Holder can not say the word 'radical Islam'
Showing posts with label Al Qaeda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Qaeda. Show all posts
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Obama Changes National Security Document
In an attempt to be politically correct and appease his liberal base, Obama has now rejected the term "Radical Islam" as being the cause of worldwide terrorism.
A national security document created during the Bush Administration read "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." Now, Obama is changing the national security document which is the premier document that determines U.S. national security strategy.
Who knows what will Obama put in place of radical Islam?
I know. Global warming. Or rather, the lack of nationalized health care. How about a bunch of Eskimos in Northern Alaska? Did you see the igloos that brought down the Towers on 9/11?
Unfortunately, Obama continues his famous doublespeak. On the one hand, he talks up a big deal that nuke terrorism is the number one threat facing the nation and how he remains committed to the security of the U.S.
But, when it comes to actually take a stand against terrorism in action rather than rhetoric, Obama fails miserably and hides behind his politically correct appeasing advisers in the White House.
If Obama can not even properly identify the very enemy that threatens the U.S. which is radical Islam, what makes anyone seriously think that Obama will have the courage to confront Iran or launch a military strike if the U.S. is attacked again Gdforbid.
How can anyone seriously believe that Obama is protecting the U.S. from daily threats against the country when he strikes a deal with the Russians to reduce the United States' nuclear arms supply in a time when Iran or North Korea or a terrorist group could launch a bio terror attack on the U.S.? (Obama heads to Prague to sign the U.S.-Russian Treaty which will reduce nuclear warheads to 1,550 over 7 years)
If someone out there has confidence in Obama's national security credentials, please tell me where you derive such a level of confidence in a President who is working actively to appease the enemy rather than weaken them.
A national security document created during the Bush Administration read "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." Now, Obama is changing the national security document which is the premier document that determines U.S. national security strategy.
Who knows what will Obama put in place of radical Islam?
I know. Global warming. Or rather, the lack of nationalized health care. How about a bunch of Eskimos in Northern Alaska? Did you see the igloos that brought down the Towers on 9/11?
Unfortunately, Obama continues his famous doublespeak. On the one hand, he talks up a big deal that nuke terrorism is the number one threat facing the nation and how he remains committed to the security of the U.S.
But, when it comes to actually take a stand against terrorism in action rather than rhetoric, Obama fails miserably and hides behind his politically correct appeasing advisers in the White House.
If Obama can not even properly identify the very enemy that threatens the U.S. which is radical Islam, what makes anyone seriously think that Obama will have the courage to confront Iran or launch a military strike if the U.S. is attacked again Gdforbid.
How can anyone seriously believe that Obama is protecting the U.S. from daily threats against the country when he strikes a deal with the Russians to reduce the United States' nuclear arms supply in a time when Iran or North Korea or a terrorist group could launch a bio terror attack on the U.S.? (Obama heads to Prague to sign the U.S.-Russian Treaty which will reduce nuclear warheads to 1,550 over 7 years)
If someone out there has confidence in Obama's national security credentials, please tell me where you derive such a level of confidence in a President who is working actively to appease the enemy rather than weaken them.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Al Qaeda Months Away From Another Attack
CIA Director Leon Panetta believes that Al Qaeda could attack America within the next three to six months. Very scary prediction. But its reality. America in its vast amount of territory is exposed to the threat of terrorism every day. Panetta told the Senate Intelligence Committee "the biggest threat is not so much that we face an attack like 9/11. It is that Al Qaeda is adapting its methods in ways that often times make it difficult to detect."
He further elaborated that the terrorist organization is recruiting in-country recruits or homegrown terrorists to carry out attacks as well. The Director of the National Intelligence Dennis Blair has also warned that the terrorists could launch cyber computer-related attacks on the U.S. which could cripple the economy since technology has become the epicenter of business production. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has requested that funding to combat cyber attacks be decreased.
The major concern is that with the focus on the economy and health care, people are forgetting that terrorism is still a very dominant force in the world and a very real threat. Thankfully, we have not had a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 which is a relief but also a deficit at the same time because when everything is going well people let their guard down. I am afraid that an overwhelming amount of the American people do not fully realize how serious is the threat of terrorism.
