Airport screening: is low-tech best?

As an update to my recent post about the conventional response to the latest foiled terrorist plot -- further inconveniencing and invading the privacy of airline passengers, something that is invasive, expensive and mostly ineffective, but highly visible so the authorities can say they are "doing something" -- here's a post by Michael Zantovsky, former press secretary to Vaclav Havel and Czech ambassador to the U.S. and elsewhere. He notes that for would-be bombers with a modicum of ingenuity the possibilities are almost endless, while the possible solution, especially the technological ones, the defenses are expensive and hardly guaranteed to succeed. Money quote:

"There are countless ways to disguise, smuggle through, and assemble an explosive. One thing that cannot be easily disguised is the bomber’s mind, high on adrenaline, racing with doubts, insane with fear and hatred. Experience in countries better left unnamed shows that an airport security team of interviewers, trained to look for signs, symptoms, evasions, inconsistencies, and deceptions can do the job faster, less expensively and more effectively than any piece of hardware. Technology is still employed but not relied upon for infallibility."

I'm pretty sure the "left unnamed" country he has in mind is Israel. When I flew there the security was pretty painstaking and included at least a short interview with every passenger. Mildly uncomfortable but hardly unbearable. And for my money much less degrading than a full body scam, er, scan.

Why didn't Obama acknowledge citizen action?

I still think Obama adopted just about the right tone in his little talk about the undie bomber the other day. However, the word is that in the private meeting with his advisers he chewed them out and made it clear that the gummint had dodged a bullet largely because of citizens rather than the government. Too bad he didn't acknowledge this in his public talk. It almost seems as if he regrets spopntaneous action by ordinary citizens rather than celebrating it. If the government continues to act as if only the government can fix terrorism it will never be fixed -- well, maybe not never since terrorist activity almost always dies out after a while.

And of course, he's not close to taking the single most effec tive step toward safeguarding Americans, which would be to withdrawal military personnel from all Muslim countries as quickly as possible. But the commitment to "fixing" the world, which not only puts military people in harm's way but increases the danger to ordinary Americans, comes way ahead of what all presidents claim is their main duty, protecting the Amertican people from harm.