Balancing Security and Liberty

[KCMax]

different topic, but i dont understand why suicide bombs or just mass shootings have not caught on among terrorists wishing to do harm to americans.  dudes are rubbing sticks together on planes instead of just acquiring an Uzi (which are available at probably three dozen legal outlets in KC alone) and mowing down people at a mall or large event.  i get the "symbolic" effect of something like a plane bombing, but still...i'd think that a suicide bomber or shooting at a 4th of July event or something would be just as effective for them.  

i'm sure it goes without saying, but i dont want to see any of the above take place...just surprised it hasn't.

I have often wondered that too. Seems like you wouldn't want to replicate airplanes, since that is where our attention is, and you'd shift focus to areas where there are lots of people and not much security - malls, festivals, airports. I don't know if terrorists are just trying to get us to overreact and throw money at airline security  or if they're just not smart and are just replicating what they know.

[LenexatoKCMO]

I have often wondered that too. Seems like you wouldn't want to replicate airplanes, since that is where our attention is, and you'd shift focus to areas where there are lots of people and not much security - malls, festivals, airports. I don't know if terrorists are just trying to get us to overreact and throw money at airline security  or if they're just not smart and are just replicating what they know.

From what I understand, a large part of the mindset of the typical islamic terrorist is supposedly focussed on martyrdom - they welcome death but the risk of getting caught and spending sixty years in jail rather than being rewarded in heaven is unacceptable.  It is apparently much more difficult to recruit potential martyrs for missions where getting caught and surviving is a significant risk.  Hence the showy nature of our airline security - it creates the impression of at least a decent chance that you might get caught.  If martyrs were willing to accept a 50/50 chance that they might get caught in security and go to jail, then we would probably be seeing planes fall out of the sky on a daily basis. 

I suspect this is part of why you don't see more shooters - too great a chance you might get wounded or captured rather than martyred.  I suspect the idea of blowing your own head off with a handgun really doesn't qualify as martyrdom in the islamic militant mind. 

[phna]

Backscatters to get into the game?

[Highlander]

different topic, but i dont understand why suicide bombs or just mass shootings have not caught on among terrorists wishing to do harm to americans.  dudes are rubbing sticks together on planes instead of just acquiring an Uzi (which are available at probably three dozen legal outlets in KC alone) and mowing down people at a mall or large event.  i get the "symbolic" effect of something like a plane bombing, but still...i'd think that a suicide bomber or shooting at a 4th of July event or something would be just as effective for them.  

i'm sure it goes without saying, but i dont want to see any of the above take place...just surprised it hasn't.

I think it's fairly intuitive, if you can disable an aircraft you are guaranteed of killing a large number of people as you have a captive audience of victims that have nowhere to run.  In larger aircraft, that number can approach 300 plus whoever on the ground is unlucky enough to be hit by the debris.  Plus, you do not have to be particularly competent to do this.

On the other hand, taking an automatic weapon to a shopping center has a lot less potential.  People will scatter at the first sound of fire plus it's likely that someone will shoot back potentially ending the killing spree after just a few people succumb.  How many will be kiled..10? 20?  Given that most people do not fly all that much and think they are not vulnerable to terrorism as a result, the psychological effect of a shopping mall attack may be greater than an attack on an airliner simply because far more people frequent malls than airports.

[chrizow]

From what I understand, a large part of the mindset of the typical islamic terrorist is supposedly focussed on martyrdom - they welcome death but the risk of getting caught and spending sixty years in jail rather than being rewarded in heaven is unacceptable.  It is apparently much more difficult to recruit potential martyrs for missions where getting caught and surviving is a significant risk.  Hence the showy nature of our airline security - it creates the impression of at least a decent chance that you might get caught.  If martyrs were willing to accept a 50/50 chance that they might get caught in security and go to jail, then we would probably be seeing planes fall out of the sky on a daily basis. 

I suspect this is part of why you don't see more shooters - too great a chance you might get wounded or captured rather than martyred.  I suspect the idea of blowing your own head off with a handgun really doesn't qualify as martyrdom in the islamic militant mind. 

you'd get that with suicide vests though.  obviously you get more people with a plane bombing, but i would think that terrorists would prefer to carry out 20 bombings a year vs. a plane bombing every 10 years or whatever. 

