In its statement, TSA detailed that the agency “is mandating that every individual flying into the U.S. from anywhere in the world traveling from or through nations that are state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest will be required to go through enhanced screening. The directive also increases the use of enhanced screening technologies and mandates threat-based and random screening for passengers on U.S. bound international flights.”
At midnight Washington DC time, January 3, the directive went into effect and instantly placed 675 million more Muslims and Arabs on yet another ‘Terrorism’ list. Also added were Nigerian and Cuban Christians but they were not the target. 675 million is the approximate total number of people on the new list from the ten “prone to terrorism countries” as the Washington Post called them, or “terrorist leaning countries” according to Fox news, (Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen) and the four current “State sponsors of Terrorism” (Iran, Syria, Libya and Cuba). All in all, thirteen Muslim countries moderated by the inexplicable inclusion of Cuba. Furthermore, under these new guidelines, almost every American Muslim who travels to see family or friends or goes on pilgrimage to Mecca or any one who travels through these countries will automatically be singled out for special security checks
According to the new directive, 675 million of these citizens are now subject to being watched, patted down, and full body scanned under arrangements calling for ‘intense screening’ by the national airlines transporting them to the US. As with the new H. R. 2278 Congressional initiative against satellite TV providers, the airlines flying from or via the 14 countries will have to enforce the new stringent security measures or themselves risk losing their lucrative US bi-lateral landing rights and potentially, end up on yet another US Special Global Terrorism facilitator list.
A USA TODAY/Gallup poll found, air travelers in the United States strongly approve of the government’s use of body scanners at the nation’s airports even if the machines compromise privacy. Poll respondents appeared to endorse a Transportation Security Administration plan to install 300 scanners at the nation’s largest airports this year to replace metal detectors. The machines, used in 19 airports, create vivid images of travelers under their clothes to reveal plastics and powders to screeners observing monitors in a closed room.
In the poll, 78% of respondents said they approved of using the scanners, and 67% said they are comfortable being examined by one. Eighty-four percent said the machines would help stop terrorists from carrying explosives onto airplanes. The survey was taken Jan. 5-6 of 542 adults who have flown at least twice in the past year.
Only 29% of respondents say they are more concerned about air safety since the alleged Dec. 25 attempt by a Nigerian passenger to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight. Bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab got through an airport metal detector in Amsterdam with powder explosives in his underwear.
While sentiments of the citizens of “the prone to terrorism countries” or “terrorist leaning countries” were not polled, the Lebanese were among the first to object to being placed on the new US T list. The Algerian government “strongly protested” new airport screening measures for US-bound travelers leaving the country. Nigeria has demanded that their 150,000,000 (150 million) citizens be immediately scratched from the new T list of 14 countries singled out for special treatment. Nigeria Information Minister Dora Akunyili announced today that “Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation, did not accept the new Terrorism list and we do not have a history of terrorism and such a move could not be justified. It is unfair to include 150 million Nigerians on the US list for tighter screening because Nigerians do not have terrorist tendencies.”
Moreover, Terri Dowty, of Action for Rights of Children, in London claims that the scanners could breach the Protection of Children Act 1978, under which it is illegal to create an indecent image or a “pseudo-image” of a child. Indeed, the ACLU and similar civil liberty organizations in England and Europe are waging a campaign against FBS on privacy grounds some arguing that the images created by the machines are so graphic they amount to “virtual strip-searching” and have called for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers involved.
US and European Child porn laws are applicable in the view of some lawyers and there is growing concern that TSA type at airports around the World do not commit offences under child pornography laws or sell to the likes of the National Enquirer, the UK Sun, NY Post etc. full body scan images of celebrities, movie stars and others. Some governments are expressing concern that images could end up on the Internet.
A 12-month trial at Manchester, England airport of scanners revealed naked images of passengers including their genitalia and breast enlargements only went ahead last month after under-18s were exempted.
Under such conditions and the evident paranoia, will a Muslim with self respect and who values the Koran allow his family especially his mother, his wife, and his daughters to be body scanned? Will this policy be viewed as aggressions against all Muslims and their dignity? Lest we forget, the greater jihad is about holding fast against any ideas and practices that run contrary to the Prophet’s revelations (Qur’an), sayings (Hadith) and the examples set by how the Prophet lived his life (Sunnah). Not only will Muslims and Arabs find the full-body scanner treatment abhorrent but there is some question whether such devices would have even detected the type of bomb allegedly used on Christmas Day in Detroit.
Last week, the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations denounced the screening policy and urged greater emphasis on training security personnel “in identifying the behavior of real terror suspects.” According to CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. “While singling out travelers based on religion and national origin may make some people feel safer, it only serves to alienate and stigmatize Muslims and does nothing to improve airline security.”
Additionally, the chilling effect of the directive on the economic interests as well as the fact that the Israel Defense Industries promptly announced a crash program to build and distribute quickly a cheaper and improved full body scanner (FBS) version may be alleged as evidence of a design to humiliate and deride the Arabs and Muslims.
The thesis that unresolved grievances contribute to terrorist acts is substantiated by Professor Carol Lancaster, (School of Foreign Service of Georgetown University and a Visiting Fellow at the Center for Global Development and former Deputy Administrator of USAID, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Africa) who in a recent commentary asserts:
The terrorists of al-Qaeda were educated, from well-off families, and mostly from countries that have long ago graduated from the category of the worlds poorest. It was not poverty that motivated them. Indeed, we do not know for certain what led them to terrorism—perhaps disgust with their own often-corrupt governments; a sense of humiliation by the West; religious fanaticism, boredom, and alienation; or perhaps dim prospects for a fulfilling career. But their motivation was not fighting poverty.
Professor Lancaster goes on to state:
The three elements common to all terrorism are: (1) a grievance that the terrorists are protesting and perhaps trying to resolve; (2) an ideology or set of beliefs that identify and explain the grievance and what to do about it; and (3) a belief that terrorism can contribute to that grievance’s solution.
Terrorist grievances are often over land, assets, or other resources—in essence, who should control them. Grievances can also be over values—for example, the perception hat an ethnic, religious, or political organization is encroaching on others’ rights or that a society is flawed in some fundamental way and must be reformed.
……
Short of the use of force, policymakers have several options for addressing the underlying conditions that feed terrorism. The first is to address the disparate issues that are triggering terrorist activities. The United States and other countries can act as mediators for agreements between governments and discontented ethnic, religious, and other groups (as in the case of Northern Ireland). But such diplomatic efforts take time, energy, and resources—items things in scarce supply for United States and other governments.
Notwithstanding that the United States has not received an overwhelming disapproval and critical reaction from the friendly governments of the countries concerned, it is never the less time to rethink and re conceptualize the entire directive before it is exploited by the likes of al-Qaida, to inflame the passion of the moderates in the Muslim world.
Assessing the attitudes of the citizens who are now targeted as the subjects of the new measures and the eventual consequence of the predictable protest and grievances do not require a scientific poll. One need only scan the various “discussion” forums” and the popular news sites frequented by the citizens of the countries designated for special focus to grasp the possible outcomes of the chosen strategy.
Lastly, the approach mistakenly suggests that a savvy al-Qaeda would not search for operatives and sympathizers in countries which are not listed or unlikely to be ever listed — like Canada or within the United States — to find willing hosts to carry out acts of terrorism.
Rather than an impulsive and frenzied drift toward strategic overreach perhaps the intended purpose can be better achieved by economy of force and calm and rationale deliberation. As the President stated, let us make the changes that need to be made. Let us debate the best way to protect the country we all love. That is the right and responsibility of every American and every elected official.
