Replies

What’s with the “troll” insult. Maybe it because some conservatives see screening as a necessary evil and compromise. What I don’t see coming are reasonable alternatives, only hyperbolic accusations about “nazis” and “groping” that are so over-the-top that one can only shake a head.

I’ll pose a hypothetical: establish 3 airlines tomorrow.

Airline #1 offers no screening whatsoever to satisfy every libertarian in town.

Airline #2 only profiles Muslim-looking men and waves everyone through (approximate solution offer by many who insult me)

Airline #3 uses today’s security measures.

I’d bet that 99.9% of Americans would still use alternative #3, and that many posters here - when confronted with the actual reality - would too. The line for #1 would be non-existent, and pilots for #1 and #2 would have to be paid a hefty premium in order to fully staff. And no one would send their kids on them.

No screening whatsoever is LESS safe in your book? A no-screening policy would allow non-terrorists (who are likely to outnumber terrorists on any flight) to fly armed, and thus be more likely to be able to quickly stop a hijacking attempt. A no-screening policy could have averted the 911 hijackings altogether! You think that the screening makes us MORE safe?

You really think that Americans would avoid the no screening option? I would choose the no-screening option myself, and for my family as well. Mandatory “security” screening only started in the USA in 1973, and it didn’t really stop 911, did it? The 1973 answer of instituting universal “security” screening was, in fact, a failure, as evinced by 911.

The passengers on every plane that hit its target on 911 had gone through “security” and had been inculcated with the idea that it was the job of “security” to keep them safe. The only plane that didn’t hit its target was UAL93, whose passengers managed to throw off those messages we’ve all been taught since 1973, and fought back to take control of the plane. How much easier would it have been for the passengers if some had been armed? To put it another way: how much more difficult would it have been for the hijackers if they didn’t know which, or how many, of the passengers had been armed?

Screening isn’t just expensive, time consuming, humiliating, and pointless. It’s also dangerous, because it deprives good people of both the tools, and of the mindset, needed to fight back when needed. That lack of tools and fighting mindset are exactly why there are two vacant holes in the ground where the world trade center once stood. Extending the screening further is a good way to increase the chances that there will be more vacant holes where other buildings once stood.