Is she losing her mind??

[peaches2003]

Listening to part of the Janet Napolitano Sunday morning interview on CNN. Is she nuts????? She said that this pax on the NW flight who tried to blow up the plane had been "properly screened". Being allowed to get on a plane with explosives strapped to one's body is proper screening????? Yet we can't take on a tube of toothpaste. Then she said "Well after all the system worked because when he tried to set off the explosives he was stopped before the plane blew up"!!! In other words the system now is that another pax is supposed to be watching and when an explosive is set off that pax is to throw himself on the guy and hope the explosive is defective? She will be blasted for this and should be. In the end it hurts Obama and I don't like that.

[beyurslf]

1. It is scary how tough it would be to screen for these things.

Nothing short of a complete pat down would find some of this.

on edit: bad spelling error not caught by spell check. Sorry if you saw it!

[peaches2003]

5. Well then why bother at all

What's the point in screening at all if explosives can get through anyway?

[Tesha]

40. It's all "Security Theatre".

Even though it is proven, over and over again, that the screeners can't
catch stuff smuggled on-board by even a moderately imaginative person,
the Powers-that-Be will continue doing everything they're doing, and
more because:

1. It makes the rubes feel like something is being done, and as we
all know, this is one of those situations where "something *MUST*
be done!"

2. It keeps everyone properly reminded that we should all remain
scared s**tless that bad brown people might get us, and only by
ceding all of our civil rights can we be protected.

All this security is horeshit, but it's horseshit that *DOES* serve a
purpose; it's just not the purpose most people assume it is.

Tesha

[Peacetrain]

2. You cannot touch a persons private parts (YET) and she is right

He had it sewn into his underwear

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Pax -- ?

:shrug:

--d!

[hlthe2b]

9. My question as well...

[enlightenment]

13. Pax is shorthand for passenger.

Military uses it - I'd imagine civilian air transport operations use it as well.

[Wilms]

14. Passenger

http://www.all-acronyms.com/pax/passenger/23437

[postulater]

4. Don't dogs sniff out explosives like this?

[HughMoran]

28. when was the last time you saw a dog in the terminal

They may sniff baggage, but not a man's gonads.

[comrade snarky]

33. About 4 years ago at Charles De Gaulle in Paris

Bomb dogs walking through the terminals, up and down the rows passengers. I remember it clearly because I was smuggling contraband cheese at the time.

Frankly I think we'd be better served by more sniffing dogs and trainers than much of the current crop of TSA security "professionals". A dog walking by someone with underoos made of explosives is going to alert without needing to sniff directly.

[HughMoran]

36. Dogs are probably less expensive than the $.5 M sniffer machines

The only nice thing about the sniffer machines, they are similar to the metal detectors - you simply walk through them.

[comrade snarky]

39. Dogs are mobile too

They could catch something brought around the normal passenger entrances if they're in the terminal areas.

I do like the sniffer machines though I do have a tendency to giggle when the air puffs go off. Totally ruins that suave business traveler\adventurous backpacker look depending on why I'm in the airport.

[goldcanyonaz]

6. My mother in law thinks everyone should fly naked.

[hlthe2b]

10. Uggh.... not at all appealing, even in jest

[LibDemAlways]

26. The airlines would all go out of business overnight. Truly a horrible mental

image!

[Jamastiene]

16. Your mother in law sounds like my soul mate.

I don't like wearing clothes ever though. :P

[Warpy]

7. The explosives were sewn into his shorts

so yes, the screening was in place and he got on despite it. The only things that might have detected him are dogs trained to sniff out explosives or mechanical sniffers. Nigeria doesn't have the infrastructure to support either, which is probably why he boarded there and didn't leave the boarding area in Amsterdam.

There will always be some clown who can beat the system. What we don't know yet is whether this particular clown would have caused a crash or would have caused fire and panic. My guess is that it's the latter if everything had worked perfectly.

Nothing in life is going to be 100% safe, ever. The best we can do is slow these jerks down. It seems as though we've done that nicely, they're down to the total fuckwits and causing panic rather than killing masses of people.

[hlthe2b]

8. NYT reported this morning it failed only because of faulty detonator

While the brave Dutch passenger put out the smoldering aftermath, he could not have stopped the detonation if it had worked as intended.

THis is what happens when you let political appointees be the kneejerk spokespersons... I think Kathleen Sebelius (HHS) has learned to defer to CDC and NIH experts more often-- a lesson Napolitano would be wise to learn as well.

[notesdev]

11. She always was

... and she runs a department that has no legitimate reason to exist

... and is charged with enforcing a policy that is as intrusive and cumbersome as it is ineffective.

That's why the reaction is "now no one can get out of their seat to pee in the last hour of flight" rather than "do a complete security check on anyone who has been to Yemen recently".

[peaches2003]

17. This 'last hour of flight' is laughable

Talk about a knee-jerk reaction by idiots. So...if the next one with a bomb tries to set something off an hour and 15 minutes before landing the rule will change to no peeing for an hour and 15 minutes before landing? I don't expect anything to be 100% effective, but there has to be a way to prevent explosives from coming on. A strict no-fly list and some profiling might not be a bad idea. We are not pro-active at all, just reactive.

