Think Air Security’s a Joke? Get In Line

Sit straight.  Face forward.  Fold your hands.  No talking.  Stow you computer.  Go when you can, not when you have to.  Smile pleasantly, don’t get wise, and cede your armrest to your neighbor for the greater good.  Flying sucks, and the Obama administration’s response to the horrifying attempt by an incompetent clod to destroy an airplane and bring harm to an American city is to annoy terrorists so much that they surrender.

Everyone not working within or for the White House knows how to classify the Christmas act.  Specifically, stealing a Coke from the flight attendant’s cart is a crime; trying to initiate an explosion is an act of war.  Seeing the attempted bomber get treated like a common hoodlum exacerbates how insecure the Department of Homeland Security Secretary makes us feel.

Blame the boss.  Janet Napolitano uttered the stupidest thing ever said while referring to the near-man-made disaster.  Her “system worked” remark was profoundly foolish even compared to everything else she’s said while on the job.  Despite her efforts to put toothpaste back in the tube, she’s once more proven that she doesn’t quite understand how reality works.

Bafflingly, Napolitano is still not among the one-tenth of Americans who are unemployed; it would be amusing were it not beyond frightening.  Still, we must offer her eternal thanks for introducing the label “right-wing extremists” into the lexicon, which was her previous top entry in the “most idiotic statement ever” sweepstakes: it led to the creation of countless amusing Tea Party signs.  We should send thank you e-cards to our muse Jan for the inspiration once the president finally cuts his losses.

On top of dealing with a delusional security chief, travelers now face even trickier steps added to the airport security tango.  None of them will stop determined terrorists, although they will discourage people from buying airline seats; that’s swell news for an industry teetering along with the rest of the economy.

The underpants conundrum, where authorities determine how to stop the latest terror technique, is just another example of the counterproductively wrongheaded approach to keeping skies safe that began during the W. Bush administration.

For one, there was the massive tweezers confiscation immediately following September 11, where the most innocuous toiletries were confiscated from the most innocent of passengers.  Flyers still have to endure the footwear removal ritual as if they were entering a ninja dojo or your great aunt’s den.  And we still can’t bring aboard a beverage at a time in both aviation and human history where everyone could use a little caffeine and/or sugar.

Each nagging addition to the prohibited list impacts wholly blameless people without slowing our foes.  Complaining about the hassles isn’t the equivalent of whining about our freedoms being strangled because those entrusted with keeping America safe can eavesdrop on terrorists’ phone conversations.  And it’s certainly not the same as alleging that we’ve veered into fascism because the most evil men alive are locked away in a secure, paradise-based prison.

Sensible people realize that Gitmo inmates have greater religious freedom than Iranians and are fed better than North Koreans.  Nonetheless, we’re being frustrated into oblivion while the enemies of life itself move on to new destructive aerial schemes.  Enduring the new security procedures won’t protect us or stop them.

Maybe it’s finally time to admit that we should just possibly consider trying to figure out who’s bad instead of what’s bad.  How about stopping the terrorists from boarding in the first place?  We can call the attempt to out wrongdoers “profiling.”  The left reflexively gags upon hearing that word, which is another good reason to say it.

Any serious anti-terror approach requires focusing on potentially bad people for scrutiny rather than directing exclusive attention at the devices scoundrels plan to utilize.  New restrictions may help, but focusing further on particular individuals is an even better step.

Security professionals should be free to look for inclinations shared by suspects.  Of course, it could be random chance that Muslim males commit, oh, all the structured terror activities aimed against the homeland.  Statisticians can determine if that level of consistency is more or less likely than being struck by lightning after winning the lottery.

Authorities should be free to pay special attention to individuals who own particular names, countries of origin, or familial backgrounds.  For example, if a Nigerian named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab somehow isn’t stopped before he reaches the terminal, safety personnel should feel free to ask him a few extra questions without fear of being swarmed by ACLU stormtroopers.

Also, those who possess external naughty anatomical equipment may understandably be singled out for additional interrogation.  After all, the maleness of attackers is an obvious tendency.  Owning such organs is a characteristic shared by aggressors, aside from how we’ve seen that the physical tackle in question, to be delicate, provides a point to which bombing materials can be strapped.

Individuals who own some or all of the listed characteristics may have to take an earlier airport shuttle.  And so what?  We have more important things to worry about than offended sensibilities and increased wait times for specific passengers.  For example, concern about whether hundreds or thousands of people will be slaughtered at once should perhaps serve as a slightly higher priority.

The principle that individuals are more dangerous than tools is universal.  Conservatives know guns don’t cause crime, just as candy and french fries don’t cause obesity.  It’s all about how humans interact with objects around them.  In the case of preventing airborne explosions, the focus must be on keeping the offending people from embarking.  Weeding out terrorists before they get to the gate is a far better way to screen for weapons than to focus entirely on looking for same weapons.

Mandating that passengers remain seated for the flight’s last hour is particularly troublesome for innocent people.  After all, regular Americans are on the front line.  How are we supposed to accost terrorists if we can’t stand up?  We don’t want to be reprimanded by Ms. Napolitano for rising in order to tackle a bomber, which means the best hope for safety is that suicide bombers also obey the flight’s rules.

While any patriotic citizen will intervene if circumstances call for it, it’s still harrowing that commuters are this administration’s initial responders.  On top of that, travelers also face the reality that our leaders ignore in theory, namely that terrorists likely won’t attempt the same methods twice.  That not only renders our reactive, implement- and technique-focused security policies useless: it also means we’re one day behind the class on the second day of school.

At worst, they’re aggravating the wrong people.  It’s what they do: the same administration that sucks up to Iran’s ruling mobsters perversely treats our best friends on Earth such as Great Britain and Israel like dirt.  Is it any wonder that the nation’s security policy revolves around refusing to focus upon inconveniencing terrorists with plane tickets?  It’s easier just to annoy everyone and take the strained compliance of decent people for granted.

The good guys will tolerate the headaches.  Meanwhile, our enemies will patiently wait in line.  After all, their time isn’t valuable: they’re planning on arriving at an idyllic afterlife soon.  The fact that they’re dead wrong on where they’re going in the afterlife provides the potential victims stuck in the same queues with little consolation.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Popularity: 1% [?]