News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
So you are saying security theater is the point. I just don't buy that. The failure rate is very high. People who would plan an attack know that. I mean one test was as bad as 95% failed. If they tried to do 9 11 again. Maybe, just maybe, one person in one group might get stopped by the tsa.
And by your logic, the previous sytem was equally good. Before 911, the last commercial us airline hijacking was in 83. So 18 years. After 911, 2021. So 20 years.
"People who would plan an attack..."
Sure, perhaps it wouldn't hold up a serious professional terrorist, but those are few and far between. It WILL deter the amateur lone wolf attacker who is looking for the target of least resistance. If it was easy to just walk onto a flight with a gun or bomb, maybe they would, but it is unlikely that an amateur would bother to make the attempt, assuming that the likelihood of failure would be high. So that eliminates 90% of the threat.
As for the other 10%, that's an issue to be dealt with on a bigger level. I saw one analysis of 9/11 that determined that it wasn't a failure of TSA, it was a governmental intelligence failure, who had many opportunities to flag these guys, and they never connected the dots, or even tried to. They even arrested one guy on an indirect charge (leaving the plot short by one man), and never connected him to a larger event. All parties needed to be more observant, and they blew it.
As for the history, you are right, we had it dialed in pretty good by the 90s, after dealing with a lot of terrorism in the 70s & 80s, and it was starting to work for us, although hijacking continued around the world. But it was not equally good, as 9/11 proved. Until 9/11, which was the first time that an airplane had been used as a deliberate weapon of mass destruction, and there four of them. Clearly, the appearance of security was an illusion.
If you compare the pre- and post- 9/11 security, they look similar on their faces. They had similar security lines, X-ray machines, etc. But pre-9/11 they used private, contracted security companies, and protocols were fairly loose. Even so, the 9/11 hijackers were forced to use utility knives as weapons, because they didn't trust trying to smuggle bigger knives, or guns, past security.
The behavior of passengers was an issue as well. Prior to 9/11, passengers knew to sit tight, don't rile up the hijackers, and eventually the authorities would work it out, one way or another. 9/11, and subsequent attacks like the shoe and underwear bomber, taught passengers that they were responsible for their own safety.
Post 9/11, besides passenger awareness, there was a new professional agency to be responsible for airline security lines, with much stronger protocols, which developed as new threats emerged, like those mentioned before. And the result was no hijackings in 25 years, an impressive record, considering the 20th century's abysmal record.
You used the term "by my logic," but here's my actual logic:
I have made the argument that TSA's primary objective is to discourage airplane violence when the amateur terrorist is still conceiving his plan, and the 90s, pre-9/11 security protocols seem to have done a good job of that during the 90s.
But then 9/11 happened, and proved that while those 90s protocols might discourage the amateur lone wolf, it won't discourage the professional organized terrorist. Fighting that enemy requires a more comprehensive strategy combining airport security and intelligence agencies. That's what would have prevented 9/11, and has prevented any further nonsense since.
So it seems like TSA and the enhanced and improved protocols have been very successful in reaching these twin objectives. It would be extremely counterproductive to get rid of them because you're pissed off at MAGA, Trump, and ICE. Nobody hates them more than me, but TSA does an effective job in tough circumstances, and we should appreciate them and their work. They aren't cops, they're keeping our loved ones alive when traveling to see us, and I'm grateful for that.
That's a lot of mental gymnastics there. You started by saying that maybe the TSA wouldn't hold up against professional terrorists, but that they detered the loan wolf. But you also said the 90s security was dialed in and detering the loan wolf. So then the TSA added nothing we didn't already have?
You also mentioned that 9/11 wasn't the TSAs fault. Of course not, they didn't exist yet.
But you correctly pointed out that 9/11 wasn't a failure of airport security. It was an issue of intelligence sharing, and even more so, and issue of passengers being taught to be passive.
So by your words, the 90s security wasn't the reason for 9/11. Current TSA security couldn't stop professional terrorists like those on 9/11. Then what is the point of the TSA. Let's just go back to 90s security...
Further, you can still have contractors instead of the TSA, SFO does for example. And most likely the reason thier hasn't been another is because passengers fought back on one plane and won. So future passengers are extremely likely to do the same. Also, the hardened cockpit door would make it extremely tough to pull it off again.
I've been writing a lot of answers in this thread, so perhaps I didn't explain properly in this thread. Coming out of the 80s, increased security protocols discouraged hijacking pretty effectively, and we didn't have any hijackings in the 90s. They thought they were catching everybody, but 9/11 alerted them to the fact that there were really two types of threats - amateur lone wolves, AND professional terrorists. The existing security had discouraged the amateurs, but not the pros. So after 9/11, it was understood that our current protocols were only partially effective, and we were going to have to get serious about combating the professional terrorists, which we knew were gearing up in the Middle East, primarily Al Qaeda.
I misspoke about it being TSA, instead of normal pre-9/11 private security, but that doesn't change the fact that I was still correct. And I didn't say it wasn't the fault of security, some post 9/11 analyses have said that. I don't fully agree with that assessment. I believe that it is still TSA's primary job to stop threats from getting on the plane, just in case intelligence and law enforcement fails.
Those weren't my words, they were the words of an analysis I read, that has some validity. But the fact that intelligence blew it doesn't let airport security off the hook. They still have an obligation to stop threats from getting on the plane, because intelligence might blow it. In the case of 9/11, they BOTH blew it. A perfect storm of failure.
We know that passengers will fight back because they have. Not long after 9/11, there were two separate bombing attempts, a shoe bomb and an underwear bomb, that were thwarted by passengers seeing what was going on, and beating the living shit out of those maniacs. I wouldn't put too much confidence in the cockpit doors. A future hijacker will know they can't get in there, so they won't worry about steering the plane, which was crucial to the 9/11 plot. Instead, they'll just concentrate on causing mayhem by killing the passengers, or perhaps they'll just create a massive fire with a lithium laptop battery burning at 1000° C. That should bring down a plane without much problem.
But that isn't the reason why we haven't had hijackings, and neither are any of the other single variables cited. It is the combination of ALL of them that has formed a failsafe. Intelligence fails, and the shoe bomber makes to the security. TSA fails, and allows him on the plane. Then the passengers notice something weird, and instantly viciously attack the guy. We will never know how many hijackings were thwarted at the lower levels, and never became an issue for the citizens to deal with.
The bottom line is that we need several levels of security working together, so that if one fails, another will pick up the threat. It's a system that has kept us from having another hijacking, so I see no reason to weaken an effective system.