Schneier on Security
A blog covering security and security technology.
« Security at Kennedy Space Center |
| Perpetual Doghouse: Meganet »
June 14, 2007
Portrait of the Modern Terrorist as an Idiot
The recently publicized terrorist plot to blow up John F. Kennedy
International Airport, like so many of the terrorist plots over the
past few years, is a study in alarmism and incompetence: on the part of
the terrorists, our government and the press.
Terrorism is a real threat, and one that needs to be addressed by
appropriate means. But allowing ourselves to be terrorized by wannabe
terrorists and unrealistic plots -- and worse, allowing our essential
freedoms to be lost by using them as an excuse -- is wrong.
The alleged plan, to blow up JFK's fuel tanks and a small segment of the 40-mile petroleum pipeline that supplies the airport, was ridiculous.
The fuel tanks are thick-walled, making them hard to damage. The
airport tanks are separated from the pipelines by cutoff valves, so
even if a fire broke out at the tanks, it would not back up into the
pipelines. And the pipeline couldn't blow up in any case, since there's
no oxygen to aid combustion. Not that the terrorists ever got to the
stage -- or demonstrated that they could get there -- where they
actually obtained explosives. Or even a current map of the airport's
But read what Russell Defreitas, the lead terrorist, had to say:
"Anytime you hit Kennedy, it is the most hurtful thing to the United
States. To hit John F. Kennedy, wow.... They love JFK -- he's like the
man. If you hit that, the whole country will be in mourning. It's like
you can kill the man twice."
If these are the terrorists we're fighting, we've got a pretty incompetent enemy.
You couldn't tell that from the press reports, though. "The
devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just
unthinkable," U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf said at a news conference, calling it "one of the most chilling plots imaginable." Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) added, "It had the potential to be another 9/11."
These people are just as deluded as Defreitas.
The only voice of reason out there seemed to be New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who said:
"There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a
heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about
everything. Get a life.... You have a much greater danger of being hit
by lightning than being struck by a terrorist."
And he was widely excoriated for it.
This isn't the first time a bunch of incompetent terrorists with an
infeasible plot have been painted by the media as poised to do all
sorts of damage to America. In May we learned about a six-man plan to
stage an attack on Fort Dix
by getting in disguised as pizza deliverymen and shooting as many
soldiers and Humvees as they could, then retreating without losses to
fight again another day. Their plan, such as it was, went awry when
they took a videotape of themselves at weapons practice to a store for
duplication and transfer to DVD. The store clerk contacted the police,
who in turn contacted the FBI. (Thank you to the video store clerk for
not overreacting, and to the FBI agent for infiltrating the group.)
The "Miami 7," caught last year for plotting -- among other things --
to blow up the Sears Tower, were another incompetent group: no weapons, no bombs, no expertise, no money and no operational skill. And don't forget Iyman Faris,
the Ohio trucker who was convicted in 2003 for the laughable plot to
take out the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch. At least he eventually
decided that the plan was unlikely to succeed.
I don't think these nut jobs, with their movie-plot threats, even deserve
the moniker "terrorist." But in this country, while you have to be
competent to pull off a terrorist attack, you don't have to be
competent to cause terror. All you need to do is start plotting an
attack and -- regardless of whether or not you have a viable plan,
weapons or even the faintest clue -- the media will aid you in terrorizing the entire population.
The most ridiculous JFK Airport-related story goes to the New York Daily News, with its interview with a waitress who served Defreitas salmon; the front-page headline blared, "Evil Ate at Table Eight."
Following one of these abortive terror misadventures, the
administration invariably jumps on the news to trumpet whatever
ineffective "security" measure they're trying to push, whether it be national ID cards, wholesale National Security Agency eavesdropping or massive data mining.
Never mind that in all these cases, what caught the bad guys was
old-fashioned police work -- the kind of thing you'd see in decades-old
The administration repeatedly credited the apprehension of Faris to the NSA's warrantless eavesdropping programs, even though it's just not true. The 9/11 terrorists were no different; they succeeded partly because the FBI and CIA didn't follow the leads before the attacks.
Even the London liquid bombers were caught through traditional
investigation and intelligence, but this doesn't stop Secretary of
Homeland Security Michael Chertoff from using them to justify (.pdf) access to airline passenger data.
Of course, even incompetent terrorists can cause damage. This has
been repeatedly proven in Israel, and if shoe-bomber Richard Reid had
been just a little less stupid and ignited his shoes in the lavatory,
he might have taken out an airplane.
So these people should be locked up ... assuming they are actually
guilty, that is. Despite the initial press frenzies, the actual details
of the cases frequently turn out to be far less damning. Too often it's
unclear whether the defendants are actually guilty, or if the police
created a crime where none existed before.
The JFK Airport plotters seem to have been egged on by an informant, a twice-convicted drug dealer. An FBI informant almost certainly pushed the Fort Dix plotters to do things they wouldn't have ordinarily done. The Miami gang's Sears Tower plot was suggested
by an FBI undercover agent who infiltrated the group. And in 2003, it
took an elaborate sting operation involving three countries to arrest an arms dealer
for selling a surface-to-air missile to an ostensible Muslim extremist.
Entrapment is a very real possibility in all of these cases.
The rest of them stink of exaggeration. Jose Padilla was not actually prepared
to detonate a dirty bomb in the United States, despite histrionic
administration claims to the contrary. Now that the trial is
proceeding, the best the government can charge him with is conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim,
and it seems unlikely that the charges will stick. An alleged
ringleader of the U.K. liquid bombers, Rashid Rauf, had charges of
terrorism dropped for lack of evidence (of the 25 arrested, only 16 were charged). And now it seems like the JFK mastermind was more talk than action, too.
Remember the "Lackawanna Six,"
those terrorists from upstate New York who pleaded guilty in 2003 to
"providing support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization"?
They entered their plea because they were threatened with being removed
from the legal system altogether. We have no idea if they were actually
guilty, or of what.
Even under the best of circumstances, these are difficult
prosecutions. Arresting people before they've carried out their plans
means trying to prove intent, which rapidly slips into the province of
thought crime. Regularly the prosecution uses obtuse religious
literature in the defendants' homes to prove what they believe, and
this can result in courtroom debates on Islamic theology. And then
there's the issue of demonstrating a connection between a book on a
shelf and an idea in the defendant's head, as if your reading of this
article -- or purchasing of my book -- proves that you agree with everything I say. (The Atlantic recently published a fascinating article on this.)
I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the facts in any of
these cases. None of us do. So let's have some healthy skepticism.
Skepticism when we read about these terrorist masterminds who were
poised to kill thousands of people and do incalculable damage.
Skepticism when we're told that their arrest proves that we need to
give away our own freedoms and liberties. And skepticism that those
arrested are even guilty in the first place.
There is a real threat of terrorism. And while I'm all in favor of
the terrorists' continuing incompetence, I know that some will prove
more capable. We need real security that doesn't require us to guess
the tactic or the target:
intelligence and investigation -- the very things that caught all these
terrorist wannabes -- and emergency response. But the "war on terror"
rhetoric is more politics than rationality. We shouldn't let the politics of fear make us less safe.
