A compendium of random thoughts regarding politics, society, feminism, sex, law, and anything else on my mind. POST YOUR COMMENTS BY CLICKING ON THE TIME INDICATOR BELOW THE POST YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON. RSS FEED AVAILABLE AT http://feeds.feedburner.com/Dilanblogspotcom

RSS FEED
ACLU
Andrew Sullivan
Attorney Shopping Links
Bag and Baggage
Ernie the Attorney
Eve Tushnet
Gail Davis
Gnosis
How Appealing
Legaline
Lehrer NewsHour
National Law Journal
National Review
New Republic
Slate
Spinsanity
Talking Points Memo
TAPPED
Virginia Postrel
Volokh Conspiracy
War Liberal

 
MICHAEL JACKSON'S PLANE AND THE PROBLEM OF GENERAL AVIATION SECURITY:
We don't yet know how all that video equipment got on Michael Jackson's plane, but the untold story here (I know it is hard to believe that any story relating to this matter is still untold, but bear with me here) is that even in this day and age of post-9/11 security, it is insanely easy for anyone to access private planes (which are referred to as "general aviation", or "GA", in contrast to "commercial aviation", which means airlines and airliners).

There are a number of reasons for this. Obviously, some of this is unavoidable. As everyone knows, metal detectors and X-ray machines are required at all commercial airports. But there are not that many commercial airports in the country. Here in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, we have six-- Los Angeles International, Orange County, Ontario, Burbank, Long Beach, and Palmdale. I believe New York has five-- Kennedy, Newark, La Guardia, Islip, and White Plains. In most cities (San Diego, for example, or Phoenix), there is one. Smaller cities sometimes do not have any commercial service whatsoever.

In contrast, there are thousands of general aviation airports, which encompass everything from a grass landing strip in a farming town to facilities landing Learjets and Gulfstreams for the rich and famous in places like Teterboro, NJ (close to New York) and Van Nuys, CA (near Los Angeles). Obviously, securing these places is a more difficult enterprise.

That said, however, you'd be surprised how many of these places lack anything more than a climbable fence for security. Aircraft are sometimes left open, where they can be tampered with, loaded with unauthorized cargo, or even stolen. And even in some of the largest GA airports serving learjets, ID's are not always checked, passengers and luggage are not screened, and people seem to be operating on an honor or recognisance system of security.

In this day and age, this won't do. There were indications after 9/11 that perhaps GA security would be improved. But then, it became clear that little would be done. Why? Well, for one thing, GA has a very effective lobby. Much as the farm lobby effectively represents the interests of agribusiness while claiming to stand for the small farmer, the GA lobby conjures up images of middle class Americans with pilots licenses who would face huge costs and inconveniences while running a security gantlet, all the while opposing even those security measures aimed squarely at the learjet set. (It isn't just security measures either-- while commercial airliners have been required to meet strict noise limits over the last 20 years, executive jets are not subject to those limitations thanks to the strength of the GA lobby; as a result, homes near Van Nuys Airport shake and crackle while all those jets carrying Hollywood celebrities and movie producers fly in.)

The GA lobby makes two main arguments against regulation-- first, that there are plenty of other weaknesses in homeland security that terrorists would exploit rather than using a GA plane to stage an attack, and second, that any regulation would impinge on the freedom of Americans to take to the skies. Both these arguments are easily answered. With respect to the weaknesses in other parts of the security net, one gaping hole does not justify another. Indeed, by the logic of the GA'ers argument, we shouldn't take any security precautions in any endeavor, because there will always be some loophole.

With respect to the argument that regulation will limit GA'ers freedom, this is, in a certain way, true, just as it is true that the same helmet laws that save the lives of motorcycle riders also impinge on their ability to feel the wind rushing by. But I would also express skepticism as to how much freedom would really be limited. I would envision different levels of security for different types of planes-- jets, after all, are more dangerous than multi-passenger prop planes, which, in turn, are more dangerous than Cessna 172's. A multi-tiered security system would reduce the imposition on recreational flyers while addressing some of the major holes in the system.

One might require that jets be parked in secure areas in airports with tightly controlled access, just like commercial airliners. Passengers and luggage could be screened at Transportation Security Agency checkpoints (remember, most GA airports don't handle learjets, so this may be doable), and passengers, flight attendants, and pilots would be subject to the same security checks as their counterparts in commercial aviation.

Multi-passenger prop planes should still be parked in secure areas (to prevent someone from stowing away or putting explosives on the planes), and pilots and passengers should be positively ID'd, with TSA officials setting up random checkpoints at GA airports with full search facilities, and conducting random background checks on passengers. All plane owners should be required to purchase terrorism insurance-- the insurance companies would then require that aircraft be fully secured and difficult to access. And everyone who gets a pilot license or takes flight training courses should submit to a background check.

