-Caveat Lector-
CONSERVATIVE TRUTH - 09/29/02
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE
By Tom Barrett, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On September 1, 2002, I wrote a column critical of the way screening
is
carried out at U.S. airports ("A U.S. Police State"
http://www.conservativetruth.org/archives/tombarrett/09-01-02.shtml).
Since
that time I have been on ten flights. On every one of those ten
flights I
have been "selected" for "random" searches by the same airline
screeners I
criticized. Surely this was a coincidence!
Most times I was only searched once. A few times I was searched
twice. At
one airport I was searched three times! First, when I checked in my
bag at
the ticket counter, I was "randomly" selected to have the bag
searched. When
I was allowed to leave that area and proceed to the security
checkpoint, I
was again "randomly" searched. Glad that it was all over, I read a
book at
the gate until boarding began. As I got to the final barrier to
boarding my
flight, the gate check where you show your boarding pass, I was again
"randomly selected."
Here's how the gate check works. (I hadn't noticed the details
before, but
since this harassment began, I have been watching the process very
carefully.) The gate agent places the boarding pass under a scanner.
If
everything is OK (which it is 95% of the time), a green light comes
on at
their console. They hand you back your boarding pass and you get on
the
plane. However, if you are "randomly selected" to be searched, a red
light
goes on.
After about the fifth time I was "randomly selected" for this honor,
I
complained about the frequency of my selection. I told the supervisor
that I
thought they should spread it around a little, particularly to the
Arabs. I
mentioned that I have observed the boarding of thousands of
passengers over
the past few months. Of the several hundred I have observed being
searched,
not one was an Arab. In fact, I even observed the red light go on at
the
gate agent's console on two occasions when Arabs were boarding
(presumably
true random selections), and the Arab passengers were waved through!
I asked why small children and grandmothers were being searched when
we know
the profile of the terrorists. A lady screener standing next to
supervisor
spoke up, "We have to make it look good. It gives the passengers
confidence
that we're doing our jobs." The supervisor shot her a look that
clearly
said, "Shut your mouth and get back to work," and she hurriedly left
without
another word.
Then the supervisor said something that surprised me. I wasn't
surprised by
what he said, but I was surprised by his candor. He asked, "Do you
have a
connecting flight at your destination?" When I replied that I did, he
said,
"You can expect to be searched there as well." He said that I had
been
"flagged" by the system, but he didn't know why. I asked if that
meant just
on this trip or forever, but he didn't know. In the light of my
experiences
on flights since then, apparently I've been flagged forever.
What does this mean for the safety of the U.S. flying public? For
whatever
reason, I have become Public Enemy Number One. The reason I have been
flagged doesn't matter. Perhaps it is simply incompetence (there's
surely
enough of that to go around at the Transportation Safety
Administration).
Perhaps its because one of my 50,000 plus subscribers works for the
TSA and
flagged me out of spite. What matters is that precious resources are
being
used searching me and other patriotic Americans while Mohammed and
Abdullah
continue to board planes with impunity in order to preserve political
correctness.
Do you feel safer since President Bush signed the Aviation and
Transportation Security Law last November? I suspect not, especially
if you
have observed the actions of airport screeners as I have. For
instance, when
I flew into Palm Beach International Airport last night, I stood for
a few
minutes watching the thirty federal screeners manning four machines
where
they check carry-on bags. That's right - thirty people for four
machines,
and that doesn't count the local law enforcement personnel. At least
half of
the screeners were standing around chatting with one another.
Most of you have read or seen the story on TV about the fourteen
reporters
sent by the New York Daily News to fourteen different U.S. airports,
including the airports used by the 9/11 hijackers. The reporters
carried box
cutters, razor knives, and pepper spray onto airplanes. The response
from
airport security executives? They didn't say, "Wow, we screwed up!
We're
going to tighten up procedures right away." They told the newspaper,
"We
should arrest your people for carrying those dangerous items on
board."
