Incompetence Is Not A Civil Liberties Issue

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:23:43 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

NYTimes:

When a prominent Nigerian banker and former government official phoned the American Embassy in Abuja in October with a warning that his son had developed radical views, had disappeared and might have traveled to Yemen, embassy officials did not revoke the young man’s visa to enter the United States, which was good until June 2010.

When a father calls to warn about his son, that seems to me to be cause for an investigation of the son. To incompetent bureaucrats, it leads to a chance to punch hippies:

The episode has renewed a debate that has quietly continued since the 2001 attacks over the proper balance between security and privacy. The government has spent the last several years cutting the size of the watch list, after repeated criticism that too many people were being questioned at border crossings or checkpoints. Now it may be asked to expand it again. “You are second-guessed one day and criticized on another,” said one Transportation Security Administration official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.

What horsesh*t. I do not believe anyone reasonable would object to the investigation of a person whose FATHER tipped off the authorities. Of course, the investigation may have led to nothing. But to blame the incompetence of the TSA and the people who oversee it - people like Senator Joe Lieberman -- on the DFHs is the Village way.

The other stunning piece of incompetence of course was how the suspect got the explosive material on the plane despite the fact that is is well known for use by terrorists and easy to detect:

The explosive device used by the would-be Detroit bomber contained a widely available – and easily detected – chemical explosive that has a long history of terrorist use, according to government officials and explosive experts.

[. . .] Airport "puffer" machines – the devices that blow air onto a passenger to collect and analyze residues – would probably have detected the powder, as would bomb-sniffing dogs or a hands-on search using a swab. Hidden in Abdulmutallab's clothing, the explosive might have also been detected by the full-body imaging scanners now making their way into airports. But Abdulmutallab did not go through full-body imaging machines in Nigeria or Amsterdam [. . .] Both airports have body scanners [. . .]

So, let's review the record - the relevant government authorities were presented with a basis for investigating the suspected terrorist and did virtually nothing. The suspected terrorist carried explosive material that should have been detected by existing technology but it wasn't.

And all that is the hippies' fault. Not Janet Napolitano or the TSA or Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman or President Obama. Got it.

Speaking for me only

< Will An Anti-Filibuster Campaign Have Legs? Should It? | Why Not Gitmo For Latest Suspected Terrorist? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Incompetence Is Not A Civil Liberties Issue | 112 comments (112 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This fellow on the watch list has a U.S. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:30:59 AM EST

visa in his pocket. Assuming the visa was valid, why was he issued it? So many musicians and other artistic individuals have been denied visas to enter U.S. since 9 11.

All other things being equal (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:37:08 AM EST

This is exactly the kind of person we'd want to welcome to the US.


Quite the nonsequitor (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:40:42 AM EST

inviting the use of the words "play" and "Mrs. Lincoln."


Well yes (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:42:34 AM EST

But we don't know what factors the consular official considered in the first place.


Not to make light of a bad situation, but (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by rdandrea on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:51:36 AM EST

Last time you heard from a Nigerian banker, did you listen?


: That's no small scam actually. (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:06:41 AM EST

There's a whole thing where they are stealing credit card numbers, ordering goods shipped to Nigeria and no one is stopping them. The amount of money being stolen from around the globe in Nigeria is stunning.

I hope we find out. (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:44:03 AM EST

I'm not so sure (none / 0) (#12)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:53:34 AM EST

It seems to me that might be fairly sensitive information for the system to have to release.


: Well, that secret squirrel stuff (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:05:15 AM EST

is exactly the problem. The government has no problem going around posting accusatory information on the internet about American citizens in this country, but they've got to be all secretive about some kid who has been identified by his father as a potentially radicalized terrorist wannabe.
Foreign applicants with minor drug offenses on their records can't come to the US, but if you are on a terrorist watch list, you've still got at least a 50/50 chance of getting in. That's ridiculous.

