On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Allen Hellerstein ruled that families of people killed on September 11th, 2001 can sue Boeing, American Airlines, United Airlines, and the Port Authortity of New York and New Jersey, stating that the September 11th attack was a "forseeable risk." In his ruling, Judge Hellerstein also asserts: "airlines reasonably could foresee that crashes causing death and destruction on the ground was a hazard that would arise should hijackers take control of a plane."
With all of the blame that has been cast about in the two years since the September 11th attacks, with the $ 600 billion that has been spent on not winning an unwinnable and preposterous "War on Terror," with all of the tear-jerking sound bytes and docudramas and political grandstanding and apalling money-grubbing by everyone from politicians to victims' families to those only related to the tragedy in the most tangential of ways, why is there so little focus on the one thing, the one and only thing, which could have prevented every single death on September 11th 2001: the arming of the pilots of commercial airlines?
There are other options which could have mitigated the death toll, surely. But every consideration that comes to mind -- whether related to airport screening, proper military codes having been followed, stricter immigration controls, better inter-agency communications at the federal and/or state level, even different paths in domestic relations in the Middle East -- requires not only for history to have been rewritten, but for good luck to play a major part in the rewrite. Armed pilots would have saved over 3,000 lives on September 11th, plain and simply.
Granted, there was much debate about the matter in the first few months after the attacks. It has been all but silenced now. You might be suprised to learn that President Bush even authorised the arming of pilots with firearms in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act on 19 November 2001 -- just 38 days later:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
SEC. 128 (FLIGHT DECK SECURITY)
The pilot of a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier in air transportation or interstate air transportation is authorized to carry a firearm if:
1) The Undersecretary of Transportation for Security approves;
2) the air carrier approves;
3) the firearm has been approved by the Undersecretary;
4) the pilot has received proper training for the use of the firearm, as determined by the Undersecretary
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(The full Act is available in PDF format here.)
But to this day, virtually nothing has been done towards arming airline pilots, while a massively expensive, inconvenient, and ineffective system of probing, groping, and guessing has been implemented at the nation's airports, while well over $ 100 billion and hundreds of American lives have been wasted in two wars.
Why are American pilots still unarmed?
Much of the debate centers around just precisely what sort of weapons pilots should be allowed. Typical of any political process, some confusion about what the proper course to take has resulted in no course being taken at all. Most pilot groups seem in favour of arming the pilots with handguns -- which naturally gets the hysterical and sizable anti-firearm crowd in America worked up into a banshee-like frenzy, a sound which I cannot help but imagine is similar to the last sound they would make were they on board an airplane being flown into, say, a tall building.
Tom Ridge, Diector of the Department of Homeland Security, weighed in on CNN just a few months after the attacks:
"I don't think it's necessary for [pilots] to be armed, but I'm going to let the FAA and the air and aviation industry make that final determination.... I don't think the need has arisen yet.... I still don't think there's a need to put side arms on your pilots and co-pilots. There are other ways to protect them."
And Mr. Ridge is not the only politician with such a view. Greg Warren, a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration was quoted at townhall.com as saying: "We have just spent the last eight months purging the airspace of potential weapons. It would be unwise to suddenly flood the system with 100,000 lethal weapons."
Former Transportaion Undersecretary John Magaw had these sage words to add to the debate: "Pilots need to concentrate on flying the plane." And of course that is easy to do when terrorists are taking over the plane. As we have all seen.
A statement issued by the Allied Pilots Association in March of 2002 responded to Mr. Ridge's comments on the issue of arming pilots:
" ... it is unfortunate that Mr. Ridge has chosen to speak out against enabling the nation's commercial pilots to serve as an effective last line of defense against a determined foe.... We hope that the facts of the matter will eventually compel Mr. Ridge to modify his stance."
A survey of the APA's members showed that they support enabling pilots to carry firearms on a voluntary basis by a nine-to-one margin.
John Lott, a member of the American Enterprise Institute and a vocal proponent of 2nd Amendment rights, wrote:
More than 70% of the pilots at major American airlines have military backgrounds, and military pilots flying outside the U.S. are required to carry handguns with them whenever they flew military planes.
Few people realize that until the 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns; they were allowed to do so until 1987.
Because pilots only have to defend one narrow entry point, they have a much easier job than an air marshal located in a crowded cabin.
(full text is here.)
Even short of firearms, there are non-lethal ranged weapons which could be used by pilots without fear of significant harm to other passengers (Boeing engineers debunked the idea of firearms causing significant damage to airliners in a Congressional hearing on the subject.) Pepper spray, while not the ideal solution, would certainly be a more effective deterrant to attack than cross words and dirty looks, which are all pilots are currently authorised to use against hijackers. (Despite much talk and even tacit approval by Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta, stun guns are not an ideal choice, due to lack of range capabilities.)
How can this debate possibly still be going on, two years later? If there is even a shred of sincerity in all of the huffing and puffing that has gone on in Washington about protecting the American public's safety from terrorists, why has every single measure that has been implemented to date been of a nature that would not have prevented the September 11th tragedy from occuring? And why is the one thing that would have prevented those attacks beyond all but the narrowest margin of doubt not been done?
And more to the point, how can anyone look at this grievous injustice, this apalling incompetence and refusal on the part of our government to effectively act in the wake of the greatest tragedy of a generation, and seek reparations and closure in the form of litigation against airlines, airplane manufacturers, and airports, entities which can only provide that level of service and security which the state will sufficiently unbind their hands to do so?
