New York congressman Peter King was on Laura Ingraham‘s radio show Thursday, and he was asked by Ingraham how the political aftermath would’ve played out had the suspected shooter in Arizona been a Muslim.

Ingraham asked, “If Jared Lougner happened to have been one of the more radicalized Muslims who had carried out attacks or attempted attacks on American soil…how do you think this would have played out, similarly or different?”

King said “Totally different.” The congressman went on:

The first statement [from the left after past instances of Islamic terror] was we have no right to judge an entire community by one person. This is a deranged gunman who in no way reflects what Islam stands for, and it would be terrible if Americans tried to even look at Islam as being responsible for this. It would have been a total defense of Islam, a total isolation of this person as an individual acting by himself, and an implied attack on anyone that would even question whether or not his religious beliefs were involved.

Listen to it here, from The Laura Ingraham Show:

Faisal Shahzad, who pleaded guilty to trying to blow up a sport utility vehicle carrying a homemade bomb in May in Times Square, thick with Saturday visitors, was sentenced on Tuesday morning to spend the rest of his life in prison. Remaining defiant, and smirking as the sentence was read, he told the court: “Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun.” He later continued: “The defeat of the U.S. is imminent and will happen in the near future.”

Presumably by people who don’t lock their house keys in the car they are attempting to blow up. Nevertheless, rather chilling to hear an American citizen speak about America in such terms. One of the reasons the trial was so swift was that Shahzad did not exercise his right to remain silent.

The outcome of the hearing was a foregone conclusion, since Mr. Shahzad’s no-deals guilty plea June 21, in which he spoke at length about his training with the Pakistani Taliban and his desire that day to “plead guilty 100 times over.”

This is a sticking point for some who believed Shahzad should have been stripped of some of his due process rights as a citizen of the United States after being arrested for committing a terrorist act. New York Rep. Peter King, a person who is frequently outspoken on these matters, told Ben Smith he thought there was some luck involved this time around.

“The case worked out well. I had questions about it. There was a bit of luck involved here…”If he was more sophisticated or more trained, or if he had not talked there could have been a follow-up attack, he could have been part of a larger conspiracy…It worked in this case, but to me it’s too much of a risk to take in every case.”

While Napolitano’s statement (since “clarified”) was clearly a wrongheaded attempt to reassure people by understating the danger, it seems to me that a whole bunch of other people have an interest in making you as scared as possible.

Case in point: Dueling headlines that say, alternately, that the substance used in the device, PETN, is “Common And Easily Detectable,(AP via HuffPo)” or is “hard to detect and just 100g can destroy a car.(UK Times)” That’s an awful lot of wiggle room.

The AP’s claim that PETN is easily detectable proceeds from some pretty big assumptions, notably the use of a “Puffer” machine:

Airport “puffer” machines – the devices that blow air onto a passenger to collect and analyze residues – would probably have detected the powder, as would bomb-sniffing dogs or a hands-on search using a swab.

Aside from the fact that there’s a decent chance the suspect didn’t have any PETN residue on him for the machines to detect, the TSA scrapped the puffer program earlier this year after very early indications that the $160,000 machines just didn’t work: (from June 2007)

Both machines have been plagued by false alarms and an inability to reset properly, according to a TSA supervisor, who said repairs made earlier this year have not helped.

“We all laugh about it now because we never know if it’s working or not,” said the supervisor, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because the individual was not authorized to discuss TSA issues.

Using a $160,000 machine that doesn’t work, while also swabbing and dog-sniffing every passenger, doesn’t really fit the “easy” bill.

The AP article also references full body scanners, whose first permanent installation was, ironically, in Amsterdam. Their expert doesn’t factor in the fact that the full body scanner is only used in situations that would otherwise require a hand-frisking. Since Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab wasn’t on the “selectee” list, or otherwise selected for additional screening, the use of the body scanner is somewhat moot.

The body scanners have been controversial from a privacy standpoint, but more than that, in order to be completely certain, you would have to install them at every single checkpoint in every airport in the world. At $170,000 a pop, versus about $5,000 for a metal detector, the cost would be astronomical. That would be fine with the machine’s manufacturers, I’m sure:

>>> NEXT PAGE: A Security expert reveals how these security systems are sort of a waste of time.

‘There are over 400,000 individuals in the Terrorist Screening Data Base (TSDB), the main identities database within the U.S. Government for international terrorism. The TSDB is a subset of the 550,000 individuals contained in the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), which is the Intelligence Community’s central repository of information on known and suspected international terrorists. Less than 4,000 of the names in the TSDB are on the ‘No Fly’ list and another 14,000 names are on the ‘Selectee’ list, which calls for mandatory secondary screening. There are established criteria for both the no fly and selectee lists. After the suspect’s father spoke to the US Embassy in Lagos, Nigeria the US government took action and shared the information with relevant agencies across the government which resulted in a TIDE record being created for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in November 2009. It was decided that there was insufficient information at that time based on existing watch list criteria to include him in the terrorist watch list, the no fly list or the mandatory secondary screening list, thus he was not ‘watch-listed’ as of 25 December 2009.’

