Long delays at US airports for security

[bush_cheney2004]

The timing couldn't have been better (or worse) for mostly returning travelers from the long holiday weekend. One barbecued terrorist leg in Detroit caused immediate "upgrades" in security procedures that caused massive delays and cancelled flights. Some Canadians vow never to fly to the USA again....how cute!

Thousands of Canadians had their flights cancelled or delayed on Sunday, as new security measures came into effect for anyone travelling to the U.S. by air.

As of 4:30 p.m. local time, 125 flights had been cancelled at Toronto's Pearson International airport, the country's busiest air-traffic hub.

Many other major airports across the country, including Vancouver and Montreal, each experienced dozens of disruptions. Most of the disruptions related to flights originating in or departing for the United States.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091227/flight_delays_091227/20091227?hub=TopStoriesV2

Edited December 28, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Shakeyhands]

daily jab.... in. Thx BC.

[jbg]

The response to this episode is what I have seen referred to as "security theatre". Steps are taken to make everyone feel nice, warm, cuddly and safe. The actions don't involve any kind of profiling, and thus are politically correct. The actions also involve huge amounts of cost and inconvenience, and accomplish nothing.

After September 11, people were forced to go through elaborate-seeming checks, and forced to come to the airport 2 hours early. This effectively made air travel between such points as New York City and Boston, or Washington DC not worthwhile, thus dealing a long-term blow to an already staggering airline industry. Security checks were added to the lobbies of New York City office buildings. In the courthouses where I practiced, a well-running photo ID bypass was scrapped, and new cards issued to all attorneys making re-application.

After the Richard (I think) Reid attempt to detonate his sneakers, people were made to remove their shoes while boarding planes. This increased the aggravation of going through security, but does anyone really think that sneakers are a prime place to hide explosives?

Next was the summer of 2006 plot to bring down multiple planes at the same time, using explosives concealed in hair gel bottles, to be mixed on the planes. Now, people can't bring Poland Springs water onto planes that no longer have food service. Again, flight was made maddingly inconvenient and uncomfortable, since one cannot bring on carry-on luggage shampoo or other cosmetics they intend to use at their destination. Thus, almost everyone must check bags, and be forced to wait 30 to 120 minutes for luggage to be returned. How much safety is really gained?

Now, let's talk about methods that could be effective. It could start with not allowing people onto planes who are on terrorist databases, or at least screening them privately and far more extensivly. Umar Farouk Abulmutallab was in such databases. Indeed, he was reported by his own father, who was concerned about his son's voyage off the deep end (link), excerpt below:

Watch list

Despite being on the broad terrorist watch list, Abdulmutallab, who comes from a prominent and wealthy Nigerian family, had a multiple-entry U.S. visa. It was issued last year. U.S. officials say he came to the attention of America intelligence in November, when his father expressed concerns to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria about his son's extremist views.

As Lorne Gunter points out in "The politically correct myth of airline bombers" (link):

Now not only will airport security inspectors be asking us to unbuckle our belts so the may scan our fly areas for weapons, they'll be looking for icing sugar secreted away in our jockeys, too.

And, of course, all this will amount to barking up the wrong tree.

By Boxing Day, the effects of Abdulmutallab's failed terror attack on a Detroit-bound flight were already being felt by innocent air passengers in North America and Western Europe. On international flight inbound for the U.S., no passenger was permitted to rise up out of his or her seat during the final half-hour before landing, nor were they permitted to hold any personal items on their laps during this 30-minute, Homeland Security-imposed timeout.

On some flights, no cabin lights were dimmed, so flight attendants might more easily check passengers "packages" to ensure they weren't hiding any that might go boom.

But why the last 30 minutes of flights? Why not 45? Or 60? Indeed, why permit passengers to rise from their seats at all once airborne? Simply issue everyone with catheters or bleach bottles and never turn off the "Fasten Seatbelts" sign.

Each new layer of security, each new inconvenience for the travelling public, is mostly a placebo. It does very little to improve our inflight safety. Instead, each is imposed mostly to make it appear as though authorities are doing something and to give us the public some reassurance that they are safe in the air.

