Thursday, December 31, 2009

Flying the unfriendly skies

Ann Coulter on the increasingly ridiculous security procedures travelers are forced to endure in the nation's airports:
For the past eight years, approximately 2 million Americans a day have been subjected to humiliating searches at airport security checkpoints, forced to remove their shoes and jackets, to open their computers, and to remove all liquids from their carry-on bags, except minuscule amounts in marked 3-ounce containers placed in Ziploc plastic bags -- folding sandwich bags are verboten -- among other indignities.

This, allegedly, was the price we had to pay for safe airplanes. The one security precaution the government refused to consider was to require extra screening for passengers who looked like the last three-dozen terrorists to attack airplanes.

Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color. Half of them have been named Mohammed.
Read the rest here.

25 comments:

Art said...

"Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color."

And they have all been religious.

Yeah, we should give all religious people extra scrutiny. They're responsible for most (all?) of the acts of terror we see in Asia, Africa, and most everywhere else.

One Brow said...

The latest guy, with the underwear bomb, had a different skin color than many of the other attackers. Hair color and eye color can be changed easily, and even skin can be lightened. If we tried to implement security based those measure, we would be opening the door wide for terrorists.

Of course, since the current President is Democratic, that's what you want anyhow.

Susan Perkins Weston said...

What One Brow said.

Lee said...

How many Christian jihadists have crashed an airline into a busy office building, Art?

Considering the impact communist-style atheism has had on history, I would suggest we keep our eyes on those who shake their fists at the Christian God.

Lee said...

One Brow and Susan: perhaps you mistake the fear that Democrats' weakness on terror will result in acts of terrorism, with the desire for more terrorism.

Art said...

How many Christian jihadists have crashed an airline into a busy office building, Art?

Yeah, Christian jihadists just park van-loads of explosives next to buildings and blow up women and children. So maybe we better extend our scrutiny of religious people to all areas of day-to-day life, not just to airport terminals.

Lee said...

> Yeah, Christian jihadists just park van-loads of explosives next to buildings and blow up women and children.

Apparently, you and Obama's Dept. of Homeland Security are in agreement.

Lee said...

Of course, Islamists might have an even worse reputation for violence that they do already, if it were to get reported in the "news".

Here's a Reuters article discussing violence in France: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60010D20100101

It seems that more than a thousand cars were torched by, er, "youths".

One Brow said...

Lee,

I can appreciate that people who live in fear always worry not enough is being done to protect them, they need Mommy (aka the government) to give them more assurances.

However, in this case we have not only a suggestion that would easily make us less secure (by givig the terrorists an easily identifiable way around the system), but also it is being offered by someone with a stated interest in seeing Obama fail. While you, specifically, may be so patriotic that you would love to see a safe, happy,prosperous america under Obama, I don't get that from Coulter.

Lee said...

I see your point. Only a baby would whine about being bombed into oblivion.

One Brow said...

Lee,

I'm glad we agree.

Lee said...

Actually, I think the attitude that your remarks display about terrorism -- and people's expectations that the government do what it is paid to do and protect them -- is the same cavalier attitude that Coulter thinks Obama harbors.

One Brow said...

Gosh Lee, you really didn't agree with me?

I expect the government to find a reasonable balance between protection on the one hand, and the invasion of liberties and expense of that invasion on the other hand. Out of millions o flights this year, how many did actual bombers try to board? 3? So, this is an event that occurs one time in a million? It's less likely that a bartender developing disease from second-hand smoke? Do you therefore firmly endorse anti-smoking legislation?

How about Coulter's actual suggestion? Do you see it as an improvement?

Lee said...

> I expect the government to find a reasonable balance between protection on the one hand, and the invasion of liberties and expense of that invasion on the other hand.

Whose liberties?

How many terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11 do you think the US should be prepared to accept as a "reasonable balance"?

If you think the terrorism issue is on a par with second-hand smoke, I'm not surprised you also characterize Americans who want to be defended by their extremely expensive government as babies crying for Mommy.

One Brow said...

Lee,

I have no problem with there being three or five attacks in a year. It's the price you pay for a free society.

Do you think there are more deaths in the USA from terrorists in the last 10 years than from the effects of second-hand smoke? I would be surpised if that were true.

Art said...

My theory is that Lee has his eyes on some of those big internment camp contracts that he wishes to be coming down the pike.

Lee said...

> I have no problem with there being three or five attacks in a year. It's the price you pay for a free society.

When it's three or five attacks with nukes, will you be fine with that too?

> My theory is that Lee has his eyes on some of those big internment camp contracts that he wishes to be coming down the pike.

I thought you scientific types needed evidence to believe in something.

Martin Cothran said...

I'll have to agree with One Brow here.

One Brow said...

When it's three or five attacks with nukes, will you be fine with that too?

I think there are many ways of preventing nuclear attacks that don't work on underwear bombers. High-grade nuclear materials are not avalable in hardware stores. You can't assemble a nuclear centerfuge in a basement. Nuclear bombs require a certain minimum size. Highly radioactive materials can be detected non-invasively. So, I think accepting the occasional underwear bomber as the cost of a free society does not entail the acceptance of nuclear bombs. However, I am willing to listen if you can make this connection.

Lee said...

The venue or every terror attack will not be someone's undergarments.

I think we should probably do what the Israelis do and profile the heck out of our airline travelers. I've never been real keen on wasting resources to body-search a 75-year-old woman, just to maintain political correctness.

I think, regarding air travel, if you're a foreigner, male, between the ages of 14 and 45, from particular countries, or named "Muhammad", you should probably expect to be searched more often than the general public.

I think if you're an American citizen, female, are white, black, Asian, or any ethnicity that is obviously not Middle Eastern, you should be expected to be searched less often than the general public.

I think if you're an American citizen over 70, you should expect to be searched even less yet.

But if we're going to continue being politically correct -- that is, pretending we cannot categorize probable offenders based on observable characteristics -- then *everyone* is going to pay the price for more security. I would prefer it to be otherwise, but we can't have our cake and eat it too.

One Brow said...

I think that if you are a foreigner, male, between the ages of 14 and 45, from particular countries, or named "Muhammad", and you are going to effort of creating bomb and paying for a plane ticket, that you will also probably take the minimal effort needed to dye/gray your hair, make yourself look older, lighten or darken your skin color, and get a false identification with a different name in order to bypass security measures aimed at that group. Of course, maybe all the foreign males between the ages of 14 and 45 from particular countries named "Muhammad" are just too stupid to come up with that.

Lee said...

> Of course, maybe all the foreign males between the ages of 14 and 45 from particular countries named "Muhammad" are just too stupid to come up with that.

Or maybe people who run for security are too stupid to spot such cues?

Either way, there won't be too many who are successful at looking like 75 year old women.

One Brow said...

As long as they can look like white-heaired 75-year-old-men, they can get around profiling.

Lee said...

I just want to know, does anyone feel safer because they searched Joan Rivers?

One Brow said...

That they searched her specifically, or that they were willing to do so? No to the first, yes to the second.