Video: Dutch to use full-body scanners on passengers to US

posted at 12:55 pm on December 30, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The good news? The Dutch have decided to start doing full-body scans for passengers flying from Schipol to the US, the same route on which Umar Abdulmutallab attempted to attack and destroy a Northwest flight. The bad news? It will take three weeks to get up to speed. Presumably, other measures will be intensified in the meantime:

Ironically, the US has rejected this form of security measure as an invasion of privacy. Republicans and Democrats alike voted against using the back-scatter systems, apparently more comfortable with random pat-downs than with consistent monitoring. Will this prompt the US to adopt the same security the Dutch will provide us on flights originating from Amsterdam?

For a little more context on this, be sure to watch yesterday’s video of Isaac Yeffet, the former head of El Al, who rejected these machines as well as the American approach to airport security.


Related Posts:

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

OT, from my inbox

MANHATTAN ALL HANDS BOX 786.

NYPD BOMB SQ INVESTIGATING A SUSPICIOUS VAN.

FD EVACUATING 4 TIMES SQ & 7 TIMES SQ.

LISTEN LIVE ON THEBRAVEST.COM.

Foxnews has it too.

Sekhmet on December 30, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Why can’t we just start with things like not letting people on without passports?

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 12:58 PM

How about they don’t let Muslim men paying cash for a 1 way ticket without luggage and a passport get on planes?

thomasaur on December 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Back on topic:

A body scan would have been the only thing that might have caught Captain Underpants. While we snicker about the placement of the explosive, they placed it there because no heterosexual male likes having his junk grabbed by another guy, and no heterosexual TSA employee likes grabbing other mens’ junk. Therefore, it would likely pass a patdown.

Sekhmet on December 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM

I am glad the Dutch are making real changes. Not like the new rules the us put in place. Now we have to get other airports to do this because the terrorist’s know the Dutch have made these changes and will likely use other airports now.

Brat4life on December 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Why can’t we just start with things like not letting people on without passports?

That was such a sane comment it would have got you banned from any number of left-blogs :)

WitchDoctor on December 30, 2009 at 1:00 PM

The good news? The Dutch have decided to start doing full-body scans for passengers flying from Schipol to the US

Thanks for standing up for LIBERTY ED – as usual, you’re off the mark again.

Hey – let’s violate the liberty of every innocent man and woman (whether they like it or not) and let’s punish THEM while we allow the true perps to get off free under the full protection of the U.S. Constitution (even though they’re not US citezens).

I wouldn’t have a problem with body scanners so much – if security would just get serious and start stopping the people who LOOK and ACT like terrorists.

But as usual – Ed is here to treat the symptom – and not the disease.

Thanks Again Ed!

HondaV65 on December 30, 2009 at 1:01 PM

How about they don’t let Muslim men paying cash for a 1 way ticket without luggage and a passport get on planes?

thomasaur on December 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Cause that is profiling and profiling is bad and degrading.

WashJeff on December 30, 2009 at 1:02 PM

A body scan would have been the only thing that might have caught Captain Underpants.

Sekhmet on December 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM

I foresee a new Captain Underpants book coming.

WashJeff on December 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM

I believe that Mohammed was a murderous pedophile.

Sign here: ________________________

Have a nice flight.

Akzed on December 30, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Why can’t we just start with things like not letting people on without passports?

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Because that would be racist or something. I’m sure one of our lefty trolls could explain it better.

Rather than have full body scanners, how about have everyone go past bomb sniffing dogs.

rbj on December 30, 2009 at 1:05 PM

strongly opposed to these

offroadaz on December 30, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Whatever we do … let’s NOT PROFILE. Let’s not use common sense tactics to catch these terrorists … let’s use technology and infringe on everyone’s right to privacy!

And, when the terrorists start putting the explosives up their body cavities (where the body scanners can’t read) … let’s start using X-Ray and full body CAVITY searches. But when we do it – let’s do it equally – let’s not PROFILE or limit these kinds of searches to the types of people who are most likely commit terrorist acts. Nope! Let’s a put a rubber glove on and search every cavity that grandma has!

