U.S. needs smarter security

13 September 2001

So Massport is now stepping up security by prohibiting curbside check-in. How comforting!

Of course, the hijackers who flew into the World Trade Center didn't use curbside check-in.

And to further make us feel safer, Massport will now allow only passengers to go down to boarding gates. Of course, the hijackers were the passengers.

"Sir," I imagine the conversation went at the gate, "Has your luggage been in your possession at all times?"

"Oh yes, absolutely."

"Has anyone asked you to carry on any items for them?"

"Nope. Packed it all myself. Very carefully."

Meanwhile, the fact that the hijackers arrived late, bought one- way tickets to the West Coast, according to some reports paid in cash, and were from the Middle East apparently bothered no one. Because, after all, their bags had been in their possession the entire time.

And the hijackers themselves? One appears to have been Mohammed Atta, who, according to press reports, was known by the FBI to be linked to terrorist groups. And the name we're told that Atta flew under?

Mohammed Atta.

"Good to see you again, Mr. Atta. You and the rest of your terrorist group doing well?"

"One way? No problem."

"And by the way Mr. Atta, your bags have been in possession the entire time, right?"

As the FAA and Massport ratchet up security, it's worth wondering whether the issue is not security but intelligence. Virtually anything that can be brought on board a plane can be used as a weapon. That's apparently what happened Tuesday, when razors, plastic holders and cans of mace were used to take over the aircraft. What level of security could ever assure that future terrorists, bent on suicide, won't be able to do the same?

But intelligence is different. One-way tickets paid in cash are an obvious problem. People with terrorist links should probably be scrutinized pretty closely before they fly. Smarter security, not necessarily more of it, really might make us safer.

But more importantly, real safety lies in identifying and stopping those who promote and engage in terrorism - in this case, it seems, the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. In the aftermath of the tragedies in New York and D.C., many have raised their voices to demand military action, seeking revenge.

They're right about the need for action. But it's not retribution that should motivate U.S. action: it's protection. Until they are stopped, those who have killed in the past will kill again.