Matthew writes (in his linked article):

Precisely zero people have been killed in liquid explosive attacks on airplanes. The historical record indicates that we're pretty secure as things stand.

True enough.

Also, precisely zero people have been killed through bombs brough in through out ports. So, again, what was all that fuss about port security (the Dubai ports deal, etc)? The historical record indicates that we're pretty secure as things stand.

Also, precisely zero people have been killed by Russian nuclear material. So why are Matthew and others on the left so worried about securing Russian nuclear material? The historical record indicates that we're pretty secure as things stand.

Also, precisely zero people have been killed by subway bombings in this country. So no further security measures need to be taken to secure our subway. The historical record indicates that we're pretty secure as things stand.

I'm sure I can come up with more things that nobody has been killed by so far. Luckily, that means that we can spend a lot LESS on security than we currently are spending. Awesome.

Well, your expanded thinking brings up all sorts of interesting points, but you're still wildly wrong about this:

The dangerous thing about a guy with a bomb on a plane is primarily the fact that the guy has a bomb.

You're wrong because the thing that's dangerous about airplanes is that they're really high up in the air, and they're pressurized so people don't die. If you blow up a suitcase bomb in a train station, it stays a train station. If you blow up a similar bomb on an airplane, the airplane becomes a falling box of shrapnel. Many more people die.

You would agree, though, that a bomb on an airplane is not just another bomb?

I should add that I think a main reason planes casue anxiety is the total lack of control. You have no say in practically all of the decisions being made. In your car you have control. The control is illusory (and shown to be so when confronted by a drunk barrelling down the highway in the wrong lane), but your fate at least appears to be in your hands.

Odds are you can't fly plane by yourself. You couldn't land a plane if you had to. You are absolutely reliant on the competence of the pilot and co-pilot and the pople in the tower. And you hope other people on the plane to not be dicks.

People generally aren't good at turning themselves over to the competence of others even when the safety record is as high as ariline safety records are.

So this time it was liquids.  What is going to be the next way they try to go after airplanes?  And what is it going to take to make aircraft secure from that future attack?

A far better approach is HUMIT assets in the field.  That is how the British stopped this potential liquid bomb threat.  We will spend BILLIONS to get new equipment to detect liquid threats to planes but it doesn't lessen the chances that planes will be attacked.  What does lessen the chances is going after the people who want to attack us...and not trying to focus on one of methods they are considering using.  Focusing money and resources on how to detect and stop an attack about to occur is a far less effective option then spending the money on better surveillance of the people who want to do it.   

planes freak people out - even people who fly all the time - perhaps ESPECIALLY people who fly all the time. Plane crashes are a terror multiplier.

That is why if al-Qaida/terrorists wanted to terrorize the American people more effectively attacking one of the so-called "soft targets" would be far more effective.  There is an inherent risk in flying but what risks are there in shopping at the mall, taking the train or bus to work, or going to a sporting event.  Luckily al-Qaida focuses on "high profile" message sending attacks that take much more planning and are easier to detect and stop.

Good point about Humit assets. It's true we did well to secure cockpit doors as the Israelis had long before, and that alone would have prevented 9/11. A little more care with screening and a ban on something as obviously scary as box cutters are both good ideas, too, but simply because the old guidelines as to what constituted acceptable length in a knife were artificial, bad ideas. But beyond that, aside from the inconvenience on the consumer side or cost on the air industry side, it's so much effort on the prevention side aimed at a moving target. Suppose that Bushies had actually listened to warnings before 9/11? That wouldn't have required much work, just half a brain and a halving of the ideological bias.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Generally agree with all of this. Drudge points to a Times UK story about Britain considering focusing more on the people that present the greatest risk, rather than just tactics.

I do want to say one thing, though, about focusing on tactics. It makes sense to focus on a partuclar tactic if you have a specific reason to believe that terrorists are going to use that tactic soon. Here, for example, we had specific reason to believe that liquids would be used. So it makes sense to temporarily crack down on bringing liquids aboard - just until that specific threat has been addressed. Are they confident that the entire terrorist group planning the liquid threat has been rolled up? If so, then it should be OK to bring liquids aboard again. But if they think there's still a chance that there are some of the terrorists out there from this specific liquid-based threat, then, OK, keep banning liquids.

