[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

[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."