Video: How does Israel protect air travel?

posted at 10:55 am on January 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

We already know the answer to that question, but the video from Martin Himel at the Wall Street Journal raises an even better question. Which is a greater threat to democracy and personal liberty — asking a few more questions in airport terminals to travelers who fit profiles of higher risk, or TSA’s current approach of random searches based on no data at all and blanket diktats that change with each new incident? It may be a question worth asking, especially given the failure of Western security over the Christmas holiday:

We should keep this in context. The US had its opportunities to keep Umar Abdulmutallab off of Northwest 253, but that failure came at the State Department and CIA, not with TSA. The security process at Schipol is the responsibility of the Dutch government, not the US. Even if TSA turned itself into El Al overnight, that alone would not have prevented the EunuchBomber from getting on board his flight.

But as Americans deal with yet another set of imposed restrictions on millions to prevent a few from attacking, the question above becomes more and more central to our efforts to stop terrorism at home. Theoretically, a Scotch-Irish grandma from Hoboken could carry out a terrorist attack, but in reality, that’s not the threat. Instead of random searches and increasingly onerous restrictions on law-abiding people, wouldn’t it make more sense to screen everyone lightly and screen those who fit profiles for higher risk a little more thoroughly? Would that not apply the proper resources where they will do the most good, while treating everyone — everyone — less like a criminal? And wouldn’t that negate what the terrorists have attempted to do, which is to make us too frightened to exercise our freedoms?

Update: Morgen at Verum Serum has a scoop on what TSA and DHS missed this summer.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Israel Airlines.

http://www.elal.co.il/ELAL/English/States/General/

canopfor on January 4, 2010 at 11:00 AM

What confuses me, is the TSA insistence on us not being able to carry knives onto planes.
Hasn’t it been shown that knives, carried by passengers, will defer most any attack?
Isn’t it pretty obvious that anyone attempting a hijacking now will get his arse kicked in.
The only real threat is a bomb or a gun…and a gun is probably not big of a threat with a dozen people lunging at you to tear your throat out.
Trust me, I am 210 lbs…you want me sitting next to you with a knife in the plane…I am 60 years old (in great shape), with grown kids, so what if I die taking some idiot down, the world won’t miss me…and there are dozens like me on every plane.
Let the idiots on, arm us, and let’s get it over with….just stop the bombs, we can take care of everything else.
We learned out lesson on 9/11…

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Let’s just stick to the program of taking away granny’s denture cream. That has worked out great so far.

[eyeroll]

UltimateBob on January 4, 2010 at 11:03 AM

WoW! Screw TSA. Why not contract out airport security to Israel?

CFL on January 4, 2010 at 11:05 AM

it’ll take many more 9/11′s for the US to adopt the Israeli approach, given our postmodern relativistic state.

jp on January 4, 2010 at 11:05 AM

With this Administration, the reluctance to profile is either a case of Poltical Correctness trumping National Security or a policy put forward by Barack The Magnificent because of opinions he holds. The overwhelming majority of the American Public disagrees with this stance. Profile! Profile! Profile! Our country’s security is at stake.

kingsjester on January 4, 2010 at 11:06 AM

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 11:01 AM

As Heinlein said, “an armed society is a polite society.” :-)

johnsteele on January 4, 2010 at 11:06 AM

So,bottom line,is that Israel Air is less Terrorist friendly
and also less PC,and only in Israel,such a pity,eh!

canopfor on January 4, 2010 at 11:07 AM

The concern from the ACLU is the loss of civil liberties. Which is a bigger loss of liberty?

Millions of Americans every day having their luggage searched, taking off their shoes, and going through security screenings.

Questioning muslims, people who buy tickets with cash, and people with one-way tickets.

Dying as a result of a bomb going during your flight.

hawksruleva on January 4, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Let the idiots on, arm us, and let’s get it over with….just stop the bombs, we can take care of everything else.

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 11:01 AM

You make a very good point. Bombs are the most dangerous weapons on a plane, and can be detected by using chemical “Puffers” (latest technology, but expensive) and dogs (ancient technology, not so expensive).

We don’t need to resort to racial profiling if we just use our heads.

