Home / Terrorism
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts

Obama ad implies that Romney wouldn't have taken out Osama if he had the same chance




Is this serious?  After Obama past statements, he sure looks hypocritical. 


From 60 Minutes in 2011:
"You know, we don't trot out this stuff as trophies.  . . . And I think--  Americans and people around the world are glad that he's gone. But we don't need to spike the football."

FLASHBACK: Obama Campaign Accused Clinton Of Using Bin Laden To ‘Score Political Points’ In 2008

“Now one of Clinton’s Laws of Politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think; if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope. That’s the best.”
UPDATE: What is the deal with Obama to keep making this claim?  The press question is nauseatingly kissing up to Obama.
Former TSA head says: Air travel would be safer if we allowed knives, lighters and liquids and focused on disrupting new terror plots, not to mention cheaper

Former TSA head says: Air travel would be safer if we allowed knives, lighters and liquids and focused on disrupting new terror plots, not to mention cheaper

Kip Hawley doesn't talk about costs, but they must be huge. From the WSJ:
Airport security in America is broken. I should know. For 3½ years—from my confirmation in July 2005 to President Barack Obama's inauguration in January 2009—I served as the head of the Transportation Security Administration. You know the TSA. We're the ones who make you take off your shoes before padding through a metal detector in your socks (hopefully without holes in them). We're the ones who make you throw out your water bottles. We're the ones who end up on the evening news when someone's grandma gets patted down or a child's toy gets confiscated as a security risk. If you're a frequent traveler, you probably hate us. More than a decade after 9/11, it is a national embarrassment that our airport security system remains so hopelessly bureaucratic and disconnected from the people whom it is meant to protect. Preventing terrorist attacks on air travel demands flexibility and the constant reassessment of threats. It also demands strong public support, which the current system has plainly failed to achieve. The crux of the problem, as I learned in my years at the helm, is our wrongheaded approach to risk. In attempting to eliminate all risk from flying, we have made air travel an unending nightmare for U.S. passengers and visitors from overseas, while at the same time creating a security system that is brittle where it needs to be supple. . . .
Claim: the airport scanners are pretty easy to fool

Claim: the airport scanners are pretty easy to fool

From the UK Daily Mail:

Controversial nude body scanners used at U.S. airports have come under fire again - after a blogger claimed he could easily smuggle explosives through them onto a plane.
Engineer Jonathan Corbett has published a video where he shows how he took a small metal case through two of the TSA's $1billion fleet in a special side pocket stitched into his shirt.
This is because, he suggests, the scanners blend metallic areas into the dark background - so if an object is not directly placed on the body, it will not show up on the scan.
The metallic box, he claims, would have set off an alarm had he passed through the old detecting system. . . .
Is this a real bombshell for Obama to deal with?: "terrorist defender to head of Gitmo policy at Justice"

Is this a real bombshell for Obama to deal with?: "terrorist defender to head of Gitmo policy at Justice"

You really have to wonder how insensitive the Obama administration is to appearances. The media should go nuts over this if it were a Republican doing something remotely similar. From Fox News:

A former Justice Department attorney who blew the whistle on his department's policies is now questioning the promotion of a former defense attorney for an American terrorist to the No. 3 spot at the Justice Department -- specifically charged with crafting U.S. policy on Guantanamo detainees.
J. Christian Adams, once an elections lawyer who accused the Justice Department of racial bias in its decision to not prosecute a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party, said Tony West's promotion from assistant attorney general for the Civil Division to acting associate attorney general is one more step toward letting radicals run the Justice Department.
"The most dangerous thing is that West is overseeing Gitmo policy. It's not that he's just some guy at the Justice Department licking envelopes," Adams told Fox News on Sunday. . . .


This is a gift to the Republicans.
Fake boarding pass gets through TSA security

Fake boarding pass gets through TSA security

Where are all the news stories about this? From Vanity Fair:

As we came by the checkpoint line, Schneier described one of these aspects: the ease with which people can pass through airport security with fake boarding passes. First, scan an old boarding pass, he said—more loudly than necessary, it seemed to me. Alter it with Photoshop, then print the result with a laser printer. In his hand was an example, complete with the little squiggle the T.S.A. agent had drawn on it to indicate that it had been checked. “Feeling safer?” he asked. . . .
Limes are classified as a weapon in the UK?

