The Malaysian jetliner probe: Passport insecurity
Among so many questions about the fate of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 en route to Beijing with 239 passengers is how at least two travelers apparently boarded the Boeing 777 with stolen passports, according to authorities. What's revealed, in part, is a stunning lapse in air-travel security that has gone unaddressed — even after the 9/11 terrorism attacks.
Reportedly the passengers' passports weren't checked against a readily available Interpol database of 40 million stolen or lost travel documents. Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble says most countries simply don't routinely make such checks.
“Now we have a real case where the world is speculating whether the stolen passport holders were terrorists,” Mr. Noble said.
It is reassuring that the U.S. uses Interpol's database more than any other nation and issues thousands of “no-board” recommendations to airlines annually, USA Today reports. But Americans flying between foreign airports are “at the mercy of whatever the host and receiving countries are doing,” according to one security expert.
And lest anyone forget, the 9/11 hijackers modified the passports that got them into the U.S., according to the 9/11 Commission.
Simply improving the security of passports is meaningless if other nations don't bother to check if they're stolen. The fact that so many countries shrug off this basic security consideration, especially after the horrible lessons of 9/11, is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The rise of ISIS: Obama’s bus
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- The climate debate: Better science
- The Box
- U.N. Watch: Fanning hate’s flames
- An embarrassing legacy: Eric Holder departs