In light of the breakdown of security procedures resulting in near catastrophe with the underwear bomber, the Obama Administration has announced an expanded no-fly list to reduce future risks to airline travelers. Drawing on a recent observation by Dianne Feinstein that “a very comprehensive no-fly list” would be “the greatest protection our country has,” the Obama Administration has announced the construction of a no-fly list that would include every person alive today on the planet.
President Obama, in announcing the plan, asked for patience in implementing the procedure:
I know this will take time. My administration will work day and night to construct the new list. We pledge to get this done by the end of 2010. It won’t be easy. But I wasn’t elected to take the easy path. That’s how we got into this mess to start with.
Critics wonder whether it is even possible to construct such a comprehensive list, but Home Security Administration official Thomas Worthington said that it was simply a matter of focus and commitment. To that end, the Obama Administration has simultaneously announced a massive expansion of employment at the HSA. These new jobs will be funded out of an expanded stimulus package, a “win-win situation for the American people,” said an administration spokesperson who declined to be identified. “The American people will be safer and the economy will be healthier.” Indeed, economists believe that such an expanded effort could bring the unemployment rate down to under 4% by the end of 2010.
While pleased to see her recommendation taken seriously, Senator Feinstein did express some concern about the new direction for safety policy. “I said that the no-fly list should include anyone with a ‘reasonable suspicion’ of being a terrorist. I think this may be taking ‘reasonable’ too far.”
But President Obama himself defended the expansion saying that the American people deserve air travel that is completely safe not just somewhat safe or kind of safe or a little safe. He challenged critics to come up with an alternative that would yield a smaller risk of a future incident.
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 30 comments }
Ironically, if this were to actually happen, the roads would be much more dangerous. Not only would traffic accidents increase, but terrorists would just start bombing overpasses and bridges and buses. And guess what- there is no metal detectors to get on a freeway. You could fill a van full of explosives and take them where ever you want them too.
Great article
Great post
No worries. Like the current watch list, this one will also be ignored.
After flushing gazillions of our dollars, time and dignity down the toilet in the name of safety , the government gave a visa and allowed a man who was on a watch list, bought a one way ticket with cash, had no luggage even though he was flying a long distance and whose father called and warned the government about him to fly to the United States. I don't think if he'd told them that he had a bomb in his panties they would have shooed him off the plane.
Thank you Professor Swift for a lovely lesson in the problem of corner solutions.
My administration will work day and night… Reminds me of Clinton who often said he was working as hard as he could.
Absolute nonsense. Neither of them would survive a real day's work.
As Methinks has already pointed out, the guy was already on a watch list. Just more stupidity. Notice also the Pavlovian need to imply it's Bush's fault.
Mark Steyn joked that the best place for terrorists to do the most damage is now at the security stations in airport terminals.
Flying is becoming such a hassle that pretty soon the only people willing to fly will be terrorists.
So maybe the all inclusive list is a good idea after all!
Seeing how stupid and draconian the current trend is, I'm waiting for the day they strip search, shackle and then anaesthetise passengers in separate “coffins.” The naked, unconscious, and shackled passengers would then be removed from their coffin, woken up, unshackled and given their clothing after reaching their destination. Yes, this is hyperbole, but still current rhetoric is getting crazy.
I mean, they're currently talking about using new airport scanners that are so powerful and graphic that, if used on children, would violate child pornography laws.
The government can't even keep a couple of attention seeking idiots out of a white house state dinner, is anybody with sense supposed to accept that they can stop a determined terrorist?
Maybe instead of security theater, other things should be considered?
Maybe they should consider that: torture is not the mark of a great society and those who commit it should be prosecuted at the fullest extent of the law; supporting unpopular regimes via military and foreign aid seriously irritates some extremists; outright war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not productive or useful; that sending predator drones to kill terrorists in tribal areas of Pakistan also accidentally kills innocents and those innocents who survive are less likely to accept the concept of “collateral damage”; that launching rocket attacks into Yemen doesn't encourage feelings of friendship between nations.
Of course, I expect the opposite of what I think should happen. More war, more police state, and consequently, more terrorism.