I read once a few years ago that (none / 0) (#21)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:18:21 AM EST

David Nelson of Ozzie & Harriet fame (Ricky Nelson's brother) had a terrible time getting on airplanes because there was a David Nelson on the list.

Actually, a quick google, and it seems many, many people are having trouble.


: So was Ted Kennedy... (none / 0) (#61)
by suzieg on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:31:19 PM EST

Well yeah (none / 0) (#52)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:56:29 PM EST

all other things being equal Bin Laden would be a great case for a Visa as well- Western Educated, Wealthy family, etc. Its those darned ties to radical religious groups that want to kill Americans (the Americans part is important as we seem to have no problem with radical terrorists who want to kill Britons-- heck, we allowed them to be funded by the Irish-American Community, or even those who blow up Airliners- see, Luis Carrilles).


Look at the bright side Oc... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by kdog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:20:03 AM EST

this knucklehead may have slipped through but we got that personification of evil Cat Stevens!

And it looks like Pete Townsend might not be able to get a visa if the defenders of our security get their way...so our success rate in stopping guitar-playing songwriting felons and suspected evil-doers dead in their tracks is rather stellar. Too bad all the bad guys don't play guitar and write great songs, then we'd be golden:)


I'm betting (none / 0) (#14)
by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:56:20 AM EST

it was because the dad was well connected. It says that the dad( who warned us to begin with) was an ex government official.


Then he should have been able (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:07:35 AM EST

to undo what you suggest he was able to do.


Ex - government official (none / 0) (#33)
by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:08:51 PM EST

If I were a betting woman I'd bet it was rubberstamped from our end because his son had one before(if as I suspect dad is a diplomat).

Frankly, the guy told us that he had taken extreme views, I don't see it as his fault we didn't listen. It wasn't his responsibility to yank the visa.


: Not suggesting that it was his fault (none / 0) (#97)
by inclusiveheart on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:58:41 PM EST

at all. Making the point that if he had such strong pull at the American Embassy, then when he went to them to tell them that his son was a potential threat, they would likely have listened to him.

Q: whadayacall a hippie who punches back? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Ben Masel on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:43:33 AM EST

A: Watchlisted.

: On the super special list :) (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:45:47 AM EST

Where's the incompetence? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by Steve M on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:38:09 AM EST

Sure, the warning was credible. But I don't see how we have the resources to investigate every single tip we get about a foreign individual (is anyone under the impression that we have a Nigerian branch of the FBI?). And I think a blanket policy that a credible warning, with no corroborating evidence whatsoever, means you get on the no-fly list or no-visa list would cast the net way too broadly.

I wouldn't expect consular staff to be in a position to do anything more than pass on the warning, and then to ask "hey, did you find out anything more about that guy we warned you about"? I'd like to see concrete suggestions for what should have been done that don't involve (1) 20/20 hindsight or (2) pretending as if this was the only credible warning we ever received about a potential radical as opposed to one out of thousands.

How about a security check that works? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:39:24 AM EST

When will you see incompetence I wonder?


Isn't terrorism-related security... (none / 0) (#25)
by kdog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:45:55 AM EST

always gonna be incompetent? Or at least appear incompetent?

I mean if you think about it there is nothing substantial we can do...nothing...to stop the lone madman intent on spilling blood. Sad but true.

In fact I like it on the incompetent side because to be truly competent at terrorism-related security would require a level of tyranny I don't think any of us are willing to accept.


This guy (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:52:59 AM EST

would have been easy to stop.

Hell, if you can't stop this guy, imagine trying to stop someone accomplished.


absolutely! (none / 0) (#60)
by Farmboy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:30:30 PM EST

Obama should have quit clearing brush in Hawaii, walked across the water to Amsterdam (from where, btw, the flight left the ground), and used his x-ray vision to catch the bad guy!


Sheesh (none / 0) (#65)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:04:50 PM EST

My gawd, some of you O-bots are the new Bushies.

Heck, how could you blame bush for Katrina? Could he have stopped the hurricane with his magical powers?


