Since When Is Prayer Dangerous? Aircraft Goes into "Lockdown" When Passengers Pray

There are many ways that an aircraft can be harmed, but prayer isn't one of them. And yet, an Alaska Airlines flight went into "lockdown" mode on Monday, March 14, when three passengers started doing an orthodox Jewish prayer that included wearing leather straps on their foreheads and arms. The plane was met by the FBI when it landed in Los Angeles, where the passengers were "interviewed" and released, according to MSNBC.

This isn't the first time that suspicious prayer has caused moderate panic. In November 2006, six Muslims were removed from a flight in Minneapolis in handcuffs because of suspicious activity, including prayer. In January 2010, a Jewish passenger on a flight that had left LaGuardia caused the plane to be diverted because he was engaged in ritualistic morning prayer.

What does this mean? Should visible prayer be outlawed on aircraft? Hardly.

When a passenger is praying, he or she is not trying to light a shoe, pull out a gun, detonate a bomb, rush the cockpit with box cutters or commit some other dangerous act.

I know what the flight attendants and other passengers are thinking when they report this so-called suspicious activity: They're thinking that the passenger who's praying --always in some way that's unfamiliar to the flight attendant or the other passengers-- has set some kind of bomb to explode and the clock is ticking.  If that were actually the case, then it would be too late to do anything anyway.

Dear DC Government: Lose the Anti-Terrorism Tag Lines in All Your Emails

by Bill Adler

Every message that originates from a District of Columbia, dc.gov email address contains this ominous reminder:

Preventing terrorism is everybody's business. If you SEE something, SAY something. Call the Metropolitan Police Department at (202) 727-9099 or email at SAR@DC.GOV to report suspicious activity or behavior that has already occurred. Call 911 to report in-progress threats or emergencies.

To learn more, visit http://www.mpdc.dc.gov/operationtipp.

While it's a good idea in theory for citizens to report suspicious activity, in practice it rarely turns out to be a good thing. Are average citizens really any good at being able to tell the difference between ordinary and suspicious behavior? According to the MPD's website, this activity can be suspicious: "Are you aware of anyone recording or monitoring activities, taking notes, using cameras, maps, binoculars, etc., in your neighborhood?" Birdwatchers and amateur photographers can look very suspicious. How can ordinary citizens tell when somebody's hobby is actually a terrorist cover? The answer is that untrained civilians can't (and the police often can't tell the difference either).

Keep in mind that the 9-11 terrorists did not conduct photographic surveillance prior to attacking the United States. That fact somehow got lost or distorted along the way. We're building a nation of suspicious-reporting citizens based on what? Not based on anything useful.

Passengers on an airplane reported another passenger for suspicious activity because of too many trips to the bathroom. Amtrak police arrested a photographer for suspicious activity because he was taking photos of trains for an Amtrak-sponsored photography contest.

Remember the white van that the Washington snipers were supposedly driving? The actual vehicle that everyone, especially law enforcement, should have been looking for turned out to be a Chevy Caprice. It's very easy to look for the wrong thing when it comes to suspicious activity

I'm not sure exactly how to segue into this, but I think it's relevant to point out that New York City's Metropolitan Transit Authority trademarked the phrase in 2007 “If You See Something, Say Something." Not kidding. The MTA licenses its use. Is this about security or about marketing?

But never mind. Back to the reasons why this tag line on DC Government email's is a bad idea.

What happens when you hear the same warning over and over again, such as "Cigarettes can be hazardous to your heath," the warning that was on every cigarette package for decades? Repeating the same thing over and over again numbs people to the message. Repeating the same phrase turns that into an anti-warning. It become less than useless.

So, please, District of Columbia government, turn off that tag line. It's doing more harm than good.

Metro Bag Searches: Security or Stupidity?

by Bill Adler

The question needs to be asked, and it certainly needs to be answered: How is it possible that voluntary random bag searches at some Metro stations can thwart terrorists?

There's something totally lacking in the common sense department: If terrorists know which stations have random searches, all they have to do is avoid those stations and attack another day or from another place. Is it fair to call these searches idiotic? I think so. But perhaps somebody can explain how this will stop or give pause to terrorists? The more I think about these bag searches, where the bad guys know in advance where and when their bags might be searched, the more I'm convinced this is a very, very bad idea.

Metro isn't alone when it comes to security stupidity-- that may be a better name for this than "security theater." Security stupidity is something that can actually increase the likelihood of terrorism or cause scarce police resources to be deployed in the wrong place. Amtrak announces on each train that the conductor might ask to see ID to ensure that the name on the ticket matches the passenger. But this happens after the train has left the station. What will an armed terrorist do who's confronted by an unarmed conductor demanding to see identification? I know that's a train I don't want to be on.

Somebody, anybody: How can these very obvious and avoidable security screenings do anything to prevent terrorism?

Good Morning: Police to Do Random Bag Searches at Metro Stations

You can put your shovel away for the time being. The snow has stopped and Friday's relative warmth --a high of about 38 degrees-- and ample sunshine will melt away most of the white stuff. With the wind-chill factor it will feel closer to 32 degrees, though.

TBD and DCist report that the police will start conducting random bag searches at Metro entrances. You can refuse to have your bag checked, but if you do, you can't enter that Metro station.

I know that I'm not the only person who's puzzled by this impending policy that will not do anything to prevent a terrorist attack. All a terrorist has to do is say no and then either enter Metro from another station, try another day or wait until there aren't any police at that particular Metro station. Here is an excerpt from the official Metro announcement:

The inspections are expected to take only minutes and are designed to be non-intrusive, as police will randomly select bags or packages to check for hazardous materials using ionization technology as well as K-9 units trained to detect explosive materials. Carry-on items will generally not be opened and physically inspected unless the equipment indicates a need for further inspection. Anyone who is randomly selected and refuses to submit their carry-on items for inspection will be prohibited from bringing those items into the station. Customers who encounter a baggage checkpoint at a station entrance may choose not to enter the station if they would prefer not to submit their carry-ons for inspection.

The TSA will be assisting Metro in these screenings, which will take place at table set up in front of the entrance gates.