/sarcasm.

This is the wrong answer people.

HondaV65 on December 30, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Great, so now the lovely people that want to use this type of bomb will go to other airports that do not have full body scan technology. Unless and until we use the questioning methods used by El Al all the technology will be worthless.

Agent of the Cross on December 30, 2009 at 1:10 PM

But as usual – Ed is here to treat the symptom – and not the disease.

Thanks Again Ed!

HondaV65 on December 30, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Ed wrote about pofiling yesterday and the El Al example

WashJeff on December 30, 2009 at 1:10 PM

I’ve always said that before long check-in will involve going naked on a conveyor belt through scanning machines.

clark smith on December 30, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Abdulmutallab’s visa had expired. Where’s the State Dept???

marklmail on December 30, 2009 at 1:11 PM

Scan me baby. When they see me, the security dudes will run for the hills laughing hysterically.

And if they make me take off my underwire bra, katy bare the door.

Knucklehead on December 30, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Rather than have full body scanners, how about have everyone go past bomb sniffing dogs.

rbj on December 30, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Seems like it would be cheaper and more effective, but what do I know?

I don’t understand how these scanners are the solution anyway. Can they pick up liquid explosives or only things with wires attached?

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Having a passport should the the INITIAL requirement by the airlines (since I think customs still requires one…/sarc).

Then eliminate the visa waiver program, which currently allows EU residents to fly to the US w/o a visa.

Then airline staff should ANALYZE the passport AND visa, as well as any RED FLAGS (paying in cash, one-way ticket, no luggage…this guy was a trifecta!) to determine if there’s something, oh, UNUSUAL?

Miss_Anthrope on December 30, 2009 at 1:14 PM

Still behind the curve, and we always will be with this approach. The jihadis have already purchased several of the body scanning machines to determine weak points. Profiling is the only thing that will work. El Al has it right. We try to prevent weapons onboard,..they prevent terrorists onboard. PC dictates the major loss of life before something effective comes into the nscreening system.

a capella on December 30, 2009 at 1:14 PM

I think ONE dog could catch more than a full-body scanner for each line…even if they were more expensive (which I doubt).

But that’s just my opinion.

Miss_Anthrope on December 30, 2009 at 1:15 PM

Let’s a put a rubber glove on and search every cavity that grandma has!

Everyone’s right to privacy includes Muslims, fyi. Let’s hope terrorists don’t catch on to this attitude that people have, which says little old grandma couldn’t be the one they use to commit a terrorist act.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Ed wrote about pofiling yesterday and the El Al example

WashJeff on December 30, 2009 at 1:10 PM

I know – however that’s no reason for him to jump for joy over the infringment of privacy while our security forces ignore other MORE EFFECTIVE measures.

My position on this is … you put the profiling in place and THEN we’ll talk about the scanners.

Why isn’t that Ed’s position?

HondaV65 on December 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Those scanners are nothing but trouble for me. I get scanned, the TSA babes follow me all over the airport asking for my phone number, security points shut down…

hawkdriver on December 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM

And if they make me take off my underwire bra, katy bare the door.

Knucklehead on December 30, 2009 at 1:13 PM

That scares me and I’m fearless. *_-

thomasaur on December 30, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Those scanners are nothing but trouble for me. I get scanned, the TSA babes follow me all over the airport asking for my phone number, security points shut down…

hawkdriver on December 30, 2009 at 1:18 PM

Bearing false witness is as bad as stealing. ;-)

thomasaur on December 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

I think ONE dog could catch more than a full-body scanner for each line…even if they were more expensive (which I doubt).

But that’s just my opinion.

Miss_Anthrope on December 30, 2009 at 1:15 PM

It would literally take decades to be able to field even one bomb dog at each airport in the US. The big city airports like Detroit, LA, Boston, NYC, etc would take ten-20 or more dogs each. There aren’t enough to go around now, let alone expanding the requirement by an order of magnitude.

