The government doesn't really care about airline security, which is why it should let the airlines take care of keeping terrorists off of their planes.
According to Wikipedia the first aircraft hijacking in history occurred on February 21, 1931 when revolutionaries attempted to commandeer a grounded Ford Trimotor in Peru. A list of notable incidents beginning in the 1950's, for those who may be interested, may be found here.
The notorious (and unsolved) D. B. Cooper incident, which occurred in November 1971, was what led to the institution of metal detectors at airports along with other security procedures. Unfortunately, these were not sufficient to prevent additional hijackings and terrorist, acts culminating in the disaster of September 11, 2001. Despite heightened security after 9-11 there have been continued incidents the most recent being the Christmas Day "underwear bomber," Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to detonate a device while on board a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. The passenger's lives were saved when the chemicals failed to properly detonate, and other passengers subdued Abdulmutallab.
When Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared that the security system had worked, she made one of the most ludicrous statements ever emanating from a government functionary ever. Unless the system was intended to allow bombers to board aircraft and attempt to execute their plans, after which the passengers to be responsible for subduing him, the system failed miserably. In the wake of this incident numerous critics have pointed out that our security system is reactive, rather than proactive. We are always taking action based on the last incident, most of which will be useless because the terrorists will simply change their methods. The average individual is subjected to progressive amounts of intrusive searches and indignities, none of which are keeping the most determined terrorists off of planes. Since Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," concealed explosives in his shoe, we have had to remove our shoes at the airport. Now, are they going to search our underwear? And keeping people in their seats for the last hour of a flight will be useless if the average bomber sets off the explosives earlier in the flight. The logical result of this trend is to keep everyone it their seats for the entire flight, which would likely result in many a case of wet pants, or worse.
Sadly, the TSA, that is, the government, has shown itself to be less than competent in the job of anti-terrorism, at least in this venue. It is likely that there are two reasons for this. First, government has never been a great success in the business of preventing crime. Instead they concentrate on catching the perpetrators after the fact. But in dealing with terrorists this is the wrong approach. We cannot deal with such people after the fact.
As Daniel Pipes puts it, the TSA engages in "security theater," defined as "bumbling pretend-steps that treat all passengers equally rather than risk offending anyone by focusing, say, on religion," He suggests that the best alternative is to use the same system Israel does, described by Toronto's Star newspaper as "a system that protects life and limb without annoying you to death." It seems that Israel's methods are rather effective, given that they have had essentially no successful terrorist incidents since they were instituted.
The problem for government in airline security is that it tries too not to profile potential terrorists, and as a result, subjects everyone to useless inconveniences, that do not deal effectively with the threat to public safety. But public safety should trump supposed civil rights issues and because the present system is not working effectively, it should be replaced with something that does, regardless of what the ACLU might think about it.
In the end, it should be the airlines that have the last word on who they are willing to carry. Thus, the airlines should also be the entities primarily responsible for security and not the government. Government should get out of the way and let them do their job.
The simplest answer to airline security is to grant air carriers the absolute right to institute whatever measures they deem necessary for the safety of their passengers, up to and including banning or removing people from flights. "Civil rights" lawsuits based on discriminatory security practice should be barred and flying imam type stunts should be considered grounds for immediate removal from any flight without recourse, if the airline deems it necessary. The possibility of criminal charges in such cases would also be a good idea.
What is central to the security problem is that that every airline company has a absolute interest in keeping their passengers safe. No one wants to travel on a plane that they expect will be bombed or hijacked. The airline that has the best safety record will have a serious market advantage. If airlines are protected from liability for taking protective measures, but are required to accept liability when their efforts fail, you can be sure that they will find a way to screen potential passengers that will be 1) effective, and 2) acceptable to the public. And you can be certain they will focus on potential perpetrators, rather than on methods of smuggling destructive devices on board.
Finally, the airlines have one motivation that the government does not. They will want to maximize their market share, and to do that they will need to minimize customer inconvenience. Government has no such motivation. It doesn't care what indignities the public has to face. For the airlines their commercial life is on the line. In the end, if things become too dangerous, expect government people to take up flying on military transports if necessary. With this option available, the public doesn't really matter.
