Bolivians: the latest
hijacker stereotype?
by Philip Baum
t is often incorrectly said that, “Not all of World War II, or for that matter, America’s dilemma is to divert...just to be
I
Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists use of nuclear weapons against Japan. safe....despite the fact that nobody would
are Muslims”. As a result, there are daily Defendants of such seemingly heavy-handed convey a genuine bomb threat using a
complaints about passengers of Middle military responses argue that, not to have methodology that is more than likely not to
Eastern origin or bearing Arabic- taken such actions could have resulted in a be seen! However, the suspicious
sounding names being targeted for greater loss of life in the long-term than the passenger dilemma prompts a response
enhanced screening at airports. There is bombardments themselves caused in the that all avenues must be exhausted before
little doubt, even within the Muslim world, short-term. Whether or not you believe this to contemplating his being off-loaded. After
that the greatest threat to civil aviation be the case, it does raise the question as to all, the argument goes, they have been
emanates from Islamic fundamentalists; if whether our avsec response needs to be screened! The ‘just to be safe’ option
one excludes the supposedly now defunct proportional to the attacks perpetrated or seems to have been eliminated over fears
Tamil Tigers, 99% of all suicidal attacks proportional to the potential result of our not of the airline being sued. Bottom
carried out over the past decade have been taking action. line...responding to a ridiculous bomb
carried out followers of Islam. So, granted The limitations on liquids are not threat is disproportionate and failing to
the devastating loss of life that could result justified. We are being communally take action about a passenger causing
from the actions of their ilk, is it not punished, an action that would be concern is equally disproportionate.
reasonable that their brethren suffer the acceptable if it enhanced security. But it
relatively minor discomforts dished out at does not. In fact, quite the opposite is true. “...a Cessna operated by Aero
the airport security checkpoint? Surely the Excessive focus on any one item simply
scale of the now confirmed (as opposed to diverts our attention from the vast range of Montañas was the target
‘alleged’) liquid explosive plot to destroy threats that actually exist and encourages
multiple airliners on trans-Atlantic passages the groups who would have used such of a hijack attempt by two
in 2006 justifies extreme measures? modus operandi to explore other, harder to
Governments were, and continue to be, detect, substances or concealments. Peruvians and a Bolivian...”
faced with a choice between two evils; either to Likewise excessive focus on any one group
embrace a racially-orientated profiling system of passengers is unjustifiable, not because Embracing a proportionate approach
that singles out potential perpetrators on the it is racist but because it does not make would force security agencies, and those
grounds of religion or nationality, or to subject security sense and diverts our attention that regulate them, to explore threat vectors
the entire travelling public to limitations of the from the possibility of other ethnic or well beyond the passenger screening
quantity of liquids, aerosols and gels that they religious groups perpetrating attacks; the checkpoint. Vulnerabilities could be
carry. Opponents of the first option would cry lesson of the Lod Airport attack of 1972, addressed with an equivalent resolve to that
out ‘discrimination’ and have the student when the Japanese Red Army acted on displayed in identifying liquids at
population (of all races, religions, and colours) behalf of the Palestinian cause, and checkpoints; vulnerabilities in cargo
and civil liberty groups march in protest at the Baader Meinhof’s active participation in screening procedures, currently papered
victimisation of an entire community because the Air France hijacking to Entebbe, seem over by a mixture of bureaucracy and
of the crimes of a few; opponents of the latter to have been forgotten. semantic debates over terminology;
option would, and do, claim ‘communal A proportional response is designed to vulnerabilities in airport employee
punishment’ and the triumph of a system reflect what could happen, not what did background checks, woefully inadequate as
based on overly-liberal democratic values, happen. Consider this scenario: you are demonstrated by the all-too-frequent
rather than common sense and evidence- the Captain of an airliner who is told that a reporting of criminal gangs operating airside
based security requirements. male passenger is sweating profusely and or even in security roles; vulnerabilities in
There is a third approach, rarely deployed, behaving unusually. You are still at the checkpoint screening relating to the
which is based on proportionality. Those who gate, but are told that the passenger went identification of chemical or biological
study war ethics – and one of the battlefields through screening and nothing was found. weapons, the detection of which is
of modern-day warfare is our industry - often Do you depart with the man onboard? impossible currently granted our reliance on
debate what a ‘proportional response’ is. Last Alternatively, you are the same Captain the technologies deployed; vulnerabilities in
winter’s conflict in Gaza resulted in Israel who, now airborne, is told that, on page 47 general aviation, despite frequent incidents,
being accused of a military response that was of the in-flight magazine, the words “there an area ignored by regulators; and
disproportional to the attacks perpetrated is a bomb on this plane” are found. Do you vulnerabilities relating to off-airport
against it; one could have the same debate divert? It’s a question I pose frequently. activities, evidenced by the horrific rise in
over the Allies bombing of Dresden at the end Normally the answer to the bomb threat incidents of laser cockpit illumination, let
2 Register now for FREE instant access to ASI online by visiting www.asi-mag.com October 2009 Aviationsecurityinternational
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52