by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

The blood from the July 4 shooting at the El Al airline ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) had barely cooled when many television journalists were proposing that the security perimeter at airports be extended to the streets.

That shouldn’t come as a surprise because we have increasingly become a nation where too many people expect to be protected from every imaginable threat, and are quick to blame the government for failing to have established protective barriers for every eventuality.

Certainly there are people who realize that there is no such thing as 100% foolproof security, especially when terrorists, assassins or criminals are willing to trade their lives for their objectives. But that doesn’t prevent the media from suggesting that total cocoon protection is possible.

Of course journalists reported that the LAX murderer was prevented from racking up a bigger score of grief only by the Israeli airline’s armed security personnel. A few reported that El Al is apparently the only airline that does provide armed security as one form of positive immediate response to armed threats.

No one noted that for all the times such armed security was available but unneeded, it was well worth having on that one occasion.

Armed Pilots
And no one noted that armed, trained pilots on American airlines are just the same kind of insurance against murderers, terrorists and loonies.

Before the July 4 incident, the House of Representatives had voted to approve the watered-down armed pilot test program bill that cleared committees just days earlier, but the prospect of action on a similar measure in the Senate continues to seem remote.

One would have thought that the quick action of the armed Israeli team might have proved a catalyst for such legislation, but the failure of key leaders to understand the basics of security continues to stall action on arming pilots.

Indeed, so averse have we become to guns that responses seem totally irrational. For instance, an American Airlines flight from Newburgh, NY, to Chicago was recently diverted to Detroit simply because of the Chicken Little response to the presence of firearms.

It seems the Chicago-bound American flight made an emergency landing in Detroit—after crew members learned a federal employee aboard hadn’t warned airline officials that he was armed.

The US postal inspector had identified himself at a security checkpoint before getting on the plane—but failed to submit the proper paperwork.

After learning of the man’s presence, the airline verified his identity and notified the flight crew, which landed the plane anyway.

The inspector was questioned and released. But the whole incident seems indicative of our national inability to deal with reality. The man was a legally-armed federal agent. He had identified himself, even if he didn’t file the right papers in triplicate. The airline confirmed his identity and his right to be armed. But the response was panic anyway.

The Panic Agents
The media can certainly take credit for inspiring such panic, especially the hoplophobic New York Times.

Playing along with the global gun control forces which are still trying to get the United Nations (UN) to ban small arms, The Times reported from Geneva, Switzerland, on June 30 that the world’s supply of small arms has increased to a total of (gasp!) 639 million.

The recorded number of small arms around the world rose 16% in 2001, with civilians owning 377 million of those arms, including handguns and rifles, according to the latest study by the Small Arms Survey, conducted by the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva. The school said that the number represented a 25% jump in civilian ownership from the year before, but explained that much of the rise probably reflected improved data-gathering after its first survey.

That initial survey was issued just before the UN conference in July to forge an international pact tightening firearms controls.

One of the new survey’s surprising findings, The Times claimed, was how widespread gun production is throughout the world, said Peter Batchelor, project director for the Small Arms Survey 2002.

“Our figures show that more than 1,000 companies in some 98 countries around the world produce small arms and ammunition,” he said. The previous report found that about 600 companies in 95 countries made firearms.

The survey based its research on public sources, like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and its research team verified the findings, Batchelor said.

Arms manufacturers around the world make about 8 million small arms yearly, the survey found. No more than 2 million such small arms are destroyed annually, Batchelor said.

Of course, destruction of small arms, including civilian handguns, shotguns and rifles, is one of the main objectives of the collectedn global gun control forces for which The Times is a leading accelerator.

But the subject of guns is not the only focus in the “war on terrorism.” Little by little, security agencies are arriving at scenarios for future mayhem that have gotten federal investigators looking at remote but dangerous possibilities. Taken together, they suggest that no American citizen should assume that their safety is guaranteed, no matter how the government gnaws on their civil rights.

In mid-June, The Washington Post carried an Associated Press story out of San Diego that claimed FBI agents have been contacting hundreds of dive shops across the country out of concern that the next wave of terrorist attacks could be carried out by scuba divers.

The FBI said it is looking into whether al Qaeda operatives have been taking scuba training in order to blow up ships at anchor, power plants, bridges, depots and other waterfront targets.

The agents have been checking dive shop customer files and sales of specialized scuba equipment.

A warning of possible attacks by divers was issued by the government before Memorial Day. The Coast Guard also warned of the possibility, and security around ports and ships has been tightened.

The Post also reported that the FBI said on June 21 that it had information that terrorists using fuel tanker trucks might try to attack fuel depots, Jewish schools and synagogues and urged local law enforcement agencies to be alert to the possibility.

Other FBI warnings have expressed concern about possible attacks targeting nuclear power plants, water systems, shopping centers, banks and apartment buildings. Most of these warnings have results from interrogations of captured al Qaeda members.

Whistleblowers
Many American have expressed concerns about their civil liberties, the right to trial by jury, privacy and random warrantless searches as a result of the government struggling to respond to the threat of widespread terrorism because of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Some of those concerns may not really be justified, but that doesn’t mean the American people should not keep a watchful eye on politicians and bureaucrats in Washington.

No matter what Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and company claim, however, they don’t help quell those fears when they propose exempting employees of the proposed Homeland Security Department from traditional whistleblower protection available to other federal employees. The legislation creating the new Cabinet department, currently before Congress, would allow the director of the proposed agency to waive all employee protections in Title V, including the Whistleblower Protection Act. The act shields government employees from retaliation or losing employment for speaking out on waste, fraud and abuse.

There’s no reason to exempt employees, the public has that chicanery is afoot.

If there is a good reason for this provision it hasn’t surfaced yet, but even the idea of allowing the government to discourage employees from speaking out is a good reason to keep everyone vigilant.