 |
I just read a truly fascinating article by the New York Times’ Patrick Smith about airport security, and his point is a lot of it is meaningless. Not all of it; he’s very much in favor explosives scanning for checked luggage. But Smith believes it’s sheer lunacy to make flight crews undergo the same screening as passengers, while some airport workers are subject to just the occasional random screening. And he’s not crazy about passengers undergoing such extensive screening either: “In the end, I’m not sure which is more troubling, the inanity of the existing regulations, or the average American’s acceptance of them and willingness to be humiliated.” Smith maintains that the Sept. 11th attacks had less to do with terrorists armed with box-cutters, than armed with the element of surprise. |
One of Smith’s central points is that terrorists won’t ever be able to repeat the attacks of 2001 as passengers will never let that happen again (one of the commentors on the article put it this way: “The point about the non-repeatability of Sept 11 is right. Not only can it not happen today - it could not even happen by the 4th plane on Sept 11.”)
In the meantime, what should we be doing to halt terrorists from taking to the air? According to Smith, we shouldn’t dump this on TSA or the airlines, but leave it to the real professionals: law enforcement. As he put it, “By the time a terrorist gets to the airport, chances are it’s too late.” I tend to agree.
And so did the scores of people who commented on the article. Tell me what you think.
Stop complaining about airport security….Israel has had great security for years, because they are so good at it, never has a plane been hijacked or been blown up….think about that!
Comment by gary gerke — January 4, 2008 @ 3:34 am
I agree with all of Smith’s comments…it is especially troubing to me that the US public is so accommodating to all of this nonsense. Relinquish more of our civil liberities, pay more and get nothing but headaches in return. Don’t get me started on the “liquid limitations” nonsense…..what is stopping 3 terrorists from each bringing 3 ozs and putting it all together once seated….come on! Maybe the answer lies in fighting the real terrorists……..
Comment by Kim Qamar — January 4, 2008 @ 8:29 am
Why can’t a ballpoint pen or a sharpened pencil work as well as a boxcutter? Held at the right point to someones neck, it can prove as lethal. I don’t mind the security measures at the airports. However, I do agree that the “liquid limitations” is a little over the top. Actually, it’s pretty ridiculous in my opinion.
Comment by Ida Muller Donegan — January 4, 2008 @ 8:57 am
When I Smith’s article a few days ago, I wanted to stand up and shout “Bravo!” It’s about time someone pointed out the obvious on this. As Smith points out, though, the airlines aren’t going to do a thing to stop this nonsense. If a terrorist then slips through, they’ll be blamed. Instead, we need to be asking our political leaders tough questions as to why all this is necessary. The first step is to replace our current “fear everything and do as we say” administration in Washington D.C.
Comment by Don Moore — January 4, 2008 @ 9:17 am
I suggest airlines reserve ample low fare seats to encourage Greyhound bus riders to fly more frequently. Anytime anyone has tried to “hijack” a bus the passengers have successfully nixed the plot. Most times with the only harm being done to the perpetrator.
Comment by Terri — January 4, 2008 @ 10:02 am
I completely agree with Patrick Smith. I have been reading his columns on Salon.com for a long time, and he has frequently been a lone voice of reason when it comes to airport “security” which comes down to nothing more than kabuki. I used to travel frequently myself, before and after 9/11/01, and the ridiculousness of the whole thing has just gotten out of hand. It does nothing, NOTHING, for actual security. Real work is done by law enforcement and intelligence — if the terrorists make it to the airport, it’s too late.
What this whole thing has accomplished, tho, is to slowly train the American public to comply with a police state. I grew up in a communist country and I know what it feels like to be afraid of anyone with a uniform and the danger of protesting the authorities. I never thought I’d have the same fear in the United States of America.
Comment by A.K. — January 4, 2008 @ 10:19 am
I have felt for a long time that the entire security process at airpots is intended to distract us into thinking that we’re somehow more secure. Of course this is nonsense, and has become just a mind-numbing process that nobody really believes has any usefulness at all. My husband and I travel fairly frequently and have never had a problem going through security–so why, when my 82-year old mother travels, do they pull her aside (in her wheelchair), pat her down, move the wand all over her several times, and generally act as though she could be a threat? It’s difficult enough for her to take her shoes on and off; she’s an old lady, for heaven’s sake! In many airports, the screeners can barely speak English, they are often rude, and are quite obviously not trained to deal with any real threat, should one come along. The whole thing is ludicrous. I don’t feel one bit safer or less safe than I did before 9/11.
