Friday, January 8, 2010

Stolen Content - The unfriendly skies

In keeping with a very early bit of what may be a tradition this year, that being actually posting stuff on occasion, it is about time we get about a stolen content entry, and who better than someone I turn to frequently when looking for words of wisdom.

Slate Magazine
fighting words

Flying High

Why are we so bad at detecting the guilty and so good at collective punishment of the innocent?

By Christopher Hitchens


It's getting to the point where the twin news stories more or less write themselves. No sooner is the fanatical and homicidal Muslim arrested than it turns out that he (it won't be long until it is also she) has been known to the authorities for a long time. But somehow the watch list, the tipoff, the many worried reports from colleagues and relatives, the placing of the name on a "central repository of information" don't prevent the suspect from boarding a plane, changing planes, or bringing whatever he cares to bring onto a plane. This is now a tradition that stretches back to several of the murderers who boarded civilian aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001, having called attention to themselves by either a) being on watch lists already or b) weird behavior at heartland American flight schools. They didn't even bother to change their names.

So that's now more or less the routine for the guilty. (I am not making any presumption of innocence concerning Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.) But flick your eye across the page, or down it, and you will instantly see a different imperative for the innocent. "New Restrictions Quickly Added for Travelers," reads the inevitable headline just below the report on the notoriety of Abdulmutallab, whose own father had been sufficiently alarmed to report his son to the U.S. Embassy in Abuja, Nigeria, some time ago. (By the way, I make a safe prediction: Nobody in that embassy or anywhere else in our national security system will lose his or her job as a consequence of this most recent disgrace.)

In my boyhood, there were signs on English buses that declared, in bold letters, "No Spitting." At a tender age, I was able to work out that most people don't need to be told this, while those who do feel a desire to expectorate on public transport will require more discouragement than a mere sign. But I'd be wasting my time pointing this out to our majestic and sleepless protectors, who now boldly propose to prevent airline passengers from getting out of their seats for the last hour of any flight. Abdulmutallab made his bid in the last hour of his flight, after all. Yes, that ought to do it. It's also incredibly, nay, almost diabolically clever of our guardians to let it be known what the precise time limit will be. Oh, and by the way, any passenger courageous or resourceful enough to stand up and fight back will also have broken the brave new law.

For some years after 9/11, passengers were forbidden to get up and use the lavatory on the Washington-New York shuttle. Zero tolerance! I suppose it must eventually have occurred to somebody that this ban would not deter a person who was willing to die, so the rule was scrapped. But now the principle has been revisited for international flights. For many years after the explosion of the TWA plane over Long Island (a disaster that was later found to have nothing at all to do with international religious nihilism), you could not board an aircraft without being asked whether you had packed your own bags and had them under your control at all times. These two questions are the very ones to which a would-be hijacker or bomber would honestly and logically have to answer "yes." But answering "yes" to both was a condition of being allowed on the plane! Eventually, that heroic piece of stupidity was dropped as well. But now fresh idiocies are in store. Nothing in your lap during final approach. Do you feel safer? If you were a suicide-killer, would you feel thwarted or deterred?

Why do we fail to detect or defeat the guilty, and why do we do so well at collective punishment of the innocent? The answer to the first question is: Because we can't—or won't. The answer to the second question is: Because we can. The fault here is not just with our endlessly incompetent security services, who give the benefit of the doubt to people who should have been arrested long ago or at least had their visas and travel rights revoked. It is also with a public opinion that sheepishly bleats to be made to "feel safe." The demand to satisfy that sad illusion can be met with relative ease if you pay enough people to stand around and stare significantly at the citizens' toothpaste. My impression as a frequent traveler is that intelligent Americans fail to protest at this inanity in case it is they who attract attention and end up on a no-fly list instead. Perfect.

It was reported over the weekend that in the aftermath of the Detroit fiasco, no official decision was made about whether to raise the designated "threat level" from orange. Orange! Could this possibly be because it would be panicky and ridiculous to change it to red and really, really absurd to lower it to yellow? But isn't it just as preposterous (and revealing), immediately after a known Muslim extremist has waltzed through every flimsy barrier, to leave it just where it was the day before?

What nobody in authority thinks us grown-up enough to be told is this: We had better get used to being the civilians who are under a relentless and planned assault from the pledged supporters of a wicked theocratic ideology. These people will kill themselves to attack hotels, weddings, buses, subways, cinemas, and trains. They consider Jews, Christians, Hindus, women, homosexuals, and dissident Muslims (to give only the main instances) to be divinely mandated slaughter victims. Our civil aviation is only the most psychologically frightening symbol of a plethora of potential targets. The future murderers will generally not be from refugee camps or slums (though they are being indoctrinated every day in our prisons); they will frequently be from educated backgrounds, and they will often not be from overseas at all. They are already in our suburbs and even in our military. We can expect to take casualties. The battle will go on for the rest of our lives. Those who plan our destruction know what they want, and they are prepared to kill and die for it. Those who don't get the point prefer to whine about "endless war," accidentally speaking the truth about something of which the attempted Christmas bombing over Michigan was only a foretaste. While we fumble with bureaucracy and euphemism, they are flying high.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the Roger S. Mertz media fellow at the Hoover Institution.

