Save the many sacrifice a few ?

Printable View

02-01-2010, 05:06 AM
Hazir

Save the many sacrifice a few ?

I don't know if it's mainstream news everywhere yet, but here in Holland I just read on the website of the Telegraaf that US authorities were aware of the risks in the case of Faruk Abdulmuttalab, the socalled underwear bomber. They did however choose to not deny him the right to board his flight to Detroit, because they thought that might make their task of infiltrating in Al Queda (I suppose in Yemen) more difficult.

Now, I do understand that sometimes you have to make very difficult choices when it comes to weighing interests. However, I personally think that the decision is pretty easy if you have reached the point that the 'few' becomes a a planeload of people plus possible victims on the ground.

If these reports turn out to be true, then it's really time for some stiff evaluations of policy in the dept of Homeland Security.
02-01-2010, 05:29 AM
GGT

Or time for Amsterdam to make up their own minds, in their own airports, when someone clearly suspicious is trying to board a plane there.
02-01-2010, 05:35 AM
Hazir

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

Or time for Amsterdam to make up their own minds, in their own airports, when someone clearly suspicious is trying to board a plane there.

You're missing the essential point here. DHS could have stopped this. Amsterdam has already beefed up security considerably after the incident; all US bound passengers go through a body scanner as we speak, soon all passengers will. If they made any mistake at all (the media reports about the incident in the US are amazingly ill informed, like how they keep claiming he was travelling on a one way ticket) their mistake was depending too much on the deliberately incomplete information they got from the US.
02-01-2010, 05:43 AM
GGT

That was exactly my point. If Amsterdam wants to make tighter or better controls, then do it. If any country thinks DHS or TSA sucks, yet still uses their standards, then they suck. Amsterdam could have stopped it, too.
02-01-2010, 05:47 AM
Hazir

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

That was exactly my point. If Amsterdam wants to make tighter or better controls, then do it. If any country thinks DHS or TSA sucks, yet still uses their standards, then they suck. Amsterdam could have stopped it, too.

Amsterdam acted, so stop harping about that. The question is not if Amsterdam security is sufficient, but if DHS is right to be willing to sacrifice hundreds of people in order to infiltrate into Al Queda.
02-01-2010, 06:11 AM
GGT

You're the one harping, Hazir. He boarded the plane in your country. This is just another one of your anti-US moments. If Europe is so superior in every way, then you guys are more than welcome to take the lead in intelligence gathering and systems analysis. Go for it.
02-01-2010, 07:37 AM
Hazir

Yes, he boarded the plane in Amsterdam. Now, can you reply the question? The DHS made the consious choice to not refuse him. As you appearantly don't know the procedure; the decision to let a person board on a US-bound flight is dependent on US authorisation. The US authorities could have stopped this person from getting on that plane, also if he had acted more normal. The difference, to spell it out is between an oversight and a consious decision to put the life of a couple of hundreds of people at risk.

If you don't understand that difference, then maybe you should not engage in debating anything. The question is not about the nitty-gritty of intelligence work, the question is about policy choices.
02-01-2010, 08:03 AM
GGT

Your own screeners are within their duties to deny a suspicious passenger and extend screening, regardless of any approval the US gives. As far as I'm concerned, the security people who make the direct physical contact, and let folks on board, are the last line of defense.
02-01-2010, 11:17 AM
Hazir

Yeah, whatever.
02-01-2010, 12:50 PM
Khendraja'aro

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

Your own screeners are within their duties to deny a suspicious passenger and extend screening, regardless of any approval the US gives. As far as I'm concerned, the security people who make the direct physical contact, and let folks on board, are the last line of defense.

Umm, so US authorities knew about the risk but chose not to tell their colleagues? How exactly was Amsterdam supposed to act when one party responsible for flight security withholds information?

I mean, an airport relies on outside information, it isn't like they have their own intelligence agencies...
02-01-2010, 01:39 PM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hazir

If these reports turn out to be true, then it's really time for some stiff evaluations of policy in the dept of Homeland Security.

Well we don't know it the reports are true, do we? This could be misleading media, just like the one-way ticket thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hazir

....Amsterdam has already beefed up security considerably after the incident; all US bound passengers go through a body scanner as we speak, soon all passengers will.

Which wouldn't have detected his jockey bomb material, anyway.

Quote:

If they made any mistake at all (the media reports about the incident in the US are amazingly ill informed, like how they keep claiming he was travelling on a one way ticket) their mistake was depending too much on the deliberately incomplete information they got from the US.