As Mr. Gunter correctly states (same link as above), some kind of narrowing of focus is necessary to make security measures effective, and avoid massive inconvenience for all:

No matter what we screen for, no matter how much we irritate and inconvenience passengers at airports, the bad guys will figure out new ways to bring potential death aboard our planes.

The real trick is screening out bad guys. But to do that would require a cultural will the West has not yet shown itself capable of. It would require us to admit that young Muslims -- mostly young Muslim males -- see themselves at war with the West, so they require a special level of scrutiny from security and intelligence forces.

Perhaps Mr. Gunter's approach isn't totally correct. Israel would be crippled, given the number of young Muslim males it has, to use the "Gunter" approach. They use behavoral profiling, which identifies certain "red flag" conduct and intensively scrutinizes those people. Even Jack London's canine character White Fang could identify the approach of an attacker to his master's house, as opposed to the approach of someone arriving on legitimate business. The attacker did not fare well.

If a dog can do it (and I don't think it's only fictional dogs that can) why can't we?

And one more thought; why not a little waterboarding of Mr. Abdulmutallab? I sure would like to know who is Al Quaeda contacts are and what their plans are. But, oh, heavens no. Just as we must respect Mr. Khadr's rights, we must respect Mr. Abdulmutallab's. The rights of travellers are subordinate to the politically correct solicitude for Mr. Abdulmutallab's and Mr. Khadr's rights.

Edited December 28, 2009 by jbg

[BubberMiley]

The actions don't involve any kind of profiling, and thus are politically correct.

If by "not involving any kind of profiling", you mean that young muslim men are not put through the ringer when flying to the U.S., then you're absolutely wrong. Why do you try to bring down the efforts of those who have quite successfully kept you safe since you soiled your pants on 9/11?

[jbg]

If by "not involving any kind of profiling", you mean that young muslim men are not put through the ringer when flying to the U.S., then you're absolutely wrong. Why do you try to bring down the efforts of those who have quite successfully kept you safe since you soiled your pants on 9/11?

I guess you didn't bother reading what kind of profiling I support. I also think you should not denigrate the fear generated by the 9/11 attacks.

[Guest American Woman]

Some Canadians vow never to fly to the USA again....how cute!

People generally are annoyed at flight delays and cancellations, so I see nothing unusual about "some Canadians vow[ing] never to fly to the USA again."

I've vowed never to fly this particular airline again or go out of/through that particular airport again for one reason or another -- and of course if it's more convenient and/or cheaper, I end up doing it. So in the height of frustration, the vow by these travelers is a pretty normal reaction. Some may end up avoiding the U.S. though, and I can't say I blame them if they don't want to have to put up with the heightened security; especially if they see it a pointless inconvenience, which a lot of it really ultimately is.

[Wilber]

More useless officially generated ass covering chaos which will do nothing for anyone's safety. By all means find out how this guy got on board with this stuff but do these idiots think aircraft can only be blown up during the last hour of flight? Lengthy takeoff delays in Toronto due to snow removal and deicing. You finally get airborne, the seat belt sign goes off and your back teeth are floating. So sorry but we are 55 minutes out of La Guardia so you will just have to sit there and wet yourself. Can't go into an overhead during the last hour. What's that all about? The terrorists don't need to do anything, we are making flying more and more like going to prison all by ourselves.

[jbg]

The terrorists don't need to do anything, we are making flying more and more like going to prison all by ourselves.

Exactly. Google "security theatre".

[bush_cheney2004]

People generally are annoyed at flight delays and cancellations, so I see nothing unusual about "some Canadians vow[ing] never to fly to the USA again."

I think the context is unusual, in that they have "vowed" to boycott an entire nation because of "oppressive" measures designed to protect their own safety (even if it is only security theatre per jbg). I guess these folks have never flown El Al Airlines.

