[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

From last night’s press conference:

“The report itself, I’ve characterized it as mainly history. And I think when you look at it you’ll see that it was talking about a ‘97 and ‘98 and ‘99. It was also an indication as you mentioned that that bin Laden might want to hijack an airplane, but as you said, not to fly into a building but perhaps to release a person in jail. In other words, serving as a blackmail. And of course that concerns me. All those reports concern me.”

I gotta wonder. What steps do you take to prevent a hijacking carried out in order to fly a plane into a building, and what steps do you take to prevent a hijacking carried out in order to free someone from jail? And how are they different? I can’t help thinking that the purpose of a hijacking doesn’t have so very much to do with how you prevent it.

Comments

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

I think they're quite different -- in particular, I think that a hijacking to free someone from jail would *not* have been prevented, because it's easy to use that to make political hay. "We do not negotiate with terrorists," after all. Best case? You get a dramatic in-air confrontation that makes the US response team look strong. Worst case? You lose the passengers on the plane. A tragedy, but within the realm of acceptable losses. Americans have endured that sort of thing before, and it makes a decent rationale to pursue that Middle East policy you've got in the drawer.

[marphod.livejournal.com]

I think there are other differences, besides what jadasc said.

In particular, hijackers who take a plane to free peple from jail probably want to live to see the next day. Hijackers who take a plane to crash it into a building inherently do not.

[leighjen.livejournal.com]

Certainly the mindset of the hijackers are different, but how could you (or the government) defend against one but not the other?

[bryant]

Sure, so that changes how you deal with it afterwards. But it doesn't change the prevention techniques.

[marphod.livejournal.com]

It might.

People who are willing to die for their cause are willing to die. Which means potentially lethal prevention techniques are less likely to stop them, than people who want to live. I can imagine situations where the difference matters, although I'm not sure any of them are non-contrived differences (e.g. "Here, run across this mine field to get the plane.").

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

But the thing is that, while someone willing to crash a plane into a building isn't worried about dying, that doesn't mean that a lethal prevention technique won't stop them from achieving their goal. Insofar as they're goal isn't actually to die, per se.

[marphod.livejournal.com]

But they are, inherently, willing to accept a generally greater degree of risk.

If they are planning to die, their finances and posessions aren't as much of an issue. THey won't need them after they're dead. Their physical health only needs to be good enough to carry out their plans -- it won't matter if they would die a few months or weeks later due to complications. Etc.

They may not be willing to die for _any_ cause, but as long as the reasoin they die is putting significant effort forth towards their goal, risk-taking behavior is much more likely.

[bryant]

I see two logical errors.

a) The hijacker may be willing to die if and only if the plane crashes into the building. He may prefer to live in any other case, with the intent of trying again.

b) It is not necessarily the case that the hijacker who intends to hold hostages is unwilling to die.

[marphod.livejournal.com]

b) Well, that is a possiblity. I meant that it is significantly more likely that they will want to live.

a) There are no sure-things. The issue is whether the hijacker will be able to continue, with a reasonable likelyhood of succeeding. If they've come to grips with their own death and accepted that fact, they are open to riskier activities that increase the likelyhood of success. Put it this way: Assume they have 2 opportunities; one where they have a 50% chance of getting to the plane, but have a 90% chance of success, if they get to the plane and another with 80% chance of getting to the plane but only a 20% chance of success, which would they take? Does it matter if they know they will die either way in the attempt?

Admittedly, this is entirely subjective, as I don't have any experience in the situation, but extrapolating from case where I've already accepted reprocussions for an action, I am generally more willing to accept risks to get to the goal.

[kodi]

Wouldn't you focus more on protecting full flights for "free a prisoner" hijackings, and empty flights for "fly into a building" hijackings? I know that back in the days when airlines could afford to fly a plane with only 10 passengers, those flights tended to receive less attention.

Even if that is a material difference, of course, it doesn't make the argument make any sense. For the argument to make sense, you have to read it as: "The only way to keep America safe is to shred the Bill of Rights. We couldn't justify shredding the Bill of Rights until someone demonstrated that planes don't bounce harmlessly into the ocean when they hit a building."

Allow me to go argumentum ad hominem for a moment...

[editswlonghair.livejournal.com]

That press conference was completely farcical. I felt like I was back in 6th grade watching the kid who hadn't prepared giving his oral report.

My favorite line: 'People that are hiding something are afraid of getting caught.' This coming from a man who didn't answer a single damn question, except for that softball from the Fox News reporter about the FBI feeding him bad info. And he finally found a way to work in that anecdote about dinner with Koizume. I loved watching his eyes dart down to the left to the notes on the podium as he was telling it. I can just see Rove handing him that on his way out to the East Room.

Actually I take that back. My favorite line was in the post-speech analysis on Fox News. Sean Hannity actually said something along the lines of 'The President was poised and articulate,' and he said it with A STRAIGHT FACE. Absolutely brilliant.