Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 23:05:25 -0500
From: "Michael Walsh" <MJW at mail.press.jhu.edu>
To: <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: papers, please
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

>Candy Madigan <candymadigan at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> I understand that, but what is he talking about here?
>
>Barry Newton <bnewton at ashcomp.com> wrote:
>> You can't get onto an airplane without identifying yourself.
>
>I'm perfectly willing to do so.  "Hi, I'm Keith Lynch.  Here's my
>ticket."  What I object to is the idea of having to carry a passport
>or other government-issued picture ID for a trip within the US.  If
>they think I'm lying when they say who I am, let them call the police
>and have me charged with stealing Keith Lynch's ticket.
>

Again, one reason the airlines like this because they can make sure youare =
not flying on another person's frequent flyer ticket - a practice that as =
part of one's agreement with the airline is not allowed.  All fine and =
good - their points, their rules.

"I'm sorry Mr Lynch, you seem to be flying on a ticket that George Bush =
bought using points"

>And it's not just on planes, anymore.  Once this policy was proven
>useless on September 11th, when all 19 hijackers showed picture ID,
>and nobody who intended to hijack a plane that day was stopped by lack
>of such papers, Amtrak decided to require it too.

We'll see.  I'll be heading to NYC on Thursday and I'll probably purchase =
my tickets at one of their machines.  Remind on the weekend to report on =
the ID routine.

> So does Greyhound,
>in "some locations," and they won't tell you which ones.
>
>It's not sheer chance that I wasn't in a plane on September 11th.
>This policy, which I'm on record as denouncing years ago as just
>giving everyone a false feeling of security, has kept me off planes
>for years.  Two years ago I took Amtrak overnight to Chicago and back
>for the Worldcon.
>
>> Though it seems to me that it's been that way as long as I can
>> remember.
>
>I flew to Los Angeles for the 1996 Worldcon, and to San Antonio for
>the 1997 Worldcon.  Both times I was hassled for not having ID, and
>was lied to and told that it was "federal law," but on both round
>trips I was allowed on the planes.
>
>Prior to 1996, I wasn't even asked.  The ID requirement was inspired
>by the crash of flight 800 in July of that year.  A bomb was initially
>suspected when that 747 suddenly exploded within sight of Long Island.
>Though it was never explained how an ID requirement would have
>prevented the bombing.  And in fact it eventually turned out that
>there was no bomb, and no crime.  Just a wiring flaw.

I believe the income tax was a "temporary" measure . . . sorta like those =
Army tempos on the Mall and by National for decades.

>
>The September 11th problem was solved within a matter of hours.  Not
>by congress or by the president, or by a plethora of odious new laws
>and regulations, but by the people on board flight 93.  Once they
>learned that the rules had changed, that giving hijackers control of
>an airplane meant certain death for all onboard and for many more
>on the ground, they took back control of the plane.  And in all
>subsequent flights where anyone attempted to break into the cockpit,
>the passengers stopped them.
>
>September 11th is a non-issue.  Clean up the mess, bury the dead, give
>a fair, open, public, jury trial and appropriate punishment to any
>hijacker who is still living, and then continue as if America were
>still a free country.
>
>By changing our country to make it more like the Taliban, we're giving
>the terrorists enormous power over us.  Potential future terrorists
>see this and are inspired by it.  The new security measures are more
>likely to lead to new terrorist attacks than doing nothing at all.
>
>Airports and airplanes don't need any more security than a shopping
>mall.  What are those national guardsmen in their camouflage uniforms
>carrying machine guns supposed to accomplish, anyway?

Extra pay?

> Is there some
>danger of a major civil insurrection in an airport?  Threats of a large
>paramilitary organization attempting to take over Dulles and BWI?
>Or are they just for show?  Just to reassure unthinking passengers?
>Similarly with today's evacuation of LAX because someone found what
>was obviously a toy grenade.

Or forgot to plug in the metal detector . . . seems like a lot of these =
folks couldn't poor piss out of boot with the instructions printed on the =
heel . . .

>
>What prevents anyone from smuggling a non-metallic knife on board,
>and cutting throats?

Belt buckles anyone?
Or perhaps a Medal of Honor? (see: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/27/war.her=
o.cnna/index.html )

>The fact that they have have a drivers license?
>Nothing stops them.  But nothing stops them from cutting throats
>anywhere else, either.  Just don't let them at the controls, no matter
>what.  And they never will get to the controls again, unless the
>hijackers outnumber the passengers and crew, which isn't very likely.
>
>If the passengers on flight 93 had been allowed to carry guns, it's
>likely that no innocent life would have been lost on that flight.

I'd be concerned about bullets flying through the fuselage.  Mind you: =
concerned. I don't know what would happen, but boy would I be concerned.

>
>If the passengers on all flights had been allowed to carry guns, it's
>likely that no innocent life would have been lost at all, on September
>11th or any other day.
>
>Instead of hiring federal sky marshals, why not give sky marshal
>training to any frequent flyer who has a clean record? Is there
>something about being on the federal payroll that makes someone
>more trustworthy?  I don't think so.

Cynic.

mjw

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary =
safety deserve neither liberty
nor safety."   - -  Benjamin Franklin, radical, revolutionary, general =
pain in the butt to his majesty the King of England

>--
>Keith F. Lynch - kfl at keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
>I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
>unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable.  Please do not send me
>HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.
>