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.