You must be a terrorist to have come up with such an ingenious plan and therefore I'm reporting you to flag@whitehouse.gov.
labouring under the delusion that if we were just pure and holy and isolationist that no nut job would ever want to do us any harm. If only those little children weren't so sexy, no pedophile would ever want to touch them. If only women dressed in burqas, no man would want to rape them. If only people weren't wealthy, nobody would want to steal from them.
Come on.
The reality is that no matter how much “security” we have, a determined killer will eventually kill. The cold, hard, stomach-churning reality is that there is no absolute security and you or your family could die. You could die of an undetected heart condition, a drunk driver, bad decision, a freak accident and a terrorist attack. The government robs us in the name of security well beyond the point of diminishing marginal returns. That's the reality, not some fantasy that if only the U.S. doesn't offend anyone (not possible) that nobody would ever want to hurt an American.
“He challenged critics to come up with an alternative that would yield a smaller risk of a future incident.”
Privatize airports, PLEASE! Current airports are government-built and -run facilities with space leased to the airlines. As such, the facilities themselves are ever subpar, aged, and insecure.
Let the airlines compete on safety and comfort in their air terminals! Letting a terrorist onto their aircraft would imperil not just the passengers and business reputation of these airlines, but would also destroy the rather significant investment in the aircraft itself. As such, airlines have a rather good reason to keep terrorists off their flights; but so long as the airlines have no say and all we're left with is the bureaucratic hand-wringing of the HSA and TSA, all the safety that we shall ever have is a veil and illusion lightly draped over the truth of our peril.
In the TV series “True Blood” when vampires fly they do so in coffins.
You understand, of course, that he meant governmental solutions? How could privatizing, and thereby improving safety and service, help in the quest for consolidation of political power?
Maybe he's not saying “don't offend anyone,” but is referring to US militarism and a number of past US-engineered regime overthrows.
Also, I think isolationism is a loaded term. It suggests cutting off all ties from the world, which is inherently stupid. You can still talk to people, trade with people– as the rest of the world does– without having seemingly continuous war and military bases everywhere overseas.
The militarism is something this government could really do without. I often wonder what the trillions of dollars spent on senseless war in the past decade could have been spent on. How many hospitals, highways, schools, malls, offices, factories, houses, etc could have been built had those funds not been diverted from productive engines toward destructive ones?
Aw, c'mon. Let me dream!
Discussing the wisdom of U.S. “militarism” or the interference in foreign regimes is worthy in its own right.
However, let's not pretend that the elimination of military bases in foreign countries and other interventions will eliminate threat to the United States.
Do you realize that trade is a rallying cry in Arabia? The claim is that the United States (and “the West” in general) has “raped” Arabia of its precious resource (oil) by buying it from them? It's a weird take on Marxian exploitation.
I'm curious why libertarians who understand the futility of expecting government to run anything efficiently suddenly expect to be able to reason with the unreasonable.
Given enough time, government will ensure that dreams are all you'll ever have.
In regard to the foreign military bases, I think you can make a logical argument for a couple dozen, but is it really necessary to have somewhere between 700-800 of them in 140-150 different countries? The military has enough firepower to literally destroy the world three times over. The current US military budget is the largest in the world, more than the next 40 countries combined. That includes Russia which has almost twice the landmass of the US and China which has four times as many people.
I agree that just removing bases and curbing the militarism doesn't remove the threat at all, but I would say that it would greatly ameliorate it. As an accidental victim of US missile attack would you not be easier to radicalize and incite into violence than someone who did not experience such a tragedy? And as I said, the money was wasted on war could've been used to much greater effect elsewhere, say building factories and jobs overseas instead of creating craters and corpses overseas.
On the topic of the oil “plunder” arabian peninsula– I think it is unlikely to dissuade most arabs that the two invasions and occupations of Iraq didn't at least have something to do with oil. At the very least, it doesn't help convince the people of that region that the US government cares about them and does what it does out of the goodness of its heart. Also, support for autocrats like the House of Saud, who have embezzled and cajoled epic sums of money from their own people, doesn't help things as well.
I would agree that reasoning with the unreasonable is something libertarians tend to do wholesale. It seems like a rock of sisyphus kind of thing. It's an interesting phenomenon, like being a Red Sox fan before 2004.