Judge Hellerstein's ruling is nothing short of an abrogation of justice -- and the greatest injustice of all is that which is done to the memories of more the than 3,000 people killed on September 11th, 2001.
Phaedrus
With all of the blame that has been cast about in the two years since the September 11th attacks, with the $ 600 billion that has been spent on not winning an unwinnable and preposterous "War on Terror," with all of the tear-jerking sound bytes and docudramas and political grandstanding and apalling money-grubbing by everyone from politicians to victims' families to those only related to the tragedy in the most tangential of ways, why is there so little focus on the one thing, the one and only thing, which could have prevented every single death on September 11th 2001: the arming of the pilots of commercial airlines?
There are other options which could have mitigated the death toll, surely. But every consideration that comes to mind -- whether related to airport screening, proper military codes having been followed, stricter immigration controls, better inter-agency communications at the federal and/or state level, even different paths in domestic relations in the Middle East -- requires not only for history to have been rewritten, but for good luck to play a major part in the rewrite. Armed pilots would have saved over 3,000 lives on September 11th, plain and simply.
Granted, there was much debate about the matter in the first few months after the attacks. It has been all but silenced now. You might be suprised to learn that President Bush even authorised the arming of pilots with firearms in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act on 19 November 2001 -- just 38 days later:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
SEC. 128 (FLIGHT DECK SECURITY)
The pilot of a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier in air transportation or interstate air transportation is authorized to carry a firearm if:
1) The Undersecretary of Transportation for Security approves;
2) the air carrier approves;
3) the firearm has been approved by the Undersecretary;
4) the pilot has received proper training for the use of the firearm, as determined by the Undersecretary
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(The full Act is available in PDF format here.)
But to this day, virtually nothing has been done towards arming airline pilots, while a massively expensive, inconvenient, and ineffective system of probing, groping, and guessing has been implemented at the nation's airports, while well over $ 100 billion and hundreds of American lives have been wasted in two wars.
Why are American pilots still unarmed?
Much of the debate centers around just precisely what sort of weapons pilots should be allowed. Typical of any political process, some confusion about what the proper course to take has resulted in no course being taken at all. Most pilot groups seem in favour of arming the pilots with handguns -- which naturally gets the hysterical and sizable anti-firearm crowd in America worked up into a banshee-like frenzy, a sound which I cannot help but imagine is similar to the last sound they would make were they on board an airplane being flown into, say, a tall building.
Tom Ridge, Diector of the Department of Homeland Security, weighed in on CNN just a few months after the attacks:
"I don't think it's necessary for [pilots] to be armed, but I'm going to let the FAA and the air and aviation industry make that final determination.... I don't think the need has arisen yet.... I still don't think there's a need to put side arms on your pilots and co-pilots. There are other ways to protect them."
And Mr. Ridge is not the only politician with such a view. Greg Warren, a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration was quoted at townhall.com as saying: "We have just spent the last eight months purging the airspace of potential weapons. It would be unwise to suddenly flood the system with 100,000 lethal weapons."
Former Transportaion Undersecretary John Magaw had these sage words to add to the debate: "Pilots need to concentrate on flying the plane." And of course that is easy to do when terrorists are taking over the plane. As we have all seen.
A statement issued by the Allied Pilots Association in March of 2002 responded to Mr. Ridge's comments on the issue of arming pilots:
" ... it is unfortunate that Mr. Ridge has chosen to speak out against enabling the nation's commercial pilots to serve as an effective last line of defense against a determined foe.... We hope that the facts of the matter will eventually compel Mr. Ridge to modify his stance."
A survey of the APA's members showed that they support enabling pilots to carry firearms on a voluntary basis by a nine-to-one margin.
John Lott, a member of the American Enterprise Institute and a vocal proponent of 2nd Amendment rights, wrote:
More than 70% of the pilots at major American airlines have military backgrounds, and military pilots flying outside the U.S. are required to carry handguns with them whenever they flew military planes.
Few people realize that until the 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns; they were allowed to do so until 1987.
Because pilots only have to defend one narrow entry point, they have a much easier job than an air marshal located in a crowded cabin.
(full text is here.)
Even short of firearms, there are non-lethal ranged weapons which could be used by pilots without fear of significant harm to other passengers (Boeing engineers debunked the idea of firearms causing significant damage to airliners in a Congressional hearing on the subject.) Pepper spray, while not the ideal solution, would certainly be a more effective deterrant to attack than cross words and dirty looks, which are all pilots are currently authorised to use against hijackers. (Despite much talk and even tacit approval by Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta, stun guns are not an ideal choice, due to lack of range capabilities.)
How can this debate possibly still be going on, two years later? If there is even a shred of sincerity in all of the huffing and puffing that has gone on in Washington about protecting the American public's safety from terrorists, why has every single measure that has been implemented to date been of a nature that would not have prevented the September 11th tragedy from occuring? And why is the one thing that would have prevented those attacks beyond all but the narrowest margin of doubt not been done?
And more to the point, how can anyone look at this grievous injustice, this apalling incompetence and refusal on the part of our government to effectively act in the wake of the greatest tragedy of a generation, and seek reparations and closure in the form of litigation against airlines, airplane manufacturers, and airports, entities which can only provide that level of service and security which the state will sufficiently unbind their hands to do so?
Judge Hellerstein's ruling is nothing short of an abrogation of justice -- and the greatest injustice of all is that which is done to the memories of more the than 3,000 people killed on September 11th, 2001.
Phaedrus
