Terrorism and the Illusion of ‘Total Security’: NRC Handelsblad, The Netherlands
Dec 29th, 2009 | 10 responses
So what do people in The Netherlands think of the issue of air safety, after Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport was used as an entry point into the United States for what seems to have been al-Qaeda’s latest suicide-madman?
In typical, practical Dutch fashion, the NRC Handlesblad, in an editorial written yesterday, picks apart recent criticism and concludes that those who seek “total safety” may not long be living in a democratic world:
A year and a half ago, he obtained a visa at the American consulate in London. But in November, after a worrisome tip from his own father, he was put on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, a list that includes 550,000 names.
But that didn’t mean his access to Schiphol Airport or a U.S.-bound aircraft should have been denied. The student from a well-to-do family, who by his own admission is an operator for al-Qaeda in Yemen, wasn’t on the “no-fly list” of 4,000 potential terrorists. Nor was he among those on the list of 14,000 people subject to extra screening [aka/the "Selectee" list].
“100 percent safety is an impossibility. Terrorists, particularly if they’re willing to give up their own lives, will always have an edge over the security services. Risks can only be reduced – not eliminated. Total security in an open, democratic society is an illusion.
EDITORIAL
December 28, 2009
The Netherlands – NRC Handelsblad – Original Article (Dutch)
Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the son of a former Nigerian minister and banker who tried to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day, was already a suspect before he boarded his flight in Lagos. A year and a half ago, he obtained a visa at the American consulate in London. But in November, after a worrisome tip from his own father, he was put on the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, a list that includes 550,000 names.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Terrorism and the Illusion of ‘Total Security’: NRC Handelsblad, The Netherlands”
I agree. Do the police work, but know in advance their will always be a gap. AND yes, emphatically, that the degree to which we perfect our ability to provide ultimate security, you can be sure that our freedoms have been diminished.
Returning to the world of reality, few are demanding “ultimate security”. But how about we start with competent screening of high risk cases hopping on an airplane? How about if someone is credibly identified as having a high risk of potential terrorism we actually pay attention to that and don't just wave them aboard a major aircraft where they can threaten the lives of hundreds of others?
The article presents us with a false dichotomy. There is plenty of room for a balanced approach. This comes off as someone trying to rationalize an excuse for why they didn't do their job.
Naturally the more security, the less freedom. That's why people are not allowed to drink with a bottle of Jim Beam in their hand. It's why they can't put razor blades in apples on Halloween, threaten the life of the President, or enter your home at will. They can't run red lights at 80 miles/hour. And if they advocate for and celebrate blowing up airplanes they ought not be allowed to fly without undergoing extremely careful screening.
The world is not and will never be perfect. It is up to us to be reasonable, not let others destroy our way of life so we can all be perfectly “free”. And in the meantime it's up to those drawing a check for protecting our travel to do their damn jobs.
should be “not allowed to drive with a bottle”.
(insert lackacoffee excuse here)
I would be willing to pay an extra fee, say up to $100 (I want to pee, when I want to), for a flight guaranteeing only all-full-body scan passengers and luggage. This should not raise the ire of the ACLU since it is available to all. An alternative would be the All Security Possible Airways (ASPA).
The Dutch article really is just stating the obvious. In the US we have been debating the right balance between security vs personal liberties since 9/11.
No one can reasonably expect 100% safety. In this case though there appeared to be numerous red flags and criticism of the screening process is warranted.
Thank you for repeating exactly what I said in a way that you could hear it!
I disagree with you and DaMav on this one.
The freedoms you have remain. If you want to “safely” ride on PUBLIC transportation, there is never a guarantee. There is no guarantee that a guy on a city bus will not pull out an Uzi and mow down his fellow passengers. There is no guarantee that a mother of five won't pull her minivan into your lane of traffic that causes a ten-car pile-up. Likewise, there is no guarantee of safe flight.
Our government should work to make these transportation media more secure, but it will never be totally safe – from neglegence, terrorists, or any other threat.
If they wish to place all cleared passengers into explosion-proof body pods that prohibits contact with other passengers or access to anything else, that's just fine. The cartoon above is yet another option. Is it limiting our freedom. Absolutely not. You have the freedom to keep your butt home and on the ground – or to drive instead of fly (a better alternative anyway). Flying is not a right.
There is another answer to this problem.
Prohibit international entry for any plane departing from an airport that does not meet OUR security standards. If the Dutch don't want to implement scanning, then the Dutch do not come to America.
“An alternative would be the All Security Possible Airways (ASPA).”
That airline already exists and it is called EL AL. In addition to the physical screening techniques, you are also subject to an interview that is fairly intense.
At Heathrow, you can tell where the EL AL planes are parked at night because they roll in a set of portable stadium lights and have their own security crew walking around 24/7.
All of it certainly costs a few bucks more, but is certainly replicable by any other airline or airport.
I know, wish they had a broader network.