Limes are classified as a weapon in the UK?

What is next? Lime registration? From the UK Daily Mail:

A chef was stunned to find she was almost banned from buying two limes from a supermarket - because they could be classed as a weapon.
Marisa Zoccolan, 31, popped into the new Asda supermarket close to her home in Wallsend, North Tyneside, to pick up some groceries, including the citrus fruits.
But when she tried to pay for them at the self-service checkout, the message 'amount exceeded, authorisation required' flashed up.
An assistant then came over and told her that more than one lime was deemed a weapon - because the citric acid could be squirted in someone's eye.
Marisa, a self-employed caterer said: 'I thought they were taking the pip, but the assistant told me the same applied to lemons. . . .
One cost of killing Osama

One cost of killing Osama

This isn't saying that it was wrong to go after Osama or to go after him in the way that he was gone after with a strike team. Apparently, the helicopter that was abandoned was a U.S.'s top secret stealth-modified helicopter. There hadn't even been public pictures of this helicopter in the past.

U.S. officials have not officially disclosed any details on the helicopter, but President Obama said it was a "$60 million helicopter," according to a report by The Washington Post. While the price tag on normal Blackhawks varies depending the type, none cost more than $20 million according to the latest Department of Defense procurement report. . . .
Sen. Schumer calls for "Do Not Ride" list for trains?

Sen. Schumer calls for "Do Not Ride" list for trains?

Sometimes I am truly amazed by Sen. Schumer. A "do not fly" list for planes makes a lot of sense in theory because the only way you can knock down a plane is to either be on board, crash another plane into it (something that is probably very difficult given air traffic control), or fire a missile at it (something that isn't readily available). A "do not ride" list for trains is pretty silly because you don't have to be on a train to attack it. There are thousands of miles of track and there is no way that you are going to be able to defend all of it. Given the error rate on the "do no fly" list, a "do not ride" list would be all errors and costs and provide little benefit.

Sen. Charles Schumer is calling for better rail security now that the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound has turned up plans to attack trains in the U.S.
“Anyone, even a member of al-Qaida could purchase a train ticket and board an Amtrak train without so much as a question asked,” Schumer said. “So that’s why I’m calling for the creation of an Amtrak no ride list. That would take the secure flight program and apply it to Amtrak trains.”
Schumer said Sunday that he will push for the creation of a “do not ride” list for Amtrak. The list would be similar to the no-fly list that keeps those suspected of terrorism from flying into or out of the United States. . . .
Question: Why did Obama order Osama killed and not attempt to capture him?

Question: Why did Obama order Osama killed and not attempt to capture him?

The administration keeps touting the intelligence that we have gained from documents where Osama was located. It makes it seem as if there was really little that we could have gotten from questioning him. But if that is true, why has the administration pushed so hard to interview Osama's wives who are being held in Pakistan? If Osama didn't have useful information, why would anyone think that his wives will have anything useful?

The Obama administration Sunday pressed Pakistan to grant access to Osama bin Laden's three widows as part of a U.S. investigation into the al-Qaida leader's life leading up to his killing by Navy SEALs inside a compound in the garrison city of Abbottabad last week.

President Obama's national-security adviser, Tom Donilon, said the United States seeks to speak with the women and review materials taken from the compound after the U.S. raid. U.S. officials say bin Laden lived in the compound, about 60 miles from Islamabad, the capital, for at least five years.

A Pakistani intelligence official said Sunday that his government needed permission from the wives' home countries before Pakistan could allow U.S. officials to question them. One wife is from Yemen; the official said he did not know the others' nationalities. . . .


UPDATE: Chris Wallace asks the right question.

Wallace: We'll stipulate -- I think we'll all stipulate -- that bin Laden was a monster, but why is shooting an unarmed man in the face legal and proper while enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding of a detainee under very strict controls and limits -- why is that over the line?

Donilon: Well, let me talk first about the first half of the statement that you made. Again, the president met with the operators yesterday at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and here are the facts. We are at war with al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is the emir or commander, indeed the only leader of al-Qaeda in its 22 year history. This was his residence and operational compound. Our forces entered that compound and were fired upon in the pitch black. It's an organization that uses IEDs and suicide vests and booby traps and all manner of other kinds of destructive capabilities.

