The flawed premise of airport security

The New York Times says a confidential report by the Department of Homeland Security has concluded that there are significant gaps in security at the nation's airports which can be fixed with a few simple changes like longer tables and lockable doors.

Please.

There are significant gaps in security at the nation's airports because the government is trying to do a job that cannot be done. They are trying to eliminate every possible item in every passenger's possession that might possibly be used in a dangerous manner.

It can't be done.

We might as well throw sponges into the ocean and then issue a report saying there remains some water left to be absorbed, and larger sponges are recommended. Yes, of course, larger sponges will absorb more water. This can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of five separate blue-ribbon panels and a congressional committee. And it certainly accomplishes the primary goal, which is to generate a lot of activity while pushing the whole problem past the next election.

The dangerous gap in airport security is not the failure of a half-awake screener to find some woman's nail clippers. The dangerous gap is a screening process that wastes time and resources pretending that a grandmother from Cincinnati is every bit as likely to be a terrorist as a 25-year-old man with a Saudi or Egyptian passport. It's the fear of being unfair that has made airport security what it is today.

What do we gain by "wanding" little girls on their way to Disney World with their parents? Compare that to what we've lost: money, time, the civilized treatment that Americans have a right to expect when they travel in their own country.

Here's a thought: Let's discriminate and then apologize when we're wrong. Let's explain in advance that innocent people from countries with a history of exporting terrorists may be subject to extra scrutiny, and we're terribly sorry for the inconvenience, and we hope to make it up to them someday when things calm down a little, but for now, we'd like to make sure they don't have any sharp objects in their carry-on luggage.

Let's maintain an accurate, publicly available, verifiable list of people with terrorist associations and keep them off commercial flights.

Let's admit that a reasonable person can judge visually that some airline passengers are not going to be a threat no matter what they've got in their luggage.

Is it discrimination? You bet. Is it the worst possible thing that can happen? Not by a longshot. We are living in a dangerous world and it is not made any safer by an airline security system built on the flawed premise that every passenger presents an equal potential threat.

Remember that on September 11th everyone began the day believing that hijackings were best handled with non-violent cooperation, that hijackers always set a plane down safely and then negotiated for their demands, that the best course of action was to sit quietly and wait it out.

It was a flawed premise, not a box cutter, that brought down the World Trade Center.


Copyright 2005

.