John Schmidt, one of our columnists, told me a fascinating story of
his
experience at the Fort Lauderdale airport. Screeners there found a
small set
of fingernail clippers in his kitbag. The clippers contained a tiny
nail
file with a dull point, which they broke off before allowing him to
proceed.
Thirty feet past the check point John found a store that sold the
same
fingernail clippers. When his wife, Peggy, pointed out that they
could buy
the clippers inside the supposedly secure area and take them on the
plane,
the screener just shrugged as if to say, "I don't make these stupid
rules, I
just enforce them."
"All right," you say, "there's definitely a problem. What's the
answer?" I'm
glad you asked. Let me ask you a question in return. What are the
only two
airlines that have never experienced a hijacking? They are El Al
(Israel's
national airline) and Swiss Air. And what do these two airlines have
in
common? They are the only airlines in the world that have armed air
marshals
on every flight. So the first part of the answer is to take most of
the
billions that are being wasted on airport screening, and put the
money into
something that has been proven for decades to work - airline security
in the
form of armed personnel on every U.S. flight.
The second part of the answer is to adopt a different attitude toward
airline security. I watched an interview a few months ago with an El
Al
security executive. He said, "You Americans look for things. We watch
for
people.' Are you listening, Norman Mineta? Mr. Mineta, an American of
Japanese decent, was so affected by the treatment of Japanese in the
United
States that he refuses to even consider what every American
recognizes - we
must use profiling to prevent airline terrorism. If Mineta's
emotional state
keeps him from doing his job, then he has no business being the
Secretary of
the Department of Transportation.
Every one of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists fit a certain profile.
Every
minute we spend harassing children, grandmothers, breast-feeding
mothers,
Medal of Honor winners, and disabled citizens is time that could be
spent
profiling and catching terrorists. What mother would take her infant
on a
plane she was about to destroy? (Screeners recently made a mother
drink
breast milk she was carrying for her baby.) And what elderly hero who
won
the Medal of Honor defending his country would attack it? (They told
this
gentleman they would have to confiscate his Medal of Honor because it
had a
half-inch pin attached to it.)
Airport screeners even wasted time searching Al Gore and making him
remove
his $500 shoes. While it made for a nice publicity stunt, and lots of
screeners got their pictures taken, it did nothing to make us safer.
While I
believe Al the Bore is capable of many things, hijacking an airliner
is not
one of them.
The only answer to the airport security problem is something I
believe the
federal government is incapable of - common sense. In the aftermath
of 9/11,
Bush should have gotten together a committee of ten regular
Americans. The
only qualification would have been that five people that knew them
well
would say, "They use common sense in their daily lives." They could
have
come up with much better solutions than the current inefficient,
multi-billion dollar new federal agency. That sucking sound you hear
is
billions of your tax dollars flying into a black hole that can never
accomplish what the American people need and deserve - safe air
travel.
EDITOR'S COMMENT. When I sent this article to our Editorial Board, I
received the following comment from veteran news analyst Mary
Mostert:
"Great article. By the way, not only is it stupid to harass elderly,
handicapped people, it is dangerous. My daughter's mother-in-law, age
90,
who is almost blind and needs a cane to walk was 'selected' for
security
reasons as a possible terrorist. She had her cane in one hand and was
leaning on her grandson's arm for guidance, since she can't see. She
was
told to give up her cane for screening, then her grandson was told he
had to
step away from her. Then she was told to take off her shoes, but was
not
given a chair. She leaned over to take off her shoes and fell on her
head.
None of her the family was allowed to help her. She was on the other
side of
the screening - and the 'security' guards just let her lie there.
When the
family was finally allowed to help her up, her head was bleeding and
they
took her to the emergency room. Everyone missed the flight, and she
stayed
in the hospital for a week. She's still not able to get around like
she did
before she was mistaken for an Arab terrorist."
[snipped section with listing of other CT articles]
VISIT OUR WEBSITE at www.conservativetruth.org for daily updates of
Conservative news and to view our archives. Also, please take a few
moments
to check out our sister site, www.Opinionet.com.
[snip sub/unsub info]
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
