home

Why Not Gitmo For Latest Suspected Terrorist?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:49:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

via BarbinMd, Spencer Ackerman asks a good question:

So Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged would-be bomber of Northwest Airlines flight 253, is being detained and questioned in a federal prison in Michigan. [. . .] If convicted, he’ll be imprisoned in a federal prison. [. . .] Just like the one that Republican politicians said would leave American communities vulnerable if Guantanamo detainees were sent there. [. . . N]ow here’s a real live aspiring terrorist [. . .] going to a real live federal prison on actual American soil and … nothing [from the GOP]. It’s almost like these guys are hypocrites who don’t think through what they say before they find a bank of cameras.

< Incompetence Is Not A Civil Liberties Issue | "Objectively Pro-Terrorist": GOP Blocked Appointment of TSA Head >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why Not Gitmo For Latest Suspected Terrorist? | 63 comments (63 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It wouldn't be Guantanamo (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Peter G on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:23:56 PM EST
    Even the Bush Administration legal team never claimed they could send someone arrested on U.S. soil to Guantanamo, or attempted to do that.  The proper question is not "Why not Gitmo?", but rather "Why not the Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina?", like Jose Padilla and Ali S.K. Al-Marri, the other so-called "enemy combatants" arrested within U.S. territory.  Padilla is a citizen; Al-Marri, not.  Government claims that citizenship makes no difference. (I realize this comment has no bearing on the point being made about the disingenuity of the "no Gitmo terrorists into U.S. prisons" crowd.)

    The real question (none / 0) (#42)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:31:34 PM EST
    The real question has nothing to do with location.  We need to question this slug to see if it is possible to foil the next attack.  Getting a conviction is a second priority to that.  

    Telling this guy that he need not answer questions unless he has a lawyer present is just nuts.

    Parent

    Trust me ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Peter G on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:14:03 PM EST
    Based on 30+ years' experience in criminal defense, a warning that they have a right to remain silent appears to have precious little effect -- by which I mean no discernible effect -- on the self-defeating behavior of most folks after they have been arrested.

    Parent
    Your experience (none / 0) (#68)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 11:44:13 AM EST
    with ordinary criminals may not be relevant to one with an AQ foot soldier's training.

    Abdulmutallab remains in a Detroit area prison and, after initial debriefings by the FBI, has restricted his cooperation since securing a defense attorney, according to federal officials.

    Parent

    We read him his rights (none / 0) (#70)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 12:46:12 PM EST

    and then gave him a lawyer to tell him to shut up.  

    As you note, maybe he would have shup up anyway.  However, if foiling the next attack by the group that armed and trained him is the priority, can you explain how advising him to keep quiet helps?

    Parent

    Our laws (none / 0) (#72)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 06:00:22 PM EST
    Our laws do not require the reading of Miranda rights or access to lawyers to enemy combatants making war on this country.

    This has been true for every president from Washington to Lincoln, to FDR right up to today.  President Obama may choose to treat this enemy combatant as a mere criminal, but the law does not so require.

    You may recall that FDR had the German saboteurs, including one American citizen, tried by the military and hung.  To say he was in violation of our law or goaded into overreaction or increased internal disunity is laughable.

    Parent

    Foiling the next attack (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:28:44 PM EST
    i.e., putting a finger in a spurting hole in a dike that has fissures running in every direction.

    Parent
    Oh, give them time (4.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:53:17 AM EST
    to find that bank of cameras, but after the holidays, and maybe even after more than a day has passed.   These bloggers could defer the gratification for at least a few days of calling out hypocrisy -- in the other party.  There is plenty of hypocrisy to call out in their own leadership, but my, aren't they easily distracted (or trying to distract others?  nah, say it ain't so).

    They have better things to feed on (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:56:33 AM EST
    Gitmo is old, there isn't any emotional juice there.  They need something much fresher.  They are nothing if not a very good opposition party.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#3)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:58:50 AM EST
    equating Democrat with "terrorist sympathizer" in the past has worked out for them.

    Frankly, I wouldn't be giving them any ideas BTD. I really could do with a break from the posturing of both sides.