I hope this ends at some point. War and Jihad are bad for business. The world needs more of Bastiat's “economic harmonies.” Commerce creating wealth and consequently, more peace, since it's not a good idea to kill your trading partners. Maybe this scenario is a dream, but I think it's a good dream to have.
but is it really necessary to have somewhere between 700-800 of them in 140-150 different countries?
I have no idea.
The current US military budget is the largest in the world, more than the next 40 countries combined.
Hardly shocking. The U.S. subsidizes the defense of the next 40 countries (mostly from each other). Then those same countries chastise the United States for being “militaristic”.
That includes Russia which has almost twice the landmass of the US and China which has four times as many people.
Twice the landmass, half the population and a tiny fraction of the GDP. Who the hell wants to invade Siberia? People are still trying to get out, not in.
but I would say that it would greatly ameliorate it.
fantasy.
As an accidental victim of US missile attack would you not be easier to radicalize and incite into violence than someone who did not experience such a tragedy?
That explains why none of the terrorists or their families were victims of U.S. military attacks.
But this argument isn't very sound anyway. If we never take military action because such action will inevitably lead to collateral damage and that might encourage someone to become a suicide bomber, then we literally cannot defend ourselves against attack. We can never take any military action.
On the topic of the oil “plunder” arabian peninsula– I think it is unlikely to dissuade most arabs that the two invasions and occupations of Iraq didn't at least have something to do with oil.
I was very clear. The Iraq war is NOT what I was talking about and that is NOT what the Arabians are talking about. The Arabians making that argument are specifically referring to people PURCHASING oil from them. they are specifically referring to TRADE.
At the very least, it doesn't help convince the people of that region that the US government cares about them and does what it does out of the goodness of its heart.
Why would we convince them of a lie? Everyone acts in their own self interest. The Arabs are severely undereducated (you should read the UNDP report published a few years ago if you don't want to take my word for it) but they are not stupid. They don't even care about each other. Half the Arabs think the other half are infidels. Why would they ever believe we are willing to burn billions of dollars and thousands of American lives because we “care” about them?
Saddam was sitting on a lot of oil, surrounded by neighbours who, combined with Iraqi oil, controlled the overwhelming majority of the world's critical commodity. He blatantly said that he was seeking nuclear weapons so that he could take over his neighbours. You think the Saudis and Kuwait and Iranians are sad about the war? Only Americans indulge in these fantasies. Hell, Kuwait was openly begging for this war. We couldn't fight a war once he had nukes. He would effectively control the whole world by controlling that critical commodity. A war would have to be fought if he remained. Whether taking him out or not was ultimately cheaper (before he got nukes) is anyone's guess. We'd have to spend a lot of time engaging in counterfactuals. But, if here were not sitting on a ton of oil and threatening his neighbours, the U.S. would not have lifted a finger and shouldn't. Yes, it was all about oil and who controls it.
Also, support for autocrats like the House of Saud, who have embezzled and cajoled epic sums of money from their own people, doesn't help things as well.
Really? How so? Before oil the largest export was dates. It was a country of nomads who routinely raided each others' camps at night. The lifestyle in Arabia changed little for centuries – until oil was discovered in the early 1930's. What did the Saudis embezzle and cajole from these people exactly? What makes you think that another strongman regime would be better (a republican form of government was never held as an option, btw. This is a land untouched by education, let alone the age of enlightment)? The Al Saud family is very liberal by Arabian standards. King Faisal brought education to females in the 1960's only after figuring out a way to get around the strong opposition. He also convinced the ullema (who are the true rulers – the Al Saud clan rules at the pleasure of the Wahhabis) to allow television after broadcasting 48 hours of Koran reading to prove that television is not an inherently evil western invention. You have to take into account who you're dealing with here.
Also, I love how libertarians deride the United States for “supporting” autocrats and then claim it's none of our business what kind of government a country has. That's for the people to decide. So which is it? Do we “support” the autocratic regimes by dealing with them or are we supposed to be hostile to them until their form of government is more to our liking? Ignoring is never an option.
