I didn't think about gel-filled shoe heels when the government tightened the
latest air travel rules after the Brits made everybody's eyes go round with their raids and arrests on Thursday. Lousy consumer that I am, I didn't even know there
was such a thing as gel-filled heels. Little cushions. Will wonders never cease?
No matter, while hair gel is now banned from carry-on luggage, you're still allowed to wear your gel-heels. They'll get the same treatment as all shoes from now on - off your feet and onto the conveyor belt for an X-ray screening. Apparently, the amount of explosive gel that can be contained in a couple of shoe heels isn't enough to bring down a passenger jet.
These new rules don't upset me. I'm all for "better safe than sorry." On the other hand, while I'm being deprived of carrying my preferred swill and my eye drops into the passenger compartment, a clever terrorist can still ship a crate full of explosives in the cargo hold beneath me because the Republican-controlled Congress won't pass the Safe Skies Cargo Inspection Act.
The fear being amplified by the pundithuggery this weekend about the liquid-bombs-in-the-sky plot has forced me several times these past few days to put the wet-vac to work sucking up the deluge of sludge pouring from our television onto the living room carpet. That and the fecal scribblings of the New McCarthyists about "Defeatocrats" and the Dems' "Taliban wing" and how we're all terror-symps has spurred me to stop paying attention to the megamedia for the rest of the weekend. If I wanted this kind of ferocious spew, I could just stick
V for Vendetta in the DVD player and watch John Hurt do his number.
Applied appropriately in the appropriate circumstances, fear can be healthy. That little tingle up the spine can save your life. Fear enhanced and exploited as a government tool is something else again, as the crew at Foxaganda proves 24/7/365. Fear untempered by reason or public scrutiny leads to all kinds of unconstitutional, unsavory, inexcusable and inhuman behavior. Exploited fear can cost you your freedom, your reputation, your life.
To repeat, I don't really have a problem with the new air travel rules. I'll happily give up my saline, Gatorade and Scope if it means some guy next to me doesn't have nitroglycerin in his pomade. I've given up a lot more than that since Nine-Eleven.
Even though Washington and Tripoli are buddies now, and even though both my Libyan-raised stepchildren are American citizens, my stepson having been born in Oregon, they're repeat targets for special handling by airport security, and my stepson's wife, my wife and I have gotten the same treatment.
In the past 59 months, of the 31 plane trips we have taken, separately or together, we've received "extra attention" 26 times. Twelve times, that has meant an "interview" - several of these behind closed doors, none shorter than 10 minutes and three longer than an hour. Once, the security interview forced my stepson to miss his connecting flight to London from Manchester, where he was visiting his fiancée. Twice, my stepdaughter, who dresses hijab, was asked - out of sight of others - to remove her head scarf. Once, on a domestic flight, my hand luggage was searched piece by piece and I was wanded after going through the metal detectors, only to be pulled aside at the gate just as the plane was boarding and wanded again, the only passenger on the flight to which this was done. Not once have I passed through security without having to remove my shoes. Random searches? Believe that if you want.
We've learned to live with this. Or rather to put up with it. So making us toss our mouthwash before boarding is no big deal. In fact, you would think they'd have done this years ago given the "Bojinka" attack against Philippines Air Flight 434 in December 1994. In that instance Ramzi Yousef left behind a small bomb in a life jacket under a seat, reputedly to test a plan for knocking down 11 passenger planes.
Again, therefore, I think these new air travel rules are not unreasonable.
However ...
While the Transportation Security Administration is dumping shampoo and contact lens cleaner in the rubbish bin, eliminating the possibility that somebody will set off a one- or two-pound bomb, everyone who flies commercially continues to take the risk that a bomb of 30 or 50 pounds could be riding in the cargo hold. Less than a month short of Nine-Eleven, only a small fraction of the 6 billion pounds of cargo that travels by passenger jet is inspected. And while improved TSA air cargo rules will come into full effect by December after years of foot-dragging, even then most of those 6 billion pounds will not be inspected.
