Airplane Security: Inconvenience the Many or the Few?

Larry Ribstein opines:

Abdulmutallab should have been on the no-fly list. Remember that he was not just somebody who fit a general suspect profile, but somebody who was suspected of being dangerous by his own father.

Whether or not I'm right about this specific person, there's a much more important principle at stake: what is the proper balance between the public's safety and individuals' right to fly? We are willing to inflict a lot of suffering on the general flying public for what seem to be minor increases in safety. Exactly how much have we gained by all those plastic bag rules and taking off our shoes that forces terrorists to sew explosives into their underwear and go to the bathroom to get it out? What do we gain by keeping people out of the bathrooms for the last hour of flight when the terrorists can get ready in the middle of the flight? Should we keep passengers out of the bathroom for the whole flight? Should we prevent people from covering themselves with blankets? We may not be telling ordinary people that they can't fly, but we're certainly making flying a much less viable form of transportation.

Meanwhile, liberal use of the no-fly list does accomplish something. There is only a limited supply of people who look, sound and act like everybody else and yet are willing to blow themselves up on planes. Often these people identify themselves by their prior history. Culling these people out further reduces the supply. At the same time, announcing that they will be allowed to fly sends an important signal to terrorist organizations: next time you know that you can use somebody like Abdulmutallab, only with a little more training. Next time he might get it right.

Putting Abdulmutallab on a no-fly list might have turned out to be unfair to him. Maybe he was just having a spat with his vindictive father. But at some point, as long as authorities are making good faith, fact-based determinations, the public's interest in safe and tolerable flying has got to be weighed against individuals' right to fly.

I don't understand Larry to be arguing for "profiling." Racial or religious profiling is morally wrong and likely to be counterproductive by radicalizing those subjected to it. But the evidence of intelligence failures is now quite clear, as the NYT reports:

The National Security Agency four months ago intercepted conversations among leaders of Al Qaeda in Yemen discussing a plot to use a Nigerian man for a coming terrorist attack, but American spy agencies later failed to combine the intercepts with other information that might have disrupted last week’s attempted airline bombing.

The electronic intercepts were translated and disseminated across classified computer networks, government officials said on Wednesday, but analysts at the National Counterterrorism Center in Washington did not synthesize the eavesdropping intelligence with information gathered in November when the father of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, now accused of the attempted bombing, visited the United States Embassy in Nigeria to express concerns about his son’s radicalization.

Larry's point, I take it, is that the government seems to find it easier to make flying intolerable for everyone instead of getting its intelligence act together. Which strikes me as basically right. Consider that the NYT further reports that:

In some ways, the portrait bears a striking resemblance to the failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, despite the billions of dollars spent over the last eight years to improve the intelligence flow and secret communications across the United States’ national security apparatus.

I've opined before that maybe what Al Qaeda really wants is to screw up our transportation system:

Has TSA ever considered the possibility that maybe the terrorists aren't really interested in blowing up a plane. Maybe the terrorists figure they win everytime we in the West spend millions of man-hours being hassled, inconvenienced, and generally put upon by a myriad of stupid security measures.

If I'm right, a liberal use of intelligence data to screen passengers is precisely what Al Qaeda doesn't want. Instead, the government's response to the latest incident once again is doing exactly what Al Qaeda's wants. Which leads me to ask: Why do we keep playing the game by their rules?

Comments

[Copper Quark]

Why do we keep playing the game by their rules?

Failure of imagination, I imagine.

[Brian Macker]

"Racial or religious profiling is morally wrong"

Well racial profiling is morally wrong because we know that there is no correlation between race and bad behavior. However the issue for religion is not so clear.

What if the religion teaches its believers to use terror against non-believers? Why would it be immoral to protect oneself against such advocacy?

Certainly we can profile followers of Imams who incite violence. Certainly that is a religious profiling. It's even more specific profiling to the kind being objected to.

[Alice Wigglebotton]

"Racial or religious profiling is morally wrong"

How's this supposed to work? Celebrate diversity, but you're a racist bigot if you mention or act on any diversity?

What nonsense.

[Ric Locke]

Bah. Let's step back a pace.

What color is an apple?

There is a very high probability that your first answer was "red", whether or not you followed it up with the (long) list of exceptions. The canonical or exemplary-of-its-class "apple" is red.

Which illustrates something H. Beam Piper got right 'way back in the sixties: Human beings categorize and generalize. The category or class "apple" is characterized by a red color with exceptions. We have neither the time nor the cerebral processing power to individually characterize each member of the class.

--Which makes you (and me) a fruitist bigot relying on stereotypes and "profiling". It's nonsense. It takes a perfectly ordinary mental process, one we can't stop doing if we want to because that's how our brains work, and turns it into something demonic. And since we won't stop doing it, since no human being can stop doing it, it provides plenty of work and attention to the people profiling the process as demonic. What it does not do is anything to solve any underlying problem that may be linked to "profiling".

Regards,
Ric

[M. Report]

Racial or religious profiling is morally wrong and likely to be counterproductive by radicalizing those subjected to it.

Why? and How?