This is hilarious! (none / 0) (#66)
by Farmboy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:19:36 PM EST

In your post you blame Janet Napolitano, the TSA, Joe Lieberman, and President Obama for letting this guy get on the plane with explosives; I laugh at your joke, and you call me names.

O-bot and Bushie! Really?


Indeed (none / 0) (#69)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:23:55 PM EST

The accountability falls on them.

It is THEIR watch. Nto mine and not yours.

Just like FEMA was on bush's watch during FEMA. Or did you and others restrict your criticism to Mike Brown. that is breaking news to me.

And what was your comment but a form of name calling? The shoe fit you well - and of course it stings you. I did not start the name calling here. You did.

Suck it up Obama fan boy.


Maybe you're just not aware that (none / 0) (#74)
by Farmboy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:37:47 PM EST

the flight came in from a place called "Amsterdam," which is a far away land over the sea. As you might guess from the foreign sounding name, this "Amsterdam" is not a part of the US, and isn't run by Janet Napolitano, or the TSA, or Joe Lieberman, or President Obama.


: You would be surprised to learn I think (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:39:58 PM EST

That the US, and the TSA specifically, have some bit of jurisdiction over what flights get to land in the United States.
You could look it up.

Oh, and by the way, (none / 0) (#68)
by Farmboy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:22:03 PM EST

we on the left didn't blame Bush for Katrina. We faulted him for his reaction to the suffering of the people affected by the hurricane.

The more you know, eh?


We on the Left? (none / 0) (#71)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:27:42 PM EST

Excuse me, I did not know you were "the Left" now.

So let me get this straight, you are saying that the performance of Homeland Security was NOT comparable to the performance of FEMA during Katrina (a performance, you might be interested to know, that commenced PRIOR to Katrina hitting NOrleans.)

The funny thing is I tried to be slow in criticizing on Katrina and was eviscerated for it by some on "the Left." You could look it up - I was a front page blogger at Daily Kos at the time.

But have you O-bot fantasies. I'll hold the President accountable for actions taken by those in his Administration - that includes, just fyi, the Homeland Security Dep't.


You're excused. (none / 0) (#80)
by Farmboy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:55:57 PM EST

I said "we", not me. That's your projection, and an odd one from a person who goes by "Big Tent" Democrat. Is it strange for you to learn that there are others, besides yourself, who consider themselves to be on the left?

I said Bush, not FEMA. That's your avoiding the point I made about his behavior during the crisis - and also an opportunity for you to put me in my place by reminding me that you once blogged at Daily Kos, and that I'm just a lowly commenter having O-bot fantasies (whatever those are).

However, to be clear, I do not consider the two events (a foreign country allowing an alleged bomber to board a plane to the US and FEMA re Katrina) to be analogous. Your use of the Chewbacca defense isn't going to work here.


You, not surprisingly, (none / 0) (#85)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:06:51 PM EST

miss my point. I question your idea that you get to speak for "the Left."

For the record, I am a Centrist, not of "the Left."


I feel that I have have the right to comment (none / 0) (#94)
by Farmboy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:46:10 PM EST

on the actions of a group of which I consider myself a member. You may not feel that I have that right. Fair enough.

One thing we can both agree on is that you may continue to insult me as much as you like. It's a free country, and it's your nickel.

And thank you for the clarification as to you not being on "the Left." Please forgive my misunderstanding as to where you stand politically, considering you blog for a site called Talk Left, not Talk Centrist. My bad.


: Comment at will (none / 0) (#95)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:50:07 PM EST

And I reserve the right to respond.

Missing one (none / 0) (#104)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:05:46 PM EST

guy, missing a Hurricane- slight difference in scale- nobody faulted Bush for missing the Shoe Bomber-- this is analogous.


Apologist. (none / 0) (#101)
by KeysDan on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:21:58 PM EST

They could have screened him better (none / 0) (#29)
by nycstray on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:55:53 AM EST

a canine would have alerted authorities as would have technology. Wouldn't have affected you and your rights at all. As it is, because they were sloppy, our rights were immediately affected (with more to come, I'm sure). We didn't need a "level of tyranny", just competence.


