I’m not one who usually agrees with Coulter and I’ve made fun of her in the past, but from the videotaped tests that I’ve seen, an extra-thick liner would probably just look like an insulating layer and due to the limitations of the technology, even if observers could be trained to judge the proper thickness of pattern-matching material, I can already think of the next logical four or five terrorist steps.

IOW: Body scanners are like a band-aid, my four year old asks for, whenever he falls down.

Ugh, I guess there’s no easy way to go about this. I think I agree with Bill O’ on this. Body scanners can be useful, I would think, for screening “suspicious characters” satisfactorily.

But, to be honest, if a terrorist manages to get to an airport and buy a ticket, it’s already too late. The only way we can truly defend ourselves is if we use our intelligence sources effectively; stopping the would-be terrorist long before they get to the airport.

I still say that if the full-body screeners were located off site (not necessarily out of the building, but off in an office room somewhere), the feeling of intrusion would be far less. That way, the screener could only see the scanned image, not the actual person. If they see something suspicious, they can call down to the person at the screener, and have that passenger removed and re-searched privately.

@ImNotBlue: I could find the links, but some of the plans that I’ve seen for the 150 on order is that the person viewing the scan wouldn’t be able to see to subject’s face.

But, still… any way you look at it… they’ll only be effective until the next workaround and as Coulter says, there’s not really a reason to believe that they would’ve caught the underwear bomber.

Sort of toward ReservoirPuppy’s point, the full clip is nine minutes, but if you watch Jon Stewart’s treatment from Tuesday’s show — clearly body-scanning isn’t the least expensive, effective thing that could be done.

These additional ‘security measures’ are no more than political theater for rubes. If someone wants to bomb targets in the US, be assured that they *will* find a way.

body scanners are more security theater, and there are many things they won’t catch (and there have been reports that the NWA253 bomb wouldn’t have been caught by one.) However, it’s a high-tech toy with bells and whistles that lets the TSA spend their capital budgets, so I’m sure they’re going to be implemented nationwide.

Magister says:
January 6, 2010 at 12:55 pm

Hmmm… interesting. I’m not prepared to be for or against the scanners. I think there are anti-terrorism folks, and folks familiar with the machines who are better equipped (pun) to make that decision. I’m only looking at it from the perspective of privacy.

Now homie and Vidiot both call the scanners theater… and that’s not necessarily wrong… but my question is: is that a bad thing? If potential terrorists have to go through the scanner, and there is a potential for them to get caught before getting to the plane, would they re-think their plan of action? I wonder if the increased potential to get caught, even if the machines work debatably well, enough of a negative incentive?

I think it’s generally a bad idea to spend lots of money on a technological solution which won’t appreciably make us safer. You raise an interesting point about whether the higher potential to get caught works as a disincentive, but I’m not sure it does — fanatics will be fanatics, after all, and all the attention given to aviation security in the past eight years hasn’t dissuaded al-Qaeda from aviation-related attacks since 9/11. (Besides, prospective terrorists could just explode a bomb at a security checkpoint line, or other nonsterile areas, and still have done damage to the aviation system.)

I think the natural tendency is to look at new tech, especially expensive whiz-bang new tech, as a panacea or “magic bullet” and to over-rely on it. Especially when a more thorough pat-down would do as good a job or better, and costs nothing more than staffing. I’d like to see more behavioral (but not racial/ethnic) profiling in action, as well as behavioral-detection training similar to what the Israelis use. (TSA uses this in a limited fashion, but it should be ramped up.) They could also work to close some massive holes, such as the fact that one’s boarding pass is routinely checked against one’s ID and against the computer, but never simultaneously.

Even better would be an approach to security that’s strategic in nature, isn’t tactics-focused, and especially one that isn’t focused on protecting against the last tactic tried. I was kind of amazed that al-Qaeda would repeat a failed tactic from some years ago, especially when there are so many other gaping holes in our security apparatus.

How exactly would members of Al Qaeda use their long lost foreskins to hide anything?

Jelperman is right. Muslims are circumcised. Al Qaeda members won’t be hiding any bombs under any foreskin. Once again Ann undercuts her argument with her stupidity. Thank you Ann.

Vidiot says:
January 6, 2010 at 4:21 pm

An interesting post… you make some good points.

miltdog67 says:
January 6, 2010 at 6:15 pm

Ugh. Did you even read the quote?

Anyone else find all this just a tad bit suspect? Can you say Red Flag? Body scanners conveniently show up after a very poor attempt at taking down a plane, like the shoe bomber, why sit in your seat next to passengers risking a foiled attempt when you can just go to bathroom and set the dam thing off, hmmm?

Rex

If trAnnie would take a look under her own foreskin she’d realize you can’t hide a bomb under there.

RexKramer says:
January 7, 2010 at 9:46 am

Goofy conspiracy theory.

Media Me says:
January 7, 2010 at 11:48 am

Offensive, and didn’t read the quote.