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.
All of the technology or profiling of passengers in the world is not going to stop the very, very, few from getting through the cracks. I find that this whole terrorism problem disturbing, seeing as how we have a double-digit larger chance of dying in a car accident then a terrorist attack. Besides, smart terrorists now will probably try to use the shipping lines for their attacks due to the lack of security.
ReplyDeleteThe guy was obviously inexperienced with explosives. PETN, like all nitrates, needs an explosive charge for detonation. He just set it on fire, which was the same as pouring gas on himself and lighting it.
What disturbs me, however, is that they have the technology to see through clothing and because of people's modesty in this country they don't want to use it. I would say tough...if you don't want to go through the security measures applied, then I hope you like Greyhound.
Anon..I agree that no matter how full-proof one believes the system is there is always a chance someone will slip through the cracks. The question is how much freedom must Americans give up to ensure safety? As you mentioned with the new technology that can do image scanning but many are afraid or see it as an assualt on their privacy.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side, once people start using Greyhound or Amtrak that will just shift the focus of the terrorist. This morning on MSNBC news they alluded to the fact that Umar may have had help from those in Yemen and Gitmo...I just do not understand why the US Embassy did not report this guy immediately or at least find out more about him after his own father ratted him out.
Yep...like I said, he slipped through the cracks.
ReplyDeleteI also would like to point out that the airlines have a large say in how security gets measured. I guessing that the airline lobby is doing what it can to keep fliers happy so that security is not as tight as it could be. Remember, who pays for all this extra security? They do, and pass it on to their customers.
This all goes into play for the corporate lobbying argument. I wish they were not so influential.
I just found it a slap in the face when Homeland Security Secretary and White House spokesman both are on TV saying that the system worked. If it had not been for the Dutch passenager, Umar may have found a way to detonate the bomb.
ReplyDeleteMy fear is that knee jerk reactions will take place instead of a good review of the TSA, intelligence sharing, and how we identify potential terrorist on flights. Profiling can be effective in ferreting out potential terrorists. The lobby industry is an entirely different bug I agree.
Well, the system worked because nobody died and the suspect was apprehended. I don't find it a slap in the face as much as I feel that a positive spin needs to be placed on a potentially perilous situation. I would agree that profiling would help, but where do we begin with that?
ReplyDeleteLike any problem, the fringe are the ones making the hay while the rest of us sit and wait. I know that you are potentially crowing about the ACLU and what they would do about profiling of "terrorist-looking people" The right would like everyone with a middle eastern sounding name to register with the Dept of H.S.
Both of these groups need to step back and allow us to all come together to create a system by which we are semi-comfortable with tough security measures to board airplanes. Remember, the rarity on which it happens only emboldens those who wish us harm by allowing us to relax a bit.
The technology exists to stop a vast majority of terrorist plans. Profiling could help with preventing individuals from getting on planes to begin with. Is there anyway we could figure this out?
I disagree that the system worked because Umar got on the plane with the ability to blow it up. Just because he was unsuccessful does not translate into the system working.
ReplyDeleteI am trying to find out more about the Israeli profiling that is done. Thus far I haven't been able to get a solid idea outside of what I already wrote. Profiling can be an asset in so far as it is applied accurately. Perhaps there needs to be multiple layers of detection and just not at the area before entering the boarding area. As much as I do not want Big Brother to get bigger this is an arena that having Government invlovement makes sense.
While profiling maybe useful, it is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteKorematsu vs. United States allowed for forced internment in light of the Fourtenth amendment. Could profiling be done as "national security" as was done with Japanses during World War II?
ReplyDeleteThats halfway offensive Viper. What happened involving Japanese citizens during WWII was nothing short of disgraceful. There was no recorded evidence that any of the Japanese-American citizens had anything to do with the Empire of Japan. The Empire of Japan was on record stating that they would have imprisoned Japanese-Americans just the same as any other Americans and had no use for them for intelligence. Plus, to use that case law is the same as the Plessy Vs Fergeson "seperate but equal" case. It was done at the wrong time of history, where we as a society have learned that separating people because of race and appearence lowers us in the scope of humanity.
