TSA Behavior Detection Officers at a checkpoint in Boston Logan International Airport in Boston. Photo courtesy of Wiki Commons/the U.S. TSA.
One week following a series of bizarre comments by the U.S. government regarding a failed terrorist attack by Nigerian would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and both comforting and troubling facts are still coming to light.
First, the U.S. government, led by President Barack Obama, finally stepped out of its woeful damage-control mode and admitted that the security apparatus meant to nip such terrorist attempts in the bud still has a long way to go. The administration also seemed to be facing the hard facts of combating terrorism instead of simply coming up with ways to clamp down on a passenger’s (assumed) right to not only have a carry on but have access to a carry on during a flight.
Now U.S.-bound Passengers from “countries of interest,” such as Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, will now go through extra screening processes. Random screening will be enforced on U.S.-bound passengers. Such screening will include full-body pat-downs, searches and the use of full-body scanning and explosive detection technology, according to the U.S. Transportation Security Administration.
Such moves were a far cry from previous announcements that had both irritated the general public and worried the travel industry. In one tumultuous week, the administration had announced “stay-in-your seat” policies as well as possible “no-carry-on” rules or rules that would limit access to carry-ons or rule it out altogether during flight.
Needless to say, the business traveler accustomed to using his laptop was not pleased. Neither was the traveling mother with diapers in her bag. Neither was your favorite airline.
Neither was—well, neither was anyone when you really thought about it.
To make matters worse, the TSA had gone still further, basically enraging the U.S. public—which despite rumors to the contrary still values freedom of the press rights—by hitting two bloggers, Chris Elliot of Winter Springs, Florida and Steve Frischling of Connecticut, with subpoenas for publishing a leaked memo on TSA plans. The bullying tactics appeared to go still further, with agents reportedly promising that through government arm-twisting (at least in the case of KLM airlines) they could lose their jobs as writers if they did not comply. Firschling complied and handed in his computer. Elliot refused and responded with a lawyer of his own.
An image of Susan Hallowell, Director of the Transportation Security Administration's research lab taken with the backscatter x-ray system, which might be (or already is) in use for airport security passenger screening. Photo courtesty of Wiki Commons/the TSA.
Press-rights groups then stepped in and the subpoenas were dropped—although Frischling’s computer reportedly no longer works properly, according to the online publication, Wired.com.
Whew. Now for the bad news.
The entire fiasco has served to educate the public on both the vulnerabilities and the headache of providing security to millions of airline travelers that arrive and depart from the U.S. each year. First, the “body-scanning” machines seen in most airports appear to be woefully inept. Or in other words, they are adept at scanning the average Joe terrorist who is neither malevolent nor determined to do anything but get to his destination, but they do not and cannot pick up a number of plastic explosives, potential threats or even smuggled drugs when they are hidden in a devious fashion.
In short, it appears that the current scanners sort out no one but the extremely stupid terrorist or perhaps the absent-minded traveler with a Swiss Army knife still in his pocket. And although such information is still hush-hush, it does not appear that “underwear bomber” Abdulmutallab had much difficulty negotiating such a system and thus boarding a U.S.-bound plane with potentially devastating plastic explosives.
Uh oh, you are probably muttering to yourself. Hmm. That sounds bad.
Well, loyal readers, not to bring you down, but I’m not paid to lie to you.
It is bad. Bad for your nerves. Bad for the economy. Bad for the reputaton of the TSA.
There is simply no other way to put it.
What is needed—apart from strategic planning—are technologically-advanced, full-body scanners. These scanners exist—and indeed they had even been previously supplied to the Nigerian government to help eliminate the terrorist threat—but they are terribly expensive at well more than USD 100,000 apiece, and the likelihood of their widespread use is at this time practically nil.
Likewise, expect full-body pat downs, country-of-interest screening and the like to gradually fall into the powder-keg of politically-correct, racial profiling accusations that have hindered screening efforts in the past. The fact is that the U.S. is worried about Muslim extremism. But right or wrong, full-body pat downs and revealing body-scanning equipment just do not go over well with religions accustomed to the full-body burka.
So where does that leave us? Well, it admittedly leaves us a bit nervous. Admittedly, once again a few bad apples are out to spoil the batch and a bit more of the natural sheen that made international travel so damn attractive has once again been rubbed off.
No, make that scuffed. Dented. Dinged. However you want to put it.
On the other hand, when it really comes down to it (yes, good readers, trust me to find that silver lining), perhaps not much has really changed. The odds of falling victim are still practically zero. Something akin to getting swept into the air by a tornado or getting bitten by a shark. Scary to be sure, but highly unlikely not matter how you look at it or even where you swim.
And when you really think about it, you should not let a few bad apples impact your life. First, travel has always been a risk. Cars crash. Trains derail. Terrorists bomb. The Titanic sunk. In fact, if you consult the odds, this is quite clearly the safest travel era in the history of man. And despite the TSA’s recent blunders, U.S. travel security has been no less than outstanding. Al-Qaeda may be working hard, but the TSA’s efforts have not been hardly working. In short, terrorists have not succeeded in bringing down a single U.S.-bound flight since 9/11. Neither have they succeeded in blowing up bridges, trains or even a pair of roller skates on U.S. soil.
If anything, the “underwear bomber” has perhaps done us all a valuable service. Failures have been exposed, and they can now be corrected without the loss of life and limb. This may not count as a success, but it is no less than heartening—and all things considered, it does appear that somehow, some way, even the pres-freedom ignoring TSA is back on the right track.
Preston Smith, the author of this blog, can be reached directly at preston.smith@psiloc.com.
