There are, I think, valid issues of public safety that we need to address
when it comes to these “flying bombs”. We also need to make sure that our
“inalienable rights” are NOT violated as a result of any safety measures we
put in place. Is it a violation of someone’s constitutional rights if they
are barred from secured areas in an airport and barred from boarding a plane
if they refuse to follow the regulations put in place? I think we can all
agree that flying is NOT a right, and I think we can all agree that since it
is NOT a right, but a privilege that lends itself to terrorist uses because
of the amount of damage that can be done if a terrorist can gain control of
the plane, security is something that should be attempted in the hopes that
it’s effective security. There are and always will be some inefficiencies
in any system that involves human contact as the pilot’s story indicates,
especially with duplication of records when two different security officials
needed the same statement and detained him to get. If we can agree on these
things then I think we’re at least a little closer to determining how FAR is
too far to maximize security in our culture.
1) The naked x-ray, for people who are similar to me, is awesome. I
stand in front of it and I’m cleared fast. I don’t care whether my junk is
seen by some “lowest common denominator”.
2) For people who are modest and opposed to just anyone seeing their
junk, there must be “acceptable options”.
a) The pilot was offered a “pat down” and refused. I think a pat-down
is a viable and cost effective alternative to the naked picture taking
machine, but apparently it goes too far for some people.
b) If you can’t take a picture, and you can’t do a pat-down, what can,
or should be done in the interests of public safety so we don’t have another
airplane bomb?
c) Would it be safer, and should we consider just giving everyone who
boards a plane a handgun to take a terrorist out if necessary? I think
that’s a bad idea considering how frustrated and emotional some air
passengers can get with delayed flights, cancelled flights, etc.
d) What’s left? Is no security better than requiring the x-ray or
pat-down?
Was there a violation of this pilot’s rights in your opinion? Which
constitutional right(s) were violated, how, and by whom if you think they
were? I don’t think so. I think he had a perfect right to refuse to any of
the above security measures, just like I think the "gov't" has a right to
deny him access to the secured areas if he wasn't in compliance with the
requisite security procedures, and just like I believe his employer has a
right to fire him for refusing to follow the legal requirements to gain
access to the jobsite for him to do the job he was hired to do.
He wasn't getting on a plane as pilot, he was getting on a plane that was taking him to the city where he would be departing from as a pilot. He was going to be a "passenger" on the plane he was about to board in Memphis.
when it comes to these “flying bombs”. We also need to make sure that our
“inalienable rights” are NOT violated as a result of any safety measures we
put in place. Is it a violation of someone’s constitutional rights if they
are barred from secured areas in an airport and barred from boarding a plane
if they refuse to follow the regulations put in place? I think we can all
agree that flying is NOT a right, and I think we can all agree that since it
is NOT a right, but a privilege that lends itself to terrorist uses because
of the amount of damage that can be done if a terrorist can gain control of
the plane, security is something that should be attempted in the hopes that
it’s effective security. There are and always will be some inefficiencies
in any system that involves human contact as the pilot’s story indicates,
especially with duplication of records when two different security officials
needed the same statement and detained him to get. If we can agree on these
things then I think we’re at least a little closer to determining how FAR is
too far to maximize security in our culture.
1) The naked x-ray, for people who are similar to me, is awesome. I
stand in front of it and I’m cleared fast. I don’t care whether my junk is
seen by some “lowest common denominator”.
2) For people who are modest and opposed to just anyone seeing their
junk, there must be “acceptable options”.
a) The pilot was offered a “pat down” and refused. I think a pat-down
is a viable and cost effective alternative to the naked picture taking
machine, but apparently it goes too far for some people.
b) If you can’t take a picture, and you can’t do a pat-down, what can,
or should be done in the interests of public safety so we don’t have another
airplane bomb?
c) Would it be safer, and should we consider just giving everyone who
boards a plane a handgun to take a terrorist out if necessary? I think
that’s a bad idea considering how frustrated and emotional some air
passengers can get with delayed flights, cancelled flights, etc.
d) What’s left? Is no security better than requiring the x-ray or
pat-down?
Was there a violation of this pilot’s rights in your opinion? Which
constitutional right(s) were violated, how, and by whom if you think they
were? I don’t think so. I think he had a perfect right to refuse to any of
the above security measures, just like I think the "gov't" has a right to
deny him access to the secured areas if he wasn't in compliance with the
requisite security procedures, and just like I believe his employer has a
right to fire him for refusing to follow the legal requirements to gain
access to the jobsite for him to do the job he was hired to do.
He wasn't getting on a plane as pilot, he was getting on a plane that was taking him to the city where he would be departing from as a pilot. He was going to be a "passenger" on the plane he was about to board in Memphis.
Facebook
Twitter