UltimateBob on January 4, 2010 at 11:08 AM

With this Administration, the reluctance to profile is either a case of Poltical Correctness trumping National Security or a policy put forward by Barack The Magnificent because of opinions he holds. The overwhelming majority of the American Public disagrees with this stance. Profile! Profile! Profile! Our country’s security is at stake.

kingsjester on January 4, 2010 at 11:06 AM

To be fair, the Bush administration set the precedent for not profiling. He adopting the practice of searching grannies and nuns.That sets the bar for Obama to lower. We should’ve set a higher bar.

hawksruleva on January 4, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Roger Hedgecock was subbing for Rush several years ago and made a statement that I’ll never forget. “The best example of racial profiling is affirmative action”.

We are supposedly intelligent human beings with a keen sense of self-preservation. Part of that sense is to recognize general cues that lead us to investigate and arrive at more specific conclusions. So what’s the problem?

AubieJon on January 4, 2010 at 11:09 AM

We don’t need to resort to racial profiling if we just use our heads.

UltimateBob on January 4, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Humans can be pretty inventive, though. Instead of just hoping that red-blooded Americans will always be able to overpower their attackers, or hope that security will detect bombs before they are used, why not try to stop terrorists from getting on the plane in the first place?

Bomb sniffers only work when they’re close enough to detect the explosive. If you profile, you have a better chance of having the detector close to the bomb.

hawksruleva on January 4, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Put into context with healthcare. We are screening everyone for terrorism. Hence, we have tons of “true negatives” a few “false positives” and even fewer “true positives(ie, actual terrorists)”. UFA was a “false negative” (he was a terrorist, but deemed not to be one and allowed to fly). We are simply not using smart enough techniques as a means to screen passengers to classify people into proper categories. While the “screen everybody” approach gives the sense that the “system is working,” it fails to appreciate the fact that, despite screening measures, there are terrorists who will not be identified. In those instances, a “targeted screening approach” toward an at-risk group is prudent. In healthcare, we don’t screen 18 y/o males for prostate cancer, it doesn’t make sense, they don’t get it–it’s the 40+ men that get it. It makes sense to screen those “at risk” for a disease or condition to screen them both in healthcare, and at the airport. If muslim men that have traveled to Yemen, Somalia etc have purchase a cash pay ticket are coming to the US, then it is prudent to screen them further for security purposes. It further makes sense to do an appropriate level of screening on all passengers, and random increased checks on a sample.

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 11:17 AM

The TSA has a secret plan for preventing terrorist attacks — oh, excuse me, human-caused disasters — against commercial aircraft. They’re going to make flying into such an ordeal that nobody does it any more.

Cicero43 on January 4, 2010 at 11:17 AM

I like the fact that they have armed air marshalls that will kill first, ask questions later.

But, in no way will that happen here because the poor terrorist is allowed due process as if he/she is a citizen.

tru2tx on January 4, 2010 at 11:17 AM

hawksruleva on January 4, 2010 at 11:09 AM

True. But, judging from the first year of his reign, he will be very reluctant to be more alert toward airline passengers meeting the physical profile of Terrrorits.

kingsjester on January 4, 2010 at 11:18 AM

It really does say something that El Al has a zero terror incident record these days. Especially given that Israel would probably be even higher up than the US or Europe on the “hit list wish list” of terrorists.

Profiling simply works in so many instances, not just for exposing terrorists. It does need to be closely monitored tho.

Michelle’s book “In Defense of Internment” hits on many good points in reference to profiling.

JetBoy on January 4, 2010 at 11:19 AM

I prefer the Archie Bunker method….

Classic.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 4, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Theoretically, a Scotch-Irish grandma from Hoboken could carry out a terrorist attack, but in reality, that’s not the threat.

It would be, once our government deliberately chooses to make a gaping hole in our security. Just as all the experts would have sworn in federal court that hijackeers would probably prefer an Arab airport to Boston International– until 9/11.

And wouldn’t that negate what the terrorists have attempted to do, which is to make us too frightened to exercise our freedoms?

If that’s what they’re after they could just work the phones. “Hi, I’m Mahmud. There’s a bomb in the terminal. It’s in the men’s room, third stall from the left. Bye.”

I think what they’re trying to do is kill us, and anything short of that is considered a fail.

