I just read George McGovern’s editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal about his unpleasant experiences in our, or what he called, Bush’s, police-state airports. He, a former Senator, Prez candidate, etc., was refused boarding on two occasions when he was less than 30 miniutes early. He said he was more afraid of forgetting his ID, being arrested for bringing along his nail-clippers, parking too close to the airport, and so on, than he was of a bomb on his plane.
I took a plane this past Christmas, a little early for some of the security beef-ups, and only had a small swiss army knife confiscated and was asked only once to take my shoes off; otherwise, it was the usual miserable airplane flight that they all are.
What I am wondering, since I am about to hop on board for a vacation trip: has the security become heavier since January, and is it check-in 30 minutes before departure or no-go?
My eyes rolled clean out of my head and across the floor when I read that.
(ghetto-quote because the hamsters are tired)
“My eyes rolled clean out of my head and across the floor when I read that.”
Why? I totally agree with him. The extra security measures are absolutely ridiculous. I would seriously like to know how someone showing their ID is going to stop them from hijacking a plane. And the confiscating of pocket-knives, scissors, fingernail clippers…etc? That is the most ridiculous load of crap I’ve ever experienced in my life. The box-cutter tactic worked ONCE. It will NOT work again. Not to mention the fact that they were BOX-CUTTERS (or variations thereof), not fingernail clippers for christs sake.
I’m sorry, it just came across as “I care more about my convenience than I do about others’ safety”, but on re-reading, I suppose it may not have been meant that way; forget I mentioned it.
The point of showing your id is that if your name resenbles (even approximately) that of someone suspected of being a terrorist or other criminal, then they can deny boarding. Moreover, there is currently no way to get off the list. Read the articles in a NY Times Sunday magazine (I think it was) about a woman named Johnnie Thomas, nearly denied boarding not once but three or four times because there was a man named John Thomas who had been on an FBI most wanted list once, but was already in the clink. But once on, they told her, there was no provision for getting it off. I was once id’d twice within about 15 ft (no exaggeration) and I saw an 80 year old woman in a wheel chair forced to remove her shoes (at great pain) when there was simply no possibility of her being a terrorist.
McGovern, of course, is a well-known terrorist. He once ran against Nixon for president. And I agree with him. What was that Ben Franklin quote? Who gives up freedom for a bit of temporary security will soon have neither.
Well, FWIW, the Better Half flew to Washington D.C. for a postal convention in May and reported no hassles, no difficulties, no police state security delays at either St. Louis Lambert Airport or the airport in D.C.
Of course, he did remember to leave his nail clippers at home…
And don’t make any cute remarks. They have zero tolerance for them. My wife heard of a pilot that was P.O.d at having finger nail clippers taken away. He said “I could fly the plane into a mountain, if I wanted to.” They marched him off to the brig.
Well, folks, what do you want’em to do?
What level of security screening do you think is appropriate? Should knives be OK? If not, how hard should we try to find’em?
point one: anyone can make an blade out of carry-on, if they have the determination. hell, go in the restroom, crack a compact against your knee, and pull out some mirror shards. duct tape it to your poothbrush, et voila!
razor sharp knife.
point two: even if everything short of a switch blade was allowed into a plane, at least 1/3rd (in my half-assed opinion) of the passengers would have to be in on the hijacking, lest they be quickly foiled by the rest of the passengers.
point three: overactive and inefficient searches promote our lack of security and safety. nothin’s a juicier target than a shitboat of folks simply standing around. and if suicide bombings (or when, in my 3/4rs assed opinion) gain popularity here in the States, airports most definitively will become targets.
hells bells, i was pre-boarding a flight at Austin-Bergstrom in the beginning of july. right before my rows range was called, the entire airport was evacuated (a fire alarm was set off). EVERYONE had to go through security again. there was quite a bombable clot, let me tell you.
jb
p.s.- they really should have separate evacuation areas for the pre-screened. i mean, whatever the crime. if there was a shooting, you can seriously disregard the screened as suspects. some jerk pulled a fire alarm at gate 5? don’t worry about IDing the unscreened. i mean, jesus!
oh, but other than that, security wasn’t that bad. i had to take off my shoes once. a bit slow, but not bad. however, if you are a smoke, you may have to pass through security MANY times, especially if you have a layover because your connection was delayed because the entire fricking airport had to go through security!!!
oops. that should be ‘smoker’, obviously.
and i have no fucking clue how i typed ‘poothbrush’. damn…
jb
I’ve flown eight times now, since the attacks, including internationally, and I haven’t really noticed any burdensome extra security. So far as I can tell, the only differences in security are:
The list of contraband items has been extended
The metal detectors are set to a higher sensitivity
Non-passengers aren’t allowed past security
Random in-depth checks are more common
That’s it. Folks are not being strip-searched, nobody has to submit blood or tissue samples, no more people are being denied a seat on the plane, and nobody has to spend significantly more time in security, at least in my experience.
The box-cutter tactic will not work again because now they search for box-cutters. If they didn’t search for box-cutters, then it COULD work again.
Ed
I have a question:
What is wrong with all of the people that need to clip their nails sooo often that you can’t do this before leaving and after getting back. Really, is it THAT inconvenient?
Unfortunately, I think the boxcutter tactic could work very well again. On a recent flight from a major hub, I carefully left all my tools and weapons either at home or in checked baggage, and I noticed no increase in security. The lines actually moved faster because they’ve added personnel, but I did not get the hand-sweep of my steel-toed boots or the bomb-sniff of my briefcase which has been fairly routine in the last couple of years. They also didn’t bother to inspect the jumble of electronics in my briefcase or the bottles of water in the zipped pocket.
MsMicco realized later that she had not been careful about her tools and weapons. She’d boarded the plane with a Leatherman, a 12-inch silver letter opener, and a large metal corkscrew with foil-cutter blade in her briefcase. Perhaps they profile to the point that they don’t bother to confiscate anything from cute blondes, but I rather suspect that the security people are lazy and incompetent and we are no more secure than we ever were.
In answer to the OP, I saw no evidence of a police state whatsoever in my roundtrip.
“The box-cutter tactic will not work again because now they search for box-cutters. If they didn’t search for box-cutters, then it COULD work again.”
I don’t believe that for a minute. The box-cutter tactic became obsolete at 10:00 am on 11 Sep 01. The only attempted hijacking after that time was a failure (although it did result in a crash).
With stronger cabin doors and paranoid crews and passengers, the most anyone with a boxcutter could hope for is to cause a crash before he was incapacitated.
On the other hand, I have seen little evidence that any plane I have ridden recently is adequately protected from a suicide bomber.
Thanks for the comments and replies. It looks like that as long as I leave any possible weapons at home, the trip should be no more uncomfortable than usual. We’ll see what happens!