“the system worked”
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Sunday that the thwarting of the attempt to blow up an Amsterdam-Detroit airline flight Christmas Day demonstrated that “the system worked.”
Asked by CNN’s Candy Crowley on “State of the Union” how that could be possible when the young Nigerian who has been charged with trying to set off the bomb was able to smuggle explosive liquid onto the jet, Napolitano responded: “We’re asking the same questions.”
Napolitano added that there was “no suggestion that [the suspect] was improperly screened.”
What? So people who we’ve received warnings about from their parents that they may be terrorists are supposed to be allowed to carry a bomb on a plane and ignite it only to be thwarted by the passengers and crew? That’s how the system is supposed to work?
Good to know.
Napolitano is an incompetent boob. Don’t you feel safe with her in charge of our national security?
No. I don’t feel even a little bit safe.
It would have worked if someone on a terrorist watch list wouldn’t have gotten a US Visa. The Brits denied him one when he tried to come back after he graduated from the university.
It would have worked if they had flagged the cash purchase with the change in departure city and the fact the guy didn’t have any friggin’ luggage for a 2-week trip.
Good God, 2012 is not coming fast enough.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1449 hrs
On that note, maybe someone will call DHS today and say “yeah, I know this guy, he writes a blog, I think he might blow up a plane.” I guess that could put you or me or a bunch of others on the no-fly list too. Who needs proof, right? Let’s assume guilty until proven innocent.
I think the real question is what tangible information the father provided our government, and that’s something I’ve yet to see in news reports. Did he provide them with anything concrete (i.e. names, places, dates) that could lead government officials to more actionable intelligence?
This was a screening failure, plain and simple. The simple answer is probably to ask individuals boarding planes to pass through something more than a glorified metal detector - something with the capability to see through clothing.
In the meantime, I suppose we should all prepare for what we got from the Bush administration after 9/11 - a bunch of silly overreaction involving standing up on planes and carryon luggage and other stuff that doesn’t really do anything to keep anyone safe, but simply creates an appearance of government doing something. That’s what government does best, right?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 27, 2009 at 1552 hrs
RS - per Ms Napolitano this morning..
She said U.S. officials would review procedures for putting individuals on terrorist watch lists. Mr. Abdulmutallab was on a broader list with about half a million names on it
I ask again - how did this man get a US Visa? Even if he wasn’t on the more restrictive no-fly list?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1557 hrs
He had a multiple-entry visa that was issued back in 2008, before this guy was much of a blip on anyone’s radar. That visa would have been issued while Bush 43 in office. I’m not blaming Bush for this, I simply mention his name because there are those who will try to turn this into some tirade about the incompetence of the Obama administration (see original post). I don’t think it’s a partisan issue at all.
We’ve got the names of over 550,000 people in a database of people who may or may not be terrorists or have connections to terrorist organizations. In this case, bureaucrats assert that there was insufficient derogatory information to put his name on a no-fly or mandatory screening list. Given that his father contacted an embassy only recently and apparently with very non-specific information, that’s not hard to find believable. I suspect that not everyone at DHS can drop everything they’re doing every time someone contacts an embassy and asserts that someone else might be involved in something naughty.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 27, 2009 at 1910 hrs
The only reason why the passengers were able to thwart anything was the fact that the detonator failed to go off properly. You can assure that AQ will learn from their mistakes and the next attacks won’t fail. I say “next attacks” because they know how to exploit our weaknesses and will persist until successful. Lord knows this DHS administration and FAA won’t do anything to stop it. The guy was on a terror watch list and still was able to board a plane and had a valid US visa as well.
Our borders are porous, full body scanners aren’t implemented because they’re too invasive, and we’re not allowed to profile. That coupled with an administration that refuses to acknowledge the terrorism threat is just laying out the welcome mat for our enemies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1919 hrs
I suspect that not everyone at DHS can drop everything they’re doing every time someone contacts an embassy and asserts that someone else might be involved in something naughty.
I dunno - I find a world of difference between some anonymous person submitting a random report that “john doe is suspicious” and a person contacting an embassy to tell them his son may be involved in terrorist activities. We don’t expect everyone at DHS to drop anything - but it’s not unreasonable to demand the organization spending $50 billion a year have some capable person follow up on such a report.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1934 hrs
She thinks this system works.