Comment by mibsphil — January 4, 2008 @ 11:06 am
As a longtime traveler who is now retired and only travel a few times per year, thank heavens, I have seen some of the most ridiculous things at airport check points. Among them are the three ounce rule and the shoe removal with toiletries in a bag. There are so many ways to breech the sham it would be funny, if it weren’t so costly. There needs to be a evolution of travelers as there is a revolution taking place in politics. There have been several years for the current political and graft situation in Washington to get to where it is now, but it too will be brought into the light as TSA and their inefficiencies
should be.
Comment by EC — January 4, 2008 @ 11:25 am
As part of the “Airline Crew”. Imagine the lousy feeling you have as you excuse yourself to get to the head of the security line [this is my job- do you go through this to get to your job once or more per/day] Nast looks, nasty remarks. AND the person was right-on about the fact that the crew is put through this for “show” while the personnel who enter the aircraft and then do not fly on it (ie.: baggage handlers, mechanics, ground agents, cleaners, catering personnel) get no, or once every blue moon(so called ‘random’ (never happens)screening. Mind you these are people who have generally now been ‘out sourced’ and often don’t even have the pretence of a uniform much less any notable I.D. Come into my “tube in the sky” office and get the view from my perspective.
Comment by Skygoddess — January 4, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Love to say more. Oh the things I could tell you. Gotta fly though. More another time perhaps.
Comment by Skygoddess — January 4, 2008 @ 11:33 am
To “gary gerke” … we don’t THANKFULLY live in Israel. I don’t want my America to be Israel.
Comment by Sonya — January 4, 2008 @ 11:50 am
Security here is pointless. Israel may have it together in its airports, but everyone here knows what happens on the streets. I don’t want my America to be Israel either.
Comment by Thomas Porter — January 4, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
I abhor the “security” process.
It is fundamentally flawed at every level-some reasons were given in the article, but not all.
I DO NOT FEEL SAFER—for all that—do you?
It’s confusin’ and not amusin’.
Get rid of them all.
As stated, it isn’t safer.
Comment by Guy — January 4, 2008 @ 12:43 pm
Coming from one who teaches anti-terrorism to law enforcement, I have to agree on several fronts. A Bic pen is as lethal as a dagger when plunged into the jugular vein or carotid artery. The 3 oz. rule is a joke. There is absolutely nothing to prevent anyone from carrying liquid or plastic explosives ON THEIR PERSON! The mags at the screening process check for metal, not liquids or plastic unless you are pulled aside for personal screening. And the procedures for what can and cannot be carried on board an aircraft vary at different airports. I have personally seen TSA screeners tell someone they have to check their tennis racquets and let someone else through with a 4′ hiking stick.
One last comment from my soap box. The Transportation and Security Act of 2001 has two sections, 105 and 109, which relate to local and state law enforcement officers, properly trained, to fly armed. Federal law enforcement officers fly armed all the time. The only prerequisite is that they complete a brief FBI course entitled Flying While Armed, of which I am an instructor. Sky marshals complete a much more comprehensive training program but we still have other federal agents, with the minimum of training, flying armed. Think of the added security inside the “tube in the sky” if there were 3-4 armed law enforcement officers, either local, state, or federal onboard almost every flight.
DHS has become one of the biggest bureaucratic nightmares in our government. Searching 82-year old grandmothers in their wheelchairs will not prevent the next terrorist attack.
Comment by loukycop — January 4, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
OMG!I’m just so happy to see others are as fed up with
this “security crap” as I am. My husband thinks I’m
being overly cranky when going thru this shampoo and
condtioner examanation. Please, can we get REAL law
enforcement people to do this job???!!
Comment by susan — January 4, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
Hey Sonya, lighten up…just because you are a staunch supporter of the U.S of A. doesn’t mean you need to slam Israel. And no need to be so defensive, Gary has a salient point. NOONE has ever hijacked El Al or crashed it or vandalized it. That is a pretty amazing statistic given the civil unrest there and the number of AMERICANS that travel to Israel every year. But for the record Quantas has the same statistics.
Comment by Romie Bourne — January 4, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Sadly,our America has become the police state of Amerika!We need to stand up for our rights and take back this country by force if necessary and quit cowtowing like sheep!To screeners,to police,to border patrol who do not respect us and forget they work for us!
Comment by reggie sorensen — January 4, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
The biggest problem with airport “security” is that they is looking for things rather than people. As Mr. Smith’s article pointed out, just about anything on an airplane can be used a weapon. So why aren’t we looking for people who may be predisposed to cause problems?
