http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34592031/ns/us_news-security
Flight 253 with 278 passengers and 11 crew members aboard was about 20 minutes from the airport when passengers heard popping noises, witnesses said. At least one person climbed over others and jumped on the man. Shortly afterward, the suspect was taken to the front of the plane with his pants cut off and his legs burned, a passenger said. Law enforcement officials said the burns indicated the explosive was strapped to his legs.
I want to focus on the security aspects of this.
The White House said it believed it was an attempted act of terrorism and stricter security measures were quickly imposed on airline travel. It did not specify what those were.
Federal officials said there would be heightened security for both domestic and international flights at airports across the country, but the intensified levels would likely be "layered," differing from location to location depending on alerts, security concerns and other factors.
Passengers can expect to see heightened screening, more bomb-sniffing dog and officer units and behavioral-detection specialists at some airports, but there will also be unspecified less visible precautions as well, officials said.
My major problem with airport security screening measures is that they focus on objects... often to the point of idiocy. Do they honestly believe that somebody can take over an airplane using toenail clippers? As to the banning of shaving cream... enough said.
Faced with yet another person who had shown up as a "person of interest" in ongoing anti-terrorism operations, how does TSA react? By tightening up their search for objects.
This county has become FAR too politically correct, to the point where it has long affected our national security. Airport screeners are actually FORBIDDEN to "profile" those targeted for heightened scrutiny... at times taking closer looks at aging grandmothers from Omaha while letting better suspects pass through.
When is the last time that old women from the Midwestern US were involved in an al Qaida terrorist incident? That's what I thought.
This isn't politically correct, but it might just work. Hey, since the terrorists seem to be MUSLIMS, why not focus our heightened scrutiny on those who fit the dang profile? The whole concept that security measures can be blind to obvious patterns is ridiculous. It's like forcing the police to include all ethnic groups in a lineup when witnesses clearly saw a tall Latino commit the crime! STUPID!
I'm not saying that those who don't fit the obvious profile should be ignored... rather, I'm saying that heightened searches should be aimed primarily at those most likely to be terrorists. All Muslims are not terrorists, but it seems that recently all terrorists have, in fact, been Muslim.
In this case, Mutallab was designated "a person of interest" as a potential terrorist, but he was still permitted to board the airplane without, apparently, facing heightened scrutiny. How inept are we getting, when even those we SUSPECT of being terrorists benefit from either our politically correct handicaps or our ineptitude?
Thankfully, nobody was hurt in this incident except the would-be bomber, but that was due, at least partly, to the bomb fizzling. Things could have been a lot worse.
Going after objects doesn't work, guys... why not target the terrorists?
If you read the various reports....our friend had a tube-like device (likely a condom) fitted to his leg at this point (we don't even want to think about where it was in the gate or inspection process)...and attempted to set it off at his seat. It would appear some type of contamination took place or it simply didn't react like it was supposed to.
ReplyDeleteOnce the smoke occurred...it was burning him...more than it was exploding. I'm guessing he has some pretty severe burns on his legs and genitals.
The problem here...is how folks are going to be inspected once you know how far they will go to hide the device. Frankly, this is inviting a search episode that none of us want.