 

29 comments:

  1. Civil Liberties are a tool for the opposition. How many little old white woman do they have to waste their time strip searching in the name of fairness?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am all for profiling, common sense would seem to dictate as much. I am also not a big fan of the Department of Homeland Security, which to me is a waste of a bureaucracy. The problems which is was designed to prevent still exist. How about a little knocking of heads instead. How hard would it be for a President (I say a because each of the last two are guilty on this point) of simply pulling the Directors of the Intelligence bureaus (CIA, FBI, etc.) in and saying you'll either share information or you'll be working someplace else. Instead we are left with the right hand not knowing what the left is doing and vice versa. Far better that someone actually knocks some heads around and feels some wrath when they fail to do their jobs. Like Hitchens said, no one will be fired here, instead the onus will be put on law abiding citizens to jump through more hoops in order to create the image of security as opposed to an actual iota of accountability of those that fail to do their jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. why does everyone think profiling is the answer? it doesn't work with detection of drug mules,besides there is alleged heavy recruitment going on for the so called "white Al-Qaeda".

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't think profiling is the only answer, but strip searching grandmothers getting on a plane simply under the guise of equal treatment is borderline ludicrous. The fact the alleged underwear bomber, as well as those involved with 9/11 were already on watch lists should have opened them up to more scrutiny when boarding an aircraft than that expended on the elderly.

    By and large we all profile on a daily basis, whether we want to admit it or not is another thing entirely. We all make subjective guesses based on on the situation at hand rather than approach each and every situation as a complete blank slate, using our intuition and experience to guide us which I would call an aspect of common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  5. i cant recall if drug mules all come from one part of the world or not....do they belong to the same religon and all believe in jihad ?
    would it make sense to search black males if the klan started blowing up air planes ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think there is a vast difference in the level of threat between a drug mule and someone who is attempting to blow up the plane they are boarding. While a drug mule is breaking the law, there is no threat that they will bring down the means of transport that gets them to their desired marketplace.

    But as I was saying, we all profile, whether we want to admit it or not. Someone coming up behind you in a dark alley at night should arouse more concern than someone behind you on a busy city street in broad daylight. For those that say those two situations are the same I would suggest they have their head buried firmly in the sand, or are so ingrained in their opinion that no argument will work anyway.

    The object then becomes identifying what it is one is looking for when profiling. I would argue that it isn't a job for everyone, some people are going to have better instincts and judgement than others. Certainly most people can throw a football, but most can't throw one as well as a Tom Brady or a Peyton Manning, which is why they are quarterbacks in the NFL as oppoosed to those of us who are merely opining on a blog. We all have a modicum of ability in throwing a football, but some people just have a superior skill set. It becomes the government's job to identify those with a superior skill set and renumerate them accordingly, rather than simply hiring a multitude of people at mimimum wage and hope a few of them pan out.

    It is also the government's job to stop the territorial pissing contest amongst intelligence agencies and start getting them to work together. Public safety shouldn't be held up by a bunch of bureaucrats playing a game of "I've Got a Secret". If someone is identified as being a threat that information should be shared and enacted on with due haste, not as some half hearted after the fact admission that "yeah, we were looking at him/her." Those that fail in this task should be shown the door. Their obligations are pretty much straight forward, the job doesn't come with that many surprises in that regard, but the prices of failure can be great, and people with far less important jobs have far shorter leashes for failure than seems to be the case here. If the grill guy at McDonald's continues to fuck up burgers, he is gone. There is no pat on the head and an admission by the McDonald's manager that "well, we had the burger on the grill and had the intent of cooking it for the customer but just failed in the prospect of removing it and placing it in a bun with due dilligence."

    ReplyDelete
  7. please matt ...dont defend profiling to me as if it was a sin...police profile crimanals all the time ....hence child molester's are described as middle aged white males with small peni (is that plural for penis ?:) )....profiling is nothing more than forming an opinion based upon the evidence we have on hand. bin laden recruited young muslim males to do his bidding......had we chose to stop and search all muslim males getting on planes.....we would not have had to rely on a passenger stopping someone from blowing up a plane.....no communication or intel involved at all!

    ReplyDelete
  8. had we profiled...we would not need the intel to prevent this from happening !

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well the man involved with the underwear bomb, as well as those involved in the 9/11 attacks were already on watch lists, but that information was not shared with the people who might have had a chance to prevent either from happening. There was intel, it was just what one would call unapplied knowledge due in large part to what you suggested, a lack of communication. Those types of lapses can't be allowed to happen, and when they do some form of accountibility needs to be brought to bear.