I agree that our terrorism prevention policies are seriously lacking in common sense.  It seems we address tactics after a successful attack or tactics we discover in an active plot.  But even a common sense approach isn't good enough.  Chances are that our preventitive measures can defeated.  Richard Reid didn't succeed only because he couldn't figure out how to use matches.  The only way to ensure that an airplane will never be successfully attacked by terrorists is to make the passengers fly naked and have all their extremities immobilized...and then some terrorists will probably figure out a way to surgically implant an explosive device inside a person that can be detonated by that person coughing.  We need to go after the people...not their tools.

That would only make sense to the extent that the crack down is actually effective. Like, I can't bring my swiss army knive on a plane, but they'll give me a fork or knive in first class. Even a pen can be used to stab someone. Some of these airline rules don't make sense.

Re: that Times article, I disagree with that approach. Profiling doesn't really work because the bad guys just change the profile. We crack down on people from Pakistan, and they just get people from England to blow themselves up.

The lesson here is that security is hard work, much harder work than the Bush Administration has been willing to put into the problem.

If we're waiting for the terrorists to get to the airport to stop them, then we've already lost much of the battle. 

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

There are TWO problems. First, as idiot terrorists come up with new and more ingenious methods of blowing up airliners we will create more and more "security measures". Naturally, these OUGHT to be temporary until the threat has passed, by focusing on the people trying to implement them.

But, bureaucracies NEVER repeal their regulations even when they are outmoded. Thus, we'll be still taking off our shoes 25 years from now when (hopefully) there IS NO terrorist threat. It will still be a "federal regulation" and "federal regulations" have to be enforced -- whether they make any sense or not!

I don't know what's next. I suppose NO carry-on luggage of any kind. Every bag has to be brought to the airport and physically searched and pre-screened by security at least 24 hours in advance of your trip, etc.

The WORST problem though is that the terrorists have been incredibly STUPID so far. They kept sticking to airplanes. What if they had a little imagination?

I constantly say the easiest and most devestating terrorist plot wouldn't involve anything they've tried so far -- airlines or what everyone fears -- WMDs.

Imagine 25 flaming-sphincters like Muhhamad Atta dedicated to Jihad and trained in sniper-schools somewhere in the middle east. Give them each a few thousand $ cash and send them into the U.S. without anything at all. They each spread out all over the country and buy sniper rifles and scopes at local gun-shows. The NRA has ensured that this is still dead easy.

Then have them in teams of 2, one a driver, one a sniper. Have each team go a different part of the country to a high-way overlook and start shooting people at random. Then drive away and -- until they're caught -- go somewhere else and do it again the next day.

I won't go on about this, since you remember how the Maryland sniper did exactly this.

The entire country would screech to a halt. NOBODY would be able to drive - anywhere. There would be nowhere anyone could feel safe. Some highway overpass outside Helena Montana would be as suspect as NYC. And when could we be sure we'd captured them all?

What could anyone do? Secure every road and highway in America? Ban gun sales? That'll go over big with the 2nd amendment crowd!

It would totally destroy U.S. morale and would be almost impossible to stop.

There are probably a lot better ideas out there than this!

The ONLY way to stop terrorism is to stop creating more terrorists! Period! It's not enough to arrest a few, we have to totally undermine the root causes of terrorism worldwide or we WILL become victims again. And I fear for American democracy if that happens. We'll totally be living in a police state if there's annother attack.

That means creating peace in the middle-east, stopping attacking Muslim countries, and undoing the damage that Bush has done to our international image. That won't be enough, but it'll be a start. Then we can start using the money we're wasting on Iraq on foreign aid to the region to undermine the root causes of anger and hatred against the U.S.

Sound difficult? Is it more difficult than enduring another major attack?

The real problem with airport security is we don't have a strategy. We always go after the previous threat -- a shoe bomber is caught, we take off our shoes. Boxcutters are used, we forfeit our nail clippers. Liquid explosives are planned, so now we can't bring on water.

And part of the problem is the way we chose to prevent attacks are security measures at the point of attack.  Our policies are far too reactive.  Now I am not saying that we shouldn't have common sense security measures in place but when the security measures are of a higher priority than stopping a potential plot before it gets to the point that the would-be attackers are trying to board a plane it is a recipe for disaster.  But even the best security measures can be defeated by a group of people who study the security we use...

Always being one step behind the terrorists is not a recipe for success.

I agree with this completely.  I wish I had said it...