This essay originally appeared on Wired.com.
EDITED TO ADD (6/14): Another essay on the topic.
Posted on June 14, 2007 at 08:28 AM
Digg this • Add to del.icio.us • Technorati: 134 links to this item
To receive these entries once a month by e-mail, sign up for the Crypto-Gram Newsletter.
The alleged plan, to blow up JFK's fuel tanks and a small segment of
the 40-mile petroleum pipeline that supplies the airport, was
ridiculous. The fuel tanks are thick-walled, making them hard to
damage. The airport tanks are separated from the pipelines by cutoff
valves, so even if a fire broke out at the tanks, it would not back up
into the pipelines. And the pipeline couldn't blow up in any case,
since there's no oxygen to aid combustion.
Everybody stand down, a security, terrorism and explosives expert determines existing terrorists no longer a threat to U. S.
Posted by: Cryptogaphy Expert at June 14, 2007 08:38 AM
For some reason, the Wired editors deleted the links to the people who said that the JFK plot was rediculous.
I just put two of them back; I don't have time right now to find all the others.
I didn't find any expert who said that the plot was feasible.
But I never intended to say that I had the expertise to pass judgment on the feasibility of the plot.
(Damned Wired editors.)
Posted by: Bruce Schneier at June 14, 2007 08:55 AM
Perhaps it says more about how "our government and the press" regard
the intelegence and attention span of the U.S. (and U.K.) public in
Posted by: Clive Robinson at June 14, 2007 09:00 AM
According to press reports, the plotters were fully cognizant of the
problems with oxygenation and with penetrating the tanks, and were
researching how to overcome them.
It's physically possible to blow the tanks. Kerosene is inflammable.
A competent noncom from Fort Bragg with access to C4 could easily have
the entire place in flames.
As for the purported motives of the terrorists, they may have been
misguided in the particulars, but they were correct in that blowing the
tanks would have been in fact a huge strike.
This isn't a "movie plot" threat. This is "head in the sand' reaction to a real threat.
I remind you of the tiny little error that the French resistance
made during the last days of Nazi occupation, also regarding fuel
lines, also difficult to do, also a "movie plot' threat, but one that
resulted in serious damage to Paris.
Posted by: Moshe Yudkowsky at June 14, 2007 09:07 AM
Thank God. A rational view at last. Now if only you and Bloomberg could make policy...
This government as a business seems to have produced agencies that fight for territory like drug pushers
Posted by: hawk at June 14, 2007 09:09 AM
The "movie plot" aspect of this potential attack isn't that it's
physically possible, but that it wasn't remotely close to being
realized. It was more at the stage of "let's do lunch" than mounting an
actual production, basically. That the media and more than a few
politicians happily jumped at the opportunity to fearmonger their
reading and voting audience is something to be expected at this point,
although Bloomberg is a notable exception.
Posted by: David Wilford at June 14, 2007 09:15 AM
@Moshe, access to C4 (or ANFO) is only part of the requirements,
access to the target or a delivery system are another, and one that
seems nonexistent in these plans.
I think we need to take a realistic view, there are threats and that
needs to be taken seriously, but every half baked moron who comes along
doesn't. Problem is distingushing the credible threats from the
Another problem is that the powers that be are best served by
continually whipping up hysteria about the threats, as a way of
motivating compliance with their own half-baked schemes to counter the
Counter terrorism is as much a threat to our liberties as terrorism, it's just a different attack vector.
Posted by: guvn'r at June 14, 2007 09:39 AM
Well written, and totally rational (as ever). How can we get US/UK governments to come round to your way of thinking?
Posted by: Ian M at June 14, 2007 09:43 AM
"Following one of these abortive terror misadventures, the
administration invariably jumps on the news to trumpet whatever
ineffective "security" measure they're trying to push... Even the
London liquid bombers were caught through traditional investigation and
intelligence, but this doesn't stop Secretary of Homeland Security
Michael Chertoff from using them to justify (.pdf) access to airline
Oh, the "Liquid Explosives" case had much more dire and ridiculous
securocratic consequences than mere justification for privacy invasion.
The explosives that the idiot terrorists were alleged to plan to mix on
board turned out to be either insanely difficult or actually impossible
to prep outside a chem lab with chilled mixing vessels and fume hoods.
Any attempt to do so in an aircraft lavatory would have resulted in a
hilarious own-goal, not a downed aircraft.
But TSA had been lobbying for years to ban liquids, presumably on
the "better safe than sorry principle" that regularly displaces actual
cost-benefit analyses in anti-terror security. So when the UK cops'
investigation of the idiots was outed, they seized their chance, and
now when boarding aircraft, we ritualistically stuff our microscopic
quotas of shampoo and toothpaste into ziplock bags, for no apparent
Posted by: Carlo Graziani at June 14, 2007 09:59 AM
From the investors.com link about Bloomberg:
"America's founding fathers warned that eternal vigilance is the
price of liberty, but in the 21st century it may very well become the
price of life, too."
This is, thus, saying that eternal vigilance is the price of life,
which I'm not sure is what the author of that piece wants to say.
Posted by: anti-sophistry at June 14, 2007 10:10 AM
"A competent noncom from Fort Bragg" is a professional soldier from
US military's elite special ops division, with tens, if not hundreds of
thousands of government dollars spent in training, and likely years of
action around the globe putting this training to use (possibly blowing
up fuel tanks in places like Colombia). I readily agree that such
noncom could quite conceivably blow up fuel tanks of pretty much any
airport in this world, JFK included; but claiming that a wannabe
criminal would have the same abilities as an elite soldier makes a poor
argument. Also, access to C4 is not too easy as well (a pure
speculation on my part, I admit) if you are a civilian criminal, as
opposed to member of covert ops military team.
Posted by: Algirdas at June 14, 2007 10:10 AM
We're showing just how Strong we can be in the face of this horrific War on terrorism. Guess we'll tackle Freedom soon, too.
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
Posted by: Winston Smith at June 14, 2007 10:27 AM
The people in our government who over-emphasize ridiculous threats
ARE TERRORISTS. They are using terror for political gain. They are
collaborating with the people they claim to oppose.
And yay for Mayor Bloomberg.
Posted by: Jef Poskanzer at June 14, 2007 10:41 AM
The only real thing that bothers me here is that if our Homeland
Security folks get wind of two plots, one real and one a wannabe, with
resources to tackle only one of the two, which will it be? I fear they
would opt for the wannabe plot because it is easier.
Posted by: kashmarek at June 14, 2007 10:50 AM
"Entrapment of Terrorists" .. what an idea .. I thought only politicians were subject to inducement with bribes and sex.
Bruce .. get a life .. If I came to you and offered you money and
fame (ok .. not fame) would you consider blowing up Sears Tower?
Agreed that this JFK plot was unlikely to cause much damage .. but
even a bad attempt would have been far more expensive than putting up
with "evil ate at eight"
I read your blog for science .. but you have a real issue of trust
in the "good" side .. may be reading too many attacks in the middle has
ruined your gut.
