The recent bombing attempt of a commercial aircraft over Detroit has re-opened the wounds of 9/11 and brought the issue of air safety and terror into the media forefront. And, as usual, the media, and particularly the government, are suckers for the shell game…looking everywhere for answers except where they lie…under their noses.
Now our esteemed leaders are picking up the pace by requiring more searching of bags, adding bigger scanning machines, and making sure all passengers on flights cannot go to the bathroom during the final hour of the flight. Feel better now?
Here’s some basic questions no one seems to ask, and certainly, no one in government and the media wants to answer.
1) Why no Air Marshals? El Al Airlines…which serves as a model for air safety and security around the world, boards an armed Air Marshal on every flight, of which the terrorists are astutely aware (and deterred). The U.S. has an armed Air Marshal on one out of every thirty flights, which the terrorists are astutely aware of (and not deterred). The added cost could be added to ticket prices. Most folks would be happy to pay knowing air travel would be totally secured.
2) Why no effective questioning? Our airport screeners/ticket agents ask one or two innocuous questions of passengers, i.e “Has your luggage been in your possession at all times?” That’s a winner all right. El Al Airlines has an interrogatory system which also includes eyeball to eyeball screening and special training to look for suspicious actions. Wouldn’t bother me. Would it bother you?
3) Why no profiling? El Al profiles and makes no apologies. They profile, not for race or nationality, but for signs of deceit. And whether they admit it or not, they pay much more attention to young, male Islamists. The truth remains: Ninety-nine percent of international terror is rooted from the extremist wing of Islam, not blonde haired, blue-eyed cheerleaders or little grammas and grampas from central Iowa.
There is nothing obvious that sets an extremist aside from a moderate. Therefore, airport security must profile young, Islamic males between 16 and 40 years of age. Spending time on granny and other obvious non-terrorists is a colossal waste of time and money.
El Al has shown the way. The big difference, is that they don’t care about political correctness, they care more about saving lives. They also have a wartime mind-set, which we have yet to adopt, especially at the government level. Which begs the next question.
4) Why haven’t Janet Napolitano and Michael Leiter been fired? We are talking about human life, and these people have proven themselves to be either incompetent or indifferent, or both.
Leiter is the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, which is the agency that is responsible for connecting dots in the terror network. The day after the news broke about the Northwest Airline bombing attempt, Mr. Leiter departed for his planned six-day ski vacation, terrorism be damned. Ho hum. That’s setting priorities. Doesn’t that just make us — the public – feel safe and confident in our government?
Napolitano – who coined “man-caused disaster” as a replacement term for acts of terror, is our Homeland Security Chief who doesn’t understand the gravity of this war, and prone to using dumb psychology to diffuse American concerns. She is unqualified for the job and certainly doesn’t take the terror war seriously enough. Her only qualifications was her butt-kissing support of Obama during the campaign. When the terror attack occurred, her first concern was to downplay, stating that the “system worked.” Puhlease. Does she really think Americans have IQ’s under 60?
What Americans need is toughness. If the president would recognize that we are fed up with incompetency when it comes to terrorism, and had shown decisive action by dismissing people who are not piqued to protecting us all, we might have been impressed. Rather, we got the usual blah blah. Lots of words, and little action.
One might also ask why Leon Panetta was given the job as CIA Director when he had no background or experience in that field.
5) In this era of Islamist terror threats, why do we have two “devout” Muslims working in top management positions with the Department of Homeland Security? Some folks are upset, saying the fox is guarding the hen house.
I would like to think that all Muslims are trustworthy folks, and that only a very few are radical. Yet, radicals have effectively lived and worked among us as “moderates” until they kill, and voila: They were radical after all. Radicals are not all scruffy young men from the ghetto. Often they are well-educated professionals, posing as moderates in order to infiltrate. With rare exception, they are all Muslims.
The recent suicide bombing in Afghanistan which killed seven CIA operatives, were fooled by a medical doctor posing as an informant, before he pulled the plug. Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood Terrorist, was a psychiatrist, Muzzammil Hassan is a respected businessman and “moderate” Muslim from New York City who beheaded his wife because she wanted a divorce, two of the London train bombers were medical doctors, Sami Al Arian, was a respected college professor who is now in prison for filtering terror funding for Islamic Jihad. The Nigerian aboard Flight 253 who recently tried to kill almost 300 people, was well educated and from a family of means. The beat goes on.
Employing these kinds of people inside the bowels of our Homeland Security Department is not very comforting, indeed.
6) Why is Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the foiled Nigerian terrorist on flight 253, being charged as a civilian criminal when, in fact, he was engaged in an act of war against the United States? Why is he not being charged and tried by a military tribunal? Treating him as a civilian criminal negates the ability to interrogate him thoroughly and glean vital intelligence information. It also provides legal avenues which could result in his release, at a cost to the American taxpayer. Which, naturally, begs the last question:
7) Why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts, who conspired to attack the United States in an act of war on 9/11, being tried in a New York civilian court, rather than a military tribunal? This unnecessarily opens many avenues and benefits to them, and emboldens terrorists around the world who see America as a paper tiger. The result: greater incentives for future terror attacks. The Attorney General and the president are certainly aware of this, yet they have opted to pave the way to benefit these terrorists. Could that not be conceived as aiding and abetting the enemy?
Something to think about.