Letters to the Editors

New law may do little to improve airline security

Re: Deadline looms to screen luggage, and Airport security doesn't fly, by Debra Saunders, Jan. 9.

What a surprise. Congress passes a law -- a really tough law -- to protect airline passengers. Two months later we learn that not only does the law seem to be impossible to comply with, but it will significantly disrupt air traffic at a time when the national interest lies in stimulating this important part of our economy.

Even worse: as columnist Debra Saunders points, the Democrats' really tough insistence on making all security inspectors federal employees will change nothing about the people who perform those jobs -- except to double their salaries.

The lesson -- which we as citizens of a democracy are forced to relearn periodically -- is that passing laws doesn't necessarily solve problems. In fact, passing a law is just as likely to make the problem worse, or create new problems that are even more vexing. That is why our founding fathers created a governmental system designed to make it difficult to pass laws. What the airline security law teaches us is that at times of heightened public concern, the hysteria created by our publicity-seeking legislators and their media co-conspirators can overcome even these prudent safeguards.

There are some things government does well: As we are seeing, making war is one of them. For the rest, since the only certain law is the law of unintended consequences, our legislators should be required to swear allegiance to the guidance of the Hippocratic oath: "First, do no harm."
-- Barry Augenbraun, St. Petersburg

Bring back standards for screeners

Never to be concerned with the facts, our government folks, including our two senators and 98 others, decided that a major problem leading to the Sept. 11 attacks was incompetent airline security screeners, even though they did nothing wrong in letting the hijackers pass through security.

In a typical "wag the dog" diversion, the screeners got blamed. We wouldn't want to blame the real culprits, such as the various government intelligence agencies, the FBI or the Congress. The news media jumped on the bandwagon, and it suddenly became imperative to upgrade the work force and, most important, that they be federal employees.

The screeners were much maligned for being uneducated and non-English-speaking persons. The improved capability was supposed to include requiring all screeners to have a high school education and be American citizens.

Then our Transportation Department decided that adhering to this standard would eliminate one-fourth of the current screeners, so it eliminated these requirements.

So the so-called incompetent, minimum-wage screeners will now become government employees. Any skill upgrade? No, but they are no longer minimum wagers, since as government employees they will now be paid much more.

I urge all readers to contact the Transportation Department and our lawmakers and force Transportation to adhere to the original upgraded standards.
-- Fred Savalli, Clearwater

Terrorists could have bypassed security

Re: Overemphasizing a diploma, Jan. 12.

The article written by John Balzar continues an emphasis on airport screeners that may be diverting attention from the real source of potential danger to the U.S. air transportation system.

It has been assumed that the weapons used in the tragic events of Sept. 11 passed undetected through passenger screening procedures. This assumption is prevalent even though it was reported that instruments similar to those used by the terrorists were later found under an aircraft seat cushion on another flight.

Given the long and painstakingly detailed preparations made by the terrorists, it seems implausible that they would risk three years of efforts by taking their weapons through the screening procedures, even if these procedures were considered to be inadequate and unreliable. Even a minimal risk of detection would be unacceptable.

It is more plausible to assume that the weapons bypassed passenger security procedure, especially in light of all the other preparations made by the terrorists.

The terrorists planned to use flights that historically had passenger loads of less than 50 percent. They wished to have a minimum number of passengers to control. But, this also provided many unused seats. The flights departed from airports in Boston and Newark, cities on the Eastern seaboard with many foreign-born flight-line employees. After receiving seat assignments, the terrorists could have used a pay phone to call a cell phone of such an employee who was an accomplice. The accomplice then could have put the weapons under the cushions of the terrorists' seats. Alternatively, since more than 50 percent of the seats were unused, the weapons could have been put under prearranged seats.

There have been no reports in the press about investigations, material witnesses or suspects concerning airport personnel with access to these flights. All blame and proposed remedies have been directed at passenger screening. The public is paying a high price in terms of inconvenience, delay, new costs and bloated government with little assurance that the real methods of putting weapons on board aircraft are being addressed.
-- Charles Settgast, Pinellas Park

Talk of Muslim reformation is heartening

Re: Arab-Muslim leaders need to tell children the truth about America, by Thomas Friedman, Jan, 8; and Facing a crisis of Muslim faith, by Mona Eltahawy, Jan. 7.

