National security stupidity
From all reports, the Australian government is pretty keen on buying missile defence technology from the US. There's been a lot of media coverage of it but there's one question I haven't seen answered yet: why do we need it? Is there a risk of some country attacking us anytime soon? Our participation in the Iraq war perhaps makes us more likely to cop a terrorist attack (thanks John!) but I don't think this US system is meant to prevent someone firing a rocket launched missile at an aircraft as it takes off.
The other really crazy thing about us buying into this technology is the basic question of whether it works: I've heard of plenty of trials of it but only one success. Even if someone could say the technology now worked reliably, how many would we need to buy to protect the whole country? Would we need to know about the attack in advance so that the system could be ready to shoot down the missile when it's launched? Aren't these common sense questions? If so why isn't anyone asking them?
Today there's been some criticism of the e-visa system, saying it doesn't do enough to verify the identities of those applying for visas. As usual, the criticism has come from someone respected in their field (ie. a non-political academic) and as usual, the government has dismissed criticism. Ruddocks arguments are curious:
"And to ask every tourist who is seeking to come to Australia during the course
of a year to apply for a paper-based visa where you see them face-to-face would
essentially bring it to halt."
Which of course is how the new US system is supposed to work: visa applicants are fingerprinted when they apply and this is then checked when they arrive in the US. The US have decided it's practical but here's the Australian government saying it isn't.
Of course, even if you verify their identity, that doesn't stop terrorism. Ruddock makes that point:
"If he'd been applying for a paper-based visa and wasn't on the alert system,
what would you have known about him?" Mr Ruddock asked.
"He would have got a visa unless there was something that drew attention to the
fact that he was a person of concern."
There's a precedent for that: the Sept 11 terrorists arrived in the US on valid visas. The only suspect thing they did was plan the hijacking of a few planes. It seems that in defending the Aust governments stance, Ruddock is neatly pointing out the fundamental problem with the new US system. Oops.
Posted by david at January 14, 2004 12:47 PM