Dutch police investigating reports of Abdulmutallab accomplice

posted at 12:15 pm on December 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Two passengers on Northwest 253′s Christmas flight insist that they saw Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab with a well-dressed man at a counter at Schipol, attempting to get on the plane without a passport.  Now Dutch police have started an investigation into whether an accomplice helped the suicide-underwear bomber bluff his way onto a flight into the US.  They already have admitted that Abdulmutallab appears to have bypassed normal passport control at the Amsterdam airport:

Dutch military police are investigating the possibility that an accomplice may have helped the Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, a spokesman said on Monday.

A U.S. couple on the flight, Kurt and Lori Haskell, told Reuters and other news agencies that they saw a tall, well-dressed man aged about 50 with the suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Friday morning at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport.

The Haskells have claimed the man spoke for Abdulmutallab and attempted to get him aboard Northwest flight 253 without a passport. …

The military police have already said Abdulmutallab did not go through passport control at Schiphol when he arrived from Lagos.

Clearly, the security process at Schipol needs a lot of work.  The US has warned about security in Lagos for years.  Anyone coming from Lagos should be double-checked, not allowed to bypass passport controls.  And anyone on a US watch list should have been screened more closely, not ignored.

An accomplice would put a new light on the attack.  So far, Janet Napolitano has tried to argue that Abdulmutallab probably acted alone,  and that the attack was not part of a wider conspiracy.  If the Haskells are correct, then a conspiracy exists, which seems rather obvious to everyone except the Department of Homeland Security.

This prompts the question: why are they presuming the lack of a conspiracy rather than the existence of one?  After all, the former would tend to force more action to secure future flights.  The evidence will lead in the proper direction when it’s uncovered.  But both are assumptions in the lack of any evidence — so why not make the fail-secure assumption first? Or at the very least, stop making the former assumption.

Instead of attempting to jolly Americans into a false sense of security, DHS should be provided actual security.  At least the Dutch aren’t making assumptions of a lone nut attack.

(image from CNN.com)

Update: I meant to say “former assumption” in the penultimate paragraph, which I’ve since corrected.  Thanks to the commenters who pointed out the mistake.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

There is an accomplice working at the airport.

drjohn on December 28, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Probably, many accomplices at many airports.

Johan Klaus on December 28, 2009 at 1:25 PM

The elderly should be searched……the minute that one of them is a terrorist threat (which is different than the terror caused by their driving skills).

highhopes on December 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Now that the elderly have learned how they will be shafted under the pending Obamacare, DHS has increased screening of this new threat to the nation. They are dangerously irate, right?

The clue to how valid the threat is will be how many planes will be hijacked and diverted to Nebraska by the blue-haired brigade.

onlineanalyst on December 28, 2009 at 1:26 PM

I said before and I’m saying again, we need Cheney supervising Homeland Secouity.

jeanie on December 28, 2009 at 1:17 PM

How about Commander-in-Chief?

farright on December 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Wow. I got moderated.
RushBaby on December 28, 2009 at 1:07 PM

I managed to make it onto AP’s domestic watch list last week. Now whenever I type a comment, I have this vision of a great, flaming eye looking at me from Mordor.

Bishop on December 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Now that we know that “the system” relies upon detonator failure when a jihadist brings a bomb onto a plane, why not get rid of that inconvenient airport security altogether? We could still rest assued that no bomb will ever explode on a commercial airliner because, uh, those jihadis make really crappy bombs.

Cicero43 on December 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

There’s a link on Drudge that says some passenger filmed the whole Christmas flight.
Obama may have a very big problem with this particular event.

ORconservative on December 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM

I managed to make it onto AP’s domestic watch list last week. Now whenever I type a comment, I have this vision of a great, flaming eye looking at me from Mordor.

Bishop on December 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Ha ha.

I think HA’s pretty serious about not wanting discussion of a certain small tinted nerf-oval.

RushBaby on December 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

There are those who would prefer to do nothing!

heheheh

blatantblue on December 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Actually the past few months have proven to BHO that doing nothing is of less danger to the poll numbers than producing a statement regarding some situation.

Present trumps action. Inaction equals thoughtful contemplation. The “acting stupidly” is an administrative palliative.

/s

Yoop on December 28, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Bishop on December 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Ha ha.

I think HA’s pretty serious about not wanting discussion of a certain small tinted nerf-oval.

RushBaby on December 28, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Bishop isn’t the only one. And besides… the trolls are becoming worse and worse as the Obama adminstration rages on.

Time for ignore on trolls.

upinak on December 28, 2009 at 1:32 PM

FYI, think you reversed “former” and “latter” in the penultimate paragraph.

JPlunket on December 28, 2009 at 1:33 PM

OMG…..OT…….

I know my eyes are bad…………..has LGF finally been delinked or am I missing something?

