Posted on 09/20/2002 7:50:52 AM PDT by az4vlad
One of the predictable knee-jerk government reactions to the attacks of September 11, 2001 was the creation of the Office of Homeland Security currently headed by former governor Tom Ridge. As some critics have pointed out, Ridge has been responsible for little more than attempts at increasing airport security, which one unscientific poll found did not increase the passengers’ feelings of safety.
Some passengers have found it extremely inconvenient. In two instances which this writer was aware of, passengers were subjected to indignities which probably would never have happened two years ago. One was asked by a security officer to remove his implanted pacemaker, and another was told to take his medical ID “out of my face” when he displayed it to verify his artificial knee joint. Then there were the infamous cases of the 80 year old wheelchair bound grandmother who was suspected of carrying a bomb and columnist Ann Coulter who had a harmless charm off of her key ring confiscated. Do we really need this?
For many years I have enjoyed watching old movies and these recent events eventually reminded me of the airport scene from All About Eve. Bette Davis sees her boyfriend off with little more than a cursory glance at his ticket. Seeing loved ones off at the gate, or meeting them there was almost an American ritual. Now, it no longer exists. At the same time, these exclusions probably do not enhance security significantly. The few people we need to worry about are not going to be excluded by these means. They are smart enough to find other ways onto an aircraft, or will use other means, to do their dirty work.
At the first anniversary of this tragic event, it is easy to ask how it could have been avoided, and whether or not our new measures can make a real difference. Certainly, we had sufficient laws in place to do the job, and competent agencies charged with their enforcement. Criticism of insufficient oversight, poor use of intelligence and lax enforcement are present virtually from all quarters. Many blame Mr. Clinton for the problem, but should a department head be exculpated in this kind of situation on the basis that he was “just following orders”?
I’ve found in recent weeks that many of us tend to remember the spectacular rather than the important events of September 11. We recall the Twin Towers best, the Pentagon attack somewhat less, and the fourth airliner – yes, some folks have actually forgotten the fourth and most important airliner. For those who have forgotten, that airliner was the one which crashed in a field in Pennsylvania after, it is believed, passengers heroically overcame the terrorists and prevented an additional attack at the cost of their own lives.
Former Soviet military intelligence officer Stanislav Lunev has spoken widely in America after the collapse of the Soviet government. One of his statements, not widely circulated, was that a major reason for the USSR not attacking the United States was its fear of an armed populace. It seems that they believed that their forces could handle the US Army, but not a population sprinkled with patriotic military veterans. This information, combined with what happened to that fourth aircraft should provide us with a valuable lesson.
For many years we have been taught not to take the law into our own hands. We are told to let law enforcement handle everything. If we are accosted we are told to give the criminal what he wants and not resist. So, let’s imagine if the people in that fourth airliner took a “let the government take care of it” attitude, what might have happened to them, and who might have been attacked on the ground. Meanwhile, it just might be possible that the best way to protect America could be John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime” approach. The Soviets were scared of us, and they stayed away. Might we be able to do the same thing with respect to terrorists?
On the surface we can logically assume that the average Islamic terrorist is realistically seeking three things: First, to kill the enemy in spectacular fashion, second, to make headlines, and third, to inflict fear. If the terrorist meets up with a reasonably well armed populace which shows little or no fear, then killing the enemy will be made much more difficult, and inflicting fear will not be possible. Lastly, if the headlines read “Terrorists Foiled by Heroic Citizens” then the third goal is eliminated as well. Sure, if all of the September 11 hijackings were foiled in the same manner, you would have seen the Bin Ladens of the world claiming victory but it would have been hollow. The goals would not have been realized. Terrorists count on an ability to circumvent law enforcement agencies. When they must deal with a citizenry which is willing and able to deal with them as well, then the game changes radically. Perhaps the government might do well to reconsider the role of the armed citizen and the second amendment. Guns in the hands of the people at large pose a threat to an abusive government, but they also create a similar threat toward any outsiders seeking to do damage. And isn’t looking out for the security of America part of everyone’s duty as a citizen?
Turf-wars between the Army and Navy were detrimental to the service and the situation was addressed by the formation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I see the formation of the Office of Homeland Security as a similar solution to see that all agencies are on the same page.
The bureaucratic fiefdoms are very protective of their powers and are not likely to surrender them without a struggle. This includes deliberately misconstruing the dictates of the Homeland Security director. So if Tom Ridge is not to blame, who is?
It would be easy to place blame on all the faceless petty bureaucrats that refuse to "play ball" but I will not. I blame the President. If not everyone is cooperating with Ridge, it is up to the President to give him the power needed to enforce compliance among the agencies. W is the boss and these guys need to be reminded that they work for the Executive branch of government. W is too busy to deal with this on a daily basis, that is what Ridge is for, but a few firings of high profile foot-draggers should get the message out loud and clear.
Hell No!!!
He was specifically picked by Bush for this cabinet position (Di- VER- sity trumps all common sense!!!)
Amen. Same here.
The idea of creating a "Office of Homeland Security", obviously adding untold confusion to the entire process at a time when we are at war, has never seemed very well thought out to me. It also bothered me that Tom Ridge, in his first speech as "Homeland Security Poobah" stated that "Freedom is one of the single greatest things we offer our people". Hey, Tom, isn't freedom a devine right?
This same comment was made, almost verbatim, by Laura Bush several days later.
Lock, loaded and ready to rock!
BTTT!
I travel a fair amount and have seen airport security in various forms. How would you rate the TSA screeners compared to the private security screeners?
What would you propose to fix the problems you have? Would you forego baggage screening for explosives? Or would you modify it, and if so, how?
Same questions for the passenger screening.
Is adopting Israel's defense postures really appropriate for the US?
I doubt that many would really agree with you.
Individual airport authorities would still be responsible for the security of the terminals. I think a different system of ensuring compliance to regulation for security should have been sought out rather than federalizing the employees.
Perhaps removing the tort limitations against government settlements would give the needed incentive for municipalities to spend the necessary capital (both monetary and political) to work out something that works. Many entities pursuing the same goal (security with convenience) would bring a multitude of possible solutions.
BUT, given that the Federal government has made itself responsible for security on the airlines and the terminals and whatever system they adopt will be the standard, then at least adopt a standard with a proven track record. I wonder how many people are staying away from flying out of fear, rather than inconvenience. If there must be one security system, then make sure it is secure, you can streamline later. (Although streamlining a federal program is in itself laughable)
Perhaps once the INS gets the number of illegals out of the country and the State Department stops the revolving door tourist policy and the PC attitudes that stops profiling possible suspects ends up in the garbage heap of history, we can loosen the security controls on airline travel. Perhaps all that will happen, but I am not holding my breath.
All these people forget one thing:
Whatever the gov't supports, YOU GET MORE OF IT!, not less
Circa:
1. War on drugs
2. Poverty
3. Old people(SSI)
4. democracy(We USED to be a Republic)
5. children(Welfare and eleventeen other programs)
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels. Lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, may posterity forget ye"
-Samuel Adams
Actually, I would like to see each airline responsible for its own security, allowing people to choose. Security could be a consideration as to which airline to pick just like frequent flyer miles.
The problem is, as I understand it, we just came off of an airline run security system. It seems that the airlines are not reluctant to turn security (and liability) over to another party.
I think a different system of ensuring compliance to regulation for security should have been sought out rather than federalizing the employees.
The private security screeners are the ones that have made people complain. To the best of my knowledge, there have been very few complaints about the TSA screeners.
I'm not one normally inclined to give the feds an inch or ounce more authority. However I can see a place for a unified security system that doesn't rely on the airlines (conflict of interests) or minimum wage type employees. Since the fedgov is charged with national security, I can see a place for the TSA once I found out that they weren't simply federalizing existing screeners.
Again, you made some good points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.