What's the Solution to the Problem?

About a week ago, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to ignite an explosive that he had managed to smuggle aboard a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Thanks to faulty execution on his part and the rapid response of some vigilant passengers the act of attempted terrorism was halted before it had a chance at success. But what this has served to do is raise the issue of what is being done to safeguard our skies and where the problems continue to exist. Since 9/11 the process by which passengers are screened has become increasingly stringent depending upon where you're going to and where you're leaving from. These days it can take almost as long to go through security than it does to reach your destination by air. With incidents such as this one with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the process will only get longer.

But how can you fix it? Many already assume that the inconvenience of having to go through screenings and carry along limited quantities of toiletries such as toothpaste and mouthwash is enough to keep us safe but it really isn't. I'm sure these new security procedures have helped to keep a certain type of danger at bay but not all of the dangers that exist out there. After Robert Reid, the shoe-bomber, attempted to blow up a flight using a butane lighter and homemade explosives packed in the heel of his shoe, the result was to require passengers to remove their shoes for screening and inspection. In addition, butane lighters were no longer permitted though you could still carry matchbooks onto flights. Why? Because smokers complained that then they couldn't smoke as soon as they got to a smoking area at an airport.

What this proves though is that our responses often seem to be spot responses to problems; that is fix what problems are known to exist and keep the others aside until they become real problems. So what that means is that if you have someone attempting to blow up a plane using their shoes then you should inspect shoes more closely. Done. But now you have an individual who attempted to blow up a plane with explosives and chemicals mixed into syringes in his underwear. Do you see where this line of thought will lead us? Now I don't deny that it's very hard to ensure everyone's safety in an world like the one we live in but sometimes the solutions that are put out there are beyond absurd; they border on the insane. Take for example the case of the terror watch list that the Transportation Security Agency and Homeland Security maintain.

This list contains a list of names (and known aliases I believe) of individuals with questionable ties to terrorist organizations or activities. Perhaps they are disgruntled individuals or perhaps their name was provided to authorities by concerned citizens (or parents) as in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. His own father notified authorities of his suspcisions a little over a month before he boarded his Christmas flight. So then why was he allowed? Well part of it is because there are nearly 500,000 names included the terrorist watch list and checking each and every person against that list can mean that some fall through the cracks. Now of course there are those who suggest that a simple means of expiditing the process would be to check against people's names but then I ask you who should be under greater suspicion: Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab or David Headley.

If you answered 'both' then give yourself a prize. Although Headley sounds like a non-terrorist name it is the name of an Pakistani-American (who changed his name) who was arrested in connection with the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India. That being said then where do you draw the line in terms of being 'selective' in how you screen people. The problem is that you can't. You can't say that a certain type of name or religious belief or city of origin should be used because there have been plenty of exceptions to the rule. Headley is just one known example.

I envision two days in the distant future; one good and one bad. The one that is going to eventually happen decades from now is one in which all travellers will be able to travel without having to undergo such rigorous checks which leads to endless hours of searches and checks. The other day which will likely occur in the more near term is one in which we will be required to travel in approved translucent clothing so that nothing can be hidden from view of anyone. You will be allowed to wear approved underwear which must be vaccum-sealed to prevent explosives planting and of course there will be the lack of carry-ons which will make travelling by air a much quicker and safer form of transportation again.