First of all, I wish to apologise for using the term "rent-a-cop" to describe civilian security guards. They're mostly just ordinary working stiffs who are honestly trying to do a decent job; it's not their fault that the training or instructions they've received are - at least IMO - a pointless waste of time. It should be noted that at least 6 of these "rent-a-cops" lost their lives on September 11 at the WTC. (I don't know if they were heroes or just victims; maybe they died helping to evacuate the tenants, and maybe they were just trapped on the 90th floor and were trying to get the hell out like everyone else. Whatever, they deserve our respect.

Mike posted in thread "Altoids Tin":

>>The only reason we are calling [Richard Reid] pathetic is that he couldn't get the bomb wick to light. If the bomb was designed better he would have succeeded.
>>The pasenger and crew subdued him after minutes of him trying to light the bomb. It was nothing the passengers and
crew did that saved the plane but rather faulty bomb design.

Interesting point, but irrelevant to the discussion. In fact, if anything, it proves my point. The airport security that was busy confiscating sharp objects didn't stop Reid from bringing a bomb aboard the plane.

What are we discussing? Whether or not confiscating Grandma's knitting needles or Junior's baseball bat is a reasonable response to what happened on Sept 11. Well, has it worked? Has it done anything, in fact, other than inconvenience tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens and cost the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity? I doubt it.

Maybe the flight attendants and passengers did sit around for several minutes watching this nimrod try to set fire to his shoes. If it happened on an El Al flight, I doubt the flight attendants would have stood around watching him; that's why I say the proper solution is to give the flight and cabin crew proper training (not to mention non-lethal weapons, which can be used to subdue a terrorist, but can't be used to take over the airplane), not to inconvenience the passengers with 2-hour line-ups and mickey mouse "security".

The point is, as soon as the passengers realised Reid was up to something terrorist-y in nature, they responded. They may not have reacted immediately, but they did react. If, instead of hiring additional security guards to confiscate Grandma's knitting needles, the authorities had done a proper threat-risk assessment, they might have decided that training the flight attendants was a far more effective solution.

If terrorists want to kill people, then they'll kill people - even Israel can't prevent that. But ultimately, going round killing a bunch of civilians at random serves no military purpose. Bashing the passenger in seat 17C over the head with a baseball bat is no different from shooting some guy who's mowing his lawn in suburbia. Any security professional knows that there's no such thing as 100% secure - you can only take reasonable precautions.

What constitutes "reasonable"? My personal rule of thumb in a case like this is: when your "security" measures start killing more people than they save, you've gone overboard.

Has this already happened? I personally believe it has. Consider the case where I have to travel to a town 300 miles away for a 1-day business meeting - not entirely unlikely.

Pre-9/11 my choices were these:

1. I can drive to the airport, hop a plane for a 50-minute flight, maybe even get a free meal or a cup of coffee, get a taxi to my hotel and maybe even catch NYPD Blue before I turn in; or

2. I can leave right after work, drive for 5 hours, maybe stop 2 or 3 times for coffee so I don't fall asleep at the wheel, get to my hotel around midnight, get 6 hours of sleep (or less), check out of the hotel and make my meeting the next morning, then drive another 5 hours to get back home.

Post 9/11, my choices are:

1. I can take a taxi to the airport, stand in line at security for 2 hours, get on the plane, get off the plane, wait 45 minutes for my baggage to be unloaded, find a taxi, get to the hotel and collapse on the bed, looking forward to doing it all again on the return trip tomorrow; or

2. See above.

Now suddenly option # 2 starts to look a lot more attractive. Yet it's still just as dangerous, and you're still just as likely to doze off and wake up on a white fluffy cloud.