Ann Coulter Speaks Her Mind

[Kip Powick]

In response to a Nigerian Muslim trying to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, the government will now prohibit international travelers from going to the bathroom in the last hour before the plane lands.

Terrorists who plan to bomb planes during the first seven hours of the eight-hour flight, however, should face no difficulties, provided they wait until after the complimentary beverage service has been concluded.

How do they know Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab didn't wait until the end of the flight to try to detonate explosives because he heard the stewardess announce that the food service was over and seats would have to be placed in their upright position? I can't finish my snack? This plane is going down!

Also prohibited in the last hour of international flights will be: blankets, pillows, computers and in-flight entertainment. Another triumph in Janet Napolitano's "Let's stay one step behind the terrorists" policy!

For the past eight years, approximately 2 million Americans a day have been subjected to humiliating searches at airport security checkpoints, forced to remove their shoes and jackets, to open their computers, and to remove all liquids from their carry-on bags, except minuscule amounts in marked 3-ounce containers placed in Ziploc plastic bags -- folding sandwich bags are verboten -- among other indignities.

This, allegedly, was the price we had to pay for safe airplanes. The one security precaution the government refused to consider was to require extra screening for passengers who looked like the last three-dozen terrorists to attack airplanes.

Since Muslims took down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, every attack on a commercial airliner has been committed by foreign-born Muslim men with the same hair color, eye color and skin color. Half of them have been named Mohammed.

An alien from the planet "Not Politically Correct" would have surveyed the situation after 9/11 and said: "You are at war with an enemy without uniforms, without morals, without a country and without a leader -- but the one advantage you have is they all look alike. ... What? ... What did I say?"

The only advantage we have in a war with stateless terrorists was ruled out of order ab initio by political correctness.

And so, despite 5 trillion Americans opening laptops, surrendering lip gloss and drinking breast milk in airports day after day for the past eight years, the government still couldn't stop a Nigerian Muslim from nearly blowing up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day.

The "warning signs" exhibited by this particular passenger included the following:

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He's Nigerian.

He's a Muslim.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He boarded a plane in Lagos, Nigeria.

He paid nearly $3,000 in cash for his ticket.

He had no luggage.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Two months ago, his father warned the U.S. that he was a radical Muslim and possibly dangerous.

If our security procedures can't stop this guy, can't we just dispense with those procedures altogether? What's the point exactly?

(To be fair, the father's warning might have been taken more seriously if he had not simultaneously asked for the U.S. Embassy's Social Security number and bank routing number in order to convey a $28 million inheritance that was trapped in a Nigerian bank account.)

The warning from Abdulmutallab's father put his son on some list, but not the "no fly" list. Apparently, it's tougher to get on the "no fly" list than it was to get into Studio 54 in the '70s. Currently, the only people on the "no fly" list" are the Blind Sheik and Sean Penn.

The government is like the drunk looking for his keys under a lamppost. Someone stops to help, and asks, "Is this where you lost them?" No, the drunk answers, but the light's better here.

The government refuses to perform the only possibly effective security check -- search Muslims -- so instead it harasses infinitely compliant Americans. Will that help avert a terrorist attack? No, but the Americans don't complain.

The only reason Abdulmutallab didn't succeed in bringing down an airplane with 278 passengers was that: (1) A brave Dutchman leapt from his seat and extinguished the smoldering Nigerian; and (2) the Nigerian apparently didn't have enough detonating fluid to cause a powerful explosion.

In addition to the no blanket, no computer, no bathroom rule, perhaps the airlines could add this to their preflight announcement about seat belts and emergency exits: "Should a passenger sitting near you attempt to detonate an explosive device, you may be called upon to render emergency assistance. Would you be willing to do so under those circumstances? If not we will assign you another seat ..."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35037

(615 Comments)

[AME]

He paid nearly $3,000 in cash for his ticket.

Cash is the only way you can buy a ticket in Lagos with Nigeria being the fraud capital of the world no airline will accept a credit card as form of payment especially when you try to book a flight via the web.

Now having said that, I was one of those people who didn't want to lump all muslems into a single group, but I now think it's time to make this a muslem problem, and if they don't like being singled out maybe they should do something to stop the ones who are causing the problems, instead on sitting on their hands and turning a blind eye.

[Guest rattler]

Cash is the only way you buuy a ticket in Lagos   with Nigeria being the fraud capital of the world no airline will accept a cedit card as form of payment especially when you try to book a flight via the web.