Johnnyreb on December 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Everyone’s right to privacy includes Muslims, fyi. Let’s hope terrorists don’t catch on to this attitude that people have, which says little old grandma couldn’t be the one they use to commit a terrorist act.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Can you name one Anglo Saxon Grandma that has ever blown anything up for Osama Bin Laden?

Give me a break.

HondaV65 on December 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

There is such a dream job awaiting some dog. The official crotch sniffing dog at the airport; talk about doggy heaven.

Mojave Mark on December 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

I wouldn’t have a problem with body scanners so much – if security would just get serious and start stopping the people who LOOK and ACT like terrorists.

HondaV65 on December 30, 2009 at 1:01 PM

I agree. I also have some concern that overreliance on technology to intercept the would-be martyrs has a tendency to breed complacency, making us less likely to think outside the box about new tactics that will enable them to bypass the new whiz bang gizmos.

Will a new extra benefit for frequent fliers be a tendency to glow in the dark?

ProfessorMiao on December 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Bearing false witness is as bad as stealing. ;-)

thomasaur on December 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

I’m cool. As you and I both know, TSA will never axe me any questions like El Al does.

hawkdriver on December 30, 2009 at 1:22 PM

There is such a dream job awaiting some dog. The official crotch sniffing dog at the airport; talk about doggy heaven.

Mojave Mark on December 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

LOL! But there is a real opportunity being missed here. I thought explosives sniffing dogs in airports would be an excellent addition to our arsenal.

ProfessorMiao on December 30, 2009 at 1:22 PM

It would literally take decades to be able to field even one bomb dog at each airport in the US. The big city airports like Detroit, LA, Boston, NYC, etc would take ten-20 or more dogs each. There aren’t enough to go around now, let alone expanding the requirement by an order of magnitude.

Johnnyreb on December 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

Weve already had 10 years, 20 if you go back to the 90′s attempts.. Why wasn’t it started then.

offroadaz on December 30, 2009 at 1:22 PM

It would literally take decades to be able to field even one bomb dog at each airport in the US. The big city airports like Detroit, LA, Boston, NYC, etc would take ten-20 or more dogs each. There aren’t enough to go around now, let alone expanding the requirement by an order of magnitude.

Johnnyreb on December 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

I doubt that very much. A couple of years, yes. But not a decade.

ProfessorMiao on December 30, 2009 at 1:23 PM

Bomb sniffing dogs don’t do well in crowded, chaotic environments (like the security checkpoint at an airport). They are easily distracted from their work in those kinds of conditions.

HondaV65 on December 30, 2009 at 1:24 PM

How about we just think twice before letting cash paying one way tickets with no luggage and no passport on board.

ORconservative on December 30, 2009 at 1:24 PM

I think they should post huge posters of the Mohammad cartoons and make everyone look at them as they board the plane. Anyone who starts screeching and freaking out gets tossed off the plane.

behiker on December 30, 2009 at 1:25 PM

HondaV65 on December 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

So since you’ve never heard of that happening, we shouldn’t be vigilant and consider that a possible. Yeah, that’s real smart. To answer your question: No, I can’t name one. But I have heard of them being used for drug smuggling and other types of things. Who’s to say those drugs won’t become a bomb someday?

Let’s stop with this singling out Muslims nonsense. There are plenty of stuff we can do stamp this out without resorting to this bigoted bullcrap.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:27 PM

I’d also be most in favor of better screening and whatever it was the President was talking about in his most recent pivot.

How many of stopped to think that if the “suspect” in the “alleged attempt” had simply flown into the US, he would now be among us?

Drained Brain on December 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM

Everyone’s right to privacy includes Muslims, fyi. Let’s hope terrorists don’t catch on to this attitude that people have, which says little old grandma couldn’t be the one they use to commit a terrorist act.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:16 PM

I have never understood their either or opinion people have on profiling. Can’t we directly target people who are the most obvious threat while also randomly checking everyone else?

How does it make it any better to assure that we won’t profile and assure jihadists that all they need is a large group of Arabic men so that they can know for a fact that not all of them will be checked?

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM

How about finding countries that train and harbor terrorists and making craters out of them?

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM

This ain’t gonna catch the butt bomb, which is what’s coming next and in the meantime we all get our privacy violated. Many fewer trips for me. This sux.

Firefly_76 on December 30, 2009 at 1:29 PM

I wouldn’t have a problem with body scanners so much – if security would just get serious and start stopping the people who LOOK and ACT like terrorists.

HondaV65 on December 30, 2009 at 1:01 PM


Bingo!

cmsinaz on December 30, 2009 at 1:29 PM

Let’s stop with this singling out Muslims nonsense. There are plenty of stuff we can do stamp this out without resorting to this bigoted bullcrap.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Bigoted? If most terrorists looked like me or had a name like mine, I would welcome being singled out and being extra searched before I got on a plane. But then, I want to make it to my destination safely.

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 1:31 PM

ORconservative on December 30, 2009 at 1:24 PM

common sense is not a part of the SOP apparently

cmsinaz on December 30, 2009 at 1:31 PM

I doubt that very much. A couple of years, yes. But not a decade.
ProfessorMiao on December 30, 2009 at 1:23 PM

I tend to think you’re right. Why not redirect some “stimulus” bucks to dog training?

Buy Danish on December 30, 2009 at 1:31 PM

It would literally take decades to be able to field even one bomb dog at each airport in the US. The big city airports like Detroit, LA, Boston, NYC, etc would take ten-20 or more dogs each. There aren’t enough to go around now, let alone expanding the requirement by an order of magnitude.

Johnnyreb on December 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

And you somehow believe these expensive body scanners will take less time?

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Who the hell wants to be subjected to the radiation of X-rays every time they fly in order to appease our politically correct masters? Another asinine, politically correct neocon solution to a very politically incorrect problem.

keep the change on December 30, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Ultimately this charade ends at x-rays and cavity searches. The religion of peace advocates will start swallowing and packing.

patrick neid on December 30, 2009 at 1:33 PM

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Most men I see molesting their children are white. In order to assure the safety of children, the government should go into the homes of children born to white males and monitor them for awhile just to make sure. Sound good?

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:35 PM

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Amen! I said it in another string. If I have to get to the airport 3 hours early and stripped naked, I’ll be more than happy to do so to prove I don’t pose a threat…so long as everyone else is searched in the same manner. Flying isn’t a right, if you don’t agree with the search methods, feel free to walk, drive, or take a boat to your destination.

behiker on December 30, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Let’s stop with this singling out Muslims nonsense. There are plenty of stuff we can do stamp this out without resorting to this bigoted bullcrap.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Bigoted? It’s that kind of thinking that gave the Fort Hood shooter a pass.

It’s OK to admit that we have something to fear from Muslim terrorists that we don’t have to fear from any other group right now. When the emperor is naked, it shouldn’t take a child to say it.

That doesn’t mean that all Muslims are terrorists or that no terrorist will ever come from any other group. It just means that we don’t ignore the obvious just because it’s uncomfortable.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 1:37 PM

My brother and I flew. He looks like a terrorist and I do not. Really do not. My brother flew through security with not even so much as a second glance from TSA while I got every search they could think of.
At that point it was painfully obvious that anything our people were going to do had nothing to do with keeping the planes safe and everything to do with stupid PC practices.

ORconservative on December 30, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Most men I see molesting their children are white. In order to assure the safety of children, the government should go into the homes of children born to white males and monitor them for awhile just to make sure. Sound good?

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:35 PM

It sounds like conflation of an unrelated problem and an unrelated solution. How much work did it take to come up with that tripe?