ReplyDeleteViper, there are technological ways to find terrorism suspects in the world without resorting to profiling. Even you have to admit that in the grand scheme of things, to treat someone differently just because they look different or have a different name is wrong. No matter how much safer you think we are.
Anon..retract the talons. I brought up the Supreme Court case because it was used and is being suggested as evidence for allowing profiling in time of "national security". I think that some of those that read and comment take offense to quickly or see my additional questions as always reflecting my view. I do pose questions and phrase them in was to provoke debate - sort of like being a devil’s advocate.
ReplyDeleteI do not disagree that other techniques are available in finding terror suspects. The question I have is how far is the public willing to give up their freedoms for safety in air or on the land for that matter? The Israeli government gets positive results from the profiling they do, so some merits exist. I understand the sore spot that many Americans have on profiling but if the profiling is based on behavioral attributes would that make it better?
As an aside, how can something be halfway offensive?
Thats what I meant by "halfway offensive". I realize that you were not stating 'The Japanese-American internment camps worked so well during WWII, why can't they work now?' You're just stating something to advance the debate, and I understand that. If you think that I am rushing to judgement on your post, then you may relax. However, you brought it up and I responded.
ReplyDeleteI am not quite comfortable comparing the US with Israel. They have lived in a much more perilous position than we do and in response to that, they have historically done some very drastic and draconian measures. I think that technology has kept up with them as they have invested a lot in security and have done a lot more diplomatically recently.
By my own measure, I don't think that profiling is going to go away. But there are alternatives.
like?
ReplyDeleteI think that I've mentioned technology several times now...
ReplyDeleteYes, but what types of technology? Is this new technology not already in place? Just wondering how much it may costs all of us.
ReplyDeleteJust to comment on the case, for the sake of debate, profiling would fall under strict scrutiny. The government needs a compelling state interest and the legislation needs to be narrowly tailored. Now, setting aside the previously mentioned objections and the fact that we are decades removed and I don't think the case would come out the same way today. Ok, so I'll give you a compelling state interest. Is profiling narrowly tailored? No. First, it covers far more people than necessary and there are other ways to achieve the same objective, as mentioned above. It also excludes many people. OKC was done by an American. We can't just look at middle eastern folks as terrorist threats.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a terrorist does not have to be someone of Middle Eastern decent which is why I brought up the behavioral profile. Would creating a behavioral profile be a better fit? Perhaps such a profile may have averted the Fort Hood shootings too.
ReplyDeleteI think the state has a compelling argument when it comes to Jihad and its attempt to punish the West. Just not sure how much freedom is required to give up to defend it. Thoughts..
I won't argue the state interest. Is behavorial profiling narrowly tailored?
ReplyDeleteWhat behavior do you look for though? Anyone who is nervous? Then you have to stop half the people who fly. I need more than that to give up my rights.
I also readily admit that profiling probably is already very much a part of good police work and being an investigator, but because something might work doesn't mean it's ok. How many lives are worth saving to trample ones rights?
If you are talking about suspicious behavior, that's fine. As long as it is everyone. The problem with profiling is that everyone of that group is suspicious without having done anything.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that you've finally asked about what this is going to cost all of us. How much of a priority is it to you? What if the cost is extraordinary? Is that a compelling enough reason for you to just say forget it? Perhaps the reasons we got into this mess in the first place is because we didn't want to upgrade the airport security measures due to how much it costs...
ReplyDeleteThe airlines are still using a tracking system developed in the 1960s...
The power grid that we are using is a mishmash of grids that for the most part were started in the 1930s...
Bridges fall down...
A vast majority of schools are still being used that were built during the turn of the century...
Now we have the responsibility to protect Americans from terrorism. Really, how much is it going to cost?
