We were lucky this time. Abdul Mudallad, 23, a Nigerian man linked to Al Qaeda, attempted to blow up a Northwest flight from Amsterdam to Detroit today — with 278 people on board — as the flight was landing in Detroit. The New York Times reports:
A Nigerian man tried to ignite an explosive device aboard a transatlantic Northwest Airlines flight as the plane prepared to land in Detroit on Friday, in an incident the United States believes was “an attempted act of terrorism,” according to a White House official who declined to be identified.The device, described by officials as sophisticated and made from a mixture of powder and liquid, failed to fully detonate. Passengers on the plane described a series of pops that sounded like firecrackers.
Nonetheless, federal officials said the man was attempting to bring the plane down.
“This was the real deal,” said Representative Peter King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, who was briefed on the incident and said something had gone wrong with the explosive device. “This could have been devastating.”
It was unclear how the man, identified by federal officials as Abdul Mudallad, 23, of Nigeria, managed to get the explosive on the plane. A senior administration official said the government did not yet know whether the man had the capacity to take down the plane but that he did have the intent to create trouble.
According to this LA Times piece, the man ended up lighting himself on fire, and the passengers jumped on the man to stop him when they realized what was happening:
Passenger Syed Jafri, a U.S. citizen who had flown from the United Arab Emirates, said the incident occurred during the plane’s descent, according to the Associated Press. Jafri said he was seated three rows behind the passenger and said he saw a glow and smelled smoke. Then, he said, “a young man behind me jumped on him.”“Next thing you know, there was a lot of panic,” he said.
Tatil says:
If Jafri was three rows behind the terrorist and the man who jumped was sitting behind him, that “young man” is more alert and coolheaded than at least four rows of passengers. This was a very lucky break indeed. I wonder if he was the air marshall.
What happened to the no liquids rule? These guys seem to be getting more sophisticated. Unbelievable…
December 25, 2009, 9:28 pmVermont Guy says:
What a country. In the middle of an attack someone can find the humor. Saved by a government agent. What a hoot. It is more likely the marshalls all have Christmas off then that there one of that tiny band on the target plane.
[OK Comments: Vermont Guy, are you familiar with how air marshalls are used? Or do you think this is all a "hoot" in the absence of any actual knowledge?]
December 25, 2009, 9:39 pmKazinski says:
Whatever the relative morals of targeted killing or aprehending and interrogation, it looks like we have more of it to do.
December 25, 2009, 9:40 pmOff Kilter says:
I think it more likely that the enemy intended to disrupt the plans of millions of people over the next year by counting on the US government to over-react and add countless time to security, adding to the cost and time of US air travel, by setting off what sounds like the equivalent of a fire-cracker on a plane than it intended to blow up a plane in flight. (That’s not because they don’t WANT TO blow up a plane in flight. It’s because it’s HARD to blow up a plane in flight. It’s much easier to do something essentially trivial and count on the US government to over-react.)
It’s very early yet. We’ll learn more later. We may learn whatever the terrorist had was incapable of structurally damaging the plane. But the damage is already done.
[OK Chimes in: I'm curious, Off Kilter, how do you think we should respond, if at all?]
December 25, 2009, 9:44 pmLysenko says:
As for the liquids rule, at least one report said he boarded the flight in Nigeria and stayed aboard in Amsterdam. Somehow I doubt that airport security in Nigeria is enforcing the latest TSA regs.
December 25, 2009, 10:06 pmEvilDave says:
What I find most infuriating is not the terrorist attack, in and of itself, but the fact that he got explosives on the plane!!!
Why the F’ do I have to go through that security-theater every time I board a plane if this c*** is going to go on?
.
I guess I should be happy that they don’t ask the 2 Stupid Questions anymore. “Has anyone asked you to carry a package on this plane? Are you carrying a bomb on this plane?”
Really????
They expected a terrorist to be thwarted by honesty?
“Oh I was morally willing to kill 100+ people but I cannot tell a lie. You caught me with your tricky questions. Curse you! Foiled again!”
Upon further reading, the headline (other website) of him setting off fireworks was “misleading”. So, my irritation is a bit assuaged. Sorry
December 25, 2009, 10:07 pmMark N. says:
I’d say: the same way we respond to all other threats to life. Try to find low-impact measures that will mitigate the risk, and consider higher-impact measures by balancing the decrease in risk they might produce against the increase in harm and inconvenience to innocent people, and expense.
For example, we don’t take drastic actions with regard to freeways that have higher-than-average rates of accidents—even very high rates—but we do look into how we might make them safer. Terrorists, of course, make people angrier than freeway accidents, because there clearly is someone at fault, and we’d like to both prevent them from succeeding, and exact retribution, in a way that’s more emotionally charged than when it seems that the loss of life was merely due to chance or nature.
But I don’t think that ought to tilt the scales all the way to the opposite extreme of being terrified and willing to do anything to counter what remains a fairly remote threat: the average American’s chance of being killed in a terrorist attack are and will remain extremely low. So sure, look into whether there are reasonable ways to improve security, without turning us into “Fortress America”.
But I personally think American values are worth running some personal risk for, and would gladly accept a somewhat higher chance of being killed in a terrorist attack (which remains exceptionally low, anyway) versus accept further erosions of freedoms and more—and more invasive—government searches of innocent people.
December 25, 2009, 10:09 pmAvid reader, reluctant poster says:
It’s interesting that he would wait until final descent. Why fly from Nigeria, through Amsterdam, and wait until Detroit to detonate?
[OK Chimes in: I can think of two possibilities. First, they may have wanted the explosion to be in a populated area to increase the chances that the explosion or crash would be caught on videotape. Second, they may have wanted the explosion to be near a populated area so the exploding plane parts kill people on the ground. That is, you kill more Americans if the plane kills people who happen to live near the path of the incoming plane. ]
December 25, 2009, 10:12 pmdrunkdriver says:
We were indeed lucky this time. There are a lot of very stupid and dangerous people in this world.
EvilDave, I’ve not heard them ask the second question, but have you ever considered they might be using that face time to look at more than just the verbal answers people give them?
December 25, 2009, 10:13 pmOff Kilter says:
OK asks how I’d respond. I’d respond as he responds to substantive questions about Constitutional interpretation. I’d say I’m not an expert in this area, which relieves me of answering these sort of questions, but nonetheless I’m quite confident of my opinion as stated above. :-)
Or I could go with Mark N’s very reasonable analysis…
December 25, 2009, 10:15 pmTatil says:
If it was a Northwest flight as reported, they have to. Otherwise, FAA doesn’t let them land in the US. There is a separate set of procedures that international airports follow just for the planes headed to the US or they just expand these procedures for the entire international terminal. I guess the latter one may make it easier to keep track. For example, we were allowed to enter the domestic terminal of the airport in Sydney with a bottle of water and board the plane with it, but when we were coming back to the US, they made us dispose of the water bottles.
December 25, 2009, 10:15 pmTatil says:
Do you believe all the cops take the day off on Christmas? How about soldiers, you know that big group of federal employees? If not, what makes you think federal air marshalls would be any different? Is this just “government is evil ideology” taking over high level functions of your brain?
December 25, 2009, 10:19 pmTatil says:
I was curious of it myself as well. Wouldn’t the pressure difference between the inside of the plane and outside at high altitude over the Atlantic make the plane more vulnerable? I read a bit more on CNN about the terrorist managing to light himself on fire and passengers putting it out by putting a blanket over his legs. I may have to take back my comment about their increasing sophistication.
[OK Chimes in: I can think of two possibilities. First, they may have wanted the explosion to be in a populated area to increase the chances that the explosion or crash would be caught on videotape. Second, they may have wanted the explosion to be near a populated area so the exploding plane parts kill people on the ground. That is, you kill more Americans if the plane kills people who happen to live near the path of the incoming plane. ]
December 25, 2009, 10:23 pmkumquat says:
If I had to guess, I’d say he wanted to cause maximum disruption in the US, and figured blowing up (or appearing to try to blow up) the plane over a major US city would cause more public turmoil than doing so out in the middle of the Atlantic.
December 25, 2009, 10:35 pmPeteP says:
We should send the son of a bitch to some place with no name that he never comes back from.
Instead, I’m sure Holder et al will give him lawyers and a nice comfy warm private cell with special food and other indulgences that ‘respect his religious beliefs’.