The terrorists want me, and my society, dead;
What moral obligation do I have to them, or
the society which produced them ?

[MR. BISWAS]

"Why do we keep playing the game by their rules?"

Why indeed? Perhaps the TSA should consider the possibility that Al Qaeda has read Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and decided they liked what they found there. What could be more ironic than a road map for terrorists than one penned by a Jew whose writings may have influenced our current President?

[kcs]

"Racial or religious profiling is morally wrong and likely to be counterproductive by radicalizing those subjected to it."

I'm far more concerned about improving the safety of the traveling public by being prudent, i.e. profiling, than I am about your precious sensibility concerning what is "morally wrong".

[Parad E. Makewater]

It's all about appearances; Al Qaeda attempts an attack, successful or not, it gives the appearance of an unstoppable, mighty force. Great for recruiting and for terrorizing the infidel. DHS enacts these ridiculous, arbitrary rules to give the appearance they're actually trying to protect us.

Political Correctness prevents them from doing what's necessary. We're screwed!

[sbaxter]

We arrived at DTW on 12/31 fully anticipating waiting in a TSA line for hours, followed by a carry-on hand search and a panty patdown. Given the "shoes" precedent, this seemed a reasonable extrapolation.

To our surprise, the carry-on baggage rules had not changed, the TSA line was short, and the process had not changed at all. We were through in a flash, with four hours to spare.

Our experience got me to thinking - was the TSA lag time so great that we made it through before the system had changed? Did TSA know the threat was off-shore, so domestic travel should remain unimpeded? Did someone complain bitterly enough that TSA stood down?

Secondary thoughts included the same ones identified by you and Larry Ribstein - Is the goal of these novice jihadists the downing of the flight, or the disruption of the status quo? And ultimately, is the inconvenience of the few preferable to the inconvenience of the many?

It is now my current opinion that if your name appears on a list, any list - sorry about your luck. Work to get it off the list if you wish, but the innocent mass of the flying public should not have to pay for the few.

[betsybounds]

I don't think Al Qaeda WANTS to screw our transportation system up--at least not as their main goal--but I do think that if that happens as a side effect of whatever else they're up to, they're not unhappy about it either. I also do not think profiling is wrong. How much worse is it to treat our entire population, the entire flying public, as terrorism suspects? You suggest that profiling is likely to radicalize those subjected to it. What's happening now? These guys were radicalized before we ever did any such thing, and they are radicalized now that we go to great lengths to avoid profiling. I refuse to accept the notion that we are in any way responsible for what they do. That's not just silly and wrong, it's also insulting.

[Hypenated American]

"Racial or religious profiling is morally wrong and likely to be counterproductive by radicalizing those subjected to it."

Giving a full body search of a 70 year old blond blue eyed woman is morally wrong, it is 100% useless, counterproductive and it will also radicalize people. Majority of Americans support profiling, and if the government on one side exposes us to a unbearable level of inconvenience at the aiport, while failing to protect us from terrorism, the push back from the outraged and possibly even radicalized Americans will be something horrendous.

At some point, people who from low-risk groups, who had to suffer through all kids of ridiculous security checks at the airport (while people from high-risk groups were passing them by and smiling), who are detained in the airplane the last hour of the flight with no constitutional protection of their rights, will rebell against this stupidity. And when it comes - the liberals would have nobody but themselves to blame.

Anyway, enjoy flying Obama air-lines...
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2010/01/enjoy-flying-obama-airlines.html

[whiskey]

Why not profile? Muslim men from abroad (or US citizens for that matter) have no more constitutional right to fly on airplanes than White men have not to be discriminated against in favor of Blacks, Hispanics, and Women in hiring and educational admissions and government contracting. The Supremes have upheld discrimination against White Men, why not against Muslim men who ARE A RISK.

Muslim men cannot get more "enraged" than they are now. Its Danish Cartoons, or Operas by Mozart (banned in Germany because Muslims threaten violence) or some obscure book or South Park cartoons. SOMETHING will always create Muslim violence.

Simply ban Muslims from flying, until they stop blowing stuff up (which will never happen). Muslims are inherently violent because Polygamy creates a whole class of George Sodini or Cho Seung-Hui or Dylan Klebolds or Tim McVeighs. Here in the US they are an unorganized oddity, in the Muslim world they are the rule since powerful men hoard all the available women.

White men have no Constitutional right to get equal and fair, non-discriminatory treatment in admission to school, hiring (both government and private), and government contracting. Government CAN ACTIVELY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM in order to further public policy (Affirmative Action, helping non-Whites at the expense of Whites).

Why not Muslims who are 100% of the Jihadist airplane bombers and hijackers?

Because the PC-Multicultural-Diversity lies we tell ourselves are more important to pampered, elitists, than actual public safety. Or Airlines not being bankrupted, bailed out, and being run by the Government.

[punditius]

The fact is that the bombers are Muslims. They are not Christians or Jews or atheists. The fact is that they are overwhelmingly young men. Not women, not Medal of Honor winners. The fact is that they are in some racial sense from the Middle East. Not Norway or Japan.

Reality, not morality.