[ignatius]

^If so, we get rid of the security and they stop?  They haven't gone after subway trains yet, which I thought was odd.  Imagine the damage at Time's Square 42nd street stop with multiple trains running in parallel - long term damage to the ebb and flow on NYC too.  If it's for the risk of getting caught, then reduce the security.

If they really want to hit the stomachs of Americans, they'd hijack some fuel trucks, load it with explosives and ram into school cafeterias at lunch hour - with a 'respectable' islamic martyrdom death of course.  There are so many things they could do.

Yet we put all this effort in airport security when less than 5K people die every 10 years due to airline attacks around the world - in most cases, much less.  How many Americans die due to internal violence every 10 years?  Why the focus on terrorists and not our own internal problems?   Local police now say they are no longer in the crime prevention business.  And we're concerned about occasional terrorist attacks?

[LenexatoKCMO]

you'd get that with suicide vests though.  obviously you get more people with a plane bombing, but i would think that terrorists would prefer to carry out 20 bombings a year vs. a plane bombing every 10 years or whatever. 

True - I suspect that ground based, domestic attacks are also more difficult because you have to have somebody at least somewhat imbeded.  At international airports/flights its expected that there will be strange people wont wont speak the right languages, wear the right clothes, know how to act in public, etc.  However, you take some goat herder from Yemeni hill country and unless you give him a hell of a lot of training, he is going to stick out like a sore thumb at Oak Park Mall.  How is he even going to find his way there and navigate his way to the mall without some support organization to steer him?  Not to say its impossible - but it presents a lot more difficulty.  

[KCMax]

you'd get that with suicide vests though.  obviously you get more people with a plane bombing, but i would think that terrorists would prefer to carry out 20 bombings a year vs. a plane bombing every 10 years or whatever. 

I would guess its harder to find suicide bombers than you might think. For all we know the kid they just nabbed on the plane a few weeks ago messed up on purpose.

Yet we put all this effort in airport security when less than 5K people die every 10 years due to airline attacks around the world - in most cases, much less.  How many Americans die due to internal violence every 10 years?  Why the focus on terrorists and not our own internal problems?  Local police now say they are no longer in the crime prevention business.  And we're concerned about occasional terrorist attacks?

This. Our prioritization of risk is quite skewed in this country.

[chrizow]

However, you take some goat herder from Yemeni hill country and unless you give him a hell of a lot of training, he is going to stick out like a sore thumb at Oak Park Mall.  How is he even going to find his way there and navigate his way to the mall without some support organization to steer him?  

i was under the impression that a lot of suicide bombers are young, intelligent, internet-savvy types.  college students, even.  

even with all the difficulties, i still think it's easier to detonate a suicide vest in times square or something vs. smuggling explosives onto a plane or executing a 9/11-style hijacking.  

[Highlander]

even with all the difficulties, i still think it's easier to detonate a suicide vest in times square or something vs. smuggling explosives onto a plane or executing a 9/11-style hijacking.  

What could be easier than taking an approved item like boxcutters on a plane?  There are just a lot  of ways to bring a plane down...I kind of wonder why nobody has tried to open the hatch while at 37000'.  It may not crash the plane but it would do a lot of damage and potentially suck a few unbelted customers and crew out as well as scare the hell out of many subsequent fliers. 

And yea, a lot of bombers are well educated.  The guys in Glasgow were doctors as was the recent CIA bomber in Afghanistan. 

[LenexatoKCMO]

i was under the impression that a lot of suicide bombers are young, intelligent, internet-savvy types.  college students, even.  

even with all the difficulties, i still think it's easier to detonate a suicide vest in times square or something vs. smuggling explosives onto a plane or executing a 9/11-style hijacking.  

Most of the folks that have gotten anywhere with bringing terrorisim to western shores since 9/11 have indeed been more along the lines of college educated expats with long exposure to the west - which goes to my point that they can't just use most of the yokels that are at their disposal - but most of these guys have still come from outside the US and haven't had any US based support.  For the sort of ground-based attack you are predicting, they probably need someone already here and/or with a domestic support organization.  We still might see some isolated incidents around that kind of thing but fortunately there doesn't seem to be the assets in place for it to be a big deal.  

[DaveKCMO]

not to mention there wouldn't be much of a terror effect if you attacked a place like times square. if you abandoned the place tomorrow, it simply wouldn't affect most americans. however, the minute you start mucking with the 87,000 daily flights in this country that touch so many business and leisure activities it's a completely different kind of FREAK OUT.