In the meantime, apparently AQ has found a new way to bring down airplanes that waltzes through our ‘culturally sensitive’ ‘non profiling’ security measures like a 5 year old at the McDonald’s playground area.
Doubtless we will continue to give as much security-related attention to 78 year old white grandmothers as we do Muslims from troubled areas of the world.
merry xmass.
December 25, 2009, 10:36 pmdrunkdriver says:
This is the most rational comment I’ve seen so far. I haven’t seen press confirmation yet, but I’ve heard from a friend in D.C. that Holder actually drove back to the office tonight- well, sent for a limo- and they’re pulling an all-nighter trying to design the most comfortable cell possible, evaluating what evidence they can voluntarily decline to present at the trial, while also stepping up the “white people interrogation program.”
December 25, 2009, 10:41 pmPeteP says:
“It’s interesting that he would wait until final descent. Why fly from Nigeria, through Amsterdam, and wait until Detroit to detonate?”
A ) to hose the airport, and the entire national air system, and B ) to drive home the point that it happened on American soil.
“Somehow I doubt that airport security in Nigeria is enforcing the latest TSA regs.”
Why not ? after all, the TSA was kind enough to publish the whole thing on the Internet …..
December 25, 2009, 10:45 pmRicardo says:
“Reports” like these are often based on dubious information and turn out later to be incorrect — remember the “reports” of a car bomb going off near the State Department in D.C. on 9/11/01?
In my experience, any time there is a connecting international flight headed toward the U.S., they make everyone get off the plane at the airport and go through a security checkpoint which is, in fact, enforcing the latest TSA regulations. Sometimes there is a separate checkpoint right at the boarding gate manned by a private security firm who wand and frisk passengers and confiscate water bottles.
If Amsterdam security did not in fact enforce TSA regulations — not that they are much different from EU or Dutch regulations at this point — this is going to be a big issue. Theoretically, all planes originating in Amsterdam could be banned from U.S. airspace as the most extreme response. I doubt it is as simple as this, though.
December 25, 2009, 10:47 pmAvid reader, reluctant poster says:
Thanks OK. I haven’t flown into Detroit recently, and what you say makes sense.
Third possibility: if it’s going to fail, better it do so over US soil? Habeas, etc.
December 25, 2009, 10:52 pmJon says:
Perhaps Obama will consider his reinstatement of Clinton’s Presidential Decision Directive 39.
December 25, 2009, 10:54 pmSoronel Haetir says:
Besides, the rule (at least as of last week) was not “no liquids” it was “containers of less than 3oz and all must fit in a single 1qt clear plastic bag, with suitable exceptions for medical supplies and infant care products”.
December 25, 2009, 10:56 pmresh says:
Visual impact. AQ would stress maximum visual impact as the backdrop of their chaos and calamity. It’s their m.o. Thus, wait until the plane lands or is in direct descent.
CNN, Fox News, etc., would have offered worldwide coverage, replete with bodies and blood, as the scene at Detroit unfolded before our angered eyes on Christmas, had it happened as plotted.
Bin Laden and especially Zawahiri love the spotlight. Ditto the clones. They care less about death and terrorism than the graphic sensationalism it accords them when properly executed.
December 25, 2009, 11:06 pmMike says:
Even if the bomb had gone off, flying would still be safer (way, way, way safer) than driving. So why should I be afraid?
Sure, it’s great that Americans didn’t die. This attempt does not strike fear into my heart. Hopefully my fellow Americans will put risks, costs, and benefits into perspective.
How many billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers lives and millions of wasted hours are we going to devote to make flying .00001% safer?
[OK Chimes in: It's particularly safer flying rather than driving from Amsterdam.]
December 25, 2009, 11:15 pmKazinski says:
Turn him over to the passengers. I think they’ll no what to do.
December 25, 2009, 11:19 pmPeteP says:
“Perhaps Obama will consider his reinstatement of Clinton’s Presidential Decision Directive 39″
More likely, he’ll find something to apologize to Nigeria for – perhaps the bad airline food that drove this poor unfortunate peace-loving religious man to such a dire action. Then he’ll bow deeply at the waist to President Umaru Yar’Adua on camera, and offer increased foreign aid.
December 25, 2009, 11:23 pmPeteP says:
“How many billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers lives and millions of wasted hours are we going to devote to make flying .00001% safer?”
How many terrorist mass murders on American soil or against Americans elsewhere would you like us to accept as ‘not that big a deal’, before we respond with overwhelming force and finality ?
December 25, 2009, 11:27 pmMike says:
You can never have finality.
Look, people die every day of preventable causes. Lack of health care. Car accidents from unsafe cars. Home accidents. Terrorist attacks are way down the list of things for me to worry about. Just plug around the CDC website. It’s eye-opening.
Of course, terrorism works as well for the United States government as it does for the terrorists – maybe even better. Folks become afraid, and willingly surrender their rights to the government, and allow the government to enrich private interests at taxpayer expense. All of this must be done to mitigate what it, in reality, a trivial risk.
December 25, 2009, 11:43 pmNR says:
I don’t know that I would call this an “Apparent Al Qaeda” Terror Attack with so few facts in and counterterrorism officials telling the press that (a) it appears at this point the terrorist acted alone and (b) there are reasons to doubt his professed Al Qaeda connections.
The NYT article says:
{“It’s too early to say what his association is,” the counterterrorism official said. “At this point, it seems like he was acting alone, but we don’t know for sure.” Although Mr. Abdulmutallab is said to have told officials that he was directed by Al Qaeda, the counterterrorism official expressed caution about that claim, saying “it may have been aspirational.”}
And:
{Mr. King, of the Homeland Security Committee, said there was no indication that anyone else was involved . . . .}
I didn’t see anything in the LAT article that tied Mudallad to Al Qaeda.
[OK Chimes in: I say “apparent al qaeda” because the news reports are saying that the guy was interviewed, and he himself told authorities that he was trained by al qaeda to do this. I tend to think that’s enough to say “apparent,” at least at this stage. I don't know if the particular stories I linked to included this; I read about a dozen stories and then linked to two.]
December 25, 2009, 11:45 pmMike says:
Because that is the narrative.
There are nuts everywhere. People get killed and raped every day. Crime is faceless.
If you’re a government interested in enriching your friends and future employers, then you must put a face to the random lunacy. The current face is known as Al Qaeda.
Even smart folks like Orin Kerr have fallen for this narrative. Which is just a testament to how brilliantly the government manipulate mass opinion.
Terror!
Life is terror. Life is risk. My wife might get raped tonight. I might get stabbed, shot, mugged, defaced in a fire, or paralyzed in a car crash. Instead of recognizing that life is risk and chaos, we need to believe that there is an Enemy. Give the enemy a face, so we can fight it.
Thus, it’s not just for government aggrandizement that we are to believe this is Al Qaeda. It’s for our own mental health. It’s healthy for us to believe that there is an Enemy we can fight using logical methods. Recognizing that much of life is chaos and randomness is best left for philosophical existentialists.
[OK Chimes in: I say "apparent al qaeda" because the news reports are saying that the guy was interviewed, and he himself told authorities that he was trained by al qaeda to do this. I tend to think that's enough to say "apparent," at least at this stage.]
December 25, 2009, 11:51 pmDoug Sundseth says:
Another tactical reason for waiting until the descent into Detroit is that at that time people in the plane are mostly strapped in to their seats. This could be expected to restrict and delay any passenger response to the sort of suspicious action the terrorist was involved in.
As to response: Further ineffectual confiscations and random searches of 90-year-old women and 7-year-old children will harm every person flying on commercial aircraft without materially affecting the probability of a successful attack. Interviews by people trained to catch behavioral cues and searches targeted at higher-probability groups might have some positive effect.
(Yes, I’m aware that the terrorists will just “get people not in those groups” to carry the bombs. But even in Israel, where counter-terror has been pretty successful and the terrorists have tried to do just that, the vast majority of terrorists are still from the same easily identifiable groups. Perhaps it isn’t so easy to get 50-year-old white women of European descent to blow themselves up?)
December 26, 2009, 12:03 amA. Zarkov says:
OK Chimes in: I’m curious, Off Kilter, how do you think we should respond, if at all?
My short answer is: copy what Israel does. El Al has a pretty good record in keeping terrorists off airplanes. One reason is they use intelligent agents for their airport screening. It is my impression that for the most part the US does not. Our system is cost driven and as such we tend to have low-paid, agents of low intellect.
