Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Are Nation's Airports Secure?

Aired November 17, 2002 - 09:15   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: We've been talking all this morning about that statement allegedly from al Qaeda warning of more attacks in New York and Washington. This follows the release of a threatening audiotape believed to be from Osama bin Laden. And the warning from the FBI of a possible "spectacular attack." Country remains on threat level yellow, whatever that really means.
CNN's security analyst Kelly McCann joins us from Washington to talk more about homeland security as we head into the holiday season. Kelly, there's some anxious people out there. We're getting some e- mails this morning. People are kind of split; some are, quite frankly, they're going to drive instead of fly, that sort of thing. A lot of people are saying, you know, if we do that, these cowards win.

How are you, individually, perceiving it and how are you operating as you enter the holidays?

KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Well, you know, that's a real personal question, you know. And I mean, I think that everyone has to evaluate where they are based on their personal experiences. I mean, I'm not going to change anything that I do one way or the other. There are some things you can control and there are other things you can't. And the bottom line is individually, can people qualify their risk? And if they can and that risk is acceptable, then they should perform that way.

If they can't qualify the risk, in other words, if they're truly fearful of flying or whatever and they don't have confidence that the system's been upgraded enough, then they should not. But it's a very personal decision. I mean, we've got people looking at fear issues, at personal responsibility issues, things that we've maybe forgotten over the last couple, three years.

O'BRIEN: I think -- let's talk about airplanes for a minute, because I think that's one of the, perhaps, most common decisions at this time of year, this year especially. You know, if it's a short enough trip, maybe just hop in the car. Getting on the airplane, how much safer is it really, since 9/11?

MCCANN: There's a couple of indications. Of course, you know, I mean, just at the base level, it couldn't not be safer. And the reason is you can't suffer a traumatic incident like we did and have -- not have some measure of upgrade. Now, whether it's been upgraded to the goals that were set and have we met the milestones, that's a significantly different answer. But yes, it is safer than it was. And I think also, that our adversary is unlikely to use the same exact methodology they did previously.

O'BRIEN: Let's talk about this system, though. You know, they almost use it as a point of pride to say everybody is treated equally. And I think, you know, to the exact contrary, that makes me more nervous than ever, because there are millions of passengers, there's only a limited amount of time. And whatever you may want to call it, I know the "p" word is a dirty word. It seems like it's high time to be doing some kind of profiling. And we're not talking about racial profiling here, religious profiling, we're talking about behavior, we're talking about indicators which are more objective and defensible. But don't you think it's time that the security system in these airports start doing that?

MCCANN: Absolutely. I mean, I would shout profiling from the highest building. I have. I mean, the bottom line, Miles, is that we're not talking about race.

Racial profiling, however, should be an element, if the other elements of criterion have been met. But on its own, it's useless. I mean, in fact, your adversary, if they're clever, would stop using people who have the same racial profile as they used previously. That would be ignorant. These men are not ignorant.

So, in fact, it's the behavior and it's the human factor of intercourse with that passenger, when you ask provocative questions, and you have firsthand evaluation of their response, that will give you an answer.

You know, another flaw in the system, in that interaction, is in warfare you don't want to fight the last war. In counter-terrorism, you don't want to protect against the last incident. And in fact, for instance, Richard Reid, you know, he was the only case of a person wearing the amazing exploding shoes. Yet worldwide, tens of thousands of people take their shoes off.

All of these explosives that are used for improvised explosive devices are malleable. You can make them look like anything. It doesn't have to be a shoe. It could be a laptop, it could be a belt buckle, it could be anything. It's always the mentality to hurt somebody or kill someone. It is not the implement. The fact that you take my nail clipper doesn't prevent me from balling up my fist and beating somebody to death. So they've missed the mark on what the real center of gravity is on the issue.

O'BRIEN: It seems to me that common sense is completely out of the equation.

MCCANN: Absolutely. I mean, in fact, it's the PC politick thing. The fact is, take the emotion out of it. Remove all of the kind of subjective inputs, and if you look at it, you say, well, there are actions that are observable that will be undertaken by someone who has a malicious intent. And that needs to be trained to people who have no previous experience. It's amazing to me that the same people that were involved in a failed system previously were retained. I mean, that's like rewarding failure. That is amazing to me.

O'BRIEN: Yeah. You know, and it doesn't make sense to me to be giving Ray Charles the third degree, and for that matter, my 10-year- old boy when we flew to Washington. He got selected for additional frisking.

And while I understand the theory that somebody can plant something on a 10-year-old boy, or, for that matter, Ray Charles, the point is there are so many people and there's such volume here, does it really make sense to marshal our resources that way?

MCCANN: As we discussed offline, you hit the nail on the head. And that is, given limited manpower and resources, no. I mean, you could more effectively use your assets than interrupting a 10-year-old going on board with his father, obviously, in travel. And the father's not going to ignore the child and leave him be the unwitting mule of an explosive device or a weapon or anything like that. So I agree with you 100 percent.

O'BRIEN: All right, Kelly McCann, we're going to leave it there. I guess it's up to you all out there to decide whether you feel safe and personal decision. We appreciate your insights, as always, Kelly.

