National Security or Liberty?

omej · Jan 7, 2010

After the attempted Christmas bombing, a lot of scrutiny has been put on national security. The TSA has tightened airport security and soon we are going to be virtually strip searched with the new body imaging machines. These days it feels like the airport is a constitution-free zone.

Several days ago, the terminal was locked down because of a jar of honey. A single uruly passenger on another flight caused F-15's to be scrambled and escort the jet in question down. It's sad day when we are so willing to shoot down our own jets.

These days a terrorist could do far more damage with a phone call threat to an airport than an actual attack. There would be tens of thousands of dollars of lost revenue due to delays, canceled flights, and security response.

When it comes to methodology, terrorists are like prisoners in jail. No matter what you do to stop them, they will always be one step in front of you. Am I saying we should sit idly by and do nothing? Absolutely not.

The best way to combat terrorism is and remains prevention through intelligence. In both 9/11 and the Christmas bombing attempt, we had intelligence that could have been followed more thoroughly to prevent what happened. There are many more attacks that are foiled by the intelligence community that we never hear about. That's because only the failures become widely known.

Statistically speaking, you are far more likely to die on the way to the airport than a terrorist attack. Or from whatever you ate for breakfast this morning form food poisoning.

At what point do effective security measures stop and end up being simply nothing more than security theater? We can either have security that follows the constitution and live with a tiny risk of dying in a terrorist attack or have unconstitutional and heavily invasive security and still have the same small risk of dying in a terrorist attack.

I end this post with a very relevant quote from one of our founding fathers

Benjamin Franklin said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

deanhills · Jan 7, 2010

Problem is, if a terrorist attack should succeed on a plane, then there would be over 300 people at risk almost immediately. I agree that the answer is most definitely more in intelligence than getting lost with all the technological equipment, in fact the technological equipment can distract security people from using common sense assessments and create a security problem in its own right.

Sad part of course is that the airports now will have to buy expensive scanners, and guess who is going to end up paying for this as part of airport taxes?

omej · Jan 7, 2010

deanhills said:
Problem is, if a terrorist attack should succeed on a plane, then there would be over 300 people at risk almost immediately.

If you look at the pattern, it's all reactionary however. Richard Reid sneaks a bomb through his shoe and fails. Now shes are removed and checked.

Somebody tries to make a bomb with liquid chemicals and now barely any are allowed.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tries to sneak a bomb in through his underwear and soon we are all going to have full body scans.

Fighting terrorists is a cat and mouse game.

However, in all of these incidents the terrorists failed. Either because of other passengers or because of the very nature of their devices. Our security works - in the extent that it requires the terrorist to make crude devices that don't work. You are never going to get 100% foolproof security but the system in place works, in fact even the pre 9/11 system was good for it's time.

deanhills · Jan 7, 2010

omeythehomie said:
If you look at the pattern, it's all reactionary however. Richard Reid sneaks a bomb through his shoe and fails. Now shes are removed and checked.

Somebody tries to make a bomb with liquid chemicals and now barely any are allowed.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tries to sneak a bomb in through his underwear and soon we are all going to have full body scans.

Fighting terrorists is a cat and mouse game.

However, in all of these incidents the terrorists failed. Either because of other passengers or because of the very nature of their devices. Our security works - in the extent that it requires the terrorist to make crude devices that don't work. You are never going to get 100% foolproof security but the system in place works, in fact even the pre 9/11 system was good for it's time.

I don't agree. The Security system, especially on the intelligence level did not work with the last case. Those passengers had been incredibly lucky. This guy should never have been allowed to travel to the States. There was a complete lack of communication between the different agencies. However I am confident that at least they will be setting up systems to get past this. As well as making such a fuss can only be good for wanna be terrorists who were planning to blow up planes in the United States.

omej · Jan 7, 2010

deanhills said:
I don't agree. The Security system, especially on the intelligence level did not work with the last case. Those passengers had been incredibly lucky.

Yes the intelligence failed and that could have been prevented, exactly as I mentioned above.

