Coming soon to a shopping mall near you.
These guys are game-changers.
I think that the Christmas Day attack was rather an impromptu affair. I think Abdulmutallab walked into the al-Qaida office in Yemen, and told them he wanted to kill himself by blowing up a plane-ful of Americans. They looked him over, said "OK",and enrolled him in a "training program" just so they could keep an eye on him long enough to check him out a bit. Then they bought him a ticket, packed his pants, and drove him to the airport. They left some of the operational details up to him, and this resulted in the bomb's failure.
I don't think we'll see a similar plan next time. Next time, they'll be home-grown.
No passport/visa issues, no "watch list" problems. No international cell phone intercepts. Lots simpler. Much more difficult to predict. Even "profiling" won't help. They will be Americans who've never been to the Middle East. Citizens. Under the radar. Educated middle-classers. Dozens of them.
Showing posts with label TERRORISM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TERRORISM. Show all posts
Thursday, January 14, 2010
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Some of you may recall my suggestion at the time this agency was created, that airports should be assessed for security needs considering such factors as: 1) Whether international flights terminate at the location. 2) Whether the airport as been the target (or rumored target) of an attack. 3) The volume of air traffic including both passenger and commercial flights. 4) The "propaganda value" of an attack at the airport.
When such an assessment was complete, the government could have then decided which airports most needed security enhancements, decide the kinds of physical and procedural security measures which would be most appropriate, and initiate changes beginning with the vulnerable airports. As far as I know, the TSA was established at all U.S. airports at virtually the same time, using the same security policies and procedures in all locations.
The result has been a cookie-cutter approach to airport security. Because one size fits all, an older female passenger flying from Dayton to Daytona passes through the same security protocol as a younger male passenger flying from Boston"s Logan airport to Dulles International in Washington, D.C. I never thought this made sense.
OK, I know what you're saying to yourself: "Where would the Detroit airport have fit into this security scheme"? On the second tier, of course. Detroit was not a "chosen" as a site for a terrorist attack in the same way the Twin Towers were. Amsterdam was chosen as a departure site, and Christmas Day was chosen as a time for the attack, and the plane was full of passengers. These were the things that mattered. The fact that the flight was bound for Detroit was incidental.
Not every prison in America is a maximum security facility. Not every airport in America need be a maximum security facility, either. The "security" afforded by the TSA and their silly procedures is an illusion anyway, and to impose them in every airport equally is a waste of money and resources.
When such an assessment was complete, the government could have then decided which airports most needed security enhancements, decide the kinds of physical and procedural security measures which would be most appropriate, and initiate changes beginning with the vulnerable airports. As far as I know, the TSA was established at all U.S. airports at virtually the same time, using the same security policies and procedures in all locations.
The result has been a cookie-cutter approach to airport security. Because one size fits all, an older female passenger flying from Dayton to Daytona passes through the same security protocol as a younger male passenger flying from Boston"s Logan airport to Dulles International in Washington, D.C. I never thought this made sense.
OK, I know what you're saying to yourself: "Where would the Detroit airport have fit into this security scheme"? On the second tier, of course. Detroit was not a "chosen" as a site for a terrorist attack in the same way the Twin Towers were. Amsterdam was chosen as a departure site, and Christmas Day was chosen as a time for the attack, and the plane was full of passengers. These were the things that mattered. The fact that the flight was bound for Detroit was incidental.
Not every prison in America is a maximum security facility. Not every airport in America need be a maximum security facility, either. The "security" afforded by the TSA and their silly procedures is an illusion anyway, and to impose them in every airport equally is a waste of money and resources.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
SHOW TRIALS
All the world loves a good show trial. They're like a mash-up of Judge Judy and Blazing Saddles. Hilarious courtroom antics! Now, THAT'S entertainment!
The one I liked best was when the Soviet Union put a CIA U-2 (no, not that U-2) pilot named Francis Gary Powers on trial after they shot his spying ass out the sky in 1960 or so. It was real funny. See, the U.S. thought they'd just say that Powers wasn't spying, he was innocently checking up on Russian weather, just to see if they had any. They figured Powers had blown himself up before he crashed, or that he had at least had the courtesy or patriotism to cyanide himself. But, no, the plane was in great shape, and Powers lived to have his little show trial. It was real theater in Moscow, and real theatre in London.
Now the stage is being set for a new round of show trials in New York, New York. They'll be off-Broadway, but not far off ground zero. The only questions are: Who will have the starring role? Who will get center stage? Will the defense attorney up-stage the federal prosecutor? Will the terrorists steal the scene? If the judge accepts a supporting role, whom will he support?
We'll laugh, we'll cry! We'll have a great time, just witnessing history left and right! We won't want it to end, and it most assuredly never will.
The sequel is already being written. Part Two will be "The Appeal". The story-line goes like this: The terrorists/defendants didn't get a fair trial. They were not tried by a jury of their peers, as no Jihadists were even in the jury pool, at least as far as we knew. And besides, the President and the Attorney General had already found them guilty before the trial even started, and assured everyone that the verdict really didn't matter anyway, because the defendants would never get out of prison no matter what.
So what is the real purpose of having such a trial? To SHOW the world that we are a nation of laws. That's the ticket!
The one I liked best was when the Soviet Union put a CIA U-2 (no, not that U-2) pilot named Francis Gary Powers on trial after they shot his spying ass out the sky in 1960 or so. It was real funny. See, the U.S. thought they'd just say that Powers wasn't spying, he was innocently checking up on Russian weather, just to see if they had any. They figured Powers had blown himself up before he crashed, or that he had at least had the courtesy or patriotism to cyanide himself. But, no, the plane was in great shape, and Powers lived to have his little show trial. It was real theater in Moscow, and real theatre in London.
Now the stage is being set for a new round of show trials in New York, New York. They'll be off-Broadway, but not far off ground zero. The only questions are: Who will have the starring role? Who will get center stage? Will the defense attorney up-stage the federal prosecutor? Will the terrorists steal the scene? If the judge accepts a supporting role, whom will he support?
We'll laugh, we'll cry! We'll have a great time, just witnessing history left and right! We won't want it to end, and it most assuredly never will.
The sequel is already being written. Part Two will be "The Appeal". The story-line goes like this: The terrorists/defendants didn't get a fair trial. They were not tried by a jury of their peers, as no Jihadists were even in the jury pool, at least as far as we knew. And besides, the President and the Attorney General had already found them guilty before the trial even started, and assured everyone that the verdict really didn't matter anyway, because the defendants would never get out of prison no matter what.
So what is the real purpose of having such a trial? To SHOW the world that we are a nation of laws. That's the ticket!
Monday, January 4, 2010
TRIAL BY ERROR
John Brennan, President Obama's Assistant National Security Advisor, made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows. He seemed to have two points to make. The first was that Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, is not the fool that she appeared to be when she said "the system worked" in the Christmas attack on a U.S. airliner. He assured us that the president has full confidence in her. I think at this very moment that Janet is evaluating whether she should be spending more time with her family back home.
Brennan's second message was that the terrorist, Abdulmutallab, (trained, armed, and directed by Al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula) was properly charged as a criminal defendant, rather than being detained as an enemy combatant. He acknowledged that this second course was available, but the administration's considered judgement was that the guy should be treated as a criminal with full constitutional protections. This must be a lie.
Abdulmutallab was immediately arrested by the FBI. There was no time for anyone to debate the issue, flip a coin, or bounce it by Barack. Clearly, it is the considered opinion of the president and Eric Holder that all terrorists who survive suicide bombing attacks deserve the constitutioonal protections we would grant a car-jacker.
Brennan was asked if it would not have been preferable for the terrorist to have been questioned by military or intelligence personnel to see what kind of exigent information he might have offered regarding other pending attacks, or his own contacts with Al-Qaida. Brennan allowed that the guy did start talking immediately, but after he was lawyered up, he stopped talking.
However, this did not mean to Brennan that the terrorist would never talk. No, Brennan felt that when the guy saw what kind of trouble he was in, he would start talking again in a plea-bargain scenario.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? We already plan to negotiate with the terrorist? We think a would-be suicide bomber may be so afraid of a lethal injection that he will beg to snitch so that he can live for 50 years in a super-max prison?
So President Obama is compounding his mistake of trying Kaleed Shiek-Mohammad in federal court in New York. And he is doing it to show that, being a nation of laws, we are being true to our values. What a load of crap!
Brennan's second message was that the terrorist, Abdulmutallab, (trained, armed, and directed by Al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula) was properly charged as a criminal defendant, rather than being detained as an enemy combatant. He acknowledged that this second course was available, but the administration's considered judgement was that the guy should be treated as a criminal with full constitutional protections. This must be a lie.
Abdulmutallab was immediately arrested by the FBI. There was no time for anyone to debate the issue, flip a coin, or bounce it by Barack. Clearly, it is the considered opinion of the president and Eric Holder that all terrorists who survive suicide bombing attacks deserve the constitutioonal protections we would grant a car-jacker.
Brennan was asked if it would not have been preferable for the terrorist to have been questioned by military or intelligence personnel to see what kind of exigent information he might have offered regarding other pending attacks, or his own contacts with Al-Qaida. Brennan allowed that the guy did start talking immediately, but after he was lawyered up, he stopped talking.
However, this did not mean to Brennan that the terrorist would never talk. No, Brennan felt that when the guy saw what kind of trouble he was in, he would start talking again in a plea-bargain scenario.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? We already plan to negotiate with the terrorist? We think a would-be suicide bomber may be so afraid of a lethal injection that he will beg to snitch so that he can live for 50 years in a super-max prison?
So President Obama is compounding his mistake of trying Kaleed Shiek-Mohammad in federal court in New York. And he is doing it to show that, being a nation of laws, we are being true to our values. What a load of crap!
Monday, December 28, 2009
WATCHING IRAN
In his remarks today, President Obama "strongly condemned" the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the violence it is committing against its citizens who are in revolt against their leaders. He expressed his "deep admiration" for those who are involved in the revolution. He warns that the world will continue to "bear witness" to the events in Iran. So what?
We are continuing to bear witness to their quest for nuclear weapons, to their supplying money and weapons to the Taliban, and their support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Does the president think that Iran's government is embarrassed by the spectacle of their repression, or their sponsorship of worldwide jihad?
We are continuing to bear witness to their quest for nuclear weapons, to their supplying money and weapons to the Taliban, and their support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Does the president think that Iran's government is embarrassed by the spectacle of their repression, or their sponsorship of worldwide jihad?
UMAR FAROUK ABDULMUTALLAB
That's the name of the Islamic Terrorist who tried to blow up the plane bound for Detroit from Amsterdam. President Obama has just reassured the nation that his guy is in custody, and has been charged with "atempting to destroy an aircraft". Is that all? Had he tried to burn down Air Force One while it sat in a hangar, I bet more charges would be pending than that. The President noted in his remarks that, had the guy been successful, hundreds of people would have been killed. What about "attempted mass murder", or some charge that uses the term "terror"?
But, we're assured that Eric Holder is on the case, so what's to worry about? I just hope the guy has been read his rights, and that his attorney is competent to represent him.
But, we're assured that Eric Holder is on the case, so what's to worry about? I just hope the guy has been read his rights, and that his attorney is competent to represent him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)