Monday, December 28, 2009

How did a bomber slip onto a plane to Detroit?

How did a bomber slip onto a plane to Detroit?
Al Ritter

How did the Detroit Air Bomber slip through security? There are many reasons Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab slipped onto a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Eve, but thank goodness, it seems that none were effective in detonating the explosive.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a child from the upper class in Nigeria, who never wanted for anything, became estranged from his father a few years ago. His father was so worried about his new radical leanings he warned officials, but the warning never placed him on a “no fly list,” and this was the first mistake.

The second mistake was made in Amsterdam, and although they followed the letter of the law as to screening, that level was inadequate to find the type of explosives used in the attempted bombing. PETN is commonly used by terrorists as it is easy to hide, stabile to transport, and easy to detonate. The problem was that Amsterdam had no such airport "puffer" machines, the devices that blow air onto a passenger to collect and analyze residues, would probably have detected the powder, as would bomb-sniffing dogs or a hands-on search using a swab, but unfortunately none were used.

Janet Napolitano has offered two different messages so far as to the attempted bombing, first she blamed (past procedures)…….big surprise there! Then she claimed that those same procedures had actually done their job. It’s hard to understand how the procedures actually had done their job when the bomber was ON the flight, had brought on explosives, and had attempted to ignite them.

We should be learning from this incident, but stonewalling by the administration to prevent specifics from reaching Congressional Security committees is hardly the way to handle it. Liberals tend to shy away from the actions of “profiling,” but only in certain instances. The FBI has a specific division that they use to “profile” certain types of criminals. This division has had unquestionable success, and yet liberals only see certain types of profiling as acceptable. Profiling is profiling, it has no politically correct objective, and it merely classifies certain types of people as being typical of committing a crime. If that crime happens to be one of a religious nature, or classifies a certain racial type, the left sees that as inappropriate.

Unfortunately these are the very things we should be paying attention to, these profiles define our safety, and they are part of the security of our country. Political correctness should NEVER be substituted for our safety, especially after ignoring the warning from the child’s father.

If you like the article you just read, please take the time to subscribe to Al’s personal subscription list, go here, and type “subscribe” in the subject box, Thanks!


barb p said...

We seem to only 'learn' when it suits the only 'add a stop light' when someone gets killed....or something like that....

Anonymous said...

Good thoughts.

They blame Bush but in their haste they seemed to have overlooked the fact they had 11 months to change what they didn't like.

Anonymous said...

My friend and I were recently discussing about how we as a society are so hooked onto electronics. Reading this post makes me think back to that debate we had, and just how inseparable from electronics we have all become.

I don't mean this in a bad way, of course! Ethical concerns aside... I just hope that as technology further develops, the possibility of transferring our memories onto a digital medium becomes a true reality. It's one of the things I really wish I could encounter in my lifetime.

(Posted on Nintendo DS running [url=]R4 SDHC[/url] DS FPost)

Anonymous said...

It is extremely interesting for me to read this article. Thank you for it. I like such themes and everything connected to them. I would like to read more on that blog soon.

Avril Kuree