All the ideas about ‘better’ profiling are based on a concern for the convenience and comfort of airline passengers, and they don’t count. Because they signed up for death when they bought the ticket. Worst case scenario, the United States Air Force will kill them all. What’s really at issue is all the schmucks on the ground who did not agree to any risks at all, who will get killed when our planes are blown up. Of the 2976 victims of 9/11, only 246 agreed to risks by buying a ticket on an airplane, and 411 agreed to a risk by serving as a first-responder to disasters. 2319 people died because they went to work on the wrong day. Air passengers have no right to take innocent people with them because they’re too fussy for real security.

Chris_Balsz on January 4, 2010 at 11:22 AM

If muslim men that have traveled to Yemen, Somalia etc have purchase a cash pay ticket are coming to the US, then it is prudent to screen them further for security purposes. It further makes sense to do an appropriate level of screening on all passengers, and random increased checks on a sample.

It makes even further sense to not increase security procedures on muslim men, traveling in the US, who have not traveled outside of the US for any reason in the recent past and who successfully pass routine screening measures.

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Michelle’s book “In Defense of Internment” hits on many good points in reference to profiling.

JetBoy on January 4, 2010 at 11:19 AM

JetBoy:Good point,if this was WW2,the profiling would be
Germans and the Japanese,with a bit of a glare at
the Italians,until they switched sides!!:)

canopfor on January 4, 2010 at 11:24 AM

hawksruleva on January 4, 2010 at 11:08 AM

You’re actually expecting consistent, logical, critical thinking of the ACLU?

LincolntheHun on January 4, 2010 at 11:24 AM

A Muslim having been in Yemen, paying cash for ticket, no luggage and making haj to Detroit gets a pass despite his own father’s warnings and nobody gets fired, instead we’ll unionize security? Then they lawyer him up instead of interrogation, put him in a hospital at our expense and start worrying about skin grafts for his bomb scorched leg while the administration defends returning more like him to Yeme to kill Americans another day?

An now begins nuclear disarmament? This administration is very actively assisting our enemies.

Reality Check on January 4, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Uhm, go El Air?? It sounds awesome to me, but the nutty libs in this country will never go for it. They’d rather wring their hands in woe over hurting someone’s feelings. I’d strip bucknaked to get on a flight if I didnt have to stand in that d@mn line for hours.

di butler on January 4, 2010 at 11:37 AM

The TSA has a secret plan for preventing terrorist attacks — oh, excuse me, human-caused disasters — against commercial aircraft. They’re going to make flying into such an ordeal that nobody does it any more.

Cicero43 on January 4, 2010 at 11:17 AM

I’ve only flown twice since 9-11. Both times for vacations that were more than a thousand miles away. Both times getting to the destination was not half the fun. Both times planes were missed because of airline regulations and luggage that was somewhere else. However, on the return trips home when time was not a problem everything went off without a hitch. That is 100% annoying in my book. This doesn’t even account for the terrorism garbage. We got back 4 days before they discovered the “new” kind of bombs that required you to turn in your toothpaste, hand lotion, bottled water, etc, etc. I would have totally freaked out if I had had to turn in my i-pod. We haven’t been on a commercial plane since. It’s already working.

BetseyRoss on January 4, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Instead of random searches and increasingly onerous restrictions on law-abiding people, wouldn’t it make more sense to screen everyone lightly and screen those who fit profiles for higher risk a little more thoroughly?

It would but you’ve got to remember that this isn’t about fixing a broken system, it is about damage control on the PR front. Had Nepolitano not proudly proclaimed the system worked. Had the POTUS not taken criticism for being more concerned with his golf game than terrorism. Had the administration not decided to let the undiebomber lawyer up and get a civilian prosecution….. we wouldn’t be doing any of these kneejerk meaningless “reforms”

highhopes on January 4, 2010 at 11:41 AM

El Al Airlines security system is superb. I agree totally with the way they do business. One cannot argue with an extremely well-thought, successful system that depends on preparation and not luck. However, translating that to the American aviation system is tough to do, at least to the level that El Al does it. El Al has 47 aircraft (according to Wikipedia). I don’t know how many planes U.S. carriers have, but it sure is lot more than 47.

