Probably the biggest tinderbox in the world today is the Holy Land, with the problems between Israel and Palestine continuing to deteriorate. But before I say more, I want to affirm as forcefully as I can that I completely support Israel and its right to exist, live peacefully, and thrive.
Some people will misunderstand my suggestions, and some may even do so intentionally. But having said that, the best way for peace in Israel to be obtained is to provide justice to the Palestinians!
How would you feel if you had a friend whose house was bulldozed by the Israeli government because one of their family members was suspected of harboring a terrorist? Often, according to the Palestinians, this happens with no notice, hearing, charges or redress!
How would you feel if you were born in a "temporary relocation camp" 30 years ago and are still living there?
How would you feel if you had lost your job because it was on one side of the security wall and you lived on the other, and it takes hours to get from one side to the other? And how would you feel if your loved one was injured, but soldiers would not allow her ambulance to cross through a security checkpoint to get to a hospital?
If these things were to happen to me, I probably would first try to approach some government officials and request more understanding. If that didn't work, and it most likely would not, then I would probably write some letters and carry some picket signs in protest. If that didn't work, and it most likely would not, my actions might escalate into joining groups of people with similar grievances, maybe even start throwing rocks at soldiers. I believe all of these things would be natural human responses that would evolve from genuine frustration.
I hope I would be sensible enough never to be manipulated into lobbing grenades at civilians or becoming a suicide bomber, but I could see that others could be led into these acts as well. Radical actions can come from people who lose their dignity and hope. In fact, it is a truism that there is no one more dangerous in the world than one who has nothing left to lose. So I can see how this has happened to some Palestinians.
Having said all of that, I truly also share the frustrations of the Israelis as well. For many years, and in many and repeated ways, they have tried to reach agreements with the Palestinians, including several occasions in which they implemented unilateral disengagement plans. But it is virtually impossible for the Israelis to work out disagreements or implement plans for peace when they do not have responsible people to deal with who actually represent the Palestinians. To that effect, I believe that Yasser Arafat, whom I view as almost entirely corrupt, more deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for dying in 2004, than he did for reaching his "agreement" with Yitzhak Rabin in the Oslo Accords in September 1993.
So how can peace come to that truly troubled land? The best way to de-radicalize any area is to implement a system of justice for everyone. This will have a neutralizing effect, and lead to more positive and lasting results. Maybe the Palestinians can form a responsible government that can control their more radical elements and even govern effectively, and maybe not. But regardless of that outcome, that should not keep all people subject to the Israeli government's jurisdiction from being able to have their grievances pursued and resolved in a fair and neutral setting.
For almost the entirety of my time sitting as a judge in Orange County I had a hand-printed sign on my bench that said "There Can Be No Peace in a Land without Justice." I used it to remind myself that each case I had was important to someone, and every decision I made would affect those people and also their views about our government. So I tried to do my best with every ruling under the facts and law of the case, and to explain my conclusions. People actually can accept losing, but what they cannot accept is laws applied in an unbalanced or arbitrary fashion. And what is true regarding the people in our country is also true for people everywhere else.
The American government can help, in fact, it can help where probably no one else can. But for years the perception has been with all Arab countries that our government has ratified the actions of the government of Israel, regardless of its merits. And that has resulted in our government relinquishing its moral authority to be a leader in that area of the world, and with some justification. But just because we have disagreements with the Israeli government on some issues does not at all mean that we do not support Israel's security, any more than when a husband and wife disagree about financial decisions means that they do not love and support each other.
Actually, my wife and I have a trip planned to the Holy Land in July, so maybe I will change my perceptions during my visit, although I doubt it. I will report back to you again on this subject after we return. But in the meantime, I encourage everyone to project themselves into the position of all of the people in the Holy Land: Palestinian and Israeli alike. Justice in our country, coupled with the appearance of justice, has gone a long way in defusing racial strife and violence, and it will do the same thing in the wonderful but deeply troubled land of Israel and Palestine.
JAMES P. GRAY is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the author of "Wearing the Robe: the Art and Responsibility of Judging in Today's Courts" (Square One Publishers, 2010), Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, A Voter's Handbook, Effective Solutions To America's Problems and can be reached at jimpgray@sbcglobal.net or http://www.judgejimgray.com. Judge Jim Gray is also currently offering his 25 years of experience on the bench to ADR Services in Orange County for Arbitration and Mediation services.
