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 the good Muzzies help us sort out the bad Muzzies, we err on the side of caution.
"Until the good Muzzies help us sort out the bad Muzzies, we err on the side of caution."
I agree. We HAVE to inconvience ALL Muslims/Arabs/Islamists, until all the decent ones come forward and help us find the miscreants. Otherwise, they will not speak up...
The solution is not just "profiling". With all the personnel doing mindless dragnet of the entire traveling population, for the same price ($BILLIONS!), you look at passengers in advance; Arabic? Middle Eastern? Islamic ties? Travel history? When people arrive, they get scrutiny based on information provided to get ticket, as well as the observations of security personnel.
My friend went to Israel on EL Al with a mission trip in early 90's. He drove to Airport with a guy who was and is a lefty liberal, who learned Arabic in College, travelled to Egypt once and is a Peacenik. The questioning was fascinating of this guy: "How was the weather in Hartford? Took 84 or 95? (4-5 questions in Arabic). Any friends in the Middle East? Know anyone in Egypt? Spoken to anyone in Israel this year? How did you like Egypt? Etc. Very curt, like a police suspect.
I have good reason to be skeptical of TSA employees - I encounter quite a few on my travels.
And yes, I know El Al is an airline - all airlines used to be responsible for airport security before the TSA came along, remember ? The difference is, El Al feels free to do what is necessary to keep their passengers safe, whereas the TSA feels the need to be politically correct and profile only those who statistically have never carried bombs aboard airlines - you know, children and grandmothers. Tell me - what is the reason my 16yo blonde very cute daughter gets physically searched every single time she flies ? Every time. You may think I lack intelligence on the technology, but I think you lack intelligence on the type of personnel who man the security areas as well as their inane procedures.
If TSA scanning personnel miss identifying things in carryon luggage now, what makes me think they'll be any better with any other piece of equipment ? If you say the software is better, why is it not better on the things they do now ? I'll tell you why - it's the same reason the FAA is still using 30 yo radar software at some airports - it's a government procurement problem as well as a lack of attention to priorities.
I never said we shouldn't add detection capability - that is your misunderstanding. I said the type of personnel that is now employed by the TSA is incapable of using it effectively. Good intentions don't trump ability, and the will to screen those who actually intend or are likely to cause us harm is notoriously lacking at our government agencies.
How about the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB)? http://www.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/faqs.htm
The direct questioning of passengers is less through under our system that Israel's. Attempts to expand CAPPS and create what was known as CAPPS II were killed by the Senate in response to outcry from "civil liberties organizations".
However, we do have systems in place to look for people who's history and actions are suspicious.
Our government doesn't provide a lot of information on these programs and doesn't talk mention them more than they feel is necessary, but the programs do exist.
It's also misleading for the many people who complain about the physical screening process here and the list of banned items, to suggest that we should use Israeli screening procedures instead.
Israeli airports screening processes also include lists of banned items that are similar, and have similar physical screening processes.
They have similar prescreening databases.
What they have that we don't have are trained interviewers asking more in depth questions of passengers.
However, they don't skip the kind of screening that we have, they do that interviewing in addition to the type of screening that we implement.
Actually the airport terminal operator was responsible for security prior to the TSA. In cases where the terminal was owned by an airline, the airline provided security because they were the terminal operator, not because they had flights using that terminal. Some terminals were operated by private companies other than the airlines themselves. Others were run by municipal governments.
The difference is, El Al feels free to do what is necessary to keep their passengers safe, whereas the TSA feels the need to be politically correct and profile only those who statistically have never carried bombs aboard airlines - you know, children and grandmothers.
You're still ignoring the fact that Israeli airports do use physical screening procedures similar to what we use in the US in addition to their passenger interview process.
You are also ignoring that we do gather information on potential terrorists and use that for prescreening.
You might want to learn more about the Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS) and the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) that are used here.
Tell me - what is the reason my 16yo blonde very cute daughter gets physically searched every single time she flies ? Every time.
Every time?
Think about that for just a moment.
Either every time she goes through security there's a depraved TSA agent there that jets their jollies from searching 16 year olds, or there is something else going on that is causing her to be selected.
I've traveled with attractive women and been in line going through security with attractive women, and I don't see them getting pulled out of line to be searched on a regular basis.
If you're daugther is getting searched every time, I suspect that she is setting off the metal detector every time, or has somehow managed to get into the CAPPS or TSDB as someone who needs to be searched more throughly (most likely due to being misidentified).