I have been heartened by the above two columns in your paper, stating that the Muslim faith must begin reformation to purge itself of the bloodthirsty fundamentalist faction that misinterprets and takes passages out of context from the Koran to promote death to those who do not believe as they do.

Someone once wrote that the pen is mightier than the sword. Newspapers, television and radio commentaries such as these two should be appearing at the top of the news around the world to encourage a reformation of the Muslim faith. Only when the Muslim leaders and clerics speak out for reformation of their faith and condemn and delegitimize those twisted souls who preach death to the infidels, will the world begin to recover from Sept. 11.
-- Roberta McElwain, Seminole

U.S. reassessment needed, too

[Re: Arab-Muslim leaders need to tell children the truth about America, Jan. 8.

Columnist Thomas Friedman says that Arab-Muslim leaders must speak out against Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders and the ideas they espouse. He sees some sign that this may happen and quotes Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as follows: "Catastrophes are in fact opportunities that make it incumbent upon us to conduct self scrutiny, review our attitudes and repair errors. . . . The real and deadly risk is to face crises with hands folded and blame others instead of confronting the crisis and taking responsibility for our role."

These are wise words. It will be great if the Saudis are guided by these ideas in formulating future policies and actions of their government. It is equally important that we Americans apply this same thinking to the policies and actions of the U.S. government.

We tend to see the Middle East as filled with countries that are untrustworthy and antagonistic to the United States. We find others to be at fault in causing these conditions. We fail to acknowledge the role that we ourselves have played in the failed policies and poor relations that exist with such countries as Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has spiraled downward to its current dismal state largely because of our unquestioning support for Israel and our vetoes that prevent the United Nations from acting. We blame Osama bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Syrians -- everyone but ourselves.

Crown Prince Abdullah suggests that the situation calls for self-scrutiny and a review of old attitudes. He warns about sitting with hands folded and blaming others. This is good advice for the Saudi Arabs. It is also good medicine for us Americans and our government's policies.
-- Joseph A. Mahon, St. Petersburg

Inflaming the situation

Re: Israel bulldozes Gaza homes, Jan. 11.

The Israeli government has again acted so capriciously as to stun any thinking person. The Israelis have bulldozed the homes of hundreds of innocent people in retaliation for the killing of some soldiers. It seems clear that the current Israeli government is trying to inflame the situation rather than promote peace.

Where is the public outcry over these outrageous actions? Why did you put this article on the second page of the paper? Is it because everyone has become numb to these violent misuses of power by a repressive government or is this not outrageous enough to make the front page in your paper?
-- Ron Pehmoeller, Largo

How much longer?

How much longer are the aggressive, terrorist activities of the Israeli government going to be supported by Congress and the administration? The Israeli government has no respect for human life or property, or the international community.
-- Andrew G. Jackson, Spring Hill

Openness is best

Re: Afghan detainees at Guantanamo.

Why am I suspicious when the press is excluded from anything that our government or military is doing? For good reasons. Too often the behavior is such that they know that we will protest if we were aware of what is going on.

A case in point is that of the transporting of the detainees to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo. I will not argue that these are not dangerous prisoners. But if the military behavior is above board, why not allow pictures? Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's excuse that pictures of them would be considered embarrassing for them rings hollow. Actually, it would be embarrassing for our military, which likes to pride itself on human rights and humane behavior.

Now the whole world will be watching to see how long these men are kept in cages. We are the first to criticize what other nations do. Surely we should not be following their examples. We can show the world that we really believe in what we say we do if we treat the prisoners humanely, with respect, and with openness to the press.
-- Lucy Fuchs, Brandon

Anti-Semitic humor

Re: Pat Oliphant cartoon, Jan. 9.

"Help! Help! My son the doctor was just eaten by a polar bear!" This cartoon displays the classic humor of anti-Semitism and invariably is what leads to discrimination of those of the Jewish faith.

I'm sorry, but there can be no question as to that cartoon's implication and therefore it's interpretation. Yes, this implies the classic "Yiddish Mamma" jokes and expressions, "My son, the doctor," et al. What else?
-- Harold Zallis, Palm Harbor

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.

They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright