Finding Security in an Age of Terror

Please chip in to support rabble's election 2019 coverage. Support today for as little as $1 per month!

In the hours following Tuesday's attacks in New York and Washington, two emotions dominated: horror at the appalling scale of the carnage, and astonishment at the terrorists' sophistication.

On reflection, "sophistication" is an inapt term. The hijackers carried no complex electronic gear or advanced explosives. Their only weapons were decidedly lo-tech: plastic knives and box openers of the kind available at any office-supply store.

The hijackers brought to their murderous task a willingness to kill themselves and an impressive level of co-ordination and timing. There is nothing new or startling about those attributes.

What set them apart was a simple idea: the conversion of commercial airliners into weapons, into flying bombs capable of taking out the most prestigious symbols of American military and commercial power.

It's one of those ideas that seems inconceivable only until the moment someone conceives of it, whereupon it instantly becomes incredibly obvious.

With that simple idea in hand, the worst terrorist act in U.S. history became relatively straightforward: a matter of lining up a few zealots, buying them instruction at commercial flying schools, and equipping them with box cutters, plastic cutler, and airplane tickets.

The scale of the ensuing violence should not blind us to the simplicity of the preparations. We don't have to, and we should not, conjure up some omnipotent enemy capable of bringing the world's mightiest power to its knees.

What we're dealing with here is apparently a small band of murderous fanatics who exploited the world's failure to anticipate a simple plan of almost unimaginable destructive capacity.

Once anticipated, the idea of converting airliners into weapons becomes a relatively easy problem to counteract. It will not require the technological might of a military-industrial superpower. It will require only thinking, planning and careful attention to detail.

"We do need to improve security, but we should not understand the need for heightened security in a broad, vague way as a cultural imperative," wrote Phil Agre, professor of information studies at UCLA and publisher of the Internet-based Red Rock Eater News Service.

"We do not need a police state, and we should not militarize our society," Agre wrote. "Rather, we should view security as a design problem."

As a design issue, the problem of terrorists turning airliners into weapons seems relatively simple to solve.

As a first step, the door between the cabin and the cockpit of an airliner could be eliminated. Without access to the pilots, hijackers might be able to divert a plane to another destination, but they could not conceivably force it to crash into a designated target.

The operation of a plane's transponders, which assist ground controllers in tracking an aircraft, could be placed beyond reach of anyone on board. In Tuesday's attacks, the hijackers were apparently able to disarm them on all four commandeered planes.

The days of entrusting pre-boarding security checks to private firms employing minimum-wage inspectors could end. Those who carry out pre-flight checks could display a level of training and diligence commensurate with the importance of their task.

With careful thought, additional steps can be found to eliminate the danger of terrorists reprising Tuesday's attacks. The important thing is to concentrate on concrete steps directly focused on the goal of preventing terrorism.

The danger, in light of the understandably bellicose mood sweeping the United States, is that security precautions will go beyond concrete, goal-oriented steps into the promotion of generalized control and authority.

To the extent that the hijackings were an assault on freedom, such a climate would spell victory for the terrorists. You cannot defend freedom by eliminating it.

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.