[ignatius]

BTW, when I was flying back from Chile via Peru, it was a couple days after the Detroit incident and they started checks of carry on luggage at the gate.  In Peru, they opened all carryon, wouldn't let you bring on water that you bought at the airport but they didn't look through my bag very well.   Never opened any packages in the bag that were wrapped in tape.  It was a pretty meaningless search.  I was surprised Lima airport even bothered complying as it was a Chilean airline, not an American one.  In Santiago, Chile, they had the bag scanner but it was running very quickly as if barely looking.  No need to pull out laptops or liquids and they told you not to take shoes off.  Customs in Miami was business as usual - no checks of any kind other than the usual final bag scan.

I think what will make all of this pointless is that they do not have control at non-US airports, and they don't even have consistency within US airports - the security in small US airports is quite lax and then connect to terminals of large airports w/out going through security again. Am repeating myself but it only works if it's all or nothing and if they can only secure parts of the system, it's pointless.   Terrorists will find a way (and probably not very hard to do) and we get searched as if guilty until proven innocent.

[DaveKCMO]

hasn't there been some indication that the lack of consistency is actually a good thing? not for travelers, of course.

[ignatius]

But it's a consistent lack of consistency at smaller airports.  And airports in some countries are pretty lax.  I
I'd bet the Detroit flight guy purposely chose Amsterdam if they are consistently lax.

I meant there is lack of consistency between all airports, not within some specific airports

[Highlander]

But it's a consistent lack of consistency at smaller airports.  And airports in some countries are pretty lax.  I
I'd bet the Detroit flight guy purposely chose Amsterdam if they are consistently lax.

I meant there is lack of consistency between all airports, not within some specific airports

I don't know about Amsterdam being lax, all US bound flights at Schipol have their own security and screening process right there at the gate.    

[Slappy the Wang]

^That's fine if you don't mind, but it's still a pretty significant invasion of privacy.  If you grant it, that's not invasion.

The way the airport security works, it's somewhat assuming you are guilty before proven innocent.  Scanning luggage is a reasonable compromise given extra security is necessary but when we let the Feds take semi-naked pictures without our permission (so far it's an option, but may not be for long), we have let the terrorists win by altering our freedoms.  And it's a false sense of security since organists terrorists will still find a way (ie, the examples i gave).  

There are other methods to pursue first, such as the hostage hangar idea in a previous post.  Or they only scan foreign born, which can be checked when purchasing the ticket.  There are many ways to pursue this... yet the first line of attack is invading personal privacy of US citizens.  

If you look at the guy from the Detroit flight, there could have been 4-5 ways to prevent him from even getting on the plane and it would not have been necessary to scan anyone.

Is surprising the majority weigh a false sense of security over liberty and personal privacy.

Why do I have a feeling that if the guy in Detroit carried out his plan that you and many others currently opposed to this scan would be blaming Bush for not forcing them on us over the past 8 years?

[ignatius]

^He boarded in Amsterdam, not the States.  It would have been an example that we can't control security in other countries.    There was a great deal of info about they guy that shouldn't allow him to board in the first place.  In this case, intelligence would have solved the problem and scanning every passenger would not be needed.

If body scanners are the answer, they would need to be in every airport at every checkpoint.  I doubt they'd put them in small town airports that connect to larger airports so why use them at all?

The terrorists will find a whole in the security, likely by finding the right airport to board, while the public gets naked pictures taken.  Body scanning is just not worth it.  We _let_ the terrorists win by altering our liberties and privacy to this degree.  That's exactly what they want - to take away our freedoms.  If you are in favor of security over liberty you don't deserve either.

[Slappy the Wang]

Why is anyone concerned about "privacy?"  We're talking about someone in another room looking at pics of our bones.  The whole argument is pretty silly and I'm willing to bet a rebellious faction had equal concern when the current era of detectors were commissioned in the 70's.

I guess since I'm not a suicidal terrorist, that I don't mind a painless test that demonstrates it for the safety / peace of mind of those I'm flying with.  This method also gets everyone around what they find absolutely necessary, yet absolutely politically incorrect...profiling.

[phxcat]

Why do I have a feeling that if the guy in Detroit carried out his plan that you and many others currently opposed to this scan would be blaming Bush for not forcing them on us over the past 8 years?

I've heard this argument a couple time, and I have seen people blame Obama (including congressmen) yet I don't recall anyone blaming Bush for the shoe bomber incident.