Lori ~
Because the question that initiated the thread has been effectively answered I'll boldly continue the hijack by stating that I agree that with the current and likely long-term security threat from terrorist schemes based on irrational hatred, airport security measures are certainly justified. I also agree with
Neal that simply being inconvenienced does not automatically equate to being protected. Frankly, I doubt that
any security measure short of the kind El-Al (the Israeli airline) uses would be sufficient and although El-Al has a sterling record of not being boarded by terrorists, would-be bombers or hijackers, those kind of highly restrictive measures - necessary for Israel 's airline in light of the hatred their mere existence generates for some - would not be feasible as an airline industry-wide system.
Your analogy of speed limit signs and speeders is only partially pertinent. As you know, authorities do more than simply put up speed limit signs. They use radar installations and police observance to discourage speeders. Police issue 'tickets' that are fairly expensive. Being convicted of speeding can endanger your license and increase your auto insurance premiums. These are effective but of course, the police can't patrol every single road 24/7 so speeding goes on and occasionally people are killed because it does. However, at least we know that if someone races past us at a high rate of speed, there is a good chance that the driver will be caught and stopped before too long. That knowledge allows us to accept radar 'traps' and police cars observing traffic while parked on the side of the road, along with the ubiquitous speed limit signs you referenced.
I submit that having government 'no fly' lists that still allow suspected terrorists to board an American airliner and, as Faisal Shazad, the 'Times Square bomber' almost did, fly out of the country while being sought by the FBI as a terrorist suspect, is a failure of U.S. airport security, making all the petty inconveniences less than effective and so, little more than feel-good measures that induce a mistaken sense of security that, in reality, does not exist. If we're going to be inconvenienced, it would be reassuring to know that at least our inconvenience is helping protect us. For now, I don't believe it is and of course, there is no 'opt-out' of airport security measures. We endure them whether or not we happen to believe they're more 'window dressing' than anything effective. Still, I certainly don't object to the FAA and U.S. Homeland Security 'trying' but inconveniencing thousands of innocent people while not effectively protecting us is hard to accept. Well, that's just me. However, as you stated, if we really dislike the inconvenience we can just give up flying. Just as we can give up driving if we don't like the fact that the police enforce speed limits. Those two possibilities are almost mutually unrealistic but I know that a lot of people
have avoided flying lately. Some due to the hassle of airport security but many due to their fear that our airlines are not really safe from terrorists with bombs and a sense of righteous duty to kill people. Airport security personnel making little old ladies open up their luggage or be 'screened' via a body scanner doesn't convince everyone that "at least they're doing
SOMETHING!" Based on recent events, I doubt it convinces many terrorists, either - but I could be wrong.
That's my take - but as a moderator, I have to attempt to color within the lines and so, with a welcome sense of duty and in a spirit of
bonhomie I'll leave the thread and go back to posting AN-related messages, as I should. Besides, I have to help my wife redecorate our den. Thanks for the chance to exchange views on this issue. You too, Neal.
Jim