Emphasis mine, because that is the sort of disclosure that is alternately going to result in accusations of too much political correctness at play, and/or the evils of government bureaucracy, or both (ahem, Glenn Beck). Press Secretary Robert Gibbs appeared to acknowledge the bureaucracy part at least on This Week yesterday noting that “these procedures are several years old” and Thursday’s incident had “precipitated both a watch listing review and a detection capabilities review” neither of which sound like the sort of thing that bear results anytime soon. So in the meantime probably be prepared for excess random security restrictions and extra, extra long lineups, and at least a few false alarms.

Pic via.

So where to point the finger? Because despite Janet Napolitano’s assertions that everything went like clockwork, it clearly did not go anything like clockwork if a man who was already on a terrorist list (due to be reported by his own father) was able to fly with explosives trapped to his body. How much responsibility for this falls on Obama (whose persistent golf playing is not doing him any favors…just imagine Bush opting for a day of golf after an incident like this)? Perhaps this is a good time to point out Obama has been in office three and a half months longer that George W. Bush was when September 11 occurred (though obviously that incident was of a different magnitude than Thursday’s).

This is perhaps what Bush apologist Mary Matalin had in mind when she told Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace (video below) “I was there, we inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation’s history, and President Bush dealt with it…”

Meanwhile, one of Bush’s greatest example’s supporting the argument that his Presidency had been a success was that no further attack had occurred on U.S. soil. Does Thursday’s incident prove that was just luck? And if it is fair to say Bush inherited the 9/11 attacks is it also fair to argue Obama has inherited last week’s incident (and Sunday’s averted one)? Not according to Rep. Pete Hoekstra (he of the overstated statements)! Hoekstra also appeared on Fox News Sunday and said he thinks it’s absolutely fair to hold the Obama administration responsible (video below):

I think connecting the dots here, it’s not necessarily on this particular case, it’s connecting the dots that we’ve seen over the last eleven months, over the last eight years. What do we have here? This is a international movement of radicalization. The Obama administration came in and said we’re not going to use the word terrorism, we’re going to call it man made-made disasters, trying to, I think, downplay the threat from terrorism. The reality is that it is getting much more complex.

Much more complex, to say the least. Here’s what we know for sure: The only people you can apparently rely on fully when it comes to flying safely are your fellow passengers and their ability to jump across a row of seats to deal with a problem the government has yet to be able to solve. Now here’s hoping the TSA doesn’t decide to strap us into our seats for the duration of a flight as some sort of new ‘security’ measure.

Mary Matalin:

Rep Pete Hoekstra:

Hot on the heels of Janet Napolitano‘s “The system worked like clockwork” appearance on This Week, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs faced questions from Jake Tapper, who cut through the word blizzard and got to the heart of the issue. If the flight 253 suspect was on a watch list, who was watching him? Gibbs’ response was equally on target.

Gibbs began by explaining the differences between the various lists, from the large 550,000 name database, to the 14,000 on the “selectee list (people who get pulled out of line for additional searches), and the 4,000 person “no fly list.” He pointed out that “these procedures are several years old,” which may be seen by some as pointing a finger at the Bush administration, but which I would peg as an attempt to frame this in nonpartisan terms. Gibbs has never been shy about name-checking the previous administration, but he didn’t do that here.

Here’s where Jake Tapper’s experience with the White House really comes in handy, as he frames his question to Gibbs through the lens of their shared knowledge of the President:

TAPPER: Let me ask you a question. Knowing the president — I’ve been covering him for a few years — I can’t imagine that he would hear this guy’s father reported to the U.S. embassy that he has extremist religious views, and within a matter of weeks, he boards an airplane with explosives on his person and is not subject to additional security. I can’t believe that he would not hear that information and say, “that’s nuts.” Why did that happen?

GIBBS: Jake, he’s heard that information and heard it not long after it was brought to the situation room. That’s what has precipitated both a watch listing review and a detection capabilities review, to ensure that one, the information that we have goes through the process the right way and surfaces to those that have to make those decisions. Again, we have a watch list that this individual was on, that contains about 50 — 550,000 names. So this individual was listed in November of 2009 on that database based on that information. The no-fly list and the selectee list…

TAPPER: But who’s watching him? If he’s on that watch list, who’s watching him?