Posted by: sooth_sayer at June 14, 2007 11:09 AM
"You couldn't tell that from the press reports, though. "The
devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just
unthinkable," U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf said at a news
conference, calling it "one of the most chilling plots imaginable."
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) added, "It had the potential to be
I saw Ms. Mauskopf on local TV here in NY city and I was thinking
what a total dolt she was for spreading that ridiculous FUD about the
possible "devastation" that was aborted. Since I used to work in the
field around high pressure natural gas lines and I currently work on
systems that monitor these pipelines in the NY metro area I have a
pretty good idea about what threats of this nature are feasible and
what is a bunch of crap.
Kudos to Mayor Bloomberg, I can't believe I'm writing this! :-), for
being a voice on reason on this issue and maybe former mayor, and now
presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani can also stop the
terror-mongering but if he did that what else could he run on?
Posted by: BrooklynGasGuy at June 14, 2007 11:13 AM
I agree with general theme that our approaches are often misguided, and that it is too often CYA and theatre.
One thing I will say in defense of our government, though, is that,
sadly, our system too often encourages CYA and theatre. 9/11 was almost
unimaginable to most people, yet it was demanded to know why the dots
weren't connected, hearings held, etc. Then when the government tries
to connect the dots, often wrongly I might add, they are in trouble for
that as well. Part of it is our two parties always trying to take each
other down for anything they can. Part of it an expectation for the
government to somehow have a perfect record at preventing some things
that just can't reasonably be prevented without the cost to
liberties--a cost that is often far too great considering the
If we want liberties protected, when something happens we need to be
reasonable in assessing it, not just why it happened, but if it were
reasonable to be prevented without too much power.
If we are going to make unreasonable claims that somehow all dots
should be connected, then we must be ready to live with a government
having more power.
Let's not put our government in a no win situation. We shouldn't ask
for one thing, or vote for another, and then complain when we get that.
I think Bruce's approach would be best. Given the current risks,
those are the best trade-offs. But if we want it to happen, we need to
not apply unreastic expectations to government. We must accept great
risk to security, or greater risk to liberty. We can't pick one then
ding our opponents over the other.
Posted by: Sez Me at June 14, 2007 11:19 AM
Implausible movie plot threat conjured up by half-baked idiot =>
media hype to help increase the ratings and ad revenue =>
self-serving politicians who play up the slightest threat to keep us
all scared into voting for them => paranoid citizens who take it all
at face value and think the sky is about to fall, again => LOTS AND
LOTS OF TERROR.
Rinse and repeat, until someone with sufficient authority FINALLY
breaks the cycle and we start focusing on and protecting against actual
real plausible threats from well-organized enemies, instead of getting
our panties in a knot over plots which belong on "America's Dumbest
I mean for God's sake, the real terrorists don't have to lift a
finger to terrorize us, when we're obviously quite capable of doing it
all by ourselves.
The terrorists WANT us to live in fear, and that's exactly what
people are doing. The bad guys are winning, the media and the
Republican party for the most part are helping that to happen. Way to
You know what else? As far as reacting to real and present threats
goes, if Bush & co. had listened to the intelligence people back in
mid-2001, and had done some basic connect-the-dots work, if they'd
cried "wolf!" back then when there was PLAUSIBLE THREAT, maybe there'd
be almost 3000 people NOT dead today and we wouldn't be knee-jerking to
everything that even looks a little like it could be a terror plot in
the making while our freedom washes away.
Posted by: Disgusted with this nonsense at June 14, 2007 11:22 AM
My favorite part of the "Miami 7" Al-Qaeda wannabes was their shopping list which included UNIFORMS.
Talk about not having a clue.
Posted by: Rich at June 14, 2007 11:27 AM
Right on! :)
One of your best articles ever!
(One of the others is, of course, "Refuse to be Terrorized" which I hope someone makes into a tshirt soon.)
I would like to humbly suggest that your next book be called
"Security Theater" and show how some of the movie plot threats
submitted by your readers would be far more effective than the plots of
the bands of idiots our government calls terrorists.
Or, alternately, you could show that the things that government does
in reaction to "terrorism" are more dangerous than the what the
"terrorists" actually try to do.
Posted by: bzelbob at June 14, 2007 11:32 AM
I think a big part of the hype here is that the average American has
absolutely no idea how safe jet fuel is under everyday conditions. I
work for a company that makes jet engine test facilities, and have
often been at a test cell when engines are being tested. If there's
small fuel spill, it's no big deal -- the stuff's just not very
volatile. It just sits there.
On. The. Floor.
In. A. Pool.
Eventually, someone gets around to cleaning it up. But only after
they've finished adjusting the pressure line they're working on, and
grabbed a drink of water.
Posted by: Lee Short at June 14, 2007 11:54 AM
How can you say they are incompetent? They have an entire nations
shitting themselves and wasting tens of millions of dollars everytime
someone sneezes... they have the citizens of those same nations so
worried about things that are unlikely to happen that people are
willing to blindly forfiet their rights and freedoms, and are so
paranoid everyone is reporting everyone else for the least little
I'd say they are pretty competent...
Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 12:56 PM
"...the average American has absolutely no idea how safe jet fuel is under everyday conditions."
I remember back in the days when the SR-71 was in service, you would
almost ALWAYS see a puddle of fuel under the tanks. Because the
airplane actually grew in size during flight (the intense heat caused
the metal to expand), the thing was riddled with "expansion joints",
some of which let fuel leak through.
The stuff was so safe, you couldn't set it off with a cigarette
lighter! It had to be - otherwise the USAF would *never* have let one
of those very expensive airplanes leak fuel all over the place.
Posted by: Ed T. at June 14, 2007 12:58 PM
Fuel storage can and does explode - see the Buncefield Oil Storage
Depot Report (http://www.buncefieldinvestigation.gov.uk/index.htm)
However, I would be amazed if NY didn't have an emergency plan in
place to deal with a major incident involving the fuel storage or the
Posted by: Geoff Lane at June 14, 2007 12:59 PM
@Geoff -- The fuel tank that combusted at Buncefield is listed as
"unleaded motor fuel" rather than jet fuel. It's possible that jet fuel
could explode like that but vaporization of jet fuel requires a poorly
designed or maintained tank or a system where it is under significant
pressure (as in an operating aircraft).
Posted by: Lee Short at June 14, 2007 01:15 PM
@kashmarek: "I fear they would opt for the wannabe plot because it is easier."
Not only because it is easier. Also because the success of the real
plot would give another very tangible boost to the level of paranoia.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2007 01:24 PM
@sooth_sayer: "Bruce .. get a life .. If I came to you and offered
you money and fame (ok .. not fame) would you consider blowing up Sears
Well, what do you mean by "consider"? I would certainly both
consider and plan such an activity as part of a modern-setting
role-playing game. I can think of several thousand other gamers who
Therein lies the rub. You could easily record lots of "damning"
dialog, and even find documentation of the planning - but it would all
have been part of a game.
I'm willing to bet that cagey use of a recorder in an FBI
training-session, in which one "team" were acting as terrorists, could
produce similar evidence.
Without more-concrete physical evidence, this sort of stuff means NOTHING!
Posted by: X the Unknown at June 14, 2007 01:31 PM
"I remember back in the days when the SR-71 was in service, you
would almost ALWAYS see a puddle of fuel under the tanks ... The stuff
was so safe, you couldn't set it off with a cigarette lighter!"
A minor quibble: the fuel used by the SR-71 was not like normal
avaition fuel. It was much more viscous substance that required heating
by pumping it around the airframe that was hot from air friction to get
it to burn efficiently. I think normal aviation fuel burns very well.
The crews that maintained the aircraft enjoyed showing new pilots
their planes, which did indeed leak fuel into trays on the floor, just
to see the pilot's reaction.
Posted by: Spotter at June 14, 2007 01:35 PM
@bzelbob" "Or, alternately, you could show that the things that
government does in reaction to "terrorism" are more dangerous than the
what the "terrorists" actually try to do."
Or, as part of the "Security Theater" book, you could calmly and
explicitly define Terrorism as something like "...causing public terror
in order to make the people pressure the government into acting a
certain way..." - and then accuse both the major media outlets and most
government officials of being Terrorists!
Posted by: X the Unknown at June 14, 2007 01:39 PM
I believe that there are many types of "Jet Fuel". Some, for
high-performance military jets, might be very combustible or even
potentially explosive. Commercial jets, on the other hand, use whatever
is cheapest, and tune their turbines to burn that as efficiently as
Last I checked (which was over a decade ago, I'll admit), this meant commercial "Jet Fuel" was basically kerosene.
Posted by: X the Unknown at June 14, 2007 01:45 PM
There may be a pattern here. People aren't so easily scared anymore,
9-11 is wearing thin. So certain groups come up with these ridiculous
terror plots - fully knowing that they are ridiculous for they are
designed to be ridiculous. But then they hit again with a 'real' one
and everybody is back to square (scare?) one. But something has
changed. From now on no one will ever take a terror scare lightly - no
matter how ridiculous it is: "Remember the last time we made fun of
these bungling wanna-be terrorists". And now you can go ahead and
hollow out ANY AND EVERY part of the constitution you want. The sheeple
will practically demand it from the politicians. They'll beg that
they'd be kept under constant surveillance and that the police be given
all the rights in the world to stop those damned terrorists. Mission
Posted by: Coalition of the Drilling at June 14, 2007 01:47 PM
re: the lasting impact of the 'liquid bomb' plot
I pray daily that there isn't a terrorist somewhere elaborating a
plot (real or facetious) whereby explosives are dissimulated in
trousers and underwear, because if such a plot is ever discovered air
travel will REALLY become unpleasant...
Posted by: CleverShark at June 14, 2007 01:53 PM
I am happy to say that I agree with Bruce that a lot of "terrorist" attackers are rather dim Walter Mitty types.
Less happily, I also recall reading about a professional simulated
terrorist attack against an unnamed airport fuel depot in "Spies Among
Us" by Ira Winkler. The penetration testers were ex Special Operations
soldiers who successfully smuggled a fake bomb onto a fuel tanker that
was heading into the fuel depot. Although the expertise of the
penetration testers was unusually good, their methods and equipment
were very straightforward and low-tech. It is possible that future
terror attackers will be a bit smarter.
Meanwhile we are humiliated by pointless airport security restrictions ...
Posted by: Spotter at June 14, 2007 01:53 PM
As Keith Olbermann has exhaustively demonstrated
The Bush Administration uncovers one of these "terrorist plots"
everytime the news is inconvenient for them (I'm waiting for today's
distract-the-public story following Judge Walton's announcement that
Libby should go to jail).
The people who insist that we must STFU and do whatever the
President says are simply cowards, so terrified of the remote chance of
terrorism that they're willing to put aside reason and the Constitution
and cower wherever and whenever they are told to.
Courage is standing up in the face of terror; Patriotism is supporting the Constitution.
Posted by: Albatross at June 14, 2007 01:55 PM
Yes, they discovered a while ago that crying wolf wasn't enough, so
instead they farm for idiots and low-hanging fruit with no funding and
no brains. They look for chatter and home in on it, add agent
provacateur and ding, fries are done and on the front page.
The news they were trying to hide in this particular case was the
forced resignation of Tim Griffin, Karl Rove's right hand man, because
the House Judiciary Committee was getting a little too close to finding
out about the games that were played with Florida's votes during the
2004 election. More here:
Any time anybody gets close to being able to indict a core member of
the Bush administration, especially Cheney or Rove, one of these easily
contrived "foiled terrorist attacks" hits the front pages.
It gets to the point where it's a good idea to check Der Spiegel,
the International Herald Tribune and trusted liberal blogs to find out
what news they're trying to hide every time they come up with another
pack of killer clowns. One key hint is the look on Mauskopf's face.
What is she smirking about? I thought the only people who thought there
was anything funny about terrorism would be the terrorists. Unless, of
course, the joke is on the gullible American public...
Posted by: Trichinosis USA at June 14, 2007 04:10 PM
This article is kindof the article in the new york times, you know
august 2001, about how there really wasn't any danger in allowing
plastic cutter knives on to planes.
We all know how that one turned out. You seem to want a repeat.
And let's not forget what these muslims do when they're sufficiently in the majority :
Why do we keep silent on muslims teaching their children that "all
non muslims are vile beasts" (quran 8:55) ? To be killed in ambushes
(9:5) and constantly fought (9:123).
Oh and obviously telling their children they'll go to hell unless they kill an unbeliever (9:111).
Why don't you look up what we're dealing with for once, and actually
take a look at the problem. At the justice systems in countries like
Iran and Pakistan, or even Palestine (a FAMILY got executed for one man
selling land to ... a Jew !).
Thousands of people ecstatic in the street because Americans died.
And then clarify how we secure ourselves against a "tiny minority"
of 1-30% of 1 billion people. Because I'd be very interested in your
security evaluation on that little detail.
Posted by: A at June 14, 2007 04:39 PM
here and there i expect to see stupid people but yes sir i do think
the article is great and as New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg , who
said: "There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the
threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and
worry about everything. Get a life.... You have a much greater danger
of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist."
Why do we keep silent on Muslims teaching their children that "all
non Muslims are vile beasts" (quran 8:55) ? To be killed in ambushes
(9:5) and constantly fought (9:123).
wow it seem like the bible with it history of bloodsheding is forgotten
but as always you can only see what you want to see.
Posted by: noteworse at June 14, 2007 06:54 PM
The thing I'm still wondering about this latest plot is when,
exactly, did the FBI informant come into contact with the terrorists?
When did the FBI become aware of the terrorists and their plot?
Think about it for a moment. There aren't that many scenarios.
#1. The FBI became aware of the terrorists and recruited the
informant to infiltrate their organization. How did the FBI become
aware of them? Why did they choose that informant?
#2. The FBI became aware of the terrorists after the informant had
made contact with the terrorists. Was it because the informant told the
FBI about them? If so, were incentives offered to that informant?
Money? Reduced sentence?
