Smerconish: AS PLAIN AS THE NOSE ON THEIR FACES, DOT is more concerned about PC than Air Safety

www.mastalk.com ^ | Apr. 29, 2004 | Michael Smerconish

[new cruelty]

POST 9/11, the U.S. Department of Transportation is more concerned about political correctness than air safety.

They've even issued a statement saying that ethnicity, religion and appearance are not factored into who gets pulled out of airport security lines. (Somewhere in hell 19 guys are cheering.)

The DOT pronouncement is the latest chapter in my inquiry into why those with nothing in common with the 9/11 hijackers are routinely pulled from airport security lines and subjected to random, heightened screening.

My 8-year-old son got flagged when we flew to Florida for spring break. Strange, he sure doesn't look like any of the hijackers.

Days later, I watched Condoleezza Rice testify before the 9/11 Commission, and was struck by a question by John Lehman:

"Were you aware that it was the policy... to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory?"

Rice said nothing noteworthy in response. But later I asked Lehman what he was referring to.

"We had testimony a couple of months ago from the past president of United, and current president of American Airlines that kind of shocked us all. They said under oath that indeed the Department of Transportation continued to fine any airline that was caught having more than two people of the same ethnic persuasion in a secondary line for line for questioning, including and especially, two Arabs," he said.

Lehman said this thinking is why airport security is stopping "Norwegian women" and "85- year-old women with aluminum walkers" even though they don't represent the "violent Islamic extremism" that is our enemy, which he recognizes to comprise "young Arab males."

What was the basis for Lehman's questioning of Dr. Rice?

Back on Jan. 27, Edmond Soliday, a security expert for United Airlines, testified about "a visitor from the Justice Department who told me that if I had more than three people of the same ethnic origin in line for additional screening, our system would be shut down as discriminatory."

Similarly, Gerard Arpey, the CEO of American, testified that when the crew was uncomfortable with passengers on their plane and asked that they be removed, DOT sued the airline!

This testimony is consistent with what I have personally been told by Herb Kelleher, legendary chairman and founder of Southwest Airlines. I recently asked him whether he'd heard any of what Lehman told me regarding the role of political correctness in airline security.

"As a matter of fact, it goes back to the Clinton administration when the Justice Department said they were concerned about equality of treatment with respect to screening, and my understanding is that's why the random element was put in, in other words, where you just choose people at random as opposed to picking them out for some particular reason, and that of course caused a great many more people to be screened," Kelleher said.

Very distressing, if you ask me.

After I first wrote about this subject, DOT denied that it ever restricted the number of individuals of one ethnic group who could be questioned at one time, implying that Lehman, Soliday and Arpey all got it wrong:

"...A member of the 9/11 Commission was incorrect in telling... that the Federal Aviation Administration used a quota restricting the number of foreign passengers that could be subjected to secondary screening at one time. Despite the testimony... cited in your column, secondary screening of passengers is random or behavior-based. It is not now, nor has ever been based on ethnicity, religion or appearance."

Wait a minute. Is that supposed to make us feel better? Safer? Hardly. I think DOT is part of the problem and so is the law on which their policy is based.

And the department apparently doesn't like it when I say so.

This week, I appeared on CNBC's "Kudlow and Cramer" and told this story. DOT issued a statement to CNBC for public dissemination, but refused to share it with me. No wonder. Now it's not Lehman, Soliday and Arpey who got it wrong: It's me ("How any legitimate journalist... "). Meanwhile, I'm starting to think "cover-up" as I wait for DOT to explain why:

• The security chief for United testified that United was told to limit the number of Arabs being questioned at one time.

• The CEO of American testified that American's been sued by DOT when crew have asked that certain passengers be removed.

• Herb Kelleher confirmed the aura of political correctness.

• John Lehman felt compelled to ask Condi about this subject.

Clearly, DOT still doesn't get it. Logic dictates that airport security take a longer, harder look at individuals who have ethnic, religious and appearance factors in common with the Islamic extremist men who have initiated war against us.

It's time for the DOT and federal legislators to go back and look at the mug shots of the 19 hijackers, because none of those guys look like my 8-year-old.

[new cruelty]

Michael’s Email with the Department of Transportation

Michael asks the DOT for a copy of a statement he has learned that they have written regarding his initial column about John Lehman’s questioning of Condoleezza Rice in the 9/11 Commission.

The DOT:

In a recent column, a member of the 9/11 Commission was
incorrect in telling your newspaper that the Federal Aviation
Administration used a quota restricting the number of foreign passengers that could be subjected to secondary screening at one time. Despite the testimony from current and former airline executives cited in your column, secondary screening of passengers is random or behavior based. It is not now, nor has ever been based on ethnicity, religion or appearance.

Your readers should know that the federal government has and will continue to put in place the strongest possible security screening procedures while protecting the civil rights of all passengers in our aviation system. Cheers,

Michael:

thanks....please do send me whatever you send to the 9/11 commission on this, thanks

DOT:

Sure thing. Again my apologies that you did not receive this earlier.

Clearly, our concern is that your readers have the correct information that no such "quota" ever existed.


Michael:

please provide me whatever statements the DOT has issued concerning comments I have made or things I have written concerning the testimony presented to the 9/11 commission

I have a deadline of Noon today and hope you will respond by then.

thank you


DOT:

What are you working on now?

If you are writing an additional column my assumption is you will
provide an overview of what you plan to write and provide an opportunity for the U.S. Department of Transportation to respond specifically to what you are writing. Cheers,


Michael:

I have been told that DOT issued some kind of statement to CNBC concerning my 9/11 work. I am asking you if that is the case, and if so, what did you give them?



DOT:

I'm happy to provide whatever you need. But I'd like to know what you are working on. It is pretty customary to ask a reporter what they are writing and ask for the opportunity to respond completely to the story.

This is relatively common practice, and I'm sure you'll agree quite appropriate.

If you would be kind enough to let me know what you are working on, and what specific questions you have, I will send you both what ran on CNBC, and whatever other answers might be appropriate. Cheers,

Michael:

let me get this straight. unless give you a peek at what I am working on, you will not give to me what you released to a cable news station?

sorry, I don't work for TASS.

I ask that you provide me with whatever you gave cnbc, and if you choose not to, I assure you I will be writing about your refusal. you are only fueling the suspicion of some that the DOT has something to hide.

DOT:

You are asking me to share with you information sent to another news organization, without any context, without any background, without any opportunity to address some possible column you might write. All this after you have already written one incorrect column and after having been informed of those errors still repeated them on national television.

Again, I am very happy to provide you with all appropriate information needed for your reporting. I just need to know what you are working on, or what questions you have so I can be of assistance and provide you with the most accurate, timely and appropriate information possible.


End.


source: http://www.mastalk.com/articlefull.asp?ID=17

[Old Sarge]

My 8-year-old son got flagged when we flew to Florida for spring break. Strange, he sure doesn't look like any of the hijackers.

Okay. We'll only screen Muslim males over 21. Let's do that with diligence.

And when the first explosive female pre-schooler from the West Bank detonates in Daytona, then people will scream about it with "what-did-we-know-and-when-did-we-know-it" Gotcha bites.

That's the thing about terror: kids can play, too. Remember the kiddie bombs last year?

[new cruelty]

Good point, you never can tell. Though it would seem Smerconish is also at odds with the government fining airlines.

From the article above:

Back on Jan. 27, Edmond Soliday, a security expert for United Airlines, testified about "a visitor from the Justice Department who told me that if I had more than three people of the same ethnic origin in line for additional screening, our system would be shut down as discriminatory."

[yoe]

BUMP!

Frightening to say the least...

[ought-six]

Time for Norman Mineta to retire.

[Old Sarge]

..."a visitor from the Justice Department"

Ah. A Clintonista holdout enforcing the DNC line.

I'm reminded of the old Japanese holdouts after WW2 - the so-called "Rip Van Nip"'s, who after being found on the islands twenty years later, still thought the war was being fought, in the Emperor's name.

Seems the same thing goes on after The Reign Of Terror, 1993-2001. Clinton holdouts in every branch of government, still fighting in the Sink Emperor's name.

[new cruelty]

Related threads -

Ann Coulter - Arab Hijackers Now Eligible for Pre-Boarding

I, Your Federal Overseer, just need to know what you are working on

[Calpernia]

>>>>My 8-year-old son got flagged when we flew to Florida for spring break. Strange, he sure doesn't look like any of the hijackers.

Okay. We'll only screen Muslim males over 21. Let's do that with diligence.

---

READ CAREFULLY!


Michael Smerconish | Airline security regulations put U.S. at peril

By Michael Smerconish
www.mastalk.com

IMAGINE IF on 9/11, as American Airlines Flight 11 were boarding at Logan Airport in Boston, airline security believed there to be something suspicious about passengers: Satam M.A. al-Suqami, Waleed M. Alshehri, Wail M. Alshehri, Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari (the five hijackers).

Amazingly, airport security could have interviewed only two of them, because to exceed that number would have subjected the airline to a penalty.

Yes, political correctness jeopardized the safety or our skies.

That is the most stunning development to come so far from the 9/11 Commission hearings, and much has happened since I reported that a week ago today.

Some quick background. This subject arose when former Navy Secretary John Lehman asked this of Condoleezza Rice in her public testimony:

"Were you aware that it was the policy...to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory?"

Rice's reply was unenlightening. And nobody picked up on the question because the news media's attention was consumed instead with the president's Daily Briefing.

But watching the hearings on TV with the rest of the nation, I wondered what Lehman was talking about. Two days after the klieg lights faded, I phoned him at his Bucks County farm and asked him what he was referring to. His response was shocking for what it revealed and for its candor.

"We had testimony a couple of months ago from the past president of United, and current president of American Airlines that kind of shocked us all. They said under oath that indeed the Department of Transportation continued to fine any airline that was caught having more than two people of the same ethnic persuasion in a secondary line for line for questioning, including and especially, two Arabs."

Does that mean that if airline security had three individuals of one ethnic stripe who were suspicious they had to let one walk past because they had reached a quota?

"That is really the source, because of this political correctness that became so entrenched in the 1990s, and continues in the current administration. No one approves of racial profiling, that is not the issue. The fact is that Norwegian women are not, and 85-year-old women with aluminum walkers are not, the source of the terrorist threat.

"The fact is that our enemy is the violent Islamic extremism and the overwhelming number of people that one need to worry about are young Arab males, and to ask them a couple of extra questions seems to me to be common sense, yet if an airline does that in numbers that are more than proportionate to their number in particular line, then they get fined and that is why you see so many blue- haired old ladies and people that are clearly not of Middle Eastern extraction being hauled out in such numbers, because otherwise they get fined."

This, I thought, was mind-boggling, and outrageous. The day my story with Lehman's explanation appeared in the Daily News, I happened to see Sen. Arlen Specter at the Phillies home opener. I told him what Lehman had told me. He was incredulous, but promised to look into it. The very next day, he reported that his staff had checked with the Department of Transportation and was told that what Lehman said was untrue. That was last Tuesday.

The following day, I interviewed Herb Kelleher, chairman and founder of Southwest Airlines about their arrival in Philadelphia. We spoke at the Convention Center Marriott, and he was a very amiable gent.

So, despite what Specter had been told by the Transportation Department, I asked Kelleher not only about the number of flights he will fly out of Philly, but also about what Lehman told me.

Not only did Kelleher confirm the information, he told me it started where it started. I should not have been surprised.

"As a matter of fact, it goes back to the Clinton administration when the Justice Department said they were concerned about equality of treatment with respect to screening, and my understanding is that's why the random element was put in, in other words, where you just choose people at random as opposed to picking them out for some particular reason, and that of course caused a great many more people to be screened," said Kelleher.

"So we don't offend?" I asked. "That was the root of it, yes," he said.

I told Specter what Kelleher told me. He then called Lehman who confirmed for him what Lehman had initially told me.

Now, Specter is promising to use his No. 2 position in Judiciary to get answers.

Today, I am to speak with Sen. John McCain, the man responsible for putting Lehman on the commission, and I intend to ask him what he knows about this.

Meanwhile, a shortened version of my column from a week ago in the Daily News was picked up by National Review Online, and then, by the New York Post.

In other words, this story has legs and that is a good thing.

Stay tuned.

[Calpernia]

Hi John,

Note these two articles from Michael Smerconish.

He is the only one I've seen writing about this topic.

You might want to consider it for one of your blogs. I think it needs more attention.

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks for the heads up, my friend.