MCCANN: You bet, Miles.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com






Aired November 17, 2002 - 09:15   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: We've been talking all this morning about that statement allegedly from al Qaeda warning of more attacks in New York and Washington. This follows the release of a threatening audiotape believed to be from Osama bin Laden. And the warning from the FBI of a possible "spectacular attack." Country remains on threat level yellow, whatever that really means.
CNN's security analyst Kelly McCann joins us from Washington to talk more about homeland security as we head into the holiday season. Kelly, there's some anxious people out there. We're getting some e- mails this morning. People are kind of split; some are, quite frankly, they're going to drive instead of fly, that sort of thing. A lot of people are saying, you know, if we do that, these cowards win.

How are you, individually, perceiving it and how are you operating as you enter the holidays?

KELLY MCCANN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Well, you know, that's a real personal question, you know. And I mean, I think that everyone has to evaluate where they are based on their personal experiences. I mean, I'm not going to change anything that I do one way or the other. There are some things you can control and there are other things you can't. And the bottom line is individually, can people qualify their risk? And if they can and that risk is acceptable, then they should perform that way.

If they can't qualify the risk, in other words, if they're truly fearful of flying or whatever and they don't have confidence that the system's been upgraded enough, then they should not. But it's a very personal decision. I mean, we've got people looking at fear issues, at personal responsibility issues, things that we've maybe forgotten over the last couple, three years.

O'BRIEN: I think -- let's talk about airplanes for a minute, because I think that's one of the, perhaps, most common decisions at this time of year, this year especially. You know, if it's a short enough trip, maybe just hop in the car. Getting on the airplane, how much safer is it really, since 9/11?

MCCANN: There's a couple of indications. Of course, you know, I mean, just at the base level, it couldn't not be safer. And the reason is you can't suffer a traumatic incident like we did and have -- not have some measure of upgrade. Now, whether it's been upgraded to the goals that were set and have we met the milestones, that's a significantly different answer. But yes, it is safer than it was. And I think also, that our adversary is unlikely to use the same exact methodology they did previously.

O'BRIEN: Let's talk about this system, though. You know, they almost use it as a point of pride to say everybody is treated equally. And I think, you know, to the exact contrary, that makes me more nervous than ever, because there are millions of passengers, there's only a limited amount of time. And whatever you may want to call it, I know the "p" word is a dirty word. It seems like it's high time to be doing some kind of profiling. And we're not talking about racial profiling here, religious profiling, we're talking about behavior, we're talking about indicators which are more objective and defensible. But don't you think it's time that the security system in these airports start doing that?

MCCANN: Absolutely. I mean, I would shout profiling from the highest building. I have. I mean, the bottom line, Miles, is that we're not talking about race.

Racial profiling, however, should be an element, if the other elements of criterion have been met. But on its own, it's useless. I mean, in fact, your adversary, if they're clever, would stop using people who have the same racial profile as they used previously. That would be ignorant. These men are not ignorant.

So, in fact, it's the behavior and it's the human factor of intercourse with that passenger, when you ask provocative questions, and you have firsthand evaluation of their response, that will give you an answer.

You know, another flaw in the system, in that interaction, is in warfare you don't want to fight the last war. In counter-terrorism, you don't want to protect against the last incident. And in fact, for instance, Richard Reid, you know, he was the only case of a person wearing the amazing exploding shoes. Yet worldwide, tens of thousands of people take their shoes off.

All of these explosives that are used for improvised explosive devices are malleable. You can make them look like anything. It doesn't have to be a shoe. It could be a laptop, it could be a belt buckle, it could be anything. It's always the mentality to hurt somebody or kill someone. It is not the implement. The fact that you take my nail clipper doesn't prevent me from balling up my fist and beating somebody to death. So they've missed the mark on what the real center of gravity is on the issue.

O'BRIEN: It seems to me that common sense is completely out of the equation.

MCCANN: Absolutely. I mean, in fact, it's the PC politick thing. The fact is, take the emotion out of it. Remove all of the kind of subjective inputs, and if you look at it, you say, well, there are actions that are observable that will be undertaken by someone who has a malicious intent. And that needs to be trained to people who have no previous experience. It's amazing to me that the same people that were involved in a failed system previously were retained. I mean, that's like rewarding failure. That is amazing to me.

O'BRIEN: Yeah. You know, and it doesn't make sense to me to be giving Ray Charles the third degree, and for that matter, my 10-year- old boy when we flew to Washington. He got selected for additional frisking.

And while I understand the theory that somebody can plant something on a 10-year-old boy, or, for that matter, Ray Charles, the point is there are so many people and there's such volume here, does it really make sense to marshal our resources that way?

MCCANN: As we discussed offline, you hit the nail on the head. And that is, given limited manpower and resources, no. I mean, you could more effectively use your assets than interrupting a 10-year-old going on board with his father, obviously, in travel. And the father's not going to ignore the child and leave him be the unwitting mule of an explosive device or a weapon or anything like that. So I agree with you 100 percent.

O'BRIEN: All right, Kelly McCann, we're going to leave it there. I guess it's up to you all out there to decide whether you feel safe and personal decision. We appreciate your insights, as always, Kelly.

MCCANN: You bet, Miles.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com