    Parent

    That doesn't work very well when (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:04:05 AM EST
    the "D" coming in the door is actually taking on the terrorists that do hit us because the old "R" boss couldn't be bothered with it.  It's time to drop that frame at this time.  If you want to talk about terrorists, and who took out who lately we certainly can talk with them about that.  I appreciate that libs don't like to do body counts and they don't like collateral damage, and I don't know how much collateral damage we created in Yemen but we have been very very busy.  Anybody want to talk about how long these guys have been active?  I'll bet they did not just "start up" ten months ago.

    Parent
    Define taking on the terrorists (none / 0) (#5)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:02:55 PM EST
    It doesn't even appear that we know how to find them. When a guys dad tells us he's an extremist and we ignore him I have to wonder how credible the argument is that we're taking on the "real" terrorists and not just arbitrarily killing the wrong people. This last little incident was a fiasco that almost mirrors Condi's little "Bin Liden determined to attack" Bulletin.

    Parent
    Don't worry (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:05:43 PM EST
    We are finding them.  I know it is stylish to take this stance that nothing tangible or worthy is being accomplished or done, but they are being found and they are being removed in not pleasant ways.  But unless you want to go into Yemen with boots on the ground, that is the option and it is being exercised.

    Parent
    Go to Yemen with what? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:15:35 PM EST
    Our troops are already doing tours in Iraq only to turn around and be sent to Afghanistan. They barely have downtime as it stands. There was no point in arguing they were at their breaking point during the Bush admin if we are just going to tra la la down the same broken path.

    Frankly, terrorists operated out of Florida, do we start carpet bombing there too? The problem with terrorism is a tactic that has been employed for thousands of years. You can't win against a tactic.

    Parent

    We are there my friend (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    The CIA is there, special forces are there and have been there for months now.  We are making drone airstrikes there right now.  We took out three we were hunting on Christmas Eve.

    Parent
    Sudan too (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:25:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Special Forces have been in Yemen (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:25:31 PM EST
    for over ten years.

    Parent
    Sorry, but libs never pay attention (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    to any of this stuff unless suddenly they are upset about something. And we really do have serious problems in Yemen and Sudan and I don't feel like reading 500 diaries about Empire right now when it comes to Muslim Extremists.

    Parent
    God D@mn it Jim (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    Shhhhhhh, just freaks everyone out.

    Parent
    Just don't mention Columbia, or you'll (none / 0) (#29)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:06:08 PM EST
    start a riot (though one wonders if the actual successes in Colombia haven't just moved that particular problem north and destablized a state that actually borders us).

    Parent
    Sorry, didn't mean to bring facts in and (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:23:25 PM EST
    scare everyone.

    Parent
    Yeah, cuz you don't like to start (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:09:06 AM EST
    bonfires and then dance around them naked :)

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#20)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:35:20 PM EST
    and millions of other places that we "supposedly" don't go. My husband was with the MCT and did comms for SEAL TEAM 3 and 5(92 to 97) I'm more than aware of how Special Forces operates.

    That being said if we've been there for years and it didn't prevent what happened then how does the fact that we are there now change a blessed thing? It won't. Having a couple of handful of highly specialized people only goes so far.

    Parent

    Then why are you playing dumb with (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:45:24 PM EST
    me?  Hanging with SEALs, you know if there's a threat out there....and some presidents ask for several different verfications that are not contrived....stuff happens and that's that.

    Parent
    There always has been threats (none / 0) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    and there always will be. The idea we weren't in these places BEFORE 9/11 is absurd and it didn't prevent 9/11. My point is military force is not going to work against a tactic.

    Parent
    If you don't (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:07:16 PM EST
    thinks there's a difference in intensity post-9/11 I don't know what to tell you.

    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:36:49 PM EST
    Let's recap. This guys father got on a phone and said my son's an extremist and we still couldn't nail him.

    We bombed folks in Yemen that may or may not have killed top Al Queda leaders.

    Chatter is chatter. It went on pre 9/11 and it will continue to go on. If I can't convince y'all of that then I don't know what to tell YOU.

    Parent

    I can tell you this (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    we weren't doing much intel gathering, nor was the quality of that intel a big concern.  We are now.

    Parent
    We weren't ? (none / 0) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:44:25 PM EST
    that is news to me. My husband was COMMUNICATIONS.