But for arguments sake, say there was no tip or intelligence on this man and he was not flagged.

There were many other indicators that should have sent him to additional screening. The man paid all cash and carried no luggage. According to security regulations, in fact any competent TSA employee should have flagged this and sent him for additional screening. This same rule should have also aroused suspicions 9 years ago.

Sufficient security rules have been in place for some time - the problem is that they aren't being followed properly.

deanhills · Jan 7, 2010

omeythehomie said:
Yes the intelligence failed and that could have been prevented, exactly as I mentioned above.

But for arguments sake, say there was no tip or intelligence on this man and he was not flagged.

There were many other indicators that should have sent him to additional screening. The man paid all cash and carried no luggage. According to security regulations, in fact any competent TSA employee should have flagged this and sent him for additional screening. This same rule should have also aroused suspicions 9 years ago.

Sufficient security rules have been in place for some time - the problem is that they aren't being followed properly.

Agreed. What really concerned me too was that he managed to clear security at Schiphol Airport, probably one of the biggest airports internationally. I wonder whether anyone would be successful in the UK however, security has really been very tough there, especially for planes going to North America.

Nemo · Jan 8, 2010

We lost the war against terrorism from the very beginning. The terrorists don?t need to attack us because they have won; they have gotten us to compromise our liberty in response to their threats. Hobbes maintained that men readily trade their liberty for security. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651). We have certainly done so as anyone going through airport security can see for themselves.

By the bye, the original quote ("Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety.") was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759), and attributed to Benjamin Franklin in the edition of 1812; however in a letter to David Hume of September 27, 1760 regarding the publication of the first edition, Franklin denied that he wrote it. One might credit it a good motto even without the attribution to Franklin; however, considering the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, betting odds are that Hobbes was right in the long run.

slipgear89 · Jan 8, 2010

I agree with Nemo completely those who try and trad there birth rights of Liberty do not deserve safty nor there Liberty. However I think the reson for us losing the war on terror in the first place is that the people we Trusted with great power to give us all better lives, have all betrayed us. This video can say it better then I ever could. Pleas take time to watch. http://www.youtube.com/slipgear89

Dirk · Jan 8, 2010

I have a passionate, loving, long term relationship with liberty.

deanhills · Jan 8, 2010

slipgear89 said:
I agree with Nemo completely those who try and trad there birth rights of Liberty do not deserve safty nor there Liberty. However I think the reson for us losing the war on terror in the first place is that the people we Trusted with great power to give us all better lives, have all betrayed us. This video can say it better then I ever could. Pleas take time to watch. http://www.youtube.com/slipgear89

An excellent Video and totally agreed in overall with the big picture, but specifically with regard to recent happenings with the Detroit attempted terror attack, maybe the criticism is a little harsh? First of all I don't think the US is losing the war on terror. The rules of the game are changing all the time, and the US is learning all the time. I believe they have learned a very hard lesson about ensuring that all Government Agencies have equal access to important and relevant information about terrorists. I am almost certain that Obama is going to set up some or other system that will ensure sharing of information. However much more important than that, and perhaps completely out of the hands of the people in Washington DC, the political system in the United States has become too large and clumsy. It is very difficult to control an issue like this if there are so many players involved. Too many chiefs? Something needs to happen for a complete overhaul of the Federal Government so that it could be much leaner and meaner than it currently is and issues like these investigated in a much shorter time period.

omej · Jan 12, 2010

deanhills said:
An excellent Video and totally agreed in overall with the big picture, but specifically with regard to recent happenings with the Detroit attempted terror attack, maybe the criticism is a little harsh? First of all I don't think the US is losing the war on terror. The rules of the game are changing all the time, and the US is learning all the time. I believe they have learned a very hard lesson about ensuring that all Government Agencies have equal access to important and relevant information about terrorists. I am almost certain that Obama is going to set up some or other system that will ensure sharing of information. However much more important than that, and perhaps completely out of the hands of the people in Washington DC, the political system in the United States has become too large and clumsy. It is very difficult to control an issue like this if there are so many players involved. Too many chiefs? Something needs to happen for a complete overhaul of the Federal Government so that it could be much leaner and meaner than it currently is and issues like these investigated in a much shorter time period.