If so, about time.

Knucklehead on December 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM

It’s about freaking time!! Guess Chuckles went over the line, saying Ed was posting info on bomb-making for right-wing terrorists…
Thanks Ed–you don’t know how I hated seeing that name(LGF) on the links…

lovingmyUSA on December 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM

We could still rest assued that no bomb will ever explode on a commercial airliner because, uh, those jihadis make really crappy bombs.

Cicero43 on December 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM

I think it may all depend upon whether they were boxers or briefs.

Yoop on December 28, 2009 at 1:35 PM

For some reason, Janet Napolitano reminds me of the Mayor of Amity Island.

apollyonbob on December 28, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Same haircut.

Buddahpundit on December 28, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Time for ignore on trolls.

upinak on December 28, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Have you noticed that the trolls seem to be laying low for a few day? I seem to think there must be some furtive emails going back and forth, in those dim basement abodes…That or their moms didn’t pay the electric bill…

lovingmyUSA on December 28, 2009 at 1:38 PM

What person (supervisor) at the airport gave permission to allow the terrorist on the plane AFTER the agent denied the terrorist boarding without a passport?

The Haskell’s said that once the agent denied the terrorist boarding without a passport, the tall Indian man and the terrorist were directed by the agent to the supervisor down the hall.

Investigate the supervisor, what connections do they have?

.

ms on December 28, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Have you noticed that the trolls seem to be laying low for a few day? I seem to think there must be some furtive emails going back and forth, in those dim basement abodes…That or their moms didn’t pay the electric bill…

lovingmyUSA on December 28, 2009 at 1:38 PM

They are on an unpaid furlough, so the only trolls we’re getting are the true believers.

thomasaur on December 28, 2009 at 1:44 PM

This prompts the question: why are they presuming the lack of a conspiracy rather than the existence of one?

For the same reason they’re telling us that the second dude taken off the same flight yesterday was just “a sick passenger”?

I’m not so sure I’m buying that story either.

Knucklehead on December 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM
—————————————————–

What happened the the 2nd man that was arrested on the underwear bomber’s flight?

The Haskell’s said that the FBI arrested a 2nd man that was on the flight when the bomb sniffing dogs detected in the 2nd man’s carry on luggage.

So now we have 1. the underwear bomber 2. the 2nd man on the underwear bomber’s flight 3. the “sick” man on the flight the next day.

We are being LIED to.

ms on December 28, 2009 at 1:44 PM

There’s a link on Drudge that says some passenger filmed the whole Christmas flight.
Obama may have a very big problem with this particular event.

ORconservative on December 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Lets explore the story of the film-maker.

If the film-maker (FM) was in fact filming the entire event, it seems logical that FM had prior knowledge and was ready with the camera. This raises a few questions which throw a wet blanket on the “conspiracy” aspect.


Q1: If FM knew about the attempted bombing and was filming it, what were his plans for the video after the plane crashed?


Q2: Was he aware of the fact he was onboard an aircraft that was about to be destroyed, and him with it?

Sorta puts the end to a conspiracy aspect, or does it?

Going deeper into the twilight zone, could FM and Inept Bomber (IB) be part of a grander scheme, in which IB thought he was going to blow up a plane, but the planners had other plans. They rig the undies to burn, but not detonate, thereby causing an extreme reaction by the flight crew, flight attendants, and passengers with balls. FM sits in the back with camera ready to film the entire sequence.


Q3: Why? Maybe to ascertain probable locations or presence of Air Marshalls (intel) for future attacks? Or to provide training film for up and coming jihadis on what to expect from the flying public during future attacks?


Q4: Could the authorities have this guy in custody already? Have they whisked him away to the secret Cheney Institute for Information Gathering (GITMO)? It shouldn’t be that hard to identify this guy…after all, he was on the plane, and sitting next to somebody who noticed the camera…meaning they know his name and how/when/where and by whom the ticket was purchased?


Q5: Or was it just some dude with a camera who happened to be in “the right place at the right time”?

I’m going with Q5; at least until The One says it wasn’t a conspiracy. When/if that happens, I’m laying in a good stock of MREs and dehydrated water.

BobMbx on December 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Hey when is VP Dick Cheney commenting on this?

antisocial on December 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Is Maobama really in Hawaii, or is he in Yemen planning attacks against the U.S.? No, seriously….

adamsmith on December 28, 2009 at 1:53 PM

We could still rest assued that no bomb will ever explode on a commercial airliner because, uh, those jihadis make really crappy bombs.

Cicero43 on December 28, 2009 at 1:27 PM
I think it may all depend upon whether they were boxers or briefs.

Yoop on December 28, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Quick review:

Since the last time a bumbling bomber failed (because he tried to light a metal wire with a match) to blow up a plane, we have to submit to a shoe-less examination at the airport and can’t carry too much toothpaste.

