Airport supercop OKs passenger with bomb equipment and hollowed-out shoes (Update: ABC has new details)
posted at 1:21 pm on July 10, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Yeah, that headline’s a bit unwieldy. But it gets the job done.
Did I mention the passenger had an Arabic name?
The report states that a man with a Middle Eastern name and a ticket for a Delta Airlines flight to Atlanta shook his head when screeners asked if he had a laptop computer in his baggage, but an X-ray machine operator detected a laptop.
A search of the man’s baggage revealed a clock with a 9-volt battery taped to it and a copy of the Quran, the report said. A screener examined the man’s shoes and determined that the “entire soles of both shoes were gutted out.”
No explosive material was detected, the report states. A police officer was summoned and questioned the man, examined his identification, shoes and the clock, then cleared him for travel, according to the report.
A TSA screener disagreed with the officer, saying “the shoes had been tampered with and there were all the components of (a bomb) except the explosive itself,” the report says.
The officer retorted, “I thought y’all were trained in this stuff,” TSA officials reported.
The FBI looked into it and declared it a “non-event.” The passenger was probably a government agent, dispatched to test security at the airport as part of Homeland Security’s “How Goddamned Stupid Are They?” program. The next test reportedly will involve a guy in a turban wearing an As-Sahab t-shirt with wires coming out of his pants.
Thanks to Martin of National Terror Alert for the link.
Update: The Blotter talked to the FBI and tracked down the passenger. Sounds like overzealousness by the screeners and underzealousness by the cop:
A spokesman in the Houston FBI office said the computer was an old model purchased at a flea market. The spokesman said the shoes were simply worn out, not “hollowed out” to conceal explosives.
But at the airport checkpoint, screeners were convinced they had found a possible terrorist…
TSA screeners have now complained the officer did not even run a computer background check on the suspect before clearing him.
According to the TSA report, the Houston officer, J.O. Reece, told the screeners, “Next time ya’ll need to call the boom squad and not me.”
The passenger says he lost his truck driving job after the FBI cleared him. Er, why?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Ok, this is just really stupid now. Why is the FBI acting like questioning the guy at the destination was a good thing? Would it have been a non event if the plane blew up over Mobile?
Snake307 on July 10, 2006 at 1:53 AM
As a cop myself I’d like to apologize on behalf of all law enforcement officers everywhere…save the idiot from the story. Hollowed out shoes, 9-volt attached to a clock and a copy of the Quran scream “TERRORIST!!!” Any cop not a moron should have realized that, and that the guy was probably making a dry run to see if he could get through security. But then I thought y’all were trained in this stuff.
Bellicose Muse on July 10, 2006 at 6:35 AM
if only we’d just detain all middle eastern men, we could all go about our business. michelle malkin for prez!!
sgtjivanelli on July 10, 2006 at 7:29 AM
The cop was probably afraid he would be accused of being a racist and get fired on the spot. Or maybe he just got back from sensitivity training and didn’t wanna hurt anyone’s feeeeeelings. The enemy knows how their leftist friends are pussifying our nation and the terrorists will use this weakness against us. I just finished reading “Journey of the Jihadist” and in it the author states that our lefties are the “natural allies” of the jihadist maniacs who wish to kill us. ALL of us. Doesn’t that make them (the left) suicidal? And if you’re suicidal, doesn’t that make you, um, NUTS? And 49 percent of American voters cast their ballots for suicidal left-wing ‘liberal’ ‘progressive’ “Democrats”??? God help us.
Tony737 on July 10, 2006 at 8:04 AM
Or maybe he was an idiot…
High Desert Wanderer on July 10, 2006 at 8:05 AM
…and probably still is.
Tony737 on July 10, 2006 at 9:12 AM
He gives idiots a bad name.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on July 10, 2006 at 9:15 AM
What about this:
Two or more guys outfitted as described, two or more others with more components. Once on the plane, they can assemble the components.
…….
SavoirFaire on July 10, 2006 at 9:21 AM
Allah said: The passenger was probably a government agent, dispatched to test security at the airport as part of Homeland Security’s “How Goddamned Stupid Are They?” program.
Totally agree. the screeners and the HPD officer involved will probably be fired. At least I hope so…
And Savoir, that’s a very frightening thought…
pullingmyhairout on July 10, 2006 at 9:35 AM
Equal Opportunity security?
NRA4Freedom on July 10, 2006 at 9:42 AM
And add this to the FACT that I saw screeners in Little Rock last week search a very old lady and a baby who were neither islamist.
The TSA needs to be retrained, after all, Mineta is gone so now they can become an actual “security Agency”
Duty, Honor, Country
(in THAT order)
Rowane
Rowane on July 10, 2006 at 9:53 AM
Random “wanding” or pat downs are just stupid. Our nation will not truly be safe until we do some common sense profiling. Our college age daughter always seems to get “chosen” for extra screening. I think much of the “extra screening” amounts to perversion — but you can’t do a darn thing about it. Freakin idiots.
wytammic on July 10, 2006 at 10:12 AM
Can you say DRY RUN? geeeeeeeeeeeez!
This makes me crazy!Living in Atlanta with our homegrown “jr jihadis” arrested a few weeks ago this just SCREAMS: DRY RUN!!
labwrs on July 10, 2006 at 10:39 AM
Just nother FATASS (Federal Aviation Transportation Airline Screnner Stupidvisor)! But the initials it looks great on the back of a parka!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on July 10, 2006 at 11:34 AM
You guys are too quick to judge. Maybe the guy just wanted a place to put his weed, or maybe he needed to smuggle some cocaine! Sheesh. And as far as carrying a bomb framework onto an airplane, who hasn’t?
–Vinnie “Bam-Bam” Grezlick
Says it all, really.
Axe on July 10, 2006 at 1:17 PM
Suspiscious doesn’t equal guilty, it means you watch him like a hawk
Certain equipment can serve double purposes such as this bomb equipment and trhe wires. We don’t know why you’d want to put a 9V battery to a clock but you can think of a few possible ideas
There’s no law against having hollowed out shoes
there was no thing that goes boom
therefore you can’t take him off a damn plane. You watch his ass carefully for months after but u can’t arrest him.
Defector01 on July 10, 2006 at 2:12 PM
It’s probably someone the ACLU planted to set up a good Civil Liberties case, but our friendly neighborhood police officer was too lazy to fall for it.
Rick on July 10, 2006 at 2:25 PM
>sgtjivanelli: if only we’d just detain all middle eastern men, we could all go about our business. michelle malkin for prez!!
That’s an easy strawman to knock down, but it’s still a strawman. Michelle’s position, as I understand it, is not that we should “detain all middle eastern men,” but that we should use a little common sense and stop pretending that ethnicity has no bearing on the matter.
student on July 10, 2006 at 2:57 PM
Are we sure about that? I agree that we might not be able to legally arrest him. But couldn’t he still be forbidden from flying on the plane? A quick “so sorry, no plane trip for you, here is your refund” should suffice.
EFG on July 10, 2006 at 3:24 PM
Maybe if somebody did a background check???
This is what bothers me. Have we not learned? And now its TRUCKS, big trucks, semis, tractor trailers,etc. Across America these Middle Eastern men that we cant call middle eastern men, are owning trucks, owning and attending truck driving schools(remember missouri
)and learning to drive MAC TRUCKS .(McVeigh only had a fairly small rental van folks.)
But we didnt do a background check on this “dry run”
Islamist, whoops regular guy.shooter on July 10, 2006 at 3:43 PM
EFG
That WILL get you a lawsuit; even with a refund and apologies they can claim discrimination and get a decent amount of money. Unless you have real proof, especially after searching him thoroughly, you can’t take him off that plane. Its ridiculous I concur but the truth of the matter is that suspiscious doesn’t equal guilty or able to be arrested. That’s what everyone keeps forgetting.
I’d say begin surveillance of him as soon as he lands on the ground and keep it up for a long while but the truth is there isn’t anything to keep him from flying especially after a search turns up NOTHING
Defector01 on July 10, 2006 at 4:02 PM
Hmmm…Let’s see…
If I have a fishing pole on my boat but no bait and no fishing license, the Game Warden can arrest and/or ticket me costing me possibly my boat and it’s contents along with a hefty fine. But if I am Arab and have a copy of the Quran, I can pull this sh_t with impunity. This really sucks!!
brtex on July 10, 2006 at 4:36 PM
Defector01,
Yeah, I hear what you are saying. I guess I should try to clarify what I was saying. I don’t think it should be the airline who should do that. I would assume that the TSP agents would have the ability and authority to say “sorry, no plane ride for you. Go see if you can get a refund.”
The point others will bring up is that then, instead of the airline getting sued for discrimination, it would be TSA as a government agency getting sued. This seems to be a sorry state of affairs, but so it goes. I suppose I would rather have a TSA that found itself having to fend of some lawsuits (much like a big city police department often finds itself doing), yet stopping such outrageously suspicious people from flying, then having a TSA that was free of lawsuits, yet one day allowed another 9-11 style attack.
Bottom line, I think the TSA should have the legal authority to prohibit people like that from flying. Even if they might not have enough to make an arrest and take him into custody and charge him with a crime, they should be able to prevent someone that seems so obviously wrong from boarding the airplane. Lawsuits be damned.
And I just thought of something. From what I understand, a pilot has complete authority from letting anyone on his plane that he thinks is a hazzard. If I was a pilot, I would hope that the TSA would tell me this prior to this guy getting on my plane, because I am pretty sure that most pilots would say “No way, no how am I risking my life and the lives of my passengers with this guy.”
