Are Airport Full-Body Scans Effectively Improving National Security?

Experts and critics suspect that these full-body scanners are doing nothing more than making passengers, pilots and flight attendants angry and embarrassed . Since these full-body scanners cannot see through the skin, it makes them ineffective in discovering explosives hidden in body cavities.

Full-body scanners that have been deployed at US airports are made by one of these three companies:

L-3 Communications - a major contractor with the Department of Homeland Security was issued a contract worth $165 million dollars four days after last year's Christmas bomb attempt. L3 employs three different lobbying firms that include Park Strategies, where former R-NY Sen. Al D'Amato resides on the company's behalf. Also residing on Park's L-3 account is former Appropriations staffer Kraig Siracuse.

Rapiscan - another full-body scanner company got their contract from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), worth $173 million. L obbyists for Rapiscan include Susan Carr, a former senior legislative aide to Rep. David Price, D-N.C., and chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee.

American Science - the third company that was a n early TSA contractor for full-body scanners . Their lobbying team includes, Tom Blank, a former deputy administrator for the TSA. Chad Wolf who was an assistant administrator at TSA and an aide to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who sits on the Transportation and Defense subcommittees of Appropriations. Last but not least, former Rep. Bud Cramer who sat on the Defense and Transportation subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee.

The deployment of these full-body scanners all came about from the reaction of 2009's Christmas day failed attempt to blow up a plane. T he Government Accountability Office found it uncertain whether full-body scanner would have been able to detect the weapon used by the terrorist.

The question still remains how far we are willing to go to stop a terrorist from boarding a plane with a bomb or weapon. Where do we draw the line concerning people's privacy and rights?

I am all for stopping terrorist, however it seems that we only put security measures in place after a terrorist strikes. The US has been fortunate that these recent attempts have failed. It would make more sense to be proactive instead of reactive; because reactive may be fatal. It's my opinion that Homeland Security should start brainstorming all aspects of how a terrorist can get a bomb on board a plane and then place security measures in place to prevent it. Let's not have the terrorist outsmart us; we should be outsmarting the terrorist.

Note: some of the information contained in this article was compiled from the November 12 article in the Washington Examiner titled: 'Naked scanners': Lobbyists join the war on terror