If your daugther is getting searched every time but isn't setting off the metal detector, or doesn't have something in her carry-on luggage that appears suspicious on the scanner, I would suggest contacting the TSA to see if she is being singled out because she is on a watch list by mistake.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/redress/index.shtm
You may think I lack intelligence on the technology...
I think you lack information about the technology. It's not an issue of intelligence.
... but I think you lack intelligence on the type of personnel who man the security areas as well as their inane procedures
I've dealt which the TSA quite a bit. I also have a friend who is an air marshal and has explained to me why they do many of the things they do. He agrees that the procedures don't always make perfect sense, but the ones that don't serve much purpose usually get changed or removed within a decent period of time.
Some, such as the prohibition on even tiny little pocket knives (even after small scissors have been allowed), are due to groups like flight attendants lobbying for them to remain.
If TSA scanning personnel miss identifying things in carry-on luggage now, what makes me think they'll be any better with any other piece of equipment ?
There is always some chance that items will be missed.
However, better equipment as well as new equipment that provide means of detecting things that are not available now can greatly increase their ability to detect prohibited items.
If you say the software is better, why is it not better on the things they do now ?
They have been getting better at detecting things, but there is still room for improvement. Improvement in technology and software take a long time to get through the rigid processes that such security systems must go through. Items that get used on people must also go through FDA approval as well.
I'll tell you why - it's the same reason the FAA is still using 30 yo radar software at some airports - it's a government procurement problem as well as a lack of attention to priorities.
There are definitely problems with government procurement, and there are always disagreements over priorities, and in many cases the priorities and budgets can get redirected at multiple levels through layers of government beauracy at federal and local levels as well as private companies (airlines, labor unions, airports) having their own priorities.
And of course each group has it's own ideas on how to address the problems.
Despite what appears to be a never ending series of delays in upgrading our air traffic control system, and the repeated assertions by the air traffic controllers union that there system is horribly flawed and unusable (followed by demands for more pay and benefits), the system is working well, and real problems are extremely rare to the point of being practically absent.
Flying is safer than driving in a car.
Despite all the stories about how the screening process is horribly flawed and pointless, suspected terrorists are getting barred from flying, and people of who they have a lesser degree of suspicion are getting searched more throughly.
You've complained that TSA agents are incompetent.
You've complained that your daugther always gets pulled out of line and physically searched just because she is a cute teenager.
You've complain that the TSA doesn't have good enough equipment.
You've complained that even if the TSA had better equipment, it wouldn't help.
You've complained that we should stop using our procedures and use the Isreali's, but you ignore the fact that Israeli airports use procedures very similar to the ones you are suggesting we stop using. You mention that we should start using profiling and background checking, but appear to be unaware of the fact that we do have systems in place that do that.
I never said we shouldn't add detection capability - that is your misunderstanding. I said the type of personnel that is now employed by the TSA is incapable of using it effectively.
But you don't know how the equipment works. You don't know what training the receive.
The media does love to point out reports of how the TSA failed to find all the objects when tested, but it's the same media that is attacking everything that the administration does and the parts of the reports they quote or reference never have much information about how the test was performed.
The media tried their own tests, but they were rather laughable. The made items they felt looked like a bomb, but the materials they were made of would make them not look like a bomb to when viewed through the xray scanner.
You appear to be one of the many that are willing to just blindly follow along with all the everything our government does regarding security is pointless and just there to irritate passengers.
The suggestions you offer show you don't understand what is already being done, but even more they show that you mostly just want to complain and that if you find anything they do is less than perfect you feel it justifies you're notion that they are all incompetent and useless.
Air travel can be frustrating by it's nature, and it's easy to get irritated with people over trivial things and misunderstandings.
However, we're at war. A little overblown irritation and complaining about things is a luxury we can afford in times of peace. However, right now the petty political games and power struggles within our government are creating serious security issues. We all need to do a better job of making sure we understand the issues and make constructive criticisms where they are needed, but avoid complaining about insignificant things simply because we don't bother to try and understand what is really happening.
Funny that Townhall ran it today - Jeff Jacoby must have read your posts and found a need to puncture your raptures over the good job the TSA is doing.
His mentioning about taking off shoes kind of beside the point, because it's done here because is is done to cover a known weakness in the system we have in place using the equipment our airports have available at this time.
Better was of detecting such things are being developed and tested, however when I mentioned one such system for scanning passengers you suggested it would be worthless because the TSA would be incapable of using it properly and would just sit there all day leering at "naked" girls through it.
You also complained that it would never get used because our government has screwed up procurement and priorities.
The point about curbside check-in is a valid one. The danger is mainly that someone would place a bomb in a bag, and check it in curbside, then leave the area and detonate it remotely. It's strange that we tell people they cannot leave their bags unattended in the airport, and then specifically allow them to do so at a curbside check-in station.
Curbside check-in has been discontinued and re-allowed after a short time on many occasions. I think it needs to be done away with completely.
If they want to provide a service to people with heavy bags or lots of bags, some doormen that help with bags and provide carts would be an excellent way of providing a similar service with less risk.
He says that the TSA isn't screening people, just luggage. That's really not true. Our screening of people does have more weaknesses than the Israeli's methods, but we are building databases on people who we feel might be risks.
We don't explicitly screen people based on race or religion, but those really aren't that reliable of factors in themselves anyway. Instead we screen people based on where they travel, who they associate with, and even where they are from.
Those factors are more accurate that simple screening based on race or apparent religious affiliation. It's possible to hide your religious affiliation from strangers, and the majority of Muslims are not terrorists (though I do believe their religion's flaws discourage opposing Muslim terrorists).
However, people who associate with radical Muslims are people we want to watch, regardless of their race or apparent religion.
Jacoby is making a good point about our lack of even simple questioning by trained interviewers at the security check point. However, can you imagine the response from passengers who are offended by being asked to take off their shoes to being questioned by TSA employees who do something as horrible as look at them suspiciously? I can hear the complains now.
Why do they question my 16 year old daughter? Why don't they concentrate on those Muslims over there (pointing to some Hindus from India).
Complaints about the TSA asking stupid questions.
Complaints when they get delayed for additional questioning when they were "just joking around".
That doesn't even address the fact that Israeli airports deal with much less volume of passengers than do most major American airports.
You're talking about adding a process that requires a considerable number of well trained personnel at a considerable expense, and during peak travel times, it will likely add a considerable delay.
The longer the lines get the more irritated and in a hurry the passengers get, and the more likely they are going to do something that causes the screener to need to screen them and possibly their bags more throughly.
That of course backs the line up even more.
It appears the TSA is instead giving employees training in spotting suspicious behavior. It's a step in the right direction, and can be implemented with the resources available.
Jacoby makes this comment near the end of his article.
Of course most Muslims are not violent jihadis, but all violent jihadis are Muslim. "This nation," President Bush has said, "is at war with Islamic fascists." How much longer will we tolerate an aviation security system that pretends, for reasons of political correctness, not to know that?
What does Jacoby think our CAPPS and TSBD systems do? We track people who are threats. Of course they are tracking known Islamic fascists and those who associate with them or have ties to them.
Why do you think the NSA wants to know who foreign terrorists talk to in the United States? After 911, the administration threw out the Clinton administration rules that kept the NSA from passing on information about people operating in the United State's contacts with people in foreign nations.
The Israeli's screen every passenger, yet people keep using them as an example, and then say we shouldn't be screening every passenger.
People love to argue over the issue of racial profiling and should we do it, or should we not do it. However, those arguing about it rarely even use the same definition as those they are arguing against.
I agree that we cannot ignore the fact that most terrorists are Muslims, and that most are from the middle east or obtain training in the middle east, or at least have contacts with those who have.
We aren't ignoring that. We are working very hard at tracking such people, their associates, and also following their money. We have discovered a lot simply by tracking the money, and even though in many cases we do not end up with enough evidence of criminal activity to arrest some of the groups operating in the United States, we know that we need to watch them and they end up on the list of people who may either not be allowed to fly, or who will receive extra attention when attempting to fly.
This has obviously been going on. Haven't any of these people who are complaining about this paying attention to the lawsuits that have been filed by people claiming they have been "unjustly" prohibited from flying or even from being granted visas?
Many of the lawsuits claim the government is using racial and religious profiling. The government says it is not profiling specifically on race or religion, that it is instead profiling based on actions and associations. Then a bunch of conservative pundits get all irate that the government isn't racial profiling despite the fact that profiling based on associations really does what they want.
Sometimes among all the pointless politically charged bickering and posturing there are some valid points made, however a lot of it really does add up to "liberals" trying to scare the public overblown stories of institutional racism, and "conservative" trying to scare people with overblown stories about how avoiding the illusion of racism is crippling our country.
There are real issues with racism in our country and there are real issues with political correctness running amuck and damaging our country. However, complaining about these things based on rhetoric rather than on a sound basis of facts, is just another spin on political correctness.
Without substance it's just whining.
Jacoby provides some substance, but that substance does not support the conclusions he provides at the end of his article.
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.