Do you want a system that works this well delivering your health care?
Just saying.
That visa would have been issued while Bush 43 in office. I’m not blaming Bush for this, I simply mention his name because there are those who will try to turn this into some tirade about the incompetence of the Obama administration (see original post).
It’s not incompetence when a well respected central banker comes in to your embassy to warn you about his jihadist son and the administration doesn’t revoke the visa? Sorry, but the political appointees of an administration can set priorities and a tone in the bureaucracy that can either help or hinder the handling of issues. Janet’s stance is purely reactive, not proactive, and that’s exactly the wrong tone to set for this.
I don’t think it’s a partisan issue at all.
Only to the extent that we’ll never see the Democrats do anything to discipline anyone in the Civil Service for this sort of incompetence. The blame will be placed on “the system” and all personal responsibility avoided.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1939 hrs
There was enough “smelly” about this guy to warrant a much closer look. Between his dad calling the US Embassy on him, to the Brits denying him a new visa when he requested one.
He was on a watch list, his visa should have been revoked.
I would also say that all that fancy-schmancy airline ticketing info should have flagged this guy for the “special” search in Amsterdam. Be it a sniffer unit or a sniffer dog.
But rest assured everyone. Janet is… On.The.Job.
We will now get to have fewer carry-ons and get to pay for the remainder to be checked. Now we get to sit for the last hour of the flight. I hope you don’t have to pee and I feel very sorry for parents travelling with their kids. And no more blankets either.
Because we had to Do Something!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1950 hrs
Great Britain didn’t deny his visa because of who he was. They denied it on a technicality (he was requesting a student visa for a course of study that didn’t exist). We have no reason to date to believe that their own intelligence suggested any knowledge of inappropriate activity beyond that.
We don’t routinely revoke visas without credible evidence. I think that’s a good thing. We should always demand that government have proof to justify its actions.
The issue here is that the father presented no credible evidence that we know of. Are we to presume guilt anytime anyone goes to an embassy and says someone is involved in terrorist activity? What I’m if ticked off that my aunt didn’t get me what I wanted for Christmas? Maybe I’ll ruin her NYE vacation by calling DHS and suggesting she might be a terrorist. Taking someone’s word for it is an entirely inappropriate standard.
Am I okay with government requiring evidence before action is taken? Um, yes. Always. Even if it means bad things happen occasionally. I’d much rather that than the alternative, where we’re collecting data and harshly interrogating zillions of people for no other reason than we’re government and we can. Such lax requirements invite abuse of power.
Also neomom, I’m sure your comprehensive background in applied intelligence would allow you to make much better decisions. See, the difference here is that I’m not dumb enough to pretend I’m smart enough how to run DHS. You, on the other hand, grab the shovel and dig your grave with vigor and enthusiasm!
Posted by Recess Supervisor on December 27, 2009 at 2036 hrs
You guys can fight over whether team Obama is incompetent (say what you will about Dick Cheney, but when that guy was running things I had zero worries about us screwing up things like this)
My question is when will we decide to do active profiling? Now everyone lives in fear and the air transit system is massively disrupted even further going forward. All for what? Because we don’t want some foreign born Muslims to submit to further pre-flight screening? As Newt Gingrich said this morning, member of US Rotary clubs aren’t the ones planning and executing these attacks on the airline industry.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 2046 hrs
Don’t you feel safe with her in charge of our national security?
Well, um, let me think ... no, I don’t.
Posted by hsgbdmama on December 27, 2009 at 2123 hrs
The Obamatrons have not yet figured out how to respond to this criticism of Naoplitano. Just like Climategate they will come out of the woodwork once their message is crafted. Will it take two weeks or less?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 2203 hrs
Well RS - the Obama Admin pulled all the visas for the acting Honduran President because they didn’t know the difference between a military coup and a constitutional removal from power.
Revoking one because a muslim guy from Nigeria is on a terrorist watch list doesn’t seem like that big of a deal somehow. I don’t think your aunt is a Nigerian muslim, nor is she probably on a terrorist watch list. But if any grave digging will be happening it will be when the detonator doesn’t fail for the next dude on a watch list that didn’t get his visa revoked due to political correctness.
May none of us be on that plane.
But then again, I couldn’t give a rat’s hiney about giving foreign nationals that want to kill us the same rights as US Citizens. The US had absolutely no obligation whatsoever to not revoke his visa without your vaunted “credible evidence” - the watch list alone should have prevented him from getting one in the first place and if the Bush Admin f’d that one up, then shame on them.
And yes, the Brits denied his second visa because he lied to them. Kind of a no-no.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 2207 hrs
I’m feeling better now. Surfing the net I just noticed that Sheila Jackson Lee is the chairman of the House Transportation Security and Infrastructure Safety sub-committee.
She’s on the case as we speak !
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6788559.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 2209 hrs
The issue here is that the father presented no credible evidence that we know of. Are we to presume guilt anytime anyone goes to an embassy and says someone is involved in terrorist activity?
In this case do you actually believe the father was “just anyone?” He was the creep’s father, and a respected former government official.
Further, why should “credible evidence” be required to be denied a visa? Entering this country on a visa is not a human right, it’s a courtesy we provide citizens of other countries. Yes, rejecting someone because of an accusation of jihadist tendencies could be a hardship, but why should the US government allow its citizens to be subjected to threats of death in cases where there may be doubt as to the motives of a visa holder?
You seem to believe that the US government is supposed to serving people of other countries and not the interests of its own citizens. I suggest that you run your candidates on that platform in the next election and see just how many of your fellow citizens agree with you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 0101 hrs
I am going to be doing a bit of flying in January, and I cannot express how disconcerted I am at the lackadaisical response from Napolitano and the fact that Obama himself has not said anything yet.
To suggest that the system worked is a statement of astounding idiocy. It goes to show that Napolitano thinks about things from a 100% bureaucratic mindset. All she is concerned with is the fact that protocol and SOP was followed once the plane was on the ground and the situation was assessed. She feels absolutely no personal responsibility for the fact that this guy was allowed to get on a plane to the United States with a bomb in his crotch in the first place.
I don’t care who was President when this guy’s visa was approved. I want the name of the bureaucrat who stamped his paperwork, and everyone else who saw it. Their jobs need to be eliminated ASAP.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 0632 hrs
Amazing the lengths the Liberals go through to justify this administration’s ineptitude. Recess, injecting the name of Mr. Bush no longer works, it’s obama’s now and his administration is proving what a lot of us have known since before he was elected. Let us not forget that it was just recently that the hand book for flight screening appeared on line. Your efforts at defending this guy and his appointees renders you irrelevant.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 0857 hrs
The issue here is that the father presented no credible evidence that we know of. Are we to presume guilt anytime anyone goes to an embassy and says someone is involved in terrorist activity? What I’m if ticked off that my aunt didn’t get me what I wanted for Christmas? Maybe I’ll ruin her NYE vacation by calling DHS and suggesting she might be a terrorist. Taking someone’s word for it is an entirely inappropriate standard.
It’s a bit different when a prominent member of Nigeria’s elite class goes to the US embassy and tells them that his son is likely going to be a big problem. I would think that information would be enough to have some overpaid bureaucrat get off their ass and at least do some checking, and share the info with other appropriate agencies so he makes it onto a no-fly list.
Again, it certainly appears that the FBI, TSA, etc. are still completely inept in working together to keep us safe.
And, I would think the chances that there are just one of these bombs out there is incredibly slim. There should be radical changes to the way we operate immediately, but it’s the government, so the politicians will need to see body bags before doing a thing.
Oh, and the comment from Janet was “taken out of context.”
She better have her resignation typed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 0902 hrs
Napolitano is an incompetent boob.
Truer words were never spoken (typed). I like how the President didn’t even make a comment on this. Instead they trot out this weenie, who proves every day she would be challenged running a lemonade stand.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 0952 hrs
Who is in charge of security for international flights departing from a foreign country?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1022 hrs
-
When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s father in Nigeria reported concern over his son’s “radicalization” to the U.S. Embassy there last month, intelligence officials in the United States deemed the information insufficient to pursue. The young man’s name was added to the half-million entries in a computer database in McLean and largely forgotten.
The lack of attention was not unusual, according to U.S. intelligence officials, who said that thousands of similar bits of information flow into the National Counterterrorism Center each week from around the world. Only those that indicate a specific threat, or add to an existing body of knowledge about an individual, are passed along for further investigation and possible posting on airline and border watch lists. …
Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) joined GOP critics in asking how the suspect was able to retain a U.S. visa — issued by the U.S. Embassy in London in 2008 — after his name appeared in the terrorist database.
“What happened after this man’s father called our embassy in Nigeria?” Lieberman asked. “What happened to that information? Was there follow-up to try to determine where this suspect was?”
White House officials struggled to explain the complicated system of centralized terrorist data and watch lists, stressing that they were put in place years ago by the Bush administration. Spokesman Robert Gibbs said President Obama has ordered reviews of the watch-list system and the airport explosives screening.
When Robert Gibbs started spinning this back into more BushBushBushBushBush, it became apparent that the answer to Lieberman’s question was no. It’s one thing to get an anonymous tip about a potential terrorist suspect. When a father feels compelled to warn the US about his own son, that should have triggered a little bit more response than “We’ll take it under advisement.”
The question on the visa is critical. No one has a right to a visa to the US. If we have credible information that someone constitutes a threat — and a father’s testimony should be considered at least credible enough to hoist a red flag or two — then the visa should be canceled until more investigation can take place. It’s absolutely ridiculous that we’re kicking out Anatolie Vartosu for being too successful in America while keeping Adbulmutallab’s visa in place because we’re just not sure he’s a radical jihadi. It’s as ridiculous as doing strip-searches on Grandma while allowing a Nigerian on a watch list to pass through two sets of security without a patdown.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1029 hrs
Everyone is missing the real problem. While it is a little bit of a concern that he was able to enter the country after his father expressed concerns, it is not surprising. He was not on a terrorist watch list nor a no fly list, more of a we have an interest in these people list so let’s keep an eye on them list.
I am more worried about how he was able to get explosives on the plane. That is what we should be focusing on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1038 hrs
John -
he was on a “watch” list - along with about 500K other people. While that number is a bit much for detailed investigation or surveillance, it should at least be enough to revoke a friggin’ visa.
On the “how did he get explosives on the plane” front. They were sewn into his underwear. Since they weren’t metal, they didn’t register on the metal detectors.
However, there is a new technology that can take an “x-ray” of a person to be able to see what is under your clothes (like a syringe full of a chemical reactant) and “sniff” them for explosives (like PETN). However all the civil libertarians are fighting using them because they are too much an “invasion of privacy”.
First - the image is not stored. Second, they would have male/female lines and screeners. Third - with the advent of this type of explosives and the new ceramic knife blades, I’m thinking the ACLU can shove it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1051 hrs
“I am more worried about how he was able to get explosives on the plane. That is what we should be focusing on.”
That’s exactly what I’m concerned about. Airports need to be able to provide the security necessary to thwart the carry on of explosives. There are a number of steps that could be taken including the the implementation of biosensors, dogs, etc., that would have detected the explosives.
The chances of someone obtaining a visa who is not on any form of watch list is very good. The likelihood will be an individual from within the United States attempting to do the same.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1053 hrs
Who is in charge of security measures/screening at an international airport in a foreign country?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1055 hrs
Who is in charge of security for international flights departing from a foreign country?
I assume the security agency in the particular country of origin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1059 hrs
“I assume the security agency in the particular country of origin. “
If that’s the case, Amsterdam failed miserably.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1104 hrs
He was not on The Terrorist Watch List, nor was he on any no fly list. He was on a persons of interest list. Like I stated before, we need to focus on keeping explosives off an airplane, and yes I understand the difficulty in this case but that is beside the point. Focusing on trying to keep half a million people on some low level bureaucratic list that means absolutely nothing off of a plane is a waste of time and resources. How about spending that time and money on protecting passengers?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1114 hrs
“I assume the security agency in the particular country of origin. “
If that’s the case, Amsterdam failed miserably.
As did DHS, and the State Department. This jihadi should not have had a visa, and the tip from the father should have put this guy on a no-fly list.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1121 hrs
John - as I stated earlier. Monitoring 500K people would be largely impossible. However, every single person on that list should be denied visas or have their visas revoked. That wouldn’t take much effort except a database match of names. Some IT geek could do it in a week or less.
The way to prevent the explosives getting on the plane - the human x-ray and sniffer equipment. But I believe there are only something like 15 or 16 of them in use because of the “privacy” issues.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1124 hrs
“As did DHS, and the State Department. This jihadi should not have had a visa, and the tip from the father should have put this guy on a no-fly list.”
That well may be GMan, but be there a visa or not, it would have been the explosive that would have brought the plane down, and there is no reason that someone should be able to get an explosive on a plane. Like I said, the chances of someone obtaining a visa who is not on any form of watch list is very good. The likelihood will be an individual from within the United States attempting to do the same. Someone should be investigating Amersterdam’s security measures.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1130 hrs
Pat - have you ever travelled internationally?
If you have, you would know that you need to have a valid passport and a valid visa (if applicable) for your country of destination before you get on the plane.
If you don’t have those, you can’t board.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1140 hrs
For the record, the TSA has the authority to inspect the security precautions at foreign airports and if they refuse or fail inspection, to forbid flights that originate at the airport to enter the US.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/49/VII/A/III/449/I/44907
Now, I doubt that the airport in Amsterdam has thrown up any red flags prior to this incident that would warrant such scrutiny, but perhaps it’s time for a look see.
Posted by Owen on December 28, 2009 at 1143 hrs
“Pat - have you ever travelled internationally?
If you have, you would know that you need to have a valid passport and a valid visa (if applicable) for your country of destination before you get on the plane.
If you don’t have those, you can’t board. “
Neomom, you state the obvious. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is no reason that someone should be able to get an explosive on a plane. Like I said, the chances of someone obtaining a visa who is not on any form of watch list is very good. The likelihood will be an individual from within the United States attempting to do the same.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1146 hrs
Pat -
AGAIN
He was on a watch list, just not the no-fly list…. Which should have been enough to revoke the visa. He should have never even been ON the *@&$^@ plane.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1155 hrs
“Now, I doubt that the airport in Amsterdam has thrown up any red flags prior to this incident that would warrant such scrutiny, but perhaps it’s time for a look see.”
It’s definitely time for a look see.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1155 hrs
“Pat -
AGAIN
He was on a watch list, just not the no-fly list…. Which should have been enough to revoke the visa. He should have never even been ON the *@&$^@ plane.”
Neomom, who’s disagreeing with you??????
I’m saying that with or without a visa, there is no reason that someone should be able to get an explosive on a plane. Like I said, the chances of someone obtaining a visa who is not on any form of watch list is very good. The likelihood will be an individual from within the United States attempting to do the same.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1201 hrs
Also, if he’s on a list of 500,000 people, or 1 million people, it shouldn’t matter.
Look, these lists had better be database tables on a very powerful (memory and storage) computer somewhere. Running a query when a person buys a ticket, and attempts to board should take approximately 1 second each time with such small numbers of people. Hell, properly designed, it shouldn’t even take that long. That means that the number of people on this list isn’t an issue, and is just an excuse to shrug off incompetence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1249 hrs
Everyone is really confused about this list. It is not a terrorist watch list, that list is really small. They key to preventing terrorists acts on planes is to prevent explosives and weapons from even getting on the plane. People don’t blow up, explosives do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1310 hrs
Everyone is really confused about this list. It is not a terrorist watch list, that list is really small. They key to preventing terrorists acts on planes is to prevent explosives and weapons from even getting on the plane. People don’t blow up, explosives do.
Yes, but… “Necessity is the mother of invention.” These people are going to be on a constant mission to come up with new ways to evade detection technology.
This is why the steps we take to prevent terrorism by airplane need to be multifaceted. This guy should never have gotten on that plane… Not because there wasn’t detection equipment in place capable of spotting his device, but because he never should have been able to get a visa. Whatever list he is on, it should have been enough to red flag him and prevent him from getting on that plane to begin with.
The fault here does not lie solely with that airport in Amsterdam, it lies deep within the bureaucracy of the Homeland Security and State departments.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1333 hrs
Everyone is really confused about this list. It is not a terrorist watch list, that list is really small.