Wallace: Mr. Donilon, let me just make my point. I’m not asking you why it was OK to shoot Osama bin Laden. I fully understand the threat. And I’m not second-guessing the SEALs. What I am second guessing is, if that’s OK, why can’t you do waterboarding? Why can’t you do enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was just as bad an operator as Osama bin Laden?

Donilon: Because, well, our judgment is that it’s not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in terms of getting the kind of intelligence that we need.

Wallace: But shooting bin Laden in the head is consistent with our values?

Donilon: We are at war with Osama bin Laden.

Wallace: We’re at war with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Donilon: It was a military operation, right? It was absolutely appropriate for the SEALs to take the action -- for the forces to take the action that they took in this military operation against a military target.

Wallace: But why is it inappropriate to get information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

Donilon: I didn’t say it was inappropriate to get information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Wallace: You said it was against our values.

Donilon: I think that the techniques are something that there’s been a policy debate about, and our administration has made our views known on that.
Obama administration won't reveal picture of Osama's death, but will reveal the unit that got him

Obama administration won't reveal picture of Osama's death, but will reveal the unit that got him

It seems that there are some safety concerns to not outing any information on the military unit that took out Osama. The military recognized this point, even if the Obama administration didn't. From the UK Telegraph:

Here’s a typical response to a question about the SEALs from a senior defence official in a Pentagon briefing on Monday:
QUESTION: Can I ask you, can you confirm that it was a (Navy) SEAL team? And was this a specially designated team that had been practising or reviewing intelligence for a while and they were the unit of choice?
SENIOR DEFENCE OFFICIAL: Not going to comment on units or numbers.

But here’s what the legendarily verbose and loose-lipped Vice President Joe Biden said at a dinner at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel last night to mark the 50th anniversary of the Atlantic Council:
Let me briefly acknowledge tonight’s distinguished honorees. Admiral James Stavridis is a, is the real deal. He can tell you more about and understands the incredible, the phenomenal, the just almost unbelievable capacity of his Navy SEALs and what they did last Sunday.

And:
Folks, I’d be remiss also if I didn’t say an extra word about the incredible events, extraordinary events of this past Sunday. As Vice President of the United States, as an American, I was in absolute awe of the capacity and dedication of the entire team, both the intelligence community, the CIA, the SEALs. It just was extraordinary.


UPDATE: Now we have this concern.

Carney may also have wanted to avoid a public spat with Defense Secretary Gates, who yesterday appeared to be suggesting that White House officials broke an agreement to keep quiet about how the Bin Laden raid went down.

Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday, the next day.


Gates added that Navy SEALs who performed the operation now have concerns for the safety of their families.
What to make of the claim that 247 people on the terror watch list bought guns last year

What to make of the claim that 247 people on the terror watch list bought guns last year

Part of what I will be discussing on Coast-to-Coast AM tonight.

Here is the claim in the left-wing Huffington Post.

More than 200 people suspected of ties to terrorism bought guns in the U.S. last year legally, FBI figures show.

The 247 people who were allowed to buy weapons did so after going through required background checks as required by federal law. . . .

The secret, fluid nature of the terror watch list has made closing what Lautenberg calls a "terror gap" in the nation's gun laws a challenge. About the same number of people suspected of ties to terrorism also successfully purchased guns in the U.S. in 2009. The FBI provided the new numbers to the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm, and the figures were obtained by The Associated Press.

The government can only prevent people from buying guns for any of 11 reasons. Convicted felons and illegal immigrants, for example, cannot buy weapons. But the terrorist watch list is different. People become convicted felons only after a court process and an opportunity to defend themselves. The watch list is secret and generated at the government's discretion. It is not a list of people convicted of terrorism crimes.

The list of about 450,000 people includes suspected members of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations, terror financiers, terror recruiters and people who attended training camps. People's names are added to and removed from the watch list every day, and most people never know whether they're on it. . . .


As the late Senator Ted Kennedy learned the hard way, getting flagged by the secret terror list simply means that you have the same name as someone else on the list. There are several big problems with background checks and the terror list. 1) That background checks don't stop criminals from getting guns. 2) That the people denied buying guns by the NICS checks are virtually all false positives. And these false positives will stop some people who are being stalked and threatened from getting a gun quickly. 3) That people get on this "secret" terror list without any court decision that would cause people to lose their right to own a gun. Here is something that I wrote up recently at BigGovernment.com.

