Here’s Hitchens on airport security:
For some years after 9/11, passengers were forbidden to get up and use the lavatory on the Washington-New York shuttle. Zero tolerance! I suppose it must eventually have occurred to somebody that this ban would not deter a person who was willing to die, so the rule was scrapped. But now the principle has been revisited for international flights. For many years after the explosion of the TWA plane over Long Island (a disaster that was later found to have nothing at all to do with international religious nihilism), you could not board an aircraft without being asked whether you had packed your own bags and had them under your control at all times. These two questions are the very ones to which a would-be hijacker or bomber would honestly and logically have to answer “yes.” But answering “yes” to both was a condition of being allowed on the plane! Eventually, that heroic piece of stupidity was dropped as well. But now fresh idiocies are in store. Nothing in your lap during final approach. Do you feel safer? If you were a suicide-killer, would you feel thwarted or deterred? [...]
The fault here is not just with our endlessly incompetent security services, who give the benefit of the doubt to people who should have been arrested long ago or at least had their visas and travel rights revoked. It is also with a public opinion that sheepishly bleats to be made to “feel safe.” The demand to satisfy that sad illusion can be met with relative ease if you pay enough people to stand around and stare significantly at the citizens’ toothpaste. My impression as a frequent traveler is that intelligent Americans fail to protest at this inanity in case it is they who attract attention and end up on a no-fly list instead. Perfect.
It was reported over the weekend that in the aftermath of the Detroit fiasco, no official decision was made about whether to raise the designated “threat level” from orange. Orange! Could this possibly be because it would be panicky and ridiculous to change it to red and really, really absurd to lower it to yellow? But isn’t it just as preposterous (and revealing), immediately after a known Muslim extremist has waltzed through every flimsy barrier, to leave it just where it was the day before?
What nobody in authority thinks us grown-up enough to be told is this: We had better get used to being the civilians who are under a relentless and planned assault from the pledged supporters of a wicked theocratic ideology. These people will kill themselves to attack hotels, weddings, buses, subways, cinemas, and trains. They consider Jews, Christians, Hindus, women, homosexuals, and dissident Muslims (to give only the main instances) to be divinely mandated slaughter victims. Our civil aviation is only the most psychologically frightening symbol of a plethora of potential targets. The future murderers will generally not be from refugee camps or slums (though they are being indoctrinated every day in our prisons); they will frequently be from educated backgrounds, and they will often not be from overseas at all. They are already in our suburbs and even in our military. We can expect to take casualties. The battle will go on for the rest of our lives. Those who plan our destruction know what they want, and they are prepared to kill and die for it. Those who don’t get the point prefer to whine about “endless war,” accidentally speaking the truth about something of which the attempted Christmas bombing over Michigan was only a foretaste. While we fumble with bureaucracy and euphemism, they are flying high.








45 Comments
He had me until that last paragraph.
Why? It’s accurate enough. There’s no real reason to believe this situation will end until there is significant cultural/social change in the general Muslim world, something that I do not believe we will see in our lifetimes. The current situation is self-perpetuating until something breaks the cycle – and that something is probably going to have to come from inside the middle east, unless we want to bite the bullet, declare a modern crusade and turn the whole area into fused glass. A situation that likely wouldn’t leave us significantly better off in the end anyway.
Your reading of that paragraph and my reading of it are very different, it seems.
I agree on some level, but this guy is a bit inflamatory. It is obvious that he does not understand several of the processes in place, or their reason for being there.
I love Chris Hitchens more and more all the time. My favorite TV appearance of his was on Bill Maher when he defended George W Bush saying Maher’s audience were a bunch of morons, and not a single one of them was smarter than GWB. When the audience boo’d him he flipped them off. LOL. Maher was beside himself. Speechless. Only Hitchens can do that. Love the guy.
Not only does he flip them off, he says “F*ck you. F*ck you”. Check it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoclaTQWzvc&feature=related
Golden moment.
“you could not board an aircraft without being asked whether you had packed your own bags and had them under your control at all times”
I used to be a Customs officer. These questions are standard for all Customs and border agencies around the world.
The reason is simple: If you are asked these questions before you are searched and answer them both “yes”, then if you are found to be carrying contraband it prevents you from being able to blame it on anybody else. It’s a common method of questioning which is known as “cutting off the escape routes”. You ask questions which rule out all of the excuses which could be given for the really important question, which you save until last.
It has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.
Shame to see Hitchens go all Faux News on us in that last paragraph, too.
Interesting – thanks for the insight. See, the processes are all there for a reason which may not be immediately apparent (by design).
Wow, you worked customs?
My one and only lengthy dealings with a customs office wound up with me deciding that the entire office put together didn’t have the brain power to blow a single nose. Seriously, at one point I actually wondered if they were all drunk or high or something. I just needed to pay duties on an international shipment. That’s it. And it took six hours. That is not exaggeration.
I’ve read your posts, so I know you’re smart. I wish I’d gone to your office to pay my duties.
Lol – I’m smart enough to have got out, mate ;-)
I used to drive a truck over the road and got to sit in Canadian Customs for about that long so they could ok my load of black spotted porn mags.
Yep that’s always been my take on it although the one that I think may be a trick question is on the US visa waiver form; have you ever over thrown a goverment by force … am I supposed to answer yes or no to that one?
Surely you should answer yes – overthrowing a corrupt government by force is one of the duties of a US citizen, isn’t it? That’s why the right to bear arms was included!
Or the Australian one … do you have a criminal record; to which the reply is … I didn’t think it was still compulsory :-)
Agreed. There have been cases where a “good friend” has given a passenger a special present to carry on board, later found to be contraband.
I love what he says about hiring more people to stand around & glare balefully at our toothbrushes. so much of the security thing is pathetic. Like when some guy eyeballs my baggie of bottles of liquid. Does he have x-ray eyes? Is he some kind of cyborg able to detect harmful chemicals just by looking? I can go on google earth & just about read my license plate out front, & for a plane full of people they say is important, we’ve got some guy LOOKING at some bottles. Wow, I feel so much safer. I am married to a scientist & he informs me you can put plenty o’ interesting stuff in those little bottles. And 3 oz would be just as bad as 4, so when they make you toss something for the extra oz – it’s just plain stupid. The whole reason for that is just to make you give up rights.
And yea – the detroit guy did something in the last hour so our response is you must have your hands in your lap for the last hour. Wha? How does that make even a bit of sense? Can you really picture that with kids? Kids are fussy & need toys & to sleep & cuddle. Can you imagine the fight between a parent trying to look out for their kid & a stew trying to enforce pointless rules? the ACLU must be sharpening their knives. Some parent is going to get persecuted & arrested & the airline will get crushed for taking little teddy away from sleeping baby. What nice press that will make.
As far as I can tell, most of so called security is a way to train the populace to blindly follow orders from a bunch of goobers who are working at the airport only because all the night jobs at burger king were filled.
As an Israeli I got used to this type of security theater. If the TSA personnel were encouraged to use common sense instead of just going through the motions than list or no list this guy should have raised a red flag. I would think that a guy with no luggage buying a one way ticket with cash would be unusual enough to have him flagged for additional screen that would have found the stuff in his pants. Instead we’ll all be patted now as we go through security until the next time when someone hide some explosives up their a*s and everyone will have to take a rectal probe before boarding a flight. The same for the rest of the new measures. What will happen is that the crew will announce that the pane is approaching the end of the flight and this is the last chance to go to the bathroom and in the mess of everyone o board trying to go it will probably be easier to do something unnoticed. The same go to disabling the flight tracking system since a terrorist wont be able to figure the plane is above an urban area by looking out of the fuc*ing window.
Last point of my rumbling. I don’t know how many of you had the pleasure of applying for a US visa but one of the questions on the form is: is the purpose of your visit is to commit acts of terrorism against the USA? And I’m sure that terrorists being known for their honesty all check yes on this one.
that’s really a question? oh my god…I think my eyes rolled so far back they’re stuck in my head now. Damn.
I totally agree with PuntyBunny and Yoav (and by extension Hitchens).