I agree that we have grown far too much in an attempt to fight terrorism. In fact we have made it more difficult by creating perhaps the largest bureaucracy in the government - The Department of Homeland Security. Information from an analyst now has to go through another department in order to reach the highest levels. The heads of the FBI, CIA, and NSA have been effectively demoted, seeing as they now report to the Director of National Security (basically nothing more than a political hack).

dave · Jan 12, 2010

omeythehomie said:
If you look at the pattern, it's all reactionary however. Richard Reid sneaks a bomb through his shoe and fails. Now shes are removed and checked.

Somebody tries to make a bomb with liquid chemicals and now barely any are allowed.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tries to sneak a bomb in through his underwear and soon we are all going to have full body scans.

Fighting terrorists is a cat and mouse game.

However, in all of these incidents the terrorists failed. Either because of other passengers or because of the very nature of their devices. Our security works - in the extent that it requires the terrorist to make crude devices that don't work. You are never going to get 100% foolproof security but the system in place works, in fact even the pre 9/11 system was good for it's time.

The system doesn't work. The terrorists failed not because the system worked, but because they were poorly trained. Its a failure in their organization and leadership. Right now, they don't seem to have the right people in the right leadership positions.

Think of the Christmas Day attempt. A terrorist manages to get on board the plane with a sophisticated system that was suitable to the task, he has the will to use it even though if successful he will die, and he fails to detonate it properly and/or does not conceal it properly and another passenger stops him (I'm not sure which one). What was wrong with the plan?

Someone - not the bomber - figured out how to get on board the plane, get past security, which airport to use, have the right papers, etc. That took a person or persons with good observation skills, who could travel without being detected (he/they probably looked at more than one airport), and put togethor a plan.

Someone - not the bomber - figured out how to make the bomb and detonate it without using parts or substances that would arouse suspicion. That took some technical skill with explosives and knowledge of the airport security.

Someone recruited the bomber and convinced him to be a suicide bomber.

What worked - their intelligence network, their planning, their technical skills and creativity, their recruiting.

What failed - their training department. They did not train the guy to do the job. What they should have done was have the guy practice assembling the device until he could do it without even thinking, make him practice blindfolded, with people shouting at him, under stress. They should have had him create one and actually detonate it remotely. They should have had him sit in a chair - preferably one similar to the airplane chair - and rehearse to make sure he could do it quickly and without attracting attention. They should have had him fly in a similar plane several times so he would be familar with the environment. Practice, practice, practice.

They failed in what is the easiest element to fix.

What failed was their training. One day, they will get a guy in charge of training that knows what he is doing, and then we will take a real beating.

DodgeFB · Jan 13, 2010

dave said:
The system doesn't work. The terrorists failed not because the system worked, but because they were poorly trained. Its a failure in their organization and leadership. Right now, they don't seem to have the right people in the right leadership positions.

Think of the Christmas Day attempt. A terrorist manages to get on board the plane with a sophisticated system that was suitable to the task, he has the will to use it even though if successful he will die, and he fails to detonate it properly and/or does not conceal it properly and another passenger stops him (I'm not sure which one). What was wrong with the plan?

Someone - not the bomber - figured out how to get on board the plane, get past security, which airport to use, have the right papers, etc. That took a person or persons with good observation skills, who could travel without being detected (he/they probably looked at more than one airport), and put togethor a plan.

Someone - not the bomber - figured out how to make the bomb and detonate it without using parts or substances that would arouse suspicion. That took some technical skill with explosives and knowledge of the airport security.

Someone recruited the bomber and convinced him to be a suicide bomber.

What worked - their intelligence network, their planning, their technical skills and creativity, their recruiting.