The same problem occurred five times for the late Senator Ted Kennedy when he was placed on a “no fly list.” If someone is flagged by the NICS system, it is because it appears that they didn’t put down something in their background that disqualified them from buying a gun. Yet, an initial denial does not mean that the individual is actually disqualified from owning a gun. Take the numbers for 2008, the latest year with data available. There were 78,906 initial denials. Of those, only 5,573, or 7 percent, were referred to the BATF for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, “The remaining denials (73,333 – 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information.” To put it differently, the initial review didn’t find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun.
Still that isn’t the end of the story. Of these 5,573 referrals, over 44 percent, or 2,472 cases, involve “delayed denials,” cases where a check hasn’t even been completed. Of the rest, 3,101 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review about a fifth of these referrals involved “no potential or unfounded” violations of the law, leaving about 4,400 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.4%. And it still doesn’t mean that the government hasn’t made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person’s criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been?
Up until this point, no discretion about the merits of the case has entered the picture. If a review of the records indicates that someone is a prohibited individual, they are included. But of these 4,400 cases, only 147 cases involving banned individuals trying to purchase guns being referred to prosecutors. Of those 147 cases, prosecutors thought the evidence was strong enough to bring a case only 105 times.
Prosecution may be declined either because further investigation revealed that the person wasn’t prohibited from owning a gun, because false information hadn’t knowingly been provided, or prosecutors didn’t believe that the cases “merited” prosecution. But if someone is indeed prohibited from owning a gun and they left that information off their NICS form, it is relatively easy for authorities to prove they knowingly concealed that information. The most frequently claimed reasons that people failed the background checks are: “restraining orders, domestic violence misdemeanors, non-immigrant aliens, violent felonies, warrants, and indictments.” How hard is it for prosecutors to prove that someone hadn’t accidentally forgotten that they had a conviction for a violent felony or they had a restraining order?
While prosecutors tend to go forward with their strongest cases, those prosecuted are often not found guilty. By the end of 2009, prosecutors had only 43 convictions, and only 22 of those involved falsified information when buying a gun or illegal possession of a gun, that translates into just 0.03% of the 78,906 initial denials. . . .
TSA made mistakes with X-ray body scanners, subjecting people to 10x the radiation promised

TSA made mistakes with X-ray body scanners, subjecting people to 10x the radiation promised

It would have been nice if the TSA had actually tested the scanners out first.

The Transportation Security Administration is re-analyzing the radiation levels of X-ray body scanners installed in airports nationwide, after testing produced dramatically higher-than-expected results.

The TSA, which has deployed at least 500 body scanners to at least 78 airports, said Tuesday the machines meet all safety standards and would remain in operation despite a “calculation error” in safety studies. The flawed results showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.

At least one flier group, the Association for Airline Passenger Rights, is urging the government to stop using the $180,000 machines that produce a virtual-nude image of the body until new tests are concluded in May.

“Airline passengers have enough concerns about flying — including numerous ones about how TSA conducts its haphazard security screenings — so it is TSA’s responsibility to ensure passengers are not being exposed to unhealthy amounts of radiation,” Brandon Macsata, executive director of the group, said in a statement.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center has been a loud voice opposing the machines. Last week, it urged a federal appeals court to stop using them until further health studies were conducted. Marc Rotenberg, EPIC’s executive director, is expected to tell the same thing to a congressional panel Wednesday.

“The agency should have conducted a public rule-making so that these risks could have been more carefully assessed,” (.pdf) according to a transcript of his expected testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. . . .

“It would appear that the emissions are 10 times higher. We understand it as a calculation error,” TSA spokesman Sarah Horowitz said in a telephone interview. . . .

So what does the Israeli Stock Market think of events in Egypt?