Many argue that the US cannot copy the Israeli airport security system because for some reason it doesn’t scale. That might be true, but so far no one has given me a compelling argument why it won’t scale.
I’m not sure how much Israel is willing to tell the US about their security methods, especially with our current government. I don’t think they trust Obama anyone than I do. I once asked a security investigator, “could Obama get a high level security clearance, and that person said “no.”
Another way we could improve our security system is to use profiling, which is nothing more than being a rational classifier. Israel does that as any intellegent government would. We don’t have an intelligent government.
December 26, 2009, 12:07 amDavid Schwartz says:
From the description, it sounds like he was trying to use potassium permanganate, possibly mixed with iron oxide and aluminum powder to ignite ethylene glycol or glycerine. A device like that would consist of a cylinder with mixed iron oxide and aluminum powder with the potassium permanganate at the top. You’d then pour the glycerine into the top and wait for the reaction to start.
If you luck out, the reaction once started in earnest is unstoppable and could burn down all the way through the plane. I believe none of these compounds are detected by bomb detection equipment. And three ounces of glycerine would likely be enough. The catch is that the ignition mechanism is very unreliable. At cold temperatures, it can take a very long time and start fairly slowly.
You’d also need several pounds and be very, very unlikely to actually bring a plane down. (I’m speculating based on very limited information.)
December 26, 2009, 12:40 amAnthony says:
Depends on what you want it to be vulnerable to; I doubt it’s any more vulnerable to fire. I suspect the main reason to detonate a bomb on landing (if we assume technical competence, which may be unreasonable) is because it doesn’t take much of a disruption to turn a landing into a crash, whereas a plane flying at 40,000 feet can lose control for an extended period and still recover, just because there isn’t much nearby to hit.
December 26, 2009, 12:49 amA. Zarkov says:
This current incident looks like a page from the Bojinka plot, where Ramzi Yousev tried to blow up an airliner with a Mark II micro bomb.These are liquid-based very small bombs that fit into a Casio watch, which you can still wear! However the batteries won’t fit, so Yousev carried them in the heel of his shoe on his December 11, 1994 test run. It seems airport scanners don’t reach below one inch off the floor. This is why you have to take off your shoes when going through airport security. Now if Bojinka showed us that liquids pose a credible threat to airliners, then why did it take so long to prohibit them? If liquids don’t pose a threat then why the inconvenience?
December 26, 2009, 12:55 amLumpy says:
Zarkov,
December 26, 2009, 1:13 amThe technical term for the inconvenience of the liquids ban is “security theater”
GCA says:
I am not a huge international traveler, but I have made four trips to Europe in the last 11 years, and flew through Amsterdam on two of them, both pre 9/11. More recently I flew through Frankfort and London. The point is that all of them are “hubs”, and in the future I will pay more attention to where the flight back to the US came from. Having transferred flights in those airports, my experience has been that once cleared at a previous airport, no checks are made at those airports. Of course this could have been because my trips back home originated in the EU or Norway.
Mike’s paranoia against our own government is not, in this instance, well placed. 9/11 was real, Ramzi Yousef’s actions in the middle ’90s were real, radical Muslims consider these tactics successful, and they will continue with them. It appears that the best and the brightest do not volunteer to be suicide bombers, but that does not warrant making it easy for them to carry out their “missions”. As an occasional international traveler, I do not consider the risk trivial, especially when I am on an international flight that may have originated somewhere that this country is perceived among many as evil.
December 26, 2009, 1:36 amGene Hoffman says:
I believe that this is the third time that average civilians have thwarted terrorist attacks on aircraft. The first was UA 93, the second Richard Reid, and Christmas day 2009 is three. I may be leaving one or two out..
On any given day, what is unlikely is that there is an employee of the United States Government on a flight with an AQ agent. What is very likely is that there is a United States Citizen…
Further proscriptions on travel have the problem of being multiplied by 400 million annually. If the extra cost of additional screening is just 5 dollars, we’re wasting $2 Trillion annually with the sheer hope that the Federal Government might save us through security theater…
I wish we were only paying $5/trip/TSA employee all in…
-Gene
December 26, 2009, 1:40 amRobert B says:
I used to be an airline security official, and I can shed some light on the probability of an air marshal being present: the odds are slim to none. Without making statements that could get me arrested (not a joke), the air Marshals I’ve seen have always flown first class, so they have better access to the cock pit in case of a takeover attempt (I’m not familiar with NW 747 layout, so if it was a 747 this may change things). As has been previously noted, I would strongly suggest that whoever interveened was just a common citizen, with a fairly high likelyhood of being a veteran.
As for the chemical makeup, the machines used at passenger screening are magnetrons, so many chemicals can pass through without being detected. The scanners for checked luggage on the other hand use a combination of magetrons and spectrum analysis (not sure how they atomize the sample), so a the components are more likely to be found that way. Unfortunately, I don’t know all of the chemicals they look for, so I don’t know if this applies.
Since I know we have chemists reading this, any comments on how much potassium (or similar chemical) would be needed to melt a hole in aluminum? Is it in the scale a person could smuggle onboard?
December 26, 2009, 2:07 amOrin Kerr says:
Thanks for the very interesting comment, Robert B.
December 26, 2009, 2:19 amA. Zarkov says:
I heard that Air Marshalls are readily identifiable by their mode of dress which follows a standard pattern. I don’t know if this is true or you dare to comment on it. In any case simple arithmetic tells us that any given flight is almost certain not to have an Air Marshall. In the other hand, I’ve heard that every El Al flight has some kind of well-trained security operative.
December 26, 2009, 3:26 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Apparent Al-Qaeda Terror Attack on Flight to Detroit Fails When Explosive Device Doesn’t Explode -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PostRank – Politics, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: Apparent Al-Qaeda Terror Attack on Flight to Detroit Fails When Explosive Device Doesn’t Explode: We were lucky.. http://bit.ly/7VCCml [...]
December 26, 2009, 3:44 amBruce Hayden says:
My guess is that the problem is primarily a combination of our view of civil liberties and that we have a lot of people at the top (esp. now) to the left on the political spectrum. We saw what happened with the flying imams, who were bounced from a flight because of what looks to have been an intentional attempt either to test our systems or to manipulate our security system into reducing just this sort of security.
The six imams seem to have been going out of their way to trigger airport security. And, it worked – they got evicted from the plane. But after that? This last July, U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery allowed a discrimination lawsuit filed by the imams to proceed, saying, “The right not to be arrested in the absence of probable cause is clearly established and, based on the allegations … no reasonable officer could have believed that the arrest of the Plaintiffs was proper.”
The Israelis don’t have those considerations to worry about. They don’t have to worry that removing passengers who appear to be intending to take over a plane may violate their Constitutional rights, if the behavior does not rise to the level of probable cause required to make an arrest.
December 26, 2009, 4:10 amBill Poser says:
So, if the probability of an Air Marshall being present and able to thwart the terrorists is low while the probability of Joe-Average-Citizen being present is high, can the case be made that allowing passengers to board bearing suitable weapons (say knives and small-calibre handguns with frangible ammunition) would be more likely to thwart terror attacks than to cause problems?
December 26, 2009, 4:32 ampot meet kettle says:
are we sure the guy isn’t just an ardent emailer frustrated by the absence of any response to his repeated offers to share his billions of dollars that he has stashed away, if only somebody would help him get it away from the corrupt government officials without getting caught?
December 26, 2009, 4:39 amRicardo says:
My own experience with Amsterdam in particular was flying Warsaw-Amsterdam-JFK on KLM post-9/11. There was indeed a security checkpoint that every passenger had to pass through while at Amsterdam. For what it’s worth, Amsterdam struck me as having relatively intelligent security personnel and I’ve spoken with others who have had similar experiences. The security agent was making small talk with me about where I had been, where I was going, what my occupation was while searching my bag and it occurred to me that that was probably a subtle interrogation more than anything else. He was looking for gaps in my story or any evidence of nervousness that would justify more intensive screening.
Daniel Pipes wrote about Israeli airport security several years ago and quoted an average security expense of about $70 per passenger per flight. Now, the average likelihood of being in a fatal crash aboard an American airliner is currently about 0.5 out of 1 million departures and the vast majority of that 0.5 number comes from mechanical failure/air traffic control error/pilot error. Terrorist attacks make up a negligible fraction of fatal crashes. You really want to spend $60-70 extra per flight to bump that 0.5 number down to maybe 0.45? Let’s keep things in perspective.