Again, we should study the Israeli system in detail and adopt as many techniques as possible, but be prepared to pay lots and lots of money. Think of the number of Air Marshals needed to man EVERY U.S. carrier flight. Do we man ALL flights or just the International ones? Do we demand that all non-U.S. carriers put marshals on their planes? Not an easy nut to crack. The money spent is worth the lives saved, in my opinion. I just don’t think that the Israeli system can be transferred seamlessly to the U.S. system.

NavyMustang on January 4, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Why bother with methods that work when you can “Use” each and every crisis as a way of getting people to give up more and more of their freedoms.

Chip on January 4, 2010 at 11:43 AM

El Al security: Your security is our priority. Travel is a privilege, not a right. We will screen you appropriately.

US Security: When everybody is a terrorist, nobody is a terrorist.

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 11:45 AM

It makes even further sense to not increase security procedures on muslim men, traveling in the US, who have not traveled outside of the US for any reason in the recent past and who successfully pass routine screening measures.

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 11:22 AM

There’s the families of 13 solidiers who died at Fort Hood who might disagree with you about that. Hassan wouldn’t have registered on any routine screening measures and was holding a valid military ID to boot.

The crux of the matter is that the system is broken when officials know about these terrorists in advance and do nothing. Smart profiling gets you only so far. It’s the gathering and sharing of human intelligence that would make the difference.

highhopes on January 4, 2010 at 11:47 AM

But notice what happens in Israel – you ask the guy if he’s Jewish. What would you do in the US? Ask him if he’s American?

Phoenician on January 4, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Gee, it sounds like the El Al method is just common sense – could that be the big reason the TSA doesn’t do that?

Did anyone notice that some of the potential hijack methods used simple ordinary objects with a sharpened edge?

Given that all you need to make a weapon is a material that will hold an edge [glass, plastic, metal, stone, paper,....] and a way to sharpen that edge, how can we possibly defend against that without (OMG!) profiling!

Juno77 on January 4, 2010 at 11:52 AM

My wife and I are BOTH Flight Attendants, we’d very much welcome the Israeli system because terrorism is TWICE as dangerous to our family.

Waiting for my plane last night I saw a beautiful woman waiting for the same plane. She took out her laptop and turned on HOT AIR! Needless to say she got a free drink coupon! :-) Any of you HotHeads out there every fly on Southwest and your F/a’s name is Tony, you get a free drink!

Tony737 on January 4, 2010 at 11:57 AM

If the US adopts Israeli security methods for air travel, the usual nutjobs will start complaining that the Jews control American aviation.

Emperor Norton on January 4, 2010 at 11:58 AM

Theoretically, a Scotch-Irish grandma from Hoboken could carry out a terrorist attack, but in reality, that’s not the threat. Instead of random searches and increasingly onerous restrictions on law-abiding people, wouldn’t it make more sense to screen everyone lightly and screen those who fit profiles for higher risk a little more thoroughly?

This is no different than the gun control issue and foreign policy in one large sense. Liberals are afraid of confronting bad people. It’s uncomfortable for them. Rather than facing up to evildoers, but still wishing to give the appearance of strength, liberals continue to beat up on those whom they can control: law-abiding citizens. They can’t stop school shootings, but they can enact gun control, which briefs well, perpetuates the problem, and keeps them in business as “problem solvers”. The same for appeasement. Nothing will change.

Send_Me on January 4, 2010 at 12:02 PM

There’s the families of 13 solidiers who died at Fort Hood who might disagree with you about that. Hassan wouldn’t have registered on any routine screening measures and was holding a valid military ID to boot.

The crux of the matter is that the system is broken when officials know about these terrorists in advance and do nothing. Smart profiling gets you only so far. It’s the gathering and sharing of human intelligence that would make the difference.

highhopes on January 4, 2010 at 11:47 AM

point well taken, thanks. However, despite airport screening measures, there is nothing that those sets of procedures would have done to keep hassan from traveling. In this context (airport security and direct threat to an aircraft), it is different circumstance altogether. Now, if Hasan had requested leave to travel to yemen, then the security system would have/should have hit the proverbial fan. It is disgusting and sad that he was not questioned by the FBI or Army CID prior to this terrorist attack–thanks to our PC system.