Let me offer a solution - start using artificial intelligence to screen passengers. Not the rule based crap in place now. Certainly there are a number of experts who could create a profiling program that takes in basic data used to purchase an airline ticket, calibrate it against previous terrorist incidents, and use it to put a security hold on suspicious passengers. Initially, it might flag more people than necessary, but those people could be excepted in the future and the false positives entered into the screening algorithm to be more selective. Now that would be security!
Comment by Lyngengr — January 4, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
If anyone went through TSA Security on Christmas Day at the San Jose Airport, you probably encountered the “Plastic Bag” TSA Police. This TSA agent wouldn’t let me go through with a 1 qt. hard clear plastic zippered bag that was “TSA Approved”, but insisted I could only pass with a Plastic Ziploc Bag! No matter that I had passed through security at other airports, she was standing her ground.
I was also chided for not putting my shoes on my laptop…or was that I should put my laptop on my shoes. Who knows…by that time I was so flustered I wasn’t sure what to do.
Did I mention they failed to catch my canister of mace that I inadvertently left in my purse.
I agree that they have a job to do, but this is what happens when the government is in charge. Pure lunacy!
Comment by Anne — January 4, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
Let me see if I get this straight. Smith thinks we need less airline security, not more? Smith thinks because it would be difficult to make explosives on a plane, we should not check for them in carry on luggage? Smith thinks because we cannot have perfect air travel security, we should have little or none? Smith thinks that law enforcement can prevent terrorism so perfectly that annoying security checks before entering a plane are superfluous, even “ludicrous”? Oh, and Smith thinks people who don’t agree with him are sheep-like victims of fear mongering, etc.? Mr. Smith redefines stupid (as any Israeli can tell you). And while he may help people vent their frustration, he merely adds to the problem by encouraging folks to be less rather than more patient with a system that is, after all, only trying to save their lives.
Want to improve airport security? Well duh. Do what common sense demands but what Smith and the New York Times will never accept: profile passengers, singling out for special scrutiny those who fit our constantly updated information, while sending the remainder speedily on their way (with or without liquids, etc.). Then augment this with random spot checks of blocks of passengers without reference to profiles.
Oh, and save the passenger “sit ins” for that large majority of us who are vastly more frustrated over absurd delays and sorry treatment at the hands of the airlines than we are with the people trying, however imperfectly, to keep us safe.
Comment by James Harris — January 4, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Interesting comments about Israel, as someone who has flown through ben gurion the diffs between security there and in the USA are night and day. Security there is professional, in the sense of competence, training, capacity etc. not in the USA sense of “paid-to-do-a-job”. Security there starts on the road to the airport where you can be questioned and continues right through to the gate. We could do that as well if we only had 2 or 3 airports instead of 429. But the biggest diff is that you get the sense that security staff actually know what they’re doing, that their questions have a purpose and things are thought out and not just random. Check out this article on problems with recertification testing for screeners. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/020418c1.htm
Comment by cd — January 4, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Last year, when returning to the US from Beijing airport with many other families and their newly-adopted babies, we were not permitted through the xray lines with bottles of baby formula. Mothers offered to drink some to prove they were not suspicious, but to no avail. Finally, after 3 “officials” were spoken to, the bottles were allowed on board. These new families are returning to the US and other countries almost every day. Would the airline and other passengers on the 12 hour flight rather have a plane full of screaming babies?
Comment by Y. Levine — January 7, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
After browsing the comments posted, I felt compelled to speak out as well.
I recently left my part time employment at an airport. The reason: TSA is taking the jobs from employees of private contractors. I know from experience that they WILL not do any better job than the current employees! I never thought that the Federal Government would take my job from me. This has happened and is happening in other airports as well. What purpose does it serve? No one has so much as offered an explaination, the “powers that be” just directed it to take place. One of our employees actually sought employment with TSA and was hired, proving that we must be capable of performing the job!!
Comment by Helen Tucker — January 8, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
Most if not all the TSA grunts are brain dead. They don’t know their ahole from a donut hole. There are no calibrated, consistent, and specific specifications of any criteria they use.
The TSA is nothing but a WPA program. One wonders if some of them even know how to read, write, or speak.
The best thing that could happen is to go 100% automated, and send these folks back to Taco Bell, Mc Donalds, and Walmart.
They can’t see the forest for the trees.
Furthermore their attitudes are horrible. They are so curt. They threatened my wife, if I had been there I would have gotten his name and have him fired.
Keep the faith, nothing lasts forever.
Comment by George w. Bush — January 8, 2008 @ 10:24 pm