That strikes me as an enormous overreaction and waste of resources. The money could be spent to greater effect by improving airport infrastructure or upgrading the air traffic control system and would probably save more lives as well.
December 26, 2009, 4:47 ampot meet kettle says:
I know, Bruce! It is a real pity that the Constitution even permits Muslims to have rights. Are we sure that an originalist reading of the Constitution can be used to prevent Muslims, or to be safer, anyone with a beard or dark skin, from ever getting on a plane?
December 26, 2009, 4:47 amBruce Hayden says:
Let me suggest just the opposite. For most of us, flying is a privilege. If we don’t want to conform to the TSA requirements, then we just don’t fly. If the flight attendant doesn’t like me, and convinces the other flight attendants that I am dangerous looking, or just refused to follow her orders, I am escorted off the plane. Even Chuckie Schumer had to follow their rules last week.
But that doesn’t seem to apply to suspicious Moslem looking passengers who look like they may be terrorists. They don’t have to follow the rules. And if they look dangerous, tough.
And, yet, I will contend that they should be getting increased surveillance, not lessened surveillance. The successful and unsuccessful terrorists attacks since 9/10/01 have not been carried out by 90 year old grandmothers, or 10 year old children. Rather, there is a very specific profile, that TSA is apparently prohibited looking at. And, yes, that profile happens to be 20 something males, often wearing Moslem garb, and doing other strange things like buying one-way tickets w/o carrying luggage aboard that sort of thing. And, surprise, surprise, that profile happens to match almost perfectly the set of people who have either tried or succeeded at committing terrorist acts on planes since 9/10/01.
So, instead, the TSA randomly pats down 90 year old grandmothers, while apparently not being allowed to look at the age, sex, and ethnic background of passengers.
Let me add that cops routinely profile people. Sure, it isn’t right, but it is necessary for their job. This includes popping the white guys cruising bad black neighborhoods, and looking twice at guys dressed and acting like gang members. They get pulled over just to be checked out, much more than I, and likely you, because statistically, they are much more likely to be up to no good.
And, my original point was that we cannot implement the Israelis security measures for just the reasons that you bring up and illustrate here. Just because someone matches the logical profile of a terrorist is apparently no reason under our legal system to give him (and it is almost assuredly, so far, a him) an extra look, whereas that is assumed under the Israeli system.
December 26, 2009, 5:22 amDavid Nieporent says:
How many international flights are there every day? How many have been blown up by terrorists? What percentage of the former is the latter? How can that be said to be anything other than trivial?
Of the incidents, how many since Pan Am 103, which was twenty years ago? (Four planes on 9/11 — which was 8 years ago now — none of which were bombs, and none were international.)
December 26, 2009, 5:30 amRicardo says:
Wait a minute. The guy who tried to blow up the plane is Nigerian — which means he is probably black. On the other hand, the guy this reporter interviewed is named Syed Jafri and was returning from a trip to the UAE — presumably he looks Arab. If you had to guess beforehand which would be more likely to blow up the plane, who would you have chosen?
December 26, 2009, 5:58 amRich Rostrom says:
One minor point: It appears that this man’s attack used an improvised explosive or incendiary that was unreliable and of limited effectiveness.
Apparently this method was chosen because the materials could be passed through airport security.
My conclusion is that for all the carping about “security theater”, the present air travel security measures do make it substantially more difficult (nearly impossible) for would-be terrorists to bring reliable, effective weapons or explosives onto airliners.
If they could do that, they wouldn’t be resorting to these other methods.
I once read a review of Apocalypse Now which noted that while the film as a whole was a failure, it had some immensely effective scenes. He concluded “I guess you can’t spend $32M and not get something for it.”
Perhaps the TSA is similar: wasteful, and perhaps an overall failure, but still putting a lot of obstacles in the way of those who would hijack or destroy planes.
December 26, 2009, 6:13 amlukas says:
We were lucky? Come on. Blowing up a plane in-flight is hard, in fact it is nigh impossible for someone on the inside with the limitations that today’s airport security screenings impose, inefficient though they may be. So some wannabe terrorist set off a few firecrackers on a plane. Big fecking deal.
December 26, 2009, 6:28 amMike says:
What paranoia? Do you dispute that the War on Terror is highly profitable for people who give money and jobs to the government – and who keep the door of government revolving?
Here, we have some idiot who lit himself on fire on a plant. Must be Al Qaeda!
Let’s be real: If this idiot says he’s Al Qaeda, will anyone question him to confirm that he really is? Or will we just all run with the narrative?
Things I worry about: $12.4 trillion government debt; record bonuses at Goldman Sachs (made possible by U.S. taxpayers); Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; etc.
It’s no doubt a coincidence that the random idiot who light himself on fire is going to be “traced” by the Al Qaeda.
Saying that the government will capitalize on this stuff is not the same thing as saying that the government caused it. Here, it was some idiot on a plane. If Obama et al. (and Bush would have done the same thing, so this is not a partisan issue) can scare everyone – Boo! – and thus distract us from the real issues…Fantastic for them. And you’d better believe they will. Ad Rahm Emanuel said regarding the market crisis last year, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
Keep us all afraid of idiots trying to light themselves on fire, while the banksters rob us blind.
December 26, 2009, 6:59 amNickM says:
You can’t say that the risk of being killed in a terrorist attack will always remain extremely low. If the attacks are by means of standard explosives, then the chances will be low. If they ever start using effective bioweapons, it’s a whole new ballgame.
Worse, a biowar attack wouldn’t even need to take place in the U.S. Spring breakers in Cancun pose a soft target – and in less than a week, something deadly and communicable has been spread all over the U.S.
Nick
December 26, 2009, 7:25 amRodger Lodger says:
You mean sending troops to Afghanistan is not working?
December 26, 2009, 7:33 amPeteP says:
[Deleted by OK. PeteP, calling another commenter "Idiot" is not civil. If you cannot be civil, you will be banned.]
December 26, 2009, 7:49 amNowMDJD says:
Do you know what legal constraints restrict Israeli security measures? They certainly are not nonexistent– Israel; is a parliamentary democracy. Furthermore, its Supreme Court has been active in extending civil rights and liberties. (I don’t know, but we shouldn’t assume that Israeli security can do as it pleases.)
December 26, 2009, 7:51 amBT says:
The question I have is did he have help in some way through security? Lets assume for the sake of argument that he is in fact an Al Qaeda operative, could someone who screened his bags been in on the plan? I think that possibility is worth considering.
December 26, 2009, 8:11 amdevoman says:
Another likely explanation for why it happened on the descent into Detroit is the man’s mental war with ending his own life fighting with his will to do so. Finally, on the descent, the “now or never” impulse won.
December 26, 2009, 8:20 amJohn Fast says:
I strongly concur. And when we overreact, or rather mis-react, the terrorists win.
I think we should respond by improving actual security as opposed to the illusion of security. (We obviously don’t have real security if someone could get on a plane with explosives; but we do have enormous delays in airports.) I concur with people like Richard Epstein who suggest that each airline should be responsible for its own security procedures, and that they should be allowed much more flexibility. One suggestion is that airlines could implement profiling and heightened security at will on certain passengers . . . in return for compensating them for the inconvenience.
Of course another response would be to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, or at least to stop supporting corrupt undemocratic regimes in those countries. Another response, suggested by John T. Reed, would be to change the rules of engagement dealing with civilians back to what worked in World War II, and what has been generally recognized as part of the Laws of War, i.e. we should attempt to minimize collateral damage by designating war zones and allowing civilians to evacuate but that we are not responsible for the deaths of any who remain in or near designated targets — and that terrorists, particularly high terrorist officials, are always legitimate targets.
December 26, 2009, 8:32 amyankee says:
If this guy was really part of al-Qaeda, I’m going to have to slash my estimate of the threat they pose. I will not lose any sleep over people too incompetent to cause any significant damage even when they manage to sneak explosives onto airplanes.
December 26, 2009, 8:51 amJohn Fast says:
True, and apparently he was subdued by a single alert passenger — and ended up severely burned close to his crotch. And then pantsed, naked from the waist down in front of at least one female passenger.
For those from primitive, savage societies — the sort that conduct female genital mutilation and honor killings — publicizing his humiliation would probably be a strong deterrent. Remember Dean Ing’s story “Very Proper Charlies”?
