Terror plot a "wake-up call" -- but experts differ on lessons to be drawn
detectors were installed in airports in response to more hijackings. Terrorists did not stop, they just changed tactics.
Terrorists learn to adapt
Allegedly trained by an al Qaeda offshoot in Yemen, Abdulmutallab hid a small amount of PETN, a powerful industrial plastic explosive, in his underwear, according to federal prosecutors. As Flight 253 from Amsterdam began its descent toward Detroit, they say, Abdulmutallab used a syringe of chemicals to try to set off a reaction strong enough to ignite the explosive. It did not work, but the heat from the chemical reaction started a small fire on the plane and left the would-be terrorist with burns on his legs.
Alert passengers on the flight doused Abdulmutallab with water, pulled the syringe out of his hand, and helped detain him until the plane landed.
The man labeled “the underwear bomber” faces charges that could keep him in prison for life, including conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism, attempted murder inside an aircraft, taking a bomb onboard a plane, and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.
Schneier was struck by a comment made by President Obama after the Christmas Day attempted bombing, in which the president ordered the installation of full-body scanners in airports because the scanners might have caught Abdulmutallab.
The scanners would not have caught the underwear bomber, because terrorists would not have used that scheme if body scanners were common in airports, Schneier said.
Schneier said he knows of no instances when a would-be terrorist was caught by airport screening technology — largely because terrorists adapt new schemes to avoid the technology in place.
Layers of airport security did play a role in the failure of the bomb to explode. Security measures already in place, such as screening of luggage and carry-on bags and metal detectors, forced Abdulmutallab to use a plastic explosive that is hard to detonate. He succeeded in setting his pants on fire, but not in igniting the PETN.
A “daring” plan
Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, called it a “daring” plan that was “as close to an aviation disaster as we’ve been since 9/11.”
The full-body scanners do not detect explosives, but would identify bulges on a body. A report released this month in the Journal of Transportation Security said that PETN pounded flat would be invisible to the machines, because it would look like part of the anatomy. The scanners also do not see objects hidden in body orifices, Schneier said.
Schneier called the advanced imaging technology “security theater,” aimed more at making passengers feel safe than in catching terrorists. “You’re better off spending your security dollars on intelligence,” Schneier said. “We can’t continue to let terrorists spend $4,000 to change their tactics and we spend $100 million in airport security in response. That’s not sustainable.”
For Schneier, the lesson to be learned from Flight 253 is that passengers saw the threat and neutralized it. “Two things have made us safer since 9/11: reinforcing cockpit doors and convincing passengers they can fight back,” Schneier said.
Better intelligence on terrorists before they get to airports, plus alert passengers willing to stand up to terrorists once they are on airplanes, are the best bets for warding off the next Flight 253, Schneier said.
