The Idiocy Of Throwing Away Liquid Toiletries
I have been slow in responding to the events in the UK that led to the intervention of yet another terrorist plot. Part of the reason is that I wanted the media hype to die down so I could dig out some real factual information.
The first thing that struck me is the media hype. CNN, Fox, MSNBC and other media outlets began with headlines like "Terror In The Skies." The problem is that this headline is a misnomer and complete inaccuracy. The terrorists involved in this plot had been identified weeks, perhaps even months, before the arrest and interception. Indeed, thanks to cooperation between several governments, using good old fashioned law enforcement and human intelligence resources, identified the members of the involved cells, obtained a security warrant for tapping their communications, and monitored their activities until the time was right to make an intervention and arrest. If, however, there wasn't a need to garner positive press headlines for the likes of Tony Blair and Dubya, the intervention and arrest would have occurred long before the events that have unfolded before us. Indeed, some of my contacts overseas have indicated such to me. In fact, I have reports that the Pakistani intelligence and police were ready to make arrests weeks ago, but were put off by British and US intelligence demands.
The second thing that has struck me--and this is based on my military experience, my work as a corporate security professional, and a researcher--is that merely restricting all people seeking to fly from carrying liquids in their overnight bags and carry on luggage is a ludicrous and stupid idea. It is the equivalent to expecting a person to win the same lottery five times in a row, in the exact same amount, using the exact same numbers for the bet. There is no logic too it. It is a blanket approach that casts a wide net that only hurts the airlines, the passengers and the economy in the long run.
The third thing that struck me was the number of times that the Bush administration has promised that it was going to spend appropriate monies on installing detection technology, as well as helping our allies to do the same, and yet has failed to do so. The ability to scan a liquid using photometric technologies to determine the safety of a liquid has been around since before the events of 9-11. Although the technology would need to be modified to suit airport (including railway or even bus transportation systems) luggage screening, doing so would be a minor feat compared to the herculean efforts our nation put forth to ramp up for both WWI and WWII. It seems to me that we have not placed our own transportation security on the highest of priorities and are spending a hell of a lot of money fighting useless battles of ideology rather than assuring our own safety and security. At this point, we don't even use technologies already developed for detecting conventional explosive components, which means that any idot willing to put explosives in his shoes might be able to get a bomb on board.
But what struck me even further is the fact that the amount of explosives necessary to blow a plane out of the sky is a lot more than could be carried in a liquid container that normally fits into a piece of carryon luggage without being overtly obvious and stupidly blatant.
Let us say, for example, that a terroris were able to sneak a 4-6 ounce bottle of liquid explosive onto a plane. The first thing he has to have is a way to set it off, which means that either he has to have a detonator or a binomial chemical explosive (the type in the third Die Hard film). Even a volatile liquid, like gasoline or lighter fluid, would still need an ignition source. If, however, the TSA screeners--or the equivalent type of screener in airports around the world--are doing their job, sneaking a detonator, a lighter, an ignition tool, a volatile fluid or even a binomial fluid with a specific photometirc signature would be practically impossible. It would be more effective to sneak a conventional explosive with a timer onboard via the checked in luggage... although that, too, would now be less likely than ever before given the increased screening of the luggage being loaded.
Now comes reports from overseas that some of the folks caught in the wide and sweeping net cast overseas are not the perpetrators once thought. While the authorities are insisting that these folks are indeed terrorist suspects--and remember, these are the same folks that have said that the folks in Gitmo are enemy combatants even though over 300 have provable alibis--there are rpoerts that at least a half dozen of the suspects are guilty by casual association, like attending the same religious ceremonies or calling shared family members back home.
But the public reaction is exactly to the benefit of the Bush and Blair camps. While I am not saying that there wasn't a terrorist plot, I am saying that the extent of the plot may indeed be overblown, over estimated and intentionally so in order to garner the headlines that we have been seeing as of late... and shock the public back into a state of fear that would allow Bush and Blair to lead the public around by their noses, much like sheep to the slaughter of their civil liberties...er, lives.
I want my government, and the governments of all nations, to provide us with security. But I want it to be realistic, practical and not rob us of our lives. The order to cast away all liquids is a ludicrous and stupid response to the threat, and an ill-advised attempt to cover up the fact that we have yet to implement genuine security measures that would be effective in preventing such attacks. We need a leadership that can do us justice in terms of security and not insulting our collective intelligence.
