The US should learn a few tricks from the Israelis, who do an excellent job at preventing terrorist activity and maintain a superbly safe air travel system.
Showing posts with label security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label security. Show all posts
Friday, July 8, 2011
Profiling At the Airport - Dry Bones
Following up on the recent post Body Bombs and the TSA, the Dry Bones blog has a rather humourous but appropriate comic.
![]()
This was written in response to the recent attempted "fly-in" protest by Palestinian activists to Israeli airports, who were trying to stage an "Air Flotilla" against Israel's policies towards Gaza. However, using such techniques such as profiling and do-not fly lists, Israel has so far been successful in stopping the intended mass disruption to air travel. At 200 to 300 activists were prevented from coming into the country, another 60 have been arrested upon arrival.
The US should learn a few tricks from the Israelis, who do an excellent job at preventing terrorist activity and maintain a superbly safe air travel system.
The US should learn a few tricks from the Israelis, who do an excellent job at preventing terrorist activity and maintain a superbly safe air travel system.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Body Bombs and the TSA
TSA has released a warning that terrorists are attempting to bring explosive devices onto planes by surgically implanting them into the bodies of suicide bombers. While no specific plot has been discovered, TSA has released the statement in order to bolster airport security. This is in spite of the fact that experts say current security measures are largely unable to detect explosives under the skin.
While discussions of these methods in terrorist circles is not new, the desire to employ such extreme tactics draws into question the entire approach to security that we currently rely upon. The TSA is constantly playing catch-up to an innovative and determined network of terrorists. This not only puts us on the defensive, able only to respond, but has steadily placed greater restrictions on our freedoms. With TSA removing the diapers of 95-year old grandmothers and excessively and unsympathetically patting-down little girls, it is becoming questionable if our security methods are really protecting us - or letting the terrorists win by forcing us to drastically change our way of life.
Security is essential and we should all be willing to give up some freedoms to protect ourselves - that is the primary role of government. Little girls can, unfortunately, not be exempt from pat-downs as such a rule would inevitably lead to terrorist use of children to carry their weaponry. However, there is a need to find balance between security and freedom.
The first thing to understand is that we cannot continue to have knee-jerk reactions that restrict passengers behavior after every "chattered," or even attempted, terrorist plot. A determined enemy will always strive to find new ways around our security. While we should attempt to stay ahead of them, thwarting plots and instituting new security measures, security officials must be careful to understand the probability of such terrorist schemes actually working. For instance, the terrorist liquid plot failed yet travelers are still burdened with not being able to bring liquids on planes.
The response to discovered or thwarted plots does not always need to result in greater restrictions for the traveler. The more we continue to restrict ourselves in fear of that rare one-time event, the less the terrorists have to succeed to severely alter our way of life. Instead, there must be a greater focus on winning the offensive battle. Dedicated terrorists will never cease trying to destroy or injure the West. Probability alone dictates that in playing a defensive game of catch-up we will lose at some point. Instead we must rid the world of dedicated terrorists, both by directly killing or otherwise stopping current terrorists and preventing the creation of new ones through the use of our soft- and hard-power.
Admittedly, this alone is insignificant to protect us. Some will always be "out to get" the West and the TSA needs to continue doing a good job maintaining security. However, in order to achieve this we need to jettison the outmoded thinking of non-profiling. As Isaac Yeffet, former head of security at El Al, has said, it is essential to use profiling tools to screen for the greatest threats. Random searches of, say, grandmothers are a waste of time and resources and ultimately a threat to our security.
Such use of profiling is not about racial discrimination but about being smart in our approach to security, creating the least amount of inconvenience, and appropriately using our resources. Profiles are not a simple call to perform invasive searches on every Muslim- or Arab-looking man, but the use of a compilation of looks, behaviors, actions, and other statistically- and expertly-derived characteristics to screen for the most obvious threats. Such a profile will indubitably change, and it is the responsibility of security services to adapt accordingly. Our terrorist enemies would be foolish to present their foot-soldiers in the same readily identifiable form. Nevertheless, profiling will help us stop the clear threats while easing the burdens on the vast majority who offer no threat. Since technology seems to offer little to solve the problem of "body bombs" we seem to be left with a choice to reevaluate our methods or turn to drastic measures, such as invasive surgery, to maintain our security.
While discussions of these methods in terrorist circles is not new, the desire to employ such extreme tactics draws into question the entire approach to security that we currently rely upon. The TSA is constantly playing catch-up to an innovative and determined network of terrorists. This not only puts us on the defensive, able only to respond, but has steadily placed greater restrictions on our freedoms. With TSA removing the diapers of 95-year old grandmothers and excessively and unsympathetically patting-down little girls, it is becoming questionable if our security methods are really protecting us - or letting the terrorists win by forcing us to drastically change our way of life.
Security is essential and we should all be willing to give up some freedoms to protect ourselves - that is the primary role of government. Little girls can, unfortunately, not be exempt from pat-downs as such a rule would inevitably lead to terrorist use of children to carry their weaponry. However, there is a need to find balance between security and freedom.