I was surprised that there wasn't more of a change in the Tel Aviv stock market with the events in Israel. Sure the stock market has fallen from its recent peak, but it is still only down about 3.3 percent. Now I assume that there could be further changes that could make a real impact on stock prices. If the military gives control to the Muslim Brotherhood, you might then see a real big change. But whether the stock market doesn't think that will happen or whether it is likely but not of great consequence, the stock market seems to think that it won't make very much difference.
Obama administration stops program that allowed airports to have private employees do passenger screening

Obama administration stops program that allowed airports to have private employees do passenger screening

Obama administration sees no "clear or substantial advantage" to private employees screening passengers. I assume that the Obama administration sees no advantage to seeing private companies doing anything that the government does. So much for any rumors that the Obama administration is ending its hostility towards private companies. This is basically a public union protection scheme.

A program that allows airports to replace government screeners with private screeners is being brought to a standstill, just a month after the Transportation Security Administration said it was "neutral" on the program.
TSA chief John Pistole said Friday he has decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports, saying he does not see any advantage to it.
Though little known, the Screening Partnership Program allowed airports to replace government screeners with private contractors who wear TSA-like uniforms, meet TSA standards and work under TSA oversight. Among the airports that have "opted out" of government screening are San Francisco and Kansas City.
The push to "opt out" gained attention in December amid the fury over the TSA's enhanced pat downs, which some travelers called intrusive. . . .
But on Friday, the TSA denied an application by Springfield-Branson Airport in Missouri to privatize its checkpoint workforce, and in a statement, Pistole indicated other applications likewise will be denied.
"I examined the contractor screening program and decided not to expand the program beyond the current 16 airports as I do not see any clear or substantial advantage to do so at this time," Pistole said. . . .

Terrorist attacks in US don't use guns very much compared to other countries







Tthe National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) based at the University of Maryland put this report together. When the Assault Weapon Ban sunset in 2004, there were predictions that it would lead to more terrorist attacks, but this data suggests the percentage of attacks with guns has fallen, not increased. The low rate of terrorist attacks using gun in the US raises the question of whether it is just more difficult for US terrorists to get a hold of guns or whether there is just a lower return to using them.
TSA harasses pilot who points out security flaws

TSA harasses pilot who points out security flaws

It is hard to think of what legitimate reason that the TSA should be upset with this pilot. Obviously the TSA might be embarrassed, but as to legitimate reasons anyone who worked at the airport would have understood the problems that he pointed out. Robert Crandall, the former head of American Airlines, was on Fox News earlier today, and he thought that the TSA response was out of all proportion to any harm that the pilot might possibly have done (and he didn't see how any harm had been done).

An airline pilot is being disciplined by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for posting video on YouTube pointing out what he believes are serious flaws in airport security.

The 50-year-old pilot, who lives outside Sacramento, asked that neither he nor his airline be identified. He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.

He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia.

Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff's deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.

At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot's gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon. . . .


The pilot explained why he posted the videos on YouTube here:

The airline pilot who posted video on the Web critical of airport security said he was not prepared for the government's response.

"I just tried to address my concerns and voice it on YouTube," he said in an interview with News10, which broke the story Wednesday.

The 50-year-old pilot has asked that neither he nor his airline be identified while he's under investigation by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

The pilot, who was deputized by the TSA to carry a handgun in the cockpit as a Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO), posted a series of six cell phone video clips showing what he believes to be a serious flaw in airport security.

Current regulations require flight crews to pass through a TSA checkpoint, while ground crews can gain access to the same aircraft simply by swiping a card at an unmanned door.

"How effective is security when everybody on board is screened and everybody on the ground isn't?" the pilot asked. . . .
TSA failure rates in detecting guns and bombs are so bad that the government says that the results are classified

TSA failure rates in detecting guns and bombs are so bad that the government says that the results are classified

If you have a "70 percent failure rate" in detecting guns and bombs, might the resources be better spent someplace else? Might their be other approaches? The whole process reminds one of why you don't want government doing these things. A private company that wasn't unionized would probably more closely tie the quality of performance with salary. These jobs might be boring, but you can still do things to improve performance.

According to one report, undercover TSA agents testing security at a Newark airport terminal on one day in 2006 found that TSA screeners failed to detect concealed bombs and guns 20 out of 22 times. A 2007 government audit leaked to USA Today revealed that undercover agents were successful slipping simulated explosives and bomb parts through Los Angeles's LAX airport in 50 out of 70 attempts, and at Chicago's O'Hare airport agents made 75 attempts and succeeded in getting through undetected 45 times. . . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)