Posted on 08/22/2006 7:33:57 AM PDT by SJackson
Confiscating hair gel and Starbucks coffee is this year’s equivalent of the banning of nail clippers and lighters.
Put another way, the enhanced security measures put into place at airports across the world following this month’s disruption of a plot by British Muslims to smuggle liquid explosives onto several transatlantic flights aren’t making airline passengers feel much safer. Which is why Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has tried to reassure American travelers about boarding an airplane by reminding them of such protections as the “prohibition on liquids, gels and beverages in carry-on baggage.”
The problem is that while possible liquid explosives are mentioned by name, potential terrorists — almost always young Muslim men and increasingly women — are not. It should come as no surprise that passengers feel the need to profile people of “a certain ethnic or religious background” — as a proposed and overdue British security system would allow — on their own.
That was the case earlier this month when a passenger on a United Airlines flight saw a Winnipeg doctor, Ahmed Farooq, reciting an evening prayer. After the concerned passenger notified flight personnel, Farooq and two colleagues were taken off the plane. Farooq’s response could have been mistaken for an ACLU press release. Just as the ACLU considers racial profiling to be “institutional racism and discrimination,” Farooq described his removal from the plane as “institutionalized discrimination." The Muslim doctor didn’t understand why another passenger might feel uncomfortable hearing a Muslim prayer while sitting on a plane. Commercial jets crashing into the World Trade Center or blowing up over the Atlantic seem not to concern Farooq as much as his own inconvenience. Hence he complained that, “It makes you uneasy, because you realize you have to essentially watch every single thing you say and do, and it's worse for people who are of color, who are identifiable as a minority.”
But an important fact escapes Farooq: In the midst of a war against Islamic fascists, you do have to watch what you say and do. As Robert Spencer explains:
My work involves the Qur'an and other Islamic texts, but I no longer do work while flying that would mean having out in plain view books that would make other passengers concerned. Flying is a serious business nowadays. But this "people of colour" remark is just a cheap attempt to make this out to be a racial problem. It isn't. Farooq was "reciting prayers" -- when he could have done it silently. I have been in the presence of Muslims who have done so, so please don't tell me that that is impossible. These are the same prayers that jihad terrorists have prayed, so a passenger was concerned. I am sorry he was inconvenienced, but we all have been in so many ways since 9/11, haven't we? He should seek an apology from Osama bin Laden for indirectly occasioning his being taken off this flight.”
Dr. Farooq wasn’t the only Muslim taken off a flight this month. British travelers refused to allow their flight to take off until two suspicious Muslim men were removed from their plane. Fear, not racism, was what motivated several passengers to walk off the Monarch Airlines flight from Malaga, Spain. The Daily Mail reported that “despite the heat, the pair were wearing leather jackets and thick jumpers and were regularly checking their watches.” It was the pilot of the plane who made the decision not to take off until the men were escorted off the plane. According to Monarch, “The captain was concerned about the security surrounding the two gentlemen on the aircraft and the decision was taken to remove them from the flight for further security checks.”
This approach -- "better safe than sorry" -- has long been favored by El Al Airlines. Because the Israeli airline focuses more effort on looking for terror suspects than weapons, there has not been a successful hijacking of an El Al flight since 1968. This success comes in spite of the fact that the Israeli airline is a prime target of Islamic terrorists. In fact, bookings with El Al increased dramatically after September 11 because passengers know the airline is serious about security. El Al uses ethnic profiling to group passengers by risk level. Since people with Arabic names are high-risk travelers, they are taken to a room for a detailed interrogation and body and luggage checks.
As a result, nail clippers might make it on board, but terrorists will not. In 1996, an attack on an El Al plane was thwarted when a ticket agent trained to screen passengers questioned a woman about to board a flight. A reexamination of her luggage led to the discovery of seven pounds of explosives that her Jordanian boyfriend had placed inside. As this incident suggests, profiling is more efficient than metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs.
For now, however, it appears that old black women will be considered as suspicious as Muslim men at American airports. The fact is that those whose job it is to protect American citizens are often more concerned with not offending sensitive Muslims. For instance, Michael Chertoff might have more success comforting worried passengers if the Department of Homeland Security didn’t give Muslim officials from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) behind-the-scenes tours of Customs screening operations at O'Hare International Airport because of CAIR complaints that Muslim travelers were being unfairly delayed as they entered the U.S. from abroad. The fact that past leaders of CAIR have been convicted for having ties to terrorism didn’t prevent its members from seeing point-of-entry, customs stations, secondary screening and interview rooms at the busiest airport in the United States.