To start with behavioral profiling, I think we'd start at looking at those exhibit actions consistant with other terror suspects. I mentioned that the Israeli government uses this technique with great success. Although in my research I came across an article about Israeli personnel over extending their powers in terminals not allocated to El Al; Johannesburg was the airport in question of the article.
ReplyDeleteThat is the point of my entry today was to determine what is acceptable balance of safety vs. freedoms?
As for costs. No matter what additional costs are incurred by "beefed-up" measures they will get past along to consumers. The question is do the costs required deliver the results or are we just tossing money down the rabbit hole?
My question wasn't a balance of safety and freedom. My question is are you willing to allow unconstitutional conduct to prevent a possible attack?
ReplyDeleteAs far as looking at behavior, that's what police and security do. If you are looking at behavior only, and not looking at race and then behavior, then it's not profiling. If you looked only at the behavior of those who look like they are from the middle east, it's profiling.
I agree that the big question is how far do we want Big Brother to intrude into our freedoms to ensure safety. The Patriot Act went a long way to allowing unfettered intrusion into our lives. While there are good measures in the provision, like breaking down the silos of the intelligence agencies, but the free wheeling wiretaping, eavsdropping, and the utilization of private investigative companies - Infragard.
ReplyDeleteYou aren't answering the question, though. I'm asking you, specifically.
ReplyDeleteI don’t feel the answer is an easy yes or no. The 14th Amendment under Section 1 states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Now, the interesting interpretation is that this means the government cannot profile people.
ReplyDeleteBased on Section 1, I do not see where due process is denied when a TSA official detains and questions a person based on a profile established. Will the profile be 100% accurate and applicable to all within the class being profiled; no. Does it violate due process? I don’t think so. I understand that many will disagree and point to various court case law but I will point to the court case I mentioned previously that determined that the internment of Japanese descendants during World War II was okay due to “national security” concerns. We are fighting a different war now. We are facing a shift in tactics similar to the British experienced when the Colonist adapted the guerilla tactics of Native Americans. Thus we need to relook at how we interpret and apply this section of the United States Constitution.
So, you asked if I am willing to allow unconstitutional conduct to prevent a possible attack. In the effort to keep the airways free of possible attacks then I feel that developing a profile that alerts the TSA agent to a possible attacker and one interprets the profile as a violation of Constitution then yes I am comfortable with that.
I do not come to this conclusion lightly especially since I am not a proponent of Big Government or the answering lying within the government.
It's not due process, it's the equal protection clause. It means the government has to treat people equally. There are different standards for when and how the government different. The standard for race is extremely high. Again, a profile based on race has to met that standard. I would image a profile, based on behavior, as previously mentioned is what currently happens and meets a much lower standard.
ReplyDeleteThe case was previously addressed. Our there ways that restrict rights less than profiling based on race? Yes.
So then the constitution is no longer the absolute authority in this country. The document that is suppose to control, that sets us apart from others. The judgment of man takes over. As much as it sucks, I would rather have an attack than then a violation of the constitution. If one truly believes that the Constitution is the one controlling authority in our country, the document that guarantees our rights, the rights we as a country fought for and sought here, than to me it must always govern, no matter how tragic the outcome.
Agreed the balance of safety vs. freedom is a tough one and if we are to live under the Constitution we must live with the acceptance that our safety will be in question from time to time. Now if profiling is a violation of the Constitution does the preclude American companies or for the United States government from using them on soil not cloaked in Old Glory? Could Delta use more intrusive profiling and techniques in Britain, Germany, Iraq, etc…?
ReplyDeleteEven though home grown terrorism exists, evident of OKC and Fort Hood, do we concentrate our efforts on the foreign terrorist or do we develop criteria for terrorism in general? Then again the Obama administration struggles with jargon as they attempt to downplay that the United States is at war with sects of Islam and a defender of Judaism. How do we move forward? I wrote about scanners today and closed with a quote for Rep. Charretz about not having to screen his 8-year-old child. Are we all naïve to believe that those who wish the destruction of the West are not beyond using small children to be mules?