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 12:05 PM

I like the idea that there are people on that plane who won’t put up with the scheitzen(sp) from these would be killers. I wonder if this would happen on intra-European flights. Our country has never really lost it’s rough edges and I pray it never will. It’s part of what makes us, us!

jeanie on January 4, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Waiting for my plane last night I saw a beautiful woman waiting for the same plane. She took out her laptop and turned on HOT AIR! Needless to say she got a free drink coupon! :-) Any of you HotHeads out there every fly on Southwest and your F/a’s name is Tony, you get a free drink!

Tony737 on January 4, 2010 at 11:57 AM

hey, could you start doing a little surreptitious *free drinking* to anyone fitting a certain profile? Maybe that *free drinky* will spill on someone’s crotch and you’ll know you’re a hero when you get paged to seat B22 when that same fella complains about how his bloody Mary just soaked his new PETN underpanties…/s

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Any of you HotHeads out there every fly on Southwest and your F/a’s name is Tony, you get a free drink!

Tony737 on January 4, 2010 at 11:57 AM

heh, will this work with any “Tony” at Southwest?

JetBoy on January 4, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Waiting for my plane last night I saw a beautiful woman waiting for the same plane. She took out her laptop and turned on HOT AIR! Needless to say she got a free drink coupon! :-) Any of you HotHeads out there every fly on Southwest and your F/a’s name is Tony, you get a free drink!

Tony737 on January 4, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Looks to me like you were doing a little profiling of your own, the kind I really can agree with.
-_*

TXUS on January 4, 2010 at 12:09 PM

Ethnic profiling, as problematic as it is, is the least problematic counter-terrorism measure. Because at the end of the day, you might cause some inconvenience to a so-called “suspect,” based on his ethnic profiling, by asking him another question or two questions altogether. But you don’t really endanger his liberal democratic values, and in return, you might save a life.

I would amend the last sentence, “in return, you might save his life.” Hundreds of thousands of innocent Arabs or Muslims get profiled every year by El Al, but it must be remembered they too are being protected by the same profiling of which they are temporarily “a victim.” They get caught in the same “collective punishment” or, at least “presumption of guilt” that we all currently enjoy in the United States, but at least, because the Israeli system is effective, they can be confident that they their inconvenience results in their protection. Not so in the good ol’ PCUSA.

As another recent clip on the subject pointed out, it isn’t only ethnicity or religion that El Al security is looking at. They know full well that Al Qaeda would take immediate advantage of any blonde-haired, blue-eyed convert that they could convince to become a shaheed. Let’s say Al Qaeda dresses this hypothetical WASP-shaheed in a Holy Cross letter-sweater. El Al would almost certainly catch that guy too–and what kind of profiling would that be, hmmm? Will the ACLU next tell us that criminal behavior itself cannot be profiled–we must look for innocent people and only catch terrorists by getting lucky?

smellthecoffee on January 4, 2010 at 12:10 PM

they their the inconvenience

Grr.

smellthecoffee on January 4, 2010 at 12:12 PM

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 11:01 AM

ditto that, only double the number of grown kids and subtract maybe 15 lbs. Just let me stand in the aisle with a bayonet clenched in my teeth, and your flight will be a little odd but problem-free

Janos Hunyadi on January 4, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Sometimes, we Israelis let a few slip through.

Shy Guy on January 4, 2010 at 12:15 PM

As long as assholes continue to run airport security it will lead to ours.

The latest scam–scanners–will do nothing. The dirty secret that they would not have picked up the underwear bomber is not being discussed. Follow the money to see who has an interest in these companies.

If the jihadis keep being jihadis this all ends at cavity searches. Profiling is about the only deterrent that might work. This stupidity of, look over there, a white haired 80 year old nun, search her has got to stop.

patrick neid on January 4, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Without profiling this whole game leads to cavity searches.
Scanners, the latest scam, will not pick up underwear bombers.

Meanwhile lets continue to search white haired 80 year old nuns so we feel secure. That freckled faced ten year old looks pretty suspicious also.

Abdul here’s your first class seat. I see you are travelling without luggage, how thoughtful. We need the overhead space as it is.

patrick neid on January 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM

I say we hire ex-cons as flight attendants. Some of them would probably know how to make a shank out of marshmellows and grapes (and know how to look for them)

ConservativeTony on January 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Even if TSA turned itself into El Al overnight, that alone would not have prevented the EunuchBomber from getting on board his flight.