Now having said that, I was one of those people who didn't want to lump all muslems into a single group, but I now think it's time to make this a muslem problem, and if they don't like being singled out maybe they should do something to stop the ones who are causing the problems, instead on sitting on their hands and turning a blind eye.

Only one problem with that solution, how do you determine if someone is or isn't a Muslim?

Muslims come from all nations, racial groups etc.

1.Christianity: 2.1 billion

2.Islam: 1.5 billion

[AME]

Only one problem with that solution, how do you determine if someone is or isn't a Muslim?

Muslims come from all nations, racial groups etc.

1.Christianity: 2.1 billion

2.Islam: 1.5 billion

I heard something about muslem men and naked women? maybe we can use that to flush them out?

[Kip Powick]

I think you are both skirting the issue and what wants to be said is...........PROFILING

[Guest rattler]

I think you are both skirting the issue and what wants to be said is...........PROFILING

I have no problem with profiling but difficult if not impossible to apply to religion. Works well for race and behaviour though but that would leave large gaps (as there are today) in any security profile.

[Kip Powick]

Just a small point..............how many terrorists have been identified as "over 50- Caucasion" people ??? How many have been identified as CREW wearing their airline ID and passes? Probably none.

Can you imagine how fast Security checks would move along if old farts like us were just given a cursory look?

At this point I believe the knee jerk reaction to the "threat" is costing the Free World more than the total cost of any attack "they" have initiated, ((not counting lives))

Until we put "Everyone Deserves Equal Treatment" on the back burner for awhile we will ALWAYS have the problem...... and it will grow.

Read "Animal Farm"....... there is no such thing as equality and the sooner we accept that fact the better we will be, with respect to air travel.

If you fit a certain suspcious profile and are upset about being profiled, and perhaps a secondary search,...tough.....take a train/boat.

EL AL rules !!!

[Guest woxof]

Of course, for years I have said thet profiling is needed. But then the racist accusations start flying. Then 300 people die(well almost) and you realize that profiling maybe would work. As you said...El Al.

Some are just more interested in being nice to everyone and not hurting feelings. So when a body scan can be done which happens to show whether you are well hung or have a nice set of knockers, groups such as the ACLU scream about our rights.

Well guess what. All of a sudden, they are doing the body scans of people in AMS. But if they had listened to Woxof, they would have been doing them two weeks ago. Why do people have to learn the hard way?

After all, we flash a lot of our stuff to doctors as well.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5071858,00.html

[J.O.]

Effective profiling isn't based on a single characteristic such as race or religion. It is far more complicated than that. Done right, it could ferret out anyone who has ill intentions including the Timothy McVeighs or even the guy with a major chip on his shoulder who's destined to be the next unruly passenger.

I agree that profiling is the only way we will have a fighting chance of really preventing terrorist attacks against aviation in the future. However, profiling requires personal contact with passengers and it takes more than one contact for it to be effective. Therefore, some conveniences such as web check-in would have to be taken away so that the personal contact can occur. So while we could make the security checkpoint a simpler process for those millions of honest travellers, they would still be inconvenienced in some way, particularly the frequent business traveller.

[Guest rattler]

Kip: you raise a valid point

Just a small point..............how many terrorists have been identified as "over 50- Caucasian" people ??? How many have been identified as CREW wearing their airline ID and passes? Probably none.

however once an exemption is established I would bet the terrorists would be able to find older extremists who on the surface look Caucasian. Regarding crew, as long as uniforms and credentials can be stolen / copied the only sure way of identifying / exempting crew would be for them to report in at their own operation and once identified, vanned to their aircraft.

[Ex 9A Guy]

Regarding crew, as long as uniforms and credentials can be stolen / copied the only sure way of identifying / exempting crew would be for them to report in at their own operation and once identified, vanned to their aircraft.

So what exactly is the point of my biometric RAIC then?? Unless someone steals my finger or my eyeball I think the screeners can be pretty much assured it is me in my uniform lugging my suitcase and flight bag to the airplane.

Yeah I know in movies folks have had their eyeballs plucked out in an effort to gain access to secure areas but even the jaded CATSA person at the crew bypass hopefully would notice if if someone tried to gain access using a disembodied eyeball.

As for your second suggestion of being vanned to the aircraft, bring it on. If I could check in at my employer and go directly to the aircraft and not encounter another CATSA/local airport authority security standard variance (now there is an oxymoron) I would be thrilled.

[melcrothers]

The US security have missed the crux of this latest problem.

BAN UNDERWEAR!!

No one should be allowed to wear underwear of any sort.

I guess the ultimate step would be that everyone flys naked.... but having recently been to CUN and saw some German folks cavorting sans clothes.... perhaps naked would be too drastic!

