TSA Internal Security vs. Aggressive Intelligence Gathering

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.

Unintended Consequences of Full-Body Scanners

Hmm, maybe this sort of insecurity is why some people really don't like the idea of full body scanners.

According to police, a Miami International Airport security screener "lost his mind" and attacked a co-worker, after being repeatedly mocked ... The other guy said he had a tiny penis.

If security guards are joking about each other, you know they are going to be having all sorts of fun viewing members of the public. Personally I don't care. If those machines are faster, more effective and eliminate the need for most extensive pat-down searches, they are worth having some guards making fun of you behind your back for whatever physical issue they decide to find humor in.

One other note. I thought it was pretty funny that this guy is so upset about his co-worker making fun of him, but now his picture is all over the internet and everyone knows.

Hitchens on Airline Security

Christopher Hitchens has an excellent piece up at Slate in the aftermath of the attempted Christmas airline bombing. He does a great job of summarizing the state of our security: incompetence in detecting terrorists, combined with overreacting and imposing collective punishment on everyone else in the name of increased safety. Here are some excerpts,

somehow the watch list, the tipoff, the many worried reports from colleagues and relatives, the placing of the name on a "central repository of information" don't prevent the suspect from boarding a plane, changing planes, or bringing whatever he cares to bring onto a plane. This is now a tradition

You have to wonder if anything would have been done if he had worn a t-shirt with the words, "I'm a Radical Muslim Suicide Bomber" written across the front. Like Major Hassan, all the warning signs just weren't enough. But what do we do instead?

our majestic and sleepless protectors, who now boldly propose to prevent airline passengers from getting out of their seats for the last hour of any flight. Abdulmutallab made his bid in the last hour of his flight, after all. Yes, that ought to do it. It's also incredibly, nay, almost diabolically clever of our guardians to let it be known what the precise time limit will be. Oh, and by the way, any passenger courageous or resourceful enough to stand up and fight back will also have broken the brave new law.

This is what government does in regard to almost any perceived problem. It doesn't matter what it is, the important thing is that the government be seen to be doing something. Don't worry about whether that "something" is useful and effective, or even counterproductive. Gun control is a prime example. Every time there is a high profile shooting, the usual suspects start screaming for new laws that penalize law-abiding gun owners -- to supposedly make us safer from people who don't follow laws.

fresh idiocies are in store. Nothing in your lap during final approach. Do you feel safer? If you were a suicide-killer, would you feel thwarted or deterred?

Instead of putting in new, ridiculous security measures, wouldn't it be better if the government actually took effective action to investigate & detain suspected terrorists before they got on board? No, it's much easier to just institute new security restrictions for everyone. 

What's Wrong With Foreign Airline Security?

Over at Jumping in Pools, there is a post up calling for a "commercial airline embargo" against both the Netherlands and Nigeria, in the wake of the attempted terrorist attack in Detroit. I'm not sure that's necessary, but the post does raise an important point. It doesn't matter how effective (and intrusive) security is at U.S. airports, when flights originating in foreign countries enter the U.S. For those incoming international flights, our security depends on the security precautions taken abroad. 

I have low expectations for third world, oops I mean "developing" countries like Nigeria, but what's wrong with the Netherlands? How do they let someone with an explosive device just stroll onto an international flight to the U.S.? Maybe there is a good explanation of how he was able to get through security -- or maybe their precautions are just too lax.

Naked Scanners

The UK has deployed a new type of airport security scanner in trial runs. The scanner removes the need to take off articles of clothing or submit to a pat-down search. But instead, along with detecting weapons

the full body scans will also show up breast enlargements, body piercings and a clear black-and-white outline of passengers' genitals.

The article has a picture that demonstrates what a scan looks like.

According to the report, such scanners have already undergone trials in New York and Los Angeles, and are "being gradually rolled out at airports across the US." I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, the scans are pretty intrusive. But then, so are body searches. Given those two options, I'll take the scan.