Personally, and without any other information that has been
presented, I'm leaning towards the second scenario. The petty criminal
was talking to a crazy old man with revenge fantasies. When the
criminal was busted on some charge, he bargained to turn over the
terrorists in exchange for his freedom. But to do that, he needs to
keep prodding them.
Posted by: Brandioch Conner at June 14, 2007 07:09 PM
Clear thinking. I thought that was extinct. What a pleasure to see it in the wild.
Posted by: xoc at June 14, 2007 09:41 PM
&;This article is kindof the article in the new york times, you
know august 2001, about how there really wasn't any danger in allowing
plastic cutter knives on to planes. We all know how that one turned
out. You seem to want a repeat."
I suspect this is a troll, but just in case anybody reads and believes it....
The 9/11 hijackers used box cutters, not plastic knives, which are
still available on airplanes today, as are aluminum beverage cans which
can be easily transformed into improvised knives.
However, the main element in the 9/11 attack was the passenger's
acceptance of the hijacking because, let's face it, five guys armed
with box cutters versus fifty people armed with nothing much, we know
who wins that one. (And we know who won that one, over Pennsylvania.)
It will not happen again, and as such these items are now safe.
Posted by: Michael Ash at June 14, 2007 09:41 PM
"Why don't you look up what we're dealing with for once, and actually
take a look at the problem. At the justice systems in countries like
... Pakistan ..."
*pssst* Dude? The Pakistanis are our _allies_ now. You have to say nice things about them. Did you not get the memo?
Posted by: Jon Sowden at June 14, 2007 11:36 PM
In your book, you mention the odds of being struck by lightning is 1
in 9 billion per day. When I take 12 million people give them a
lifespan of 60 years, then multiply that with the number of days for 60
years and then divide that by the number of victims in the WTC, I get
less odds than that. Mayor What'shisname is wrong. BTW my odds of being
in the WTC were 1 in 36, (two dicerolls/snakeeyes) much much less than
the odds of being killed in the US by a automobile (1 in 88). All
references according to your book.
Posted by: PJ Philipp at June 15, 2007 01:02 AM
Bloomberg got it right. My God, an American politician making
sense?! It was that thought that saw Northern Ireland through 25 years
of terrorism - there are bigger risks. In the US, I'd worry much more
about being shot, flu or bee-stings.
Re: Buncefield, I believe that it was unleaded fuel that started the
fire - but there were many fuels there (including Diesel - I nearly got
stuck), and I'm fairly sure that it was one of the supplies for Luton
My grandfather, who worked on BP Tankers all his life, told me that
there are many grades of jet fuel - but they were always worried when
dealing with some American jet fuel. 'Course, that info is 30 years old
now, and he didn't say what planes the fuel was for - I'd expect that
most commercial jets run of the same stuff worldwide. And you'd expect
it to be pretty damn stable. He did say that some of the jet fuels were
Posted by: Andy B at June 15, 2007 03:51 AM
> It's physically possible to blow the tanks.
> Kerosene is inflammable.
Commercial aviation does not use kerosene (it's a rocket fuel). It
uses Jet Fuel A, which does not burn in the air until it is heated to
If you manage to create a puddle and heat some part of the puddle until
it is able to burn, the flame will eventually heat and consume the
rest. When you blow a tank, you get a deluge of cold fuel, so the fire
goes out, the heated portion being forcibly mixed with a large quantity
of cold stuff.
(Note that the dynamics of fire in enclosed spaces like aircraft fuel tanks is completely different - so they do blow up).
Posted by: averros at June 15, 2007 04:12 AM
The most telling aspect of all these purported plots is that there
was, in each case, an FBI stooge directing the activity of clueless
patsies, providing them with ideas and support. Without the FBI, these
people would certainly remain disgruntled morons with no recourse to
action. These villains are created by the FBI so the FBI can save us
from them. This is not a confidence-inspiring tactic.
Posted by: dave P at June 15, 2007 04:48 AM
The only plausible threat from liquids I ever heard explained is
that a group of plotters could separately take on board a bottle of
sodium cyanide solution and a strong acid, then mix them together on
It'd be sufficient to ask the people to taste each liquid they take on the plane, rather than ban liquids altogether.
Posted by: Richard at June 15, 2007 05:23 AM
You got it wrong. Using a limited time frame (say, 10 years), you
should compare the number of people in the US hit by lightning strike
in that time frame, and the number of people died in terrorists attacks.
Annually, there're about 1000 people injured by lightning strike,
and 10% of them died.* Even using the 10 years time frame, apparently
much more people are hit by lightning strike than killed by terrorists
in the US. Since terrorists attacks are rare, if you make the time
frame longer, lightning strikes win even more.
* data from http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/resources/Ltg%20Safety-Facts.pdf
Posted by: Anonymous at June 15, 2007 05:35 AM
Incompetent terrorists, whether egged on by government infiltrators
around the world or not, are succeeding - without ever directly causing
any damage or injury themselves.
How many pointless security processes and restrictions have been
implemented to fliers in the last few years ? I flew from London to
Frankfurt and back this week, for the first time in over a year, and
the very obvious "theatre" going on and the delays and the hightened
level of security-stress was simply too much. On the way back from
Frankfurt we had to go through two, yes, two identical security checks
with plenty of random and arbitrary checks on different parts of people
possesions and bodies. My understanding is that the liquid-bomber's
chemistry has been debunked and yet the restrictions still apply -
could this be because if they were removed then the power-that-be would
publicly have to say they got it wrong ? Preventing embarassment to our
governments and agencies appear to be a major driver in this whole
This is all succeeding in spreading fear, disruption and general
chaos. The terrorists, regardless of their mixed and differing agendas,
Posted by: Peter at June 15, 2007 05:40 AM
To be a terrorist in these days, you don't need to have weapons nor
be able to operate explosives, just a pen (or text editor), good
imagination and to be able to publish it. Then a whole country would be
frozen by terror.
Yes, the pen is mightier than the sword.
Posted by: hibernatus at June 15, 2007 05:40 AM
Your article persuasively expresses a distinction between being able
"to pull off a terrorist attack" and the mere ability "to cause
terror." Thank you for such thoughtful and incisive writing.
The only thing I would change is its title, which does not need the word "modern."
Posted by: mistersquid at June 15, 2007 06:53 AM
All you need to create 'terror' these days is to whip up a
Popeye-Sweetpea bomb with two cans of spinach and a dirty diaper. I kid
you not. Sigh.
Posted by: Art at June 15, 2007 07:58 AM
Something that doesn't get reported much about the last
few "terrorist plots" (Fort Dix, the JFK thing, the guys in New Jersey)
is that while they all may have wanted to blow things up and the
like... they were all being manipulated by the FBI. One of the Fort Dix
"terrorists" called the FBI to tell them that he was worried that
someone he knew (an FBI informer/plant) was offering maps of the base.
Thinking about something is not a crime, or all the writers and
role-playing gamers will have to be locked up right now. WHat is a
crime is for the FBI to manipluate people into a "conspiracy" and then
arrest them for it.
Posted by: Puma at June 15, 2007 07:59 AM
And don't forget the Detroit "terrorists." Not only were they
acquitted, but the US Attorney who prosecuted them is facing charges.
What appears to have happened is that they found some guys who
looked "interesting" and brought them in to squeeze them a bit and see
if anything came out. Unfortunately Ashcroft heard about it and did one
of their "terrorist conspiracy" announcements, and then the poor guys
in Detroit tried to construct enough of a case to avoid embarrassing
Posted by: Sarr at June 15, 2007 09:07 AM
@PJ, you are also conflating your particular retrospective
probability of having been in the WTC, with the general or even your
particular probability of being in a terrorist incident. E.g., I landed
on runway 2 left at LAX 2 minutes before the next plane which crashed
into a taxiing commuter jet. My odds of having been in that particular
accident are retrospectively high (a few seconds later departure and we
would have been the ones in the accident.) However, my odds of being in
a plane wreck are still microscopically small, AS EXHIBITED BY the fact
I wasn't in that wreck.
Posted by: DBH at June 15, 2007 09:30 AM
>How can you say they are incompetent? They have an entire nations shitting
>themselves and wasting tens of millions of dollars everytime someone sneezes...
Exactly. On 9/11 the attackers blew up two buildings and killed 2800 people.
The billions of dollars of damage to the US economy from shutting
down the airports for days? We did that. More billions from the
slowdown of the economy for years? We did that. Trillions lost to an
invasion of Iraq, thinking the locals were going to throw flowers at us
when we 'rescued' them? Us again. The loss of our national identity by
stripping ourselves of our own civil rights? Guilty as charged.
If I was a terrorist, I wouldn't even bother trying to blow anything
up. I would just make sure there's someone who *looks* like they're
trying to blow something up, at least once a week. The more outlandish
the plot, the better, so there will be more media coverage. Then we'll
screw ourselves, and the bad guys can laugh their asses off at how
stupid we are.
Posted by: Geno Z Heinlein at June 15, 2007 10:30 AM
It's not just that the current politics in the United States are
oriented towards a perspective that we are under constant threat of
terrorism, it's that there seems to be a fantastic desire for some of
these largely fanciful plots to be real. It's an embarrassment to the
notion of civilization that both the public and its appointed leaders
are unable to bring the threat of terrorism in line with other areas of
public policy. Anti-terrorism policy seems to live in its own universe,
where the idea of cost-benefit analysis is meaningless and irrelevant.
I work with and around the Port of Los Angeles, and their whole
reality has shifted to believe that they are ground zero for some
fantasy attack, who's very nature would be revolutionary and
unprecedented. It leeches into even the simplest of operations, and in
the most expensive ways. I strongly believe that there is an
intersection between crippling fears of liability on the part of
government and civic agencies and the violent persecution fantasies of
those in the pork barrel security establishment that is the primary
generator of our public security policy.
Posted by: Marshall at June 15, 2007 10:32 AM
I believe the mistake in the essay is believing this plot caused any
sort of terror. It didn't faze me in the least. I believe there are no
reports of anyone taking their kids out of school, changed any plans,
or stopped taking any trips on airplanes because of it.
On 9/11, when people didn't report to work in conspicuous places (such as say... Disney theme parks)... _that_ was terror.
So I believe it is plainly obvious the plot and its revelation caused no actual terror.
And yes, many of the "terrorists" we are fighting are complete
idiots. There's no other explanation for why the United States hasn't
suffered another major terrorist attack. I completely agree that
practically nothing has been done to prevent terrorism in this country,
other than do-nothing "security theater". Still, no attacks... maybe
the enemy is an idiot.
Finally, I think calling this arrest terrorizing or overreaction is
missing the point. These men were contemplating the targeting and
killing of civilians for no reason other than hating Americans (which
is the very definion of genocide). It doesn't matter that they are
morons. They were committing acts of conspiracy. Worse, it is
conspiracy to commit genocide. I have no problem with taking them out
Posted by: C Gomez at June 15, 2007 11:01 AM
At the very least, our government is acting like the boy who cried
"wolf". The fairly recent example of the "terrorist threat" at Fort
Dix, as I see it, plays out like this.
Some group of yahoos begging to be caught pays a commercial company to
duplicate tapes of them running around the countryside shouting "Jihad
on the nasty Americans" and shooting semi-automatic weapons.
The FBI follows them around for a YEAR and infiltrates their group waiting for them to do something dangerous
Eventually the FBI entraps them by setting them up with an arms deal sting when they need the bust.
It's all over the puppet news media for a few days and then forgotten about.
Sound like a threat to you? It certainly doesn't to me. Any real
terrorist with an automatic weapon could cause more damage in 10
minutes at the neighborhood mall than these idiots did with a year's
"planning". Every time they run one of these idiot cases up the
flagpole their credibility sinks lower and lower. Not much further down
they can go, at this point.
Does that mean there are no threats out there? Certainly not, but
either our government can't really tell us about the real cases (not
implausible) or there are no real cases (also not implausible). I tend
to believe that there are no real cases within the US, I went for the
"tip of the iceberg" idea once when Colin Powell stood in front of the
UN with evidence of WMD in Iraq. "Wow, I thought, that's pretty thin,
but that's just the stuff they can tell, the real stuff must be pretty
heavy for an honest man like Mr. Powell to be so worked up". I'm still
a little bitter about that, and, "fool me once, shame on me uhh, won't
get fooled again"
Posted by: Swampdog at June 15, 2007 11:22 AM
The "War on Terror" is a lie. It exists to suck money out of the US
Treasury as well as directly out of taxpayers' pockets. It exists to
maintain a sense of imminent emergency in the Persian Gulf to support
petroleum prices that are very likely 5 to 10 times their commercial
value based on actual production and transportation costs and a profit
similar to other industrial sectors. This even though only a fraction
of the oil we consume originates there. Will we end up paying $4/gal
for gasoline before the end of summer? How can that possibly be
We spend a gargantuan amount of money on "defense" already, and yet
all major presidential candidates and most legislators who wish to be
re-elected believe we need to spend even more. And yet, the average Joe
has to go deeply into debt in order to get a college education. Which
subsidy would be a better investment in our society's future?
We live in a quasi-military quasi-dictatorship led primarily by
defense, petroleum, and large engineering concerns, followed closely by
financial and media companies.
I could rant on, but you all know where I'm going with this.
Posted by: un pobre guey at June 15, 2007 11:43 AM
Good essay and I essentially agree. My only criticism is that I
think you let the public off the hook. The politicians and media
couldn't get away with this if we didn't let them, if at some level we
didn't accept it. It's like there's some significant % of the
population that wants the order that living in fear brings.
So, I'm glad you are part of the public that is trying to bring some reason to the discussion.
Posted by: .Shane. at June 15, 2007 11:54 AM
@A: "Why do we keep silent on muslims teaching their children that
"all non muslims are vile beasts" (quran 8:55) ? To be killed in
ambushes (9:5) and constantly fought (9:123)."
Rather than pointing out similar passages in, for instance, the bible, (cf http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleQuotes.htm), let's just remember that:
a. Contemporary religions tend to take such statements with a grain of salt;
b. Islam. Is. Not. One. Enormous. Unified. Religion. Nohow. Hasn't
been a caliph since 1924. Hasn't been one recognized by ALL Muslims
since the Sunni-Shi'a split. Like most enormous confessional
categories, Islam is just a loose term for an extraordinarily diverse
group of faiths.
c. Like anybody else in the damn fool world, most Muslims are
generally trying to get through the day. Reactionary regimes in
post-colonial or post-occupation countries (like all those A mentions)
often manage to manipulate literature, religion, history etc. to
produce people who are willing to kill other people. This does not mean
that "these Muslims," are in any way representative of the majority
(who live in Indonesia and India, BTW).
One the other hand, universally attacking an enormous and varied
religion, as A and many in the "West" seem to do continuously, is an
effective way to polarize the situation, and has been serving to make a
lot of ambivalent people into violently oppositional people.
"Terrorist" and "Muslim" are not the same thing. And as Bruce so
ably demonstrates, "terror" isn't terror until someone says it is.
Posted by: Allahu al-Atheist at June 15, 2007 01:39 PM
I wouldn't lend any credence whatsoever to any of these so called
"plots" that the FBI periodically comes up with until they show me the
explosives. There's nothing to this latest "plot" but a deceitful
government snitch and some loose talk.
Posted by: Robert Murtha at June 15, 2007 03:44 PM
A quote from Joseph Goebbels:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent,
for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension,
the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
Posted by: X the Unknown at June 15, 2007 04:17 PM
What I often hear the discounters in the JFK Airport plot say is
"they had no money". What they don't say is that they were caught while
in the process of pursuing financing for the operation, and the pursuit
of it was serious and credible.
What I find troubling about the discounting of the plot is while,
yes, they may not have succeeded, we seem to forget that the first WTC
plot in 1993 failed as well. It was a grandiose scheme to topple one
tower into the other, and cause them both to collapse. They parked the
van bomb in the wrong place, though supposedly they had enough
explosives to accomplish the attack they intended. They learn from
their mistakes. It's better to not even let them try to carry out an
Maybe the prosecutors are blowing this out of proportion, but maybe
not. Given enough powerful explosives, anything's possible. The thing
we need to remember about the 9/11 Commission Report is they said
before that day we had a "lack of imagination" in anticipating such an
attack. So imagining what they could've done had they managed to
procure the financing and materials, done the planning, and found the
people to do it is not out of bounds. The only legitimate way in my
mind that you can dismiss the plot is if you can show that there was no
realistic way, logistically, that they could've caused the damage they
Plots can evolve as well, given enough time. Flying planes into the
WTC was extremely gutsy, and may I say, creative. The WTC had
sufficient security to stop a truck bomb from harming it. They found a
different way to accomplish their goal. Few people anticipated such an
attack. The theory that it could be carried out existed beforehand, but
it was dismissed as "wild fantasy".
I agree that some of these "terrorists" are lightweights who don't
deserve to be feared. The Fort Dix plot was such a case, but we can
only say this after the fact. We underestimate some people at our peril.
Posted by: piboulder at June 15, 2007 05:33 PM
"Thank God. A rational view at last."
Indeed. Let's pray for more rational thinking and trust in God to give it to us.
Posted by: nex at June 15, 2007 06:07 PM
Dude. Seriously... your audience here is hopefully the people who did not already figure all this out, right?
Then why in the world would you use a word like excoriated?? You
think dumb folks like us know words like that? Eh? No way, man. I was
on the verge of getting your point when that one threw me for a loop.
Posted by: Dave at June 15, 2007 06:50 PM
If we're going to be intimidated into giving up rights, accepting
overlordship, we have to actually feel as though there are terrorists.
As always, 95 percent of them are bunglers -- but given that the
actions in airports are designed to intimidate *us*, any bunglar in a
Too conspiratorial? Right. Look at the federal budget deficit. What up with that?
Posted by: TJ at June 15, 2007 07:08 PM
Thanks for the article. I grew up in London during the height of the
IRA campaigns (they missed me but only just) so I feel I have some
perspective on this issue. I proudly became an American citizen 2 years
ago & it disheartens me to see this great nation and my former home
cower like cowards every time some wannabe with a half-baked terror
plot pops on the scene.
Posted by: philipb at June 15, 2007 09:49 PM
Funny how the vast majority of these "terrorist" plots are moronic
plans in the hands of nitwits. Isn't the contrast with the highly
focused and skillful 9/11 attack astonishingly stark? Is it possible
that they cannot be compared? Could it be that there is a fundamental
difference in the underlying mechanisms of 9/11 and nearly everything
in the 10 years before and 7 after?
9/11 smells of professionals, of people who can keep secrets, of
carefully recruited operatives, of knowledge, and of training. It also
reeks of money and ruthless power. The truth is still in the shadows.
Posted by: Rick at June 15, 2007 10:41 PM
Back in Dec 2004 I wrote the following, and it looks like it is still valid today.
Security like may other things is a process subject to the "laws of human nature",
1, It continously evolves.
2, It has non linier but oscilitory behaviour.
3, It's subject to market forces.
4, It's subject to prejudice.
5, It's subject to resource limitations.
6, It's a three state game (win,draw,lose)
and several others.
The Comunist block colapsed for many reasons however one of the
prominent ones was it could not afford it's security (market forces).
East Germany did not see it's downfall and 9/11 happend, not because
the information was not there but there where insuficient analysts
(resources) and they where looking in the wrong areas (prejudice).
When a security event (9/11) happens in an open society there is a
knee jerk action, security quickly ramps up as long as there are the
resources and the people it is applied against accept it, which for a
time they do. In an open society the limitations start to apply and
security ebbs slowly away, untill such time as another security event
happens. This gives one type of oscillitory behaviour.
In a closed society security builds up slowly as the resources are
found for it, it continues to increas beyond the point where it is
sustainable leaving the society week and inflexible. At some point an
event happens such that causes the resources to be diverted away from
security (crop failer, epedemic, earthquake etc). As the event is dealt
with the resources return to security, unless the event was sufficient
to cause an attempt at a change in governance. Unfortunatly this is
often expensive in infrestructure and manpower (Civil War) often the
change results not in an open society but another closed society and
this is the second type of oscilitory behaviour.
In both cases there is a time lag involved, time to election in an
open society, time for overt oposition to gain imputus in a closed
All societies are placed somewhere between the extreams of open and
closed. Thise means that their resultant pattern is a combination of
both major types of oscillitory behaviour and appears chaotic when a
scociety is away from the extreams (I wish you luck on trying to model
As Bruce points out in his artical there are two main types of
security in an democratic society Governmental (mainly open) and
Corparate (mainly closed), in normal times they are usually in
conflict, however they play for marginal wins or draws, based on the
accumulation of assets or resources (money). This causes minor
In a closed society there are again two types of security
Governmental (mainly closed) and Organisational (usually closed) again
they are usually in conflict. The organisations are either part of the
current covernance or in opostion to it. If an organisation is part of
the Government it tends to play for minor wins and settle for draws,
based on the accumulation of influance and control (power). If not part
of the government they are usually signed up to what is a mutual
destruction pact where there is no draw only total win and total lose.
Where ever there is conflict you get an advancment of tactics and
behaviour (evolution) usually the predomenent entity (Governement) has
the advantage in this due to superior but limited resources.
However in a closed society a non governmental organisation has the
advantage of playing against a resource rich but limited oponent, that
has many unrelated organisational oponents (both real and imaginary).
If the organisation does not become subject to scrutiny (prejudice)
from the government then their activities can progrees without
hinderence. This gives them a significant advantage when it comes to
single/first strike events (Fall of East Germany etc).
Real terorists / freedom fighters are usually the product of closed
societies, imaginary ones are usually the products of open societies
(Reds under the bed etc). They are by nature closed organisations that
might at a later stage if they replace the government become mainly
open (ie democratic). Often they pretend at being open (Faux
Democratic) but remain closed (Dictatorships).
Up to half way through the last century the scope of any coperation
or organisation was limited by communications (both physical and
informational) this tended to limit their sphers of influence
(horizons) they had. Likewise governemnts where also limited by
communications but less so, however they had the advantage of playing
as organisations in a (non) society that had no governance.
The problems of Univerasl Survailance did not arise prior to that
time as there was effectivly little freedom except for governments.
In the 1960's the "Golden Age" of freedom started when the cost of
mobility droped to the point where it was available to all (in the
Western World). This gave rise to the possibility that ordinary people
could move away from their "home vilage" and start a new life,
coincidentaly leaving any mistakes behind them. This "Golden age"
started comming to the end when the cost of processing information
dropped down to a point where all information could be held "on-line"
and arbitary rules could be tested against large databases of
information (profiling or targeting). The first loss of freedom that
came about for the avarage person was credit, oganisations either
traded credit histories amongst "peers" or setup rules based on
statistical norms (credit profiling). It became possible for provably
credit worth people to be refused credit, however very non creditworthy
people quickly found out how to make themselves lappear very
creditworthy and got credit.
The same sillyness has moved on to counter terorisum, however
somebody did not learn the lesons from credit profiling. As counter
terorisum is about life and liberty not money it is a whole lot more
serious for anybody it effects (whic is all of us).
The big problem is that norms are based on past data and simplistic
models, security is evolutionary and chaotic. Also no entity is
omnipitant in outlook or has even close to the resources to be so.
Terorists have very bad "credit" in counter terrorisum but know how to
look "creditworthy". Worse they try to remain invisable until their
First/Single Strike so effectivly have no "credit history", and offten
no intention of living long enough to creat one.
Ultimatly the solution to terorisum is not security that is by
definitian "reactive", it is always destined to fail. But proactive
policies that do not allow situations to occur where terorisum can be
born of hate and envy and grow sufficiently to turn on you. The
solutions are also not military in nature as warfare always has
civilian casualities and they in turn have relatives who will hate you.
Posted by: Clive Robinson at June 15, 2007 11:33 PM
Bruce's comment that, "...we need real security that doesn't require
us to guess the tactic or the target: intelligence and
investigation..." perfectly sums up my belief as well. That is the
irony of the 3 ounces/baggie. TSA had to address that specific tactic
and has become famous for the baggie -- but our overall security
strategy is summed up by Bruce's quote.
Over the last 18 months TSA has changed its security from an
objects-based checkpoint focus to one that is flexible and covers the
threats we know are active as well as ones that are not known to us.
- removing small scissors, tools, and other nuisance objects from the prohibited items list;
- retraining all TSO's in more sophisticated bomb training and deploying over 100 bomb techs to checkpoints;
- working with Congress to revisit the lighter ban (we take over
20,000 lighters a day, tying up checkpoints on a lousy ignition source
that is a distraction from effective IED components);
- incorporating behavior observation in major airports ahead of the
checkpoint to identify threats earlier, including in the public areas;
- the equivalent of 700 full-time TSOs on unpredictable "pop-up"
security checks everywhere on the airport including vehicle checks and
- K-9 teams in and around checkpoints and gate areas;
- increased activities by plain-clothed security Inspectors and
Federal Air Marshals (coordinated with local law enforcement)
everywhere on the airport;
- professionally trained and equipped officers to verify ID and boarding documents;
- a new surge team of well over 100 TSOs, FAMs, Inspectors who come
in unannounced (like at 2:30 a.m.) to airports for multi-day activities;
- and most importantly, sharply upgrading our intelligence and law
enfocement capability, including literally daily senior level
coordination of intelligence and law enforcement activity with the
other agencies with those responsibilities.
Which brings us to last August. TSA was rolling out these proactive
measures when the UK-based plot forced us to act on an emergency basis.
(The plot was real and the bomb methodology was different from what's
been in blog speculation.)
Going forward, you will see more hand-held technology and more
mobile, flexible security. Less focus on static checkpoint defense and
more on a connected web of measures. Not "predict and protect", but
covering the critical points and flexing elsewhere, filling the gaps on
an unpredictable basis.
Yes, the baggie and shoes are lightning rods because they appear to
only address specific vulnerabilities, but TSA understands "real
security" and needs help from readers of this blog and many others to
change the public/media mindset from 'movie plot' scenario-based
security to one that's appropriate for today's sophisticated, adaptive
Posted by: Kip Hawley at June 16, 2007 11:14 AM
A first step might be the elimination of the shoe-removal theatric, as well as the liquid-restriction.
It's difficult to take someone seriously, either a person or an
organization, if they continue doing the same stupid thing they've
always done. Like a dog who always runs when you pretend to throw the
ball, the extent of their thought process is clearly manifest.
Posted by: bob at June 16, 2007 11:47 AM
What "sophisticated, adaptive terrorist?" Bruce's article is about
the apparent non-existence of such a creature, except in very rare
instances, possibly only the single 9/11 plot as far as publicly known
incidents are concerned. I appreciate your attempt to justify your
bureaucracy's existence, and paint it as a serious, hard-headed,
critically important service, but that is quite frankly a ludicrous and
disingenuous portrait of the TSA.
And please don't resort to the old "if only you knew what I know but
you don't so you have to trust me" gambit on which the "War on Terror"
scam is founded.
Posted by: Rick at June 16, 2007 12:07 PM
"if shoe-bomber Richard Reid had been just a little less stupid and
ignited his shoes in the lavatory, he might have taken out an airplane."
I've always seen this one as another BS threat; the fool certainly
could have managed a neat double amputation (did he have late stage
diabetes?), but danage an airline enough to take it down!
Perhaps the small amount of explosives that he could have been carrying
(the important details never seem to be given, you notice) may be
enough to down a plane IF placed in the correct structural points on
the air frame. But in a passenger seat or bathroom - a hole in the
presure cabin, but that's it.
Unless I'm wildly mistaken about howpwerful explosives have become.
Posted by: ForReal at June 16, 2007 02:07 PM
Schneier.com is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of BT Counterpane.
If you prefer to receive Bruce Schneier's comments on security as a
monthly e-mail digest, subscribe to Schneier on Security's sister