Should Security Perimeter Around Airports Be widened?

Should Security Perimeter Around Airports Be widened?

This post is also available in: heעברית (Hebrew)

The terrorist attack on Ataturk International Airport in Istanbul has again has renewed the debate among security experts about whether the United States and other countries under threat should widen the security perimeter beyond the airport terminal.

Some have suggested that the Transportation Security Administration should explore ways to screen passengers and luggage offsite, perhaps in satellite parking lots or access roads, as it’s done in Israel and some conflict zones, or at least at the entrance to the terminal.

Others argue that layering on more security might just create more inconvenience than additional safety. A wider perimeter requires additional resources to keep it secure. And a confrontation can only be pushed back so far and for so long: wherever there’s a checkpoint, there’s usually a crowded line, and nothing is as vulnerable to mass casualties as a crowd. And it turns out that Turkey was screening passengers at the entrances of its airport.

In a recent interview former DHS security adviser Fran Townsend acknowledged that terrorists have demonstrated an ability to modify their tactics whenever new security measures are added. But she also suggested that identifying and engaging with attackers further from an enclosed space makes sense.

“So, in the example of Turkey, they do have a preliminary screening right as you come in through the main door. And every time you harden, and push out your preliminary screening point, they find another vulnerability,” Townsend said. “The Turkish response, the law enforcement response there, was very quick. The numbers could have been much worse.”

“You have to come to grips with the idea in a free and open society and public spaces, they’re never 100 percent secure. We can take measures to mitigate these risks, but you’re never going to get it to zero,” she concluded.