I've vowed never to fly this particular airline again or go out of/through that particular airport again for one reason or another -- and of course if it's more convenient and/or cheaper, I end up doing it. So in the height of frustration, the vow by these travelers is a pretty normal reaction. Some may end up avoiding the U.S. though, and I can't say I blame them if they don't want to have to put up with the heightened security; especially if they see it a pointless inconvenience, which a lot of it really ultimately is.

I suspect these very same people would be the first to complain in the wake of another incident, including lawsuits. I am old enough to remember airline travel as an expensive but splendid experience. It turned into a glorified bus ride sans caged chickens many years ago.

[Topaz]

This topic is being talked about on "talk radio" and questions are being asked like how the guy get through security with all the material he had. The flight started out in the Holland and people are wondering if he had someone working for the airlines that helped him. Unfortunately, the US and maybe even Canada, will have to deal with terrorists for years to come. I can see as the security tightens, people will may not want to fly because of the waiting times to get through security. Another question, does the US now, go into Yemen, to destroy the camps there, where they guy had been?

[GostHacked]

I have only flown a handful of times myself. Have not flown to the US ever. Partly for I do not have a passport yet. Each time it was not that bad. I once had my DJ gear closely scrutinized on my flight to Vancouver this year. And the way they handled it made me cringe. Pay good money just to have some idiot guard manhandle my delicate equipment. Grrr.

People don't like their time wasted. Even even if tighter security prevents most terror attacks. But it won't prevent them completely. Those kinds of attacks will happen no matter how much security is in place.

[capricorn]

The response to this episode is what I have seen referred to as "security theatre". Steps are taken to make everyone feel nice, warm, cuddly and safe. The actions don't involve any kind of profiling, and thus are politically correct. The actions also involve huge amounts of cost and inconvenience, and accomplish nothing.

What it does accomplish is aid and abet one of the ultimate aims of West-hating terrorists. That is to strike fear in our hearts and minds, and to hinder our economies. To a large extent, Western governments and civil authorities have become agents of the terrorists. All the security in the world won't stop terrorists from plotting murderous rampages. In fact, the opposite is true. They are encouraged by the reaction and are provided the reasons to continue just as they are doing.

FAILED plane bomber Umar Abdulmutallab has bragged to FBI agents that there are more young men plotting to launch attacks on the West.

The 23-year-old Nigerian has told security chiefs of a sinister network in Yemen who are ready and waiting to strike.

The reports come after The Sun revealed that cops fear that 25 British-born Muslims are plotting to bomb Western airliners.

The fanatics, in five groups, are now training at secret terror camps in Yemen.

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2785733/Cops-fear-25-British-born-Muslims-are-plotting-to-bomb-Western-airliners.html#ixzz0azsSoxOs'>http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2785733/Cops-fear-25-British-born-Muslims-are-plotting-to-bomb-Western-airliners.html#ixzz0azsSoxOs

It was there London-educated Abdulmutallab prepared for his Christmas Day bid to blow up a US jet.

The British extremists in Yemen are in their early 20s and from Bradford, Luton and Leytonstone, East London.

They are due to return to the UK early in 2010 and will then await internet instructions from al-Qaeda on when to strike.

A Scotland Yard source said: "The great fear is Abdulmutallab is the first of many ready to attack planes and kill tens of thousands.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2785733/Cops-fear-25-British-born-Muslims-are-plotting-to-bomb-Western-airliners.html

Terrorists are gradually demoralizing us and the signs of defeat are everywhere.

[eyeball]

The response to this episode is what I have seen referred to as "security theatre". Steps are taken to make everyone feel nice, warm, cuddly and safe. The actions don't involve any kind of profiling, and thus are politically correct. The actions also involve huge amounts of cost and inconvenience, and accomplish nothing.

Hmmmm, you mean like waging a War on Terror in other people's countries so we can fight terrorists over there instead of over here?

[eyeball]

What it does accomplish is aid and abet one of the ultimate aims of West-hating terrorists. That is to strike fear in our hearts and minds, and to hinder our economies. To a large extent, Western governments and civil authorities have become agents of the terrorists.