To me, the security wasn't "sloppy." (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:00:31 PM EST

Aobviously the airlines/Homeland Security et al., don't want to spend the money for every person flying to go through a "puffer." Same re drug-sniffing dogs.


Tight funds (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:20:26 PM EST

Why do the Republicans hate America?


I don't think they need every person (5.00 / 2) (#39)
by nycstray on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:21:44 PM EST

to be that heavily screened, but I do think folks on the watch list/who's father calls and alerts authorities could be scanned more. This wasn't some anon person traveling, he was a known possible threat. I call it sloppy that he was able to so easily get on a plane or 2. They single people out all the time with a lot less than what they knew about him . . .


Have you ever gone through a puffer? (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:02:24 PM EST

It's just a machine.

We have a lot of money for nonsense, but not enough for the puffers?

That is incompetence imo.


: I have been "puffered" once. The (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:46:35 PM EST

TSA woman personing the puffer informed me a puff of air would happen--and it would startle me. It did.

That's cool, then at least put him on a list that (none / 0) (#35)
by jeffhas on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:15:45 PM EST

gets him puffed.

I mean his father took the time to warn us - you'd think the VERY LEAST they would do is put his name on the least obtrusive check list... instead nothing... that's incompetent as BTD has said.


They could have... (none / 0) (#45)
by kdog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:06:34 PM EST

but even with infallible screening and security as per current policy someone bad will do something bad...only a matter of time. Not to mention infallible is impossible with fallible human beings.

So why make us all take of our shoes, forfeit our shaving cream, and go through the body-screener...if not an all out strip down at some point (in response to the scrotum-bomber)? Seems pretty pointless to me, but what do I know except try to avoid flying because it is fast becoming unbearable.


Okay (none / 0) (#28)
by Steve M on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:55:44 AM EST

are you suggesting there should have been heightened security measures because of the warning? (Not sure how easily that can be implemented overseas.) Or that the guy should have been caught even with no warning?


Did you read my post? (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:01:07 PM EST

Honestly, you seem intent on defending incompetence.


Maybe it's competent incompetence (none / 0) (#47)
by jondee on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:39:31 PM EST

as in, the PNAC's yearning for "a Pearl Harbor-like event".

A Reichstag fire may be felt to be needed every now and then to keep the American public's waning enthusiasm for overseas interventions from turning into something more than isolated rumblings.

They have their jihadists and we have ours.


No (none / 0) (#64)
by Steve M on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:56:20 PM EST

I am asking you to identify the incompetence. Are you saying we ought to set up special U.S. security booths at every foreign airport from which flights to the U.S. originate, where we employ puffers, canine sniffers, and whatever other methods we deem advisable but the foreign airport has chosen not to implement on its own?


Actually (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:44:44 PM EST

I'm saying that the TSA has the final sayso as to what flights get to come into the US and what they must do to gain that privilege.


Okay (none / 0) (#79)
by Steve M on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:55:23 PM EST

So it's the nuclear option then? Each and every foreign airport must follow the security procedures we mandate, or none of their flights get to travel to the US? Sounds like a great plan. I can't wait to see how we audit them!


What to do w/Heathrow, which (none / 0) (#81)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:58:10 PM EST

employs security measures beyond those imposed by U.S. Homeland Security, i.e., photographs.


Do they work? (none / 0) (#83)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:02:03 PM EST

Worthy of emulation? going ABOVE TSA requirements is a plus, not a minus imo.


Pretty daunting, as the photo is taken (none / 0) (#86)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:09:35 PM EST

t first security checkpoint and, as I recall, includes boarding pass. Next security checkpoint: there you are on the computer screen. It is a plus, but probably would not happen for U.S. citizens in U.S. Too much like positive id. Can't say it would have thwarted the latest terror suspect though. I don't recall seeing any puffers or drug-sniffing dogs--except at baggage claims at customs.


