deep said:
take a look at countries that are not victims of terrorists' attacks
and compare their foreign policy
to America's foreign policy
perhaps it is time to rethink
or better yet
think clearly about why America does what it does
in relationship to what it gets for what it does
How do you explain all the terrorist plots, foiled and otherwise, that happened under Presidents who didn't have the type of foreign policy that Bush has? Bush is not the only reason.
Bottom line is, money. The airports, airlines and the govt don't always want to spend the maximum money on security. Some technology is available and very expensive, granted some isn't. Terrorists like al-Quada are the definition of evil genius. They study and plot and know so much about what can be detected, how to hide it, etc. Yes no security is 100 percent failsafe, but all involved could make their best effort and could do more. It means delays and inconvenience for the passengers, but that's the reality. Most people are willing to put up with it.
Congress actually asked for a test which was done a few months ago, to get the components of liquid and other types of explosives on planes, and in over 20 airports the testers were able to get them on undetected. I saw so many shows last night that I can't keep them straight now, it might have been on msnbc. I believe it was, they showed an earlier NBC video report from Lisa Myers on the subject. It was also discussed on Paula Zahn
Paula Zahn transcript
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/10/pzn.01.html
ZAHN: But you have got Representative John Mica out there, who happens to be the chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, saying that the system that we now have in place is farcical, and that the failure rate to detect explosives is just disastrous.
TOWNSEND: There's no question, Paula, that the Department of Homeland Security works with industry to push the technology, so it improves. And they have gotten greater explosive-detection equipment, with greater reliability.
And we will continue to work with industry and push them, and get the state-of-the-art equipment, and have it deployed in airports.
ZAHN: Is this fair criticism, on his part, because Representative Mica goes on to say that billions of dollars have been spent on this very specific kind of equipment you're talking about, that would detect explosives, but, in many cases, it's sitting on shelves and not even being used.
TOWNSEND: You know, Paula, this is the first I -- I'm hearing of Representative Mica's criticism.
I can tell you, having worked with Kip Hawley, who's the head of TSA, and with Secretary Chertoff, there is no higher priority than ensuring that this equipment is timely deployed, that the screeners have the adequate training, so they're using it properly, and ensuring that we get the maximum advantage of that equipment and the money that we're spending on aviation security.
ZAHN: You say you're hearing some of Representative Mica's criticism for the first time.
And, yet, there was a pretty stinging GAO report that came out at the beginning of the spring, suggesting some major deficiencies in how the TSA was operating. Has anything changed? Have things gotten better since that report came out?
TOWNSEND: You know, I -- I can tell you, I know that Secretary -- having spoken to him, Secretary Chertoff and Kip Hawley made a priority out of going through the -- working with the inspector general, going through that report, and ensuring that changes, specific changes, to their -- to the findings were put in place.
CLARK KENT ERVIN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Well, it isn't, Paula.
I was really fascinated by that interview.
To say a word about that GAO report you talked about, congressional investigators were able, just a few months ago, to sneak bomb components, ingredients that, by themselves, are benign, but together, mixed together, could be explosives, past screeners at 21 airports in the country, undetected.
At the time, Kip Hawley, the head of TSA, to whom Ms. Townsend referred, really pooh-poohed the report, and said, well, it's just a hypothetical possibility. We really need not worry about that.
And, today, obviously, we see that al Qaeda was planning to do just that.
ZAHN: So, what can really be done to prevent -- and I know nothing is ever 100 percent safe -- but prevent explosives, potentially, from being allowed to come on a plane?
ERVIN: Well, you're right to say that we can't have 100 percent security. That's right.
But there are certainly things that we could do that would make us significantly safer. One such thing is to significantly increase the percentage of luggage. It should be 100 percent of luggage that is inspected for explosives.
And individuals, passengers, should be inspected for trace explosives. But, as you noted, the percentage is around 10 to 20 percent. There might not be an anomaly in a bag that would trigger additional explosive-detection technology.
It needs to happen as a matter of course. And I hope, as a result of this plot having been, fortunately, foiled, that that's where we're going to go to right away.
ZAHN: So, when Ms. Townsend says we should feel pretty safe getting on an airplane tonight, are -- are you saying that we shouldn't get on airplanes at all?
ERVIN: No, I'm not saying that. We can't live our lives in fear.
And, certainly, there is a possibility that we could be attacked at any time. What I am saying, though, is that there are significant vulnerabilities that we have not taken seriously.
For example, there's cargo in the cargo holds of about 20 percent of the passenger planes that fly in America, and virtually none of that cargo is inspected before it goes into the cargo hold. That's inexcusable. There's 100 percent inspection in Britain, Israel, and the Netherlands.