I’ve never been a nut-job conspiracy theorist, but there is no way that airport security processes are anything more than a way to force compliance onto honest people. Bow down to the Man, man.
My dad has had both hips and a shoulder replaced so he sets the metal detectors off every time – and is then asked to go to a private area to show the scars – every time I want to punch someone. Pointless and invasive.
Banning unaccompanied luggage? yeh, fair deal – but having to take my belt off to go thru the scanners? Please…
There’s an infinite regress in any measure that seeks to eliminate the MO of the last attack. Passengers cant get up during the last hour? so blow the plane up 1hr and 15 minutes from the end – then passengers will have to be seated for last hour and half. Ultimately all aircraft will be grounded, with only sea and road travel available (until some loon blows up a boat)
despite my eternal bitching on this topic to anyone who’ll listen (or maybe because of it) a few measures in Australia have been lifted recently (things like nail clippers etc in the cabin)
How is it pointless to ask someone to prove that their claims of implanted metal devices are true? If you think that they shouldn’t ask for evidence or proof, do you think we should just get rid of metal detectors and let people walk on with all sorts of weapons? I can see how you would feel it’s invasive, but it should be relatively painless. Your father should travel with a doctor’s note explaining the implants so that the questioning and inconvenience factor is kept to a minimum.
Besides, the alternative is walking through the human-sized x-ray machine. Frequent exposure to x-rays isn’t good for you, and those machines were proven to be WAY more invasive than a targeted body search could ever be. (Picture superman-style x-ray vision)
A friend of mine tested airport security between LHR and JFK after 9/11 and all of it’s security “enhancements”.
He and his team stripped down an Austrian sniper rifle (made of plastics and ceramics) into its components, and they all cheerfully bimbled onto the airplane and flew to New York carrying pieces of it (including ammunition).
At the other end, he strolled up to the Customs desk, reassembled it, loaded it and suggested that the nice police man might like to arrest him and his mates now.
Wow, that is really dumb. Did he get arrested?
Well, yes. He was doing it on behalf of our respective governments, though, so not that dumb :-)
I assume this was while you were a customs officer, and that he was too? Some sort of red team? Or does he just work for faux news?? (obviously i work in the field)
It was a little while after I joined Customs. He was actually special forces at the time, his guys were asked to do it to see if people who thought like terrorists (i.e. sneaky bastards) could actually do it. Turned out it wasn’t all that hard.
@Custador
To be fair this sort of assumes that airport security relies totally on these type of measures which is certainly doesn’t. Its main priority is intelligence lead and not scanners etc. at airports. The difficult part of committing a terrorist act is planning it in such a way that you don’t come to the attention of intelligence agencies when planning it not the actual act itself. Your group of friends would have been considered a very low risk so wouldn’t have warranted any special attention. If it really was this easy then planes would be dropping out of the skys left right and centre but they are not. This of course raises the question of what airport security is for. IMHO its serves a number of purposes:
Arse Covering: Can you imagine what would happen if these very basic measures weren’t used and an incident did happen. Those in charge would be hung out to dry by both politicians and the media. Dammed if you do dammed if you don’t …
Implied Safety: To keep people flying it needs not only to be safe but appear safe. These measures may not be that effective on their own but they do give an impression of safety. Do you remember the Scimitar light tank at Heathrow — just what purpose did that serve?
Political Correctness: I can’t think of a better phrase to use so this will have to do. It would be considered unacceptable to overtly target higher risk groups at airports i.e. you can’t have two lines where all the ‘white’ people can carry on liquids and don’t have to take their shoes off whereas any one with a beard and a copy of the Qur’an gets the rubber glove treatment.
Just my tuppence worth …
PS someone already tried to blow up a boat here in the US. A large ferry from Canada to Washington. The customs agent noticed that the man was acting weird during routine questioning… and when she took his vehicle into secondary, they found all kinds of explosives in his trunk.
I found this document which describes what happened. Read the background section. http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/abudoha/usabudoha70201cmpt.pdf
I read this article earlier this week, and it made me wonder about Hitchens’ stance on gun control. The idea that enforcing rules upon the innocent does not have much of an affect on those intending to commit crime is a common argument in gun control discussions. I was pleased to see that Hitchens is entirely consistent on this issue; he thinks gun control laws which try to keep guns out of the hands of civilians are equally stupid.