    Parent
    Your husband was communications (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:14:06 AM EST
    when?  And what kind of communications?  Did he do any infiltrations?  Did we even have drone surveillance then?  Did we have the ability to intercept ALL frequency transmissions in a given area?  I don't want to be a biotch, but what is now is not what was then and the Bush administration never really even began to seek out and use such resources heavily until they almost got booted out of Baghdad.  They just used to go out and touch the Bunker Busters and then touch themselves.

    Parent
    And unfortunately through many (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:07:21 PM EST
    dead Americans in Iraq we have learned how to best break a terrorist strength, at least with those we face right now.  One thing about the battlefield, whatever or where ever those may be is, your enemy is always looking and digging for your next best weakness to exploit.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#38)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:33:20 PM EST
    and our weakness appears to be we are idiots intent on traveling from country to country utilizing our valuable resources to reek war on a tactic. War on terror indeed! I'm sure that bombing people's homes though (since our intel system works so swimmingly after all) inspires good will and I'm sure our "enemies" aren't exploiting that at all.

    Parent
    Our weakness was there never was (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:15:43 AM EST
    a mission in Iraq other than occupation.

    Parent
    Unused military force (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    never killed a terrorist or prevented an attack.

    Parent
    Evidently (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:40:35 PM EST
    using military force ain't going too well either.

    Or are you going to go into that inane we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here crap? (As if it is only one person incapable of being in one place at a time or as if the number of people engaging in the tactic is stagnant)

    Seriously, if we are talking about expanding into Yemen now it's time for an intervention because it's getting ridiculous.

    Parent

    Expand? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:37:29 PM EST
    I am not even sure we shouldn't get out of Afghanistan given the lack of support that Obama has shown.

    One thing I think is true. You don't hold back any thing should you decide to fight. I am for short quick wars won by our weapon superiority, not putting men and women in harms way because we don't want to shock the world.

    Parent

    Lack of support? (none / 0) (#49)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 12:32:50 AM EST
    What would you like him to do pull soldiers out his backside?

    Seriously. The op tempo these folks are putting up with is already crazy. Expecting them to spend a year to a year and a half in Iraq and then turn around a couple of months after and ship them to Afghanistan. Now in order to appear "committed" we should add Yemen to the rotation. Uh Yeah. I'm pretty sure that if we go to Yemen then they won't crop up anywhere else. Oh wait, I'm sure that won't be a problem either, we'll just sprinkle magic non fairy dust on the troops and they'll be able to cover the globe with a military that was created for a two front war.

    Parent

    I would expect him to not (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 08:34:38 AM EST
    dither for three months or so and then not agree to send what his own general asked for and then to announce a pull out date.

    Lose lips sink ships and telling the enemy when you are going to leave loses wars.

    Parent

    You are so evil dude (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:08:13 PM EST
    I mean, I accept that any civilization is going to have to have those who are prepared to fight.  The more organized and skilled those individuals become, the greater the likelihood of success and future protection.  But damn Jim, sometimes I think you just like to bait liberals to wail on you.

    Parent
    As a Social Liberal (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:56:20 PM EST
    I regard a large number of the people here Left Wingers, not "liberals."

    I don't think you were around  but back in 2003 I was pushing the fact that I thought we could beat AQ with skin tight jeans and rock 'n roll.

    As we have since seen by the middle class terrorists in England as well as home grown here in the US the issue isn't poverty but a warped view of Islam by radicals. The most recent terrorist's attack on NW 253 shows how middle class Muslim kids can be easily brain washed by people who sell the idea that having money and things is bad. For a comparison think back to the 60's and 70's and remember the appeal that the hippy life style made to many middle class and above kids.

    Never having been asked to sacrifice anything, sacrifice becomes the greater glory.

    If I was running things I would be talking to all the "leaders" about what radical/extremeist Imams are doing/saying as well as killing as many AQ's and other terrorists as possible.

    Parent

    Geez (none / 0) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 12:46:35 AM EST
    I sure am glad you let me know that you were the yardstick with which liberalism can be measured.

    Oh and for the record, the Unabomber, not muslim. Guy who blew up the OKC buildings- also not muslim. It's great how you dismissed poverty because of a random one or two persons. Using your logic since Islam was not a factor in THE instances I cite above Islam isn't the problem either. I mean after all I cited one or two instances where terrorism was used but it wasn't a factor at all(just like you did with poverty)

    Isn't it great that we BOTH can play with the facts to come up with the outcome that suits us?
     

