I wish I could find the link, but I can't recall enough details to make a good search.
Circa 1961, when people could actually board airplanes carrying a gun, a flight took off from the area of Detroit or Ohio (I forget which). On board was a 17 year old Cuban who had come to the U.S. with his parents who fled Cuba's revolution. The boy was utterly homesick and determined to return to Cuba. During the flight, he pulled a large knife and demanded the flight take him to Cuba. He used a stewardess to get to the flight deck to make his demands. Unfortunately, he'd never heard the Yankee idiom of bringing a knife to a gunfight. The pilot, a Pacific Theatre veteran, pulled a snubby Colt .38 and the flight engineer disarmed the boy. [Contrary to today's environment, the flight crew allowed the boy to remain in the cockpit and the flight crew talked to him until they landed. At that time, the boy told authorities that what he did was wrong, but he'd never thought about really hurting anyone, he just longed for his home in Cuba. Two of the flight crew even stood up for the boy in court.]
My father related that his former navigator & drinkin' buddy was on flight from Denver to Phoenix in the early 1950's when a sizeable man tried to storm the cockpit of the
Western Airlines (remember them? "The
only way to fly!") DC-4 they were in. While flight crew and passengers grappled with the man (and he was winning) Hawthorne reached into his briefcase and withdrew in 1911. He pointed at the man and told him to "Hold it!" and that settled the affair. The unruly passenger had his hands tied (in front) and sat in the back with Hawthone riding guard until they reached Phoenix. The guy was simply despondent over a divorce and wanted to "end it all".
Today, the gov't won't trust you to get on the airplane with a pocket knife or a large bottle of shampoo.
S832 said:
I see potential abuse of this list more prominent then the No-Fly list but with proper oversight and control it might be worth doing.
That's the rub... who decides on what oversight is done, how much and the rules? As it is now, the list is supposed to be excrutiatingly top secret - you can't inquire if you're on the list in advance - and no one outside of the gov't even knows how people get on the list or exactly why. Nor is the gov't able to articulate those things which by themselves or in combinations will get you on the list (though we
think we can figure out some of them, there are obviously other "details" the gov't can't/won't disclose.)
S832 - You are willing to allow the government considerable leeway in dictating to you what you must and must not do in your life. Many of us are willing to abide by sensible laws that deter people from killing each other, stealing and other sorts of crimes. But when it comes to the gov't "caring for our safety" those same people would rather have that care in their own hands, where it belongs.
If you don't think you're losing anything because the no-fly list/watch-list exists, think again. Any time you need to take a last-minute or "emergency" flight, you may be prevented. This would include flying to your gravely ill mother's bedside; attending the birth of your first grand-child; flying with your critically-ill child to a major hospital's care; flying home because it may be your Dad's last Christmas. Or it could be losing your job because you suddenly can't fly to Dallas for that important client/customer meeting. Or losing a job because it requires a lot of travel and the company doesn't want to risk you not making your flights.
How long might it be before they link observation "traffic" cameras to the watch-list? Imagine driving to work and, because your name (via your license plate) is on the watch-list, as you head towards civic center, you find yourself pulled over, held and your vehicle searched -- making you late for an important business meeting. Or worse, arrested because Police find three boxes of .308 ammo in your trunk and you (properly) refuse to answer any questions.
Are you getting the point yet?