I am not dead set on any of these ideas. My real point is, this is a big problem and the political system seems to be responding to lobbies and monied interests rather than doing something about it. People in the know raised similar warnings about hijackings and using commercial planes as missiles before 9/11. Let's hope that this time we can act proactively.
posted by Dilan at 10:59 PM

 
THEOLOGY AND ISRAEL:
I have blogged before about the deep respect I have for Israel, as a democracy among dictatorships in the Middle East, and as a successful country among failed states. I have also talked about the fact that Israel was born in a state of original sin, because it was formed by international powers who dispossessed Palestinian Arabs of their land without concern for the consequences. And that original sin has defined the state of war that Israel has found itself in ever since.

That original sin, however, can never be mended. Obviously, there has to be a refuge for Jews, who are, even now, repeatedly persecuted and attacked all over the world. And Israelis have a right to a safe, secure state, and further have the right to strike back against terrorists who bomb innocent people on the streets of Israel's cities. Indeed, the stubborn insistence of Israelis not to be beaten by the terrorists-- to continue to live their lives and engage in everyday activities despite the threat of additional suicide attacks-- is deeply admirable.

In my mind, the real threat to Israel-- because the terrorists will never be allowed to win-- comes from its friends and supporters, not the terrorists. And that threat is the insistence on intertwining the question of Israel's existence with the religious claims of the Jewish people to the Holy Land. The reason is that although these arguments may play well and may raise money from the believers, no non-Jew is ever going to feel obligated, or should feel obligated, to accept them, any more than Jews feel that they should give up sovereignty over the Temple Mount because Islamic tradition states that the Prophet ascended to heaven there.

Here is a nice example of this genre of argument. Charles Krauthammer is a war hawk and a strong supporter of Israel. Those are respectable positions, and I certainly don't condemn anyone for arguing that Israel should not agree to a Palestinian state if the peace plan would empower terrorists. He makes legitimate, if debatable, points against how the latest plan, concocted by liberal Israeli politicians in unofficial shadow negotiations with Palestinians, would compromise Israel's security.

But then he lands with this: "[Israeli negotiator Yossi] Beilin gives up the ultimate symbol of the Jewish connection and claim to the land, the center of the Jewish state for 1,000 years before the Roman destruction, the subject of Jewish longing in poetry and prayer for the 2,000 years since-- the Temple Mount. And Beilin doesn't just give it up to, say, some neutral international authority. He gives it to sovereign Palestine. Jews will visit at Arab sufferance."

Now wait just a second, Charles. I thought this was about Israel's security. I am not convinced that it would do this, but if giving up the Temple Mount would lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinians and an end to all the needless death, destruction, and misery in the region, isn't that reason enough to give it up? Is it more important to maintain symbolic control over a strip of land that is mentioned in holiday prayers than it is to save lives on the ground? As Krauthammer himself characterizes it, the Temple Mount is a symbol. The "ultimate symbol", yes, but a symbol nonetheless. Seriously, if I lived in Israel, I'd be much more concerned about the government giving up the Jordan Valley than the Temple Mount. But then, I am not a religious Jew-- and that is exactly the point.

If Israel is to ever settle its differences with the Palestinians, it will need to give Palestinians the land necessary to create a viable state. Everyone knows this. And creating a viable state means encompassing most of the Arabs in the Holy Land-- the last thing Israel wants is a demographic nightmare where Arabs live in Israel and eventually outnumber Jews, forcing Israel either to give up on being democratic or to give up on being Jewish. Further, no Arab wants to hear about how their new state cannot acquire particular lands because God gave them to the Jews, or because Jews lived there several millenia ago. Such arguments are not persuasive to Arabs-- nor should they be-- who have a different belief about what God wants and doesn't want, and who have their own historical attachments to land that they cannot reasonably be allowed to possess. Nor are they persuasive to non-Jews in the international community.

The paradox for Israel is that in order to maintain its Jewish character among so many Arab states, Israel must justify its actions based entirely on secular principles. People like Krauthammer may mean well, but they threten Israel's existence by situating the justification of Israel's actions in religion and religious history. This, in turn, feeds the notion in the Arab world that the Arab relationship with Israel is a religious war rather than an problem of providing two peoples with political rights and land. The best road to true security-- and religious freedom-- for the Jewish people is by pursuing a secular standard of justice, even if it means making painful compromises on heartfelt religious issues.
posted by Dilan at 10:28 PM