No John - you are the one who is confused.
There are two lists: 1) the terrorist watch list - the one with 550K people on it and the one this dude was on and 2) the no-fly list which is the much smaller list that he was not on.
Both lists should equal automatic denial or revokation of visas - thereby preventing the person from even attempting to smuggle explosives on the plane in his underwear.
Step 2 would be to tell CAIR and the ACLU to get bent and start intalling those x-ray/sniffer machines to catch syringes and PETN hidden in his groin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1435 hrs
Focusing on trying to keep half a million people on some low level bureaucratic list that means absolutely nothing off of a plane is a waste of time and resources. How about spending that time and money on protecting passengers?
RS and John deliberately miss the point. The only common factors in this sort of crap are: 1) Muslim; 2) male; 3) under the age of 40.
How about just profiling THEM and letting Granny go potty during the last 60 minutes of a flight from NY to LA?
Posted by dad29 on December 28, 2009 at 1450 hrs
neomom - no the 550k list is not the terrorist watch list. It is a person of interest list, i.e. this person may or may not be a terrorist, we heard a rumor, there needs to be follow up to determine who this person is, etc. The terrorist watch list is very small, smaller than the no fly list.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1512 hrs
Dad29,
In profiling an individual I can see how you could determine visually that a person is male and under 40, but how would you know what their religious affiliation is?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1835 hrs
How would you know what their religious affiliation is?
Umar Abdulmutallab
Hello?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1847 hrs
Neomom, you’ll have to clear your statement up a little for me. What does a name have to do with religious affiliation?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1853 hrs
Oh, and she’s changed her assessment—today, the system didn’t work.
Posted by hsgbdmama on December 28, 2009 at 1946 hrs
Neomom, you’ll have to clear your statement up a little for me. What does a name have to do with religious affiliation?
Really?
I know you are somehow trying to make Neomom out to be some kind of racist, or xenophobe, but… Really?
It is pretty easy to tell the general region of the world that a person comes from based upon their name. If my first name were Mohammed, you would likely guess that I am from a middle eastern country, since Islam is the vast majority religion in that region, it would be fair to guess that I were Muslim. Conversely, my real name is distinctly polish, and my middle name is that of the adoptive father of jesus, which would likely lead you to believe that I am Catholic or Christian, since it is the majority denomination/religion in that region.
It is called “profiling”, not “knowing”. This from Webster:” the act of suspecting or targeting a person on the basis of observed characteristics or behavior”. Because we do not actually know the religious association of the subject of the profiling, we turn to other characteristics that are common to people who meet that profile. In the case of Muslims, of the 1.5 Billion or so muslims on Earth, most of them are located in Middle Eastern countries. Middle Easterners do have a distinctive appearance.
This is all outside of that fact that Muslims tend to dress a certain way, and behave a certain way… not all of them, but many of them, making them an easier target for profiling than say an athiest.
Not saying I approve or disapprove, but you seemed to be confused on how “profiling” works.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 2200 hrs
“I know you are somehow trying to make Neomom out to be some kind of racist, or xenophobe, but… Really?”
Gee, among you being a genius about every topic you are also a pyschic.
Well Kreskin, I first asked Dad29 how he would know what religious affiliation a person would have. Neomom then said you would know a person’s religious affiliation by the name, “Umar Abdulmutallab”. I was trying to understand what she actually meant by that. But as you answered for her, she must be a ventriloquist, and a guess you know what that would make you.What exactly is the distinctive appearance Middle Easterners have anyway?
Daniel Patrick Boyd is a Muslim. Richard Reid is a Muslim, Jose Padilla is a Muslim, Levar Haley Washington is a Muslim, Gregory Vernon Patterson is a Muslim, Kevin James is a Muslim. Their names don’t sound at all like Umar Abdulmutallab. In fact they are U.S, nationals. An none of them look like Arabs.
30% of Lebanese Arabs are not Muslim, 11% of Arab Kuwaitis are not Muslim, 10% of Syrian Arabs are not Muslim, 6% of Egyptian Arabs are not Muslim, 5% of Jordanese Arabs are not Muslim: most of these Arab non-Muslims are Christian. And in the U.S., two-thirds of Arab-Americans are Christian.
