- Image by houbi via Flickr
John Tyler’s “don’t touch my junk” video has gone viral, thus bringing the TSA’s full body scanners and pat downs into the public eye-at least until we are distracted by something else.
The gist of the scenario is that Tyler refused the x-ray scan and opted for the pat down. When the TSA agent explained that the pat down would be close to his groin, Tyler said the famous words “You touch my junk and I’m going to have you arrested.” Of course, saying this then meant that the TSA would have to check his junk (after all, a man who makes it clear that he does not want another man touching his junk is clearly a potential terrorist). Eventually he was removed and now faces the possibility of a civil lawsuit for not completing the process. People are required by law to complete the screening process. The reason for the law is, apparently, to prevent terrorists from repeatedly testing security by refusing the process when it is about to expose them. Of course, terrorists can just fly and see how the process works.
The main reason for the full body scans (which expose people to x-rays) and the pat downs is, of course, the failed underwear bomber’s attempt. If it were not real, it would sound like a comic sketch:
TSA Agent: “Hello. You can go through the body scan or get a pat down.”
Passenger: “Um, isn’t radiation bad?”
TSA Agent: “Well, it is believed it increases the risk of cancer and birth defects.”
Passenger: “Well, I fly a lot. I’ll go with the pat down. So, what do you pat down?”
TSA Agent: “Your body.”
Passenger: “Even my…naughty bits?”
TSA Agent: “Well, not directly. Unless you insist that we don’t touch them.”
Passenger: “So, if I were to say ‘please don’t stick a finger up my ass’, then you’d have to do that?”
TSA Agent: “Mabel, get a glove! Cold…”
Passenger: “Jesus! Why are we doing all this?”
TSA Agent: “Well, that guy had that bomb in his underwear.”
Passenger: “So, we have to spend millions and chose between being x-rayed or groped because some idiot failed in an attempt to blow up his underwear?”
TSA Agent: “Yes.”
Passenger: “So, if some terrorist makes an ass bomb, you’ll be playing proctologist ?”
TSA Agent: “Yes.”
Passenger: “And if some terrorists makes a vagina bomb, you’ll be playing gynecologist? ”
TSA Agent: “Well, not me. But Mabel would be.”
Passenger: “Screw this, I’m taking the train.”
TSA Agent: “You can’t leave until we finish the process.”
Passenger: “Even the ass check?”
TSA Agent: “Especially the ass check. That way you will think twice before questioning the government again.”
As I have argued before, I am fine with effective and necessary security measures. However, the TSA always seems to be trying to counter yesterday’s threats and, even worse,the threats that are really not much of a threat. To use the obvious example, the new procedures are aimed at countering underwear bombs. This bomb was, of course, used in one failed attempt. As such, privacy is being violated and large sums of money are being spent to counter a very unlikely and minor threat. It does not seem to be worth the price to counter this sort of threat.
Now, it might be objected that we must have such security because some terrorist might try the underwear bomb again and this time it might actually work. Surely, someone might say, what if I had my way and the pat downs and x-raying stopped…and then an underwear bomb took out a plane!
I will grant that I am, as argued above, concerned about safety. However, my principle is that the security and safety concerns should be proportional to the threat. So, for example, I think that people should be allowed to drive cars-even though quite a few people are killed each year in accidents (far more than terrorists kill).
But perhaps concerns about costs and privacy do not matter: only securing people from a possible threat matters. This seems to be the principle behind the scanners and pat downs (which have yet to find an underwear bomb).
However, if we follow this principle, then airport security must counter all potential threats-or at least the ones that people can think of. For example, bombs hidden in the rectum or swallowed (as mules sometimes transport drugs) are possible. Hence, TSA must do a GI tract check to protect us, or the terrorists win.
Also, this same principle should apply outside of airports. If what matters most is safety and not things like rights, then we should ban all dangerous things, such as cars and alcohol. After all, no one has been killed by an underwear bomb. But thousands perish ever year because of cars and alcohol. If people make a fuss about rights and freedom, the government can point out that what matters is staying alive and if almost anything goes in protecting us from vague and unlikely terrorist threats, then the same principle should apply to clear and present dangers. Or is it the case that we should only be concerned about being killed by terrorists while on an airplane?
