. So the civil liberties of airport security are an interesting question to me; the only thing for which I have concern for my own liberties is already illegal, so it's not much more than a "strategic" consideration for me.
But the larger issue of airport security will be interesting; certes we are entitled to our religion (Sikh decorative knives), but somehow I think that among the more positive of human religions, the understanding will be there that God understands, and prefers safety. If God compels you to not wish to turn over your ceremonial tool, then it's quite obvous that God prefers you to walk, or rent a car. One's religious right does not supersede the principle of Life (as in Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness), and the Sikhs (a convenient example) I have known would well understand the necessity of checking their ceremonial knives.
In this sense, I don't think that the educated members of the religions affected would view the safety regulation as a stab against their faith; it's not like we're requiring certain haircuts or signed affidavits subscribing to a given religion. It's not that the knives in question are insignificant, but that a certain enlightened wisdom would prevail.
Two cents or so ....
thanx,
Tiassa
I'm a little more worried about the efficacy of box knives on airplanes than I am about the Air Force shooting down the plane. Even if the plane loses its transponder, I think the military would choose to wait for severe deviations from flight plan.
The problem I see is that anything we do will have a backdoor; this is not a conspiracy theory, but a natural fact. Let's say we settle for an armed US Marshall on every flight; there still exists the possibility that this agent will be corrupted.
Of civil liberties and air travel: I've always been careful about metal detectors since I'm known to carry small amounts of marijuana on my person, and a glass pipe. This habit will require reexamination, since I'm unsure of what new random-search procedures will be put in place. But by and large, we can say that since I can't smoke a cigarette on a plane, the civil liberty question here is largely abstract, since I won't--since I can't smoke a joint on the plane--be hurting anyone else by my actions. In the case of knives and weapons, any number of principles can be applied to demonstrate civic duty over civil liberty: sure, it's my right to defend myself, but if I can carry a gun onto a plane, I can take the whole plane (self included) down in my defense. Knives are a different queston; as I noted, my primary subterfuge doesn't generally create the dangers of a hijacking, and I don't carry any religious symbols that might be considered dangerous. Theoretically, a wooden stake disguised in a crucifix could cause the same damage the box knives did. So the civil liberties of airport security are an interesting question to me; the only thing for which I have concern for my own liberties is already illegal, so it's not much more than a "strategic" consideration for me.
But the larger issue of airport security will be interesting; certes we are entitled to our religion (Sikh decorative knives), but somehow I think that among the more positive of human religions, the understanding will be there that God understands, and prefers safety. If God compels you to not wish to turn over your ceremonial tool, then it's quite obvous that God prefers you to walk, or rent a car. One's religious right does not supersede the principle of Life (as in Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness), and the Sikhs (a convenient example) I have known would well understand the necessity of checking their ceremonial knives.
In this sense, I don't think that the educated members of the religions affected would view the safety regulation as a stab against their faith; it's not like we're requiring certain haircuts or signed affidavits subscribing to a given religion. It's not that the knives in question are insignificant, but that a certain enlightened wisdom would prevail.
Two cents or so ....
thanx,
Tiassa
Airplane
I do not believe the us government would ever shoot down a commercial airliner for anything less than the most dire emergancy. Not because of any moral concerns on the governments part, but because they would have to answer some VERY tough questions otherwise. As long is there is a semi-free press there will be a reluctance to take such strong actions for less than a legitimate reason.
I do not believe the us government would ever shoot down a commercial airliner for anything less than the most dire emergancy. Not because of any moral concerns on the governments part, but because they would have to answer some VERY tough questions otherwise. As long is there is a semi-free press there will be a reluctance to take such strong actions for less than a legitimate reason.
Panzer Dragoon
Registered Member
I hardly ever fly, but if I was going on a trip tomorrow I would go. think about it. The airlines are probably the asafest ever from terrorist right now.
As for shooting a plane down. It would have to be horrindously off course and they would have to confirm it was hijack. If I was a pilot I would not think twice before shooting it down. Harsh as it may seem, its better for 62 people to die then to have a plane crash into something big like the WTC.
As for the plane over pennsylvania, I still think it was splashed by a Fighter. I mean, we know that the air national guard had already been scrambled by that time anyway. Pus no one has released actually evidenc of the struglle (I.E. voice recordings of the struggle in the cockpit)
I know if I was on the plane I would have done something. Your where dead anyway. 62 people could easily ove rpower 3 to 6 guys. Only thing stopping them was the threat of a bomb. Wich at that point it didnt matter.
As for shooting a plane down. It would have to be horrindously off course and they would have to confirm it was hijack. If I was a pilot I would not think twice before shooting it down. Harsh as it may seem, its better for 62 people to die then to have a plane crash into something big like the WTC.
As for the plane over pennsylvania, I still think it was splashed by a Fighter. I mean, we know that the air national guard had already been scrambled by that time anyway. Pus no one has released actually evidenc of the struglle (I.E. voice recordings of the struggle in the cockpit)
I know if I was on the plane I would have done something. Your where dead anyway. 62 people could easily ove rpower 3 to 6 guys. Only thing stopping them was the threat of a bomb. Wich at that point it didnt matter.
kmguru
Staff member
The same M.O. that terrorists used will not happen again. People will jump and overpower them, knowing they are doomed. Even the normal hijackers who do stuff alone will be afraid. Under this scenario, they have to do something to speed up the processing time at the aiport. 80% of domestic travel is done by business people. If we keep losing 2 hours per person per flight, the impact on economy will be substantial. I am all for security, but sometype of streamlining is needed for these type of travel.
Correction ...
Better make that '80% of Business and First Class domestic travel' and even that is dropping as more and more companies are getting into 'fractional' ownership so that a business jet is available without the cost of owning one or the inconvenience of using the airport's terminal.