2001-9-29 03:30:00
What I Would Do? I've been going to answer this for a while but other topics of interest keep popping up.
In considering the problem of taking the best course of action in relation to the 911 disaster the recent question concerning why the Masters are called Masters of Wisdom can shed some light.
Dennis, and Mindy gave some good comments on this. Mindy hit the core of the matter by indicating that a Master will use both love and light to arrive at wisdom.
To fully understand why they are called the Masters of Wisdom we have to go back to the Middle Way Principle. In examining this we recall that average people are in reality extremists in the fact that they shy away from making discerning judgments and merely want to unthinkingly follow a point of view on the left or right. This duality begins, as Mindy says, with the first duality of love and light, and multiplies into millions of polarities.
The Masters are called Masters of Wisdom because their decisions are not based on some predicable black and white formula as are those of common humanity. Instead, they will examine both sides of a problem in all of its aspects until the point of truth between the two extremes manifests itself.
In the event of an attack they may at one time support a path of turning the other cheek and returning good for evil, but in another case with differing circumstances they may choose the path of war. As Djwahl Khul says, they are not pacifists when dealing with an attack initiated by a Dark Brother.
Those with whom the Masters work will be seeking the gaining of wisdom. They will always be looking at both sides of an equation and seeking that illusive, ever changing, point of decision which will produce the best results.
The Masters and their disciples are not attached to either extreme. Neither liberal nor conservative, Democratic or Republican, religious or new age, war or peace has their full allegiance. At the instant insight from the Spirit they are willing to shift their focus immediately.
One of the signs of a disciple is that conservatives will see him as liberal and liberals will see him as conservative. This is because the basis for his course of action and thought does not neatly fit into any pre-designated box.
Now in an attempt to use the wisdom principle I would tell you what I would do if I were in charge. Some may argue that the type of discussion below is not what they expect from a metaphysical class, but let me add this. The last people with whom the Masters desire to work are those who only discuss theory and never seek to apply principles learned in the real world. Solving real problems that enhance the quality of life is a spiritual act of a high degree, one that can catch their attention.
Airline Solutions
The first step has to be to take all available steps to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. To do this we must look at the obvious and the not so obvious.
The most obvious step to take is to make our airlines more secure and the powers-that-be are examining all options in this matter such as:
(1) Secure the cockpit doors so the terrorists cannot enter it no matter what happens.
Comment: This is a good idea. There could be problems created though if there is a lockdown and the captain is unable to open the door. I would make sure the door can always be open if necessary.
(2) Allow the captain to carry a gun. This has been rejected by the administration. The reason behind the rejection is that they fear that the terrorists may wrestle the gun away from him and this would make them more dangerous than ever. Another fear is that a terrorist could impersonate a captain and get on board with a gun.
These are legitimate fears, but any preventative action we take will have its pros and cons. The main pro of this action is that it can be implemented immediately and the cost is low. When the terrorists learn that the captain is armed it is quite likely that they would seek other avenues for their outlets.
I would arm the pilots, but would not all of them. Some people have the psychological makeup to handle a firearm well in an emergency and some do not. A timid captain brandishing a firearm in an emergency would merely add to the danger. But there are a large percentage of pilots who are ex-military and are already proficient in the use of firearms. If they have the training and feel confident in their ability then they should be certified to have a gun in the cockpit.
The pilots then who are confident in their ability and proficient in the use of firearms would be armed. I would guess that by using this standard that about 60% of them would carry firearms or stun guns at the least. I would publicize this fact. This way a terrorist would know that the chances are that any plane he hijacks would have an armed captain. This alone could discourage him from trying anything for he would have no idea which pilots are armed and which are not.
An interesting note on this is that it is already legal for captain to carry firearms on board and few are aware of this fact including many airline personnel.