GIBBS: Well, again, Jake, I think if you read the papers this morning, you’ll find that the name was listed, concern was brought, but the ability…

TAPPER: Brought to who? Anybody can just write down a name. I mean…

GIBBS: No, no, this is a database that a series of agencies enter names into, and a series of agencies draw information from. But again, Jake, the investigation will look backwards and figure out if any signs were missed, if any procedures can be changed about how names are watch-listed. But again, understand there are 18,000 people on either a selectee or a no-fly list. This is a database that contains — I’m sorry, 550,000 of those names. It’s a huge number. We have to ensure and the president has asked that a review be undertaken swiftly to ensure that any information that’s gathered and put into any database, that it gets to where it needs to go, to the people that are making decisions.
But again, Jake, understanding, 550,000 are on that one database. The president wants to review some of these older procedures and see if, quite frankly, they are outdated…

TAPPER: They need to be updated.

GIBBS: … (inaudible) what we’re facing today.

Gibbs takes the long way around to saying that the listing procedure needs to be fixed, a message that is almost certainly more comforting to people than the idea that this near-disaster is an example of a “smoothly operating” and “clockwork” system.

Above all else, it’s important for incidents like this not to become political. Conservatives have tried to attack the President for not addressing the nation about this, even though, as Tapper points out, President Bush didn’t feel the need to do so after the Richard Reid “Shoe Bomber” incident.

Gibbs (and Tapper) are right that the list procedures need to be reviewed. It doesn’t seem like it would be that hard to check that 550,000-name list, as anyone who ever had a late fee at Blockbuster can attest. Would it really take that much more time to frisk these people? Maybe if they all flew on the same day.

On the other hand, would such a move tip off someone new on the radar, causing him to take extra-stealthy measure? Probably. That’s the real problem here. No matter what we do, we will always be playing catch-up with terrorists. Their objective is too simple. The sad fact is, we are never going to be completely safe. Even if we ignored “political correctness,” as the right puts it, and started profiling our little hearts out, do you think there is no way to defeat that? A guy can’t put on a Yankees hat and change his name to “George,” or “Mark?”

The important thing is to remain calm, do everything that is reasonably possible to do, and wait until you know all of the facts. Don’t freak out, but also don’t pretend everything’s peachy.

UPDATE: Breaking News, via AP, is reporting that investigators in Detroit have determined that the passenger in question “was a businessman who became ill during the flight.”

Per Ed Henry (edhenrycnn), CNN’s senior White House correspondent who’s in Hawaii traveling with the President (refresh for updates below):

CNN told man spent an hour in lavatory, became upset when questioned by crew. Law enforcement questioning him now 11 minutes ago from web Retweeted by edhenrycnn and 9 others

CNN covering NEW Detroit plane incident LIVE right now 15 minutes ago from web

Delta spokeswoman says passenger was “verbally disruptive” and the crew requested that law enforcement meet the aircraft 17 minutes ago from web

But plane apparently landed safely and passengers are deplaning now, more coming 18 minutes ago from web

Airline spokesman to CNN: ‘Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam requested emergency assistance … pulled aside upon arrival in Detroit.” 19 minutes ago from web

Breaking news: Another Northwest plane has been surrounded by police at Detroit airport after passenger disruption, per @stevebruskcnn 19 minutes ago from web

Refresh for updates below:

 




Here’s the CNN live report:



And again, CNN on the FBI all-clear:



]]> http://www.mediaite.com/online/not-again-another-incident-reported-on-amsterdam-to-detroit-flight/feed/ 0 http://www.mediaite.com/tv/janet-napolitano-on-this-week-the-system-worked-like-clockwork/ http://www.mediaite.com/tv/janet-napolitano-on-this-week-the-system-worked-like-clockwork/#comments Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:38:41 +0000 Tommy Christopher http://www.mediaite.com/?p=61924 Jake Tapper interviewed DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on ABC's This Week, giving an early indicator of what the administration's narrative on Flight 523 will be. Caught between the need to reassure a jumpy public, political opponents drooling at the chance to score points, and an unwillingness to tip our hand to those who would do us harm, Napolitano had her work cut out for her. Even given those factors, the Secretary's overarching message was tone deaf, to say the least.]]>

Jake Tapper interviewed DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on ABC’s This Week, giving an early indicator of what the administration’s narrative on Flight 523 will be. Caught between the need to reassure a jumpy public, political opponents drooling at the chance to score points, and an unwillingness to tip our hand to those who would do us harm, Napolitano had her work cut out for her. Even given those factors, the Secretary’s overarching message was tone deaf, to say the least.

