I haven't commented on the furor surrounding the latest TSA regulations. I no longer have to fly very often, and I don't have a problem going through the so-called naked scanners. But reading all the outrage brings me back to something I've written about before: the dynamic between offense and defense in counterterrorism.
One of the reasons I support aggressive offensive measures (which some find offensive) against terrorism, is that the alternative involves greater defensive efforts. Airport security is probably the most visible and annoying anti-terrorism defense. It's important to remember that the latest TSA regulations were put into place in the aftermath of failed terrorist plots. If you think the TSA is trampling on the rights of U.S. citizens now, imagine what is going to happen if there is a successful major terrorist attack. Counterterrorism involves a combination of offense and defense. But the more restrictions we place on our offensive efforts, most of which are conducted outside of our borders, the more we raise the chances that we will have to rely on greater defensive efforts. Defense means internal security. And internal security means infringing the rights of Americans with ever more intrusive regulations and inspections.
Those who argue in favor of giving rights to foreign terror suspects, placing all sorts of restrictions on intelligence agencies such as the CIA, and treating hostile non-state terrorists as common criminals are directly attacking the offensive side of our efforts to prevent a terror attack on the U.S. That's a great idea if you like more internal security and less freedom.
Israel v Iran Live Stream - Breaking Israel-Iran updates
59 minutes ago
This relies on the idea that going and killing people abroad actually helps to prevent terrorism, rather than sowing the seeds of discontent and putting ourselves in the limelight as the assholes going to other people's countries and torturing and killing killing them.
ReplyDeleteTerrorists don't hate us for being us, they hate us for our (percieved) impact in their own lives. The extent to which we are known murderers and torturers with no respect for the rights of anyone but our own citizenry, is the extent to which terrorist recruiters have a case to make to recruits.
It also assumes that the type of physical screening techniques we use are an effective or legitimate response to the dangers which exist due to terrorism. They are not, at least not in the way we use them.
Fill the airports with bomb sniffing dogs and chemical detection machines. Observe people's behavior. Be vigilant. These techniques work. And they are essentially non-invasive. Note that these terror attacks failed after making it through physical screening. They were foiled by simple observational techniques, not complex screening procedures.
"This relies on the idea that going and killing people abroad actually helps to prevent terrorism"
ReplyDeleteBecause it can and does, although that's not primarily what I was talking about with regard to offensive counterintelligence operations. I'm talking especially about aggressive intelligence efforts to break up plots before they become actual threats. This involves getting intelligence by whatever means is most effective, including actions which might not be permissible under the rules that apply to American criminal suspects. But it can also apply to more direct methods, such as assassinations & kidnappings of key terrorist leaders, financiers, propagandists and others.
"Terrorists don't hate us for being us, they hate us for our (percieved) impact in their own lives. "
Nonsense. There are many reasons they hate us. Some are rational, some are not.
"The extent to which we are known murderers and torturers with no respect for the rights of anyone but our own citizenry, is the extent to which terrorist recruiters have a case to make to recruits."
I have little time for oft-repeated unsubstantiated assertions about what causes terrorist recruitment. Religious fanatics who are willing to blow themselves up for god are hardly sitting back and performing rational calculations about why they should become terrorists. It seems that everyone making the ridiculous "we're helping terrorist recruitment" argument is unaware that terrorist recruits tend to believe all sorts of fantastic nonsense.
"It also assumes that the type of physical screening techniques we use are an effective or legitimate response to the dangers which exist due to terrorism. They are not, at least not in the way we use them."
It assumes no such thing. They might have some effectiveness, and whether or not they are a legitimate response is highly debatable. But that has nothing to do with what I wrote. I wasn't defending our internal security procedures in any way, other than remarking that I personally have no problem going through the enhanced scanners, although I can understand why some people do.