[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

[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.