President Obama gives Intelligence 101 speech

"As President, I have solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people and when the system fails, it is my responsibility," said President Obama yesterday in his speech about the lapse in security of the "Underwear" Bomber. About time that President Obama takes responsibility and stops blaming the Bush Administration for all this challenges. I agree with President Obama that there was not one piece of data missed; rather the system as a whole failed to analyze the data properly. Perhaps the scolding President Obama gave the C.I.A earlier this year is having repercussions that he did not anticipate. The more troubling aspect of this incident is that Americans will see their freedoms reduced further under the guise of "National Security". I do not foresee another Patriot Act but the application of intrusive scanning may be moving us down that road.

President Obama said, "Ultimately, the buck stops with me." Did Hoover just walk into the White House? It is refreshing to hear President Obama to take responsibility and that he may finally understand the tough job it is to keep freedoms safe from those that seek to destroy it. "Because great and proud nations don't hunker down and hide behind walls of suspicion and mistrust. That is exactly what our adversaries want," stated President Obama. Correct, and our adversaries want to disrupt our economy and encourage further erosion of our freedoms. The plan going forward appears to be out of Intelligence Analysis 101 class.

Some of the actions President Obama laid out were timely distribution of intelligence reports; improve watch list databases, enhanced intelligence analysis, and aggressive and thorough pursuit of terrorism threat threads. See a more comprehensive list at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6065ZB20100107. All of these should already be in place. Perhaps if President Obama hadn't blasted the intelligence community earlier this year, they would be more apt to aggressively pursue terror suspects. Granted no system is fool proof and someone will always find a way to beat the system. As the old saying goes, "We need to be vigilant every day; the terrorists only need to be lucky once." What is the cost to Americans? After 9/11 we saw the Bush administration use that attack to pass the Patriot Act and now we see the Obama administration using the Christmas Day attack to deploy 300 advanced imaging scanners in the United States airport this year.

Here is what we can expect the TSA agents to see from the use of the scanners to be used:

Now is this something we as a Free Society need to subject ourselves to in order to "feel safer"? The TSA and government officials are saying that the TSA agent viewing these scans will not be in the same room as the person being scanned and that is to make us feel better? I was watching C-SPAN yesterday over the lunch hour, instead of having health care discussions on, the English House of Commons was on. The members of the House of Commons were grilling the Secretary of the Defense Ministry over various topics including the use of full-body scanners. The debate centered on the amount of personal freedom the members were willing to give up. The discussion did bring up the point about what would happen to the images. To which the honorable Secretary did not have an immediate answer.

Now the Obama administration contends that these images will not see the light of day and in fact will be destroyed. Really! If they are destroyed then what evidence one will have to go back to when determining how someone got another diaper bomb on the plane? Plus as one can tell from the images above, a woman with large breasts or a man with a large gut could easily hid bomb material. Also, my guess is that children will not be subject to these intrusive scanners which will give the terrorist their mule to getting explosives on the plane. The question comes down to this: How much personal freedom do we want to give up for safety from terror attacks? I do applaud President Obama for taking the potential terror attacks are still a real threat.

Full-Body Scanners: Best use of money?

"What we want to do now is use (body scanners) as a standard measure for all flights to the United States," Dutch Justice Minister Hirsch Ballin told public television channel NOS (http://www.news24.com/Content/World/News/1073/7e2df3855b6c4039a1388402b50d87e8/30-12-2009-02-37/Body_scanners_for_US_flights). The belief of using body scanners would have detected the PETN that was hidden in Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's underwear. The discussion of using body scanners is heating up and even airports in the United States are getting ahead of the game. The Chicago O'Hare is looking to add full-body scanners in the first half of the year (http://www.suntimes.com/news/1964435,CST-NWS-scanners30.article). No one is making an argument that had a full-body scanner had been used on Abdulmutallab that the PETN would have been detected and prevented him from boarding the plane to Detroit.

The question before American's is how far we allow our personal privacy compromised for the sake of safety. Ed Yohnka the director of communications for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois said, "Because that intelligence was not acted upon, the best we can do is subject thousands and perhaps millions of Americans to a virtual strip search simply to getting on an airline flight? That doesn't make sense to me" in response to the knee-jerk reaction to adding full-body scanners to airports (http://www.suntimes.com/news/1964435,CST-NWS-scanners30.article). While comments were made yesterday on the blog entry "The 'system worked' or did it?" the question of costs/benefit were raised.

What is the cost/benefit of adding full-body scanners to airports? Are we making smart decisions with the money spent? Bruce Scheier, a long time critic of airport security practice and author of "Beyond Fear", warns that "we will waste hundreds of millions of dollars, that could be spent on investigation and intelligence, to force the terrorists to make minor changes in their tactics" (http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2009/12/30/information_not_gadgets_seen_as_security_solution/). Instead adding additional high-tech technology, Andrew Thomas, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Transportation Security at the University of Akron, Ohio, backs up Scheier's assessment because "We need better [alignment of] databases. We need to make the watch list actually mean something." No one is arguing that the system failed but will installing full-body scanners be the end all solution to preventing terrorist plans to blow up airplanes?