But the public does matter, because we are supposed to be the ones in charge, and not the bureaucrats or legislators. If they can't get the job done the way we like, then they should get out of the way and put the task in the hands of someone else who wants to and can do it.
A rather vapid argument, let the airlines provide security, reap any associated profits, suffer any severe losses related to criminals and terrorists. But how do the airlines identify suspected terrorists or should they just reject anyone that looks "funny"? If they have access to the government's databases, regardless of how flawed, isn't that basically the same as the government providing security?
Or the airlines could hire a private security company to screen passengers – what do you charge an airline to provide services similar to the CIA or the NSA to gather foreign intelligence and cooperate with foreign intelligence services – $10 billion a year, $20 billion, more?
No business wishes to assume such risks at such costs and how do you trust your air carrier to do a thorough job? What we've learned from this incident is that air travel is riskier than ever, add terrorists to bad weather, critical systems failing while in flight, pilot error, bird strikes, even bad chow leading to food poisoning. The specific lessons learned so far are don't let terrorists take over a plane armed only with box cutters or edged weapons, if you're going to die anyway, then fighting back appeals to the desperate. Don't hesitate to pile on a passenger who tries to detonate a crude bomb carried on his person, refuse to board a plane with passengers who look like they belong in Guantanamo, there is always another flight to where you're going.
The Vietnam war involved acceptable casualties for many Americans and was the start of the low intensity wars that followed; our young men fought and died in Asia, it was business as usual back home. The current administration views the war on terrorism, at least at it relates to air travel, in a similar light – a few casualties a year, or maybe just a close call isn't a reason to escalate the war or provide effective airline security through profiling. Didn't the Democrats seriously burn the Bush administration for fighting terrorism, didn't they constantly remind us that Osama Bin Laden hadn't been caught, that we were spending billions on a war that wasn't necessary? The Dems and their trained animal acts within the media can't very well do a 180 without suffering a serious loss of what the Japanese call "face".
The terrorists are winning, their goal in spreading terror is to undermine our faith in our government's ability to protect us – so far, they're doing a good job. Our government's goal is to avoid bad press and remain in power – so far, they're doing a good job at that. The airline passenger's goal is to avoid being killed on a plane and most passengers rely on the laws of probability in that respect, at least more than they rely on the government.
It usually takes tragedy on a massive scale to enrage Americans to the point where the niceties are set aside and we truly become adults with a grim purpose. During WWII, Americans were the most effective soldiers in any theatre, the enemy suffered high casualties, our losses were low and the slaughter inflicted on both enemy soldiers and civilians was indeed terrible. But, for the present, we like our violence on the movie screen with us safe in our seats clutching our popcorn. We're not yet ready to punish government employees for incompetence, we don't imprison elected employees or civil servants who simply "mess up", in fact we usually reward failure with staggering budgets and more governmental authority. Air travel will remain risky until we show zero tolerance to not only terrorists but to our bumbling guardian angels as well.
Pat Skurka:
Re: “If they have access to the government's databases, regardless of how flawed, isn't that basically the same as the government providing security?”
I think you answered your own question when you said, “We're not yet ready to punish government employees for incompetence, we don't imprison elected employees or civil servants who simply "mess up", in fact we usually reward failure with staggering budgets and more governmental authority.”
Sedonaman:
What I find mildly interesting is how Americans rationalize failure due to our Anglo-Saxon cultural heritage – our “English sense of fair play” if you will. During the Soviet Union years, Soviet leaders had a habit of shooting or imprisoning those who “fouled up”, not just corrupt commissars either, but anyone who was part of an unfavorable outcome. During WWII, the Soviets shot or imprisoned generals who took any unauthorized initiative or didn’t follow orders precisely. And the ax fell not only on general officers, the grunt in the ranks was subject to being shot if they actively refused to participate in the Red Army’s insane penchant for human wave charges. Even the German soldiers, not known for their “sensitive natures”, were appalled at the carnage their MG42’s would inflict, mowing down hundreds of Red Army soldiers advancing in line abreast across open fields into the very teeth of German defensive emplacements.