[LibDemAlways]

25. I could not agree more. The whole "security" system

is a complete joke thought up by morons. Grandma is getting frisked and wanded. Meantime a guy who should be on a watch list, whose own father ratted him out, takes explosives on board an aircraft and attempts to detonate them. We apparently know nothing at all about "smart" security, only how to harass and inconvenience the public.

[seabeyond]

12. do you really think anyone, can keep everyone, 100% safe at all times

is that really a reality that you think is possible?

[LibDemAlways]

15. Just goes to show that someone determined to cause havoc on a plane

can still do so. Meantime in the US we have little old ladies in wheelchairs having their shoes yanked off for no good purpose. Perhaps if authorities put more effort into developing and monitering accurate "no fly" lists and actively looking for potential terrorists, incidents like this could actually be prevented. Not holding my breath, however.

[eilen]

18. I'm perplexed. They were landing in Detroit?

Detroit is a target? Did this guy know that Detroit is close to a ghost town? Maybe his goal was to kill "30." Was this a retaliation for our drones dropping bombs in countries we aren't even at war with (yet)?

( US warplanes carried out more than 20 missions throughout last night, attacking various targets in and around Sa'ada province in the North of Yemen, and tracking and killing all moving vehicles. Meanwhile, Saudi forces launched 375 rockets against positions at Malahidh, and Mts Dukhan, Mudud, and Rumaih. ) http://presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=113687§ionid=351020206

US missiles mow down 13 in Pakistan
http://presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=114759§ionid=351020401

Blogger: US air strikes kill ‘exactly 30′ enemies every time

By Daniel Tencer
Friday, December 11th, 2009 -- 12:24 pm

When it comes to air strikes against the Taliban, there's something about the number 30, says the Security Crank blog.

The unnamed military affairs blogger has published a list of recent air strikes against militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and an amazing pattern has emerged: It seems that just about every time an air strike is reported in the news, the Taliban casualty figure cited is 30.

Citing the Moon of Alabama blog, which made a similar argument this spring, Security Crank linked to 12 news reports of separate air strike incidents since the start of the year in which the number of Taliban or insurgent casualties was reported to be 30, in most cases citing US military officials.

Not 29, not 31. Thirty.

[shraby]

19. The flight didn't originate in the U.S. it was subject to another

country's regulations.

[ljm2002]

20. No, he was not properly screened...

...proper screening would have had him on the no-fly list, which for some reason he was kept off of, even though his own father had blown the whistle on him and his proclivities.

What a load of crap. But of course, these politicians need to cover their own asses. Someone, somewhere, made the decision to keep him off (or take him off) the no-fly list. Please find that person and fire them. Or, alternatively, find out who gave them the order to keep this person off the list: but the chances are very good that would lead to some high level person and that is why it will never happen.

[nonsequitur]

21. I'm stunned that she said that. I'm sorry, but this woman is an idiot and a disgrace. What was ....

she thinking? A Dutch tourist is the "system"? Her statement was foolish and will be laughed at for a week. She needs to keep her mouth shut. The last thing we need is more ammunition for Faux news, Rush, Beck, Hannity and the others.

[Bluebear]

22. 'In the end it hurts Obama and I don't like that.' - Forget Obama, how about the 280 pax?

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inna]

23. oh, good. i thought this was about Jane Hamsher.

Don't have a strong opinion on Napolitano, but whoever is proposing this 1 hour "stay in your seats" regulation is an absolute idiot.
:shrug:

[LibDemAlways]

24. That last hour prisoner in your seat regulation is absolutely stupid and

reflects the mentality of the idiots who make up the rules. What's to stop a potential bomber from detonating a device 10 minutes or 20 minutes into a flight or an hour and one minute before landing? It's amazing that people get paid to think up this crap.

[Born_A_Truman]

27. How do you stop someone willing to blow up their crotch?

A few years ago in Las Vegas I was one of many selected for a special screening procedure where I had to stand in an enclosure and jets of air blew all over me and was analyzed for explosives. Even that probably wouldn't detect a syringe sewn into my underwear.

[LisaL]

29. It might because he'd have traces of explosives on his skin

and clothes.

[HughMoran]

30. My ex worked on those 'sniffer' systems

Not only can they detect tiny amounts of explosive on you, they can detect whether you've been in contact with explosives prior to arriving at the airport. Amazing technology when it's working properly.

[Forkboy]

31. Best subject line of the weekend.

:rofl:

[Bluenorthwest]

32. The onsight TSA might have done things as they are told

but this guy was on the terror watch list, and his own family was reporting him to our people. This is when the screening failed. He's on the terror watch list, and yet he is flying into the US after his own father dropped a dime on him.

[lonestarnot]

35. blah blah blah alarmist bullshit.

[blondeatlast]

37. Actually, Obama is handling this rather well. Do you have the3 same "concern" for

the 280 passengers?

[NashVegas]

38. Peaches, I've Got a Newsflash For You: You Are Not Safe and You Never Were

If someone wants to do something that will harm you badly enough, they will. No matter what you threaten them with, no matter how difficult you make it, if someone wants to do something badly enough, that will harm you, they will.


If there is one thing that the smarter conservatives are correct about, it's this: being able to cope with tragedy is an equally, if not more important, skill to have as preventing one.