Showing posts with label Israel El-Al Airlines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel El-Al Airlines. Show all posts
Monday, March 14, 2011
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Are TSA procedures really making us safer? - by Judge Jim Gray
Last year, thousands and thousands of Americans at the airport lost at least 30 minutes of their lifetimes by standing in longer lines and complying with all of the TSA's increasingly laborious, invasive and time-consuming restrictions.
Has anyone ever done a cost-benefit analysis on these security checkpoint programs? TSA has about 60,000 employees, and today there are about 350 full-body scanners in operation in about 70 of our nation's airports, with about 1,000 expected to be operational by the end of 2011 All of this costs more that $10 per passenger per screening. That also means that those of us who pose no danger will be forced into enhanced scannings at the airports that have them, but the terrorists will simply choose to begin their flights at airports that do not yet have those procedures, like ours here in Orange County.
How much safer are we because of the loss of time and added costs? If anyone really knows, they aren't telling. Why is that? For that answer, one must understand governmental bureaucracies, which are driven by politics.
First, it doesn't matter how much time and money are spent or wasted, or how many millions of passengers are inconvenienced, forced to be humiliated or unnecessarily exposed to radiation, if even one person is injured or loses his life to a terrorist, the TSA will be in political trouble. Thus, the TSA has every incentive to avoid every conceivable risk — regardless of the probabilities, privacy intrusions or expenses involved.
Second, politicians thrive when they are seen as fighting against enemies of the state. So now it is the "terrorists" who furnish the excuse for our government to deprive us of our liberties, take more of our money, and, along the way, keep the very politicians behind this "movement" firmly in power. Over time other groups have also been used to justify such actions, such as Muslims, communists, Jews, atheists and more. Of course, many dictators in other countries around the world have clung to power in a similar fashion by citing the United States as their common enemy.
Thus we need to have some responsible party intercede in the process, do a cost-benefit analysis, and give us recommendations about how to go forward. But in this we also must be realistic and understand that there is no way that our safety can actually be guaranteed in today's world. As a practical matter, all a suicide bomber has to do to terrorize our country would be to detonate a bomb in the line of people at airports waiting to be screened, or do the same thing at any theater, train station, athletic stadium or highway bridge or tunnel in our country. How could we possibly protect all of those places? Furthermore, terrorists don't even have to be successful, because simply attempting their various plots seems to be keeping us terrorized enough.
So how can we defeat the terrorists? Simply by taking reasonable and logical precautions, relying upon the most effective counter-terrorism device we can use, which is good and timely intelligence, and then simply refusing to be terrorized. That will render the terrorists ineffective.
In the meantime, we passengers are now faced with the choice of going through a full-body X-ray scanner, being subjected to a highly intrusive full-body pat down, or simply choosing not to fly on airplanes. The body-scanner X-ray machines are euphemistically called "naked scanners" because they provide graphic images of our bodies, including genitalia, breasts and other personal effects like urine bags, sanitary napkins and padded clothing. And regardless of their training, it is irresistible for TSA employees, just like any other human beings, to gawk at what they are seeing. In fact, so far several reports have cited situations in which the scanners have been used by TSA employees to humiliate some of their fellow workers who were going through the procedure.
The government says that the amount of radiation put out by the scanners is not dangerous. But, unlike the X-ray machines in your doctors' offices, once they are in operation, the airport scanners are mostly not required to be calibrated any further, so no one really knows how much radiation they are emitting. And even with limited exposure, the radiation is directed at the passenger's entire body, and no one knows the effect it will have upon the corneas of the eyes, which are the most sensitive areas for radiation damage.
The government also says that no visual records are kept of the screenings, but there is much information to the contrary. That information says that individual screenings can be maintained and even transferred to prosecutors, if necessary, for evidentiary purposes. If that is true, then the TSA has the largest library of child pornography in the world.
If passengers "opt out" of the full-body X-ray scanners, they will be subjected to an enhanced, genital-groping body pat-down, which would be classified as a sexual assault in any other context. In fact, newspapers have been full of truly concerning stories about these pat-downs. My own wife tells of having been completely "felt up," as she was recently going through the screening process at LAX. In some respects, I'm glad I wasn't there, because I would probably have had difficulty controlling my anger!
What would be a better approach? The answer is to privatize security screening and allow each airline to choose the most appropriate procedure. The private sector is much better equipped to adopt a cost-benefit analysis that will balance the issues of safety, intrusion and cost. Then probably most airlines would adopt the approach that is used by Israel's El-Al Airlines, which is simply to take people aside and talk to them.