Obama and the Democrats have a propensity to speak in localized instead of widespread regional terms when describing how Al Qaeda is the only organization that attacked the U.S. on 9/11 and therefore is the main entity that poses a threat to U.S. security. (This gives people the incorrect impression that the threat to the U.S. is based in Afghanistan when it extends way beyond a single country) Yes, Al Qaeda is leading worldwide Jihad attacks. But, Al Qaeda is hardly alone. ( Hamas is now debating whether to attack Israelis and Jews outside of Israel). In fact, the threat largely emanates from a vast radical Islamic network spread all over the world in many different countries, in the Middle East, in Europe, even in America. This radical network composed of various terrorist organizations fervently believes that the "Infidel" (anyone who does not believe in their radical ideology which includes Jews, Christians and moderate Muslims) must be killed. They will fight until the end of days until every last "Infidel" is annihilated.
This demented philosophy largely means that Western civilization will have to engage in an embattled conflict with radical Islam for many years to come perhaps until the end of time and that's not an exaggeration by any stretch of the imagination. It also means that people can not expect that the focus on preserving national security will disappear or become less important simply because our political leaders attend to domestic matters. Even though we have a lot of legitimate highly significant needs and concerns that must be attended to, (i.e. the economy, employment, health care) national security must remain our top priority requiring our foremost attention.
If we forget that we are still fighting a war on terror as serious as in the days after 9/11 and instead shift gears to focusing on the economy for example, we will not have to worry about the economy because we the "Infidels" will not be here to have an economy.
He further elaborated that the terrorist organization is recruiting in-country recruits or homegrown terrorists to carry out attacks as well. The Director of the National Intelligence Dennis Blair has also warned that the terrorists could launch cyber computer-related attacks on the U.S. which could cripple the economy since technology has become the epicenter of business production. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has requested that funding to combat cyber attacks be decreased.
The major concern is that with the focus on the economy and health care, people are forgetting that terrorism is still a very dominant force in the world and a very real threat. Thankfully, we have not had a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 which is a relief but also a deficit at the same time because when everything is going well people let their guard down. I am afraid that an overwhelming amount of the American people do not fully realize how serious is the threat of terrorism.
Obama and the Democrats have a propensity to speak in localized instead of widespread regional terms when describing how Al Qaeda is the only organization that attacked the U.S. on 9/11 and therefore is the main entity that poses a threat to U.S. security. (This gives people the incorrect impression that the threat to the U.S. is based in Afghanistan when it extends way beyond a single country) Yes, Al Qaeda is leading worldwide Jihad attacks. But, Al Qaeda is hardly alone. ( Hamas is now debating whether to attack Israelis and Jews outside of Israel). In fact, the threat largely emanates from a vast radical Islamic network spread all over the world in many different countries, in the Middle East, in Europe, even in America. This radical network composed of various terrorist organizations fervently believes that the "Infidel" (anyone who does not believe in their radical ideology which includes Jews, Christians and moderate Muslims) must be killed. They will fight until the end of days until every last "Infidel" is annihilated.
This demented philosophy largely means that Western civilization will have to engage in an embattled conflict with radical Islam for many years to come perhaps until the end of time and that's not an exaggeration by any stretch of the imagination. It also means that people can not expect that the focus on preserving national security will disappear or become less important simply because our political leaders attend to domestic matters. Even though we have a lot of legitimate highly significant needs and concerns that must be attended to, (i.e. the economy, employment, health care) national security must remain our top priority requiring our foremost attention.
If we forget that we are still fighting a war on terror as serious as in the days after 9/11 and instead shift gears to focusing on the economy for example, we will not have to worry about the economy because we the "Infidels" will not be here to have an economy.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Body Scanners are Useless
Ever since there was word that airport security could begin using body scanners to detect explosives following the foiled Christmas day airplane bombing, I have written at least two posts arguing that body scanners will not in of itself be effective in preventing another attack simply because the terrorists will always find other creative measures to carry out their attacks. (See James Inhofe and NWA attack posts) What is needed is racial profiling as the main security measure.