(3) The third suggestion being made is to place sky marshals on the plane. This is being considered more seriously than arming the pilots. Even so there are also drawbacks to this. One of the main ones is that it would be expensive and the cost of tickets would go up substantially. Another drawback is that a terrorist could masquerade as a Marshall or actually apply for and be accepted for the job. The risk we mentioned for the pilot also applies to the Marshals for they could be overcome and the terrorists could wind up with the guns. This is a possibility if they knew in advance who the Marshals were.
I would take the chance, but would concentrate them on the planes which do not have armed pilots.
If terrorists then learn that every major airline is armed and has impenetrable cockpit doors they probably would not even make plans to use planes.
Armed personnel on planes does carry risks, but I believe the risks would be small because it would discourage the terrorists from even attempting a hijacking - and if they were brazen enough to do so, the chances are they would be overcome. One of the reasons our chances of overcoming hijackers is high now is that all the passengers will now see themselves in a life or death situation and, during a hijacking, many will display courage like those on flight 93 and will take action if necessary.
(4) Not allow visiting pilots in the cockpit. This is an obvious one since one of the hijackers gained access to the cockpit by pretending to be a visiting pilot.
(5) Only allow passengers into the boarding area. This would be inconvenient when saying good-byes, but the idea is that the fewer people who enter this area the less the risk is of weapons getting through. This would allow security more time to check out each person going through the check point. I would reluctantly support this idea until the terrorist threat has substantially lessened.
(6) Not allow any carry-on luggage. One of the airlines has already implemented this. The idea is that if there is no carry-on luggage and the person shows no sign of weapons at the check point then the chances are minimal that he could board the plane with any dangerous instruments.
This is a great inconvenience for some people, especially for those who work on computers during the flight. Therefore I would propose a variation of this idea as follows:
Ban all carry on luggage for passengers except those who pass a security check. A customer could apply for a special pass that would require him to submit to a stringent investigation where he must meet criteria established by either the government or the airlines. After the investigation is complete and it is determined that the person is a negligible risk then he would be given a special pass that would be impossible to forge. A computer read thumb print matching his own is a possibility being discussed.
This pass could also allow him to enter the boarding area.
(7) Do a more thorough security check on the passenger's person and luggage. This would be practical if most of the frequent flyers received a pass which would allow them to pass with a standard check.
(8) Hire quality security people and pay them better.
Paying more money does not always produce better results and this is especially difficult to implement since the airlines are presently financially strapped.
Instead, I would work with the current employees and offer significant rewards and bonuses to those who find security breaches beyond normal metal detection. For instance, if an employee finds a potential weapon and prevents it from getting on the plane he would receive an immediate bonus.
If he hears of a dangerous plot and reports it he would receive a large reward. Passengers could also be offered free tickets or cash if they report something helpful.
(9) Do security updates on current employees.
Some believe that the terrorists had help from the inside, possibly from current employees. All employees working for all commercial airlines should undergo a thorough security investigation every two years. Employees should be encouraged to anonymously tip off officials as to any strange behavior of fellow workers and should receive a reward if it turns out to be helpful.
There is no such thing as absolute security but these and other possibilities could help.
Assignment:
Feel free to add your criticisms or additional solutions. I am thinking of submitting a modified version of this for publication.
Next: Responding to the terror.
"It should be remembered, in countering these ideas (of pacifism) and in justifying the fighting spirit of the Christian democracies, that it is motive that counts. War can be and is mass murder, where the motive is wrong. It can be sacrifice and right action, where the motive is right. The slaying of a man in the act of killing the defenceless is not regarded as murder. The principle remains the same, whether it is killing an individual who is murdering, or fighting a nation which is warring on the defenceless. The material means, which evil uses for selfish ends, can also be employed for good purposes. The death of the physical body is a lesser evil than the setting back of civilisation, the thwarting of the divine purposes of the human spirit, the negating of all spiritual teaching, and the control of men's minds and liberties. War is always evil, but it can be the lesser of two evils, as is the case today." DK
Copyright 2001 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved