One passenger, Richard Reid, attempted to light a fuse on his shoes so hidden PETN explosive could destroy an entire airliner. He failed because heroic fellow passengers restrained him. On Christmas Day 2009, another would-be bomber Umanu Abdulmutallab succeeds in lighting his pants-load of PETN on fire. Again, heroic passengers and flight crew jump in, restrain him and "beat out" the fire. However, this latest attack is much more serious than Shoe Bomber Reid's attempt.

The fact that an Islamist radical group from Yemen has claimed responsibility for the attack on a United States airliner, is no less chilling. These radicals as well as others around the world, would have applauded even louder and rejoiced in the fact, if hundreds of people aboard the airliner had plunged to their deaths. Riding the final, horrible death-dive of a crippled airliner is anyone's nightmare. Unless you're a terrorist, terror supporter, or sympathizer. It should now be obvious to even the most jaded of observers, that no amount of "talking" or "negotiation" with terrorists will change their mind. They want -- they need --, to kill innocent people in order to achieve both their religious and secular goals. And that's just a fact.

So-called "privacy" groups such as the ACLU and others constantly wail and warn against "profiling" and actively litigate against new body-imaging and scanning technology for airline passengers. They have yet to discover there's no "right to fly" laid out in the United States Constitution. Nor is commercial flight considered a "right" anywhere in the world. To ignore intelligence that says someone is a danger, as happened in the case of Ft. Hood's Major Hassan, and again with Umanu Abdulmutallab, is akin to the vast majority of the traveling public conceding to enter into a "suicide pact." A pact they sign yet again, every time they take a seat aboard a commercial airliner. The TSA, FAA, Department of Homeland Security, NTSB and White House all appear to be saying, "if someone on your airliner has evil, terroristic intentions and the necessary support to bomb your aircraft...well...that's just too bad. We'd rather recover the bodies of the slain /than take the risk of offending anyone."/ This is sheer lunacy!

Install "puffer" full-body imaging technology and get it online now. It's available and can be in place fairly quickly. The people reviewing the body images can be in another area so they never see the faces of people they're screening. But a fast radio-call can allow TSA to pull any prospective passenger from the line for a much more thorough screening.

In watching television presentations of body imaging, you'll also note that the private parts of the passenger are blacked out with a digital "fig leaf." That means the PETN carried in the underwear of the latest airline bomber would most likely have been missed. Get rid of the digital fig leaf. It's a useless block to discovery of concealed weapons, contraband or explosives. (And discovery of "contraband" is what gets the ACLU's own panties in a knot.) The ACLU and other groups seem to think smuggling drugs aboard airliners must also be considered "a right." With puffer technology and full body scans, drug smuggling aboard airliners can become a thing of the past. But the halt to drug trafficking is only a side-benefit to full-body imaging. The over-riding concern is passenger and aircraft safety.

If someone has a cultural or religious bias against body-image screening, the solution is clear. Don't fly. Drive, travel on a ship or go aboard a train or bus. You don't have a right to fly and certainly don't have the right to an objection that endangers the lives of millions of air travelers who move freely all over the world each year.

Personally, as someone who's been involved in security and protection for most of my life, I and my family fully concede to willingly go through full body imaging before climbing aboard an airliner. Which I have to do tomorrow. And I fervently hope that all the passengers climbing on board with me go through the same security. And there's nothing "discriminatory" about that. Everyone goes through the same process. Everyone is screened.

In addition, TSA has no on-scene armed and physically-skilled protection at the Security Gates within United States airports. This is a mistake and a security weakness. TSA needs to branch out into full protection mode. Airports are gathering places for hundreds and thousands of people. Airports and airlines counters have been attacked in the past and will be attacked again. It's only right that the government not only "react" to threats, but that it also foresee and prepare in order to forestall the "next attack."

This is a proper role of government, empowered by the Constitution. Protection of it's citizens is in fact, government's highest duty. Without some increased measure of security against fanatics, the loss of life is potentially tremendous. We certainly don't need anymore Lockerbie bombings, Richard Reids or Umanu Abdulmutallabs to prove the point. And the worst part of all this is with the technology available today, every airline bombing death in the future will have been preventable. If the government hadn't been so concerned with offending delicate sensibilities and enacted the proper security, these needless deaths wouldn't have happened.

However, with a President who takes three days to even issue a statement on the attempted airline bombing, one wonders about the resolve of the Administration and government functionaries. Bland assurances that "the system worked" aren't going to wash DHS Secretary Napolitano. As you found out. In fact, government may well "react" to this threat with half-hearted measures. But will they truly go to the point where they "anticipate and protect?" Highly unlikely. And, as happened in the past, the lawful citizen and airline passengers will suffer for the government's complete and apparent lack of resolve.

The New Media Journal.us © 2010 A Division of BasicsProject.org

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.