What failed - their training department. They did not train the guy to do the job. What they should have done was have the guy practice assembling the device until he could do it without even thinking, make him practice blindfolded, with people shouting at him, under stress. They should have had him create one and actually detonate it remotely. They should have had him sit in a chair - preferably one similar to the airplane chair - and rehearse to make sure he could do it quickly and without attracting attention. They should have had him fly in a similar plane several times so he would be familar with the environment. Practice, practice, practice.

They failed in what is the easiest element to fix.

What failed was their training. One day, they will get a guy in charge of training that knows what he is doing, and then we will take a real beating.

It must really be tough to find someone with the intelligence of a trout or a real nut case to be "the bomber". I know they tell these bombers all the great benefits. But then what do they say when someone says why don't you do it or have your son do it?:unsure:

deanhills · Jan 13, 2010

dave said:
The system doesn't work. The terrorists failed not because the system worked, but because they were poorly trained. Its a failure in their organization and leadership. Right now, they don't seem to have the right people in the right leadership positions.

Think of the Christmas Day attempt. A terrorist manages to get on board the plane with a sophisticated system that was suitable to the task, he has the will to use it even though if successful he will die, and he fails to detonate it properly and/or does not conceal it properly and another passenger stops him (I'm not sure which one). What was wrong with the plan?

Someone - not the bomber - figured out how to get on board the plane, get past security, which airport to use, have the right papers, etc. That took a person or persons with good observation skills, who could travel without being detected (he/they probably looked at more than one airport), and put togethor a plan.

Someone - not the bomber - figured out how to make the bomb and detonate it without using parts or substances that would arouse suspicion. That took some technical skill with explosives and knowledge of the airport security.

Someone recruited the bomber and convinced him to be a suicide bomber.

What worked - their intelligence network, their planning, their technical skills and creativity, their recruiting.

What failed - their training department.

I tend to be a little more cynical. They may have wanted this guy to fail, and all of their objective could have been to push panic buttons everywhere. Nothing to drain all the security energy everywhere than getting security to feel insecure. Another possibility is that this guy, although "trained" was a new recruit and a bit of a lone ranger. Either way however, if the terrorists wanted to bomb the plane, they would have been successful at it.

omej · Jan 13, 2010

dave said:
The system doesn't work. The terrorists failed not because the system worked, but because they were poorly trained. Its a failure in their organization and leadership. Right now, they don't seem to have the right people in the right leadership positions.

Our system actually works quite well when implemented properly. There wasn't poor leadership - this isn't some fragmented terrorist attack. Remember, this was planned and executed in Yemen, where terrorists freely rule.

Think of the Christmas Day attempt. A terrorist manages to get on board the plane with a sophisticated system that was suitable to the task, he has the will to use it even though if successful he will die, and he fails to detonate it properly and/or does not conceal it properly and another passenger stops him (I'm not sure which one). What was wrong with the plan?

Someone - not the bomber - figured out how to get on board the plane, get past security, which airport to use, have the right papers, etc. That took a person or persons with good observation skills, who could travel without being detected (he/they probably looked at more than one airport), and put togethor a plan.

Someone - not the bomber - figured out how to make the bomb and detonate it without using parts or substances that would arouse suspicion. That took some technical skill with explosives and knowledge of the airport security.

Someone recruited the bomber and convinced him to be a suicide bomber.

What worked - their intelligence network, their planning, their technical skills and creativity, their recruiting.

What failed - their training department. They did not train the guy to do the job. What they should have done was have the guy practice assembling the device until he could do it without even thinking, make him practice blindfolded, with people shouting at him, under stress. They should have had him create one and actually detonate it remotely. They should have had him sit in a chair - preferably one similar to the airplane chair - and rehearse to make sure he could do it quickly and without attracting attention. They should have had him fly in a similar plane several times so he would be familar with the environment. Practice, practice, practice.

They failed in what is the easiest element to fix.

What failed was their training. One day, they will get a guy in charge of training that knows what he is doing, and then we will take a real beating.

Not quite. Umar Abdulmutallab had a degree in mechanical engineering. While obviously the results of the interrogations and the court appearances haven't been made public yet, it appears this was constructed by Umar himself.

