In light of the terrorist threat, what should the Conservative position be concerning the use of these full-body scanners at airports and elsewhere? How do we maintain consistency in our values yet protect ourselves as best as possible from terrorism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Dave,
I think the progressives face the same concern. Contrary to what you might hear on conservative radio, I don't see or hear any progressives out there who want to see airliners blown up, but they too are trying to weigh the pros and cons of full-body scanners.
Thank you so much, Tom. It's comforting to know that the ever vigilant and practical progressives (you mean like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?) are on the job.
Perhaps we need to go to the Israeli system. The fact is that Republicans don't blow themselves up, Progressives don't blow themselves up, Pittsburgh Penguin fans don't blow themselves up. Only Islamic activists blow themselves up. Screen them, for heaven's sake. If we keep going the way we are, we will either have to go on the planes naked, to be given our choice of Snuggies by the flight attendants, or air travel will be simply impracticable. Are we going to ban underwear now? We're already banning paper-back books. Heck, perhaps somebody can carve up a plastic cup they serve the drinks in with his teeth and use it to threaten somebody. Somebody could gouge somebody's eye out with the stiff corner of the in-flight airline magazine. How far must this all go? Eventually, we just ban the plane itself, and then the Islamic terrorists will turn to buses, trains, cabs, bicycles. Where does it all end?
What Brian said. Looking for things is an impossible challenge. A trained killer can kill with anything (as Brian notes above). We need to do as the Israelis do: i.e. look for terrorists. And that's the point, Tom. It isn't a matter that leftists want to see airliners blown up . . . it's that they're not willing to do what needs to be done to look for that one potential terrorist in an aiport crowd of 10,000 people. They'd rather scan all 10,000 people in the hope that the mere process of scanning will be deterrent enough to keep us safe. The underwear bomber shows us the limits of the "looking for things" approach.
To specifically answer your question, Dave: the conservative take on whole body imaging should be that it may be okay as a stopgap measure but that the entire security screening process is unsustainable and unreliable. Air travel is almost at a crisis state today and additional screening requirements may constitute a death blow. There are better ways to manage this problem - beyond profiling, which I think is a must - but the alternatives to the status quo have civil liberties implications that may rub conservatives and leftsist alike the wrong way. Clearly, though, something needs to be done. (Maybe it's this: "We win and they lose.")
And on this subject, with apologies to Jonathan Swift, here's a modest proposal: How about if you're over the age of 18, you're not allowed to board an aircraft unless you're armed. My tongue is only partly in my cheek here.
Actually, I don't mind profiling at airports, but as long as you are aware they will just go outside that profile to find a slug to do their dirty work. I heard a guy on the radio say all middle eastern looking people in one line, everyone else in another. Problem, this guy is black. Richard Reed is white. I heard another guy say all Muslims in one line, everyone else in another. I don't know how smart these terrorists are, but I would think they might be smart enough to say they are not muslim. I am not sure what Israel does for all their security, but do keep in mind that in 2008 they served 11.5 million passengers. Atlanta alone served 90 million (240,000 a day, not 10,000) every year. Heathrow, I don't even want to know how many they handle. I would think whatever works in Israel is probably untenable in many other airports.
The question everyone needs to ask themselves is how do you defeat an enemy not afraid to die? Once someone figures that out, maybe a solution can be put in place to airport security. I don't think anyone in our government, left, right, middle, or otherwise has ever made any attempt to understand that defeating a group who can convince its recruits that death is a good thing, will take more than weapons to defeat.
The thing is, if you scan they will just find a way around that. Swallow a timed bomb, surgical implant, or some means, and then what do we do. If we scan, then the whole world has to scan. What are the chances of that? A determined enemy will always find a way. Anyway, any bets on how long until a Tom Cruise scan or a Brittney Spears scan hits the tabloids?
Bill, the current scanning is not left issue. It is a typical government overreaction to something where all they are doing is public relations to appease the public. I don't fall for their political stuff when they do this. Every administration does it. Every agency does it. I have been at NASA 30 years and they do it all the time. I think its called knee-jerk reaction.
My solution; Every government must determine each persons religion, and stamp its initial in permanent ink on that persons forehead. M for muslim, C for christian, B for buddhist, H for hebrew, and A for atheist and U for unknown. Then we know who to keep an eye on; the M's and the U's. (You like that one Brian?)
What's good is I think ever since 9/11 at least Americans seem to know they are the last line of defense. The passengers on that NW flight deserve some kudos. How culpable are the various airlines in all this? Did they fall down with the one way ticket, no luggage stuff? One thing we can certainly do is ONLY issue one trip visas.
On a more positive note look at what these guys now have to do to get a bomb on an aircraft. Hide it in the underwear, assemble it in the bathroom, and then have to try to detonate it. All something they can't practice because if they practice and it works, they are dead. Now Al-qaeda is sitting in their caves wondering if this guy screwed up or is their bomb formula wrong. Since they can't ask him, they will have to figure it out. THEY WILL TRY AGAIN.
Tom, I just don't know what to say other than that I'm flabbergasted by your suggestion that we actually stamp people's religious afiliation on their foreheads. I happen to think that profiling can be a useful tool - not a silver bullet, mind, but useful - but I really think this scheme of yours goes too far.
At the end of the day, in the Mutallab case, the system worked - right? And the systemic failures Obama referred to? They were artifcats of the Bush administration and are surely already being rectified -- quietly, heroically and behind the scenes -- by competent (for once), progressive public servants. So let's not overreact -which you accuse the government of doing - by taking so rash a step as to effectively brand people. I for one would resist that very, very strongly.
Do you think it's a coincidence that the first airplance terrorist incident since Richard Reid (who I thought was Middle Eastern, by the way) happened on the watch of the fool who bows to authoritarian foreign leaders, embarassingly kowtows to Muslims worldwide, and doesn't even have the honesty or guts to call what we're fighting a "war on terror" and is "uncomfortable with the notion of victory"? I don't. None of these preposterous actions impress the Islamist terrorists; on the contrary, they see Obama as a fool and a laughing stock, with his whole administration. Having this loser as commander-in-chief has put us in a tremendous hole in terms of national security.
LOL Bill, I was only kidding. I thought Brian would appreciate that approach. I just forgot the smiley :) face at the end. The system didn't work, Bill. I never said it did. The HS secretary said she misspoke and clarified her answer the next day. Do I have to say "mission accomplished"? We all misspeak at times, even El Rushbo.
Brian has opted to politicize this as an attack on that "nazi" Obama. I figured you would do that Brian. Kinda scares me that I am getting to know you so well. :)
Remember the 2 things Bin Laden said long ago. They have all the time in the world and they have patience. They would be just as happy to bankrupt the free world in this fight as they feel they bankrupted the Soviet Union in the 80's.
Any of you guys ever take speech class in college?
one more ?.....should we immediately put people on the no fly list when they are reported by relatives or friends to have radical ties to ISLAM?
Tom, the report was made by this man's father, who was a high government official in Nigeria. Certainly his warning should have sent off enough red flags to warrent a thorough investigation.
Also, I have flown into and out of Israel three times. As you know, they take airport security very seriously. They have vowed there will never be another Lockerbie. Once while checking in at the airport in Newark, NJ, the Israeli security people (yes, working the lines in the US) took a man in our party aside for questioning. He was married but his wife wasn't traveling with him. That was the profile point (not skin color, ethnicity, or national origin). They stared him in the eye, they questioned him agressively, and they pushed him just a bit to see if he would panic. Then they let him go on through. That is just one simple example of their modus operandi, which is, looked for terrorists not explosives.
There is no earthly reason why we couldn't adopt this method. It wouldn't cost more, in fact it would cost less because it wouldn't require as many people as the current system. The problem might be finding enough people to take this work seriously (not a problem in Israel). Most of the TSA people I see at airports look painfully bored and like they can't wait to get off work so they can go home, eat a pizza, and watch TV.
I agree with you Dave. Listening to the news it sounds like Obama agrees with you. There were enough red flags to warrant an investigation. I don't know how all that surveillance works as far as one way tickets, no luggage, etc. works. I would hope all that is flagged, but I am not in the espionage business.
The reason for my last question was I heard an alleged retired security agent for the state of MD call into the radio station and say as soon as the father made his report, that guys should have been put on the no fly list. They can do that, it won't bother me personally, but I can just see all the people world wide who would start turning kids, spouses, relatives saying they have become radicalized just to keep them from flying the the US. IN other words, if Julie decided she was going to leave me and go back to England and I did not approve of that, I can run to the FBI, convince them she has become radicalized and keep her here with me. I know, false reports and all that, but I guarantee all these bogus reports will allow a bad guy to slip through.
Not an easy job these folks have which is why whenever I fly, I look for agitated people, nervous people, and yes, middle easterns for any signs. When I can go thru one metal detector and it does not go off, then go thru another and it does go off, do you think I am gonna trust TSA all the way.
One intersting tid bit of information; Amsterdam airport security is contracted to ICTS, an Israeli company. Pretty sure same company in charge of airport security in Newark back in 2001. My whole point in the suggestion of doing things the way Israel does here, the Ben Gurion airport averages 30,000 passengers a day. that's peanuts compared to many airports in this country and Europe. If your friend was shoved around as part of some profiling technique, in america if you push the wrong guy, fists start swinging. We are an arrogant people afterall.
My friend was not "pushed around." He was singled out for some intensive questioning and examination. This happened here in the US because the Israelis not only check out people who are flying out of Israel, but also people flying in, at least on El Al. There is a big difference between an Israeli company handling airport security in a forgeign country as a contractor and the Israelis doing their own security work for their own purposes.
I was pleased with much of what Obama said yesterday, but it still concerns me that he is unwilling to acknowledge that we are at war with a large contingent of Islamic jihadists. The use of his term "isolated extremist" suggests that he believes this Nigerian man was operating entirely on his own, a suggestion which, given the man's history, defies reasonable thought. Until I have some confidence that Obama recogizes who our enemy really is, it will be impossible for me to believe he is serious about fighting them.
I wonder why a married guy traveling without his wife would fit a certain profile to warrant further questioning. I have no idea on thismatter, but I would hope all airports have undercover "cops" wandering around looking for suspicious looking people. Maybe I am way off base, but I have a hard time fathoming that some guy who is knowingly carrying a bomb or knows he is about to undertake an act of terror or some kind would not be showing some kind of stress or anxiety or sweat as he is a) going thru security, or b)sitting around waiting for his flight. I don't know about Europe, but you are right, the TSA guys here do seem much more intersted in getting home to watch tv and drink beer than doing their job.
All that said, I don't why everyone is busting on TSA since it was not an American airport this guy got through on.
I believe the reason this man was singled out was because the Israelis are smart enough to know that guys who are planning to blow up a plane don't take their wives and children along. Therefore, one element of the profile is "married men traveling to Israel without family." And these Israeli security people were not just wandering around the airport. They were at the check-in line giving the once-over to everyone in it. Of course, this was only one element of their security work which we were able to observe. Who knows what else they routinely look for. In contrast to us, the Israelis do not broadcast their security techniques to the whole world. They just quietly and consistently do the difficult work. And the fruit is that there has not been a bombing or highkacking of a plane traveling to or from Israel for decades.
When I was flying out of Nigeria this past September, not only was the security a joke, but one guy tried to hold me up for a $60.00 bribe in the process. This is not to say that Nigeria had anything to do with the underwear bomber. Apparently he hadn't been in Nigeria for most of his life.
I thought he bought his ticket in Ghana and flew out of Nigeria. I read a report where the Dutch say he must have had the explosives on him when he left Nigeria based upon 200 hours of various surveillance footage while he was in Amsterdam airport. I am not an int'l traveler (England once), so I never even knew they make passengers on connecting flights who never leave the "secured" terminal area go through another metal detector/ scan or whatever they have.
Are you talking about the information that was leaked out to some bloggers after this attempt or something else with TSA advertising our security measures?
NEVERMIND ALL MY OTHER POSTS. NOW I GET IT.
9/11, the war on terror, everything. It is all Bill Clinton's fault. Palin says it, and it sounds like she got it from Dick Morriss, so it must be true. How silly of me not to have seen this. I go with Howie @ http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/200307.php
J/K Bill.
I few out of Lagos, Nigeria, and never left the secured area in Heathrow, yet had to be rescanned. As far as the techniques, I'm just talking about all the press about the new demands we are placing on other nations. Why does all that have to be so public? I heard Juan Williams say the other day, "Will any of these new procedures actually make any of us any safer? No. It's all just political show." Even Juan has become cynical about it.
I say TSA scrap the whole concept of looking for explosives and start looking for terrorists. As you suggest, they shouldn't be all that hard to spot. But if they're going to do this, they need to just do it and not make a big deal out of it.
I agree!!!!! So tell the Obama haters to stop politicizing this, and let them do what they feel they have to do.
David, I am hoping that TSA is doing things we don't know about such as undercover airport security, human and electronic. I would hope we are not that stupid or arrogant that we think we don't have to do those things. All these pundits and media folks might think they know everything going on, but I have a feeling, they are not even close to knowing. Since they don''t know...let's slam the pres.
I sent you guys an email that politicizing this event is wrong, yet they are still doing it. How long until Pete Hoekstra reveals another classified info on what we are doing just ot make Obama look like a failure.
Dave! Dave! Stop hating on my hero, my messiah, my sweetie-pie! Leave him alone, I pray you! How dare you get political with a politician?! Can't you see he's trying to save the world? Lay off him, please! You're liable to let people discover the truth if you keep exposing facts and actually reasoning and politicizing things. Don't you know that only the sainted progressives are allowed to "get political," i.e. criticize politicians?
Still waiting Brian for you to send me the facts and quotes where the dem. politicians politicized 9/11 or Richard Reed.
Wanna hear a lefty talking point on why they tried another terror attack?
OK, Tom. So it's ok to "politicize" a war (against terror, by the way), but not ok to "politicize" individual terror attacks? Is that it? These rules you progressives have are very confusing. And just what does "politicize" mean, anyway? Does that cover any criticism, or would that just be criticism you omniscient progressives deem unacceptable? And when one of your progressive heroes says that people who oppose the destruction of our health care system believe in slavery and deny the holocaust, is that acceptable criticism or unacceptable criticism? Tell me, oh wise progressive sage.
Tom, thanks to the Left (remember the mantra "the personal is political?") everything is political these days.
There was a massive and potentially catastrophic failure here and much of the fault needs to be laid at the feet of the people now running the system, people who think American provocation is the root cause of much evil in the world, people who - let's call a spade a spade here - feel that America is the problem. Yes, Tom, that's who's in charge and yes, they should be held to account. It is through our political process that we address our shortcomings as a society and change course when things are careening wildly out of control.
Our current leadership needs, once and for all, to understand, internalize and accept the fact that if they really want to protect America (a proposition I'm not sure is a settled matter - remember Obama's mentor and the "chickens home to roost" mindset?) they'll have to get their hands dirty.
You want a glaring example of the politicization of 9/11. Michael Moore produced a comedy/fantasy called Fahrenheit 9/11. You may have heard of it. He also wrote on his website, just days after 9/11, that the terrorists had attacked the wrong state, a Blue! state that voted for Gore. Granted, Moore's not a politician, but when his cartoon about 9/11 opened in Washington, the invited guests for the premier showing represented a who's who of Democrat movers and shakers. And they all came out of the theater raving about this piece of drug-addled compost. (Come to think of it, “raving” is just the right word here.) In the 2004 meeting of the presidium – I mean democrat convention - Moore had a seat of honor next to a former president of the United States.
I know people who were very, very uncomfortable in condemning the 9/11 attacks. Heck, I’m closely related to such people. And I've been around long enough - and have been paying attention long enough - to know that there were plenty of Democrat politicians who had to grit their teeth and go along with the early stages of the war on terror - oops, I mean the overseas contingency operations - because the public was so overwhelmingly in favor of crushing our enemies. Hillary's notorious eye-rolling episode was a brief instant when the curtain parted and we saw into the heart of the American left and its attitude toward the war in those early days.
The fact is that the left totally, utterly, and shamefully politicized our efforts to defeat our existential enemies. Indeed, I think one can make a compelling case that the Left's aid and comfort to the enemy was a big, big factor in encouraging the Iraqi insurgency to hang in there for years after the military victory was secured. I for one am convinced of it.
Bill, thank you for such a well written reminder of what so many "progressives" have so soon forgotten. Hypocrites!
Criticize the wars is fine. Criticize the strategy is fine. Criticize adding 30k more troops to Afghanistan is fine.
Criticize any domestic agenda is fine. Using some facts for that criticism would be nice.
However, when one says Obama is weak on national security and has no facts to back it up, then it becomes politicized. When a politician uses a terror attack to immediately attempt to garner campaign funds it becomes political.
When members and former members of our government decide to attack the POTUS with no facts at all to back up their claims that the POTUS does not care about national security, coddles terrorists when the POTUS has a record of supporting the Patriot Act, supporting the war in Afghanistan, not changing any of the previous president's nat'l security policies other than banning torture, which is illegal anyway, and wanting to move prisoners from Cuba to Illinois, which neither has anything to do with nat'l security or catching some bomber, that is politicizing. Cheney, Hoekstra, DeMint, and a few others were all out of line. They used this attack to continue the relentless talking point that dems do not care about nat'l security. Monica Crowly saying Obama wants people to die to fulfill some Saul Alinsky thing? That's politicizing with attempts to continue to keep the citizens scared. These neo cons are getting more and more pathetic. Brian, if you truly feel that not torturing means coddling, I truly feel sorry for you.
John Gibson says, say it loud enough and often enough and they will believe it.
Do you think the enemy is not aware that at least 3 times in 11 months the "architect" of this war on terror has come out, and with no facts, blasted the POTUS as being weak on nat'l security? Do you think they don't know what republicans followed his lead? Do you think they don't listen to Fox, or Rush to see what they are saying?
Say it loud enough and often enough and they will believe it.
What I am maintaining is this discourse,this politicizing,is emboldening the enemy. And the fact that they have nothing to back up this criticism is hurting this country, not Obama. He's a big boy, he can survive this. AMERICA BRIAN. Or is this not your problem until there is another attempt and the plane crashes into your house, since you seem only concerned about yourself.
Say it loud enough and often enough and they will believe it. TBC
There is something wrong in the conservative movement in this country that they yell for torture, they yell to put all Muslims in a separate line, they yell to shoot on site any one who acts suspicious, they yell to put anyone named Abdul or Mohammed in a separate line. And because we don't do that the democratic POTUS is weak on nat'l security?
say it loud enough and often enough and they will believe it.
Really worries me that a guy who seems as smart as you Brian, cannot even tell me that it is wrong.
There is something wrong with the conservative movement when Fox News has to use clips from the show "24" to show how torture is justified and how it works. Don't they know that show is fiction? There is somethign wrong when you let the John Birch Society back into the movement.
And Brian, I have no progressive heroes. In this blog, plenty of times I have said some of the things the progressives have said were wrong, detrimental, and should have not been said in public or even private sometimes. But I try to start a debate on here and you guys act like if you say one bad thing about the conservative rhetoric and lies that are going on in this country right now you will rot in hell for saying it. My god, 300 people could have died. The POTUS comes out and says we dodged a bullet, we screwed up, and that is still not good enough for you. Instead you have to say he wants people to die based on some book written by some guy who died 30 years ago? Actually from a guy who espouses some of the same things you guys say about doing things yourself and not waiting for government to do it. If we had a socialist state, there would be no need for the ACORNs of the country. Republicans don't want Acorn. Does that mean they want to socialism?
say it loud enough and often enough and they will believe it.
Fahreheit 911 came out 3 years after 9/11, not 3 days. Your quote has to resort to Hillary Clinton body language and gritting teeth?
So, if you are confortable with Pete Hoekstra telling the enemy we have your emails between you and Hassan (gee, you think that might have ticked off NSA?) so he can score political points, god help America.
say it loud enough and often enough and they will believe it.
For once John Gibson is right.
My last words here: Tom, In your last two posts you make a dozen points that beg to be refuted, but I work for a living and at some point just have to say enough is enough. I will just close my participation in this particular discussion with this observation, with which you will disagree: You talk about the president's national security credentials with a straight face, and you base your assessment on a fundamental assumption - that is, that our current president and his enablers, owners, and coconspirators actually want the US to prevail in this struggle. All of your thinking about Obama and the Left stems from this false assumption. You can, thus, not be argued with. Cannot, indeed, be reasoned with.
Once you understand that we are being led by a cabal that wants to see the US as we know it become something akin to Venezuela (or worse), then I think you'll see where, I, at least, am coming from.
And my sense of the true Obama isn't just the fevered fantasizing of a mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger.
My sense is based on an assessment of his lifelong mentors, going back, indeed to his father(s), his teenage-years mentor in Hawaii (who is credibly understood to have been not just a hard core Marxist but a pedophile as well), his student associations, his choice of associates as an adult, his choice of occupation, and his appointments to the "czar" posts that don't require congressional vetting (hmmmmm?). His entire life has been marked by associations with a breathtaking array of mentors and associates who wish this country ill. These are just facts. And if you won't look these facts straight on and draw some reasonable adult conclusions about where we are headed on this guy's watch, you are - pardon the ad hominem here - a fool.
Again, respond as you will, I've had my last say on this topic.
Dave,
I guess you got your answer to your question in the original blog. Exercise your first amendment right of free speech to attack the Prez and offer no other solution to the problem.
Now, I am not going back to read my previous posts, but I do not remember ever typing that Obama had any nat'l security credentials, so Bill, you continue to read things that are not there.
What is interesting:
WW1 - Wilson (D) we prevailed
WW2 - FDR (D) we prevailed
Korean War - Truman (D) fought it, Eisenhower (R) Truce
Viet Nam - Johnson (D) escalated it, Nixon (R) escalated it, and truce. Many will argue we lost that war.
To says Dems are weak on defense is disingenuous and I cannot think where it was ever used until the 2004 elections when Cheney came up with it.
Say it loud and say it often enought and they will believe it.
Hey guys, my daughter, Andrea, just sent me this report. I think all our concerns about full body scanning have now been resolved.
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) In what some in the White House are
calling a "win/win" solution to the nation's airport security and health care reform problems, starting next month U. S. airports will begin conducting full body scans that will double as annual physical checkups.
President Obama announced the breakthrough solution, telling reporters, "With this all-purpose exam, we will be able to find everything from a hidden weapon to a spot on your lung."
After scanning a passenger, Mr. Obama said, "We will either give you a clean bill of health or wrestle you to the ground."
The President added that instituting the body scan/checkup could ward off some terrorists right from the start, "because a lot of them will balk at the $25 co-pay."
But according to Davis Logsdon, who studies terrorism and health care reform at the University of Minnesota, the body scans may attract more terrorists than they deter: "If there's one complaint that terrorists have about al-Qaeda it's that they have lousy benefits."
I love it; health care refrom meets TSA.
Sorry I'm a little late to this, Tom.
Man, when I was taking Psych 001 in 1976 or so, I never thought the term "projection" would have so much meaning for me 34 years later. "Say it enough and people will believe it. . . " That's Hitler and his totalitarian cousins, the Stalinists and Maoists, the "philosophers" Obama's "czars" admire so much; not we conservatives. Remember, we believe in freedom; Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Obama didn't/don't. You're projecting that onto us; and as someone flakking for the side that produced campus speech codes and the like, I must say, you have some nerve.
War is hell. People get killed, people get tortured. What do you want me to do? We didn't start the darn war. Stop trying to perfect imperfect man. Who do you want to WIN? Are we ALLOWED to win?
I notice you can't even bring yourself to say the name "Saul Alinsky." Embrace the truth: he was the Clintons' and the Obamas' mentor. Don't minimize him.
btw, who are YOUR heroes? The Clintons have them. The Obamas have them. I have them, and I'm happy to name them. It's natural for human beings to have heroes and influential people in their lives. In naming heroes, would you be afraid of "outing" yourself? I notice nobody in the great "independent-minded" state-controlled media ever asked Obama who HIS heroes were. I wonder whom he might have named? Saul Alinsky, maybe? Mao?
Tom, I'm sorry: the simplistic comparison you attempt to draw on the wars strains historical and intellectual credulity.
I notice that all three of us seem to read things into your comments that "aren't there," while at the same time not recognizing things that ARE there. Could it be that we are simply making reasonable deductions from what you say and whom you support?
Post a Comment