If a certain party were responsible for this situation, "Defeatocrat" would be the mildest buzzword deployed by Cal Thomas and the rest of the fear-and-hate mob.
The fault, however, lies with Republicans, who have been neither willing to foot the bill for 100% inspections nor force industry to do so. R.e.p.u.b.l.i.c.a.n.s. Which is why we've heard nary a peep in the past four days about this "disaster waiting to happen". How can it possibly be a legitimate story? It's about Republicans handling the security of air cargo the same as they've been handling national security overall every day since Nine-Eleven - with fakery, trickery and incompetence on a previously "unimaginable scale." News has to be about something new.
Thanks to Republicans, I have to let my eyes and nasal passages dry out, only drink airline-provided beverages and arrive at my destination with rot-breath. But a clever terrorist could airship enough Semtex or homemade explosive to give me and a few hundred other passengers a high-altitude disembarkation.
But it couldn't be easy, could it?
Last August, a CNN probe finds weak link in air security noted:
(CNN) -- Nearly four years after 9/11, Americans flying on passenger planes remain vulnerable to another terrorist attack in the air because of lax screening of the millions of tons of cargo loaded into the belly of aircraft, a three-month CNN investigation shows.
{snip}
On most of the flights that the FAA inspector observes, almost none of the cargo is inspected.
"In respect to cargo, we're probably as vulnerable or more vulnerable," said the inspector, who insisted on not being identified for fear of employer retaliation. "Cargo still has a lot of loopholes where something could get on an airplane."
{snip}
CNN crisscrossed the country, traveling from one airport to another, and saw firsthand how easy it would be for a terrorist to slip an explosive or lethal chemicals onto an airplane because of holes in the cargo security network.
At airport after airport, CNN observed cargo containers, known as unit load devices, sitting unattended and unsecured on airport ramps where many people had access to the cargo. Some trucks carrying loads had doors wide open with the cargo within easy view and easy reach.
And for three straight days, outside Chicago's busy O'Hare International Airport, at the U.S. Postal Service Chicago International/Military Service Center, CNN found gates unlocked and wide open, and open containers left at the side of the road. CNN correspondent Drew Griffin was able to walk right up to the containers with a camera rolling. No one stopped him to ask what he was doing.
Two weeks later, CNN returned to the same facility, and again found the gates unlocked and open for anyone to walk or drive through. Some cargo containers once again were left unattended and open by the side of the road.
{snip}
The FAA inspector told CNN that a passenger's suitcase gets more scrutiny than cargo. Much of the cargo is trucked to airports and those routes are not secure, the inspector said, adding that any terrorist could follow drivers and tamper with their cargo loads.
Another veteran airline employee -- who does not handle cargo but who has spent years on the tarmac working for a major airline -- said he rarely sees anyone inspecting the freight.
"The only government agency that I ever see on a consistent basis that would inspect freight is if it's livestock related, there's someone from the USDA," said the airline employee, who also asked not to be identified.
He said he's never seen anyone X-raying the crates or using bomb-sniffing dogs: "I'm not saying it's not there, but I've never seen it in my time doing this and I've been doing this for many years."
If you'd like a more official look at the situation, there's the 25-page Congressional Research Services's Air Cargo Security report from 2003 or the 89-page Government Accountability Office's Federal Action Needed to Strengthen Domestic Air Cargo Security report of October 2005.
Among the GAO's findings:
However, TSA has not completed a methodology for assessing the vulnerability and criticality of air cargo assets, or established a schedule for conducting such assessments because of competing agency efforts to address other areas of aviation security. Moreover, TSA's existing tools for assessing vulnerability have not been adapted for use in conducting air cargo assessments, nor has TSA established a schedule for when these tools would be ready for use. TSA has also not systematically collected and used information on air cargo security breaches, which could provide useful information to identify the full range of potential air cargo security vulnerabilities. Without fully assessing the risks posed by terrorists to the air cargo system, TSA is limited in its ability to identify potential air cargo security vulnerabilities and focus its resources on those areas representing the most critical security needs.
Soon after Nine-Eleven, Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Ed Markey started pushing for inspections of all cargo. Relentlessly, the Republicans have blocked approval. If one didn't know better, if one weren't aware that these men and women are thoroughbred patriots who always put the nation's security and the safety of fellow citizens foremost in their thoughts, one might be inclined to think they are eager to see a terrorist cell blow up 10 or 12 or 20 jets.
To be fair, Connecticut Republican Chris Shays joined Markey last November in sponsoring HR 4373 (the Safe Skies Cargo Inspection Act), an amendment to the Homeland Security Act, which would require that, within three years, all cargo aboard passenger aircraft be inspected. So not every Republican makes would-be terrorists smile. Shays, however, is considered a RINO by many colleagues. Even though he sits fourth in seniority on the House Committee on Homeland Security, he seems to have as much clout in Republican power circles as Markey in this matter.
Although the final air cargo rule was supposed to be ready last August, it wasn't approved until two-and-a-half months ago. You can find it explained in 63 pages of 6-point type in the Federal Register's Air Cargo Security Requirements. [This is a document retrieval site and the above link may disappear. If it does, try here, type "air cargo rule" in the search window, then click on the top item.]
The rule is an improvement. It requires:
* that background checks be conducted on the 50,000 or so cargo handlers already working at airports as well as employees at 51,000 off-airport freight forwarder companies;
* that security areas be extended to include ramps and cargo facilities;
* that new I.D. requirements be implemented for shipping employees who have unescorted access to cargo areas;
* that 300 more TSA inspectors be added to the 902 now working at the nation's 450 commercial airports;
* that the 4000 private "known shipper" lists (on which there are some 1.5 million names of regular shippers) be centralized;
* and that more random inspections of cargo be conducted.
If you're saying to yourself, "I thought they were already doing all this obvious stuff," you're not alone. And if now you're asking yourself why in hell it hasn't been already done, don't ask me, I'm a "Defeatocrat," what do I know about national security? Ask the Republicans.
Said Congressman Markey in a May 17, 2006, press release:
"The Bush Administration missed an important opportunity to close a major homeland security loophole today when it announced a final air cargo rule that fails to require inspection of 100 percent of the cargo carried aboard passenger planes." ...
"While passengers take off their shoes, walk through metal detectors and send all their luggage through scanning machines before they board their flights, billions of pounds of air cargo is loaded onto the very same planes every year without being scanned at all. This dangerous double standard leaves air passengers vulnerable to another terrorist attack not unlike the catastrophic explosion of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. It's like locking your front door, but leaving your back door wide open."
"TSA Administrator Hawley described the close cooperation between TSA and industry in developing this rule. What is missing is close cooperation with those who know the dangers of such a glaring aviation security loophole - the families of victims of the September 11th attacks, the flight attendants and airline pilots associations all support 100 percent inspection of all air cargo on passenger planes."
Whittled to its core, that's what this outrageous loophole is really about: money. Just as the lousy state of the all-cargo business exposed in the
Miami Herald's three-part series -
Deadly Express - is about money. Yes, there were some technical issues to work out before the TSA final rule could be approved - air cargo is a complex biz - and, yes, there were some privacy issues. But ultimately, all this delay is about money. Random inspections that already cover 5% to 15% of air cargo are estimated to run about $1.491 billion over the next 10 years, $149 million a year. Full inspection of air cargo on passenger jets would run about $360 million a year. For most of us, that's nothing to sneeze at. Expensive for shippers, too.
But the Iraq Occupation, which has done such a fabulous job of enhancing U.S. security so far, burns up $360 million every 48 hours. Moreover, $8.8 billion - enough to finance air cargo inspections through 2031 - went missing in Iraq on the GOP watch. That makes no never-mind to the Republicans, who cut funds for explosives detection, ignore what may well be the most perilous threat air passengers face today, and run their pre-election fear-and-hate message, pretending national security is something they're actually good at.
So, surrender your shoes, slurp down that drink you brought from home and fly secure in the knowledge that the Republicans are doing everything in their power to make sure you know the Democrats are to blame if you don't arrive intact.
[Cross-posted at The Next Hurrah.]