There is one key element you are missing here. You called his bomb a sophisticated system. That's not quite true (a better would would be crude) and is a huge factor to the failed attack.The bomber had to spend half an hour removing various parts from his body and luggage and assemble the thing. All the while using primitive tools. PETN is an explosive, yes and it is dangerous. However, his "device" was and method was crude because of the lack of tools available to him. Our security system is not perfect and can never be, however it bans enough so that the terrorist have to take extreme measures to try to get past them. As I said before, it is a cat and mouse game and that's just the way it is. Body scanning 90 year old women and infant children is a fools way to play your cards. And that is just the searching issue. No checked in luggage, paid cash should have all been red flags. It's clear that minimum wage TSA agents are no security experts and the standards to hire should be much stricter.

deanhills · Jan 15, 2010

omeythehomie said:
Our system actually works quite well when implemented properly. There wasn't poor leadership - this isn't some fragmented terrorist attack. Remember, this was planned and executed in Yemen, where terrorists freely rule.

Now you've got me here! It could have been plotted and planned in Yemen (according to the Government), but it was executed outside Yemen. The key must have been Schiphol Airport as that was the last stop before Detroit.

edshuck · Jan 20, 2010

The video leaves out GW Bush's role in setting the Obama agenda. The international mess started with Reagan. The federal reserve mess began with Bush's grandpa.

but I did change my party from Democrat to "declines to state" following the misleading statements of Nancy Pelosi, Di Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer.

deanhills · Jan 22, 2010

edshuck said:
The video leaves out GW Bush's role in setting the Obama agenda. The international mess started with Reagan. The federal reserve mess began with Bush's grandpa.

:bomb:Not sure where you get this conspiracy type of thinking from and how it fits in with national security or liberty? I think what has happened is not any of the Presidents' fault, but citizens of the United States, who through their Congress has allowed Government to grow much TOO BIG, and CLUMSY to manage, with too many chiefs that have their own ego agendas to manage. Hence why the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and communications between the agencies and the White House aren't as efficient as they should be. If there is something that is not right in the system, that is exactly what is wrong about it, and ironically this was exactly the problem that resulted in the September 11 terror attacks as well.

edshuck · Jan 25, 2010

For the last year, Obama has been working to fix the mess left by GW Bush. Not a conspiracy in sight. Just Bush way out of bounds on everything from iraq to North Korea.

I agree that most of what has happened is NOT Obama's creation.

Money is why Congressional leaders are elected. Ego is why they ran. Take my three: Pelosi, Feinstein and Boxer (since I live in San Francisco). Pelosi told us she would de-fund the war in Iraq when she became the Congressional leader - she did not. Feinstein is working harder to get the old Hunters Point shipyard renovation to her husbands company than she is on Senatorial items.

Right hand Left hand

The right hand is not aware of the problems with joblessness etc and although the Left is aware, has no solution. Nor do they have a right hand to ring with.

On Friday (last) the supremes voted to allow corporations to be able to support elections without limits. There is also no limit on foreign "contributions". Hello, honorable central committee!!~!

To sum up....

I am left leaning in many regards. But, congress has not done its job of late - ie giving the power to declare war to president Bush (Iraq). (As for Afganistan - we should not have slowed down until Al Queda and Ben Laden were on slabs).

I would refer anyone to watch www.hulu.com - select the movie, "The ruling Class"
.

Incidently, I like Obama. My daughters site www.kimshuck.com will tell you a bit about me.

deanhills · Jan 26, 2010

edshuck said:
For the last year, Obama has been working to fix the mess left by GW Bush. Not a conspiracy in sight. Just Bush way out of bounds on everything from iraq to North Korea.

I don't agree. The political system and Government is always much larger than any single President. Every President tries to do his best with the hand he gets dealt with. Obama received an accumulation of challenges pretty much in the same way as Bush had, Clinton and Reagan. Like the collective trillions of debt, you can't blame all of that on one person, you would have to go back to the very beginning when people started to work with debt to finance Government.

National Security or Liberty?

Similar threads