And when looking at men only when profiling, at least 40% of suicide bombers are women.
Timothy McVeigh committed the largest terrorist act upon the United States until 911 came about. He was some right wing nut case who was protesting tyranny. Maybe we should profile every right wing nut case too.
Is Neomom a rasist? Are you a rasist? I’ll let what you’ve written speak for itself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 2233 hrs
Good Morning Pat.
Sorry I didn’t get back to you last night, but I do have a bit of a life.
Doug covered the “profiling” definition pretty well. And he is correct, just like your nifty little attempts on the other thread to make it seem that not supporting Obamacare was un-Christian, you are certainly trying to make anyone who wants to profile seem like a “racist”, although Islam is not a race, so I’m not sure how that works.
You are being intentionally dense if you don’t know exactly what I meant anyway. Tell me that Umar Abdulmutallab or Malik Nadal Hasan didn’t raise the flag as soon as you heard it.
For males, while not a 100% catch, it’s a pretty good bet that anyone with Mohammed or Abdul in their name is muslim. Especially if their flight originated in North Africa or the middle east. If you are looking for method of dress, again, while not 100% you can start with the little embroidered cap, the beard, the loose pants with the tunic over the top.
In this particular case, the cash ticket and lack of luggage should have also flagged young Umar.
However, I do agree with you about the female bombers. Women from that area should be profiled just as much. Especially if they are travelling veiled and in their head to to robes.
It certainly makes more sense than patting down the partially disabled, white Grandma - like my mom had happen the last time she flew. As I read over at Michelle Malkin - we don’t need to be protected from Olga Swenson.
And no, I don’t particularly care about political correctness or offending the CAIR folks. Trust me, as a woman and a Christian, I am plenty offended by much in society. But so what. The Constitution doesn’t have a “Freedom from being offended” clause. The muslims can suck it up and join free society and be offended right along with the rest of us. Enough of this stupid multi-cultural crap that carves out special priviledges to protect their delicate sensibilities.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2009 at 0912 hrs
Good news! The House is actually trying to prohibit the full-body scanners, but hey, we can’t have any carry on or electronic device or even pee during the last hour of a flight now.
I feel soooooooo much safer now.
Privacy advocates, for example, have tried to stop or at least slow the introduction of advanced checkpoint screening devices that use so-called millimeter waves to create an image of a passenger’s body, so officers can see under clothing to determine if a weapon or explosive has been hidden. Security officers, in a private area, review the images, which are not stored. Legislation is pending in the House that would prohibit the use of this equipment for routine passenger screening.
To date, only 40 of these machines have been installed at 19 airports across the United States — meaning only a tiny fraction of passengers pass through them. Amsterdam’s airport has 15 of these machines — more than just about any airport in the world — but an official there said Sunday that they were prohibited from using them on passengers bound for the United States, for a reason she did not explain.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2009 at 0932 hrs
“just like your nifty little attempts on the other thread to make it seem that not supporting Obamacare was un-Christian”
Wrong, it was a question about how your political principles aligned with Matthew 25:31-46 base on you’re belief that our country was founded by Christians on Judeo-Christian principles. You got paranoid and wouldn’t / couldn’t answer it.
“You are being intentionally dense if you don’t know exactly what I meant anyway. Tell me that Umar Abdulmutallab or Malik Nadal Hasan didn’t raise the flag as soon as you heard it.”
I don’t what to assume anything you might mean. I want you to state what you mean. That way I don’t have to appear to be dense or misinterpret what you mean.
Would the names of Daniel Patrick Boyd, Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson, or Kevin James have thrown up any red flags for you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2009 at 1014 hrs
And when looking at men only when profiling, at least 40% of suicide bombers are women.
Not the ones who have been flying into or around the USA.
I’ll take “racist/religionist” before I watch my kids die, Patty-cake.
By the way, I’ll even go for summary executions in open/shut cases, Patty -cake.
Posted by dad29 on December 29, 2009 at 1100 hrs
Dad29
What you just wrote defines exactly who you are. More musings from a derranged old fool.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 29, 2009 at 1148 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 58
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/21/2013 11:15 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).