Stands to reason since these same agents are who provided so many root causes of hatred towards the west in the first place.

All the security in the world won't stop terrorists from plotting murderous rampages. In fact, the opposite is true.

That's right, you have prevent the causes of terrorism.

They are encouraged by the reaction and are provided the reasons to continue just as they are doing.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2785733/Cops-fear-25-British-born-Muslims-are-plotting-to-bomb-Western-airliners.html

Terrorists are gradually demoralizing us and the signs of defeat are everywhere.

I'm not surprised considering how vulnerable the empire is to even the simplest things like box-cutters and condoms.

[Guest American Woman]

I think the context is unusual, in that they have "vowed" to boycott an entire nation because of "oppressive" measures designed to protect their own safety (even if it is only security theatre per jbg). I guess these folks have never flown El Al Airlines.

I understand what you're saying, but I think it was mostly a knee-jerk reaction on most people's part. Time will tell, I guess.

But I'm also guessing that anyone who was on that NW flight isn't going to be complaining about 'too much security.'

People will either have to accept that they have to be at the airport earlier and be a bit less comfortable during travel, or they will have to stay home. It's up to them, but sometimes, considering all the comforts we do have nowadays, it makes people sound like spoiled, whiny brats; and if this is the worst people have to endure in their lives, as they are obviously fortunate enough to be able to travel, perhaps they should take another look at their attitude.

I suspect these very same people would be the first to complain in the wake of another incident, including lawsuits. I am old enough to remember airline travel as an expensive but splendid experience. It turned into a glorified bus ride sans caged chickens many years ago.

Sounds as if some already have lawsuits on the brain. One of the comments from the article you linked to:

Why did they allow a flight to head to Toronto in the first place knowing that Toronto was being closed? Air Canada marooned a teenager with no recourse and has so far failed to even come up with remedies for the situation. What is a parent to do but start filing lawsuits?

This is one I have to just roll my eyes at, too:

It must be nice to live in a country where you are hated the world wide. And for this the rest of the worlld has to suffer when travelling. If there security was so great and the crew was so well trained - How did this man make it so far?

First of all, it wasn't "our security" since his flight started in Nigeria and then included security at Amsterdam; he was only flying to the U.S., he didn't go through security in the U.S. Furthermore, I'd say that the failure of the terrorist attempt and the aftermath is proof of a "well trained crew." Love the claim that tighter security is all the fault of the U.S., too. And of course because we are hated, everyone has to suffer. It's all our fault. Anything and everything is the fault of the U.S.

This topic is being talked about on "talk radio" and questions are being asked like how the guy get through security with all the material he had. The flight started out in the Holland and people are wondering if he had someone working for the airlines that helped him.

His flight originated in Nigeria, although he had to go through security in Amsterdam, and this article confirms what I said earlier about their security:

Abdulmutallab began his trip in Nigeria and passed through Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, which has a reputation as one of the most secure in the world. link

Unfortunately, the US and maybe even Canada, will have to deal with terrorists for years to come. I can see as the security tightens, people will may not want to fly because of the waiting times to get through security.

If, when all is said and done, people are too put-out by this to spend an hour more at the airport before traveling, then let them stay home and miss out.

[Riverwind]

The US has become an enabler of terrorism by overreacting to these events. Why would a terrorist worry about blowing up plane with maybe 300 people in it when they can make the lives of millions miserable simply by failing.

[Guest American Woman]

The US has become an enabler of terrorism by overreacting to these events. Why would a terrorist worry about blowing up plane with maybe 300 people in it when they can make the lives of millions miserable simply by failing.

They can't make your life miserable unless you let them. My daughter and son-in-law are flying to Hawaii early tomorrow morning, and one of them is unable to check-in online and being told they must do it in person, so we're guessing that passengers are being randomly selected for this 'heightened security.' It means they'll have to be at the airport earlier, but they aren't complaining. They're fortunate enough to be able to travel, so if they let a longer security check make them "miserable," that would be their fault, and no one else's. We have power over our own emotion/reactions, and if this is all it takes to make someone's life miserable, well too bad for them.