Nor could the bullet through the ear be avoided if a Red Army soldier survived. Prisoners of war taken by the Germans, Hungarians, Italians or Rumanians were also under suspicion by Soviet leaders and faced death, prison or compulsory re-education after they were liberated – many tried to remain within Allied POW camps rather than return to Mother Russia. The Russian populace seems culturally immune to the Anglo-Saxon sense of fair play, if you messed up or were simply an unfortunate victim of circumstances, you too could be shot and rightly so. Yet, the typical Russian soldier accepted this, bizarre to us, cultural practice; although most historians agree they were as patriotic as any American G.I. trying to serve his country.
And Obama’s catamites within the mainstream media reflect the general public’s attitude the Detroit bomber was “mistakenly” left off the “watch” lists – everyone assumes it was your typical government foul-up, no one raises the question of whether it was deliberate, someone planted within the security apparatus or a sympathetic supporter of terrorism working within the “system”. Nor would it be the first time. There is undeniable documented evidence our government was infiltrated with Soviet spies and communist wannabees during WWII. The amusing anecdote of Stalin’s knowledge of the successful atomic bomb test at Alamagordo, before President Truman was actually aware of it, is probably the best example.
Yet conspiracy buffs are ridiculed if they raise the issue of an Al Qaida mole; sadly, we’re pretty much convinced it was a government foul-up since that seems the obvious historic pattern and most likely explanation. And the absurd waxes more absurd when we listen to Obama’s explanation. “Systemic failure” according to USA Today, “President Obama is legitimately and correctly alarmed …” according to National Security Advisor James Jones. We, as Americans, like these vague explanations of what happened, we prefer expressions of emotional concern and avoidance of specific details as to what exactly will be fixed. It’s almost as if vast and abstract forces were to blame instead of specific individuals – and the proposed problem fix is always to keep doing the same things over and over but hoping for better results.
Imagine a Harry “the buck stops here ” Truman type news conference where Obama gets up, turns off his teleprompter and says: “Albert Diddlefrump, you messed up in ignoring the obvious threat from this terrorist because you wanted to hit the mall early for holiday shopping and you just left this guy’s name off the “watch” list in your hurry to get out the door. Albert, you’re fired, pack up your stuff and security will escort you out – and your future employment in any responsible position is highly doubtful if I have anything to do with it. And Marcie Widebottom, you were Albert’s direct supervisor, you’re fired too. Oren Higby, Widebottom’s supervisor, consider yourself terminated, both of you get out now. And you senior people at TSA and Homeland Security, your pension is in serious jeopardy if you don’t get this fixed, one more close call regardless of whose fault it is and you’re on a short list for a minor position working out of our consulate in Bucharest. If I don’t have a plan on my desk to fix this mess within 24 hours, start typing your resignations.”
But Obama is no Harry Truman and Americans will continue to cherish their sense of fair play, at least until their plane is heading toward the ground in flames. We won’t stand for the names of bureaucrats being linked to a specific mistake, they must remain anonymous if all they did was make a mistake – we never punish people for mistakes, even when it could cost lives. Intent and fair play govern our acceptance of government bungling – if you didn’t intend to foul-up and you’re sorry – well that’s OK, you’re forgiven because we’re all human. We may wonder at the strange cultural values of Red Army soldiers, patriotic even while they’re being shot for failing to avoid capture by Germans. But what would these same Russians think of us Americans – ready and willing to carry our sense of “fair play” to our otherwise avoidable deaths.
[...] note, I am pleased that my term "security theater" has finally hit the mainstream. It's everywhere. My favorite variant is "security theater of the [...]
[...] note, I am pleased that my term "security theater" has finally hit the mainstream. It's everywhere. My favorite variant is "security theater of the [...]
Pat, so do you condone soviet methods of dealing with failure?