So don't give us that "profiling is immoral" nonsense. There may be practical reasons to be very careful about institutionalizing profiling, but those reasons have nothing to do with morality.

[Fat Man]

"Racial or religious profiling is morally wrong"

And who died and vouchedsafe this truth to you?

Is it only wrong if it works?

[DavidN]

I have found the debate on airport screening and searching fascinating from the word go. The whole thing is predicated on the wrong ideas, and driven by political correctness when pragmatism would be much more effective.

So my first bugaboo, which has annoyed me to no end ever since first heard this happen, is the "random" singling out of celebrities on flights, so the airport security people can search them. Michael Caine got stopped while making a movie a few years ago. One of the screeners who stopped him recognized him immediately (it's Michael Caine, after all...Cockney accents aren't exactly common in Texas, where this happened) but they still held him aside and searched carefully, because he'd bought a ticket with cash and was traveling back and forth quickly. Why are the airport security authorities wasting time and resources on this sort of thing? Mostly out of a sentiment that says that if they don't search celebrities, it won't be "fair". At least from this point of view, airport security isn't to prevent terrorism: it's to spread inconvenience as evenly as possible.

The second irritant, as annoying as the first, is the opposition to racial profiling. If you're looking for a rapist, and he's been described as a white guy, you should pull me over and talk to me if I fit the description further, or if there's no definite description. If you're looking for a white supremacist, of course you should look first at white guys. On the other hand, if you're looking for a group of Arabs who are attacking airliners, it apparently makes good sense to some people to question Swedish supermodels and little old Japanese ladies, because you never know. Actually, we do know, it's just that we don't want to acknowledge what we know to be true...you can guess a lot about a person by looking at them, and be right most of the time. However, most people would rather appear politically correct, even at the expense of others', or their own, lives. One of the commenters above noted insanely that racial profiling could lead to people becoming embittered...as if the current situation leaves everyone happy. If the guy's exploding underwear had worked, we'd be mourning a number of dead people, not arguing about partisan political points.

The weird thing about this is that most everyone knows what the problem is, and won't acknowledge what they know to be true, for fear of accusations of racism. It's just silly...

[astonerii]

"Has TSA ever considered the possibility that maybe the terrorists aren't really interested in blowing up a plane. Maybe the terrorists figure they win everytime we in the West spend millions of man-hours being hassled, inconvenienced, and generally put upon by a myriad of stupid security measures."

It is win win for them.

If the plane lands and we institute new rules, they win.

If the plane blows up, maybe the method they used will not be found out and transportation is damaged by a flight shy population.

If the plane blows up and the method is found out, then we have both new regulations and a flight shy population.

"I don't understand Larry to be arguing for "profiling." Racial or religious profiling is morally wrong and likely to be counterproductive by radicalizing those subjected to it."

Actually, what is wrong with profiling? It is the use of information. It is called statistics and it works almost everywhere it is used to allow the most efficient use of resources. There is nothing wrong with discrimination either, when used properly. When I buy milk, I get whole milk with vitamin A and D but not homogenized, I have completely discriminated against 1% and 2% milk, I won't drink them just as I do not like homogenized.

Since when is flying a right? You cannot even freaking drive in this country or any other country as a pure right. It is a privilege to fly, and in order to use that privilege you must do an awful lot of things to do it. Provide proof of who you are, even for in state flights. Go through security checks to make sure you do not have any weapons. Answer whether you packed your own luggage. If you fail any of these, they have the right to refuse to allow you to board a plane. When they start putting explosive devices up their anus', what is the exact method of prevention going to be then? Cavity searches? Or is it much better to profile the likely terrorists and have them work to prove that they are qualified to be allowed to fly? No reason we could not set up a system for them to use in order to be removed from a no fly list.

[Michael Murphy]

Why would it "radicalize" people required to go through extra screening? Are the grandmothers being "radicalized" when they are stupidly subjected to extra screenng? They seem to take it in good cheer for the good of all. Why couldn't those whom we cannot mention by name take it in good cheer? Why are they so easily "radicalized?"

[Wacky Hermit]

@whiskey: You wrote "Muslims are inherently violent because Polygamy creates a whole class of George Sodini or Cho Seung-Hui or Dylan Klebolds or Tim McVeighs." This is precisely the kind of ignorant statement that allows the multi-culti types to justify caricaturing people like me, who support statistics-based profiling, as ignorant bigots. Putting aside the fact that none of the murderers you mention are products of polygamist marriages or cultures, if polygamy really does cause an inclination to terrorism, you have to wonder why modern-day polygamists in places like the YFZ ranch aren't major sources of terrorists, even only in proportion to their numbers. If you just look at numbers, you'd have a much more reasonable argument that polygamy causes child abuse than that polygamy causes terrorism.

[Bob]

"The NYT reports: 'The National Security Agency four months ago intercepted conversations among leaders of Al Qaeda in Yemen discussing a plot to use a Nigerian man for a coming terrorist attack'"

The TSA deployed a somewhat heavy hand against some bloggers who reported on the widely disseminated new and temporary safety measures.

Anyone care to guess just what wrath will be brought down on the NYT?