Do they work? (none / 0) (#87)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:17:56 PM EST

sounds like your answer is No, they do not.


: I assume, w/o any facts, the purpose (none / 0) (#89)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:19:58 PM EST

is to avoid people passing off boarding passes after passing through initial security screening. Or maybe to alert as to persons on no fly list. Who knows.

Generally speaking (none / 0) (#92)
by Steve M on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:43:18 PM EST

I find we can learn a lot from the countries that have long-term experience in dealing with domestic terrorism, like the UK and Israel. All we seem to do in this country is figure out ways to stop the last attack.


: yeah but if we copied (none / 0) (#109)
by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:38:54 PM EST

then our solution wouldn't be "uniquely American"
I learned during the health care debacle that it is more important to be unique then ya know have a system that actually works.

I think that is the case now dude (none / 0) (#82)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:01:19 PM EST

Do you think there's any freaking way (none / 0) (#105)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:08:15 PM EST

American's would accept El Al style security- we can't even get people to accept a national ID requirement.


: Sure (none / 0) (#107)
by Steve M on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:29:16 PM EST

if the perceived threat were greater, absolutely.

BTW (none / 0) (#84)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:03:47 PM EST

We audit them the way US airports are supposed to be monitored.

Is this a joke? Are you saying all a terrorist needs to do is pick the easy country and fly into the US from there?

this is just ridiculous.


: Remember those warnings in U.S. (none / 0) (#88)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:18:21 PM EST

airports about the unsafeness of Lagos, Nigeria airport? Although the posted warnings stopped, apparently things haven't improved. The Times UK

: It seems to me (none / 0) (#91)
by Steve M on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:40:55 PM EST

that if there are a couple crappy airports out there that don't follow procedures, we have plenty of leverage. If the vast majority of airports don't do things the way we wish they would, on the other hand, I question our ability to remake the world by playing the role of 800-pound gorilla.

Having just flown (none / 0) (#77)
by otherlisa on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:42:20 PM EST

and experienced TSA screening, the current system is ridiculous. It overreacts to the previous threat and forms the wrong conclusions about what to do.

Yes, the guy should have been pulled aside for secondary screening. It's absurd that people are randomly selected for this who don't fit any sort of profile and aren't on any kind of watch list.

And yes, with all the money and time spent on screening methods that are not effective, put in explosives detectors and use dogs. Spend the money. I can't believe it would actually be that much more than what's currently expended on our Security Theater -- a Theater of the Absurd if ever there was one.


I agree (none / 0) (#30)
by TheRealFrank on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:57:43 AM EST

It's always easy to point at failures in hindsight. Who knows how many of these tips come in. I imagine it's very difficult to investigate them all in a timely fashion.

One thing that could have been done is to put those names on a separate list, not a "no-fly" list, but a "extra checks" list, so that they will always get patted down, or something like that.

Generally, though, I dislike fingerpointing in cases like this. It's always easier to blame than to admit the basic truth: you can't prevent a truly motivated individual from doing damage. They're talking about the full scan detectors now, but there has already been one case of a bomber who had the device in his rectum. That's not going to show up. What then? Etc.


: Why shouldn't we know exactly how many of these (none / 0) (#41)
by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:39:56 PM EST

tips come in? Frankly since we've entered the new era of "transparency" it would be helpful for us to know exactly that. I don't expect details but I think it is perfectly reasonable to know how many tips we get versus how many people we have following up on the tips as a ratio.

One-way ticket, paid cash and no luggage (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by KeysDan on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:47:03 AM EST

to check. Inspector Clouseau reporting for duty. we need some new security measures to avert these dangers; the shoe bomber caused us to take off our shoes, now with the underwear bomber, I have a good idea.

RT ticket, per AP. (none / 0) (#31)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:58:31 AM EST

He did pay cash, which usually rates secondary security check.


I can see that rating a (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by vml68 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:25:48 PM EST

secondary security check in the US but in most asian countries and what I know about three african countries, paying by cash is the norm.
CC and debit cards are not a way of life there like they are here.