“After all, no one has been killed by an underwear bomb.”
Mike,
How many people would die from mid-air explosions if there were absolutely no security measure? I’m betting we’d lose at least one plane a week.
Your arguments about death rates are always comparing oranges and apples. They also assume a linear benefit to applied funds and measures–just as your medical spending blog post did. Spending a trillion dollars in one area does not give the same benefits as spending in another area.
In reality, the fact that you say we’re so safe flying, may in fact mean that security measures are working.
Israel’s security measures are much more restrictive than ours. All in a country that everyone this side of Karachi was to see die–yet no in-flight deaths for 30 years. Oh–and those security measures haven’t stopped Israel from being the only real democracy in the Middle East.
Sorry, I just don’t buy it. If you can’t deal with a 20 second pat down, you got problems.
“Hence, TSA must do a GI tract check to protect us, or the terrorists win.”
Actually, for everyone’s edification, I’m going to provide the definition of Sophistry, so that everyone can see how much it applies to many of your arguments. This kind of shennanigans is tiresome:
Ok, folks; here’s Sophistry. Look for it Dr. Sophist’s next post. And the one after that. And. well, probably the next ten.
sophistry [ˈsɒfɪstrɪ]
n pl -ries
1. (Philosophy)
a. a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though actually invalid and misleading
b. the art of using such arguments
2. subtle but unsound or fallacious reasoning
3. an instance of this; sophism
And in every post I see that has one of Dr. Sophist’s sophisms or straw men, I’ll give these symbols:
Sophistry: S:O, straw man: O><
I’ve been thinking the same when I read some of these posts. The question that has been nagging me is, isn’t sophistry the opposite of philosophy? Perhaps the title should be A Sophist’s Blog?
Well, feel free to do an analysis of the arguments and show the specific fallacy being committed and why. Just saying I am a sophist or committing fallacies is not enough-you have to back up these claims.
I am generally careful (but not perfect) when I write and critical thinking is one of my areas of expertise. However, I am always willing to acknowledge my errors. Only fools and knaves make such denials.
Mike, most of your posts are full of “coulds”, “mights”, “may be”, etc. Which would just be lame writing if it wasn’t slanted significantly to the left of center. Of course I just gave you an out because you can now argue that some would say a sophist argues any position. You imply something, but you always leave a door open so you can refute any criticism by denying you said what you implied. Recently I called you out on your Fox News/CBS analogy (oh, that’s right, you weren’t making an analogy) you answered my criticism by saying your post was in a context that I had no means of knowing about.
But let’s look at the Webster definition for Sophist:
1 : PHILOSOPHER – Well I disagree with Webster here, see above
2 capitalized : any of a CLASS of ancient Greek teachers of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about the middle of the fifth century B.C. for their adroit subtle and allegedly often specious reasoning – OK, you’re not that old
3 : a captious or fallacious reasoner – Bingo, especially on the captious part in regard to your responses.
While I appreciate that you don’t go deleting posts and criticisms like some so-called philosophers that I could name, and I definitely appreciate your supporting the forum here, some of these discussions are like trying to nail jelly to a wall. Of course, now I’m the one being captious, right?
Or even better, via Princeton:
sophism – a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
Are you saying that it is sophistry or fallacious to consider what might be? So, for example, I would be engaged in sophistry if I claimed that if a person smoked, then she might develop cancer?
In regards to the Fox/CBS thing: I did not claim that Fox was as bad as CBS. Fox just failed to confirm an anonymous source before running with the story and then corrected the error. My point was that both are examples of why news agencies should be critical and confirm-especially when they find the claim very appealing. You are criticizing me for something I never claimed and when I deny saying it, you just claim that I must have been implying it somehow. If you would, please find the text where I claim that Fox’s error was equally as bad as the Rather incident.
Again, I ask for specific examples of my sophistry and fallacious reasoning. I have no objection to my errors being exposed and corrected. But, if you accuse me of such errors, please be able to show that I have committed them.
