In the name of real security
It's about time airlines banned most liquids from flights. But last week was not the first time a plot using liquid explosives to take down planes was uncovered. Stuff like this goes back to the 1980s. What took them so damn long?
Truth is, the above is a bit sarcastic. While the TSA and the airline industry should do everything possible to ensure that no one boards a plane with the intent to blow it up, my question is this: where does it all end? Where is the line drawn? How long until shoelaces and belts and keys and even pens are banned? How long until they only allow the clothing on our backs?
The real problem is that all this is us being reactive instead of proactive. The terrorists will always be at least one step ahead of us. We shouldn't be dellusional and think that this new tougher security will actually prevent any new attacks. It may prevent an attack using liquid explosives, but it won't prevent other attacks. Will it prevent an attack on our ports? Or an attack on our rails? Or an attack on our underground subway?
Compare the amount of money we spend on airline security to what we spend on port and train security combined. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I can almost assure you that the former dwarfs the latter. And that's simply not good. But the reason for this is simple: why spend the money to prevent something that's never happened before? We know the threat exists in the air. So we should do everything possible to protect air travel.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't protect air travel. Hell, it kills me how often Andrew travels by plane simply because of this fear, but it's unavoidable. So of course I want the plane to be as safe as possible.
But mark my words: the next terrorist attack, at least on this country, won't occur on a plane.
Of course, I don't have any concrete suggestions besides for believing more attention should be paid to the rails and ports. And I'm not certainly not advocating chipping away at the freedoms our Constitution provides. I don't agree with the idea of banning carry-on luggage and making traveling all the more difficult and cumbersome.
But until we start being proactive about our security and start thinking creatively, we'll always be one step behind.
Truth is, the above is a bit sarcastic. While the TSA and the airline industry should do everything possible to ensure that no one boards a plane with the intent to blow it up, my question is this: where does it all end? Where is the line drawn? How long until shoelaces and belts and keys and even pens are banned? How long until they only allow the clothing on our backs?
The real problem is that all this is us being reactive instead of proactive. The terrorists will always be at least one step ahead of us. We shouldn't be dellusional and think that this new tougher security will actually prevent any new attacks. It may prevent an attack using liquid explosives, but it won't prevent other attacks. Will it prevent an attack on our ports? Or an attack on our rails? Or an attack on our underground subway?
Compare the amount of money we spend on airline security to what we spend on port and train security combined. I don't have the figures in front of me, but I can almost assure you that the former dwarfs the latter. And that's simply not good. But the reason for this is simple: why spend the money to prevent something that's never happened before? We know the threat exists in the air. So we should do everything possible to protect air travel.
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't protect air travel. Hell, it kills me how often Andrew travels by plane simply because of this fear, but it's unavoidable. So of course I want the plane to be as safe as possible.
But mark my words: the next terrorist attack, at least on this country, won't occur on a plane.
Of course, I don't have any concrete suggestions besides for believing more attention should be paid to the rails and ports. And I'm not certainly not advocating chipping away at the freedoms our Constitution provides. I don't agree with the idea of banning carry-on luggage and making traveling all the more difficult and cumbersome.
But until we start being proactive about our security and start thinking creatively, we'll always be one step behind.
posted by elanit | 6:54 PM
4 Comments:
I agree with you about the need to be proactive, but I do have a couple of nitpicks -
Air security gets more attention than rail and port security becuase the consequences of a direct attack are a LOT worse from a captured plane than from a captured/blown up train or ship. Also, it should be noted that the terrorists DID try again on planes, so maybe they're not as creative as you're giving them credit for being...
A big difficulty here is that we as a society are uncomfortable with some of the approaches which limit the impact of security measures on the law-abiding (profiling, etc...)
I think a truly proactive approach would be one that addresses the root causes of terrorism -- poverty, authoritarian regimes, fundamentalism in all its forms (religious or political or nationalistic), lack of education, lack of intercultural dialogue and understanding, power-struggles, oppression, prejudices, social injustice... Trying to prevent a future terrorist attack by figuring out how - and now why - a terrorist group does what it does is only a stop-gap measure.
That's no reason to totally neglect the ports and the rails. And neglect is essentially what's going on. Plus, what I wrote was this: "the next terrorist attack...won't occur on a plane." I didn't say that they won't try. The next successful attack won't be by air. And I'm not saying they are creative; but they certainly do pay attention to where our security is lacking. If you notice, the plot this time was not to take over a plane and drive them into buildings; it was to blow up a plane using liquid explosives and materials they could easily get onto the plane. Next time, they won't use liquid and it won't be on a plane.
You are probably right - our air security is qualitatively tighter than our rail or water security. I do think we should put some effort into more rational security measures in other arenas as well.
PoP: I agree that root causes should be areas of effort, but totally disagree that poverty is a root cause of terror. The poorest countries in the world are not the ones from which the terrorists come. Most of the terrorists who have been identified have not been poor. So to with several other factors you mention - the only determining factor seems to be an ideology which devalues human life to the point that it's more important to kill than survive.
Post a Comment
<< Home