: This guy had plenty of access (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by Cream City on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 05:27:06 PM EST

to credit cards -- he's the son of one of the leading bankers in his country, on his continent.
This is not a typical Nigerian. So the excuses for what is typical in Nigeria simply do not apply.

Thanks, that's what must have thrown (none / 0) (#37)
by KeysDan on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:20:01 PM EST

them off. AP also reports that the ticket was bought in Ghana on Dec 16 for $2831. Officials in Nigeria declined to comment on his travels after the purchase and prior to boarding the fateful flight on December 24--too sensitive. No luggage, just a small carry-on.


That's troubling... (none / 0) (#62)
by kdog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:33:33 PM EST

last I checked my hard currency states "good for all debts, public and private"...no mention of "use for airfare debts may subject you to additional security screening"...the mint should put that on new bills.


No, it's mathematical probabilities (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Cream City on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:39:36 PM EST

so don't again make more of it than what it is.

Your cash is good. Use it, and you're unusual. That's all. Whether that would raise red flags on you, though -- well, the question may be whether it would raise more red flags, from what you say about yourself here. So it probably wouldn't make much difference.


It is what it is... (none / 0) (#67)
by kdog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:19:58 PM EST

I ain't makin' more of it...pay cash, you're suspect...it is troubling.


Most red flags (none / 0) (#72)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:29:03 PM EST

have plenty of exceptions. They are just one piece of multi-piece puzzles. When they stand alone, they are nothing.


That brings up the discretionary powers... (none / 0) (#76)
by kdog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:40:46 PM EST

of airport security personnel...they can f*ck with whoever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want...legit or bullsh*t? That ain't cool either.


: The rules often are okay, the people (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by Cream City on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 05:29:19 PM EST

hired and trained (poorly) to implement them are the problem. This is not the reason to drop the rules that really do make it safer for me.
The rules that are stupid ought to go -- and with them the stupid ones among the screeners. Keep the good rules, train and pay more for the screeners to get mo'better ones.

Certainly no one enjoys the (none / 0) (#100)
by KeysDan on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:19:45 PM EST

security measures, and there is plenty room for the use of common sense. All but strip searches for elderly from Sioux Falls, being pulled aside for sending a draft card to Nixon in 1969 or, one, I heard just this weekend, a straight guy named James (Smith) was pulled aside and asked if he was a woman, answer: no, well, have you ever been a women, answer no, They seemed to want proof, since he showed up somehow in the computer as female. This having been said, you do not have to be Sherlock, for it is elementary to look at security-related patterns. Paid for cash (questionable, but probably OK as a stand alone), no luggage to check (odd, Lagos to Detroit, with a RT ticket and dates for return), turned in by father as extremist (parental concern), travel prior to fateful flight( (Ghana, Yemen?). Maybe, just maybe, a little extra screening either at Lagos or Amsterdam would not be too much to consider.


: We start profiling to closely (none / 0) (#106)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:11:22 PM EST

and the civil libertarians will lose it- we wouldn't tolerate the kind of security measures that are the norm in London and Tel Aviv.

here's the rub (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by bocajeff on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:49:33 PM EST

If this happened under Bush it would have been exhibit A in his incompetence to lead. Maybe if this happened not on Xmas when Congress was in session you would here more bellyaching and finger pointing. Now, what to do about government incompetence?

However, there is a problem with profiling. Remmeber the Flying Imams? They successfully sued for racial profiling...You can't have it both ways - either you take this stuff seriously or something like this will surely happen once the terrorists get people who can actually do things without burning their nuts off..

I think it is much harder... (none / 0) (#46)
by kdog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:24:50 PM EST

to find competent people willing to blow themselves up than we think it is...anybody smart enough to pull off something big is smart enough to want to live, they'd rather go fight occupying forces in the muslim world with a chance to stay alive or seek a management position in a terrorist org...that leaves only poor ignorant not to swift mofos like Shoe-Bomber and Scrotum-Bomber...and this is a good thing for us.


The latter is highly-educated and highly- (none / 0) (#49)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:48:30 PM EST

privileged.


Since when... (none / 0) (#50)
by kdog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:52:05 PM EST

does a fancy edumacation and daddy's bank account denote competence?


Ummm...since 9-11? (none / 0) (#51)
by oldpro on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:55:39 PM EST

It doesn't. Just saying this guy (none / 0) (#53)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:57:16 PM EST

is not uneducated, lacking other options, etc.

P.S. What do you think of the idea anyone whose daddy reports offspring possibly leaning toward Islamic extremism should immed. make the "do not fly" list?


I'm not down with the (none / 0) (#55)
by kdog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:03:45 PM EST

"no fly list" period...but if we're gonna have one I guess its ok as long as the fathers accusations are verified...you can't just go placing people on the list on tips alone...some evidence or verification of the tip should be required.


You previously stated you avoid flying (none / 0) (#56)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:06:19 PM EST

whenever possible. Since I choose to fly as frequently as $$ permit, I like the idea of a "no fly list." But would prefer thorough investigation and exercise of discretion as to who is placed on the list.


: I didn't mind flying... (none / 0) (#58)
by kdog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:18:53 PM EST

pre 9/11...sh*t pre 9/11 I could practically wave my stash in the air and no security agent batted an eye:)...even bought a one-way ticket cash with no luggage once half hour before take off (gasp!)
Nowadays between the fear of ending up locked up and the shoes off and the lines and the no liquids its just become to much of a hassle...but unless I wanna spend two weeks on buses I'll be getting on one in March...I really don't care if they check the names of my fellow passengers, same as I don't care that I don't know who I am riding the bus or subway with or who is driving the cars around me on the freeway...the world is a dangerous place, I'm over it...it need not be a dangerous tyrannical one...I know the laws of all nations say different but I believe the right to travel is an inalienable creator-endowed right, though I understand that doesn't mean a private outfit has to let anybody on their private plane.

As Chalmers Johnson says: (none / 0) (#57)
by jondee on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:08:11 PM EST

The Sorrows of Empire.

No empire, no -- or very few -- attacks.

This is like the people cutting down the rain forest complaining about snake bites. Yeah, it's a b*tch, but what did you expect?


FWIW, I fall somewhere right between (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:57:31 PM EST

BTD and Steve M on this one. Obviously I wish this guy would have been subjected to secondary screening in Amsterdam, but I don't know what criteria we (or they) already use for that.

What I do know--what 99% of us know--is that the time spent screening me is 100% wasted.

Pretty bad (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:26:50 AM EST

It also shows that all of the "improvements" since 2001 have been useless.

Apparently "puffer" machines are more (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:42:46 AM EST

effective than all the TSA screening devices. Give us back our liquids and jells!


: If the puffers... (none / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:01:44 AM EST

can't detect reefer, I'm down:)

My spouse often says that Americans (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:44:51 AM EST

feel safe because of our projection of force. Don't mess with us, we can bomb the moon, just watch. Other nations have security measures that must be competent in order to protect their civilian population. They were not interested in bombing the moon. It is too costly :) Doesn't scare everyone :)


Dateline has shown several (none / 0) (#13)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:54:14 AM EST

times how many weapons manage to get aboard the airplanes since this high tech, high level security went into place.


: Just goes to show... (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by kdog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:04:10 AM EST

so much of the hassles we put ourselves are strictly for show and a false sense of security.

: But don't you dare try to bring a can of shaving (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by andgarden on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:05:19 AM EST

cream or Diet Coke past the checkpoint!

That would assume (none / 0) (#59)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:22:42 PM EST

there have been no bad guys thwarted at the airport since 2001.


Even if it was close to perfect (none / 0) (#34)
by Saul on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:09:51 PM EST

none of the cargo that is shipped with the passenger's baggage is inspected. They just showed that on TV yesterday.

