By Kate Hanni and Dr. Kenneth Furton - 01/06/10 01:03 AM EST
In the wake of the recent attempt by al Qaeda-linked Nigerian terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to detonate an explosive aboard a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, the debate over how to best protect Americans from these kinds of threats has dominated our discourse. Yet, sadly, as occurs all too often after incidents such as these, the first reaction by many who occupy elite perches in Washington and on cable television has been to propose curtailing the rights of passengers.
One example of this has been particularly galling. Over the past week and a half since the failed attack, former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has been ubiquitous, showing up on television and in print, to promote body scanners made by a company that also happens to be a client of his, Rapiscan. The most telling aspect of his marketing campaign was that until called out by CNN Anchor Cambell Brown, he neglected to even disclose his financial relationship with the company that would benefit most from his on-air Billy Mays act.
Recently, in reaction to the claims of those such as Chertoff that body scans are the one and only answer, Dr. Furton said, “I am surprised by the rush to implement yet another developing technology that is both expensive and not proven to be able to reliably detect the explosives used in this last terrorist event. There is extensive research reinforcing the proven ability of detector dogs to detect explosives without the intrusive privacy issues involved in full-body scanning. It is not certain that even with a high-resolution image of a traveler’s groin region that a half cup of explosive powder would be detectable.”
This is not to say that there is no role for a variety of methods in preventing terrorism, perhaps even body scans. But this feels like yet another move toward the mass purchase of some very expensive equipment that is unproven — a knee-jerk reaction to a serious problem that must be solved at the highest levels by experts, not by what makes some people feel better or spending a large amount of taxpayer money on unproven methods because someone with good connections in Washington and among television bookers says so.
I don’t claim to have all the answers. Or know what all Americans are thinking. But I can tell you that the 27,000 members of my organization, FlyersRights.org, who have weighed in on this subject with e-mails, calls, texts and so forth, are overwhelmingly against the loss of privacy that goes with using body scanners. These are hardened travelers, but many have reached the breaking point when it comes to giving up their rights to one more supposed panacea. In fact, when asked point-blank on “Meet The Press” whether body scanners would have stopped Abdulmutallab, John Brennan, Obama’s top counterterrorism aide, answered, “I think it’s an unknown.” Not exactly an endorsement.
Benjamin Franklin famously said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We must listen to these great words and employ the methods most likely to protect us. And we must not give into fear and give up our rights without first examining the likelihood of success and what the costs will be to our freedom, no matter what certain famous talking heads are saying on television.
Hanni is the president of FlyersRights.org. Furton is a professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Florida International University, and founder and director emeritus of the International Forensic Research Institute.