    Parent

    Heh (1.00 / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 08:30:09 AM EST
    The problem is while all terrorists are not Muslim, the latest, largest and most deadly bunch are.

    You would do well to remember that the great unwashed between the two coasts understand that very well.

    As for judging, yes I profile many things to my own standards. Too bad I don't run airport security, eh?

    Parent

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 09:56:31 AM EST
    this war between cultures is not a war game one can play on a computer.

    Profiling would tell you to take a longer harder look at all Muslims and especially younger Muslim men. It doesn't say you ignore everyone else.

    And no, I don't think the "between the coasters" are smarter, just that their collective experience makes them more sensible as compared to people who claim to know such things as profiling doesn't work.

    Parent

    It would be nice (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Pacific John on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:25:30 PM EST
    ... to have someone summarize the score. Greenwald's latest debunking of the Yemeni bombings wasn't reassuring, and makes it seem clear that we are asking for a lot of blow-back, with perhaps nothing to show for it.

    Having worked in government and in defense early in my career, the vast size of the current military enterprise bothers me a lot. Sans clear goals (like defeating Hitler), the size of a project makes it less and less efficient to to the point that it becomes more harm than good. I'd like to know where on that curve we are.

    Parent

    Everyone should be watchful (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    There's a lot of room for charades.

    Parent
    We used to have Steve Gilliard (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Pacific John on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:53:01 PM EST
    ...for this, but now we have a vacuum. This topic exposes a known major weakness on our side, that liberals aren't generally interested in the military affairs or history, so abandon the public debate to conservative hawks and media propagandists.

    The people who were energized by "foreign policy," voted for Obama to pull out of Iraq, then in a display of their true character, went to hide in a coffee house.

    Every time I read Joe Galloway, one of the minuscule number of critical military experts, I wonder wtf is wrong with our side for ignoring him. I can only conclude that the "anti-war" people who helped sweep Obama into office are as amoral and self-aggrandizing as their counterparts who BTD is talking about. They don't seem to care who we are killing, how many of our service members die, or if it makes any tactical or strategic sense, as long as one of our political tribe is giving the orders.

    Parent

    One thing that most libs are not going to (none / 0) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    like is that we are now gunning for midlevel members.  We aren't gunning for the top dogs anymore because it doesn't weaken the power structure of the organization and all they have to do is keep their top dogs well hidden.  I know that this summer the new strategy was announced to soldiers that now we are going after midlevel (the NCOs) to actually disturb the organizations ability to function well.  No lib is going to enjoy taking out a media nobody.

    Parent
    I tossed up (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Pacific John on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:06:02 PM EST
    a post at Alegre's Corner related to this... mentioned you.

    Parent
    Well you know (none / 0) (#28)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    except for one being a high level memo seconded by a major player in the National Security apparatus which reached the president the ignoring of which resulted in over 3000 American deaths and the other being the warning of the guys father which ended in a guy neutering himself. Other than that these are totally analogous- also Gitmo=Auschwitz.  Seriously, I have no patience for overblown historical analogies, they're frankly disrespectful to the memories of those who suffered in the original event. You want a fitting analogy- this is in line with the shoe bomber-- guess what both fizzled, were poorly planned and executed and were stopped by the passengers not government oversight.

    Parent
    That's not correct (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:13:57 PM EST
    Bush in his first months increased CIA resources 500% and Rice in a 7/5/2001 meeting warned all the agencies.

    Clarke praises Bush

    At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future."

    Parent

    Uh.... Clarke said what he said (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:59:30 PM EST
    and my quotes were before he was trying to sell a book.

    And we did bomb Afghanistan.

    But nothing you quoted detracts from my point.

    Parent

    My point remains. (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:12:42 AM EST
    WASHINGTON --  The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox News' Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latter's decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.

    Clarke said Clinton had no plan and Bush increased CIA resources five fold.

    Rice, using CIA input, told all the agencies that an attack was expected. This was on 7/5/200, 68 days before 9/11. Since she worked for Bush I would say Bush did all he could do.

    Remember, unlike Obama, Bush didn't have a No Fly List or a Watch List or over 8 years of war fare to work with.