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Use dogs for crying out loud! What is a dog going to say about your misshapen carcass?

LarryG on December 30, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Most men I see molesting their children are white. In order to assure the safety of children, the government should go into the homes of children born to white males and monitor them for awhile just to make sure. Sound good?

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:35 PM

Considering white men make up an impossibly large percentage of the population, how well do you imagine that’ll work out? Profiling only works if you’re somehow able to make the population smaller.

Plus, molestation rarely occurs out in the open, so watching them will do nothing but waste time and resources.

If on the other hand, you want to put people in schools, especially schools with a bunch of white people, who can ask children certain questions and explain what inappropriate touching is, then that might actually help.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 1:41 PM

That doesn’t mean that all Muslims are terrorists or that no terrorist will ever come from any other group. It just means that we don’t ignore the obvious just because it’s uncomfortable.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Amen

cmsinaz on December 30, 2009 at 1:42 PM

I tend to think you’re right. Why not redirect some “stimulus” bucks to dog training?

Buy Danish on December 30, 2009 at 1:31 PM

I suspect if the jihadis put their minds to it, they can find a way to neutralize the dogs. It still doesn’t address the main issue of identifying the terrorist rather than the weapon. I may be wrong on this, but doubt El Al depends much on dogs.

a capella on December 30, 2009 at 1:43 PM

There is such a dream job awaiting some dog. The official crotch sniffing dog at the airport; talk about doggy heaven.

Mojave Mark on December 30, 2009 at 1:20 PM

That knocking sound you hear at your door is Bawney Fwank, who wants to know how he may enroll to train for said positions.

ya2daup on December 30, 2009 at 1:43 PM

For a little more context on this, be sure to watch yesterday’s video of Isaac Yeffet, the former head of El Al, who rejected these machines as well as the American approach to airport security.

I don’t like them either.. they’re maybe the ‘best’ solution in our screwed up PC world. If we had the gonads to actually take airline security seriously, we would adopt the El Al security policies which are BEHAVIOR based.

gatorboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Let’s stop with this singling out Muslims nonsense. There are plenty of stuff we can do stamp this out without resorting to this bigoted bullcrap.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:27 PM

I understand your point, but I am fair skinned, have blond hair and blue eyes. If we were still at war with Germany, I really couldn’t be too outraged if I got searched every time I flew.

There are plenty of things we can do, and the answer isn’t frisk all Muslims. But let’s not turn a blind eye to the obvious, either. There’s room for improved dilligence (like not blowing off a father turning in his own son out of concern, or letting people fly without passports, etc) but you can’t just ignore the overwhelming number of terroists that fit a certain physical/religious pattern, either.

We should be doing all things possible to lower the risk, and even then things can still happen.

DrAllecon on December 30, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Could we borrow those scanners to see if anyone in the federal government has a brain?

Daggett on December 30, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Bigoted? It’s that kind of thinking that gave the Fort Hood shooter a pass.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Wrong. Stupidity and incompetence is what led to that. The guy was in contact with known terrorists and terrorist organizations. That right there was more than enough to get him removed from his position. His skin color and religion is completely irrelevant to that point.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:44 PM

And you somehow believe these expensive body scanners will take less time?

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 1:32 PM

Where did I say that? Could you point out my comment where I said scanners would work and would take less time, cause I never said that. IMO scanners won’t work either. We will never have enough to scan every single passenger flying in just the US let alone the rest of the world.

Johnnyreb on December 30, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Back on topic:

A body scan would have been the only thing that might have caught Captain Underpants. While we snicker about the placement of the explosive, they placed it there because no heterosexual male likes having his junk grabbed by another guy, and no heterosexual TSA employee likes grabbing other mens’ junk. Therefore, it would likely pass a patdown.

