Terrorists Don't Use Depends for Weapons

Ted Bundy; white female earning $75-100k a year who buys expensive laundry detergent; 17 year old paying cash for brand new BMW in LA;  and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.  What do three of these four individuals have in common?  

Well, Ted Bundy, launderd white female, and super fly 17 year old have all had their civil rights violated by profiling. The FBI committed the heinous act of profiling Bundy when it tried to figure out what kind of crazy person would systematically kill young brown-haired females. Their incredibly hateful solution, compile a list of likely characteristics possessed by said lunatic in order to expedite their capture.  Horribly offensive result, Bundy was successfully captured like a Twinkie at fat camp… and then executed… like a Twinkie at fat camp.  

The laundered white female who buys fancy laundry detergent is, simply put, job security for marketing firms everywhere. They have such an extensive and frighteningly accurate profile on her that they can predict which toothpaste she will buy ten years from now based on her age, income, race and childhood fear of clowns and monkeys.  The super fly 17 year old, otherwise known as Jenny Crank the drug dealer, is already on the LAPD watch list because everyone, save for Janet Napolitano, knows that a 17 year old paying cash for a $75,000 dollar car in South Central is either a drug dealer or a lost Miley Cyrus.  

But what of the once suspected, now known terrorist, Abdulmutallab? The Nigerian man Mark Steyn dubbed “The Pantybomber”?  How is it that the full weight and measure of U.S. government resources, dedicated to our national security failed to catch this guy before he tried to blow up his junk?  The short answer, the system didn’t work, and here’s why.  

As long as those charged with the security of this great nation continue to believe that terrorist don’t kill people — diapers do — the terrorists win.  It does no one any good to start looking for smoking panties after the fact.  Jihadists may not be brilliant, but they don’t have to be, they just have to accidentally be successful once.  Which is why profiling people rather than bottles containing more than 3 oz. of liquid is the right thing to do.  The select group of individuals with misplaced sympathies in charge must move past this idea that profiling is a four letter word.  

The Department of Homeland Security (DHA) Presidential Directive Hspd-6 is the governmental provision protecting the U.S. against terrorism.  Here, read the part where it defines a terrorist:

“To protect against terrorism it is the policy of the United States to (1) develop, integrate, and maintain thorough, accurate, and current information about individuals known or appropriately suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism…”  

It is understandable why Americans are confused to the point of anger, because it seems that we — and by we I mean reasonable Americans — know and accept that this provision presupposes we’re going to be profiling people. We blithely assume that the DHS and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) are using this provision to look for actual terrorists, not as a government works program. The TSA has added 50,000 people to its payroll since 9/11, and as far as the paying public can tell the obvious benefit has been scant.  Unless randomly screening toddlers, grandmothers, military servicemen and women, and pregnant women without cause, can be considered a benefit.  I’m not trying to be ungrateful, of course on some level it has probably helped.  Statistically speaking it has had to (disclaimer: conjecture, possibly supported by facts… somewhere ).  

So how did we come to be discussing the efficacy of banning Depends from all U.S. flights?  Not to belabor the obvious, but political correctness taken to its most injurious extreme got us here.  We, the people, are now experiencing daily what was once merely an academic phenomenon.   

We assumed, wrongly, that political correctness would stay safely within the bounds of the Women’s Studies Department.  We really should have known better.  Ideology is viral, and it is doubly so when you make it about the disenfranchised.  And after 19 Muslim terrorists took out 3000 people on 9/11, who in this country has been more disenfranchised than non-terrorist Muslims?

Politically correct ideology preemptively protects this minority group from perceived government brutality by brutalizing the rest of the population.  A consideration, by the way, for which I don’t believe we’ve ever received a thank you. The net result is that we now profile shoes, diapers, baby bottles and various other accoutrements of daily life, under the pretense of, “everything in the known universe could be a terrorist tool.”  

Wrong: diapers don’t kill people, terrorists do.  Profiling every inanimate object under the sun prior to a flight doesn’t stop terrorists from getting through.  Profiling terrorists does.  I use the terrorist-free Israeli carrier El Al as my proof.  The Israelis figured out early on that individuals perpetrating acts of terror on Israeli citizens shared certain commonalities, and they used that understanding to protect their people.  

With the exception of Ft. Hood, there have been no more successful terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11, an achievement for which I fully credit the Bush administration.  It is only a matter of time, however, before our culturally sensitive security measures fatally fail, and I, for one, am tired of air travel being a trust exercise.  I am also tired of my flight attendants being more focused on survival than service, and I want better peanuts. But that’s a whole other subject.