Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Wake Up America: The Looming Threat of Terrorists in Small Aircraft... and Cars
The deliberate suicide crash bombing by a domestic terrorist pilot of a small plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas has exposed a grave failure of the Homeland Security Department to protect us Americans from the threat posed by the virtually unregulated use in this country of small aircraft.
Just about anyone can own and fly a small plane, and these, as we have now seen, are readily adaptable into kamikazi missiles capable of destroying large buildings.
If Homeland Security won't act, then it is up to Congress to move quickly to tighten up security and control over small planes. We need to insist that anyone seeking a pilot's license first submit to a full screening by the FBI. No one with a criminal record of any kind should be permited to fly or ride in a small plane. The same should be true with regard to all foreigners. Since it's not possible to do a full check of the background of persons from other countries, only US citizens should be able to obtain and fly small aircraft within US airspace.
All civil air pilots and their passengers should be required to pass through meal detectors before entering an airfield. We don't want them carrying hand grenades or other weapons onto their planes. Planes should also be subject to full searches by specially trained government inspectors before takeoff to be sure they have not been packed with explosives.
But that's not enough. We should ban all small aircraft from flying within a mile of any urban areas, and the military should be given authority to take down any plane that violates that rule. The Airforce should be ordered to have fighters, armed with loaded machine guns, in the air at all times, ready to be called into action if a small plane appears to be on a threatening flight path.
America cannot lower its guard.
After a would-be terrorist tried to take down a commercial plane over the Atlantic by hiding explosives in his shoe, Homeland Security responded appropriately by requiring all air travelers, from old men in wheelchairs to infants in booties, to remove their shoes and have them run through an Xray machine. When a terrorist wannabe tried to concoct an explosive from two jars of chemicals he had brought on board a plane, Homeland Security appropriately responded by banning toothpaste and all other liquid or semiliquid substances from carry-on bags--even women's pancake makeup and lipstick. More recently, when terrorists developed the insidious underwear bomb, first used last December, Homeland Security responded with a plan to introduce backscatter Xray machines at all airports, which can see under people's clothes.
These measures were fine as far as they go, but how can we now do less than crack down on the virtually unmonitored use of small planes in this country?
Of course, while we're at it, we need to consider the much bigger problem of the widespread access to cars and trucks, which are equally capable of being made into four-wheeled bombs. If a deranged man can use a plane to take out an IRS building, how long will it be before another equally deranged man or woman who fails a driver's test decides to take out a motor vehicle office?
There is only one solution. We need to crack down heavily on who can obtain a driver's license. Probably the best solution would be to require anyone seeking a drivers licence to first undergo psychological screening. Nobody found to have anger management difficulties, or any history of violent or aggressive behavior, should be allowed to own or drive a vehicle. (One good screening technique would be to slow down service at motor vehicle offices even more, and then to bar anyone who shows signs of impatience or anger from obtaining a license.)
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of going overboard here. I'm certainly not suggesting that we start doing something draconian or unconstitutional like limiting gun sales, or preventing people from buying machine guns or bazookas or anything like that. That would be unAmerican. But we do need to crack down on the ability of terrorists, foreign or domestic, to get ahold of moving vehicles--airborne or ground-based--which in the wrong hands could be used to threaten Americans with mayhem.
The Austin IRS building attack was a wake-up call.
It's time to act to keep Americans safe!
71 Comments so far
Show AllWouldn't this make car lots into weapons factories?
Great article, Dave. Loved the sarcasm.
At least I assume it was sarcasm.
Careful what you wish for. They're likely to do it. There are a lot of people out there who won't realize that your piece is satire. No one will ever give up his car or gun, but most people wouldn't care about restrictions on planes, because only other people, mostly rich, own them.
These scenarios could well come to be. General aviation will certainly get at least a once over review by the FAA and probably Homeland Security. Flight plans for even local sightseeing will probably have to now be filed. Smaller airports (strips actually) will be beefed up to handle the paperwork. More money out the door.
Yet it will be IMPOSSIBLE to prevent another such occurrence. Too many small planes and even private airstrips. Too much potential explosives. Too much anger out there.
Gary
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it."
--Terry Pratchett
Dafoe
The last two sentences tell it all, this is a spoof. Amerca is always threatened with mayhem from inside, more guns in the hands of the common man than were used in WWII and many being used to do what they are supposed to do, kill people, or to put it on the social sciences side, used in an assisted death.
The borders and airports are the home for bullies and bad manners, like the poleese, who else can you dress up in uniform and keep paranoid, the peace corp?
Oh my god....why don't we make driving cars equally as difficult while we are at it. Actually, given how our govt. is waging war and killing for oil we could save the environment by undertaking such restrictions for buying a car and force more US citizens to ride bicycles....how many bicycles have caused terrorist damages? None!
Too funny!!!
ft68,unfortunately bicycles have been loaded with explosives and used as suicide bombs as well.
peace
sceptic tank slurpers would make good sewer-side vehicles!
A friend in New York notes that many of the guys who deliver pizzas in Manhattan on bicycles are dark-skinned foreigners, and suggests that pizzas boxes could hide explosives. Maybe a stop-and-search order should be issued for NYPD officers to inspect these dangerous boxes. (I'm sure the cops wouldn't mind. They'd would love the opportunity to snag a loaded slice occasionally while on the beat).
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
US Marshal's on any and all small aircraft!!! Hey, maybe we should all be assigned our own personal Marshal. You know, to ride around with us in our cars. We'd all feel "safer" then, I'm sure.
Great article. I needed a laugh this morning. (USAn's are such pussies.)(Sorry for the naughty word, but it had to be said.)
I'm wide awake and prepared to fight the terrorists. Being a cop and a soldier does have its strengths. We can fight the terrorists at home by putting more soldiers and cops on the streets and get rid of gun control.
EncinoM -- You're as phony as a three dollar bill. People are on to you. Best to fade away (or change your m.o. if you want to prolong the thrill for awhile.)
Soldiers on the streets... Yeah Baby.
Lets fight them here so we don't have to fight them over there.
More cops on the streets. Yeah....right. All that equates is more *HARMLESS* pot smokers in jail.
Why would you want me unable to control my gun?
It's called the "scattershot" approach.
Unless you've been under a rock somewhere, the govt. isn't SUPPOSED to let soldiers police the citizens of this country. It seems though that right-wingers would have 'em out there in a heartbeat. Paranoid people suck the life and fun out of existance. You poison the well with crap. And I don't take kindly to those actions. People with sticks up the wazoo tend to wreck the party.
I would go one step farther...anyone even glancing upwards at a plane is a potential terrorist in my book!!!! ;)
This is horribly draconian article. Even if ALL of the suggestions made by the author were enacted, Stack would have had his plane and his license to complete his deed.
This is the WRONG approach. The CORRECT approach is to recognize and address the grievances of people.
What next, banning cars? Maybe we should all wear exploding neck bracelets so that if we get too close to key facilities the bracelet will explode. Maybe we should bomb the factories producing cars/aircraft. Get real, Big Brother!
[Note added later]. I just realized that this article was intentionally humorous. I'm not laffing much. Keep your daytime job Lindorff, SNL is not ready for you yet.
lol wow. You are not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. A qualification for being able to even EXPRESS an opinion should be an intellect higher than that of a coffee table. You also might want to check a dictionary prior to posting. "laffing" is not a word. Laughing, is. The article is not a humorous article in the "ROFLMFAO" way, but in a tongue-in-cheek, sarcasm, satirical way - basically showing -through multiple real-life examples - just how stupid the US's responses to actual terrorism have been. Satirical or not, it isn't a far leap to see the US Police State actually doing EXACTLY what Lindorff satirically suggests.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, "It Cant Happen Here", 1935
"The article is not a humorous article in the "ROFLMFAO" way, but in a tongue-in-cheek, sarcasm, satirical way - basically showing -through multiple real-life examples - just how stupid the US's responses to actual terrorism have been. Satirical or not, it isn't a far leap to see the US Police State actually doing EXACTLY what Lindorff satirically suggests."
Above alone would have sufficed. I understand your frustration but the best teachers don't bully their students. It is all of our jobs to teach whatever we know that can be of use to others. But then sometimes I can miss the most obvious point let alone the more nuanced. Just my failing intellect I suppose.
you're right - laffing is not a word.
it's a sound.
Seeing that you responded with an attack, I will respond likewise.
First, you added nothing to the discussion with your attack, so why did you write other than to point out my use of the word "laffing", which was intended satirically? Perhaps you have nothing better to do than troll?
You should also do some real research yourself. Your attribution of an infamous quote to Sinclair Lewis is incorrect. This statement NEVER appears in "It Cant Happen Here". In fact, no-one knows where this quote comes from.
Read "It Cant Happen Here" here: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301001h.html
You may learn something rather than copying someone else' signature because it sounds cool.
Your bulb was rejected at the factory.
"Nobody found to have anger management difficulties, or any history of violent or aggressive behavior, should be allowed to own or drive a vehicle."
Very impractical and obnoxious BUT, if implemented, this would probably save more lives than all the lines at all the airports in the world.
Joe
This whole post is laughable beyond belief. Thanks for the laughs, David Lindorff. I bet if you went down to Southie (South Boston, MA) or even Charlestown, MA, you'd be shaking in your shoes.
GREAT SPOOF, DAVE !
Jim Shea
Dave, thanks a lot! I am still laughing!! Jay Leno, watch out!!!!
New target group for US police state profiling: Middle Aged Unemployed white males with cars and pilot's licenses.
Uh-Oh! There are a bunch of those these days and the group is growing by leaps and bounds.
globalsoul, good one! You beat me to it.
Years ago, my oldest son noted that crime rises with unemployment. so obviously the solution is not to get more repressive but to take back some of the wealth stolen by the rich and reinvest it in our country. And we might share a pinch of it with the rest of the world's poor, considering how much of their natural resources we've stolen.