Napolitano sold the notion that the system worked, hitting the talking point several times:

I think the important thing to recognize here is that once this incident occurred, everything happened that should have. The passengers reacted correctly, the crew reacted correctly, within an hour to 90 minutes, all 128 flights in the air had been notified. And those flights already had taken mitigation measures on the off-chance that there was somebody else also flying with some sort of destructive intent.

So the system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days.

Tapper followed up by saying “(Y)ou keep saying everybody acted the way they were supposed to. Clearly the passengers and the crew of that Northwest Airlines flight did. But I think there are questions about whether everybody in the U.S. government did.”

Napolitano was undeterred:

Now once this incident occurred, everything went according to clockwork. Not only sharing throughout the air industry, but also sharing with state and local law enforcement, products were going out on Christmas Day, they went out yesterday, and also to the industry to make sure that the traveling public remains safe.

So, a man on a really long terrorism list carries an incendiary device onto an airplane, ignites it in midair, the detonator fails, the passengers jump the flame-crotched suspect, and he is subdued/extinguished. As Hannibal Smith would say, “I love it when a plan comes together.” Maybe she meant to say that it worked like “A Clockwork Orange.”

In fairness, that’s not exactly what Napolitano said, but that’s the effect. She prefaced it all by saying “Once this incident occurred,” which is a lot like bragging about how well Trojans work after your girlfriend is pregnant.

Tapper interviewed Press Secretary Robert Gibbs next, and he wisely abandoned Napolitano’s breathtakingly clueless line.

Here’s the clip:

]]> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/janet-napolitano-on-this-week-the-system-worked-like-clockwork/feed/ 17 http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-peter-king-slams-obama-wheres-the-administration-in-wake-of-attack/ http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-peter-king-slams-obama-wheres-the-administration-in-wake-of-attack/#comments Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:47:05 +0000 Joe Coscarelli http://www.mediaite.com/?p=61889 Rep. Peter King (R-NY) criticized President Obama on CNN Saturday, questioning the response of the administration in the aftermath of the potentially deadly incident. "It is important at a time like this that the President of the United States or someone in the administration would step forward," said King, a congressman from New York. ]]> There may have been a brief reprieve because it did happen on Christmas, but make no mistake: the politicizing of the attempted attack on Northwest airlines flight 253 has begun. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) criticized President Obama on CNN Saturday, questioning the response of the administration in the aftermath of the potentially deadly incident.

“This came very close to being one of the greatest tragedies in the history of our country,” said King, a congressman from New York. “It is important at a time like this that the President of the United States or someone in the administration would step forward.”

CNN dutifully used the opportunity to plug Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano‘s Sunday appearance on State of the Union with John King, following with a report by White House correspondent Ed Henry from Hawaii.

The president was vacationing with his family in his home state for the holidays. And so it was only a matter of time before the opposition started lobbing criticisms toward the “soft on terrorism” and “does not care about domestic issues” columns, reminiscent, of course, of the left’s 8-year storyline of George W. Bush as a chronic vacationer. Remember Hurricane Katrina? Bush stayed on vacation for another night, and he was heavily criticized. So, it was only a matter of time and expect the narrative to gain traction on the Sunday shows and carry on into the beginning of the week.

See the full clip below:

]]> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-peter-king-slams-obama-wheres-the-administration-in-wake-of-attack/feed/ 25 http://www.mediaite.com/online/soundbite-peter-king-will-punch-you-in-the-face/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/soundbite-peter-king-will-punch-you-in-the-face/#comments Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:50:27 +0000 Rachel Sklar http://www.mediaite.com/?p=43233

“Before stepping into the boxing ring for a friendly match with Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the one thing you need to know is that he will, in fact, punch you in the face.”

— Politico’s Patrick Gavin, in what may be the best lede ever, describing his ill-fated boxing match with the slap-happy King.

In a week of D.C. fisticuffs, Gavin and King were squaring off as part of his “Game Changers” series where he plays games with politicos. Gavin — who is a big guy, but wears a lot of pastels — probably wasn’t expecting to be roughed up too much. But turns out King had other ideas:

“I’m going to beat Patrick Gavin for a thousand reasons,” King said, with classic boxer bravado. “I’m smarter, I’m better looking, I’m stronger; [I’ve] got a better jab, a better right, a better hook; and I’m a nicer guy. I mean, good guys win! Good guys win in boxing, and there’s no reporter that can ever stand up to a politician.”

Wow. Gavin may think twice the next time he invites a politico to play a friendly game. Good thing he’s still got a while before his his wedding day. Brides don’t like their grooms bloody.

Unrelated: Doesn’t Patrick look like an old-school 80s Karate Kid-type hero in the pic above? You can almost see the sweatband.

Game Changer: Boxing With The King [Politico Click]

]]> http://www.mediaite.com/online/soundbite-peter-king-will-punch-you-in-the-face/feed/ 0