I don't disagree with your conclusion. Constant Jihad is a waste. But, it's important for us to live in a positive world rather than a normative world. War is almost always a waste (unless it's defense and then only if the victory is not Pyrrhic). But war is a feature of human existence. So are murderers, rapists, thieves, politicians and terrorists.
The obvious answer is to abolish the TSA and allow the airlines themselves to provide for their own security. The free market will provide the level of security for which the public is willing to pay.
I joked a long time ago that a terrorist might shove a stick of dynamite up his…well, you know where. Then we all would have to get proctology exams in order to board a flight. We are almost there!
Methinks1776, with respect, your thesis is misguided and your facts incorrect.
Unfortunately, outside of a total of maybe 20-30 minutes a day to argue on message boards and blogs, I don't have to time write a full critique of your assertions, so I have to keep this short and simple and then leave you.
My position is:
-People prefer to be left alone to their own ends
-When left alone, people are more likely to engage in productive enterprise as opposed to war and terror
-Intervention by people considered foreign can lead to violent reprisal
-The reasons for this reprisal have been brewing a long time, US government (foreigners) very intrusive involvement in the middle east is decades old
-The US government interventions involves (or involved) taking territory from people, deposing or assassinating political figures, funding military oppressive regimes, using proxies to wage war on enemies, trade sanctions leading to starvation and disease– and in the past ten years, kidnapping, torture, large scale arial bombing, collateral damage, military invasions and occupations
-These interventions, this near constant interference is the reason the US is targeted by terrorists
-A Switzerland-like policy of armed neutrality wouldn't completely get rid of militant islam, but would greatly reduce the threat
What I said in my previous post was true and what arguments you dispute I will point to the following books and articles as counter-arguments against your position:
By Chalmers Johnson, former CIA analyst
-Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
-The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic
-Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic
By Robert Pape, University of Chicago
-Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
By Michael Scheuer, former head of CIA's Bin Laden Unit
-Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror
-Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq
(This last one is a stretch in terms of outright violence, but I consider economic sanctions as unnecessary aggressive behavior that has caused serious enmity.)
By David R Henderson
-Why Economic Sanctions Don't Work
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/35333...
Lastly, I think this article by Glenn Greenwald sums up things well.
-More cause and effect in our ever-expanding “war”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwa...
I don't expect you'll agree with my position, but I hope you give my viewpoint more looking at.
Thanks
I have given your viewpoint a thorough look and I find it to be extremely naive.
I find what you write to be misguided and not factual.
I agree that the less intervention the better. I don't agree that intervention creates terrorists. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the region from which the terrorists hail and the circular logic that prevails there. I've had the fortune (or misfortune) to learn about it from the inside.
You are free to hold whatever position you want. But holding the Ron Paul position that terrorists wouldn't bother us if only we kept to ourselves is naive and wrong.
Follow-up story:
Today, airlines executives reacted negatively to President Obama's plan to greatly expand the nation's no-fly list.
“Although I haven't seen all the details of President Obama's plan, from what I've heard, many of our most loyal customer will be on the new list,” said Delta Airlines CEO Richard Anderson. “If that's true, the president is putting a dagger into the heart of the airlines industry.”
President Obama responded with strong criticism of this argument, which he labeled an overreaction. “Greedy airlines have been profiting while putting Americans in danger,” he said. “This has to stop.”
But behind the scenes, administration officials and congressional staffers scrambled to craft a bill to compensate airlines for any loss of business due to the expanded no-fly list. Under one plan, the government would pay airlines $100 for each fare lost under the new plan. There was no word as yet how the additional funds would be generated.
Opinions were mixed on how the new list would affect the overnight package industry. UPS executives downplayed any potential harm to their bottom line. “Surely President Obama doesn't mean that even pilots will be on the list,” said one company vice-president under condition of anonymity.
But Teamsters Union president Jim Hoffa disagreed. “When the president says 'every person alive', I take him at his word”, he said. “Afterall, the tragedy of 9/11 would have been almost as great if the planes involved had been carrying only freight. I applaud Mr. Obama for such a comprehensive plan.”
The president also received strong support from United Auto Workers president Ron Gettelfinger. “I've been saying for years that the government should clamp down on industries suseptible to terrorism. We need to change our transportation system so that a single terrorist can't pose such a great risk to hundreds of law-abiding citizens.”
The obvious answer is to abolish the TSA and allow the airlines themselves to provide for their own security. The free market will provide the level of security for which the public is willing to pay.
I joked a long time ago that a terrorist might shove a stick of dynamite up his…well, you know where. Then we all would have to get proctology exams in order to board a flight. We are almost there!
Methinks1776, with respect, your thesis is misguided and your facts incorrect.
Unfortunately, outside of a total of maybe 20-30 minutes a day to argue on message boards and blogs, I don't have to time write a full critique of your assertions, so I have to keep this short and simple and then leave you.
My position is:
-People prefer to be left alone to their own ends
-When left alone, people are more likely to engage in productive enterprise as opposed to war and terror
-Intervention by people considered foreign can lead to violent reprisal
-The reasons for this reprisal have been brewing a long time, US government (foreigners) very intrusive involvement in the middle east is decades old
-The US government interventions involves (or involved) taking territory from people, deposing or assassinating political figures, funding military oppressive regimes, using proxies to wage war on enemies, trade sanctions leading to starvation and disease– and in the past ten years, kidnapping, torture, large scale arial bombing, collateral damage, military invasions and occupations
-These interventions, this near constant interference is the reason the US is targeted by terrorists
-A Switzerland-like policy of armed neutrality wouldn't completely get rid of militant islam, but would greatly reduce the threat
What I said in my previous post was true and what arguments you dispute I will point to the following books and articles as counter-arguments against your position:
By Chalmers Johnson, former CIA analyst
-Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire
-The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic
-Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic
By Robert Pape, University of Chicago
-Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
By Michael Scheuer, former head of CIA's Bin Laden Unit
-Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror
-Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq
(This last one is a stretch in terms of outright violence, but I consider economic sanctions as unnecessary aggressive behavior that has caused serious enmity.)
By David R Henderson
-Why Economic Sanctions Don't Work
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/35333...
Lastly, I think this article by Glenn Greenwald sums up things well.
-More cause and effect in our ever-expanding “war”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwa...
I don't expect you'll agree with my position, but I hope you give my viewpoint more looking at.
Thanks
I have given your viewpoint a thorough look and I find it to be extremely naive.
I find what you write to be misguided and not factual.
I agree that the less intervention the better. I don't agree that intervention creates terrorists. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the region from which the terrorists hail and the circular logic that prevails there. I've had the fortune (or misfortune) to learn about it from the inside.
You are free to hold whatever position you want. But holding the Ron Paul position that terrorists wouldn't bother us if only we kept to ourselves is naive and wrong.
Follow-up story:
Today, airlines executives reacted negatively to President Obama's plan to greatly expand the nation's no-fly list.
“Although I haven't seen all the details of President Obama's plan, from what I've heard, many of our most loyal customer will be on the new list,” said Delta Airlines CEO Richard Anderson. “If that's true, the president is putting a dagger into the heart of the airlines industry.”
President Obama responded with strong criticism of this argument, which he labeled an overreaction. “Greedy airlines have been profiting while putting Americans in danger,” he said. “This has to stop.”
But behind the scenes, administration officials and congressional staffers scrambled to craft a bill to compensate airlines for any loss of business due to the expanded no-fly list. Under one plan, the government would pay airlines $100 for each fare lost under the new plan. There was no word as yet how the additional funds would be generated.
Opinions were mixed on how the new list would affect the overnight package industry. UPS executives downplayed any potential harm to their bottom line. “Surely President Obama doesn't mean that even pilots will be on the list,” said one company vice-president under condition of anonymity.
But Teamsters Union president Jim Hoffa disagreed. “When the president says 'every person alive', I take him at his word”, he said. “Afterall, the tragedy of 9/11 would have been almost as great if the planes involved had been carrying only freight. I applaud Mr. Obama for such a comprehensive plan.”
The president also received strong support from United Auto Workers president Ron Gettelfinger. “I've been saying for years that the government should clamp down on industries suseptible to terrorism. We need to change our transportation system so that a single terrorist can't pose such a great risk to hundreds of law-abiding citizens.”
Comments on this entry are closed.