My hope is that the TSA and other government agencies take a breath weigh the cost/benefit of any solution implemented. Our media and society is fixated on quick fixes rather than sustainable solutions. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, (R-Utah) said, "The big question to our country is how to balance the need for personal privacy with the safety and security needs of our country." Rep. Chaffetz sponsored a successful House bill that would make full-body scanners a secondary screening method as well as impose punishment upon government employees for sharing or copying images. But as well all know the terrorist will adapt their techniques to find ways to bypass our technology that is put in place. Rep. Chaffetz went on to say, "I don't think anybody needs to see my 8-year-old naked in order to secure that airplane" (www.startribune.com).

While on the surface I agree with Rep. Chaffetz but you just gave the terrorist their next mule to bypass our technology that is in place to keep us "safe". Would the money spent be better on intelligence to prevent the terrorist from reaching the airport, updating databases, educating airport personal on using the database, or to add full-body scanners to airports? The scanners emit low doses of X-ray and I believe there is a reason that lab techs leave the room when one is having a body part x-rayed. What future lawsuits will the TSA be setting themselves up from security workers that are repeatedly exposed to low doses of x-ray?

The “system worked” or did it?

The walk out to the end of the driveway this morning was a bit chilly; thermometer read -10 degrees Fahrenheit. The Christmas break found the area covered in a blanket of snow. On one of our outside excursions to the park, the depth of the snow was just below the knee cap. While the Christmas break brought many gatherings of cheer, family and friends a disturbing story was taking shape. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded a plane destined to Detroit with a surprise in his underwear. The 23-year old Nigerian man's attempt to blow up Northwest airlines plane, with 278 passengers, was thwarted when his device malfunctioned. The first reaction by the Obama Administration was for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was to state on CNN's "State of the Union' last Saturday that, "no suggestion that [the suspect] was improperly screened" and that the "system worked". Really, the system worked?

Mr. Abdulmutallab successfully brought on board Pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) hidden inside a condom that was stored in his underwear. Also, Mr. Abdulmutallab brought on board a syringe filled with a liquid that is believe to be glycol-based liquid explosive. Yet Secretary Napolitano believed, until yesterday, that the system worked. According to James Crippin, an explosive expert from Colorado, and other law enforcement officials said "modern airport screening machines could have detected the chemical" (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/27/national/main6028366.shtml?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell). The types of detection devices airports are able to use are "puffer" machines, bomb-sniffing dogs, and hands-on searches but none of these, at least not yet reported, were used as Mr. Abdulmutallab made his way through security to board the airliner. Another interesting point is that the father warned the United States embassy in Nigeria about his son in November of this year.

For those that have flown since 9/11 have seen many changes in airport security which include removing shoes, placing laptops in the bin, having a photo I.D., and not allowing non-passengers to see loved ones off or greet them at the gate. While many of these changes make sense, the question raised is at what cost to our freedoms? In other countries, like Israel, profiling is done to detect potential terror activities. Profiling has become a dirty word in the United States in recent years because of abuse. The Israeli security personnel do not question everyone that travels through their El Al terminals but they do signal out a certain profile which includes "Arabs and certain foreigners" for "intense grilling" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/09/12/israelisecurity.htm). Can profiling help? Does profiling go against the core of freedom? What degree of freedom must be relented to ensure safety in the air?

These are all questions with no clear answer when it comes to balancing freedoms vs. safety and often evoke emotional response rather than rational ones. The TSA announced on their website, "As a result of this incident, TSA has worked with airline and law enforcement authorities, as well as federal, state, local, and international partners to put additional security measures in place to ensure aviation security remains strong" (http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/dec25_guidance.shtm). Secretary Napolitano said in a statement, http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/northwest_statement.shtm, "I am grateful to the passengers and crew aboard Northwest Flight 253 who reacted quickly and heroically to an incident that could have had tragic results. The Department of Homeland Security immediately put additional screening measures into place – for all domestic and international flights – to ensure the continued safety of the traveling public." If the system worked then why the additional need?

The TSA has updated their list of what one can and cannot bring on board: http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm. The question still remains at what level are Americans will to give up their freedom for safety. On some flights it was reported that people were not allowed to have anything in their laps during the final hour of the flight and that pilots are no longer allowed to alert passengers of major landmarks. While I do not think we need armed guards as one will see when traveling internationally but something needs to be done to ensure safety. Otherwise one can expect to be required to be at the airport 4-5 hours prior to boarding.