EFG on July 10, 2006 at 4:41 PM
EFG
Concentration of that much authority; I mean come on. Lets say you honk off a TSA guy by calling him incompetent; magically your a ‘threat to the aircraft’ so your out, sorry, bye bye. The pilot has the authority but if your one and if the TSA guy comes over and says “He looks damn suspiscious but we searched him and couldn’t find anything to take him off the plane” then what are you goping to do? Just throw him off anyway? And it could be extended to, say, the idiot with purple spikes and a blacksmith shop in his nose and ears. TSA and the Govt have to do their job and try not to cause lawsuits all over the place because of the trouble they cause.
Defector01 on July 10, 2006 at 5:11 PM
Well, I have an old pair of tennis shoes, must be those “air” kind with a built in cavity in the heel, that are worn out and I still wear them. I guess I better not wear them to the airport!! Unless the airport is in Houston.
gary on July 10, 2006 at 5:42 PM
Yeah, I agree, that would be a ridiculous reason to keep a guy off a plane. A person can be an a**hole, but that doesn’t mean that he is a threat. Same for the guy with the purple spikes and what not. He looks weird, but he doesn’t seem like a threat. Just retarded in terms of fashion. ;-)
But as far as your scenario goes, if I was the pilot, and was told about this guy by some TSA guy, would I ban him? Yes, I would. My reasoning would be this: This guy has just raised too many red flags. I know that he wasn’t found with any explosives, BUT, what if someone else smuggled the explosives into the planes bathroom and he planned on getting the explosives attached to his detonator midway through the flight? Or what if somebody else sitting close to him had smuggled the explosives in (wrapped in multiple layers of ziplock bags perhaps) and once they were both on the plane together, they could construct the bomb? Do I know this is the case? No, but I don’t know it isn’t the case either.
And if a lawsuit was filed? Well, the only thing I could do would be to testify before the 12 man jury and say the following: “Yes, I did keep him from flying. And yes, he is saying that I ‘discriminated’ against him. But you have heard how he was carrying a potential detonator and how he lied about it. And I did it because I wasn’t willing to potentially risk the lives of my passengers and crew just to keep from hurting his feelings. And I want you to know that if ever any of you, or your loved ones flies with me, I will take every pre-caution I can to bring them home safe and sound, just like I did in this case.”
I’m not a lawyer, but I have done jury duty. And I don’t think there is any chance I would award any sort of money to this guy. No way. I might award money if they just started arbitrarily banning people who had two or three earings in an ear, or who were just rude and obnoxious. But there is no way I would vote against some pilot or TSA guy who saw a situation like this and went on their gut feelings.
Keep in mind, I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know if what I am saying is legal or not. But I do know that this is how I feel, and there is no way any fast talking lawyer or haughty judge is going to pressure me into voting how they want me to in a case like that. Johhny Cochcran himself could argue the case, saying things like “If the battery does not fit, you must aquit” and I would think to myself, “Dude, he had a potential detonator on him and he lied about it. No way am I side with him vs the pilot.”
EFG on July 10, 2006 at 6:19 PM
I admit EFG I hadn’t thought about the possibility of someone ELSE sneaking in that last component and that changes the game entirely. Here’s the issue with the description; you’d need a pretty effective jury of people with common sense (good luck) and that wouldn’t be phased by the attorney giving a sob story about how americans hate muslims (good luck). In a legal case when everyone can step back and with full evidence play armchair quarterback, everything becomes a ‘duh’ moment. Why did he react so harshly? I mean its obvious he didn’t hvae a bomb Obvious now but that’s not how it will be played. If you had one LLL you could cause trouble on that jury. And a potential detonator, I don’t know if a clock with a 9V battery = detonator when it could just be a clock with a battery. There’s no extra information and something small could decide the case. E.g.: If the battery was taped or looked improperly placed and jammed up to the clock that’s a red flag but if the battery fits well then its not. There are just little details like that that can tear a whole case apart. And I like your straight forward approach to it, I admire that, but again Im not sure that would hold up so well in court and (like Bush for e.g.) I’m sure a good attorney could pain you instead of being a straight talking respectable guy to an insane yee-hawing cowboy.
I’m not a lawyer, I will be law school, I’m just trying to see how and why things would happen the way they did.
Defector01 on July 10, 2006 at 6:40 PM
I will never forget the time I had to pass through an airport security checkpoint to go to the airport security office. Even with federal ID (which should not have provided any different privileges anyway), I was immediately pulled aside by some recently hired, snot-nosed punk who had to keep pulling up his pants, wiping his runny nose with his hand, and running his hands through his greasy hair, for additional checks….including removing my belt and cowboy boots.
It would have given great satisfaction to put a boot in his a$$ rather than suffer the humiliation….
…and now this.
Searching old women, groping young girls, and ignoring muslims with batteries taped to alarm clocks.
Sure makes me feel safer.
I read an article in Reader’s Disgust about a National Guard soldier, patrolling an airport shortly after 911 going through a security checkpoint. He handed his M-16 to the screener so he could empty his pockets, and the screener informed him that his Swiss Army knife would be confiscated since it was not allowed.
Nothing has changed, so I will drive or walk before I fly again.
91Veteran on July 11, 2006 at 1:09 AM