Has anyone ever done a cost-benefit analysis on these security checkpoint programs? TSA has about 60,000 employees, and today there are about 350 full-body scanners in operation in about 70 of our nation's airports, with about 1,000 expected to be operational by the end of 2011 All of this costs more that $10 per passenger per screening. That also means that those of us who pose no danger will be forced into enhanced scannings at the airports that have them, but the terrorists will simply choose to begin their flights at airports that do not yet have those procedures, like ours here in Orange County.
How much safer are we because of the loss of time and added costs? If anyone really knows, they aren't telling. Why is that? For that answer, one must understand governmental bureaucracies, which are driven by politics.
First, it doesn't matter how much time and money are spent or wasted, or how many millions of passengers are inconvenienced, forced to be humiliated or unnecessarily exposed to radiation, if even one person is injured or loses his life to a terrorist, the TSA will be in political trouble. Thus, the TSA has every incentive to avoid every conceivable risk — regardless of the probabilities, privacy intrusions or expenses involved.
Second, politicians thrive when they are seen as fighting against enemies of the state. So now it is the "terrorists" who furnish the excuse for our government to deprive us of our liberties, take more of our money, and, along the way, keep the very politicians behind this "movement" firmly in power. Over time other groups have also been used to justify such actions, such as Muslims, communists, Jews, atheists and more. Of course, many dictators in other countries around the world have clung to power in a similar fashion by citing the United States as their common enemy.
Thus we need to have some responsible party intercede in the process, do a cost-benefit analysis, and give us recommendations about how to go forward. But in this we also must be realistic and understand that there is no way that our safety can actually be guaranteed in today's world. As a practical matter, all a suicide bomber has to do to terrorize our country would be to detonate a bomb in the line of people at airports waiting to be screened, or do the same thing at any theater, train station, athletic stadium or highway bridge or tunnel in our country. How could we possibly protect all of those places? Furthermore, terrorists don't even have to be successful, because simply attempting their various plots seems to be keeping us terrorized enough.
So how can we defeat the terrorists? Simply by taking reasonable and logical precautions, relying upon the most effective counter-terrorism device we can use, which is good and timely intelligence, and then simply refusing to be terrorized. That will render the terrorists ineffective.
In the meantime, we passengers are now faced with the choice of going through a full-body X-ray scanner, being subjected to a highly intrusive full-body pat down, or simply choosing not to fly on airplanes. The body-scanner X-ray machines are euphemistically called "naked scanners" because they provide graphic images of our bodies, including genitalia, breasts and other personal effects like urine bags, sanitary napkins and padded clothing. And regardless of their training, it is irresistible for TSA employees, just like any other human beings, to gawk at what they are seeing. In fact, so far several reports have cited situations in which the scanners have been used by TSA employees to humiliate some of their fellow workers who were going through the procedure.
The government says that the amount of radiation put out by the scanners is not dangerous. But, unlike the X-ray machines in your doctors' offices, once they are in operation, the airport scanners are mostly not required to be calibrated any further, so no one really knows how much radiation they are emitting. And even with limited exposure, the radiation is directed at the passenger's entire body, and no one knows the effect it will have upon the corneas of the eyes, which are the most sensitive areas for radiation damage.
The government also says that no visual records are kept of the screenings, but there is much information to the contrary. That information says that individual screenings can be maintained and even transferred to prosecutors, if necessary, for evidentiary purposes. If that is true, then the TSA has the largest library of child pornography in the world.
If passengers "opt out" of the full-body X-ray scanners, they will be subjected to an enhanced, genital-groping body pat-down, which would be classified as a sexual assault in any other context. In fact, newspapers have been full of truly concerning stories about these pat-downs. My own wife tells of having been completely "felt up," as she was recently going through the screening process at LAX. In some respects, I'm glad I wasn't there, because I would probably have had difficulty controlling my anger!
What would be a better approach? The answer is to privatize security screening and allow each airline to choose the most appropriate procedure. The private sector is much better equipped to adopt a cost-benefit analysis that will balance the issues of safety, intrusion and cost. Then probably most airlines would adopt the approach that is used by Israel's El-Al Airlines, which is simply to take people aside and talk to them.
Analyzing people's behavior through observations, conversation and the use of databases, plus focusing upon those "red flag passengers" who paid in cash, are only traveling one-way or don't have much luggage will go a long way in exposing realistic criminal threats. We spend much too much time, energy and money in the name of political correctness searching harmless travelers, and too little focusing upon legitimate potential threats. That must change.
James P. Gray is a retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court, the composer of the high school musical revue "Americans All" (Heuer Publishers), and can be contacted at JimPGray@sbcglobal.net or through his website at http://www.JudgeJimGray.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
+a.jpg)