Here's to a better year in 2010. 2009 was a real downer.

[Airband]

I think you are both skirting the issue and what wants to be said is...........PROFILING

Maybe AC was just ahead of the curve on this?

[Lakelad]

Cash is the only way you can buy a ticket in Lagos   with Nigeria being the fraud capital of the world no airline will accept a credit card as form of payment especially when you try to book a flight via the web.

Not that it would likely make any difference given the roughness of the neighbourhood, but the ticket was actually purchased in nearby Accra, Ghana at the KLM ATO with a return booked for 08Jan. Multiple entry visa for US was issued in London Jun/08.

[Hadji Ramjet]

I have no problem with profiling but difficult if not impossible to apply to religion.

Bacon sandwich and a beer, then? If you're Jewish you have the beer but decline the sandwich, if you're Quaker you have the sandwich but decline the beer, if you're Muslim you turn both down?

[J.O.]

Bacon sandwich and a beer, then? If you're Jewish you have the beer but decline the sandwich, if you're Quaker you have the sandwich but decline the beer, if you're Muslim you turn both down?

You forgot the IRA, who would ask for a second pint.

[Guest rattler]

Air Transport

SubscribeYou are in: Home › Air Transport › News Article

DATE:31/12/09

SOURCE:Air Transport Intelligence newsTSA issues whole-body scanner contract to L-3

By John Croft

The US Transportation Security Administration yesterday issued a $165 million contract to purchase whole-body imagers for airport security checkpoints from L-3 Communications, five days after a Christmas day bomb scare on a Delta Air Lines A330 as it neared landing in Detroit.

The agency in October issued a similar contract valued at $173 million to L-3 competitor, Rapiscan, for its Secure 1000 single-pose whole-body imaging (WBI) system.

Along with missed cues in intelligence, US officials are also investigating whether WBI systems, which use technologies like backscatter X-ray, millimetre- or Terahertz-wave to expose potential threats under a passenger's clothing at an airport checkpoint, could have detected the pentaerythritol tetranitrate (PETN) and other components that were reportedly being carried in the underwear of a 23-year-old Nigerian man who later assembled the device onboard the aircraft in a bathroom and attempted to ignite the chemicals in his seat. Though the man's legs were burned, none of 277 other passengeres or the aircraft structure were damaged in the attempt.

Though a variety of explosives, including PETN, can be detected using portable explosives trace detection (ETD) machines available at most airports, the suspect charged in the attempted bombing was not selected for the special screening, which involves wiping luggage and other items with a cotton swab and analyzing the sample for traces of explosive material.

With a WBI system and its associated automated detection software, passenger screeners would obtain real-time data on threat items or equipment hidden under clothing. The technology in the past has been hampered by privacy concerns, though vendors have developed methods of addressing issues, including using black and white silhouettes in 3D images, blurring facial "and other" features and having security analysts in a remote location from the checkpoint to prevent them from seeing who they are screening.

L-3 reports that more than 200 of its ProVision millimetre-wave WBIs are being used worldwide, including more than 40 systems in test at 19 airports. Rapiscan, which also has systems in test at airports, uses X-ray backscatter as its core technology to detect threats. The bulk of passenger screening worldwide today continues to be handled by traditional metal detecting equipment, which is fast but does not reveal not-metallic threats.

Timing aside, yesterday's award capped a 20-month evaluation process that started with an open solicitation to imaging system vendors in April 2008. As part of the process, vendors were required to demonstrate that the systems could integrate into the airport checkpoint "with minimal impact on the current configuration", have a minimum throughput of 60 persons per hour (one per minute) and "support a 95th percentile male passenger in height". Two vendors have been cleared for a "qualified vendor list" to date by meeting all the requirements of the WBI system - L-3 and Rapiscan.

L-3 says the ProVision has a two-second multi-directional scan time and can process 300 - 600 passengers per hour (12 to 24 seconds per passenger), "depending on the application". Rapiscan says its scans are completed "within seconds".

TSA did not reveal how many systems it will purchase under the L-3 contract, and L-3 was not immediately available for comment.

The company's systems appear to have been selected for immediately installaion in at least one airport. In the wake of the Christmas attempted attack, Amsterdam's Schipol Airport, the origin of Delta Flight 253, stated yesterday that it would begin using millimeter-wave WBI systems within three weeks to screen passengers bound for the US.

[spreadsheet]

Now having said that, I was one of those people who didn't want to lump all muslems into a single group, but I now think it's time to make this a muslem problem, and if they don't like being singled out maybe they should do something to stop the ones who are causing the problems, instead on sitting on their hands and turning a blind eye.

