Friday, May 25, 2012


Features

Expert Weighs In On New Security Steps For U.S.-Bound Flights

TEXT SIZE - +
In the wake of the failed Christmas-day bombing attempt on a U.S.-bound airliner, the United States has implemented more stringent security measures focusing on passengers from 14 countries.

As of today, travelers from the four countries that Washington considers state sponsors of terrorism (Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria) and 10 others of interest to counterterrorism officials (Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Yemen) will be required to undergo "enhanced screening" at checkpoints, including pat downs and higher scrutiny of luggage.

RFE/RL's correspondent Abubakar Siddique speaks to Shadi Hamid, a Middle East and security-policy expert at Brookings Institution's Doha Center, to gauge how the procedures will be implemented and how they might affect Washington's future relations with some of the countries on the list.

RFE/RL: What will these new procedures mean for the ordinary passenger from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the 14 countries on the list?

Shadi Hamid: If I understand correctly, the restrictions are that they all have to be patted down and that all their carry-ons will be hand searched. So those are the two main regulations that have been introduced, and it targets the people from these specific 14 countries.

RFE/RL: What necessitated these new measures focusing on passengers flying from or belonging to the states on the list?

Hamid: Personally I am not very convinced it is necessary. That's a decision that the U.S. government, and in particular the Transportation Security Administration, made. But whether or not that's actually necessary or even if it enhances the security of America, I think that's an open question. And I think there is quite a lot to suggest that these regulations are really about reassuring Americans and it is part of a general hysteria that we have seen in the media the last week in response to the Christmas bomber plot.

RFE/RL: How effective you think these new measures will be in keeping the U.S. mainland safe from attacks and in improving air-travel security?


Hamid: There is nothing to suggest that it would improve travel security. Terrorists can adapt to regulations, they can change their tactics, they can change their tactics, they can change their strategies.

They are going to see these new regulations and they will find ways to get around them. For example pat-downs won't include the crotch area. Obviously, terrorists can put things in certain areas where security won't be checking. There are ways for terrorists to get around these security precautions....

In addition, these apply only to international flights going into the U.S. Terrorists can go on domestic flights -- or what about people who are already in the U.S? So, I mean, there are just so many different variables there. I think the major point here is that you can never get terrorist attacks down to zero.

RFE/RL: In your overall prognosis, what needs to be done to make air travel safer, to protect the United States from potential terrorists flying into the country?

Hamid: I think the most important thing is screening people before they get into the U.S. That's what could have stopped the Christmas bomber [Umar Farouk] Abdulmuttalab. And we -- the U.S. -- had warnings that this person has extreme views. His father reported him to the relevant U.S. Embassy. So I think we have to do a better job of being able to process information effectively.

RFE/RL: In your assessment will Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Nigeria and the other 14 countries on the list be keen to follow the new security procedures, considering that the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have already enhanced their screening efforts?

Hamid: I don't think these governments really have a choice. They can protest as much as they want and they probably should. These things are already targeting their citizens and they have a right to be concerned and even angry about that. Now, whether or not that actually changes U.S. policy, that's a different question.

RFE/RL: Four of the countries -- Cuba, Iran, Syria, and Sudan -- are on the U.S. State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. What kind of fallout do expect from the other 10 countries on the list, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia -- countries whose cooperation is central to countering Al-Qaeda and other extremist networks?

Hamid: There is certainly the risk of some fallout but it's worth keeping in mind that these countries have already been targeted for additional security post-9/11. So, this kind of targeting of certain countries has been there for a while; it is worse now with additional regulations. I am sure there will be greater concerns expressed in the coming weeks. And that's something certainly for the U.S. to keep in mind that this affects [President Barack] Obama administration's public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East.
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Orhan Ertugruloglu from: the Netherlands
January 05, 2010 10:26
The cance of dying in a plane accident was last year 1 'n 1,7 million flights. A year before this figure was roughly the same. Flying -terror threat aside- is the safest way of travel. Even the last terrorist atacks didn't change this fact. But this does not mean that the unsuccesful bomb attack on the Christmas day to blow up the Northwest airliner is not an important incident. Even before that incident , in Somalia a man was caught who wanted to bring explosives on board an airliner. Everything shows that Al-Qaide , now in Yemen, is bussy to develop new tactics of terror after the 11 September. Therefore, security measures have been tightened at airports. What went wrong during the checks on the way that Nigerian terrorist covered is not clear yet. In parallel with undergoing investigation new security measures are rapidyl introduced at the major airports. After every dissaster we know that under political pressure measures are taken from which effectiveness at the very least is certain. Also there is a danger that under the pretext of drastic circumstances requires drastic measures the protection of personal privacy will be pushed aside. But these arguements are not an obstacle for the use of body scan at the airports. Clearly the use of scan is better than searching the body by hand which is considered by many passengers as an infringement of their body. The objection that the attendant using the scan can see the naked body of someone could be avoided by letting the computer to do the job. Naturally it should be guranteed that the images should not be recorded and later sufraced or resurfaced on the internet. If something is seen, then the body could be searched by hand. If the scans are introduced in that way , the objection of privacy will not be valid. The introduction of the body scan is a step forward in the race between the security personnel and the terrorists. But it is a never ending story. The terrorists have an advantage in this race on their side that no one dares to take.They are ready to die. The introduction of smart tacticks can increase the cance of being caught. On the Christmas day if Abdulmuttalip woul go through the body scanner, the explosives would be seen or found our. Of course in inteligence no device can replace the human beings. This is relevant in the case of Abdulmuttalip. Both in negative and positive sense.In the negative sense the American authorities apparantely didn't take the warnings of the father seriously into consideration. In the positive sense the father warned the authorities about his son and behaved responsibly which is essential in the fight against terrorism at its source. No body scan can do that.

by: Vytautasba from: Vilnius
January 05, 2010 14:11
A lot of resources have been spent or perhaps wasted on the issue of "improving security". It is quite possible that fewer resources could be used to achieve more cost effective security. One area is to focus on reducing the motivations behind these terrorists in the first place. Has any agency in government ever tried to find out why people are willing to kill themselves for this cause? Shoud'nt we also take a a hard look at our policies and their possible unintentioned effects? Deal with the motivation problem first. Perhaps then we will understand things better and do more rational things that result in real gains for our safety and security.

Most Popular

               
 
 
 
 
Being Discussed Now

Ukraine Activists Protest Language Law

Latest Comment (1 total)

Eugenio: Ukrainian MPs are really taking their work much more seriously than those of ... More

Beaten Ukrainian Gay Activist Unbowed

Latest Comment (3 total)

David: Beating any minority social group only strengthens their resolve and moral high ground. ... More

Dolphin Deaths Alarm Black Sea Ecologists

Latest Comment (1 total)

John Harduny: Marine mammals often die in places with new geophysical exploration activity tied to ... More