Sekhmet on December 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM

So looks like you’re advocating an all gay TSA force?

gatorboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Let’s see………..all child molesters are white men so let’s monitor all white men? Seriously?
I love these types of examples.
No one is saying that all Muslims should be monitored. BUT all single men who buy tickets with cash, do not have luggage or a passport should not be allowed on a flight to the us. Let them take a boat. Or walk across the southern border……………they’ll have lots of company and maybe not be lonely. Geez.

ORconservative on December 30, 2009 at 1:45 PM

I tend to think you’re right. Why not redirect some “stimulus” bucks to dog training?

Buy Danish on December 30, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Because dogs cannot become dues-paying members of SEIU

ya2daup on December 30, 2009 at 1:45 PM

No “ifs”, “ands” or … BUTTS!

CynicalOptimist on December 30, 2009 at 1:46 PM

Wrong. Stupidity and incompetence is what led to that.

BS. These people were affraid of going after him because of how they would be perceived. They openly admitted as much after it happened even though they had far too many red flags available to them. If Nadal had not been a Muslim, he would have been stopped.

His skin color and religion is completely irrelevant to that point.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Who said anything about his skin color? The man was barely tan. The 9/11 hijackers were mostly white.

But his religion is directly related to all of this. So long as people are too affraid of being called a racist to listen to obvious warning signs coming from Muslims, we’re all less safe.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 1:47 PM

How about bomb sniffing pigs? If they can find truffles they ought to be able to find chemicals.

DanMan on December 30, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Where did I say that? Could you point out my comment where I said scanners would work and would take less time, cause I never said that. IMO scanners won’t work either. We will never have enough to scan every single passenger flying in just the US let alone the rest of the world.

Johnnyreb on December 30, 2009 at 1:44 PM

It was a question, Johnny. That’s what the little ? at the end signifies.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Thanks for standing up for LIBERTY ED – as usual, you’re off the mark again.

Hey – let’s violate the liberty of every innocent man and woman (whether they like it or not) and let’s punish THEM while we allow the true perps to get off free under the full protection of the U.S. Constitution (even though they’re not US citezens).

I wouldn’t have a problem with body scanners so much – if security would just get serious and start stopping the people who LOOK and ACT like terrorists.

But as usual – Ed is here to treat the symptom – and not the disease.

Thanks Again Ed!

HondaV65 on December 30, 2009 at 1:01 P

RIGHT ON! HondaV65 !!!

Another victory for Al Queda and their bureaucrat allies!

It will do NOTHING for Security, except spend a lot more money with a few special companies and destroy freedom and independence of everyone.

The bureaucrats failed.
The bureaucrats who work at the CIA failed.
The bureaucrats who work at the State Department failed.
The bureaucrats who work for TSA failed.
The bureaucrats who work for the big airlines failed.

Instead of fixing the system and fixing the problem, we’re just doing the typical bureaucratic obfuscation.

(“If you’d just give us more money and power, we could make it work.”)

Fawning stories on MSNBC would be normal, on HotAir, there is a problem.

CrazyGene on December 30, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Wrong. Stupidity and incompetence is what led to that. The guy was in contact with known terrorists and terrorist organizations. That right there was more than enough to get him removed from his position. His skin color and religion is completely irrelevant to that point.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:44 PM

It SHOULD have been enough to get him removed. The point being made was that political correctness and fear of being branded a rascist is what KEPT him from being removed.

DrAllecon on December 30, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Yeah, maybe Hasan passing out Korans and talking jihad should have been a tip off.
How the hell is that bigotted?

ORconservative on December 30, 2009 at 1:48 PM

DrAllecon on December 30, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Or what Esthier said quicker and better than I did, lol.

DrAllecon on December 30, 2009 at 1:50 PM

Wrong. Stupidity and incompetence is what led to that. The guy was in contact with known terrorists and terrorist organizations. That right there was more than enough to get him removed from his position. His skin color and religion is completely irrelevant to that point.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:44 PM

You are suffering from the very same “stupidity and incompetence”. Another word for it would be “willful blindness”. Everyone knows what we are looking for when trying to determine who it is that might blow their fair self up on a plane. Everyone. Even you.

