Always somebody else

Wednesday, July 21, 2004


I saw today surveillance footage of some of the 9/11 hijackers going through security at Dulles.

Then I read an AP report that some of the survivors' families are suing the airlines and security sub-contractors because they were negligent. 

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20040722/D83VI8K80.html

I witnessed this same occurrence before over the years when the Columbine High shootings were slowly blowing over.  Several parents of kids killed in the shooting, led by one boy's father, were blaming the police and emergency responders, not indirectly as many others did, but directly:  this father alleged vehemently that one of the deputies to trade shots with Klebold and Harris had shot his son instead.  The ballistics were all wrong, there was no real evidence to uphold it, and after dragging this deputy through dirt for about a year and a half, he finally pulled his allegations and admitted he was wrong.

He was desperate, as a lot of parents were, to blame somebody for what happened- but they couldn't blame the shooters; they were dead.  The only people left are the cops and the school administrators.

When the shit hits the fan, people desperately need something to blame.  And 9/11 was so ahorrently huge that there's a giant mob running around with torches pulling people out of their houses and drowning them in the lake.

"Even after setting off these alarms, the airlines and security screeners failed to examine the hijackers' baggage, as required by federal regulations and industry mandated standards, or discover the weapons they would use in their attack."

I know a couple of things about security screening, and the first is that when a person sets off the walk-through metal detector, their bags are not required to be searched.  Never have been, aren't now.  The weapons they used?  The dude working the x-ray machine saw those box-cutters.  But just like the thousands of Swiss Army Knives he saw, he let them go because they weren't prohibited.  Every bag is x-rayed.  And they did their job exactly as they were told to in letting those box-cutters through.

Even if their bags had been opened and tossed, those box-cutters still would have gone on the plane.  Nobody prohibited box-cutters back then.  It was decided that they, along with swiss army knives, fingernail clippers and the like, were not dangerous enough to be prohibited.

This conglomeration of survivors' families didn't see it coming, either.  They didn't have enough forethought to realize that oh, hell, anything that has a sharp edge can be used as a weapon!  There was no giant movement to tighten airline security before 9/11.  There was no huge advocacy group screaming at the government to keep tennis rackets and razor blades out of the passenger cabin.

When it comes down to it, you can hijack a plane with a bottle of wine.  You can hijack a plane with a ballpoint pen, if you're determined enough.  The 9/11 hijackers didn't need those box-cutters.  They could have used the metal butter knives that were already in First Class.  They just had to scare the passengers.

People care about security for about two weeks after a crazy disaster.  Then most people go right back to getting pissed when they have to spend a whole minute taking their shoes off.  They whine about losing their silver-plated engraved penknife, and they can't stand being asked to hold still for thirty-five seconds while the dude in the uniform waves a magic wand around them.

And you have to find somebody to blame.  The more people, the better, cause you can feel like you're doing something productive.

I know many screeners now who want the screening to be tighter.  Nobody can see the holes in the system more than the screeners who do it every day.  But they're bound and restricted by policy.  There are some items more deadly than box-cutters allowed on board- knitting needles, for instance- why?  Because the AARP has so much lobbying power in Washington that there's no way little old ladies will be kept from their crocheting.

Then one of the family members said that "she was surprised at how relaxed security was, given that the airlines had received three warnings... that American interests may be the target of a terrorist threat from extremist groups."  What we saw on the videotape is as strict as security was ever allowed to get before 9/11.  Every time it got tighter, passengers complained about how long the lines were, how long they had to wait to be checked, and why do I have to take my laptop out of my suitcase?  In the airport, it's a balance of security against convenience.  When you're suing the government, of course the priority is on security.  But when it's them in the line, and the plane is about to leave cause you left thirty minutes late, then it's convenience.

The reason those hijackers were allowed on board those planes with the objects they would later use as weapons is because all of us can't be troubled to arrive at the airport early like we're supposed to and subject ourselves to the same screening that everyone else gets.  The only way to check everyone is to check everyone, and nobody wants to volunteer because we already know that we're not the terrorist.

Easy to blame the security screeners.  Faceless uniforms.  But they were just doing what they were told.  Blame the airlines, then?  Giant corporations, obviously just bent on profit.  But were they were just adhering to government-dictated policy?  Aha!  Blame the government, that evil, power-hungry monster who steals chunks from our paychecks.  They're the ones that made the policy, right?  So who does the government bow to?  We dictate that policy.  We're the ones telling our Senators that we can't stand having our underwear and our hidden KY Jelly exposed to everyone in the terminal.

But nobody can bear to blame themselves.


 
EDIT (7/22):  Saw a headline of a paper this morning:  TOTAL FAILURE.  Technically, this is true, but I know they didn't mean it as they should have.  The security didn't fail.  It did exactly as it could.  Had they been able to take those box-cutters, they would have.  But policy told them not to.  Just now they're toying with the idea of allowing non-passengers back to airline gates, just as they did before 9/11.  It's happening already.  People are forgetting and lapsing back into "HEYYY!!!  I want to be let in there to kiss Aunt Margie good-bye!"  And the restrictions that lobbying groups put on security is what's going to get us into airline security trouble again.

posted by Scotty 2-shots at 7:42 PM