    I agree with you on profiling, wasn't trying to defend it to you, but rather from earlier in the thread and not only that it can be an effective tool, but that we all do it, whether we wish to admit to it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  10. the point of saying that profiling does not work is that as soon as you do....they change their MO.

    and not all Islamic extremists come from the same ethnicity.

    ReplyDelete
  11. not to sound tripe......but when i am attacked by an italian islamic extremist....i will let you know

    ReplyDelete
  12. profiling is more than that when it is used for border security, it's harassment based upon your nationality or religious views!

    ReplyDelete
  13. should my border be attacked by white christians....then my government should stop all white christians at the border.

    ReplyDelete
  14. so I take it if you fit into this demographic you would have no problem being stopped, if you come within 100 feet of a child, to whip it out & get it measured...just in case you could be one?

    ReplyDelete
  15. sorry ....am i expecting too much from my government ?

    ReplyDelete
  16. would you rather have the police stop little old ladies

    ReplyDelete
  17. your choice ...accuse those that fit the profile or accuss everybody

    ReplyDelete
  18. which is it ...if you were fightng a war....who would you check .....everybody or those that fit the profile

    ReplyDelete
  19. True they are not all of the same enthicity, but they all seem to share a religious fundamentalism that should set of an alarm bell or three. If one were a supporter of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) and a parent didn't make sure to keep their child away from that person, I would argue that the parent at best was incompetent and at worst endangering their offspring.

    I am still waiting for this grand change in their method of operations that people will say is going to come to pass, because they haven't yet and how long has it been, a few decades now? Instead we are handed knee jerk reactions to punish the innocent while continually failing to connect the obvious dots at the public's peril.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wait, people have replied to this entry. I feel like I am having a Sally Field moment "They like me, they really, really like me."

    ReplyDelete
  21. LMAO!

    I made the mistake of reading this before coffee.

    Have you heard of the fear detectors that British scientists are developing, to help detect abnormal behaviour?
    http://www.physorg.com/news176452932.html

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh come on matt ...i have always thought you were sally fields !....:)

    ReplyDelete
  23. I haven't heard of the fear detectors yet, I will have a little reading to do in that regard. Right now all of the buzz seems to be about implementing full body scanners, which I really haven't come to an opinion on one way or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  24. we actually were using full body scanners, but they were pulled becuse they saw inside clothing too well....i guess people thought we were gonna make porn.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm all for the scanners, I believe they are using them at one of your prisons as well to detect contraband.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yeah, but I understand the civil libertarian argument regarding them, it is basically a strip search without removing the clothing and one could make the constitutional argument that it is a search without probable cause. I would say it is an argument that has some merit, but what I think in that regard and what the courts have ruled in the recent past regarding such searches are not the same thing. It would take a far greater legal mind than I to win that argument.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I understand their objections as well but it's a better system than profiling in my opinion. The current scanned images can not be saved, printed or transmitted & are automatically deleted.

    I wonder when the software is developed that will automatically detect anomalies rather than the scan having to be viewed by a person if the same concerns would still be valid? In my view it's no different from a metal detector.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sorry I haven't responded sooner, I have been distracted by putting together a blog entry, whch as everyone knows means lots of words saying nothing. Still not done yet but am hoping I might finish today sometime.

    I think the thing about profiling that I didn't make clear is that I don't think that religion or ethnicity are the only things that get put into a profile. Just as you don't accost all white men based on the fact that white men tend to make up a large portion of the group that is more likely to be pedophiles, the same standard would apply here. Other things would have to fit the profile, such as, do they have a one way or round trip ticket and are they boarding a plane with or without bags (either carry on or check in), because by and large most of those involved in these type plots get a one way ticket and do not board planes with any type of baggage, so those factors would also be thrown into the mix. As I am sure there are at least a few others that someone like me wouldn't know because I am not a trained professional in that field, something I previously argued is needed when training those in the security field.

    As I stated before, I am up in the air over full body scanners because of the Constitutional protections involved. Amendment 4 of the US Constitution clearly states that....The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    The sticking point in most court arguments is what does and does not constitute "unreasonable". I am not sure that someone wishing to visit their grandmother in Topeka, Kansas reaches the standard of what is reasonable for them to have their person searched. But I admit that this standard has been loosely applied in the past (DUI checkpoints come quickly to mind) which is why I am so up in the air on it. I really do see both sides of the issue and have a hard time coming down on one or the other because to me both sides have arguments that I find persuasive.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm jumping in here late, but as a frequent flier I have witnessed first hand the scrutiny that is given to muslims. In fact where ever possible I try to avoid getting in a queue behind them because invariably the line gets delayed. Some of the treatment I have witnessed is pure harassment & appalling.

    I'm for the full body scanners, I don't think it is unreasonable to be scanned when using any major public transport, like airplanes, ferries or major rail systems.

    ReplyDelete

Our inspiration (the title for this blog)

Picture Window theme. Powered by Blogger.

Where we've been