    Parent

    Thanks for pointing out that Clarke said Clinton (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:27:49 PM EST
    had a strategy, but no plan.

    There is, of course, a vast difference between strategy and plan, which you are probably unaware of.

    And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

    The subject was about what Bush did or did not do.
    We have established that, per Clarke, he increased CIA resources 5 fold. We have also established, per Clarke, that there was no plan. We have also established per Clarke that Bush:

    One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

    And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect

    I wonder why you left that small bit out? ;-)

    And we have established by Rice's meeting that all of the agencies were warned.

    So the infamous 8/6/2001 PDF was redundant at best. Bush already knew what the CIA had to say. No new information was provided. At best it was a repeat of old (historical) information.

    And all of this was done without a No Fly List and without a Watch List.

    Parent

    Peanut gallery?? (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    Wiki??

    You keep fighting the wrong war.

    I have proven that Bush increased resources 5 fold and warned the agencies.....

    So your point is....?

    No, please, no more 50000 word quotes from Wiki... I mean it is just so reliable..

    hehe

    Parent

    Plus (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:38:38 PM EST
    everybody knows wikipedia's been took over by the anti-war left and "climate science" treehuggers.

    Only World Net Daily links, please.

    Parent

    You don't deserve an answer (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    But I will just note two things. Schools no longer accept Wiki as a source. That should tell you something.

    Secondly, if you read the 8/6 PDB and Rice's statement you will see, as I said, the 8/6 information was redundant.

    Parent

    Well, Napolitano and Gibbs (none / 0) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:08:23 PM EST
    rode to the Republican's rescue.  Both administration officials initially claimed that the system is actually working rather well.  However, that system's reliance upon a brave passenger to jump over seats and aisles to tackle the suspected bomber was not seen as reassuring by all.  Some backpedaling in progress, and, of course, the president calling for an investigation--but not in time for criticism by the opposition. Hope the investigation includes the effectiveness of the Chairman of Homeland Security, before he negotiates the bombing of Lagos, Amsterdam, London and Detroit.

    Parent
    There needs to be an investigation (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    A thorough one

    Parent
    Ha Ha (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:16:00 PM EST
    BarbinMD has a new diary at Orange about the party of NO voting against TSA funding.  She asks why do Republicans hate America?

    Parent
    Unless the TSA has changed (none / 0) (#18)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:29:14 PM EST
    it's a joke. My husband applied for a position there back when they were converting from baggage handlers. He was told to be there at a specific time. The day he reported down there they still hadn't set up the computers so instead the officials were using it as an opportunity to golf it up. He reported the next day and they still weren't set up so they bussed them to another location(woohoo more golf time for the guys there on taxpayers dime). The screeners at the other facility did only half the screening and only screened him for baggage handler(rather than both positions applied for). They couldn't tell him how or even if he got credit for being a disabled vet(although he was in good company for not getting the position since they passed on a AF customs agent and someone who actually had experience with screening as base security in Rihad). Two weeks after he got back from the screening they apparently weren't even aware that they screened him because he got another letter asking him to return to Staunton to repeat the procedure. Needless to say we passed on it.  From what I understand they mainly rehired the private contract baggage handlers.  

    Parent
    Are you aware that what was actually said, (none / 0) (#31)
    by Farmboy on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 02:20:46 PM EST
    was that after the suspect was in custody, the system worked? Let's not join the Malkins of the world in running away with the crowd.

    Parent
    Are you aware (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    Napolitano walked back her statement?

    Pressed by Matt Lauer to say whether the system failed miserably, she responded, "It did."

    "Our system did not work in this instance," she said. "No one is happy or satisfied with that."



    Parent
    "The system has worked really very, very (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:39:18 PM EST
    smoothly over the course of the past several days," Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security secretary said, in an interview on "This Week" on ABC.  Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, used nearly the same language on "Face the Nation" on CBS, saying that "in many ways, this system has worked."   From NYT, Monday, Dec 28, 2009,'Questions arise on why suspect wasn't stopped' by Erip Lipton and Scott Shane, page A1.  As noted, "clarifications" came later, but did, as you note and as I suggested, give the Republicans a hand.

    Parent
    Why Not Gitmo For Latest Suspected Terrorist? | 63 comments (63 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment