Over the years we have known people who have provided organs to their children, grand children, siblings, friends and others. They even had an episode of ER where a Father shot himself so that his child would be saved by using one of the organs he could not live without.
Also, we have heard of or known heroes that have intentionally sacrificed themselves for their children, grand children, friends, strangers, etc. Sometimes they succeed in saving the other person and sometimes they failed. The important point is that they were willing to make the sacrifice because of a deep love or sense of duty.
During the TSA Scanners post I proposed an unlikely scenario in order to explain why "safe to fly" cards may not work out so hot. The gist is that a terrorist takes your children or grandchildren hostage and demands that you carry out a terrorist act, or they will die in a painful manner. It certainly seems plausible if a certain group of people were free to board without security screening. I mean the terrorists are certainly creative, motivated and ruthless enough to try to use this opportunity.
So, what would you do?
I truly do not know what I would do, and hope I never have to find out. Thoughts?
Or is this just too scary to even consider. It is probably more fun to watch these events play out on 24 than to put yourself in the situation. I mean they only can happen on TV. Right????
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It seems to me that such scenarios have already played out on TV dramas. Once you have passed through security, you are free to call the police, FBI and whomever else needed to rescue your children. The phrase "you have no way of enforcing your demands" has a vague memory attached to it. Of course, all of this presumes that the TSA is effectively stopping terrorists with bombs but not non-terrorists with bombs. Nothing could be farther from reality except, perhaps, a TV plot.
J. Ewing
J,
So is this paraphrase correct.
"J Ewing would contact the officials after he passed through security and have faith that they can rescue his children, grand children, spouse, etc. J is willing to risk his loved ones lives to do what is right."
I personally am not sure I could do this. Strangers vs people I truly love. Though I do not think answering the question is as important as pondering what feelings and thoughts the question raises. (ie self awareness)
Remember this scenario only applies to the "Biocard" or "Safe to Fly" security methods. Meaning that these people would no longer be subjected to scans, pat downs or lengthy interviews. Because all of these would likely defeat this scenario.
I mean the scans and pat downs would likely find the device. And it would take someone with nerves of steel to get through an interview while under this level of stress.
Ah. I misread the situation. You are applying the old TV plot where the bank executive's family is held hostage while the executive robs the bank. But in the TV plot, the daring detective or rogue cop or caped superhero always saves the kids and smacks the bad guys around. That is where I developed the belief that the police COULD perform these miracles. In short, you haven't constructed an escape-proof moral dilemma.
But let me presume to answer the moral dilemma you intended, as to whether to kill a hundred strangers or your loved ones. I'm simply going to overlook the bigger tactical problem that your formulation poses, which is that a suicide bombing will kill ME, and I will still have no guarantee that my family is safe. The correct answer is: no, I will not sacrifice 100 innocent travellers to save a few family members. I would be looking for any and every means of defeating these evil people, and following through on their designs would be unresistant to that evil.
I don't believe your scenario, certainly as currently constructed, would cause me to dismiss the notion of a "frequent flier" card. If it does, however, I will fall back to the position that we should be using behavioral profiling, as the Israelis do to great effect. This would catch the occasional terrorist and it would catch ME, the frequent flyer, were I under the duress you propose. I remember going through this sort of questioning, in Amsterdam, I think. The best question was "Where will you be staying at your destination?" Any hesitation might indicate that you weren't planning to arrive, and trigger more probing questions.
J. Ewing
I agree that interviews would be a viable option. Now we just have to find the money(ie 10X), queue time (~3 hrs early for your flight), enough qualified personnel(Americans that are perceptive, smart and willing to pursue this career) and address the potential racial profiling rights dilemma.
I also have been questioned in Amsterdam. It was fine with me.
Thanks for your thoughts, and Happy Thanksgiving !!!
Nonsense. It should be far cheaper and quicker to do behavioral profiling than what we do now. We're already asked a few questions before we step into the security line. We'll have to pay that person a little more, now-- retired police or military should do very nicely-- but we'll completely eliminate the "random" and highly objectionable searches and interrogations we do now, and concentrate on those offering "probable cause" for such. The other 90+% of us can go merrily on our way with a lot FEWER TSA agents. The time spent removing and restoring shoes alone should reduce the time and cost over the current system.
Now, the political cost of being "politically incorrect" and only focusing on potential criminals? That may be a different matter but again easily solved. Get government out of it and turn the matter back over to the private airlines.
J. Ewing
J,
Let me guess... You did not read any of the El Al links...
Well only time will tell where this goes. As I commented to CDO, I wish your group luck overcoming the concerns I raised. I'll be happily flying either way, as long as I feel safe.
It will be interesting to watch...
Far be it from me to trouble you, but I am just now starting to realize that I am sacrificing liberty for the sake of no additional security, and that has me greatly concerned. It would be one thing if I thought the TSA was effective but, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the shoe bomber, undie bomber and shampoo bomber all GOT ON THE PLANE, despite the TSA. Only AFTER the fact did the TSA start treating every one of us as potential shoe bombers, undie bombers and shampoo bombers. The next bomber will get on the plane, too, because the TSA doesn't look for bombers. They've said it themselves, that the pick people at "random," but "only for security reasons." It's nonsense, because it is one or the other. You can select people at random and miss the bomber, or you can pick people that might be bombers and risk being politically incorrect.
I didn't see any El Al links in this post, and don't think they would add or detract from my central point here. In the meantime, I'm simply not going to fly if it is at all possible to avoid it. It's unlikely the Neuticle bomber will be on my plane, but I'm pretty sure that my liberty will be blown up at the checkpoint.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment