|
My Unfriendly Skies
But people should no longer fear flying in the post-September 11 world because FedGov has promised safe skies . . . again. Thanks to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), armed sky marshals, and intrusive searches—being forced at gunpoint to drink one's own breast milk could safely be termed "intrusive," couldn't it? Being forced to drop one's drawers to prove the existence of a prosthetic leg is intrusive, right? Being groped to substantiate the presence of an underwire bra is intrusive, isn't it?—the skies appear safer. No one promised they'd be friendly. Airlines, formerly required to provide security to government standards, used to pool resources and hire third-party providers to screen passengers at common checkpoints. No airline was responsible for its own security. And therein was the problem. If the owner is not responsible, then no one is responsible. After 9/11, the airlines fell all over themselves accepting FedGov's offer to take over security. No wonder. The airlines still did not want to accept responsibility for providing safety of their own flights. Much better to pawn the job off on someone else, i.e., someone who couldn't be sued or pass on the liability to the airlines. So, the current scenario is no better than before. One third-party agency, TSA, performs security at common checkpoints for any number of airlines and the airlines are not responsible. Last July I flew for the first time since FedGov took over airline security with the accuracy of the Post Office, the efficiency of Amtrak, and the compassion of the IRS. (By the way, how did TSA expand from an originally estimated 30,000 new employees to 50,000 feeders at the public trough? This is an increase of 67 percent!!!! Are the Congress-weasels and bureau-rats going to chip in and pay the difference out of their own pockets? Are pigs growing wings? Is the Devil buying long underwear?) Actually, that's not quite true. I was out of the country on September 11, 2001, and had to return in early October of that year. Between September 11 and the date I next flew, the rules had changed and the flying public in the Peoples Republic of China had not been informed. I left a nice little Swiss Army knife in Shanghai. I'm sure it got auctioned off with the proceeds going to some worthy cause. In Hong Kong we had to pass scrutiny three times between ticket counter and gate and gave up scissors, nail files, etc. Fortunately we were flying to Bangkok and were able to pick up the surrendered items on our way back through Hong Kong and have them shipped in baggage on our plane to the US. In Hong Kong we saw heavy-duty security: six big, husky, uniformed, jump-boot wearing, assault-weapon toting Chinese at each gate. While two stood back and watched, two stood at the entrance to the jetway and watched. All had their hands on their weapons and their eyes on the passengers. The last pair stood at the foot of the jetway and profiled passengers, requiring certain ethnic and racial types to undergo a third search of carry-on luggage. And clothing. And turbans. No fooling around in Hong Kong in September, 2001. Anyway, back in July, 2002, I flew from Savannah to Boston, via Charlotte, NC, and back. Faced with six opportunities to be selected for "random" searches, I was targeted four times. I would never bet those odds in Las Vegas. Look at the picture at the head of this column. Does that look like the face of a terrorist? On second thought, don't answer that. Summoned out of line each time and into the guilty-until-proven-innocent area, I was poked, prodded, groped, unfolded, unbuckled, untied, wanded, shoe-sole scrutinized, and armpit sniffed. To top it off, after I passed through the Boston metal detector without setting it off, I was asked by a Middle Eastern woman in a security uniform and head covering/scarf thing what I had in my shirt pocket. Swallowing the impulse to say "Personal stuff," I pulled out a leather business card case that contained nothing more sinister than credit cards, driver license, health plan card, and auto club card. I did NOT show my Georgia Firearms License as I wasn't up to hours of interrogation and body cavity searches. You never know where someone might stick an assault weapon. The new machines being installed to inspect checked luggage will take longer, regardless of what they are telling us. The machines are so sensitive that they will not only sniff out explosives in closed luggage but will also detect cheese and other edibles. Yes, they register checked snacks as things that go bang, triggering a hand search. To perform the hand search, TSA will destroy luggage locks. "TSA suggests that you help prevent the need to break your locks by keeping your bag unlocked" and do a number of other really inane things to make up for the fact that high-tech bomb detectors can't tell the difference between a stick of dynamite and the fruit cake you packed for Auntie Em. Upon reflection, I'm not sure which is really more dangerous. So,
we're supposed to trust TSA and everyone else who handles our bags that no
one is going to slip a hand in there and take something—or maybe leave
something, which is a scary thought. Just in case that happens, there is
an 800 number to call. TSA isn't saying they will replace anything lost or
stolen, but we will have the satisfaction of calling someone, somewhere,
who will ask us to prove that the missing item was really in our luggage.
"No, really. I had my priceless Les Paul goldtop guitar in my
suitcase. And my wife's complete collection of Hummels. Priceless!
Really!" After
passing the baggage screening gauntlet, passengers are checked against the
"No Fly" list held by TSA. If your name is on it, you don't fly.
Nice of someone to warn us ahead of time. Like before we buy our tickets. A
TSA spokesman said, ". . . this list is composed of names that are
provided to us by various government organizations like the FBI, CIA and
INS . . . . We don't ask how they decide who to list. Each agency decides
on its own who is a 'threat to aviation.' " The
list includes an art dealer whose only crime was to lead the North
Carolina Green Party presidential campaign in 2000. While some of us might
think that criminal, it's perfectly legal. "Threat to aviation." The
list also includes a 74-year-old nun from Wisconsin who belongs to a
Catholic peace advocacy group. She and 20 young students were stopped from
boarding a Washington-bound flight and were interrogated in separate
rooms. "Threat to aviation." No
agency is responsible for managing the "No Fly" list. If someone
questions TSA regarding his inclusion, he is told to contact the agency
responsible for adding his name. When he asks what agency added his name,
he is told that the information is classified, for "national
security." Yes, Catch-22 was invented in Washington, DC (District of
Confusion). No
wonder the airlines are failing. People don't want the hassle, the
indignity, the intrusiveness, and the plain unconstitutionality of the
process. Yes, "unconstitutional." Remember the part about being
secure in our persons against unreasonable searches? What is reasonable
about a random search? What
about the part that says, "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularity describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?" I
didn't see any warrants and I didn't hear any oaths or affirmations. A
careful reading of the Fourth Amendment reveals no disclaimer stating
"Except in case of war on terrorism." Here
are the real threats to aviation. More people are driving instead of
flying. More businesses are teleconferencing in lieu of travel. More
people are staying home. Fewer airliners are flying. The failure is
occurring on an industry-wide basis, with a few notable exceptions, and
largely because people don't want to be treated like dirt. Businesses
whose customers are treated like dirt, even by third parties, will fail. |