Yes it would. Watch the video again and think a bit.

gh on January 4, 2010 at 12:38 PM

I don’t think you people understand. If we profile people, that would be…. RAAAACISSST!!!!

….yyyeeeeaAAAAARGH!

johnmackeygreene on January 4, 2010 at 12:49 PM

We really don’t need to profile. All we really need is to offer something to certain groups if they voluntarily submit to being “screened.”

Offer them a bump to first class or reduced fares. Those who decline would be suspect.

ConservativeTony on January 4, 2010 at 12:57 PM

It seems our culture is slowly and painfully-while kicking and screaming-being dragged to reality. But its still a major mistake to profile ‘ethnically’-because it presents a ready loophole for people to cry racism and opens it up for lawsuits based on discrimination. Or it would seriously inconvenience (or wrongly jail) non-muslim ethnic people like Indians/hindus, who may look muslim but present absolutely no threat to the US (and they actually contribute the most to America of all the ethnic groups).

We should profile muslims because in case anyone hasn’t noticed, 99% of the world’s terrorism is coming out of one religion-Islam. Also it’ll take care of that ‘racism loophole’ I mentioned, since being a muslim is an ideology/belief system and all races can join or leave (under threat of death). Besides, its the truth-so why should we lie to ourselves when we all know nearly all terrorists are muslim? And also because their evil religion instructs hatred and violence against non-muslims, its a no-brainer.

No doubt muslims will whine and gnash their teeth about being targeted, but they deserve it. They chose to follow a death cult-we didn’t force them into it so they should suffer the consequences of their beliefs. Besides, don’t they want to be seen as martyrs for their cause? Won’t Allah love them more for their ‘persecution’ at the hands of us non-muslims? Don’t they love death more than we love life?

Now if our elites were really smart, they’d ban Islam, stop muslim immigration, send all the muslims back to their countries (unless they left islam) and help other civilized nations to rid themselves of this barbaric scourge from their midst. I won’t hold my breath but that’s the obvious answer, the fascist, totalitarian, medieval, savage, woman-hating, unbeliever-hating, Arab supremacist death cult of Islam does not belong in this century, let alone our world.

thinkagain on January 4, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Roger Hedgecock was subbing for Rush several years ago and made a statement that I’ll never forget. “The best example of racial profiling is affirmative action”.

That can not be said more true. I worked for a company for a year before I moved to a new town. With the experience and a BA deree I applied for a listed job with the same company in that towns location. I was told that I could not be hired because I was white. The job would go to the next black applicant to keep the racial balance.

Franklyn on January 4, 2010 at 1:01 PM

A basic understanding of islam explains why profiling is effective.

When a muslem dies, they have to wait in the grave until the “Day of Judgment”, when everyone’s deeds are judged by allah, and goes either to paradise or hell. Even a good muslem is not guaranteed admittance, for allah is a fickle, vengeful god.

Unless, that muslem is killed performing jihad. In that case, they are immediately given an express ticket to paradise, regardless of past behavior. The blood of the people murdered by the muslem, as well as other ill effects on the infidels such as terror, economic hardship, etc., are the currency in which the muslem pays allah for this special treatment.

So for the young male muslem, there is a very powerful incentive to “go out with a bang”, and get immediate and eternal gratification, rather than live with the uncertainty and a long wait even for that chance.

Profiling is exactly what is called for to screen out these people, and why El Al is successful in keeping their passengers safe.

Rebar on January 4, 2010 at 1:07 PM

It should be noted that “profiling” isn’t the same as “racial profiling”. We’re not looking specifically for someone based solely on their race. In fact, what these jihadis share in common has NOTHING to do with race.

Think of it this way – When we drive down a road where the police have set speed traps, they are looking for persons traveling in excess of the posted speed limit for that road.
They aren’t looking for a certain color car, or person. They aren’t specifically looking for men or women. They are looking for speeders. Period. Now, who fits the profile of a speeder? Sometimes it’s someone driving a ’68 fire-engine red Mustang, and sometimes it’s someone driving a FORD “P.O.S”. Makes no difference WHAT the person is driving. Usually, the speeder may fit an age profile, or have an existing driving record that is indicative of already having a bad habit of speeding. Pay special attention to that last one…ALREADY HAVING A RECORD OF SPEEDING.