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Wrong. Stupidity and incompetence is what led to that. The guy was in contact with known terrorists and terrorist organizations. That right there was more than enough to get him removed from his position. His skin color and religion is completely irrelevant to that point.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:44 PM

I’m not going to dig up a link but I believe several of his peers failed to make official complaints about his radical attitudes because they were afraid of the backlash. I also direct you to General Casey’s first official statement that it would be an even greater tragedy if diversity were damaged because of the shootings. The PC enviorment is a major contributor to these events.

a capella on December 30, 2009 at 1:52 PM

This is where all this political correctness drives me crazy. You don’t want to offend muslims by searching them even though they overwhelmingly commit the vast majority of terrorism. But it’s OK to offend me by not doing everything in your power to keep me safe while traveling on a plane.

I was changing planes in Atlanta when I learned of the bombing attempt. Since I’m not liberal my first thought was NOT “I hope no muslims are unnecessarily searched and offended”. My first thought was to look around and see who was getting on the plane with me and start sounding the alarm if anyone looked suspicious.

behiker on December 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 1:40 PM

You were saying that you would want to be singled out if you were apart of a group that was committing a crime at a high rate. Well, shouldn’t that apply to all crimes, like the one I mentioned? What if you wanted to get a job as a teacher – you would be fine if your employers had an extra set of rules (harsher) for you to become one because whites are more known for doing that kind of thing? That would be ridiculous. Singling you out because your white would be like blaming man for “global warming.” Your ignoring lots of causes and missing the root of the problem. What we need to focus on his behavior, first and foremost. Secondly, we have to take people seriously when they say their son is dangerous. These are the things we should be looking at. Not whether or not the guy is a Muslim. That’s irrelevant.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM

What we need to focus on his behavior, first and foremost. Secondly, we have to take people seriously when they say their son is dangerous. These are the things we should be looking at. Not whether or not the guy is a Muslim. That’s irrelevant.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM

It is possible to do several things at once.

a capella on December 30, 2009 at 2:00 PM

I fly a good deal out of the country. I am a 43 yr old grandmother, not a smoking hot 20 yr old. Yet, I get felt up, not just patted down, on a regular basis. I am all for profiling, and dont mind the scanners. Whatever works. I am terrified to fly right now, to be honest. I just put off a trip for the 2nd time I really need to take. I just cant do it.

di butler on December 30, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:27 PM

Profiling doesn’t just involve Muslims. Every time my Daughter gets assigned to help DHS traveling teams (IT work) she goes on a one way ticket since she doesn’t know how long she’ll be in the field. This means she’ll be pulled out of line and given extra scrutiny. It happens every time so she makes sure to arrive at the Airport with extra time to spare. So yes we should profile the obvious tells.
BTW she’s a WASP.
S

chemman on December 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Thanks for standing up for LIBERTY ED – as usual, you’re off the mark again.

Hey – let’s violate the liberty of every innocent man and woman (whether they like it or not) and let’s punish THEM while we allow the true perps to get off free under the full protection of the U.S. Constitution (even though they’re not US citezens).

I wouldn’t have a problem with body scanners so much – if security would just get serious and start stopping the people who LOOK and ACT like terrorists.

But as usual – Ed is here to treat the symptom – and not the disease.

Thanks Again Ed!

HondaV65 on December 30, 2009 at 1:01 P

Great post! +1

gatorboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:02 PM

How many non-Muslims have committed acts of terror against the United States?

a capella on December 30, 2009 at 2:02 PM

It SHOULD have been enough to get him removed. The point being made was that political correctness and fear of being branded a rascist is what KEPT him from being removed.

DrAllecon on December 30, 2009 at 1:48 PM

You missed my point. Singling out Muslims and treated them differently at the airport IS bigoted. Removing somebody from the military who is contact with known terrorists is just common sense.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:02 PM

My first thought was to look around and see who was getting on the plane with me and start sounding the alarm if anyone looked suspicious Muslim.