Well, I think the terrorists have found more creative means to carry out their attacks and creative it is indeed.
Great Britain is reporting that their intelligence agencies have uncovered a plot by the terrorists to surgically implant the explosive PETN into their bodies.
Men would implant PETN into their appendix or buttocks and women would insert PETN into their breasts similar to implants.
How will they accomplish these surgical implants? Experts explain that the terrorists will place the PETN into a plastic sachet and insert it into their body. Then they will close up the wound and over time the wound will heal as it does in any surgery. Then, when the terrorists are ready to detonate the bomb, they will have a syringe filled with an explosive called TATP which they will inject into their skin triggering the sachet containing the PETN.
PETN can easily blow a large hole into an airplane.
Body scanners will be completely ineffective in detecting terrorists who have PETN sowed into their buttocks or breasts.
Racial profiling done by qualified security professionals will save the day.
Well, I think the terrorists have found more creative means to carry out their attacks and creative it is indeed.
Great Britain is reporting that their intelligence agencies have uncovered a plot by the terrorists to surgically implant the explosive PETN into their bodies.
Men would implant PETN into their appendix or buttocks and women would insert PETN into their breasts similar to implants.
How will they accomplish these surgical implants? Experts explain that the terrorists will place the PETN into a plastic sachet and insert it into their body. Then they will close up the wound and over time the wound will heal as it does in any surgery. Then, when the terrorists are ready to detonate the bomb, they will have a syringe filled with an explosive called TATP which they will inject into their skin triggering the sachet containing the PETN.
PETN can easily blow a large hole into an airplane.
Body scanners will be completely ineffective in detecting terrorists who have PETN sowed into their buttocks or breasts.
Racial profiling done by qualified security professionals will save the day.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Obama Earns a F
President Obama told Oprah Winfrey last December that he would give himself a solid B+ when asked how we would grade his own performance since becoming President in January of 2009.
Well, ahead of the President's State of the Union Address, a bipartisan commission has a different view of the President's performance and its not so generous.
The national WMD commission established by Congress has given the Obama Administration a juicy big solid F for its failure in protecting Americans from a biological, nuclear or chemical attack.
Former Democrat Senator Bob Graham and Chairman of the WMD Commission said "nearly a decade after 9/11, one year after our original report, and one month after the Christmas Day bombing attempt, the United States is failing to address several urgent threats, especially bio terrorism."
In addition, the Commission concluded that the administration "is simply not paying consistent and urgent attention to the means of responding quickly and effectively so that [WMD attacks] no longer constitute a threat of mass destruction."
Amazingly, there has been no effort by the administration thus far to coordinate a joint federal, state, and local operation to respond to a bio terror attack if it occurs.
We once again have business as usual in Washington. President Obama was one of many who accosted President Bush for running a poor humanitarian response in the wake of hurricane Katrina. Now, Obama is repeating the same pattern on a much larger scale in ignoring the necessity of a sophisticated government response to a bio terror attack.
This is very disturbing news.
According to a secret intelligence dossier being reviewed by the U.S., Israeli, German, and Austrian governments, Iran may very well obtain a nuclear bomb by the end of this year. If that's the case, how could the U.S. government have no concrete plan to respond to a nuclear or chemical attack on the U.S. which could be the single most catastrophic event in U.S. history and perhaps human history?
It boggles the mind that terror is being unraveled right before the President's very eyes and he has chosen either intentionally or unintentionally to close them at the expense of the American people. He's concerned about passing his health care plan. But, what's going to be his "health care plan" when millions of Americans are struck by a bio terror attack with catastrophic injuries?
The President may think he has done a B+ job. But, he's in la la land if he thinks the American people are going to give him a B+ grade for falling a sleep at the wheel when it comes to protecting U.S. citizens from a nuclear, chemical or biological attack.