Now – jihadis are tied together by many things. And being on several watch lists, visiting countries known to harbor terrorists and terrorism, are most times just a few of them.

But, one very large thing they share in common is what motivates them. It’s not lack of money or too much money. It’s not the color of their skin. It has nothing to do with having children or not. I don’t think I have to spell it out, and really shouldn’t have to, because it is the ONE binding tie between all of them that is, at this very moment, the large elephant in the room.

The more we ignore that elephant….The more we’ll find ourselves right back at September 10th, 2001.

This isn’t about “racial profiling”.
This is about “terror profiling”. Who in our society ALREADY HAS A RECORD of terror or terror ties? What is common between all of them?

Talismen on January 4, 2010 at 1:30 PM

***
Armed shooter on each airplane works for me. Fire most of TSA. Train the rest so we have enough shooters for all flights.
***
Limited checks prior to boarding–El Al style. Arm all pilots and co-pilots. And use trained explosives sniffing dogs to check all passengers, their baggage, and carry-ons. The dogs work much better–and cheaper–than “hi tech” sniffers and scanners with slow use and high false positives.
***
Get smart or die. Politically “correct” isn’t working.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on January 4, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Talismen on January 4, 2010 at 1:30 PM

Well put. If a report goes out that a bank robbery has just been committed, and the perp is described as tall and thin with very light blonde hair, is it “profiling” if police are stopping tall blonde men for the rest of the night? The police are not “profiling,” “the profile” was created by the victims–the bank tellers and customers who saw the crime committed.

If there is a rash of bank robberies committed by this hypothetical man is it profiling if the police tell bank security guards to be on the lookout for people who fit “the profile?” Commense sense says no. It seems reasonable that entities should be allowed to protect themselves against crime a priori. So why is it, that if the profile includes race, the profile becomes problematic? Why does it suddenly become “discriminatory?” Isn’t “discriminating”, in the plain meaning of “recognizing small differences or drawing fine distinctions,” or applying “careful and exact evaluation,” precisely what we are about here? Drawing fine distinctions of behavior so as to arrive at a careful and exact evaluation of who the the freakin’ baddies are so we can keep them off the plane? How can you “discriminate,” without “discriminating”? How much more absurd can this possibly get?

smellthecoffee on January 4, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Chris_Balsz on January 4, 2010 at 11:22 AM

I have no problem with any effective security measure that I’m asked to submit to.

However, telling me I can’t get up for the last hour of the flight because the last guy tried to blow up the plane in the last hour of the flight is stupid. There is absolutely nothing about having a book in my lap in the last hour of the flight that makes me dangerous.

I’m tired of submitting to stupid regulations (I, of course, will continue to submit to them as I appreciate the convenience of air travel) that have nothing whatsoever to do with preventing terrorism.

The problem is we have too much government and they’ve all got to be seen ‘doing something’ to justify their existence. We’d be better off if we just paid the majority of the bureaucrats to stay home and stop making pointless new rules.

JadeNYU on January 4, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Roger Hedgecock was subbing for Rush several years ago and made a statement that I’ll never forget. “The best example of racial profiling is affirmative action”.

Franklyn on January 4, 2010 at 1:01 PM

That quote should show people that it is the leftists that are the true racists – it is they who judge on the color of one’s skin – and it doesn’t matter if there’s a positive or negative result in the bargain.

Chip on January 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM

“The security process at Schipol is the responsibility of the Dutch government, not the US. Even if TSA turned itself into El Al overnight, that alone would not have prevented the EunuchBomber from getting on board his flight.”

Actually that is wrong because that would be saying El Al was not responsible for security at Schipol when in fact they are if they have flights there. The airline and its employees are responsible for these security measures even in foreign countries and airports, not any government.

Because these are security screenings given by the airlines employees, TSA would in fact be responsible if they decided to have US carriers also implement because it would cover every airport their employees are at.

As a side note they didn’t mention one other thing they do which I experienced when I flew on El Al from London to Tel Aviv. One question they asked is if I was flying alone, I stated yes and they then asked who was the woman I was talking to sitting next to me earlier. I didn’t know her and just stated I was doing small talk, but it showed me they were observing everyone in the waiting area and who they were talking to and how they were acting. That is the type of profiling we need done instead of the gate agents just showing up right before a plane boards.