Now, the latest bumbling bomber stuffed his undies with explosives which failed to detonate. Does this mean we will be subject to “birth-day suit” examinations?

“Please put all laptops, shoes, coats, carry-on luggage and Jockey and Victoria Secret type stuff in the plastic bins”

BobMbx on December 28, 2009 at 1:55 PM

antisocial: Cheney is just making coffee at home saying, “I told ya so. Nobody wanted to believe me when I said this president is a joke. They’ll start to listen now, everyone but the American communists, that is.”

adamsmith on December 28, 2009 at 1:56 PM

There’s a link on Drudge that says some passenger filmed the whole Christmas flight.
Obama may have a very big problem with this particular event.

ORconservative on December 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Can you share your thoughts?

Key West Reader on December 28, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Americans are out of patience with TSA. Enough already. Either develop a technological system that addresses the no-fly list in a real way, or just get honest.

This is a security system based upon ineffectual methods that harass passengers, and we’re not going to fix it.

But enough of the BS.

AnninCA on December 28, 2009 at 1:57 PM

I’m going with Q5 too because wouldn’t a jihadist think the plane was going kablooey? The video wouldn’t survive would it?
Who is the person filming? AND when these passengers were detained did no one mention that someone was filming?
Who is the second arrested guy and who is the dude in the suit in Amsterdam…………..and damn it the guy on yesterday’s flight was not just sick.
Keep asking questions or this plane will be forgotten like the French flight that disappeared.

ORconservative on December 28, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Obama’s best interest is served if he does the inquiry thing and this whole thing goes away as quickly as possible and he does some jobs package or something else equally lame that the press fawns all over.
If somebody filmed the whole thing and the film shows up as the administration is letting the story die, the story stays alive longer.
The State of the Union is only going to wow the world if there are no other distractions.

ORconservative on December 28, 2009 at 2:02 PM

lovingmyUSA Submitted on 2009/12/28 at 1:34pm

Not to mention the fact that Allahpundit posted it, not me, that binary explosives aren’t exactly a state secret (and were blurred out to keep identification impossible, as AP pointed out) — but that would take actual intelligence to realize, I guess.

Ed Morrissey on December 28, 2009 at 2:03 PM

So now we have 1. the underwear bomber 2. the 2nd man on the underwear bomber’s flight 3. the “sick” man on the flight the next day.

We are being LIED to.

ms on December 28, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Let’s not forget:

4. The sharp dressed man who helped underwear bomber get on the flight; 5. the security workers in Africa & Amsterdam who let him board without passport OR visa, since the visa is usually stamped into passport. 6. Janet Nappy who ignored underpants bomber’s father turning him in 6. Barack Hussein Obama who will get him charged and tried on civil criminal offenses, as with KSM, who had his military tribunal guilty plea VACATED by obama so that obama could bring KSM to New York in a CIVILIAN capacity – OUR FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE IS TO REMOVE TRAITOR IN OUR WHITE HOUSE – IF WE DON’T, THINGS ARE ONLY GOING TO GET MUCH, MUCH WORSE.

tigerlily on December 28, 2009 at 2:05 PM

There’s a link on Drudge that says some passenger filmed the whole Christmas flight.
ORconservative on December 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM

The story said that the FBI was looking for them.

If they want to find them, I suggest they search the New Client lists of the heavy-hitter celebrity agents.

eeyore on December 28, 2009 at 2:22 PM

I have a question. In the subsequent article regarding the Dutch police investigation it is noted at the end that :Abdulmutallab was charged on Saturday with trying to destroy an airplane, punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The question is, if this is accurate, why? Why is he charged only with trying to blow up an aircraft? It was in the air, and not on the ground, when he did this. If the act alleged would have blown up the plane, wouldn’t it also have killed everyone aboard? Wht is he not charged with things such as attempted murder, mass murder, terrorism etc?

There actually may be a good answer for this..these charges may come later…but I am extremely curious to know for sure.

Blaise on December 28, 2009 at 2:24 PM

I have a question. In the subsequent article regarding the Dutch police investigation it is noted at the end that :

Abdulmutallab was charged on Saturday with trying to destroy an airplane, punishable by up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The question is, if this is accurate, why? Why is he charged only with trying to blow up an aircraft? It was in the air, and not on the ground, when he did this. If the act alleged would have blown up the plane, wouldn’t it also have killed everyone aboard? Wht is he not charged with things such as attempted murder, mass murder, terrorism etc?

There actually may be a good answer for this..these charges may come later…but I am extremely curious to know for sure.

Blaise on December 28, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Either that or contact Hannity or Brietbart or someone similar. I hope the person is a smart and not an obamatron.
Obviously I don’t think it was a legitamate businessman but I suppose it certainly could have been a non American.

