Redstorm said:

Quote:

They had the guy's name.  He was on a list.  They didn't check it.  Because there is no such thing as terrorism for this head of the DHS, only man caused disasters.

---

Is that why or is it because some low or mid-level bureaucrat didn't do his or her job? I haven't read anything that states that high-level officials were ever even aware?

---

Quote:

Quote:

There also seems to be some evidence that this guy was radicalized by the same Yemeni Imam who was pals with Hassan.  Assassinate him now.  With extreme prejudice.

---

Because no one will fill in his shoes, right?  The problem is not some schmuck loon; it's the failed state of Yemen which is being filled with radical Somalis from across the water.  Unless the health of both of those states are at least brought out of anarchy, you can kill whoever you want and it won't make the damndest bit of difference.

---

Quote:

Do you really think that they have an infinite resource of eloquent and convincing proselytizers?  Do you really think they have an infinite supply of skilled bomb techs?  Every time you kill one you degrade their ability by some amount.

---

Redstorm said:

Quote:

Do you really think that they have an infinite resource of eloquent and convincing proselytizers?  Do you really think they have an infinite supply of skilled bomb techs?  Every time you kill one you degrade their ability by some amount.

---

Who says this guy was eloquent? Stick an alienated, brainwashed-since-childhood individual with someone who they feel submissive to, and they'll do anything their superior tells them to.  This is particularly true in the Arab culture where there is an a great deal of reverence paid to elders and anyone who knows a great deal about religion (or pretends to).

---

Quote:

she was talking about the response to the incident.

---

Quote:

That wasn't the slant of the Hot Air post linked and you know it.

---

Quote:

Two federal agencies charged with keeping potential terrorists off airplanes and out of the country have been without their top leaders for nearly a year.

It took the Obama administration more than eight months to nominate anyone to lead the Transportation Security Administration and the Customs and Border Protection agency.

...

Bogged down with health care reform, the Senate has yet to set a date to hold hearings for the Customs position.

...

"The president is looking for answers on this," Denis McDonough, chief of staff of the White House National Security Council, told reporters Monday in Hawaii, where President Barack Obama is vacationing. McDonough said officials have begun to assemble information related to watch list procedures.  As yet, no one has been named to oversee the watch list review, he said.

McDonough defended the current leadership and downplayed the significance of not having the new TSA administrator confirmed, although he said "the president is eager to have his TSA head on the job."

---

zappaisgod said:

That it took 3 days for the Present to say anything?

---

Seuss said:

Too busy with his vacation to be bothered with national security issues...

---

SirTripAlot said:

Sadly, there will be a time in which it will not. Get ready to not being able to take anything with you when you fly.

Like your luggage goes on a separate flight and the clothes on your back while in flight, only.....no personal effects....nothing.

---

Wow, such melodramatic senselessness.

Much more reasonable to assume that, as technology advances, more useful means of scanning individuals and their belongings will be employed. Of course, the real issue is how much security travelers are actually willing to pay for.
For a more expensive ticket, with the technology and standards in place at this moment, more security could be achieved by airports being capable to afford more employees to be more scrutinous in their examinations of passengers and their belongings. Resistance to harmless, full body scans certainly serves as an irrational impediment to airport security as well, one would have to think.

Seuss said:

Wasn't there a campaign promise to have a more open administration?

---

Quote:

  Are you implying that Obama is meaningless?

---

Quote:

  You are claiming that informing the public, during the busiest travel period of the year, that he is focused on the problem, is a token gesture?

---

Quote:

  I guess it is more important to play another round of golf than to reassure the public that the government is focused on travel safety and terrorism.

---

Why not? Him saying "Hey, guys, we're really focused" changes the actuality of the situation?

Quote:

Since he hasn't bothered to address my fears, I have to assume that he has ignored the issue completely.

---

No, no one has to assume that.
Talk about a ridiculous assumption. "Obama didn't tell me what exactly he's doing, so I just have to conclude he hasn't done anything at all!"
That's irrational.

THC Titan said:

Great, you know your history. I notice in this thread about the Secretary of the DHS that you didn't mention its origin as a executive agency.

Sounds like you are being purposefully obtuse by ignoring the crucial link between contemporary aviation security and the creation of the DHS, which this topic basically revolves around.

Maybe you've already forgotten that the DHS was created specifically in response to airplane-based terrorist attacks on 9/11, and had the ambitious goal of making air travel safe by coordinating intelligence-sharing among government agencies, establishing a no-fly list and other tools, and largely nationalizing the airport security industry.

If you disagree with Napolitano's statement, you probably believe the DHS is at least a partially dysfunctional agency, a conclusion I would support as well. The fact is, despite attempts at creating a comprehensive security system, a) intelligence management is still not as robust as it should be, evidenced by the Christmas Day incident and b) airport security can be thwarted by people that live in mud-brick houses.

---

Phred said:

And of course when the empty suit finally does get around - three days later - to issuing a statement, it is his usual wrong-headed blather showing his utter cluelessness on the situation - full of such legal niceties and blithe assumptions such as "allegedly" and "suspect" and "isolated extremist".

---

Regardless, faulting him for not responding sooner as though it has any pertinence as anything beyond pandering is silly.

Quote:

And you have little knowledge of what yet is to come. My statement may be conjecture, but highly possible.

---

I too think it is unreasonable to assume that there'd never be a risk or possibility of some kind of aviary act of terrorism.
I'm simply thinking its more likely that there will be gradual improvements in security rather than shipping people naked and empty-handed.