I don't see the Obama administration or our corporate Congress showing the slightest interest in that solution. In fact, all I see them doing is pretending to try to solve the problem, looking very busy while accomplishing nothing. Considering that experts keep pointing out their "plans" won't work (and don't), I haven't figured out if they (Obama and Congress) are stupid or just think we're stupid.
Obama does trip over his golden tongue now and then, such as telling us that Blankfein works hard for his money and is entitled to it. That was our money that hauled his ass out of the fire. And check out Matt Taibbi's article about how Goldman Sachs royally scammmed us. The king of con artists. And the best part is that Congress made it all legal!
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/32255149/wall_streets_bailout_hustle/print
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
This may be a spoof article, but there is a simple way to stop terrorism against the US, and it wouldn't cost a dime - it actually would save us a lot of money.
We can start by not overthrowing other nations. We can also quit arming nations that torture, kill. dehumaize others and steal their land. Then, we can follow that up by not killing millions of innocent civilians. Then for good measure, we can leave all of the countries that our military is and dosen't need to be - like all of them except the US.
Wait, these are the reasons bin Laden gave for the 9/11 attack. Does that mean I'm a terrorist too?
It is only suspicion that that counts these days.
Trying to implement all these procedures designed to detect evildoers is ridiculous. The solution here is the same as what needs to be done on the international level: changing policy so that desperate people don't feel the need to resort to terrorism in the first place.
I strongly disagree with the violence but I do agree with the sentiment that drove Stack's hatred of the IRS. What have you received for your federal tax dollars lately? Instead of healthcare, environmental legislation, and help for the unemployed we get two wars, huge bank bailouts, corporate welfare, and jobs shipped overseas.
Now I don't mind paying taxes if I'm getting something for it. But if the current policies don't change, the terrorism will continue, both internationally and domestically.
Good satire Dave, but I believe some conservatives, like Palin, Limbaugh, Beck ect. will take your post seriously and complement you for some sagacious ideas in how we can stop terrorism!
Wait- The Corporate US media has decreed that because this was a white American- It was not terrorism! Just a lone nut.
These media are paid $ billions to tell us what to think. How could they possibly get a story wrong?
Nothing to see here. Go back to American Idol and Survivor. Now back to your regularly scheduled PROGRAMMING!
I think they should pass a law that we all must stay home and quietly starve to death, no one allowed to leave his house, anyone caught wandering around or driving anywhere rounded up as a terrorist. That way we can be Absolutely Safe. Desperate times call for desperate solutions.
Since very few people actually own the homes they live in anymore this is unrealistic. The banks want their mortgages and the landlords want their rents. You should be allowed to go directly to work, to a place of business and then to your residence. If you are unable to pay for a residence you should report to your nearest public exposure and humiliation center.
There you will be allowed to die slowly of exposure, hunger or disease in full view of the working public in order to incentivize them to put up with their crappy, no future, no-respect, jobs.
It should be a crime to be a human being.
I think it is. At least an American human in need of medical care.
Why wasn't this pilot's phone tapped by the NSA?
Why wasn't the FBI reading his email using National Security Letters?
Why wasn't this man targeted for assassination by the President using his newly granted authority?
We've given up ALL our rights!
We've given up the entire Constitution!
And they still can't keep us safe!
The satire was almost missed by me. Had to do a double take. While I still feel I have a sense of humor. I don't find much to laugh about, regarding the sad state of police state, we find ourselves confronting.
Let's agree to using more cops and the military to keep our streets safe from the rest of our population. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot that means me.
While I oppose violence for change, it's looking harder and harder to make much needed changes in other creative ways.
Ray Berthiaume
I have to admit this crept up on me! I was taking it seriously and feeling more and more uncomfortable. Now I see it as well-written sarcasm. But it is a logic I fear some will follow.
"All civil air pilots and their passengers should be required to pass through meal detectors before entering an airfield." (beginning of 4th paragraph.) I understand that the airlines want to keep everyone from bringing food on-board so that they have a monopoly on what you eat, but I was not aware that they had a ham sandwich detector at every gate.
Hey, Lindorff! You, sir, are the worst sort of craven, cowering, NIMBY liberal, one worthy of living under the "Patriot" Act and getting groped in "security" lines. Please recall Benjamin Franklin's dictum, "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." Get a grip, buddy, forty thousand people die in our country each year, not from terrorism but from the lack of medical coverage. Try to focus on what should really be feared.
Tony Vodvarka
ummm.... satire. look it up in the dictionary
OOPS
It's okay. I've gotten about 20 angry over the top emails attacking me by progressive readers who have also written "Oops" when I wrote back that it was satire and suggested they read the whole piece, instead of writing me after reading the first few paragraphs and blowing a fuse.
Dave
www.thiscantbehappening.net
Exactly, Mr. Lindorff. Apologies to you.
Yes, but some nitwit in Congress won't get it.
Dictionary? Waht's dat? :)
It's that naughty book that defines "oral sex" and should therefore be BANNED!!! Oh, that's right...it was.