Lord, OK two can play at this game…can you show me where I said you claimed that Fox’s error was equally as bad as CBS’s? Why, I made no such claim. Sigh…
Look, Mike, I don’t believe that you deliberately want to mislead. But neither do the vast majority of people whom you (and I) would criticize for misleading people. They don’t think they’re doing it. They’ think they’re above all that. It’s just a rationalization defense of a tenuous position. Yet note that I’m not alone in making this observation. Odd coincidence.
What I find especially frustrating is that this topic, like many others here, has so much potential as a philosophical subject. But the discussion gets bogged down in straw-man arguments and naive apples/oranges comparisons that stand in the way of any discussion of the underlying problems.
Well, here: “By juxtaposing these two stories and stating that you, just now, have a fresh example? What, nothing for six years until now? To claim that you “made no attempt” to say one is as bad as the other is quite misleading. You made an attempt, just a weasely one. “
I have been meaning to suggest that Mike open a thread where we can suggest future topics.
One topic that needs a good airing is “diversity.” What does it mean, why do we value it, and does skin color really measure it?
Gotta reply down here since there’s an apparent 5-reply limit…
Again, I didn’t say that you SAID they were equal, I only said you made an attempt at misleading. Implication by comparison. A response to your claim, quoted, that you “made no attempt” (quoting from the original Fox story, not this one). Yes this is a weasely argument but such is sophistry. If you had said they were equally as bad, you would be a liar. Different animal.
Look, if I were to say “It has been reported that many women from Maine are whores.” And in the next breath, said “Mike, isn’t your mother from Maine?” Now as philosophers, we both know that such is a logical fallacy, and thus certainly meaningless. I’m guessing in the low teens by your numbering system. But it certainly qualifies as sophistry.
I suppose that this sort of implication is in the eye of the beholder. My intent was not to say that they were equal but that they are both examples of cases in which the professional media folks should have checked before running with a story. I agree that what occurred at CBS was a more serious incident and one that had more serious consequences (bye Dan).
If I thought the two were equivalent, I would have directly said so. While I do qualify my statements, surely you know that I have no reluctance to criticize Fox and no need to rely on mere innuendo. After all, I’m not running for any office and hence can be free to say what I think.
I already pointed out once instance, and i see things like this in many posts.
“Hence, TSA must do a GI tract check to protect us, or the terrorists win.”
Your statement is deceiving. It assumes that TSA MUST follow this line of thinking to its ultimate end. In fact, this is your line of thinking, not TSAs. Do you really think TSA will be using GI checks for people gtting on planes? No, you don’t. And thus you’re a Sophist. You’re using a certain, clever logic that you really don’t believe yourself, in hopes of making people believe a certain point, which is that you don’t like scanning and pat downs.
It’s either an unitentional deception, or it’s rigid, robotic logic. And perhaps its the result of too much “logic” and why Captain Kirk was the leader on the Enterprise and not Spock. Spock would follow the same line you did; a linear line that says if A+B=C, than X+Y=Z. But there are tons of variables before we get to X. TSA will not do colon checks–care to place a bet? Obviously, that would destroy the travel industry. Pat downs will not and I’d dare say the industry won’t even notice any drop in rates of flying.
You constantly do this. You do it all the time with Sarah Palin posts too. And Republicans in general.
Well, if you justify X using principle P and P justifies Z, then accepting X on the basis of P would seem to entail that one must accept Z as well. My point is that GI searches are absurd yet justified by the principle used to justify pat downs and x-ray scans and thus this shows that these methods are also absurd.
I’m not a sophist. I do not accept relativism nor do I endorse the view that all that matters is success.
You can argue against me without calling me a sophist, you know.
Ouch, don’t bring up the ‘sophist’ word. You philosophers are so sensitive. 🙂
As I said in my post, I am for effective security measures. At no time do I advocate there being “absolutely no security measures.” I’m fine with the metal detectors, checking carry ons, and so forth. I’m not fine with the x-rays or pat downs.
Yes, spending does not have equal benefits. For example, spending all that money on x-ray machines does not benefit us as much as spending it on scholarships or loans to business startups or perhaps not spending it at all.
Calling my argument sophistry does not prove that it is sophistry. If we justify full body x-rays on the principle that safety trumps privacy and that we must counter all possible threats (however improbable), then it follows that GI searches would also be justified by that principle.
