About a month ago, Jared, in a comment response to his own post, said this about the state of our airport security:
I would feel much better if someone with expertise, but who has never been paid by the executive branch and who is in the security field, were allowed to "audit" the [Department of Homeland Security] and tell us if the measures they've put in place are actually useful.
I didn't find anything exactly like that, but I thought the article "Declaring Victory" by James Fallows in the September issue of The Atlantic Monthly comes close. I can't link to the article, but rest assured, it's pretty interesting. Here, however, is a selection.
The DHS now spends $42 billion a year on its vast range of activities, which include FEMA and other disaster-relief efforts, the Coast Guard, immigration, and border and customs operations. Of this, about $5 billion goes toward screening passengers at airports. The widely held view among security experts is that this airport spending is largely for show. Strengthened cockpit doors and a flying public that knows what happened on 9/11 mean that commercial airliners are highly unlikely to be used again as targeted flying bombs. "The inspection process is mostly security theater, to make people feel safe about flying," says John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State and the author of a forthcoming book about the security-industrial complex. He adds that because fears "are not purely rational, if it makes people feel better, the effort may be worth it."
Doesn't really solve anything, but I thought it was a good way to start off the week.
Recent Comments