Airport Security Debate: Little Pointy Object Act

Strange how you can one day find such crap at Salon, and then you find something totally reasonable and logical.

Topic is the airport security discussions around the Air Marshall shooting and the TSA decision to stop searching for small pointy objects at terminal security.

Wednesday's incident fulfills what many of us predicted ever since the Federal Air Marshals Service was widely expanded following the 2001 terror attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington: The first person killed by a sky marshal, whether through accident or misunderstanding, would not be a terrorist. In a lot of ways, Alpizar is the latest casualty of Sept. 11. He is not the victim of a trigger-happy federal marshal but of our own, now fully metastasized security mania.

Although Alpizar had lived in the United States for two decades, he was born in Costa Rica. Speaking on Alpizar's behalf, Costa Rican President Abel Pacheco said he would push for an inquiry, taking the opportunity to indict the American mindset. "It was a painful event," Pacheco told a radio interviewer. "But you have to understand the level of paranoia under which the Americans live regarding terrorism."

Security mania? I'm not sure I agree completely with that thought. Paranoia is obviously over the top. The shooting was unfortunate, but an obvious sign that airport security is being taken completely seriously.

The following discussion, on the other hand, definitely is showing paranoia, or at least a good political flag for some politicians.

Effective Dec. 22, new regulations will allow airline passengers to once again carry certain sharp objects onto commercial flights. The Transportation Security Administration is relaxing its strictures on scissors with cutting blades shorter than four inches and tools such as screwdrivers, pliers and wrenches no longer than seven inches.

Here in Boston, from which two of the four Sept. 11 aircraft departed, the chief executive of the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), Craig P. Coy, dispatched a letter to TSA chief Kip Hawley detailing his opposition to the new protocols. U.S. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., has gone so far as to introduce a bill aimed at maintaining the existing ban on most sharp implements. Markey calls his bill the "Leave All Blades Behind Act" -- a crafty tweak of the federal government's No Child Left Behind Act.

For some of us, the changes can't come fast enough. For the past four years, our insatiable fixation with pointed objects -- far and away the No. 1 topic in this columnist's pantheon of peeves -- has diverted the nation's security resources away from more legitimate concerns, while siphoning away the patience of tens of millions of fliers. Whatever enjoyment and dignity remained in the air travel experience has been summarily confiscated at the concourse metal detector, along with an estimated 30 million nail files, razors, pocketknives and other small tools.

Little pointy object searches have essentially been a waste of time. Because they are small, they are difficult to locate and cause more security failures and false alarms than anything else. I'll jump ahead to the Schneier quote for context.

"September 11th wasn't a failure of passenger screening; it was a failure of procedure," voices Bruce Schneier, a renowned security commentator and author of "Beyond Fear -- Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World." "We can't possibly keep all dangerous things off airplanes. Our only hope for security is to reduce the effectiveness of those dangerous things once they're on board. Exactly two things have improved air passenger security since the 2001 attacks: reinforcing the cockpit door, and teaching passengers that they need to fight back. Everything else has been a waste of money."

The stupid protocols of the airlines, to leave the hijacker alone, have been fully abandoned. Now, the whole sodding passenger compartment is going to try and kill them. Rightfully so. Doesn't make the rest of the airline crew feel as safe, but focus on little pointy things probably isn't making them safer in any case.

"Let's face it," TSA regional manager Ann Davis tells Ask the Pilot. "You can strangle somebody with a necktie if you really want to. It's time to focus on screening out intent, not just items themselves."

Terrorists, meanwhile, won't waste their time on schemes with such an extreme likelihood of failure.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for us. In America, reasoned debate and clear thinking aren't the useful currencies they once were, and backlash to the TSA's announcement has come from a host of unexpected sources -- members of Congress, flight attendants unions and families of Sept. 11 victims.

"The Bush administration proposal is just asking the next Mohammed Atta to move from box cutters to scissors," said Rep. Markey.

Note that a certain annoying Representative keeps popping up. Why does he consistently follow the call to champion useless and wasteful security programs, especially when more effective or plausible threats are being ignored?

Then there is the attorney:

In any event, even a child has the means and imagination to fashion a sharp and dangerous object -- more dangerous than any wrench or pair of scissors -- from just about anything. Does this not nullify attempts to confiscate pointed tools?

Not according to Justin Green, an attorney representing the families of three crew members murdered on Sept. 11, two of whom were stabbed. "The terrorists used box cutters, knives and chemical weapons to take over the airplanes," responds Green. "They did not fashion weapons from snapped-off plastic or shattered bottles. On American Airlines Flight 11, two flight attendants and a passenger were stabbed with weapons that are similar in kind to the weapons that the TSA supports allowing back on board airliners.

"The weapons used by the terrorists were a central part of their strategy." Green contends that "there is no basis for the idea that the hijackings would have succeeded even if the weapons [had been] properly screened off."

Poor logic. But it wouldn't suit his case to follow the logic. Improvised weapons could just as easily been used in stabbing the crew, and would have been more likely to have been used quickly due to their being less effective than a box cutter. The cockpit door would still have been unlocked and the passengers still wouldn't have interfered. Tell me how the results would have been different.

Most pilots I spoke to concur with the ALPA's position. "I agree with the TSA position on scissors and small tools," says a United Airlines pilot. "Honestly, I wish they'd let us carry our Leatherman tools again."

But not all crew members are in lockstep. "Because a deadly blade can be fashioned from plastic or some other means doesn't mean box cutters themselves ought to be let on board," argues a first officer for a major airline, asking that his name and airline not be revealed. "It's a 'two wrongs don't make a right' construction."

The fatal flaw in the "two wrongs" statement, is that the security groups are looking to focus on the most plausible of attacks. Taking over a flight with pointy objects and crashing that plane into a building is much less likely today. Doors are now locked and the passenger's self interest has been correctly educated. You have to sympathize with the crews, but that doesn't make them right. It also doesn't make them any less secure than pre-9/11. They miss the point that stabbing a member of the flight crew will not be considered a success to the terrorist. Taking down a plane will.

The TSA reasoning for the change of methods is to make attempts to eliminate the most obvious threats and to put resources toward the threats that are the easiest to conceal. In this case, explosives. The TSA has limited resources and needs to focus those to be of maximum effectiveness.

Unfortunately, politicians don't seem to use their heads very often. Markey proves that he has little sense in matters of security, and in fact, will make us all less secure by requiring the little pointy object act.