Tons of regular mail fly with the regular passenger baggage as well as big boxes of cargo. None of it is screened.

So even if you could get the passenger screening perfect you still have another risk in the cargo area.

All this is normal knowledge to any terrorist.

LAX screens checked baggage (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:16:59 PM EST

going overseas on flights.


Baggage yes (none / 0) (#40)
by Saul on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:35:56 PM EST

But no mail or commercial cargo


Yes indeed. We also don't inspect (none / 0) (#54)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:58:48 PM EST

each and every shipping container. And U.S. long ago admitted it couldn't track peoplel who overstay student visas.


: Praise the sun god for that.... (none / 0) (#73)
by kdog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:36:12 PM EST

anybody else think that maybe the more safe and secure we try to make the joint the less live-able it becomes...I shudder at the thought of a society where every student visa holder's whereabouts are known at all times or where every piece of freight was scanned and inspected.
Talk about a dystopian nightmare...in a sense government "incompetence" or "inabililty based on constitutional restrictions" (depending on how you slice it) is all that saves us from the nightmare we might create.

We are the Transportation Security Administration (none / 0) (#90)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:29:11 PM EST

We are the Transportation Security Administration, formed immediately following the tragedies of Sept. 11.
Our agency is a component of the Department of Homeland Security and is responsible for security of the nation's transportation systems.
With our state, local and regional partners, we oversee security for the highways, railroads, buses, mass transit systems, ports and the 450 U.S. airports.
We employ approximately 50,000 people from Alaska to Puerto Rico to ensure your travels - by plane, train, automobile or ferry - are safe and secure.

"Secure," in this context, means free from danger or risk.

Clearly, these particular travelers were not free from danger or risk, and therefore the TSA was not competent in ensuring that they be so.

Seems to me the word "ensure" creates unmeetable expectations. However, the TSA chose the word and the accepted the responsibilities it confers, so they are, in fact, clearly incompetent.

That said, I'm not sure expecting perfection from humans is going to be a very rewarding enterprise...

: yea.... (none / 0) (#93)
by CST on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:45:01 PM EST

"ensure" - makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't change the facts of life.
"try real hard" - honest, but without the fuzzies.
"hope and pray" - I think I'd rather walk.
That being said, they probably could've "tried harder" on this one. But let's face it, there will always be people who slip through the cracks. I'm inclined to be thankfull we got lucky on this one, and not beat the horse to death. I'm sure the usual suspects will do more than enough of it for me.

Not TSA's fault tthe U.S. visa (none / 0) (#102)
by oculus on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:38:31 PM EST

of the latest terrorist was not revoked (not a comforting explanation though): AP

I didn't do it mom, he did!

heh (none / 0) (#110)
by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:44:13 PM EST

not their fault he had a valid visa however.......the device he had in his possession......kinda hard to blame that little ooppsie on someone else. Plenty of blame to go round.


: Actually (none / 0) (#111)
by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:27:12 PM EST

that's more on foriegn officials than the Visa (which is obviously an American problem).

Janet Napolitano should be fired. (none / 0) (#103)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:54:58 PM EST

Contrary to her risible assertion that the system worked smoothly, it failed miserably. Contrary SteveM's assertion, we don't need to investigate before pulling the visa from some clown ratted out by his father. That happens so rarely we can just do it and then if convenient conduct an investigation to see if the visa should be reinstated at some later time. No foreign national has a right to a US visa.

Since the visa was not pulled, perhaps Secretary Clinton should get a pink slip as well.

BTW, Obama's description of this AQ foot soldier as an "isolated extremist" is embarrassingly foolish.

It is remarkable (none / 0) (#108)
by Steve M on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:32:17 PM EST

that you have statistics concerning the number of uncorroborated tips we receive regarding foreigners, but since you didn't link I'm going to reasonably assume the statistic is something you just made up for purposes of declaring yourself correct.


: Do you really need statistics (none / 0) (#112)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:06:42 PM EST

to know how rare it is for a father to turn his son.