ORconservative on December 28, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Let’s hope all hell breaks loose over this and the multiple terrorists involved in the underpants bomber’s attempts. It may move the MSM hypnotized Americans to REFUSE to let obama bring KSM to New York for trial in our civilian justice system.

The whole KSM thing is getting swept under because barry makes sure that confusion reigns. Just as the staggering multiplicity of his other felonious deeds get swept away in the tidal wave of newer offenses daily.

Just for openers, obama should be impeached for giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war through taking KSM out of the military’s hands, when, after three years of military trial and several million dollars spent, KSM had already pleaded guilty and agreed to execution. obama unilaterally vacated the entire procedure and has brought a war criminal into the civil justice system, where KSM begins the legal process again with all the protections of an American citizen, presumed innocent, habeus corpus, discovery (which can breach our security and endanger our intelligence operatives)and the possiblity that this monster of 9/11 could be acquitted, not to mention the worldwide microphone KSM will have in order to recruit, live, from New York. The whole thing is so preposterous, but somehow, some way, we let obama get away with it!

We know that House won’t impeach, but the alternative media, tea partiers, 9/12ers, etc., should be beating the drum for it – because of KSM, because of his abrogating contract law and stealing GM and Chrysler from lawful secured bondholders during bankruptcy, and for countless other high crimes and misdemeanors which should be enumerated and published by conservative writers and radio/TV hosts. The time for complaining and hand wringing is indeed over. We need to start insisting on impeachment, even if they won’t do it, the drums should beat for it ceaselessly and ever more loudly until nothing else can be heard across this land, from sea to sea.

This is as serious as it gets. It’s going to be him or the death of our nation and our freedom. And who do you think is winning in this war that the president is waging on American soil?

tigerlily on December 28, 2009 at 2:30 PM

And anyone on a US watch list should have been screened more closely, not ignored.

Did he make it onto the watch list? Or was he just on a State or Homeland database, and thus never revealed to the airlines?

hawksruleva on December 28, 2009 at 2:44 PM

BobMbx on December 28, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Or perhaps a transmitting camera that would film the plane blowing up as it was being watched and recorded on the ground below?

Buddahpundit on December 28, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Or perhaps a transmitting camera that would film the plane blowing up as it was being watched and recorded on the ground below?

Buddahpundit on December 28, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Certainly possible. Hmmm…a new TV series?

“Survivor: Jihadist; Follow Islamic fanatics as they kill infidels and achieve martyrdom.” Tuesday, 8:00pm EST, CBS.

BobMbx on December 28, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Did he make it onto the watch list? Or was he just on a State or Homeland database, and thus never revealed to the airlines?

hawksruleva on December 28, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Double Secret Watchlist. So secret, nobody has access to it.

BobMbx on December 28, 2009 at 3:02 PM

I’m not so sure Obama sees the terrorists as the enemy. With Prince Alwaleed of Saudi Arabia as his sugar daddy since the 70′s (now we know why he bowed), it appears Obama’s goal is the islamization of the U.S. See Youtube title “Obama – His Islamic Supremacist”(10:08 mins.) and “Islamic Supremacist Paid Obama’s Law School”. I’m sorry, but being computer illiterate I don’t know how to provide a direct link. It is very interesting listening. I don’t know that I had ever heard about this, and I am a complete political junkie.

silvernana on December 28, 2009 at 3:13 PM

I don’t know that I had ever heard about this, and I am a complete political junkie.

silvernana on December 28, 2009 at 3:13 PM

click here
It gets interesting
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/12/28/man-who-told-of-obamas-islamic-benefactor-passes-away/

macncheez on December 28, 2009 at 3:21 PM

I don’t know that I had ever heard about this, and I am a complete political junkie.

silvernana on December 28, 2009 at 3:13 PM
click here
It gets interesting
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/12/28/man-who-told-of-obamas-islamic-benefactor-passes-away/

macncheez on December 28, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Hey, mac! Thanks for the link again. You got me started on this yesterday and I found it all very interesting. To me, it was a very big revelation, and I couldn’t believe I somehow had missed it. I, too, wonder how this got lost down the memory hole. I think it needs to see the light of day again, and perhaps now after everything that has happened, people may take another look at it. Funny, Obama came out to comment on this but not the airplane bomber, huh?

silvernana on December 28, 2009 at 4:08 PM

If somebody filmed the whole thing and the film shows up as the administration is letting the story die, the story stays alive longer.

Maybe the filmer is an Obama supporter and he/she is conflicted about posting the video.

YehuditTX on December 28, 2009 at 6:07 PM

Double Secret Watchlist. So secret, nobody has access to it.

Interpol:
http://tinyurl.com/ybgq4uz

YehuditTX on December 28, 2009 at 6:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2