FIFY

Grow Fins on December 30, 2009 at 2:02 PM

I suggest not invading the privacy of every passenger (thus punishing the innocent) and doing a little something that rhymes with D’ohFILING.

ihasurnominashun on December 30, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Grow Fins on December 30, 2009 at 2:02 PM

If that’s what it takes to keep my a$$ alive… YES! I am kinda fond of breathing.

behiker on December 30, 2009 at 2:05 PM

FIFY

Grow Fins on December 30, 2009 at 2:02 PM

If that’s what suspicious means to you, then that’s your problem.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Again, white male isn’t limiting the pool any and thus sucks as a profiling tool. You may as well say Americans are more likely to molest American kids.

Esthier on December 30, 2009 at 2:09 PM

See I was all for tighter security at airports and I still am, but this crosses the line.

We are literally becoming like herds of animals now. Go through the scanning machine, don’t use the bathroom an hour before landing, don’t use blankets or pillows, and don’t put anything in your lap.

This is literally getting more and more like 1984. Actually enforce the regulations we have now on the correct people, maybe get some dogs, and maybe even a plain clothed U.S. Marshall on every flight (at least every flight over 2 hours) and we might be good.

Safety and security are nice, but if you have no freedoms, then safety and security don’t mean anything.

MobileVideoEngineer on December 30, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Way too far and obtrusive. Have to draw a line somewhere and this should be it.

When this fails, which it will most certainly will, some other even more obtrusive equipment will come into play…start using your imagination on that. Sorry, this is going over the line.

The solution is in Israel, we just have to follow their lead. Look for terrorist not bombs…

javamartini on December 30, 2009 at 2:11 PM

You missed my point. Singling out Muslims and treated them differently at the airport IS bigoted. Removing somebody from the military who is contact with known terrorists is just common sense.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Until affirmative action is stopped, accusations of bigotry mean nothing.
How would removing Hasan from the military have stopped the threat he represented? Are you saying his targets could have only been military personnel? We don’t really know, do we?

a capella on December 30, 2009 at 2:14 PM

Way too far and obtrusive. Have to draw a line somewhere and this should be it.

When this fails, which it will most certainly will, some other even more obtrusive equipment will come into play…start using your imagination on that. Sorry, this is going over the line.

The solution is in Israel, we just have to follow their lead. Look for terrorist not bombs…

javamartini on December 30, 2009 at 2:11 PM

Exactly. 9/11 didn’t happen with bombs, the planes were the weapons. If nobody on the plane is able to carry any knife or gun then everyone is on the same footing and the terrorists could over power the flight crew.

Either arming the crew or putting an armed agent of some sort would do wonders.

MobileVideoEngineer on December 30, 2009 at 2:16 PM

You were saying that you would want to be singled out if you were apart of a group that was committing a crime at a high rate.

No. I said I would welcome being searched and scrutinized more highly by security before I got on a plane if I fit into the category of people that blow them up. I was pretty clear, but I tend to be like that when I use words.

Secondly, we have to take people seriously when they say their son is dangerous. These are the things we should be looking at. Not whether or not the guy is a Muslim. That’s irrelevant.

Narutoboy on December 30, 2009 at 1:56 PM

It’s not irrelevant to whether someone wants to blow themselves up on a plane. Once again, we are talking about a 100% rate here. One hundred percent of people that have blown themselves up on commercial planes have been muslim. All of them.

LibTired on December 30, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Ed, why do you think this is good news if you agree with Yeffet, who rejected the machines?

tneloms on December 30, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Given that the idea is to scan everybody, I’m figuring with the full body scan in a few years the story is going to break that air passenger screener is the job of choice among the kiddie porn freaks.

Dale Wyckoff on December 30, 2009 at 2:20 PM

We need one of those walk-through scanners like in Total Recall.

Socratease on December 30, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2