The first thing to understand is that we cannot continue to have knee-jerk reactions that restrict passengers behavior after every "chattered," or even attempted, terrorist plot. A determined enemy will always strive to find new ways around our security. While we should attempt to stay ahead of them, thwarting plots and instituting new security measures, security officials must be careful to understand the probability of such terrorist schemes actually working. For instance, the terrorist liquid plot failed yet travelers are still burdened with not being able to bring liquids on planes.
The response to discovered or thwarted plots does not always need to result in greater restrictions for the traveler. The more we continue to restrict ourselves in fear of that rare one-time event, the less the terrorists have to succeed to severely alter our way of life. Instead, there must be a greater focus on winning the offensive battle. Dedicated terrorists will never cease trying to destroy or injure the West. Probability alone dictates that in playing a defensive game of catch-up we will lose at some point. Instead we must rid the world of dedicated terrorists, both by directly killing or otherwise stopping current terrorists and preventing the creation of new ones through the use of our soft- and hard-power.
Admittedly, this alone is insignificant to protect us. Some will always be "out to get" the West and the TSA needs to continue doing a good job maintaining security. However, in order to achieve this we need to jettison the outmoded thinking of non-profiling. As Isaac Yeffet, former head of security at El Al, has said, it is essential to use profiling tools to screen for the greatest threats. Random searches of, say, grandmothers are a waste of time and resources and ultimately a threat to our security.
Such use of profiling is not about racial discrimination but about being smart in our approach to security, creating the least amount of inconvenience, and appropriately using our resources. Profiles are not a simple call to perform invasive searches on every Muslim- or Arab-looking man, but the use of a compilation of looks, behaviors, actions, and other statistically- and expertly-derived characteristics to screen for the most obvious threats. Such a profile will indubitably change, and it is the responsibility of security services to adapt accordingly. Our terrorist enemies would be foolish to present their foot-soldiers in the same readily identifiable form. Nevertheless, profiling will help us stop the clear threats while easing the burdens on the vast majority who offer no threat. Since technology seems to offer little to solve the problem of "body bombs" we seem to be left with a choice to reevaluate our methods or turn to drastic measures, such as invasive surgery, to maintain our security.
Monday, March 28, 2011
A Marshall Plan for the Middle East: Part II: The New Vision
The followup to A Marshall Plan for the Middle East: Part I: An Old Approach Reborn is now available on FutureChallenges. The second half, The New Vision, builds on the earlier call to reconcile Western security needs with democracy promotion in the Middle East. It aims to begin a discussion on what specific forms a new Marshall Plan would take and outline some potential risks and concerns that Western architects should take into consideration before rushing into a new plan.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Tequila for the GOP
The newest thing to hit the newspapers is the Tequila Party. No, it’s not some college drinking game, but an incipient grassroots political movement. Modeled after the Tea Party (in structure, not agenda), it aims to mobilize Hispanic voters to push for immigration reform.
Its founders threaten to break the Hispanic vote off from the Democrats, where it has long served as a bastion of support. The Tequila big-Shots argue that the Democrats have taken the Hispanic vote for granted and have thus done little to meet their needs. This undoubtedly true, but unsurprisingly the heavy-hitting and xenophobic fringe of the GOP has prevented the Republican Party from peeling off the Hispanic vote. Until maybe now. The Tequila Party is yet another sign of the need for realignment in the political landscape. The GOP should do everything it can to promote the free movement of the Hispanic vote.
The logic behind this strategy is clear. First, as the Tequila Party displays, there is growing dissatisfaction in Latino communities at being a rubber stamp for Democratic candidates. This opens a prime window for the GOP to step in. Second, due to demographic changes, the Latino population is becoming increasingly important in many electoral districts. This has been compounded by redistricting following the 2010 Census, where Hispanic-heavy states such as Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada, all gained seats in the House or Representatives (and Electoral College). As The Washington Post expounds, “Much of the population growth is attributed to Hispanics, who tend to vote Democratic. As a result, Republican candidates won't necessarily have a lock on all of the seats created.”
These ‘logistical’ issues alone demand Republican attention; however, Hispanics often make natural allies for the GOP on many issues. For instance, many Hispanics share traditional, family-oriented values that are endemic on the Right. However, due to the Democrats’ success, aided by a small but vocal far-right, at portraying Republicans as anti-Hispanic, the Left has been successful at minimizing the rightward drift of the Hispanic vote. This has chiefly, although not exclusively, been an issue in the immigration debate.
The GOP needs to change tack quickly. The new Congress should come out leading on immigration reform and attempt to set a tone and agenda that displays a pro-Hispanic sentiment. This does not mean discarding the principles of border security, legality, and fair-play that have been staples of the Right’s position, but redefining the battle with the Left to not only display a new image but to show those Hispanics who have blindly followed the Democrats that there is another perspective that can speak to their interests.
First, anti-illegal immigration has to be separated from anti-immigration. The GOP must come out strongly in support of legal immigration. Not only is our nation built on this open model, but continued immigration is necessary for America to maintain its primacy. Democrats have done a phenomenal job at muddling the two issues, which has done the GOP much disservice. Rhetorically, for every attack on illegal immigration from the right and every labeling as anti-immigrant from the left, Republicans must respond with acclamations of support for legal immigration. Words, however, are useless alone and must be complemented with proposals to facilitate easier and fairer immigration for both skilled and un-skilled workers.
