- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
While I wouldn't presume to speak for Mr. Smith's intent, I don't see the contradiction that nobodaddy does between "horrible mistake" and "impossible to answer". I see the latter as pertaining to the establishing of fault, and the former as pertaining to an objective view of the incident. That it was a horrible mistake (because we now know that the victim was innocent) is true; but that does not mean that the marshals were at fault. It was a mistake caused by tragic misunderstanding; but, if the facts are truly as they have been presented, the marshals' choice was justified and appropriate. Only an investigation may show whether this was rampant paranoia, or prudent caution; but it will always remain a horrible, tragic, regrettable mistake.
Further, I think that Kirk's observation that a box-cutter is more intimidating than a plastic shiv or a broken-off wine-bottle (the latter of which, you would have to admit, has been presented as a perfectly intimidating weapon in barroom brawls in movies and television for decades) misses a central point in the article. Perhaps in a one-on-one encounter between the putatitve terrorist and an unarmed passenger, the knife has the edge over a screwdriver, which has the edge over the plastic shiv -- but the imagined confrontation between the terrorist, however-armed, will never again be a Hollywood-style mano-a-mano fight. As the article points out -- the fight will now be box-cutter versus the air marshal's (or pilot's) gun.
More to the point, again pointed out in the article -- never again can there be a hijacking in which the passengers may assume that if they do nothing to provoke the hijacker, they may safely land and be freed after a hostage crisis. Can there possibly be a hijacking from here on out in which the passengers do not all assume that they are bound for a fiery death intended to kill thousands more people? In which case -- your putative terrorist wielding any hand-weapon will not find himself facing a single unarmed opponent who must consider his weapon's "intimidation factor". The terrorist is more likely to find himself mobbed from all sides, or indeed, felled by thrown missiles until he can be overwhelmed and disarmed. (Do not imagine that a laptop computer would not make a deadly weapon itself, in the right hands. Thrown from behind, it would change the putative one-on-one confrontation dramatically.)
Even on the day of 9/11, when none of the passengers or crews of the 4 jets had the images of their fates seared into their minds, 1 plane out of the four was successfully taken back from the terrorists, even though they were armed the same way as those on the other 3 planes. The deciding factor was apparently forewarning and knowledge of the fates of the other 3. That forewarning and knowledge is still a factor.
I am pleased to see someone like Mr. Smith addressing the issue of carry-on bean-counting, and the way in which current policies miss the forest while focusing on the individual leaves. The very weapons that the terrorists used on 9/11 proves one thing -- that they put thought into what they could and could not get onto an airplane. They knew what they couldn't, and therefore, they figured out a way around existing restrictions. We gravely mislead ourselves into a false sense of security, if we think that future terrorists will not do exactly the same thing. Acknowledging that terrorists are evil is one thing; let's not commit the sin of underestimating them. Expending so much time and effort to prohibit that which has been used before creates only an illusion of security, making it look as if we are accomplishing something, while ignoring a vast number of credible threats.
The saddest part is that it shows the terrorists as more flexible and creative in their thinking, than we are. That won't do. We should demand that it not do. We should demand actual thought and effort put into our security, instead of a useless stage-show. Some of us aren't fooled. We don't feel safer just because our Swiss Army knives have been duly confiscated, while we remain aware that we go into the plane and sit on top of a load of unscreened luggage that might contain anything.
