Right in principle, wrong about nearly everything else he said, security expert Bruce Schneier tells us to stop being afraid and why as picked up at: http://www.dailykos.com/
Schneier is absolutely correct that we should stop publicly acknowledging fear about terrorism. Every time I see interviews about the subject, the media runs the obligatory interview with someone who just has to say “I don’t know if I will fly anymore because it is so scary” or something similar. And that is giving the Islamofascists want they want.
The problem with Schneier’s article is the complete mess he has made in analyzing recent incidents as fear-based irrationality versus appropriate situational awareness. He states:
On Aug. 16, two men were escorted off a plane headed for Manchester, England, because some passengers thought they looked either Asian or Middle Eastern, might have been talking Arabic, wore leather jackets, and looked at their watches -- and the passengers refused to fly with them on board. The men were questioned for several hours and then released.
What an incomplete picture he has given! He says they “wore leather jackets” without bothering to mention it was in hot weather. The obvious concern is that inappropriate clothing relative to the weather can indicate hiding something. No? Columbine anyone? High school students carrying an arsenal under trench coats? My God, it is just common sense to be aware of these types of things in any situation. He states “looked at their watches” like it is not understood universally that repetitive watch glancing is a sign of nervousness which is clearly defined now as an indicator of a security concern in any situation, terrorism related or not. In short, inappropriate dress and nervous behavior are absolutely tell-tale signs of someone who may be a threat, no matter ethnicity. And this is from a security professional? You should be embarrassed, sir.
He continues:
On Aug. 15, an entire airport terminal was evacuated because someone's cosmetics triggered a false positive for explosives. The same day, a Muslim man was removed from an airplane in Denver for reciting prayers. The Transportation Security Administration decided that the flight crew overreacted, but he still had to spend the night in Denver before flying home the next day. The next day, a Port of Seattle terminal was evacuated because a couple of dogs gave a false alarm for explosives.
Okay, sure he is right about the praying guy, first I have heard of that, if he has portrayed it accurately, that is ridiculous. But a false positive at a chemical detector in not a sign of fear or panic, rather a sign that cosmetics have some similar chemical components to explosives. And a positive detection would necessitate an evacuation, that’s only common sense. And what does a dog inspection by port authorities have to do with a panicky public? These personnel (and a canine) were doing their jobs.
On Aug. 19, a plane made an emergency landing in Tampa, Florida, after the crew became suspicious because two of the lavatory doors were locked. The plane was searched, but nothing was found. Meanwhile, a man who tampered with a bathroom smoke detector on a flight to San Antonio was cleared of terrorism, but only after having his house searched.
Again, a reasonable security procedure in the first case. When something is amiss, and we are not talking about a coke can missing from the drink cart, but what seems to be a possible case of people barricaded in bathrooms, then flight crew members have every right to be suspicious. And aren’t there signs in the bathroom saying it is a crime to mess with the smoke detectors? Isn’t that because smoke detectors detect smoke, a product of fire? And if someone is messing with the smoke detectors, isn’t it a good idea to check them out, terrorism or not unless you like the idea of fire on a plane? I mean who the hell wants fire on a plane? But Schneier acts like it is atypical to be concerned about this? I don’t get it.
On Aug. 16, a woman suffered a panic attack and became violent on a flight from London to Washington, so the plane was escorted to the Boston airport by fighter jets. "The woman was carrying hand cream and matches but was not a terrorist threat," said the TSA spokesman after the incident.
Became violent? Then why are you referencing this in a list of what you are apparently using as evidence of over-reaction? What are you thinking Bruce?
And on Aug. 18, a plane flying from London to Egypt made an emergency landing in Italy when someone found a bomb threat scrawled on an air sickness bag. Nothing was found on the plane, and no one knows how long the note was on board.
Someone made a terrorist threat. What is the problem with making an emergency landing? So now we see a series of genuine security concerns (with one exception) raised by security personnel, flight crews and civilians using tools and observation to appraise the situation. In other words, people are finally doing what they should be doing, paying attention. But no, Bruce continues:
I'd like everyone to take a deep breath and listen for a minute.
A deep breath, from what? Doing their jobs? Paying attention? Is that a sign of fear? Or maybe people should go back to sleep and let the “security experts” of the world like Bruce here and Larry Johnson, who’s moronic statement I proved wrong the other day, maybe we should just let the experts handle it. You know, like they handled counter- terrorism before 9/11 or 7/7. Or all the other incidents the public was surprised by because they weren’t paying attention. Go back to sleep sheep, nothing to see here, we got it covered, we are professionals. Bruce’s piece is completely, utterly, pretentious, ridiculous, and showing a fundamental misunderstanding of security. The best security is an aware public Bruce.
He continues:
The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.
So “our reaction” in every instance he sites, except for the praying guy is pretty darn reasonable. More than that, most of it was dictated by procedure.
Giving the terrorists what they want means doing things like letting them scare us away from flying. Fighting the terrorists means paying attention to what is going on around you and acting appropriately. This is the difference between fear and situational awareness.
He states:
In truth, it's doubtful that their plan would have succeeded; chemists have been debunking the idea since it became public. Certainly the suspects were a long way off from trying: None had bought airline tickets, and some didn't even have passports.
Okay, read my rebuttal to Larry Johnson for this part, short story, two planes blown up over Russia by Islamic Jihadist, bought tickets one hour before the flight. This is just stupid. And this spate of “it is just too difficult to do” statements is surreal in a world in which, as a matter of fact, it has been done before. Why is it so hard to believe it could have been done, when Ramzi Yousef freaking did it?
The implausible plots and false alarms
Implausible plots? Like hijacking four planes and flying them into the WTC, pentagon and congress? Would you have believed that could happen before it did happen (or almost in the case of congress)? Would you have believed Yousef could blow up a plane with liquid explosives, Bruce?
Or maybe too many of our so called security and terror experts want to make everything political so someone will pay attention to them when they should be doing their jobs and let us do ours.
But our job is to remain steadfast in the face of terror, to refuse to be terrorized. Our job is to not panic every time two Muslims stand together checking their watches.
Because if people like you (security professionals) refuse to be honest enough to admit that these guys were doing more than “checking their watches” the rest of us will have to do our jobs just a little bit better, because we know we can’t rely on judgment like yours Bruce. I have been in one war and one peace keeping mission Bruce. I have jumped out of planes and repelled from helicopters (while suffering from a fear of heights I might add). I will be the first to tell you, if I am boarding a plane and two guys are dressed with coats in the heat and acting nervous, I am not getting on the plane until I know they (and more importantly even, their luggage) have had some serious scrutiny. That is not fear that is situational awareness, and I applaud it in every instance except for one that Bruce has mentioned.
America's been at war with Al Queda for 14 years now.
America's REALIZED that it's been at war with Al Queda for 5 years now.
America's been the victim of various terrorist organizations and their sponsors for 27 years now.
If a security or intelligence professional has the time to write pieces complaining about guys wearing leather jackets...then he/she can't be that valuable.
The good ones are busy fighting terrorism, and they have been for a generation.
Posted by: Sam Pender | Friday, August 25, 2006 at 07:21 PM