Oh, I can tough out a pat down. Naturally, I would request that a hot stewardess would do the patting down, but I doubt that would be an option. My main concern is that the state is infringing on the rights of citizens needlessly. The x-ray and pat downs seem to be clear and blatant violations of the 4th amendment:
I would like to see this become a case for the supreme court. The correct ruling seems to be rather evident.
“It was probably not the most artful way of expressing my point but I was trying to keep it lighthearted; I did not want a big situation. I said it with a half smile on my face,” ~John Tyner, world-renowned jackass and soon to be felon.
There are several problems with your 4th Amendment argument, the most important problem being that it’s already been decided in a court of appeals:
Too bad Tyner didn’t do his legal research before deciding to be the poor man’s (very poor) Patrick Henry. Mike argued that lawn darts should be outlawed in one post (they are) but doesn’t like us trying to stop nihilistic terrorists.
It basically comes down to implied consent, since there are signs before you go through the search areas stating that you will be searched. You consent to the search or you are denied service. There are many instances of these types of searches that don’t make the news, because jackasses like John Tyler are mostly found in night clubs and not airports. Plus it just makes such great news to make him out to be some sort of Patrick Henry for merely being rude. Customs searches for example, require no warrant. You’re stuff comes in from another country, they can look in packages.
United States v. Aukai
“The constitutionality of an airport screening search, however, does not depend on consent, see Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315, and requiring that a potential passenger be allowed to revoke consent to an ongoing airport security search makes little sense in a post-9/11 world. Such a rule would afford terrorists multiple opportunities to attempt to penetrate airport security by “electing not to fly” on the cusp of detection until a vulnerable portal is found. This rule would also allow terrorists a low-cost method of detecting systematic vulnerabilities in airport security, knowledge that could be extremely valuable in planning future attacks. Likewise, given that consent is not required, it makes little sense to predicate the reasonableness of an administrative airport screening search on an irrevocable implied consent theory. Rather, where an airport screening search is otherwise reasonable and conducted pursuant to statutory authority, 49 U.S.C. § 44901, all that is required is the passenger’s election to attempt entry into the secured area of an airport. See Biswell, 406 U.S. at 315; 49 C.F.R. § 1540.107. Under current TSA regulations and procedures, that election occurs when a prospective passenger walks through the magnetometer or places items on the conveyor belt of the x-ray machine. The record establishes that Aukai elected to attempt entry into the posted secured area of Honolulu International Airport when he walked through the magnetometer, thereby subjecting himself to the airport screening process.
Although the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent, the scope of such searches is not limitless. A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it “is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [] [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose.” Davis, 482 F.2d at 913. We conclude that the airport screening search of Aukai satisfied these requirements.”
Also, in the Biswell Case (1972), this was concerning the Gun Control Act, which regulated gun sales:
“It is also plain that inspections for compliance with the Gun Control Act pose only limited threats to the dealer’s justifiable expectations of privacy. When a dealer chooses to engage in this pervasively regulated business and to accept a federal license, he does so with the knowledge that his business records, firearms, and ammunition will be subject to effective inspection. Each licensee is annually furnished with a revised compilation of ordinances that describe his obligations and define the inspector’s authority. 18 U.S.C. 921 (a) (19). The dealer is not left to wonder about the purposes of the inspector or the limits of his task. [406 U.S. 311, 317] ”
It comes down to this: Don’t want to be searched? Don’t fly. I’ll take the pat down and fly.
My understanding is that Isreal doesn’t often have to get as intrusive. They are willing to profile and this saves having pat-downs and body searches of the elderly. Good luck on having us profile. Political correctness has us by the junk.
That is an excellent point. It is rational to focus security efforts on people most likely to pose a threat. Also, the Israeli practice of asking questions seems to be an effective tool.
I do agree that the PC attitude that all profiling is bad is a mistake. While assuming all Muslims are terrorists would be wrong, having a set of standards for evaluating potential threats is rational and reasonable-provided that the standards have a proper basis (that is, based on legitimate research and careful analysis). To use a oversimplified example, a young man flying alone from Yemen who looks nervous and acts strangely (fiddling constantly with his pants and not having any luggage) would warrant more attention than a 3 year old American child from Detroit who is traveling with her mother, who happens to be a police detective.
