Counter-terrorism Policies Panel

On February 23, 2010, the Muslim Students Association and the International Students Organization cosponsored a panel on U.S. counter-terrorism politics, featuring Professor Charles Hill, Yale’s diplomat-in-residence, and Alejandro Beutel, the government liaison of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. The discussion panel focused on the U.S. heightened air travel security policies after the Christmas Day bombings.

Beutel's Views

Beutel believes that the latest policy of the TSA, which involves heightened security screenings of nationals from fourteen designated countries, is not effective. In his view, Al-Qaeda is a transnational organization and therefore is not merely composed of individuals of a specific country or region. There is no reliable terrorist profile. This security measure does not prevent terrorists from going through other countries and only displaces the problem, while telling terrorists our strategy.

Beutel’s alternative is to create multiple layers of defenses and security measures, while fixing bureaucratic problems. He states that bureaucratic inefficiencies had contributed to preventing the sharing of information that could have precluded several terrorist incidents. These inefficiencies include techniques such as data mining that inundate the system with useless information. However, he remains strongly in support of strong legal defenses for all individuals.

Professor Hill's Views

Professor Hill states that it is hard to analyze the effectiveness of the policies because they deal with complex issues. However, he is in support of the current strategy, because it is a responsible step to take, based upon other states’ abilities to control security. There are realities of patterns of conduct and authorities should take action against known behavior. He added that the current list is not a closed list, and new states may be added as new developments occur.

Without this strategy, Professor Hill believes that the only other alternative would be to subject everyone to heightened security like the Israeli system, which would shut down the economy. He argues that the current system is not broken but “has done remarkably well.” Regarding civil liberties, he states that people who choose to travel by air should have to be subject to heightened screenings. He is not in favor of “intrusion” but says “we have to deal with it.” Air travel is such a unique and dangerous situation, and he comments, “We’re all in this together.”

I was disappointed in the performance of Professor Hill. He seemed to not put too much effort into the debate by being vague and apathetic. Instead, he relied on his ethos and reputation to carry him through. On the other hand, Beutel was extremely prepared and armed with facts, studies, and detailed statistics. It was an interesting contrast to see Beutel argue earnestly and intensely, while Professor Hill spoke in lackadaisical and half-hearted way. Therefore, it was unfortunate that I was convinced by Beutel’s argument so easily because I’m sure there are concrete reasons for the new policy.

The above image is courtesy of http://gis.nwcg.gov/.