The first thing that struck me is the media hype. CNN, Fox, MSNBC and other media outlets began with headlines like "Terror In The Skies." The problem is that this headline is a misnomer and complete inaccuracy. The terrorists involved in this plot had been identified weeks, perhaps even months, before the arrest and interception. Indeed, thanks to cooperation between several governments, using good old fashioned law enforcement and human intelligence resources, identified the members of the involved cells, obtained a security warrant for tapping their communications, and monitored their activities until the time was right to make an intervention and arrest. If, however, there wasn't a need to garner positive press headlines for the likes of Tony Blair and Dubya, the intervention and arrest would have occurred long before the events that have unfolded before us. Indeed, some of my contacts overseas have indicated such to me. In fact, I have reports that the Pakistani intelligence and police were ready to make arrests weeks ago, but were put off by British and US intelligence demands.
The second thing that has struck me--and this is based on my military experience, my work as a corporate security professional, and a researcher--is that merely restricting all people seeking to fly from carrying liquids in their overnight bags and carry on luggage is a ludicrous and stupid idea. It is the equivalent to expecting a person to win the same lottery five times in a row, in the exact same amount, using the exact same numbers for the bet. There is no logic too it. It is a blanket approach that casts a wide net that only hurts the airlines, the passengers and the economy in the long run.
The third thing that struck me was the number of times that the Bush administration has promised that it was going to spend appropriate monies on installing detection technology, as well as helping our allies to do the same, and yet has failed to do so. The ability to scan a liquid using photometric technologies to determine the safety of a liquid has been around since before the events of 9-11. Although the technology would need to be modified to suit airport (including railway or even bus transportation systems) luggage screening, doing so would be a minor feat compared to the herculean efforts our nation put forth to ramp up for both WWI and WWII. It seems to me that we have not placed our own transportation security on the highest of priorities and are spending a hell of a lot of money fighting useless battles of ideology rather than assuring our own safety and security. At this point, we don't even use technologies already developed for detecting conventional explosive components, which means that any idot willing to put explosives in his shoes might be able to get a bomb on board.
But what struck me even further is the fact that the amount of explosives necessary to blow a plane out of the sky is a lot more than could be carried in a liquid container that normally fits into a piece of carryon luggage without being overtly obvious and stupidly blatant.
Let us say, for example, that a terroris were able to sneak a 4-6 ounce bottle of liquid explosive onto a plane. The first thing he has to have is a way to set it off, which means that either he has to have a detonator or a binomial chemical explosive (the type in the third Die Hard film). Even a volatile liquid, like gasoline or lighter fluid, would still need an ignition source. If, however, the TSA screeners--or the equivalent type of screener in airports around the world--are doing their job, sneaking a detonator, a lighter, an ignition tool, a volatile fluid or even a binomial fluid with a specific photometirc signature would be practically impossible. It would be more effective to sneak a conventional explosive with a timer onboard via the checked in luggage... although that, too, would now be less likely than ever before given the increased screening of the luggage being loaded.
Now comes reports from overseas that some of the folks caught in the wide and sweeping net cast overseas are not the perpetrators once thought. While the authorities are insisting that these folks are indeed terrorist suspects--and remember, these are the same folks that have said that the folks in Gitmo are enemy combatants even though over 300 have provable alibis--there are rpoerts that at least a half dozen of the suspects are guilty by casual association, like attending the same religious ceremonies or calling shared family members back home.
But the public reaction is exactly to the benefit of the Bush and Blair camps. While I am not saying that there wasn't a terrorist plot, I am saying that the extent of the plot may indeed be overblown, over estimated and intentionally so in order to garner the headlines that we have been seeing as of late... and shock the public back into a state of fear that would allow Bush and Blair to lead the public around by their noses, much like sheep to the slaughter of their civil liberties...er, lives.
I want my government, and the governments of all nations, to provide us with security. But I want it to be realistic, practical and not rob us of our lives. The order to cast away all liquids is a ludicrous and stupid response to the threat, and an ill-advised attempt to cover up the fact that we have yet to implement genuine security measures that would be effective in preventing such attacks. We need a leadership that can do us justice in terms of security and not insulting our collective intelligence.
posted by Jim Downey at 11:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home