Making pilots go through the scanner is utterly absurd.
True. As many have pointed out, the pilots could just crash the plane if they were terrorists. Also, were they not allowing pilots to carry guns at one point?
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/11/muslims-may-esc.html
Interesting.
This is too funny if true.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/11/tsa-reading-mat.html
I completely agree we should profile. Insane that we don’t.
All because we are in denial about the doctrine of jihad.
They know we’re at war. Some here don’t.
Yeah, we are at war. We are always at war with somebody. But, what does that entail or prove?
Are we really? The progressisves in DC would have us believe this is all a law enforcement issue, including Iraq and Afghanistan. They claim war does not exist in the conventional sense anymore. We have upwards of 1.3 million radical Islamists at religious war with us when we wount even say they are terrorists.
Who won’t?
Here is one.
http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/05/13/why-wont-the-obama-administration-call-out-radical-islam/
…here are some more examples.
http://www.theobamafile.com/_terror/NothingToSeeHere.htm
Even the administration seems to take suspected or actual connections to terrorism lightly………
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/10/hatem-abudayyeh.html
Ummmmmmm, I don’t even know how to respond to this.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/09/fbi-gives-terro.html
…and so on and so on. I can keep going if you like.
There is nothing to see here either…..
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/10/authorities-sti.html
Here is the counterterror Czar…..
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/obama-regimes-counterterror-czar-says-jihad-is-a-legitimate-tenet-of-islam/
That things change during war. How many automobiles did the US produce during WWII. Under 100 I think. Because the rules changed for a while.
This is so ticky-tac as to be absurd. Find a greater cause. You sound like a Tea Party member.
I’m not denying that there are bad people who want to do bad things. My concerns focus on whether we are countering them effectively and doing so without violating our rights. After all, aren’t we fighting for our principles and rights and not just mere survival?
Dogs are the best explosive detectors we have going, but we don’t use them in airports. Why?
I did see a dog or two at the airport soon after 9/11, but not since.
Yeah, I think that’s T.J.’s point. They offend the Muslims.
(Bukhari 4:448) “I heard Allah’s Apostle saying; “Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal).”
Apparently Mohammad hated dogs and had many killed because the “angel Gabriel” didn’t like them. Oddly, I’ve known more that a couple of dogs named Gabriel. A neighbor in college had a Mo. Don’t think it was for Mohammad, though.
We use dogs in Afghanistan, but then an Afghan soldier decided that he didn’t like the way British soldiers used dogs to search women, so he killed three Brits and defected to the Taliban.
Apparently you didn’t read the post I put up: this has already bee vetted in courts. DECADES AGO. This is old news and you got suckered into the shiny new object news story again. TSA doesn’t do things like this without covering itself legally, and I’m sure it’s not very much fun for the employees to have to dal with it, which is one for the reaosns TSA has such great turn over.
Few people think this is the fall of the Republic.
If I were a Sophist, I’d say you like Islamic terrorists. I mean just based on your rhetoric for the last decade. Being critical of virtually every action taken to stop them, being against killing them while they sit in Pakistan plnning someone’s death–becuas ethey were once American citizens–, being against screening measures, say the War on Terror failed (it didn’t), talking about some crazy white dude who flies his plane into a government building and saying “See! See!”
All I can see is that you don’t understand what it’s going to take to stop the jihadists. It’s a war of wills. Liberals have so little of it…
But you’re in complete denial about your complete denial, so I’ll just say you’re misguided.
The current body scanners and pat downs could not have been vetted decades ago. Also, the mere fact that there has been a legal ruling on a matter does not entail that the ruling is correct or morally correct. Legal rulings are subject to assessment.
On what basis would you infer that I like terrorists? Is it because I think that security measures should be rationally assessed? Is it because I am critical of assassinating American citizens? All this seems to prove is that I am willing to critically assess what the state does. Nothing about this entails I like terrorists.
I do understand what it takes to stop terrorists. The first step is not being terrified. This is followed by taking rational security measures and taking effective action against key terrorist targets. Isolating them via diplomacy and propaganda campaigns is also useful. I am all for stopping terrorists-but I am for doing it effectively, rationally, ethically and without violating our key principles.
