Posted on 04/13/2005 9:25:09 AM PDT by srm913
The Sad, Stupid State of Airport Security: Part II
by Walter E. Williams Posted Apr 13, 2005 Hundreds of readers responded to last week's column about airport security. These were letters from Americans who fit no terrorist profile -- airline pilots, mothers traveling with children, disabled people, elderly and other law-abiding Americans -- and yet were frisked, groped and hassled. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) behaves as if all passengers and all baggage pose an equal security threat, and that's stupid, because not nearly all passengers and baggage pose a security threat. They've seized articles such as tweezers, toy soldiers, hat pins, sewing scissors and other items they deem as threatening to flight security.
I've solved my problem with the TSA. They have their procedures, and I have mine. Mine include minimizing my exposure to stupidity. Therefore, where I used to board a commercial flight three or four times a month, over the last three years, I've reduced it to once, maybe twice, a year.
Some of the letters reported more stupidity on behalf of the TSA than I imagined. I'll highlight some of them. One person wrote that he, his wife and son were stopped, questioned and searched at length by TSA and FBI officials. It turned out there was a terror alert for a person named Harry Smith (not the true name). The couple's 5-year-old son's name was also Harry Smith. How much brains do you think it requires for the FBI and TSA to immediately realize that their 5-year-old son was the wrong Harry Smith?
Another writer wrote about his 88-year-old, hunched over, arthritis-ridden father, barely able to walk, being searched, questioned and scanned and, as a result, brought to tears. Airline pilots going through security are searched and asked to empty their pockets, even though they wear photo identification tags and the TSA accepts the fact that they're indeed pilots. Here's my question: If a pilot wanted to fly a plane into a building, would he need a weapon to do so?
There's little threat of another 9-11 hijacking event. First, sky marshals are randomly assigned to flights. But more important than that is if a hijacking occurred, passengers, knowing they were being flown to their death, would subdue the hijackers. Giving them greater incentive to do so is the likelihood of an F-14 fighter jet flying up to shoot the plane down. The greater threat to airport security is the placement of a bomb onboard. The TSA practice of seizing harmless personal items from passengers is a waste of resources. Fortunately, the TSA now permits some items formerly prohibited, such as knitting needles, corkscrews and cigar cutters.
Let's apply a bit of economic analysis to the TSA. There's little cost borne by the TSA for harassing passengers. Screeners have an eight-hour-a-day job. So if you have to wait in long lines, be harassed and miss your plane, what's it to them, considering the docile passenger response? Many Americans accept the TSA policy, saying that it makes them feel safer. I'd ask those Americans how much safer they would feel seeing an 88-year-old arthritic man, barely able to walk, given the treatment. Asking the question whether every passenger is a security threat is similar to a munitions manufacturer asking whether every hand grenade is good. A munitions manufacturer wouldn't pull the pin on every hand grenade to see if it was a dud. He'd devise a test, otherwise he'd bear huge costs by assuming each hand grenade had the equal probability of being a dud. Similarly, the TSA should devise a test to determine which passenger poses the higher probability of being a security threat. A good start might be to establish passenger characteristics of previous terrorist attacks.
I have a friend who is "pulled over" by airport security just about every time she flies. It's always something. Once she was asked to step aside while her carry-on bag was being searched...the screener explained that the scanner picked up something in her bag that they couldn't identify. Turned out it was her mascara wand.
It's been my experience that each airport performs security checks differently. Some will go to the extreme, while others barely do any sort of screening at all.
I would, however, rather that the screeners be extra careful than give us the cursory once-over.
Go to USAJobs and look how much they pay TSA screeners...
$9.00/hr is not a thinking-man's wage.
Like it or not, you've hit the nail on the head.
I'll start to disagree with you as soon as some radical Mennonite fringe hijacks a plane.
Not really.
It is another glaring example of the ineptitude and general unconcern of the Imperial Federal Goobermint.
The people MOST LIKELY to commit a hijacking are the ones they WON'T search for fear of being labeled "racists" or accused of engaging in "racial profiling".
Bodacious buckets of bullsqueeze! I haven't flown since 9-11, and probably won't for the forseeable future. Who is hurt by this, you might ask? The airlines, and later the taxpayers when that same pack of idiots in the Goobermint wants to bail them out to keep them out of bankruptcy.
You are right but that is because it is illegal to search more than 3 or 4 (don't remember the number)middle easterners on a plane.
There can be 60 on a plane and they still can't search more than the allowed number or the airlines get fined millions.
Instead they subject all citizens to their atrocious policies.
I do not fly anymore.
What has always bugged me is that the terrorists took advantage of the mind-set that previously existed regarding aircraft hijackings.
In the 70s, the hijacked planes were landed in Cuba and the passengers were released (generally). Because passengers assumed that they were not going to be used as a missile, they passively allowed the terrorists to commandeer the planes. Post 911, passengers are going to attack the would-be hijackers, regardless of how well armed they are. There is already increased security because the passengers now understand the increased threat.
The screeners at El Al, the state airline of Israel, work at multiple levels. The most important thing they do is profile. They don't waste their time repeatedly searching grannies and toddlers, but they make multiple close examinations of Muslims - the people who have tried to exterminate them since the end of WWII.
Dear TSA - Common sense!! Try it, you'll LIKE it!!!!
On the other hand, their idiocy sometimes entertains. I saw them screen a couple of young ladies once who looked like a TV image of professional "escorts," practically making them strip. Turned out there weren't any explosive belts under those skin tight dresses. I felt safer, you betcha.
This is the 90% solution in practice. Feel good security measures that make 90% of the non thinking public feel safer. I don't travel on business anymore unless it's absolutely necessary.
You think that's bad?
I'm active duty military and the last time I was headed to South Korea (on orders, no less), I was stopped and searched at every stop prior to the international flight into Seoul.
It didn't matter that my uniforms were in the luggage searched. It didn't matter that I showed my military ID. It didn't matter that I showed them my official orders.
Of course, the passengers walking by me to board the aircraft were amazed, but what could they do?
The worst moment was when the screener at the Baltimore-Washington International airport didn't even know what my dogtags were. (being metal, they set off the wand metal detector)
There you go. I travel to BWI a few times a year on business, often carrying spaceflight hardware. I have no problems leaving San Antonio, but I always dread flying out of BWI. Thankfully, they haven't tried to open my vacuum sealed shipping containers yet...
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.