Second, the GOP needs to demonstrate that playing by the rules is in everyone’s interest. While seemingly obvious on its face, this point often gets lost (or drowned) in the hubbub of politics. In particular, it needs to be shown that having clear-cut and enforced rules for immigration benefit not just non-Hispanic Americans, but legalized Hispanic-Americans as well. Secure borders and fair-play (not cutting the line via amnesty) are necessary for all Americans to get the most out of this country. Playing by the rules is not an excuse for exclusionary action but the structure that is necessary for a functioning society.
Third, Republicans need to offer a solution to the immigration issue that reconciles the need for immigration (pro-market and pro-Hispanic family) with the needs for rule-of-law and security. This is something that is easily achievable if Republicans simply take the initiative. Immigration reform is essentially a political problem that can be solved under fair, conservative principles. Aside from the far-left open-border type and the far-right xenophobes, a solution could be designed that would satisfy most Americans. The underlying principle that costs to illegal immigration need to be sufficiently high, while costs to legal immigration sufficiently low is the logical starting ground.
Immigration reform should be the first area where the GOP begins its efforts. It is clearly the most volatile and emotional issue. Republican leadership (and justice) on this issue will create significant advances into a community that can serve as a strong electoral base. While the Tequila Party may not end up being the ideal vehicle for GOP inroads into the Hispanic population – its platform is still largely unclear, if not non-existent – the message it brings is resounding – the Hispanic population is a prime and necessary demographic which the GOP needs to start courting.
The logic behind this strategy is clear. First, as the Tequila Party displays, there is growing dissatisfaction in Latino communities at being a rubber stamp for Democratic candidates. This opens a prime window for the GOP to step in. Second, due to demographic changes, the Latino population is becoming increasingly important in many electoral districts. This has been compounded by redistricting following the 2010 Census, where Hispanic-heavy states such as Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada, all gained seats in the House or Representatives (and Electoral College). As The Washington Post expounds, “Much of the population growth is attributed to Hispanics, who tend to vote Democratic. As a result, Republican candidates won't necessarily have a lock on all of the seats created.”
These ‘logistical’ issues alone demand Republican attention; however, Hispanics often make natural allies for the GOP on many issues. For instance, many Hispanics share traditional, family-oriented values that are endemic on the Right. However, due to the Democrats’ success, aided by a small but vocal far-right, at portraying Republicans as anti-Hispanic, the Left has been successful at minimizing the rightward drift of the Hispanic vote. This has chiefly, although not exclusively, been an issue in the immigration debate.
The GOP needs to change tack quickly. The new Congress should come out leading on immigration reform and attempt to set a tone and agenda that displays a pro-Hispanic sentiment. This does not mean discarding the principles of border security, legality, and fair-play that have been staples of the Right’s position, but redefining the battle with the Left to not only display a new image but to show those Hispanics who have blindly followed the Democrats that there is another perspective that can speak to their interests.
First, anti-illegal immigration has to be separated from anti-immigration. The GOP must come out strongly in support of legal immigration. Not only is our nation built on this open model, but continued immigration is necessary for America to maintain its primacy. Democrats have done a phenomenal job at muddling the two issues, which has done the GOP much disservice. Rhetorically, for every attack on illegal immigration from the right and every labeling as anti-immigrant from the left, Republicans must respond with acclamations of support for legal immigration. Words, however, are useless alone and must be complemented with proposals to facilitate easier and fairer immigration for both skilled and un-skilled workers.
Second, the GOP needs to demonstrate that playing by the rules is in everyone’s interest. While seemingly obvious on its face, this point often gets lost (or drowned) in the hubbub of politics. In particular, it needs to be shown that having clear-cut and enforced rules for immigration benefit not just non-Hispanic Americans, but legalized Hispanic-Americans as well. Secure borders and fair-play (not cutting the line via amnesty) are necessary for all Americans to get the most out of this country. Playing by the rules is not an excuse for exclusionary action but the structure that is necessary for a functioning society.
Third, Republicans need to offer a solution to the immigration issue that reconciles the need for immigration (pro-market and pro-Hispanic family) with the needs for rule-of-law and security. This is something that is easily achievable if Republicans simply take the initiative. Immigration reform is essentially a political problem that can be solved under fair, conservative principles. Aside from the far-left open-border type and the far-right xenophobes, a solution could be designed that would satisfy most Americans. The underlying principle that costs to illegal immigration need to be sufficiently high, while costs to legal immigration sufficiently low is the logical starting ground.
Immigration reform should be the first area where the GOP begins its efforts. It is clearly the most volatile and emotional issue. Republican leadership (and justice) on this issue will create significant advances into a community that can serve as a strong electoral base. While the Tequila Party may not end up being the ideal vehicle for GOP inroads into the Hispanic population – its platform is still largely unclear, if not non-existent – the message it brings is resounding – the Hispanic population is a prime and necessary demographic which the GOP needs to start courting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)