JeffinSac on January 4, 2010 at 2:58 PM

What confuses me, is the TSA insistence on us not being able to carry knives onto planes.
Hasn’t it been shown that knives, carried by passengers, will defer most any attack?

One or two air marshals are not a deterent. They are probably going to be known to the terroist anyway along with those who could stop them and removed, as the case has been. The rest of the poeple are helpless; are not a threat and they know it.

If we were told we could bring one knife weapon on a plane today, you can pretty well bet that most would have it. It levels the playing field at worse with the terroist and at best, they don’t even try knowing that anything, even trying to use the knife they brought on board, is not going to help them. A rush to the copit as in the 9/11 situations would have been a run through a guantlet of knives.

The Israelies use the most sophisticated method of detection of a danger ever created, the human mind.

They have highly trained and perceptive interviewers that have the job based on their ability to do it. They are not restrained by laws that prevent them from making the right decision nor are they likely to make one based on political correctness or appalling stupidity as often is the case in our system. They do not have laws or organizations telling them they must hire people based factors other than their abiltiy to do the job.

Their method would save us billions and cut cost and delays of air travel while greatly improving our safty. It will not work here because we have to hire those that are incompetent, or politically compromised, to do the job that the success depends on. Our only option is to use compromised technology and illiusion of safty to pretend our system is working.

Franklyn on January 4, 2010 at 3:07 PM

smellthecoffee on January 4, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Funny story (well, sort of) – years ago here in central Iowa, we had a huge flair up over local news reports that often times (and still to this day) will say something like (example):

“The suspect was a black male, 5’9, with stocky build”

The local black community leaders are all “THAT COULD BE ANYBODY!”

While it’s true that it COULD be anybody….apparently they had a problem with it ONLY when the word “black” was in the description, because the local news media has also used “white” in nearly the same description as well.

Telling.

Talismen on January 4, 2010 at 3:45 PM

PC trumps everything else. That’s nothing new. The left has pushed it in every part of our society for many years – at least since the late 70′s, early 80′s by my own (admittedly spotty) recollection. It’s not really a surprise, then, that PC is an overriding consideration in security as well. After all, if the police cannot look for bad guys among the people in bad neighborhoods because it “might” be racial profiling, then why would we allow anyone to look for terrorist-bad guys among groups that have inordinately high numbers of terrorist-bad guys? Instead, we simply inconvenience everyone, like that somehow sends the message that we won’t bend our “principles” or whatever in our desire for self-preservation. Better to seek increasingly expensive “passive” machines and devices to detect dangerous contraband, that probably will be circumvented in a period of time and intrude upon everyone rather than to pat-down or ask a few more (no-cost) questions of the passenger from a country that supports terrorism? Really?
Unless someone – anyone – is willing to stand against the tide of the ACLU, the dems, and all the rest that care more about how something looks than how well it works, the potential for body parts falling from the sky will stay with us.

n0doz on January 4, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Another thing we could do would be to once again make security the responsibility of the airlines. If an airline is seen to be insecure, it will not last long in the market. Then all of the TSA employee budget could be used to train and employ sky marshals for all domestic and international flights.In fact I am suprised that an airline has not used this simple marketing tool: advertise advanced security on their planes and mimic the El Al model. I think people would pay a premium for the piece of mind. It\’s an idea.

drocity on January 4, 2010 at 4:38 PM

It’s like slavery all over again! The horror! The horror!

/lib

JohnJ on January 4, 2010 at 7:37 PM

please, lets not jump into an El al mess. If you have never endured them, you don’t get it. This is not a couple of friendly people chatting you up in line, it is a royal pain of uninvited questioning, and arrogant behavior. I stopped flying delta out of Cairo when they hired the el al team to do their security. what a joke, i don’t need them, and we Americans really don’t need them. Plan on being at the airport a day ahead, and fondly remembering the tsa lines.

wallyone on January 5, 2010 at 7:00 AM

The average distance people fly is 800 miles, therefore, you could be almost half-way to your destination (360 miles) in the time you have to arrive before your flight departs from Israel (almost 6 hours).

Impatient Americans could not tolerate such a requirement. Also, the briefing and background information they have on each flier is amazing and you are one of many dots. But, they are able to connect you and all of the other dots you associate with.

MSGTAS on January 5, 2010 at 9:28 AM