You hinted at the unintended consequence that will come from these scanners. More people will drive instead of fly, and there were be more deaths on the highways as a result of a program to prevent deaths in airplanes. I have no intention of getting on a plane now. This is not out of fear; it’s because of annoyance.
It isn’t sophistry to point out that we are losing the very thing that we are supposed to be protecting. Regardless of recent court decisions, the obvious original intent of the Fourth Amendment was to protect us from an intrusive government that wants to look into everything just because. The legal presumption must be that I abide by the law. Any belief to the contrary must be supported by a warrant or probable cause.
We need security services that focus more on gathering human intelligence in the places where the threats originate, combined with a willingness on the part of the American people to take punitive action (including war) against anyone, nation or group, that attacks us.
Good article . . . perceived threats, security, and reductio ad absurdum . . .
http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/security-and-terrorism-reductio-ad-absurdum/
Six layers of security–including a body search. that’s the israeli way. They talk about short quick lines in Tel Aviv. But i sthere the flight traffic that Chicago or Atlanta has? Doubtful. Could you really handle this Mike? You’d go nuts if America instituted these procedures. Israel is NOT less intrusive than America at airports. Yes they do profile, but they search people walking around much more often, not just people going through the screening areas.
@kernunos: Don’t fall for mike’s libertarian argument, which is only meant to confuse his real issue, which is the war on terror itself. I’m betting most people want these procedure sin place. Do you think the people who work on the planes want to know there’s no bombs on there? This is much talk about nothing and it’s decades old news.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VGOUA00&show_article=1
JERUSALEM (AP) – Israel’s renowned airline security faced a legal challenge Wednesday from a civil rights group charging that its practice of ethnic profiling is racist because it singles out Arabs for tougher treatment.
At a Supreme Court hearing, civil rights lawyers demanded an end to the policy, which they say violates Israeli law. Such profiling is illegal in the U.S., where passengers must be singled out for security checks on a random basis.
But some terrorism experts say Israel’s measures are effective precisely because they take ethnicity into account—and warn that equality at the airport could cost lives.
Israel is considered a prime target for hijackers and other attackers because of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Despite that, there hasn’t been a successful attack on an Israeli airliner in decades, and experts point to Israel’s security procedures as a key factor.
Many of the measures are kept secret, but known precautions on Israeli airliners include armored luggage compartments, armed sky marshals and reinforced cockpits. But a key to preventing attacks, experts say, is the screening process on the ground.
Israeli Jews and Arabs get dramatically different treatment when boarding Israeli planes.
Hanna Swaid, an Israeli Arab, remembers being strip-searched by gruff security guards and having his luggage taken apart piece by piece 20 years ago before he flew from Israel to London, where he was a post- doctoral student.
Today, Swaid is an Israeli Arab lawmaker, and he regularly receives complaints from Arab citizens about similar treatment.
The court appeal by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel—and any public debate of the policy—are hobbled by the government’s refusal to discuss any of the policy’s details.
In court, the government’s attorneys would not reveal the screening criteria or acknowledge that ethnicity was one of them. They agreed to divulge the information only in a closed session that excluded everyone but the judges and themselves.
Representatives of Israel’s Transport Ministry, Ben-Gurion International Airport and the Israel Airports Authority said Wednesday they would not comment before the end of legal proceedings. The next hearing is scheduled for May, and any decision in the case is at least months away.
Swaid says he understands the need for security checks. “It’s in my interest and that of all the other travelers,” he said. But the screening should be done equally for both Arabs and Jews, he said.
Proponents of Israel’s approach say checking all passengers equally would require manpower and resources many times greater than are needed today and would needlessly extend the time passengers spend waiting for flights.
Ariel Merari, an Israeli terrorism expert who has written about aviation security, said ethnic profiling is both effective and unavoidable.
“It’s foolishness not to use profiles when you know that most terrorists come from certain ethnic groups and certain age groups,” he said. “A bomber on a plane is likely to be Muslim and young, not an elderly Holocaust survivor. We’re talking about preventing a lot of casualties, and that justifies inconveniencing a certain ethnic group.”