December 26, 2009, 8:56 amPersonFromPorlock says:
I may have missed it in the comments, but another possible answer to “Why while landing in Detroit?” is that there was someone waiting on the ground to record the crash for propaganda use.
December 26, 2009, 9:06 amtamerlane says:
If they’d been asking stupid question one early enough Lockerbie wouldn’t have happened.They ask stupid questions because the world is full of even stupider people and clever terorists can take advantage of this fact.
This appears to have been a test of whether current security procedures can be by-passed. A cleverer operative might have caused more damage and even this rather stupid one came close. I’m sure al q’aida will be refining their methods. I hope the current administration can take its mind off ramming crap legislation down our throats long enough to do the same.
December 26, 2009, 9:08 ambearing says:
I hate it when “the passengers jumped him and subdued him” is characterized in media reports as “panic.”
December 26, 2009, 9:24 amThe Watcher says:
The Watcher recalls that the landing approach for Detroit’s Wayne County Airport is from the northeast, directly over the former jewish city of Southfield (still home to the holocaust museum and many synagogues), and directly visible from Dearborn–the city with the largest percentage of muslims in America, the city where the call to prayer is broadcast on loudspeakers 5 times per day and the schools have muslim footbaths.
December 26, 2009, 9:46 amjukeboxgrad says:
yankee:
He did cause significant damage: to himself.
But despite that, it’s incorrect for OK and others to claim that the attack failed. The purpose of the attack was to terrorize us. The attack was a success.
================
tamerlane:
This appears to have been a test of how little it takes to terrorize Americans. And the test was a success, because the answer is this: very little.
================
mike:
Indeed.
December 26, 2009, 9:53 amThe River Temoc, in Winter says:
I guess I should be happy that they don’t ask the 2 Stupid Questions anymore. “Has anyone asked you to carry a package on this plane? Are you carrying a bomb on this plane?’ They expected a terrorist to be thwarted by honesty?
First off, the “two questions” are whether anyone has given you items to carry, and whether you’ve packed your bags yourself and kept them under your control.
Second, they’re not aimed at the terrorists so much as unwitting accomplices.
And third, yes, they *have* thwarted attacks. There was a well-known incident whereby an Irish woman was given a gift by her Palestinian boyfriend to carry on an El Al flight out of Heathrow. Unbeknonwnst to the Irish woman, the “gift” turned out to be a bomb. El Al’s security, asked your oh-so-difficult two questions and unconvered the plot.
December 26, 2009, 10:04 amPersonFromPorlock says:
The various rebukes of Vermont Guy are probably well deserved, but it might be prudent to make sure the Air Marshals didn’t have Christmas off before jumping on him with both feet. Just sayin’.
December 26, 2009, 10:05 amjukeboxgrad says:
mike:
Exactly. Years before the Iraq war, the people who would eventually create that war were speaking openly about how the right crisis could act as a ‘catalyst.’
In September 2000 PNAC issued a report called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.” This report states “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.” About a year later PNAC had its “new Pearl Harbor,” and these folks wasted no time exploiting the opportunity to achieve goals that had already been set long before. Bush’s push for war needs to be seen in the context of this long-term intention to invade Iraq. If 9/11 had not happened, then sooner or later another pretext would have been found.
Indeed. And “capitalize” is exactly the right word. As is often the case, if you want to understand important events in history, follow the money. Certain people made a killing (link, link, link, link).
As you have said, this is a bipartisan problem. We have the best government money can buy. It would be good if we had a two-party system. I have often thought that Clinton was one of our best Republican presidents, and I may end up feeling that way about Obama.
It would not be possible to write a clearer and simpler description of this stage in American history.
================
porlock:
About 80% of Americans celebrate Christmas. It might be prudent to consider the possibility that some air marshals are Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc.
December 26, 2009, 10:17 amThe River Temoc, in Winter says:
Having transferred flights in those airports, my experience has been that once cleared at a previous airport, no checks are made at those airports.
Incorrect in the case of AMS; they have security checks at the gate, like at SIN. In several other European airports, there is a second security check near the gate for US-bound flights.
December 26, 2009, 10:19 amML says:
For the record, its Air Marshal with one ‘l.’ See http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/programs/fams.shtm; http://www.justice.gov/marshals/
December 26, 2009, 10:22 amThe River Temoc, in Winter says:
The Israelis don’t have those considerations to worry about. They don’t have to worry that removing passengers who appear to be intending to take over a plane may violate their Constitutional rights, if the behavior does not rise to the level of probable cause required to make an arrest.
Um, do you actually *know* anything about Israeli politics or jurisprudence?
December 26, 2009, 10:23 amThe River Temoc, in Winter says:
Rather, there is a very specific profile, that TSA is apparently prohibited looking at. And, yes, that profile happens to be 20 something males, often wearing Moslem garb, and doing other strange things like buying one-way tickets w/o carrying luggage aboard that sort of thing.
Please cite a source for this.
December 26, 2009, 10:26 amMatthew X. Economou says:
I fly through Amsterdam-Schiphol (usually on my way to or from Detroit Metro) on a regular basis. AMS is a major hub for flights into and out of Europe, as well as destinations within Africa (there are few direct flights within Africa). Like Frankfurt am Main and Charles De Gaulle, passengers are re-screened at the gate. (I think this is the case for all international airports in the EU, but I am not certain.) The process at AMS involves an interview in which one’s itinerary and travel documents are scrutinized, a metal detector, and an X-ray machine, followed up by a bag inspection if anything odd is seen on the X-ray. Travelers from Africa (i.e., black- or brown-skinned people with African passports) tend to get more attention in these screenings, probably due to pressure on the border agents to prevent illegal immigration from many former European colonies. It’s probable that this alleged terrorist received additional attention from the security staff at AMS, just due to the fact of his nationality and appearance.
I have always felt that the degree of screening in Europe is better than in the U.S. It certainly seems less cursory and more serious. The interview always puts me in the mind of the process I hear employed by El Al. Even though I see how Bayes theorem applies to security screenings, that this fellow was able to smuggle things onto the AMS-DFW flight is a serious concern for me. I’m very glad to hear no one was killed.
December 26, 2009, 10:31 amAllan Leedy says:
Why is this flight different from all other flights?
December 26, 2009, 10:38 amMalvolio says:
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
It’s possible that our poor-quality security is in fact sufficient for the poor-quality terrorists we also seem to have, but the truth is, if you want to blow up a airplane, put a wad of C4 in your pocket (since C4 won’t show up on the metal detector), put the detonators in your carry-on (since detonators will look like pens on the X-ray), and right as the plane leaves the runway, blow it and yourself to Jannah. All you have to do be smart enough to figure this out without being too smart to do it.
December 26, 2009, 10:49 amMark Field says:
Not Madrid. I recently flew from the US to Europe. The flight required a stopover in Madrid along with a change of planes. I didn’t have to go through security there.
December 26, 2009, 11:09 amHumza@flights to Nigeria says:
Something is wrong here..An intelligence officer sitting nearby, a white powder, a black man a muslim name,= a set up! i wonder now whay amerikkka will ask from Nigeria for his release
December 26, 2009, 11:16 amGCA says:
How Many attacks have been thwarted that we never heard about? How many successful attacks have been either covered up or, where the evidence is ambiguous, swept under the rug (two possibilities come immediately to mind – TWA flight 800 and the Air France flight that disintegrated over the South Atlantic last year). The problem is not completely solvable, and airplanes will remain targets as long as there remain unhinged people, a condition that won’t go away anytime soon. But to say that the problem is trivial, and imply that it warrants no push back, is itself sheer insanity. If that is what you believe, volunteer to get on the first, well publicized in advance, flight that does away with security.
December 26, 2009, 11:24 amAllan Leedy says:
It seems curious that this person, with alleged Al Qaeda connections, has a visa to enter the US (which I assume from the fact that he was on a flight to the US). Isn’t visa processing subject to a little more intelligent review than airport security?
December 26, 2009, 12:07 pmA. Zarkov says:
They got arrested, which is more than simply getting evicted from a flight. It’s hard for me to believe that their behavior did not raise to a level sufficient to justify something like a Terry Stop. They didn’t get thrown off the plane for simply being imams. Let’s see what happens on appeal.
In any case the civil suit problem could be eliminated by Congress.
December 26, 2009, 12:38 pmpc says:
Not Off Kilter, but I’ll give it a go. We should treat this incident like the pathetic failure it was. Guy goes on trial, gets convicted and serves a life sentence. We should point out that al Qaeda is a powerless organization that got lucky and go on with our lives. Terrorists want to be in the spotlight. Why should we give terrorists what they want?
December 26, 2009, 12:45 pmChris Travers says:
If it is true that it was part of an organized (rather than lone) terrorism plot, then I would question the competence of said terrorists. Since I am hardly more than an interested individual of little more than common knowledge, I may be missing something but wouldn’t landing phase be a lot less desirable than takeoff/climb for timing to try to down the aircraft?
Sounds to me like he was either a lone crazy or else the attack was badly planned. On the basis of this I would be inclined to rule out more successful terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda. In some cases in the past, attacks related to rapidly developing events (like the ABB trial in Indonesia) might be attempted without sufficient planning but this doesn’t seem to fit here.
My guess would be that this individual was a lone copycat and had limited support if any. Most likely he was a lone crazy. Just my $0.02.
December 26, 2009, 12:49 pmChris Travers says:
What makes you think it was organized? It doesn’t strike me as a very competent or well planned attack. I am wondering if he even had any help at all beyond, maybe, watching videos on the internet.
Also we don’t know what indrect influence they have had either. I can tell you one example where a quick mind and such may have saved me from jail time (I don’t know obviously what was in the bag in question).
This last summer, my family and I flew to Quito to visit some friends for two weeks. The flights both ways was riddled with problems. However, with a lot of patience we did eventually arrive in Quito (an hour late and very tired but there nonetheless).
The trip back however had one wrinkle in it that should serve as a warning to anyone who ever flies anywhere. When we showed up at the gate at the Quito (Mariscal Sucre Airport), I was told I had to wait at the counter to “deal with my luggage.” After some confusion was cleared up, I was told I had to go (with one of my kids, but not my wife or the other kid, oddly) down to talk to Interpol about something related to my luggage.
The guy ahead of me was asked whether a certain bag was his. He said it was. He ran it through an x-ray machine, and they told him it was OK. It was then my turn. I was asked whether a certain bag was mine. The bag did look vaguely like one of our bags, but it was definitely not our bag. It would have been really easy to just say “sure” to try to expedite things but I said “no, that’s not my bag.” The officers asked me a few more questions and I answered them. Then they talked to eachother for a bit and said I was free to re-enter the airport. While my guess was that it was a case where a drug dog smelled something, it should serve as a warning NEVER to accept responsibility for items in air travel that are not your own.
I do have to wonder if the fact that many people have been asked those questions may have made people less likely to carry drugs and/or explosives onto airplanes unwittingly.
December 26, 2009, 1:04 pmjukeboxgrad says:
hoffman:
I believe this is roughly the third time in this thread that someone has assumed, for no good reason, that the person who intervened (or at least the first person to intervene) was not an air marshal. Notice that “Abdulmutallab was apparently in a government law enforcement-intelligence database.” Therefore it is plausible that an air marshal would have been seated not just near him, but behind him. It also seems that this person reacted quickly, which is consistent with a scenario where he had spent the whole flight monitoring Abdulmutallab.
Really? How do you know? The Federal Air Marshal Service expanded rapidly after 9/11, and employs “thousands,” and has a budget of roughly $600 million. I think that international flights arrive at a rate of roughly 2000 per day. Make some assumptions and crunch some numbers and I think it becomes apparent that the odds of an air marshal being on any given international flight might be higher than you think.
I also notice that roughly 25 hours has elapsed since the event, and a number of passengers have been interviewed and quoted by name, but no one (as far as I know) has named or interviewed the ” ‘sturdy guy [who] put a lock’ around the head of the suspect” (link). Even though zillions of reporters are now chasing this story, and even though he is the first passenger a reporter would seek to interview. He seems to have disappeared. Which makes sense if he’s an air marshal, and which doesn’t make sense if he’s JAHP (Just Another Heroic Passenger).
At any moment, evidence could emerge proving I’m wrong. But the evidence currently available points in a certain direction.
December 26, 2009, 1:13 pmVermont Guy says:
After working 17 years for a large city government I consider it proof that I have brain functions.
Thanks Person but its OK. The defenders of the air marshals suggest to me there are actually people getting on airplanes thinking, “We’ll be safe, the air marshals will protect us.”
I didn’t actually say they had Christmas off, I said it was more likely they had the day off then any were actually on the plane. That point has been well made in theses posts.
And I just have to point out that Tatil used “marshall”. Twice. Make of it what you will.
December 26, 2009, 1:15 pmpc says:
I don’t know that it was. Information is still coming out; maybe it was al Qaeda, maybe it wasn’t. Either way, terrorism is pathetic. Acts of terrorism are committed by small people with small minds who can’t contribute anything positive to the world so they seek attention in other ways. Terrorists don’t deserve the attention they get.
December 26, 2009, 1:16 pmChris Travers says:
Very true.
It is often worth reminding people that in September of 2001, more than 3000 people were killed on American soil by the greatest menace that exists to our safety: Automobiles. The numbers of deaths in that month was not statistically high.
Every month, more Americans die on our roads and highways in car crashes than were killed in the worst terrorist attack in our history as a nation. In terms of threat, it is unlikely that terrorists will ever match the danger to each of us posed by the automobile.
Heck, in Israel, there has only been ONE month where terrorists killed more people than cars.
Maybe highway safety should be a bigger priority than the war on terrorism?
December 26, 2009, 1:35 pmJoseph Slater says:
Detroit’s my local airport, so I’m following this story with some interest. For now I’ll just say I thought this line from OK was pretty funny: [OK Chimes in: It’s particularly safer flying rather than driving from Amsterdam.]
December 26, 2009, 1:40 pmA. Zarkov says:
Let’s do the numbers. We have 37,000 domestic flights per day. I’ll take your 2,000 international flights and assume a pro-rata allocation of air marshals. That’s about 5%. Let’s also be generous and assume the whole $600 million goes to support flying air marshals. I’m going to assume that an FTE costs them about $250k, which includes benefits, salary, overhead, special charges etc. That buys you 2,400 air marshals. Each one will work about 2,000 hours per year. That gives us 4.8 million hours. Take 5% and we get about 1/4 million hours per year or 658 hours per day to cover those 2,000 international flights. Let’s assume the typical flight to the US takes 10 hours. That means we have about 66 air marshals to put on those 2,000 flights. That means there’s a 3% probability that an international flight picked at random has a US air marshal
Is that a deturrent? I’m not sure.
December 26, 2009, 1:57 pmFury says:
It appears that the person who initially subdued Abdulmutallab is named Jasper Schuringa, a director (film?) from Amsterdam.
More here
December 26, 2009, 2:07 pmFury says:
A note that the explosive used according to CBS News was PETN. That’s heavy duty stuff.
In spite of the panic, the passengers did the right thing, the heroic thing.
December 26, 2009, 2:16 pmDavid Nieporent says:
The “good reason” is that the ratio of air marshals to flights is low, and even on flights with an air marshal present, the ratio of air marshals to non-air marshals is quite low. What there isn’t is a “good reason” for assuming otherwise, as you did.
What you referred to as what was currently available — that the guy hadn’t been interviewed — was not “evidence.” It was just an assumption based on the lack of evidence, and of course it does appear — now that there actually is evidence of who subdued the guy — that it’s wrong. (While it’s obviously true that the person who subdued the guy would be a very high priority interview target, there was no basis whatsoever for assuming that the failure to interview him meant he was an air marshal, as opposed to any of the other likely explanations, such as him being shy, afraid of retaliation, busy getting treatment for the injuries he himself suffered, or simply preoccupied with being interviewed by law enforcement rather than the media.)
Your notion that it’s plausible that an air marshal would have been seated near him because he was “in a database” seems implausible to me. If he was thought to be a serious enough danger to get personalized attention from the air marshal service, it’s far more likely he’d have been on a no-fly list and/or denied a visa. More plausible is that far more people are in these databases than can ever receive personalized attention.
December 26, 2009, 3:03 pmDavid Sucher says:
Hold on, folks, wait until there are some facts before you call for suspension of the Constitution. There is a feeling of panic from a lot of the commenters. Maybe we should wait just a bit before we let free with our emotional responses.
•••
OK, why do you assume the existence of a “they?”
(“…can think of two possibilities. First, they may have wanted the explosion to be in a populated area…)
December 26, 2009, 3:27 pmMike says:
My goodness. People are waking up and being rational about terrorism.
The overwhelming majority of commenters are seeing this attempted “terrorist attack” for the scam that it is. Not every loon who wants to blow up a plane is Al Qaeda. And we won’t take on faith the government’s word that every loon is a Al Qaeda.
There is still hope for America.
December 26, 2009, 5:58 pmGene Hoffman says:
I was wrong and I’m pleasantly surprised (and a little appalled at the other US nationals on the plane) that the guy was Dutch.
It looks to me like TSA simply needs to deploy PETN swabs against all carry on bags. I assume the reason they haven’t is that the swab scan is a bit slow. Testing for explosive residue is such a less invasive search all in all…
-Gene
December 26, 2009, 6:28 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Sources are now saying that it was in fact a bomb, not an incendiary device, and the explosive was less than 100 grams of PETN. PETN is detected by explosives detectors.
PETN is fairly foolproof, and the latest speculation is that the bomb failed to detonate because the detonator was either too small or had become dislodged from the explosive. Such a bomb, had it properly detonated, would have blown a hole in the side of the airliner but likely not have brought it down.
The use of a liquid detonator is unusual. Possibly the idea was to combine a liquid with a powder to trigger the bomb, thus eliminating the need for a detonator containing metal. That sounds tricky to get right and probably explains why the plot failed.
PETN was Richard Reid’s explosive of choice and is an ingredient in Semtex, the explosive that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie.
December 26, 2009, 6:44 pmpot meet kettle says:
well, if you knew your transportation history, you would realize that the flying dutchman is always a portent of doom.
December 26, 2009, 6:53 pmRandy says:
“It’s interesting that he would wait until final descent. Why fly from Nigeria, through Amsterdam, and wait until Detroit to detonate?”
Because the in-flight movies were THAT GOOD.
December 26, 2009, 6:59 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Randy: Or maybe the thought of actually being in Detroit was THAT BAD. ;^)
December 26, 2009, 7:14 pmRandy says:
Fury: ” Jasper Schuringa, a director (film?) from Amsterdam.”
And we all know that the Netherlands is a hotbed of liberalism and socialism. Worse, they allow gays to marry! Too much freedom over there — Nothing good can come from a such a society. No doubt he is just another arm of the Hollywood elite. Old europe in its decadence! Therefore, Jasper could NOT have done anything heroic.
December 26, 2009, 7:35 pmRandy says:
Bearing: “I hate it when “the passengers jumped him and subdued him” is characterized in media reports as “panic.”
Boy, this gets me really angry too. A passenger (certainly not a pinko-homo-loving dutchman) jumps the guy who was trying to light a bomb on a plane, and we know for sure that everyone remained calm and resumed watching past episodes of The Office on the inflight channel.
And then this guy: “Passenger Syed Jafri, a U.S. citizen who had flown from the United Arab Emirates, said the incident occurred during the plane’s descent, according to the Associated Press. Jafri said he was seated three rows behind the passenger and said he saw a glow and smelled smoke. Then, he said, “a young man behind me jumped on him. Next thing you know, there was a lot of panic,” he said.
Okay, he was on the plane, but what the fact that he’s from the UAE makes any statement of his a lie. Obviously, he’s just a tool of the media elite. Thank goodness for people like Bearing: no one fools him!
December 26, 2009, 7:45 pmChris Travers says:
Maybe, depending on where he was sitting, control systems could have been badly damaged or destroyed. Also, had it happened in cruise phase, however the result could have been catastrophic.
Not terrorism-related, but there was an Air China 747 that disintegrated over the sea when a repair patch from a tail strike apparently failed during the cruise phase a few years ago. At cruise phase, small holes can become very big holes very quickly under some circumstances.
This is one more reason to think it was a lone crazy.
December 26, 2009, 8:22 pmGene Hoffman says:
The amount of PETN I saw was 80g. With an RE of 1.66 that’s not a lot of explosive force (133g of TNT equivalent.) Looking around its at most 2 grenades as a rough equivalent.
Had he set this off it would have been bad for passengers nearby, but unless he was on the window, I doubt the blast would have done more than cracked the window. Explosive decompression isn’t all that explosive – especially in descent where you’re starting to equalize. Also, aluminum isn’t very brittle. An unshaped charge that is not directed and is muted by his own body isn’t going to do much to the plane. His crotch however…
-Gene
December 26, 2009, 8:22 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Randy,
And we all know that the Netherlands is a hotbed of liberalism and socialism. Worse, they allow gays to marry! Too much freedom over there — Nothing good can come from a such a society. No doubt he is just another arm of the Hollywood elite. Old europe in its decadence! Therefore, Jasper could NOT have done anything heroic.
Because no one over here has ever so much as heard of Theo van Gogh. Right?
December 26, 2009, 8:50 pmpot meet kettle says:
what better location to cause a fireworks explosion than some place where they aint seen no crackers?
December 26, 2009, 9:09 pmJavert says:
Our government is either the gang that can’t shoot straight or it has been neutered by political correctness. Perhaps it should spend more intelligence and money targeting the actual killers, rather than orchestrating the charade of security that is the TSA — a charade that is in fact a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
December 26, 2009, 9:40 pmSoronel Haetir says:
But planes can also sometimes survive even massive holes, as demonstrated by the flight where an entire semi-circular section ripped off. According to http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive?link=Wikipedia-Lip6-2/478114.xml&style that happened at 24k feet.
December 26, 2009, 9:58 pmGlocksman says:
If the news reports I read about the bomber being issued his visa in June 2008 are correct, you’re alleging Bush’s State Department was ‘neutered by political correctness’.
You can say a lot of things about Bush, but being ‘politically correct’ isn’t one of them.
Personally I think the $4 million London apartment and genuine Nigerian banker Dad had more to do with his success in getting a visa than any political correctness did.
December 26, 2009, 11:37 pmRandy says:
Well, one thing we can be sure of: From now on, anyone traveling on a plane will not only have to remove their shoes (thanks to Reid’s attempt to smuggle a bomb in his shoe), we will all now have to lift our pants up to our knees to prove we have nothing taped on our calves.
Here’s my first prediction of the new year: Men and women of any age will find wearing shorts above the knee to be quite fashionable when they take to the skies. Removable leggings that can easily be detached and reattached will make their debut.
I guess we should be thankful that the idiot didn’t tape the explosives to his groin.
December 27, 2009, 12:14 amjosh bornstein says:
Does the U.S. still give a $250,000 reward for info preventing an airline hijack/terrorist attack? If so, I’d like to see the Dutch guy get it. Hell, I’d like to see the accused guy’s dad also get a quarter of a million. Give as many incentives as possible for people conducting heroic actions and/or ratting out terrorist animals before they can act.
December 27, 2009, 2:39 amRicardo says:
Van Gogh was a foul-mouthed, chain-smoking, hard-drinking, nihilist atheist who, by all accounts, could be incredibly obnoxious and insulting to even his close friends let alone colleagues and business partners. Ayaan Hirsi Ali herself described him as one of those Amsterdam personalities who makes a living off of being outrageous and offending as many people as possible. But hey, if conservatives want to claim him as a hero, I’m on board.
But back on topic, it is indeed disturbing if true that this guy had a valid visa for the U.S. and was allowed to board a plane. Citizens of visa waiver countries are supposed to apply through the ESTA system which cross-checks their information against a kind of no-fly database. Failure to apply for permission to fly to the U.S. beforehand typically means the airline denies you boarding. There is obviously a gap in the system if citizens of non-visa waiver countries are not similarly cross-checked before flying to the U.S.
December 27, 2009, 8:02 amRicardo says:
That may depend on the fact that you were going to Europe rather than coming from Europe. In general, the U.S. insists all planes entering U.S. airspace adhere to TSA security standards. If the originating country already enforces standards pretty close to the TSA’s then there may be no additional check. If it does not, there will be an extra security before the boarding gate on the final leg of the journey before entering the U.S. I’ve experienced this variously at Taipei, Nagoya and Amsterdam.
December 27, 2009, 8:14 amMark Field says:
This fits with my experience.
December 27, 2009, 10:31 amSoronel Haetir says:
The visa issued long before his security status came into question. I am however somewhat surprised that there isn’t an additional check that someone with a visa hasn’t popped up on a terrorist alert in the meantime. Although I can also understand that a single warning, even from a close relative, isn’t enough to put someone on no-fly status. That would be a great way to retaliate if it were enough.
