Airplane security
The US Secty of Home Security, Janet Napolitano, quickly changed her tune. After first saying that the flight security systems had worked, she did an about-face after 24 hours and admitted that they had in fact failed. The question is how did (1) a Nigerian Muslim, (2) who was known to UK and US intelligence as a security risk, (3) who was on several watch lists, (4) who had been reported as a risk by his own father a month before, (5) who had journeyed to Yemen, (6) who had tried to enter the UK on false pretenses and had been refused entry, (7) who paid cash, (8) who had no luggage and (9) despite all the security checks at Amsterdam's Schipol airport when he was carrying an explosive device, how on earth did he manage to get aboard a plane bound for the USA???
The answer is of course the lack of "profiling"! If he had been identified as a young male Muslim on a watch list he should have immediately been denied entry. But, because the US authorities won't use targeted profiling, but prefer to stick to random testing, they will never catch the most likely terrorists.
Is it any surprise that Janet Napolitano is now visiting Israel, to see how security is handled here. If anyone has gone thru an Israeli airport check, and been questioned closely by young earnest security agents, they know very well the difference between that experience and the usual American case. In America they make you take off your shoes, they search each third person at random, they ask questions but without any earnestness, and they are often low paid undereducated trainees, who spend a lot of time chatting at the X-ray machines, where you get the impression that they wouldn't see a gun even if it passed before their noses.
The main difference is not only in the procedure, in other words most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims, so first concentrate on them and that will net you 90% of them. The fact that the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was denied entry to a plane at Ben Gurion airport, but was allowed to board a trans-Atlantic plane at London, I think shows the difference. But, the main difference is the personnel. In Israel they are often military conscripts who are trained and who are doing their military service by ensuring that no terrorist gets aboard a plane at BG airport. Also, due to profiling they deny entry to anyone who raises the slightest suspicion.
Its true that the US is a lot bigger than Israel and has many airports, but if the Israeli approach were adopted at all airports that feed passengers into the US, that would cut down greatly on the possibilty of a terrorist getting aboard. But, you can never prevent every possibility.
For example, this time the Nigerian Muslim Abdulmuttallab had an explosive/incendiary device that was purely chemical and had no electrical components. But, it could have been detected in a body search, a full body X-ray check or a chemical detector system that they have at many airports. These systems must become routine at all major airports. And they needn't slow down entry or inconvenience passengers. They must be thorough without being slow and obtrusive.
The answer is of course the lack of "profiling"! If he had been identified as a young male Muslim on a watch list he should have immediately been denied entry. But, because the US authorities won't use targeted profiling, but prefer to stick to random testing, they will never catch the most likely terrorists.
Is it any surprise that Janet Napolitano is now visiting Israel, to see how security is handled here. If anyone has gone thru an Israeli airport check, and been questioned closely by young earnest security agents, they know very well the difference between that experience and the usual American case. In America they make you take off your shoes, they search each third person at random, they ask questions but without any earnestness, and they are often low paid undereducated trainees, who spend a lot of time chatting at the X-ray machines, where you get the impression that they wouldn't see a gun even if it passed before their noses.
The main difference is not only in the procedure, in other words most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims, so first concentrate on them and that will net you 90% of them. The fact that the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was denied entry to a plane at Ben Gurion airport, but was allowed to board a trans-Atlantic plane at London, I think shows the difference. But, the main difference is the personnel. In Israel they are often military conscripts who are trained and who are doing their military service by ensuring that no terrorist gets aboard a plane at BG airport. Also, due to profiling they deny entry to anyone who raises the slightest suspicion.
Its true that the US is a lot bigger than Israel and has many airports, but if the Israeli approach were adopted at all airports that feed passengers into the US, that would cut down greatly on the possibilty of a terrorist getting aboard. But, you can never prevent every possibility.
For example, this time the Nigerian Muslim Abdulmuttallab had an explosive/incendiary device that was purely chemical and had no electrical components. But, it could have been detected in a body search, a full body X-ray check or a chemical detector system that they have at many airports. These systems must become routine at all major airports. And they needn't slow down entry or inconvenience passengers. They must be thorough without being slow and obtrusive.
posted by Jack Cohen at 7:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home