A U.S. bound plane from Amsterdam to Detroit is the focus of an attempted terrorist's act. If it hadn't been for the quick action of some passengers the scenario may have played out quite differently.
To answer my own question, though, why would a world class facility, such as Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, allow someone with an incendiary device through its security? Let me paint a picture for you using a personal experience.
While returning home from one of my trips to Paris, I encountered a lapse in security at Charles de Gaulle International Airport. Now, you'd imagine that Charles de Gaulle, or as the French call it, Roissy, being one of the top airports in Europe, would have impeccable security. Well, it does, if you use it consistently.
I was boarding a trans-Atlantic flight from Paris to Cincinnati. International airports serving airports in the U.S. are required by the TSA to conduct the same security protocols as implemented in the United States for domestic and international flights. In the United States, they do everything but Roto-Rooter your ass (and even then some people get that privilege).
But back to Roissy.
As we approached the metal detectors, a sign clearly stated--in French and English--we had to remove our shoes and place them in a plastic bin for extra screening; however, most people were not removing their shoes. Security officers simply allowed those people who had kept their shoes on to pass quietly through security, my party included! (Let's face it, taking your shoes off in public is not a very appealing thing to do.)
Am I saying that x-raying our shoes would have stopped a terrorist attack? No. But I am saying that basic security protocols were not enforced; therefore, who can say if all the basic security protocols in Schiphol were enforced? Europe is a lot less anal about these sorts of things. They think Americans have a stick up their ass for being so hard-nosed about invading people's privacy.
Come to think of it, they might be right!
No comments:
Post a Comment