Well, ahead of the President's State of the Union Address, a bipartisan commission has a different view of the President's performance and its not so generous.
The national WMD commission established by Congress has given the Obama Administration a juicy big solid F for its failure in protecting Americans from a biological, nuclear or chemical attack.
Former Democrat Senator Bob Graham and Chairman of the WMD Commission said "nearly a decade after 9/11, one year after our original report, and one month after the Christmas Day bombing attempt, the United States is failing to address several urgent threats, especially bio terrorism."
In addition, the Commission concluded that the administration "is simply not paying consistent and urgent attention to the means of responding quickly and effectively so that [WMD attacks] no longer constitute a threat of mass destruction."
Amazingly, there has been no effort by the administration thus far to coordinate a joint federal, state, and local operation to respond to a bio terror attack if it occurs.
We once again have business as usual in Washington. President Obama was one of many who accosted President Bush for running a poor humanitarian response in the wake of hurricane Katrina. Now, Obama is repeating the same pattern on a much larger scale in ignoring the necessity of a sophisticated government response to a bio terror attack.
This is very disturbing news.
According to a secret intelligence dossier being reviewed by the U.S., Israeli, German, and Austrian governments, Iran may very well obtain a nuclear bomb by the end of this year. If that's the case, how could the U.S. government have no concrete plan to respond to a nuclear or chemical attack on the U.S. which could be the single most catastrophic event in U.S. history and perhaps human history?
It boggles the mind that terror is being unraveled right before the President's very eyes and he has chosen either intentionally or unintentionally to close them at the expense of the American people. He's concerned about passing his health care plan. But, what's going to be his "health care plan" when millions of Americans are struck by a bio terror attack with catastrophic injuries?
The President may think he has done a B+ job. But, he's in la la land if he thinks the American people are going to give him a B+ grade for falling a sleep at the wheel when it comes to protecting U.S. citizens from a nuclear, chemical or biological attack.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Senator James Inhofe Under Fire
The radical Muslim group, CAIR, is calling on Senator Inhofe(R-OK) to explain why he is in favor of racial or ethnic profiling as a security measure when screening passengers at the airport. Inhofe proclaimed his support for racial profiling at a Senate hearing on Thursday investigating the Fort Hood shootings.
CAIR Executive Director Razi Hashmi, stated in response to Inhofe's comments "It is disturbing to hear a member of the United States Senate suggest that entire religious and ethnic groups should automatically be considered terror suspects."
CAIR is an illegitimate organization which has been identified by the Justice Department as a terrorist conspirator. They should have absolutely no say in determining security procedures at army bases, U.S. airports, or anywhere else for that matter.
Nevertheless, the issue of racial profiling is a legitimate conversation. Ideally, we should not have to implement racial profiling. However, we are living in very dangerous times. Constitutionally, the U.S. government can take drastic measures if it has a compelling governmental interest which seems to exist by all objective accounts. Unless we racially profile, the current security procedures will be ineffective in stopping future terrorist attacks which will undoubtedly occur. If airport security had screened the Christmas Day underwear bomber as he is now called, he would not have made it on that Northwest Airlines flight. And, if airport security had racially profiled on Thursday, they would not have been concerned by the man who wore phylacteries when praying on his US Air flight.
The fact is that primarily all of the terrorists who implement attacks on flights are of Middle Eastern descent. As Inhofe stated, "you hear that not all Middle Easterners or Muslims between the age of 20 and 35 are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims or Middle Easterners between the age of 20 and 35, that's by and large true."
No one can escape those statistics.
On the other hand, proper racial profiling would not automatically assume that every Muslim flying is a terrorist. Certainly, most Muslims who fly in the U.S. do not have ties to Al Qaeda.
With proper racial profiling, every person flying whether they are Muslim or not would be scrutinized prior to checking in bags at the ticket counter and perhaps prior to boarding. However, people who are of Middle Eastern descent (mostly men within the age bracket) have to be subjected to more extensive questioning because of the current trend to determine if they are a threat. Once the trained security guard determines that they are not a threat, they would be able to board with unfettered access. If they fit the characteristic of a terrorist (i.e. boarding an international flight with no bags after paying for the flight with cash), they would not be allowed to board the flight.