I've been thinking pretty much the same thing the past few days, maybe I'm ignorant to it, but why isn't there more Muslim outrage to this? I'm afraid that until the Muslim world reacts with the outrage and action necessary this problem will never be rectified.

[Guest rattler]

Summing it up:

- profiling of Muslims might be a solution

---problem is how do you know who is a Muslim?

- Eliminate operating aircrew from security screening

- - problem what about the crew member who is a Muslim?

----If aircrew is not subject to screening what is to stop a terrorist from kidnapping family members (crew's that is) and forcing the crew member into doing what ever the terrorist wants?

------------- The only fool proof method would be a 100% screening of all passengers & crew (including strip searching) and what would you bet be regarding the acceptance of such measures?????

[DEFCON]

"The only fool proof method would be a 100% screening of all passengers & crew (including strip searching) and what would you bet be regarding the acceptance of such measures????? "

Nothing is 'fool proof'.

The US is now going to spend a fortune on scanners, infringe on rights and send a clear message to the bad guys, put your tools up your butt.

Are we then going to be ready to accept the next step in security enhancement that will follow?

[DEFCON]

Why is everyone so ready to give up the 'Rights' so many fought and died to create and protect?

Who is the enemy anyway?

How many of the enemy is there?

How do you separate friend from foe?

How do we know if & when we've won the war, or lost it?

Are we prepared to keep moving around the globe killing a few bad guys here and there for the next 50 years, maybe 100?

If more terrorists are being born daily than are being killed, how do we ever get on top of the situation?

If this situation is to continue indefinitely and we keep giving up our alleged freedom to protect us from the bad guys, who is actually winning this so-called war?

Giving up Rights is IMHO, akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[UpperDeck]

I've been thinking pretty much the same thing the past few days, maybe I'm ignorant to it, but why isn't there more Muslim outrage to this? I'm afraid that until the Muslim world reacts with the outrage and action necessary this problem will never be rectified.

Just for a moment, consider the "other side". Wasn't it Randolph who as a "Christian" targeted "abortion providers" and was supported by other "Christians"?

To what extent was there a hue and cry in Canada, for example, amongst adherents to christianity, to the perversion of their beliefs to justify murder?

How then can you assert that every Muslim has a responsibility for the activities of Islamist radicals?

[UpperDeck]

Why is everyone so ready to give up the 'Rights' so many fought and died to create and protect?

Who is the enemy anyway?

How many of the enemy is there?

How do you separate friend from foe?

How do we know if & when we've won the war, or lost it?

Are we prepared to keep moving around the globe killing a few bad guys here and there for the next 50 years, maybe 100?

If more terrorists are being born daily than are being killed, how do we ever get on top of the situation?

If this situation is to continue indefinitely and we keep giving up our alleged freedom to protect us from the bad guys, who is actually winning this so-called war?

Giving up Rights is IMHO, akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

What rights are you speaking of?

Proponents of more intrusive security efforts are promoting the most basic of rights----the right to live.

Personally, I don't object to scrutiny of my background to ensure that I don't pose a threat to the safety of others.

I can avoid that scrutiny by agreeing not to board an aircraft.

From my perspective, I don't have a "right to fly". I think you'll agree that security screening areas are currently posted to advise that you don't have to submit to a search----just turn around and go home if you object.

On another thread, Defcon, I posted that our society has deemed minor inconveniences (slight abrogations of right) to be justified "in a free and democratic society" to ensure the safety of the highways, or at least reduce risk (RIDE programs).

As we become evermore crowded together and more distant from each other in terms of human contact, some mechanism(s) must be in place to offer the security that "knowing one's neighbor" once provided.

[Kip Powick]

Personally, I don't object to scrutiny of my background to ensure that I don't pose a threat to the safety of others.

I can avoid that scrutiny by agreeing not to board an aircraft.

Exactly..... +1000

[chockalicious]

Why is everyone so ready to give up the 'Rights' so many fought and died to create and protect?

Who is the enemy anyway?

How many of the enemy is there?

How do you separate friend from foe?

How do we know if & when we've won the war, or lost it?

Are we prepared to keep moving around the globe killing a few bad guys here and there for the next 50 years, maybe 100?

If more terrorists are being born daily than are being killed, how do we ever get on top of the situation?

If this situation is to continue indefinitely and we keep giving up our alleged freedom to protect us from the bad guys, who is actually winning this so-called war?

Giving up Rights is IMHO, akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face.

WFW, could not agree more with this post.