The pre-Barack Obama visit package of security measures yesterday announced by the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd are about protecting air travellers from from the same acts of civil terror and carnage that are supported by Australian involvement in military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They are also useless in guaranteeing such an outcome, according to former customs officer and security deficiency whistleblower, and now convicted felon Allan Kessing.
Looked at clinically, the $200 million worth of body scanners and other upgrades are a case of futile measures meeting an impossible task.
Yet they are also part of the much wider picture, that of a war in which the massacre of civilians as the necessary collateral cost of anti-terrorist actions is somehow going to win Taliban-controlled regions or even the “national” government over to a durable democracy.
The carnage that every bombed wedding party, burned down school or destroyed village causes smells and looks no different to the consequences of a terrorist attack on an airport, an underground railway station, a sports stadium, a rock concert or a city pub at lunch time.
They embitter the survivors for generations, and fuel their outrage, and determination for revenge.
The chances of militarily forcing all of Afghanistan into a state of grateful democratic social enlightenment are exactly the same as those of comprehensively eliminating the risks of a terrorist attack on Australian targets. Zero.
Kessing says the package is yet another case of “back to the future” by a government incapable of acting on fundamental security failings, some of which are caused by its reliance on private industry contractors who are chosen on price and are unable to put their obligations ahead of their commercial interests.
“The component which is for improved training is commendable,” he says, “except that it fails to remove the commercial imperative in which sub-contractors set out to deliver the service as the lowest possible cost and highest profit to themselves.
“These hi-tech toys are only as good as the operator, and are essentially for window dressing purposes and are ultimately ineffective at doing anything but making the lives of travellers more miserable.
“The best counter-terrorism activity is done before the terrorist leaves for the airport, not when the terrorist in the queue waiting for checking or scanning.”
Which is the worst possible place to discover a suicide bomber, a place packed with people.
Kessing agrees with overseas reports that the “stick figure” body scan system being introduced at only international terminals in Australia next year would not have detected the explosives concealed in the underpants worn by the would be Christmas Day bomber had he passed through one of the scanners at Schiphol Airport on his way to Detroit.
“The partial introduction of some of the measures (body scanners and air cargo scanners) only serves as a signpost to different targets at airports or elsewhere,” Kessing says.
15 thoughts on “There’s more to aviation safety than scanning underpants”
Dave Donohue
February 10, 2010 at 2:10 pmSurely one of the basic concepts of terrorism is to commit unexpected acts – repeating the same tactic over and over again is the province of the conventional military. Constant responses to already executed activities only serve to increase the level of tension in the population while making our leaders “look” like they are responding to threats.
$200 million would go a long way to protecting vulnerable infrastructure – like water supply, power generation, telecommunications.
gerard
February 10, 2010 at 2:16 pmI am sure travellers will make sure their underpants are clean. With dodgy food on some planes, explosive skid marks are indistinguishable from real explosives and will be picked up by those scanners.. Perhaps pull- ups for adults might become fashionable.?
http://oosterman.wordpress.com/
meski
February 10, 2010 at 2:41 pmIt may not detect terrorists, but it’ll certainly pick up ‘commandos’
Mary Mackenzie
February 10, 2010 at 4:03 pmDidn’t I read somewhere recently(In the health section of the Australian?) that full body scans are no longer recommended for children(unless strictly necessary)due to the amount of radiation (much more than an ordinary X-ray). The medical opinion was that later (maybe 20 years) it could cause cancer. How, I wonder, will this affect young frequent fliers if they are scanned at every airport?
Mary Mackenzie
EngineeringReality
February 10, 2010 at 4:11 pmI am all for a German newspaper’s recommendations – for everyone to fly naked with no luggage.
Much safer – and would make lining up for airport security checks all the more interesting – instead of the dull, painful boredom it is now.
Gary Johnson
February 10, 2010 at 4:22 pmBen…lets stop tippy toing around here.
It’s beyond rediculous and we all know it. How do we force govt to stop this this absurd invasion of privacy?…and as Mary Mackenzie points out..the health risks.
If they can’t give an absolute “lawful” assurance that the doses of radiation are safe, then it’s gotta go.
If the Australian public lets this happen, then we get what we deserve.
bananastand
February 10, 2010 at 4:38 pmI just want to make one thing clear. The full body scans are not intended for everyone going onto a plane. They are going to serve as an alternative to strip searches. This makes sense because I would imagine strip searches are pretty time-consuming and more importantly horribly embarrassing for everyone.
Also for people worried about radiation I urge you to research for yourself about air travel radiation. You are exposing yourself to much more radiation by being on a flight than the off chance you’ll have to use one of these scans. Still it doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
homesjc
February 10, 2010 at 4:45 pmA SF story (Wasp) from a few years ago described how a few agents destabilised and defeated the government of a fictional planet where they created an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty resulting in excessive spending on defence against a non existence threat. Seems to have been a bit prophetic.
We ae spending huge amounts to prevent the occasional event. During WW2 the total losses to recent terrorism in the West would have been considered to just a quiet afternoon.
I would consider currently we are just terrorising ourselves and causing unnecessary waste, and perpetuating the Military / Industrial complex. Sure, watch carefully and pick up the inept or psychotic. Kick out of the country anyone preaching hate, and stop their funding from entering the country.
After any event, thoughly chase down and expose the whole group involved including any backers with out fear or favour that it may upset an oil suppler or what ever. Of course, occasionally we do need to shoot mad dogs.
Then we could spend 25% of what we have saved on looking at and alleviating the causes of the discontent.
We could start in Afghanistan by buying the whole opium crop, and be prepared to pay enough more. Its cheaper to burn what cannot be used in pharmaceuticals. Once people are addicted to good constant prices/ no chaos, they will kick out any one who gets in the way. At the same time, educate all. Cost less. However would need to have a situation where no middle men corruption in place, so need to have an extensive network of collection points. Un real – so what’s the current situation?
Gavin Moodie
February 10, 2010 at 5:15 pmMoore bloody rubbish to delay and annoy travellers. I prefer to have 1,000 hassle free flights and risk being blown up on the 1,001st.
Dave Slutzkin
February 10, 2010 at 5:26 pmDave Donohue:
“$200 million would go a long way to protecting vulnerable infrastructure – like water supply, power generation, telecommunications.”
Protecting power generation is simple – just stick a couple of solar panels on each roof. It’s impossible to effectively disrupt a fully distributed system.