Why we don’t copy Israel’s airport security practices
Two days ago, I pointed out that there is an obvious alternative to the insane naked-body-scan-and-genitalia-grope security regime that our government has imposed on us in the nation’s airports. The Israelis, who are the number one terrorism target in the world, carefully question each passenger, and if his answers raise any questions, they take him aside for closer scrutiny.
Why, then, does the U.S. not adopt a similar approach? Last January I suggested a possible reason:
How the Israelis protect civilian airlinersIn short, American racial diversity, combined with the American commitment to racial group equality of outcome in all professions, combined with the entrenched system of nonwhite minority privileges which is the actual and inevitable consequence of our commitment to racial group equality of outcome in all professions, requires the government to have low-IQ airport security agents, which precludes security measures which require intelligence, which in turn assures that the government, in order to protect us from our mass murdering Muslim enemies, must subject us to perverted and humiliating security measures.
Commentators such as the blogger “Allahpundit” support the naked body scan because, they say, there is no alternative to it. Indeed, it will be impossible to throw out the naked body scan unless there is a perceived, practicable alternative. But can you imagine today’s mainstream conservatives and tea partiers proposing the Israeli way, given the factors I’ve laid out above? Can you imagine conservatives pushing for a reformed, highly trained, high-IQ Transportation Security Administration in which virtually none of the airport agents will be black or Hispanic? I can’t.
.Libertarian Steve Chapman writes at Reason:FL writes:
I would guess that interrogating someone is a highly G-loaded task. You need to hold a lot of facts in your head at the same time; quickly put them together to look for possible inconsistencies; and formulate new questions to explore those inconsistencies. You need to do all of this while paying attention to the person who is being interrogated and you need to be able to think at least as fast as that person. [LA replies: You’re leaving out intuition and pattern recognition (that is, behavioral pattern recognition). Interrogation of airline passengers for suspicious qualities not just a logical process of processing information, but of comparing patterns of behavior. And that is more an intuitive than a logical function.]David P. writes:
Just a reminder that you were the first in positing that the election of Obama would have the effect of giving rise to and invigorating a genuine conservative opposition to Obama. A similar thing may happen in this “private-parts-scan-and-grope” regime.LA replies:
But my question is, when will ANY mainstream conservatives begin to formulate the problem in those terms? So far, none of them even conceive of doing so; not even in their most private thoughts do they think in those terms. How do I know this? When people are thinking something that is forbidden, it tends to come out in some indirect form. I see no signs of such thoughts, even in indirect form, among conservatives.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 15, 2010 12:39 PM | Send