Furthermore, other nations have had tighter security than the U.S. and I haven't heard any complaints or vows not to go there, but once again everyone over reacts when it involves the U.S. .....

[GostHacked]

They can't make your life miserable unless you let them. My daughter and son-in-law are flying to Hawaii early tomorrow morning, and one of them is unable to check-in online and being told they must do it in person, so we're guessing that passengers are being randomly selected for this 'heightened security.' It means they'll have to be at the airport earlier, but they aren't complaining. They're fortunate enough to be able to travel, so if they let a longer security check make them "miserable," that would be their fault, and no one else's. We have power over our own emotion/reactions, and if this is all it takes to make someone's life miserable, well too bad for them.

Furthermore, other nations have had tighter security than the U.S. and I haven't heard any complaints or vows not to go there, but once again everyone over reacts when it involves the U.S. .....

The ones who will make things inconvenient for you are members of your government.No matter where you live. No one else can impose these restrictions on you. It is the reaction to terror attacks that put restrictions on the general population.

[Wilber]

THIS sums it up pretty well.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmmmm, you mean like waging a War on Terror in other people's countries so we can fight terrorists over there instead of over here?

No...more like whining for illegal child combatants at 'Gitmo!

[bush_cheney2004]

....Sounds as if some already have lawsuits on the brain. One of the comments from the article you linked to:

Why did they allow a flight to head to Toronto in the first place knowing that Toronto was being closed? Air Canada marooned a teenager with no recourse and has so far failed to even come up with remedies for the situation. What is a parent to do but start filing lawsuits?

This is one I have to just roll my eyes at, too:

Sure...the best part of that story was the comments from Canadians so peeved about the "inconvenience" at airports. I suspect these are the same types who complain about "Neocons", higher scrutiny at border crossings, mandated passports, no-fly lists, War on Drugs, etc., etc.

So I propose a solution....two tiers of air travel:

- one for those who want the disruptive security measures in place, if only for theatre

- another for those who want the utmost in convenience, and would fly on "No Delay Airlines" and take their chances

[Wilber]

How about less theater and more stuff that makes sense. As the wag said, if a yellow 2004 Cadillac hit you, what kind of car would the cops be looking for? If it was up to the TSA it would be every car on the road regardless of make, model, year or colour.

[capricorn]

That's right, you have prevent the causes of terrorism.

It's too late to eradicate the causes eyeball. What is required is a new way of thinking and doing things. It's clear no one has any answers. That includes you and me.

I'm not surprised considering how vulnerable the empire is to even the simplest things like box-cutters and condoms.

What or who do you mean by "empire"?

[bush_cheney2004]

It's too late to eradicate the causes eyeball. What is required is a new way of thinking and doing things. It's clear no one has any answers. That includes you and me.

Correct..."terrorism" is a chronic condition, and now it comes in many more forms for political purposes, including "eco-terrorism" against the exploitation of commercial fishing.

[eyeball]

It's too late to eradicate the causes eyeball. What is required is a new way of thinking and doing things. It's clear no one has any answers. That includes you and me.

Did I say eradicate? No, I said prevent.

What or who do you mean by "empire"?

Perhaps I should have said address ourselves to the causes of terrorism. By ourselves I mean us, the empire, that includes you and me. BC2004 knows what I mean by us and the empire. He never ever lets us forget it.

I agree we need a new way of thinking. Perhaps the reason no answers have been forthcoming is because no really probing questions are being asked.

The only official sign of what I mean that I've seen to date is reflected in the things Madeline Albright said about the 1953 overthrow of Iran and what Jean Chretien said in the wake of 9/11. Support for what these statements and observations imply on a broader scale can be found in articles and essays that use terms like root-causes and blow-back... but I'm sure you're quite capable of connecting these fairly well known albeit over-looked dots yourself to know where I'm coming from and where I think we need to go.

Its clearly never too late to try reconciling with our past, not in a world where grievances and land claims that go back thousands of years are still being settled to this day.