Surrendering to the dogmas of "multiculturalism" makes the likelihood of another 9/11-style attack that much greater. In the meantime, airline passengers may have to be the last line of defense. Aspiring shoe bomber Richard Reid was prevented from blowing up an Air France flight only because of the alert passengers who subdued him.
For those who think passengers concerned about Muslims acting suspiciously are always racist, the story of actor James Woods is worth remembering. Woods was a passenger on a flight which was a trial run for the 9/11 attacks. He described what transpired on the plane in a 2002 interview:
I was on a flight, without going into the details of what made me suspicious of these four men, although it would have been blatantly obvious to the most casual observer, I took it upon myself to go to the flight attendant and ask to speak to the pilot of the plane. The first officer came out. I reported to him that I felt that the four men, and I said, "Can you look over my shoulder and see who I'm talking about?" And he said, "Yeah." I said I think they're going to hijack this plane. I mean, everything they're doing, and I explained to him these details, which I've been asked to keep private, until whatever jurisdiction, you know -- whatever trials may take place, their behavior was such that I felt that they were going to hijack the plane.
Ways exist to prevent such terrifying scenes. If only the government would cease pandering to hyper-sensitive Muslims and their enablers long enough to use them.
Until American airlines become truely as serious about security as El Al, I will continue, as I have for the last 5 years, not to fly. Frankly, I don't expect it to happen.
security ought to be de-centralized. There ought to be a standards body for safe baggage handling. There ought to be chain of custody rules like there is with drug testing. Companies that can meet stringent licensing qualifications would be bonded. In turn they could be entrusted to pre-screen baggage and deliver it to the airlines independent of the flier. The flier ought to be able to travel light. All for a fee of course.
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. also
2006israelwar or WOT
..................
We're from the government and we are here to help you....hah!
When I was flying a week ago, they seated me next to a middle-eastern kid (about 20). He pulled out a book that was obviously Arabic and he read it thru the flight. Each time he reached into the carry-on I kept a close eye. I think I made him nervous. Good.
I know people who would scared him $hitless. As in "What's your name son? I want to be able to notify the next of kin if you try anything funny."
Perhaps, but I don't want to be friendly with someone who's neck I may need to snap.
If someone at DHS had a brain and a pair, this could have been a "canary trap" to get the CAIR jerks to incriminate themselves. As things stand, I'm not counting on it.
Same here. There has to be a way to "clear" frequent travelers, certified US Citizens, the elderly and focus on young moslem males, ladies in headscarves, sweating moslem males using prayer beads, Islamics going one-way, Islamics without luggage, and ladies with TNT-belts around their midriff . That must become the focus, not worring about my coffee cup, nail-clipper, or shampoo.
This was once our government and we were once in control of it. TSA should be fired so we can start over with a much better idea.
And you'll be more likely to die in a car accident due to making that choice than you would taking the risk of flying with the security measures that are in place.
Those security measures have room for improvement, but those improvements involve invading passengers privacy, and I'm not just talking about invading the privacy of Muslims.
For example in Great Britain they actually scan passengers as well as baggage rather than just sending people through a metal detector.
This is a bit more intrusive and since it has similarities to looking at people nude, it is offensive to many.
Therefore we have been unwilling to require the use of those scanners here in the US.
What are we willing to accept in order to improve security?
Profiling helps concentrate attention on those who are the greatest risk, but it's not a solution by itself, and despite all the politically motivated spin on the word, profiling is done here in the United States, it's just not as broad as picking out specific races or only those who are obviously Muslim as the only factors.
Statistically, you are correct. That is a chance I'll take. Flying used to be a pleasurable adventure. People used to dress up for a flight. As the years passed, flying became a drudgery as informality set in. Crammed stinky slobs packed into a cattle car. 911 and its consequences were the final tipping point. It is not worth it to fly. I remain unswayed.
