Tuesday, January 5, 2010 - 9:59 PM

Tongue firmly in cheek, Notre Dame political scientist Michael Desch offers this Swiftian solution to the threat of another underpants bomber:
How we can most cost effectively respond to the underwear bomber? I think that I have finally come up with the solution. Now that extraordinary rendition is in retirement, we've put all these CIA proprietary airlines out of business. We could just turn over the airlines to them and we'd have absolutely perfect security.
Here's how: a flight would begin with every passenger stripped and water-boarded. Then they would all be given those orange jumpsuits, blacked out goggles, and adult diapers, which eliminate the need for in-flight service, video entertainment, and bathroom breaks during the flight. Finally, all flights would be to "undisclosed locations" so any terrorist who got through the system would have no idea when to light his or her BVDs on fire.
In addition to the finally achieving absolute airline security, we'd also keep an important part of the defense industrial base in business at the same time. Do you happen to have Janet Napolitano's email?"
As for me, I guess I'm relieved that my next plane flight is on British Airways, where presumably the danger of water boarding is nil. On the other hand, I lost my luggage the last two times I went through Heathrow, so even Desch's proposal won't solve all our problems.
Umm...you all know that we're still doing extraordinary rendition, right?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html
I guess we should expect these types of comments from major media outlets. Anytime airport security has been enhanced as a result of a terrorist incident- or a reasonable terrorist threat- Americans steadfastly supportive of the privacy clause will jump to the forefront and criticize the additional security measures. It is only natural; Americans are not exactly comfortable with full body-screening and improvised explosives-testing. But at a time when terrorist organizations are consistently innovating their techniques in the hopes of a successful attack, how else are we supposed to respond?
It is not like the U.S. Government will actually wise up and implement policies that will actually work in the War on Terrorism (a.k.a. military, diplomatic, and economic support to hotbeds of Islamic extremism). Almost a decade after September 11, we still do not understand what causes terrorism in the long run and why Islamic fundamentalism persists after preemptive wars and air-strikes.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
Follow me on twitter @mideastblogger
Big protest in Britain over body screens of children.
What do you expect,,,BETTER VERSION
I guess we should expect these types of comments from major media outlets. Anytime airport security has been enhanced as a result of a terrorist incident- or a reasonable terrorist threat- Americans steadfastly supportive of the privacy clause will jump to the forefront and criticize the additional security measures. It is only natural; Americans are not exactly comfortable with full body-screening and improvised explosives-testing. But at a time when terrorist organizations are consistently innovating their techniques in the hopes of a successful attack, how else are we supposed to respond?
It is not like the U.S. Government will wise up anytime soon and implement policies that will actually work in the War on Terrorism (a.k.a. pouring military, diplomatic, and economic support into areas considered hotbeds of Islamic extremism). Almost a decade after September 11, we still do not understand what causes terrorism in the long run and why Islamic fundamentalism persists after preemptive wars and air-strikes.
We obviously need a heavy security presence in our nation's airports. But I suspect that the billions of dollars now being spent on defensive technology would be better spent on destroying terrorism at its roots. This seems like a more cost-effective way, then say waterboarding every passenger that sets foot on an airplane.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
Follow me on twitter @mideastblogger
The Guardian wrote a piece on the Manchester Airport trial here.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(5)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE