Lots of criticism this week from the very-vocal minority of folks who oppose the work that the TSA is doing. To date, critics suggest that the TSA shouldn’t be 1) attempting to authenticate identities; 2) using a no-fly list; 3) searching passenger bags; 4) monitoring behavior. (Not sure whether critics support other measures like guns in the cockpit or marshals on the plane.)
It has made me wonder if there has ever been a single constructive recommendation from any of the criticizers about "What the TSA Should Do" to prevent/detect or otherwise protect against the risks associated with terrorists and flying. Any takers? What are the most cost-effective, useful measures the TSA (or some other entity) should be taking to minimize the risk here?
I suppose one response would be to simply suggest that there really should be no controls – tickets could be sold anonymously like they do at sporting events and people wait there turn and get on the plane.
Yep. Let whoever wants to be a passenger on a plane. Losing a full plane every once in a while is the price. I really doubt that terrorists would get control of plane ever again even if they got on board. Even if it meant some passengers losing their lives, because we now know what the alternative is. Maybe if they bought a majority of the seats, they could get somewhere? If you’re worried about that, give the pilots a self-destruct switch (for cases when they don’t have time to point the nose at a large body of water.)
And if you want SOME security controls, I’d be willing to live with gross metal detection and gun bans. I concede that a guns give too much advantage to a minority trying to control a majority.
You could talk about the fact that pilots and air marshals have a disproportionate amount of trust, but they have that now. If the legitimate pilot wants to go for ramming a building, there’s not much left but trying to bring him down with a fighter jet if you figure it out in time.
Yeah, allow Americans to exercise their inalienable right to keep and bear arms, even on an airplane. Having served in the military; aside from the pathetic excuse for security that the TSA is, we would refer to an aircraft filled with screened passengers as a “soft target” because it can be easily taken with little or no resistance because noone on the flight has any means of self-defense.
Let’s face the facts: it is impossible to predict and defend against all forms of attacks. So stop trying to kid yourself into thinking that by limiting everyone to 3 ozs of toothpaste, that you can stop something from happening. Anyone who’s not dilusional knows you can easily carry everything you need to make a bomb in a cd player and a 3 oz tube of toothpaste. To argue otherwise in defense of moronic and pathetic attempts to justify yet another bureaucratic waste of taxpayer money is unconscionable.
When America is going to wake up and realize this, I don’t know, but hopefully it’s soon.
So in answer to your question: it should be like any other reasonable form of transportation: allow Americans to defend themselves and regain their privacy and dignity. The reality is that the TSA is merely a knee-jerk reaction to the9/11 attacks.
I’ll phrase it this way: what if the terrorists got into a 2002 Toyota Corolla, drove to a one-stop-light town in rural Ohio, and in the middle of the street, at no place in particular, they blew the car up? Are we going to put restrictions on who can buy Corollas or who can drive where without being screened for what? Seriously. Or what about trains? OR buses? Maybe we should have kids strip down to their tshirts and socks before they get on their school bus. Or maybe if more than ten people can fit into a room, there needs to be a security guard to make sure that someone doesn’t come in and blow them up because I heard terrorists only strike groups of ten or more.
Come on people. We have accomplished more to curb what America really is through our reaction to terrorism than the terrorist did through their action!