Will New Anti-Terrorism Measures Prevent Future Attacks?
Published in China Daily
(China) on 8 January 2010
by Wang Nina (link to original)
(China) on 8 January 2010
by Wang Nina (link to original)
Translated from
by Anna Isaacson.
Edited by Joanne Hanrahan.
On January 7th, President Obama responded to the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack by introducing new security measures. He emphasized lingering problems with security networks and he himself took responsibility for the crisis.
Since 9/11, the U.S. has spent a lot of time and money on gathering counter-terrorism intelligence, assembling lists of dangerous individuals and strengthening airport security. The averted attack on Christmas Day was a wake-up call for the U.S. authorities, for it proved that in spite of these efforts, there are still flaws in the U.S.’s security networks.
Obama ordered the reform of counter-terrorism intelligence systems. He demanded that the CIA follow up on potential threats with greater diligence and that analysis of this type of information be faster and more effective. He also demanded that lists of threatening individuals and no-fly lists be managed with special diligence, with the goal of preventing dangerous people from boarding airplanes. In addition, the U.S. will invest $1 billion in its airport security infrastructure. This money will go to improving luggage and passenger screenings, raising security devices’ sensitivity to explosives and funding research into better technology.
But how effective will these measures really be? Can attacks like that on 9/11 and on this past Christmas Day really be prevented? Obama himself has admitted, “There is, of course, no foolproof solution.”
Associated Press analysts have pointed out that flying is essential to our commerce and mobility, and we cannot cease to fly because of terrorism. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are aware of this, and thus manage to constantly find ways to trick the security checks.
Some Americans involved in homeland security issues have expressed support for the new airport security measures, maintaining that major investments in imaging machines and other airport security technologies are necessary. But some argue that imaging machines violate privacy rights. Others say that increasing security checks will not solve the fundamental problems involved, and will only compel terrorists to find more loopholes in the technology.
Since 9/11, the U.S. has spent a lot of time and money on gathering counter-terrorism intelligence, assembling lists of dangerous individuals and strengthening airport security. The averted attack on Christmas Day was a wake-up call for the U.S. authorities, for it proved that in spite of these efforts, there are still flaws in the U.S.’s security networks.
Obama ordered the reform of counter-terrorism intelligence systems. He demanded that the CIA follow up on potential threats with greater diligence and that analysis of this type of information be faster and more effective. He also demanded that lists of threatening individuals and no-fly lists be managed with special diligence, with the goal of preventing dangerous people from boarding airplanes. In addition, the U.S. will invest $1 billion in its airport security infrastructure. This money will go to improving luggage and passenger screenings, raising security devices’ sensitivity to explosives and funding research into better technology.
But how effective will these measures really be? Can attacks like that on 9/11 and on this past Christmas Day really be prevented? Obama himself has admitted, “There is, of course, no foolproof solution.”
Associated Press analysts have pointed out that flying is essential to our commerce and mobility, and we cannot cease to fly because of terrorism. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are aware of this, and thus manage to constantly find ways to trick the security checks.
Some Americans involved in homeland security issues have expressed support for the new airport security measures, maintaining that major investments in imaging machines and other airport security technologies are necessary. But some argue that imaging machines violate privacy rights. Others say that increasing security checks will not solve the fundamental problems involved, and will only compel terrorists to find more loopholes in the technology.