Since there have been so many prosecuted instances of men inappropriately using security cameras to view women's chests, cameras located in women's bathrooms, shoe and bag cameras to view under women's clothes, you know the jokers at the TSA will do the same. Therefore, unless the TSA can get real professionals into the job, it is a bad idea to give this capability to people very likely to abuse it.
Additionally, would this capability have detected anything a non-professional screener would have connected as being capable of being used as a terrorist tool ? I think not. TSA screeners are not hired for their background in the use of ordinary items as weapons.
The problem here with the "enhanced" security measures is the same as with law enforcement everywhere. They are always at least one step behind the bad guys. While we are seeing alleged measures to combat known methods of destroying planes, other methods are being devised and tested, totally unbeknownst to airline security authorities. It will require another bit of luck in intelligence gathering to prompt the discovery of those new methods, or another incident in which the new methods are employed or tried. Then the cycle begins again. So the current "security measures" are probably a waste of time in that the new methods are already in development just as the old methods have been abandoned. Profiling works. Ask El-Al.
“It makes you uneasy, because you realize you have to essentially watch every single thing you say and do, and it's worse for people who are of color, who are identifiable as a minority.”
Tisk...Tisk...Tisk We'll all cry a river for the peace-loving Muslims that have been so inconvenienced...
It's your choice to make.
Flying used to be a pleasurable adventure. People used to dress up for a flight. As the years passed, flying became a drudgery as informality set in. Crammed stinky slobs packed into a cattle car.
I've had a couple flights where the person sitting next to me was a bit over-sized and it made the flight a bit uncomfortable. I've also had some flights made less enjoyable by small children crying loudly.
However, what has made flying open to informally dressed commoner is affordability, and if you want a more exclusive environment you're free to pay the extra price for business class.
It's also a bit strange to hear someone who hasn't flown in 5 years complaining about the kind of people who fly these days since you obviously don't have current first hand experience.
911 and its consequences were the final tipping point.
The consequences to flying from 9/11 have been minor in the long run. It took a little time to get the TSA running and to remove some of the more stupid regulations that did nothing but waste people's time. It also took a little time to get enough lanes at the security check points so that they could move people through reasonable quickly.
The biggest impact now, is that you need to know what you can and cannot take on a plane and make sure you put the things you can't carry on into checked baggage.
You need to know the process of going through security.
It's pretty simple. Stick any sizable metal items in your carry on bag. Take your laptop computer out of the bag and put it in a bin. Take off your jacket and shoes and put them in a bin and send them through the scanner with your bag and laptop. Keep your boarding pass in your hand. Walk through the metal detector when the agent is ready and hand them the boarding pass so they can verify it is valid.
Unless you hit the early morning backup, it usually only takes a few minutes to get through security, and it's been a long time since it's taken me more then 15 minutes to get through security.
A friend who happened to be flying when they instigated the ban on liquids told me that other than having to put some items in his checked baggage that he normally put in his carry on bag, it was pretty much the same as usual. He said there were not big delays when he went through because most people can follow the simple updated directions.
It is not worth it to fly. I remain unswayed.
That's your choice, but it doesn't sound like your original assertion that "Until American airlines become truely as serious about security as El Al, I will continue, as I have for the last 5 years, not to fly." has much to do with that choice.
This scanner is something every passenger would walk through.
The example I heard used recently is that it's not that difficult for someone to hide a quantity of explosives on themselves without them being visible under their clothes.
They might be discovered if every passenger was patted down, but are hard to detect by just looking at the person, and you don't need metallic items that would set off a metal detector to make a bomb.
However, a scanner that generally shows what is hidden under their clothes makes finding such items likely rather than unlikely.
My point remanins - do you think any of the scanners would figure out that, say, an ace bandage wrapped around an elbow is made of explosive material ? Or how about explosives disguised as a corset ? Underwire bras ? Look at the liquid explosives plot - do you think the TSA screeners would catch any of that ? If you do you have a higher notion of their intelligence than I do.
I flew from San Diego to Phila last year with a male friend. We were pulled aside to have our bags checked out for further scrutiny - 2 middle-aged WASPs. Our bags were checked in San Diego by a man who barely spoke English. The man spent 2 minutes on my friend's bag. When he checked my bag he held up my underwear to the light to look at them, ran them thru his hands a few times, felt up my bras and other underwear, and ignored obvious items like a hair dryer and an electric toothbrush. He spent over 10 minutes on my bag, dropped some of my stuff on the floor, and made a mess of everything - all in full sight of the public passing by. I complained to an airport security supervisor that the guy must have been trained at Victoria's Secret - I certainly felt the guy was getting his jollies on fondling my underwear.
Get the picture ? Pretty soon they'll just have us leave our clothes in our checked baggage and fly nude. We are no safer with any of this crap - we need profiling like El Al does.
Items of different density show up differently on the scanner.
An ace bandage or articles of clothing wouldn't look like an explosive.
Look at the liquid explosives plot - do you think the TSA screeners would catch any of that ? If you do you have a higher notion of their intelligence than I do.
I think you just have no idea of how the technology works and are therefore making incorrect assumptions about how such materials would be detected.
I'm trying to be polite, but your lack of understanding of how such things work combined with insulting the intelligence of the TSA screeners makes it difficult.
Knowing what to look for on the scanner does require some training so they can do it quickly with a minimum of false positives, but the screeners don't have to be geniuses because they get a lot of help form those who design the scanner use what information the scanner can gain about items along with pattern recognition and other algorithms to point out things for the operators to look at more closely.
As for abusing the scanners to look at people naked... Take a look around the airport next time you are there. Personally, I wouldn't want to see the vast majority of passengers naked, and while some are pleasant to look at, the novelty would wear off pretty quickly for the vast majority of people, and they have to do their jobs relatively quickly to keep the line moving.
If it becomes obvious, it will get noticed and can be addressed. The other TSA agents aren't going to be amused by some idiot holding up the line and causing a stir among passengers to look at particular passengers.
There will inevitably be a few idiots that will prove to those around them that they need to be fired, there always is even if their is a reasonable employee screening process.
There will be far more complaints by self important travelers than there will be actual problems.
The media will latch onto complaints and minor problems and make them sound like they are horrible and unacceptable trespasses on people's rights and dignity. They always do.
I flew from San Diego to Phila last year with a male friend. We were pulled aside to have our bags checked out for further scrutiny - 2 middle-aged WASPs. Our bags were checked in San Diego by a man who barely spoke English. The man spent 2 minutes on my friend's bag. When he checked my bag he held up my underwear to the light to look at them, ran them thru his hands a few times, felt up my bras and other underwear, and ignored obvious items like a hair dryer and an electric toothbrush. He spent over 10 minutes on my bag, dropped some of my stuff on the floor, and made a mess of everything - all in full sight of the public passing by. I complained to an airport security supervisor that the guy must have been trained at Victoria's Secret - I certainly felt the guy was getting his jollies on fondling my underwear.
That's VERY unusual. After they decided to do additional screening on you and your bags did they use the explosive detection equipment and did it happen to turn up something the felt they needed to investigate more?
This usually involves rubbing the bag or items in the bag with a cloth patch and then having equipment analyze the patch for traces of chemicals that may indicate the presence of explosives.
If the contents of your bag came in contents with some chemical that was getting flagged by the explosive, and if that chemical got on your clothes they could have been trying to figure out if some form of spilled chemical was causing what was being flagged, or if they needed to tear your luggage apart looking for a bomb, or call the bomb squad.
In the absence of that, I don't know how there could be a valid reason for them fondling underwear, and if that is the case you may have run across someone in the TSA that needs to be fired.
The TSA screens millions of passengers a day. Problems are extremely rare considering the volume and the number of employees, but if you do run into a TSA agent that does something inappropriate, make a complaint and make sure that you provide details and names.
Get the picture ? Pretty soon they'll just have us leave our clothes in our checked baggage and fly nude.
I travel a decent amount, and some of the people I work with travel a lot. While you may have had a genuine bad experience that needs addressed, the TSA deals with millions of passengers daily, and the screening process generally goes smoothly and quickly.
We are no safer with any of this crap - we need profiling like El Al does.
El Al is an airline, not an airport or airport security agency.
Israeli airport security do use profiling as one of the many tools they use to increase security.
They also screen passengers and luggage more throughly than we do on top of their more through profiling, so you're argument doesn't make any sense.
They also have well trained people who ask passengers questions and try look for signs of deception or nervousness in how they answer. They have additional screening procedures, and they use different screening methods to detect some things.
But they don't skip the process of trying to detect banned items, they add additional screening methods on top of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.