Pakistan Says It Played Key Role in Inquiry - New York Times

Details of the plot remained sketchy even as officials released the names of 19 of the 24 suspects arrested Thursday. The suspects, who range in age from 17 to 35, have addresses in London, Birmingham and High Wycombe, a town about 50 miles northwest of London in Buckinghamshire. All the names appeared to be of Muslim origin; the suspects are all said to have been born on British soil.

According to British news reports, some of the suspects may have had links to Pakistan, perhaps through parents who immigrated to England. Newspapers here reported, however, that at least one of the suspects may have been a white Briton who converted to Islam.

While "links to Pakistan" inevitably raise the possibility of real connections to (whatever remains of ) al Qaeda, I stand by my initial response to this whole situation: I still think the reaction to this alleged plot has been governmental hysteria. It would be easy for a cynic to think that the interests of politicians and bureaucrats invested in prosecuting the Global War on Terror are actually best served when fear is escalated, and the threat is hyped.

Why are we being subjected to this elaborate security theater? Is there any reason to believe we're actually defending against something? Any evidence that supports expanding security procedures outside of Britain to the US, Canada, and beyond? What possible purpose is served by having a passenger fly from Houston to Seattle, or Newark to Memphis, without a bottle of Visine in his carry-on? The answer: none. These measures, just like the TSA's instant shoe fetish inspired by Richard Reid, are a knee-jerk reaction. A specific response like this is ineffective by design, and wasteful in its application.

It's worth pointing out that no particularly novel threat has been uncovered here: both the design (blowing up several long-distance planes simultaneously) and the method (mixing liquids to create an explosive, triggering the explosion with consumer electronics) are straight out of the well known "Operation Bojinka" plan hatched by Ramzi Yusef (one of the original World Trade Center bombers in 1993) and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 1994. In other words, we are in no more danger today from passengers bringing liquids onto planes than we have been for the past 12 years. Cranking up the hysteria hasn't made us a bit safer, but decent investigative work has.

This plot, as I (and the Washington Post) understand it, was penetrated at the earliest stages by Western intelligence and police forces.

By late 2005, the probe had expanded to involve several hundred investigators on three continents. They kept dozens of suspects under close surveillance for months, even as some of the plotters traveled between Britain and Pakistan to raise money, find recruits and refine their scheme, according to interviews with U.S. and European counterterrorism officials.

So, in a stark demonstration of weak operational discipline, the conspirators, having been sold out by an associate, were known to the authorities for over a year, and their travel and communication monitored. The only reason this plot got as far as it did was because UK authorities permitted them. Nothing in the press indicates any reason to believe a wider, undiscovered element of this conspiracy is waiting to act in the United States, Canada, or any other country that has "upgraded" their airport security.

In the end, I think my friend Cory describes the problem well:

If this is a good idea now, then why won't it still be a good idea in a year? A decade? After all, terrorist plots will always exist in potentia (can you prove that no terrorist plots are hatching at this moment?) Until they handcuff us all nude to our seats and dart us with tranquilizers, there will always be the possibility that a passenger will do something naughty on a plane (even then, who knows how much semtex and roofing nails a bad guy could hide in his colon?).

The "security" handwaving the public is subjected to—the color coded alert states, the endless screenings, the press conferences—are a waste of time, a breeding ground for creeping paternalism, and demeaning to both the protectors and the protected.

I would rather any of the economic cost of this "heightened security" go to the intelligence and police work that actually prevented this plot from becoming dangerous.