Its not rocket science and its the only way to prevent terrorist attacks.
Safety must supersede all other constitutional interests.
Body scanners will not stop terrorist attacks on flights all together as the terrorists will always find other creative measures to carry out their attacks.
However, if we are on guard for suspicious behavior through the use of racial profiling, we have a much better chance of preventing another 9/11 or an event of similar proportions.
We fail to accept the use of racial profiling to our own detriment.
CAIR Executive Director Razi Hashmi, stated in response to Inhofe's comments "It is disturbing to hear a member of the United States Senate suggest that entire religious and ethnic groups should automatically be considered terror suspects."
CAIR is an illegitimate organization which has been identified by the Justice Department as a terrorist conspirator. They should have absolutely no say in determining security procedures at army bases, U.S. airports, or anywhere else for that matter.
Nevertheless, the issue of racial profiling is a legitimate conversation. Ideally, we should not have to implement racial profiling. However, we are living in very dangerous times. Constitutionally, the U.S. government can take drastic measures if it has a compelling governmental interest which seems to exist by all objective accounts. Unless we racially profile, the current security procedures will be ineffective in stopping future terrorist attacks which will undoubtedly occur. If airport security had screened the Christmas Day underwear bomber as he is now called, he would not have made it on that Northwest Airlines flight. And, if airport security had racially profiled on Thursday, they would not have been concerned by the man who wore phylacteries when praying on his US Air flight.
The fact is that primarily all of the terrorists who implement attacks on flights are of Middle Eastern descent. As Inhofe stated, "you hear that not all Middle Easterners or Muslims between the age of 20 and 35 are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims or Middle Easterners between the age of 20 and 35, that's by and large true."
No one can escape those statistics.
On the other hand, proper racial profiling would not automatically assume that every Muslim flying is a terrorist. Certainly, most Muslims who fly in the U.S. do not have ties to Al Qaeda.
With proper racial profiling, every person flying whether they are Muslim or not would be scrutinized prior to checking in bags at the ticket counter and perhaps prior to boarding. However, people who are of Middle Eastern descent (mostly men within the age bracket) have to be subjected to more extensive questioning because of the current trend to determine if they are a threat. Once the trained security guard determines that they are not a threat, they would be able to board with unfettered access. If they fit the characteristic of a terrorist (i.e. boarding an international flight with no bags after paying for the flight with cash), they would not be allowed to board the flight.
Its not rocket science and its the only way to prevent terrorist attacks.
Safety must supersede all other constitutional interests.
Body scanners will not stop terrorist attacks on flights all together as the terrorists will always find other creative measures to carry out their attacks.
However, if we are on guard for suspicious behavior through the use of racial profiling, we have a much better chance of preventing another 9/11 or an event of similar proportions.
We fail to accept the use of racial profiling to our own detriment.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Terror returns to the skies on NWA Flight 253
Vice-President Biden stated during the campaign that President Obama would be tested just like President Bush was tested with 9/11. Now, we may have had our first real test of the Obama administration by Al Qaeda with this latest attempt to blow up NWA Airlines flight 253 on December 25th as it proceeded to make its final approach into Detroit. The NWA flight originated from Nigeria with a stop over in Amsterdam before departing for Detroit. On board NWA Flight 253 was a Nigerian man by the name of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab. According to the New York Post and other news sources, Mutallab has ties to Al Qaeda. Apparently, Mutallab stated that he was instructed by Al Qaeda to blow up a U.S. Airliner.
Mutallab could have very easily blew up this aircraft or could have caused serious harm. Luckily, he was not able to detonate the bomb and only caused a small fire on board which was put out by the crew. The other passengers, particularly a Dutch man by the name of Jasper Schuringa, was able to restrain Mutallab until law enforcement authorities arrived.
This incident should serve as another wake up call for the U.S. to get their act together. We have already had the incidents on AirTran and United Airlines this year. (See my earlier posts on those incidents http://kauffmanscommentary.blogspot.com/search/label/AirTran%20Airways
http://kauffmanscommentary.blogspot.com/search/label/United%20Airlines ). How many wake up calls can you get before its too late? You're lucky if you get one wake up call. We've now had three wake up calls with little or no damage caused. The fourth wake up call will not be so innocuous. Do we have to have another major terrorist attack again on U.S. soil, God forbid, before the U.S. intelligence community and aviation industry learns to connect the dots and provide better security on our flights? The terrorists are professionally trained. They will take advantage of our inadequate security measures to our detriment.
We learned that the father of Mutallab warned the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria that his son could be dangerous. Unfortunately, Mutallab was not put on any "no fly list." Why not? He should have at least been subjected to stricter security checks at the airport when boarding the flight. Certainly, the information learned by the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria should have been conveyed to the FAA and the CIA and the FBI. And, if they knew about this information which they may or may not have been aware of until now, they should have immediately flagged Mutallab for greater surveillance.
I am sure in the coming days more information will be revealed about what the U.S. knew about Mutallab and when they knew it similarly to the investigation that occurred after 9/11. But, the aviation industry is missing the boat if security measures as they stand now will continue unchanged.
In the wake of this NWA incident, the government is requiring that passengers remain in their seats for the last hour of the flight. And, on international flights, passengers are only allowed once carry on bag. There certainly will be longer lines.But, these new restrictions are not sufficient. More needs to be done to protect U.S. Airliners from another terrorist attack.
While I am no security expert and do not purport to be one, the problem does not seem to be one of keeping passengers in their seats. A terrorist attack could still happen regardless of whether a passenger stays in his seat or not. Rather, the only way to really ensure that the aircraft is safe on the ground and in the air is to profile passengers before they board the aircraft to determine who appears to be a threat to the flight. This procedure has been done for years in Israel. Many have argued quite sensibly that this investigative questioning of passengers before they board flights, which is done by Israeli airlines and by the airport authority at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, could not be replicated in a massive capacity in the U.S. However, the time may have come where we do not have a choice but to do what the Israelis have been doing for years.
I would propose the following new security measures:
1) All U.S. Airliners must hire their own trained security to oversee the check-in procedures for all flights whether they are operating within the U.S or are originating from an overseas airport. It can no longer be sufficient for U.S. Airliners to rely on other airports to solely run the security for their flights. Nor can U.S. Airliners solely rely on TSA personnel who may not be trained in detecting a bomb or other explosive device.
2) All passengers going on a domestic or international flight must check in their bags at the ticket counter instead of curb side check in.
3) All passengers should expect that they may be subjected to questioning at the ticket counter by trained airport or airline-hired security. (The need for questioning of passengers will be greater on international flights) If there is a serious question as to whether a passenger may be a threat to a particular flight, that passenger will not be allowed to fly on that flight and will have to be rebooked on another flight once he or she is cleared to fly again.
4) All U.S. Airports should have the same security procedures. We are learning now that security procedures depends on which airport you are flying from. Uniformity is vital to prevent another terrorist attack. Every airport in the U.S. must provide comparable security. (Fort Lauderdale's airport must provide the same security that JFK or LAX provides. Now, its true that Fort Lauderdale does not have the same flight load as LAX or JFK. But, passengers departing from Fort Lauderdale's airport must be subjected to the same security procedures that they would experience at a more busy airport.)
5) If the FAA, CIA, or FBI learns of information pointing to an individual who may be a risk to a flight, that person should immediately be put on a "no fly list" or should be subjected to more stringent security checks at the airport by either airport or airline security.
I know that these proposed security measures would probably significantly raise airline prices and cause more hassle at the airports including more wait time.
Ultimately, this may be the price that we have to pay if we want to fly terror-free.
Mutallab could have very easily blew up this aircraft or could have caused serious harm. Luckily, he was not able to detonate the bomb and only caused a small fire on board which was put out by the crew. The other passengers, particularly a Dutch man by the name of Jasper Schuringa, was able to restrain Mutallab until law enforcement authorities arrived.
This incident should serve as another wake up call for the U.S. to get their act together. We have already had the incidents on AirTran and United Airlines this year. (See my earlier posts on those incidents http://kauffmanscommentary.blogspot.com/search/label/AirTran%20Airways
http://kauffmanscommentary.blogspot.com/search/label/United%20Airlines ). How many wake up calls can you get before its too late? You're lucky if you get one wake up call. We've now had three wake up calls with little or no damage caused. The fourth wake up call will not be so innocuous. Do we have to have another major terrorist attack again on U.S. soil, God forbid, before the U.S. intelligence community and aviation industry learns to connect the dots and provide better security on our flights? The terrorists are professionally trained. They will take advantage of our inadequate security measures to our detriment.
We learned that the father of Mutallab warned the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria that his son could be dangerous. Unfortunately, Mutallab was not put on any "no fly list." Why not? He should have at least been subjected to stricter security checks at the airport when boarding the flight. Certainly, the information learned by the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria should have been conveyed to the FAA and the CIA and the FBI. And, if they knew about this information which they may or may not have been aware of until now, they should have immediately flagged Mutallab for greater surveillance.
I am sure in the coming days more information will be revealed about what the U.S. knew about Mutallab and when they knew it similarly to the investigation that occurred after 9/11. But, the aviation industry is missing the boat if security measures as they stand now will continue unchanged.
In the wake of this NWA incident, the government is requiring that passengers remain in their seats for the last hour of the flight. And, on international flights, passengers are only allowed once carry on bag. There certainly will be longer lines.But, these new restrictions are not sufficient. More needs to be done to protect U.S. Airliners from another terrorist attack.
While I am no security expert and do not purport to be one, the problem does not seem to be one of keeping passengers in their seats. A terrorist attack could still happen regardless of whether a passenger stays in his seat or not. Rather, the only way to really ensure that the aircraft is safe on the ground and in the air is to profile passengers before they board the aircraft to determine who appears to be a threat to the flight. This procedure has been done for years in Israel. Many have argued quite sensibly that this investigative questioning of passengers before they board flights, which is done by Israeli airlines and by the airport authority at Ben Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv, could not be replicated in a massive capacity in the U.S. However, the time may have come where we do not have a choice but to do what the Israelis have been doing for years.
I would propose the following new security measures:
1) All U.S. Airliners must hire their own trained security to oversee the check-in procedures for all flights whether they are operating within the U.S or are originating from an overseas airport. It can no longer be sufficient for U.S. Airliners to rely on other airports to solely run the security for their flights. Nor can U.S. Airliners solely rely on TSA personnel who may not be trained in detecting a bomb or other explosive device.
2) All passengers going on a domestic or international flight must check in their bags at the ticket counter instead of curb side check in.
3) All passengers should expect that they may be subjected to questioning at the ticket counter by trained airport or airline-hired security. (The need for questioning of passengers will be greater on international flights) If there is a serious question as to whether a passenger may be a threat to a particular flight, that passenger will not be allowed to fly on that flight and will have to be rebooked on another flight once he or she is cleared to fly again.
4) All U.S. Airports should have the same security procedures. We are learning now that security procedures depends on which airport you are flying from. Uniformity is vital to prevent another terrorist attack. Every airport in the U.S. must provide comparable security. (Fort Lauderdale's airport must provide the same security that JFK or LAX provides. Now, its true that Fort Lauderdale does not have the same flight load as LAX or JFK. But, passengers departing from Fort Lauderdale's airport must be subjected to the same security procedures that they would experience at a more busy airport.)
5) If the FAA, CIA, or FBI learns of information pointing to an individual who may be a risk to a flight, that person should immediately be put on a "no fly list" or should be subjected to more stringent security checks at the airport by either airport or airline security.
I know that these proposed security measures would probably significantly raise airline prices and cause more hassle at the airports including more wait time.
Ultimately, this may be the price that we have to pay if we want to fly terror-free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
