Author’s Note: This is the original version of my “Airline Insecurity” essay, published shortly after 9/11, originally found at this URL, which now has a newer version. As I’m putting this version back online in 2026, I actually no longer remember why I replaced and re-dated that page: it’s been too long ago now. But for various reasons I think it is a good idea to put this version online again, in pretty much the same style as I wrote them back then. [Offsite links have been repointed to the Internet Archive.]
Some weeks after terrorists turned several of our airliners into guided missiles, I flew — and got to experience our greatly “improved” security. My experiences brought a lot of response from readers. I found when I started doing some research that my experiences pale in comparison to the stories others had to tell.
I concluded my initial comments by saying “it all comes down to the thought processes of a person who wasn’t smart enough to get a better-paying job at the airport McDonald’s.”
If you think I’m exaggerating, think again: United security screeners denied boarding to a young man in Philadelphia because of the novel he was carrying. His mother rebooked his flight and he came back with a new novel — a Harry Potter — but Neil Godfrey was again denied boarding. (The full story, still online as I write this, is here — a URL sent to me by at least 50 of my readers. All offsite URLs open in new windows.)
Think about this: terrorists are attacking the U.S. because (in part) they hate our freedoms. The Taliban violently denies basic education to girls, while in the U.S. we strive to assure women have the same rights men have. We even have women in our military — flying the planes dropping bombs on the terrorists’ training camps. And how lovely is that: the terrorists will not only be beaten, they’ll be beaten by girls! Let’s get more women out there! 🙂
The terrorists are working to deny us the freedoms that our ancestors fought and died to give us. Then we have United Airlines keeping a gentleman from traveling freely around his own country because he dares to read books that some flunky doesn’t approve of! Tell us, United: exactly whose side are your security employees on? They sound a lot like the Taliban.
| “I do think the airlines have to be careful, but they don’t have to be stupid.” |
Quite a few of my readers wrote to United when I alerted them to the Godfrey story, most saying they planned to boycott the airline, either forever or until they hear a significant apology has been issued to Mr. Godfrey. A number of readers forwarded United’s response to those letters: “The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has mandated that airline and security personnel follow strict procedures. At this time, we are unable to comment on any security measures.”
I wondered in print if the FAA would look kindly on United implying that the FAA has provided an acceptable reading list and sure enough, shortly after, United changed their reply, according to what readers are now sending: “Thank you for taking time to express your feelings. At this time, we are unable to comment on this matter or any security measures taken. Rest assured, your viewpoints are appreciated and will be shared with the appropriate management.” Better, even though it’s still a form letter. No word of an apology.
I do think the airlines have to be careful, but they don’t have to be stupid. They will make mistakes, but when they do they need to apologize for them. The airlines are whining about how the public isn’t flying. Instead of offering more value to attract passengers, which is the way business is done in America, the airlines are using the terrorist attacks as an excuse for cutting back on amenities (like food service) and treating passengers ever more like cattle, which few frequent fliers had thought possible.
Will some airlines fail in the next year? Almost certainly. But they’ll point to terrorism as the cause, rather than putting the blame where it really lies: directly on their own actions. Clue to the airlines: we’re not scared of flying, we’re fed up with how you are treating your paying customers!
Security doesn’t have to be like that. One of the most interesting letters is from someone who I’m not going to name (and yes, I did confirm his identity): “[I’m] a long-time reader who just happens to be one of the guys at the FAA who writes those security rules. I could (but won’t) go into a lengthy explanation of how the original rules are created and begin life as a relatively reasonable approach to an immediate security concern, and how they are then often unrecognizably bastardized when translated into silly actions in the field. Here’s a wonderful recent example: an armed law enforcement officer, with legitimate and well documented need to fly armed, was then required to have his carry-on searched for dangerous weapons. In that [security screener’s] mind, it was apparently OK to carry a gun, but not nail clippers. Go figure. We have a terrible time convincing the front liners that common sense should be a part of the equation.”
| “Clue to the airlines: we’re not scared of flying, we’re fed up with how you are treating your paying customers!” |
Ron in California: “I fly almost every week. Last week in Chicago on United, I was selected at random for extra security screening. I was carefully wanded again and then they went through my carry-on computer bag, one pocket at a time, until the agent reached the pocket with my Bible. She took it out, rifled the pages, smiled and said ‘I don’t need to search anymore.’ Apparently the Bible is on the approved United reading list.”
Riiiiiight — surely no one who believes in God (or, say, Allah?!) could possibly be a terrorist, right United?! And surely a terrorist would never try to throw off suspicion by tossing a Bible in his bag. I also heard lots of stories about people getting things taken away, and those things getting replaced as soon as they get through security by buying new nail files, scissors and other items in the airport shops. Hello? It’s right up there with Sonny Bono’s character buying his bomb in an airport shop in the movie Airplane 2. Indeed common sense should be part of the security equation.
Unfortunately, not enough of the people doing security screening have common sense. Shortly after Ron wrote the above, United security screeners in Chicago managed to let a passenger slip through with seven knives, a can of pepper spray, and a stun gun! They had found two other knives on the man, but let him through security without a more thorough check. The Chicago Tribune reported two of the security employees were fired because they stole the two knives they confiscated! Shouldn’t the entire security staff have been fired for letting the guy get through in the first place?
Some think the implications of the problems I’ve been reporting are exaggerated, such as Ben in North Carolina: United is “Un-American? Taliban-like? Enemies of freedom? Wow — the price of bad service sure has escalated in the past month. I fly a lot, and there are a lot of airline and airport employees as well as government officials out there working hard to make the best of a bad situation. Though scrutiny of their practices is important, seeing them ridiculed rubs me the wrong way. Your comments seem off-base and sensational.” (On the other hand, he adds he “loved” my “beaten by girls crack.”)
Oh, Ben, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Really. You think I exaggerate the risk to American freedom? It’s worse. Much worse. Let me relate a few stories.
Nancy Oden is a national official with the Green Party USA. They’re a smallish political party to be sure, but large enough that you have surely heard of their candidate for President (who ran against Al Gore and George W. Bush): Ralph Nader. Oden, a member of the GP/USA’s Coordinating Committee, was one of the authors of a September 13 Party statement about the terrorist attacks. The statement suggested some steps to stop terrorism, such as “stop U.S. incursions and blockades of needed food and other goods anywhere in the world,” which they termed “anti-human acts,” “bring all American troops home from all over the world,” and “stop the manufacture and sale of most pesticides.” In short, there was plenty in the statement that any American could agree with — or disagree with. The statement was published in Oden’s home state newspaper in Bangor, Maine, under her byline.
| Blacklisted? “You were in [the computer] to be searched, no matter what.” |
On November 1, Oden was on her way to a Party meeting in Chicago from Bangor. She never made it. In an interview with WartimeLiberty[dot]com, Oden says she was told by an American Airlines ticket agent that she was selected for a full search. The agent even told her that her selection was not random, admitting “you were in [the computer] to be searched, no matter what.” When she got to the screening area, a National Guardsman yelled at her to come over to his position. “He grabbed my left arm, he started yelling in my face, ‘Don’t you know what happened? … Don’t you know thousands of people died?’ He went to grab my arm, and I said, ‘Don’t touch me.’ I saw an older airline guy shake his head, ‘No,’ and he backed off.”
As she walked away, “I heard him say real soft, ‘Don’t let her on the plane’.” She was intercepted and not allowed to board. The reason? “The American Airlines ticket guy says … ‘Because this guy says you didn’t cooperate with the search.'” When the ticket agent suggested she might catch a later flight, the National Guardsman would have none of it. He ordered six more Guardsmen to come and stop her from flying out of that airport — on any airline.
Was Oden blacklisted and punished for her divergent views — and for refusing to submit to assault by someone representing the government who disagreed with her? In the United States of America?! Sure looks like it. Governmental stifling of divergent views in a country dedicated to Freedom of Speech (as one the primary liberties guaranteed by the Constitution’s Bill of Rights) is not pro-freedom, and it certainly is not a valid use of the National Guard nor excused in the name of “airline security”!
[Note added 11/10/01: I am aware of controversy around whether or not this really happened in the way described. I contacted Nancy Oden and she says a splinter Green Party, not GP/USA, is who is “backing away” from her, and that animosity between the two factions explain the motive for this. In any case, she said directly to me that she stands by her story, asking “why would anyone make that up? To what end?” I can’t speak to other people’s as to why they would make something up, but the bottom line is she stated directly to me, “Yes, it’s true.” -rc]Maybe it’s an isolated case? Let’s switch to the other coast, California. On October 12, a reporter with the Sacramento News & Review newspaper was assigned to write a story about airport security. He bought a round trip ticket to Los Angeles. No problem in Sacramento: he interviewed the security personnel and Guardsmen there, took some pictures, and went to L.A. He didn’t make it back home for a while.
In a public area of Los Angeles International, reporter R.V. Scheide used his digital camera to take several photos of the security checkpoint. As he turned to walk away, one of the Guardsmen yelled, “Hey you! What are you doing? Did you take my picture? Did you take my picture?” Scheide explained he was a journalist and was doing a story, but was told he could not take pictures there — a public place where thousands of tourists every day carry cameras.
“You are going to show me the pictures you took, you are going to delete the pictures you took, and you are going to show me that they are deleted!” he was ordered. The reporter replied, “There are no signs that say you can’t take pictures here.” The Guardsman’s reply: “Either you delete the photos, or I’m taking you to a room, and you can talk to my superiors. You can talk to the FBI.”
| “We cannot protect our freedoms by destroying them.” |
Not wanting to cause a scene, and wanting to catch his flight, the perplexed reporter deleted the photos — then took out his notebook and wrote down the Guardsman’s name, which was plainly visible on an I.D. card hanging from his shirt in plain view. Scheide writes, “‘What are you doing!?’ he screamed. By now, his face had visibly reddened. ‘Don’t you write my name down!!'”
Why is the National Guard at airports in large numbers, in uniform, if not to be seen? And haven’t we all seen photos of them in the news?
Scheide barely made it to his Southwest Airlines plane on time, but as soon as he was settled a ticket agent appeared. “Sir, I’m going to have to ask you to exit the aircraft,” he said. After getting off the plane, he was met by police officers — and the Guardsman. Police told him that some passengers had “complained” about his “suspicious behavior”.
An obvious lie, especially considering they could not tell him what he did or who lodged a complaint. They confiscated and read his notebook, which is against both federal and state law. They detained him for hours, with as many as 10 guards watching him at a time while they waited for the FBI to interview him. “I couldn’t help feeling that the guardsman and the LAPD were now harassing me for daring to put up any verbal resistance at all,” he wrote. The FBI quickly cleared him of any wrongdoing, and he was allowed to fly home — though Southwest Airlines would not let him fly on their planes.
Where might this lead us? What happens when we give up little bits of freedom here and there? The answer is already here: on October 31, the U.S. Justice Department published in the Federal Register a new rule that allows prosecutors to listen in during private conversations between lawyers and their clients if the Attorney General declares that he has a “reasonable suspicion” that the conversations might relate to “future terrorism.” Legal analysts called the development “stunning” — conversations between lawyers and clients have long been considered as priveleged as those between priests and confessors.
“This proposal is a terrifying nightmare for innocent people who are under suspicion by the attorney general,” says Laura W. Murphy, director of the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union. Even former prosecutors are astounded at the new rule. It “should give everyone pause,” said Lawrence Barcella, a former federal prosecutor. “There is a very definite camel-with-his-nose-under-the-tent concern.”
If the obvious threats to innocent people aren’t enough, some observers think it would be a disaster even if the suspect is guilty. “What do you think monitoring does in terms of a client being honest and communicating in good faith with his lawyer?” asks Gerry Goldstein, past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “When they know the government is listening, why would they ever talk about pleading guilty?”
Why indeed. Legal safeguards are in place for a reason. Throwing them out in order to maybe prevent possible future attacks is foolish — why not just let law enforcement and intelligence agencies simply do their jobs? Because we’ve gutted their budgets? Let’s not fix a bad decision with a stupid policy.
One of our Forefathers, Benjamin Franklin, said “Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither.” Since our nation was born we have had to fight for our liberty, our freedom — so much so that the United States has held itself up as a paragon of freedom. Our noble birthrights — freedom, democracy, individual rights, capitalism, the entire “Truth, Justice and The American Way!” bit — that our ancestors died to give us and preserve for us is under attack not just from terrorists but also from within! Terrorists don’t even have to do anything to cause the U.S. to collapse if we destroy ourselves. Stories like this show we have started down that slippery slope.
And these are just a sample of the stories that have hit the media. Surely there must be countless others. It is time to worry; it is time to react, resist, reply. Our freedoms are what make us strong! Denying them make us weak, and put the lie to what we have been telling the world for generations about individual liberty.
What can we do? We must exercise our freedoms. We must speak out against the outrageous denial of liberty for “a little security”. Continue to write letters of complaint to the airlines? Sure. Write your representatives? Yes. And, I think, the people directly affected by such outrages need to sue — not for money, but for a written apology and attorney’s fees to show that our system does work, and that we will not stand for the destruction of liberty from within.
On a national level, our representatives — including the President — must call for security within the bounds of our time-tested Constitution. We cannot protect our freedoms by destroying them.
And who the hell am I to put out such a call? I’m a free citizen of the United States of America.
– – –
Bad link? Broken image? Other problem on this page? Use the Help button lower right, and thanks.
This page is an example of my style of “Thought-Provoking Entertainment”. This is True is an email newsletter that uses “weird news” as a vehicle to explore the human condition in an entertaining way. If that sounds good, click here to open a subscribe form.
To really support This is True, you’re invited to sign up for a subscription to the much-expanded “Premium” edition:
Q: Why would I want to pay more than the minimum rate?
A: To support the publication to help it thrive and stay online: this kind of support means less future need for price increases (and smaller increases when they do happen), which enables more people to upgrade. This option was requested by existing Premium subscribers.