Like I said, and you apparently agree, everyone will have to beef up and be accountable, at every airport and during every plane change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Umm, so US authorities knew about the risk but chose not to tell their colleagues? How exactly was Amsterdam supposed to act when one party responsible for flight security withholds information?

Still unconfirmed reports. Link in Dutch. Misleading sensationalist OP title. :coffee:

Quote:

I mean, an airport relies on outside information, it isn't like they have their own intelligence agencies...

All agencies should work together. All airports should act like they're both the weakest link, and the strongest because they're the last chance at catching terrorists.

Once the father alerted authorities, IMO he should have been put on the no-fly list. But the US and DHS isn't in charge of the entire globe's air security.
02-01-2010, 02:13 PM
Hazir

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Umm, so US authorities knew about the risk but chose not to tell their colleagues? How exactly was Amsterdam supposed to act when one party responsible for flight security withholds information?

I mean, an airport relies on outside information, it isn't like they have their own intelligence agencies...

The core matter is; they CHOSE to let this man slip through despite their solid intelligence on him being a big risk.
02-01-2010, 03:29 PM
']['ear

Actually, Holland chose to let him through, on American advice.

Now, to the question. Obviously, they didn't think he was going to light his genitals on fire, so your sensationalist thread target is way off base. Nobody made the calculation you are insinuating. They reasonable assumed that any substantial threat would be caught by airport security. Consequently, they probably thought he was infiltrating, and since they had him marked he would be a great asset. Seems obvious, and a good call.

As my wife always says, you make the best decision you can with the information in hand. That's the best that anyone can expect. If it turns out to be a bad call, you evaluate why and then move on without the hand wringing.
02-01-2010, 04:35 PM
Hazir

Quote:

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Actually, Holland chose to let him through, on American advice.

Now, to the question. Obviously, they didn't think he was going to light his genitals on fire, so your sensationalist thread target is way off base. Nobody made the calculation you are insinuating. They reasonable assumed that any substantial threat would be caught by airport security. Consequently, they probably thought he was infiltrating, and since they had him marked he would be a great asset. Seems obvious, and a good call.

As my wife always says, you make the best decision you can with the information in hand. That's the best that anyone can expect. If it turns out to be a bad call, you evaluate why and then move on without the hand wringing.

Ok Americans; a little bit of education for you:

No airplane anywhere in this world leaves for the United States without all passengers being vetted by the US department of Homeland Security. Got that? NO CONSENT = NO PLANE, NO PASSENGER. If there is a single person who makes a red flag go up on an AMERICAN no-fly list, then the plane will not leave untill that passenger and his luggage are off the plane (if they ever made it that far, which is unlikely). The reason for that is that the US wants total control over who it allows into its airspace and enforces that.

The role of the Netherlands or any country is totally irrelevant in this debate. The question is, is the DHS correct in risking the lives of people on airplanes in order to have a chance to infiltrate. Because they made the choice to let a person with known terrorist links board a plane. The could have stopped him, by simply telling that he wasn't allowed to fly to the US.
02-01-2010, 05:02 PM
']['ear

1) That's nice.

2) Why quote my entire post when you only responded to the first sentence?

3) And weren't you complaining about how nobody was addressing the substance of your thread? Yet here you bypassed the substance! I bet you're one of those "cut off your nose to spite your face" types. Except since you're Dutch, we'll make it "ear."
02-02-2010, 02:57 AM
Flixy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Now, to the question. Obviously, they didn't think he was going to light his genitals on fire, so your sensationalist thread target is way off base. Nobody made the calculation you are insinuating. They reasonable assumed that any substantial threat would be caught by airport security. Consequently, they probably thought he was infiltrating, and since they had him marked he would be a great asset. Seems obvious, and a good call.

As my wife always says, you make the best decision you can with the information in hand. That's the best that anyone can expect. If it turns out to be a bad call, you evaluate why and then move on without the hand wringing.

True, and it is important that lessons are learned from this. On the other hand, if they knew he was probably a terrorist and had plans, they could have alerted airport security and have him take a 'random' search? They do those anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Except since you're Dutch, we'll make it "ear."

Hehe :)
02-11-2010, 02:48 AM
ar81

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

You're the one harping, Hazir. He boarded the plane in your country. This is just another one of your anti-US moments. If Europe is so superior in every way, then you guys are more than welcome to take the lead in intelligence gathering and systems analysis. Go for it.

No. I must defend Hazir. The real antiUS entity is ... U.S. Homeland Security...

U.S. warns against having same airport security systems
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60L2N420100122