This all makes me wonder just how conservative Hitchens actually is. He clearly favors personal freedoms (usually, although I don’t know his opinions about religious freedom) and smaller government, and I’m curious how far that goes.
I wouldnt call Hitchens conservative. I think he represents a different breed of politico.
I would call him ‘rational’. He is in favor of single payer health care, because it works in every nation that uses it. He is in favor of free press, not for some ideological reason, but because it is shown to increase freedom, wealth, and limit power.
We need more rationalists. People who are unafraid to follow the numbers, and agree with what they point to. Its a difficult position to get to, as it requires you to abandon all your preconceived notions.
Hitchens is like any any red-neck Republican, minus the religion. I’m sorry, but he is. His unthinking bull-headedness and inability to alter his position has on any subject, even when he’s clearly wrong, have sapped my respect for him in a big way.
Something wrong here. Hitchens is an ex-communist so either he CAN change his views or he is NOT a republican. Having said this, I find his pig-headed defense of the invasion of Iraq disturbing.
I said he was like a Republican, not that he is a Republican ;-)
One problem I have is that Hitchen’s version of eternal war is not working and cannot work unless we do literally turn everything into fused glass. I hope nobody here really is advocating that?
I might also suggest that the AMERICAN ideology of untrammelled capitalism tied to militarism and great game playing by our elites, excvused through smarmy self righteoussness, has probably killed far more people than Islam, as bad as said ideology is.
While asking whether someone packed their own bags and had kept them on-hand ever since wouldn’t deter a suicide bomber, it *might* help detect the case of the bomber getting someone else to carry a bombed package or case on board the plane. DUH.
A better question would be a series of questions asking each passenger “Do you believe in Allah?”, “Do you believe in God?”, “Do you believe in Jahwea(sp)?”. (And go down the full list of popular imaginary sky-fairies). Anyone that answers yes to any of them gets denied entry to the plane. Then you can be sure there are no religious nutcase/martyr types on board. True, you also deny a lot of average gullible sheeple too, but, at least they will be safe from terrorism.
I thought most American sheeple didn’t travel outside of the US anyway?
Well, every time you Brits manage to find your way off your little islands, the world breaks into a few more painful little pieces. We’re achieving in just a few short centuries the very same reputation. Perhaps it is best for us to never again venture forth.
Besides, as far as English-speaking peoples, I believe it is Australia’s turn to ruin something horribly.
Brits and little islands … discounting the likes of the Isle of Wight it’s just one big island.
Oh and yes the US does now deserve the title of the new Empire builder it just does it in a more subtle way. We were just honest and said we are taking over your country whether you like it or not … awesome :-)
@Jabster. I take it you´re not Scottish then? How about Skye, the Orkneys, the Hebrides. Then on the English side you´ve got the Isles of Scilly (the silly isles), Lindisfarne etc etc. ok pedantry over.
“… discounting the likes of the Isle of Wight it’s just one big island.”
I rest my case my lord …
93% do not have passports. Given the diversity within their own borders, perhaps not too surprising.
I always thought that 7% having passports was just a myth and although the figure wasn’t as high as say Europeans it wasn’t quite that low?
I was stymied when trying to find an official number, but reasonable guesses derived from annual issuance statistics and the fact they last ten years under normal circumstances places possession at about 20% of the population. Apparently that number is the result of a sharp trend upwards over the past ten years, so when teh 7% myth first cropped up it may well have been close to reality.
On the other hand, I live in an American state whose largest linear dimension is forty-seven miles, and have met several people who have never left the state in their entire lives, never mind the country.
20% sounds more reasonable considering that the UK alone had 3.4m ‘vistors’ for the US in 2009.
I think we must be thankful that terrorists have the little-boy mentality that likes explosions. There are only so many people one can kill in a single airplane, on or off the ground. We can all think of more effective WMD.
One Trackback
[...] (Via Unreasonable Faith) [...]