December 27, 2009, 11:55 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Ricardo,
Van Gogh was a foul-mouthed, chain-smoking, hard-drinking, nihilist atheist who, by all accounts, could be incredibly obnoxious and insulting to even his close friends let alone colleagues and business partners. Ayaan Hirsi Ali herself described him as one of those Amsterdam personalities who makes a living off of being outrageous and offending as many people as possible. But hey, if conservatives want to claim him as a hero, I’m on board.
If you imagine that the rightward edge of the VC is shocked by the revelation that someone Smoked! Drank! Didn’t Believe In God! Was Kind Of A Jerk!, you really need to hang out here awhile longer.
I was only trying to convey, gently, to Randy that if you say “Dutch filmmaker” in this company, the immediate associations are not along the lines of “socialist, wimpy, indolent Euroweenie.”
December 27, 2009, 12:50 pmjukeboxgrad says:
robert b:
Wrong. The machines used at passenger screening are magnetometers (for passengers) and x-rays (for carry-on luggage). See also here.
Magnetometers produce (and sense) a magnetic field. Therefore they are useful for detecting metal, and are often called “metal detectors.” Magnetrons (link, link) generate microwave energy and are used in devices such as radar and microwave ovens. Magnetrons and magnetometers have roughly as much in common as lightning and lightning bugs.
This is gibberish. With regard to the passenger himself, metal detectors (magnetometers) detect only metal. Therefore all (not “many”) “chemicals can pass through without being detected.” And the simple x-ray machines used to scan carry-on bags provide an image of solid objects. Like magnetometers, they do nothing with regard to detecting chemicals (although more advanced x-ray machines, such as the ones that use computer tomography, can detect chemicals, to some extent).
Chemical-based attacks have done a poor job of bringing down airplanes, but this has not much to do with the technology of passenger screening. It mostly has to do with the fact that it’s fundamentally hard to bring down an airplane via chemicals that you carry on your person. You are more likely to just end up in a hospital with severe burns.
What you typically see at the airport are magnetometers (metal detectors). However, TSA has also started to use whole body imaging. This comes primarily in two flavors: backscatter x-ray and millimeter wave scanning. Thanks to the recent incident, the move toward whole body imaging is certainly going to accelerate, even though there are privacy issues, since it is a virtual strip-search. I expect that we will eventually see VC posts discussing this issue.
Does your claim (“many chemicals can pass through without being detected”) apply to whole body imaging? Probably not. If I want to carry chemicals in a way that will defeat whole body imaging, I only have a few choices. One choice is to conceal a container inside my body. It’s interesting to notice that Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport has already given this issue some thought (pdf):
That toilet is called a Drugloo.
Aside from placing a container inside the alimentary canal, I can try to hide a substance in a special place outside my body:
That statement seems prescient (although I can’t find a proper citation to those “journalists”).
Wrong. “The scanners for checked luggage” don’t use “magetrons” (and they don’t even use magnetometers), and they don’t do “spectrum analysis” and they don’t do anything to “atomize the sample.” They use computer tomography, which is what we call a CAT scanner (when used medically), and which is essentially an advanced form of X-ray (link, link). A skilled operator of such a machine can sometimes recognize chemicals, but this has nothing to do with spectrometry.
I suspect that your expertise regarding air marshals is comparable to your knowledge regarding magnetrons etc. But maybe you can offer some thoughts about where the $600 million is going. That is, without getting arrested.
December 27, 2009, 8:47 pmjukeboxgrad says:
vermont:
I haven’t seen anyone say that. On the other hand, critics of the air marshals have said, literally, that they are a “tiny band” (that was you). There are thousands of them. How does that amount to “tiny?”
And they have also said this:
That statement is ignorant. And you said this: “it was more likely they had the day off then any were actually on the plane.” That statement is also ignorant. And of course those statements are bare declarations unencumbered by any pretense of evidence. See here:
But why should I believe a named expert when I can instead trust some guy on a blog who doesn’t know the difference between a magnetron and a magnetometer?
December 27, 2009, 8:48 pmmarkm says:
The simplest explanation for the terrorist waiting until near landing is that he wanted to destroy the airplane in the US. On a great circle course from Amsterdam to Detroit, you won’t be over US soil until you cross the Detroit River.
Also, unless he was lucky enough to be seated very near to both a vital control channel and the backup control channel, a small bomb exploded in mid-flight would probably just strip away some skin. Airliners have survived that. The passengers would have a very uncomfortable flight to the nearest suitable runway, but they’d survive if they were buckled in and could figure out the oxygen masks. The best chance of destroying the airplane would be to set the bomb off shortly after takeoff, when the extra drag plus the sudden change in the airplane’s handling would be likely to make it impossible to clear all the obstacles. But terrorism in Amsterdam doesn’t rate as much reporting in the USA as terrorism in Detroit. The second-best chance is on landing, in hopes that a big hole suddenly appearing in the airplane will cause the pilot to land short or miss the runway.
December 27, 2009, 9:35 pmjukeboxgrad says:
pc:
True, but the politicians who give them lots of attention have something to gain by doing so. If the terrorists didn’t exist, they would have to be invented. So sometimes they are (either invented or exaggerated).
======================
zarkov:
Your source is an anonymous commenter who provides no link. See here. Use the “Customize Table” feature at the bottom of the page and select Domestic, Scheduled, Passenger, Departures Performed, and 9/09 to 10/09. 9/09 is the most recent month for which data is available. The number for 9/09 is 708,193. Per day, that’s 23,606. If you use the same source to find the total for 2008, it works out to this many flights per day: 25,667. So your number is inflated by roughly 50%.
It makes no sense to “assume a pro-rata allocation of air marshals,” because that implies that a short hop between, say, Kansas City and Little Rock is seen as equal in risk to a flight between, say, Amsterdam and Detroit. Really? As Hawley said, certain routes get special attention.
See this:
That gun can be bought on the internet for $623, in unit quantities. Presumably the price would be lower when buying thousands at a time, but let’s put that aside. And let’s assume that “millions” means exactly 2 million, even though that’s actually the minimum of what it means. Two million divided by 623 = 3210. So it looks like the Federal Air Marshal Service is buying that many guns. And I can’t think of any good reason for the number of guns purchased to greatly exceed the number of agents.
I think the analysis makes more sense when done as days, not hours. Let’s assume that I have 3000 air marshals. They work five days/week, so I have this much resource available, in terms of marshal-days per year: 3,000 * 5 * 52 = 780,000.
If there are 2,000 international flights per day, that’s 730,000 per year. Let’s assume that a marshal can be assigned to no more than one flight per day (that’s similar to the assumption you made). Let’s assume that I want the marshals to work in pairs (that seems to be how it’s done). Let’s assume that I want to cover 25% of the international flights. Therefore my resource requirement is 730,000 * 2 * 0.25 = 365,000.
This leaves 415,000 marshal-days per year to cover domestic flights. There were 9.4 million domestic flights in 2008. Domestic flights are shorter than international flights, so I assume that an air marshal can work three flights per day. Let’s assume that I want to cover 7% of the domestic flights. Therefore my resource requirement is 9.4 million * 2 * 0.33 * 0.07 = 434,280 marshal/days per year, with is roughly equal to what I have available.
I think it makes sense that an international flight would be about 3-4 times more dangerous than a domestic flight, so it makes sense that an international flight would be 3-4 times more likely to carry air marshals. It’s also logical that certain routes would get more attention than others. As Hawley said.
25% is far from 100%, but it’s also far from this claim that was made: “the odds are slim to none.”
December 27, 2009, 10:13 pmjukeboxgrad says:
malvolio:
If the “wad” is big enough to do real damage, it won’t fit well in your pocket, and it probably wouldn’t be described as a “wad.” More like a ‘brick.’ A “wad” of C4 the size of a brick has enough power to penetrate one foot of ice. It takes about 4 such bricks to dig a foxhole. Hiding a sufficient amount in your underpants is going to be tough.
If it was as easy as you say, it probably would have been done by now.
December 27, 2009, 10:26 pmRandy says:
Michelle: “I was only trying to convey, gently, to Randy that if you say “Dutch filmmaker” in this company, the immediate associations are not along the lines of “socialist, wimpy, indolent Euroweenie.”
Duly noted. Actually, I HAD thought of Theo when I wrote my original post, but I couldn’t find a way to fit him in. Thanks for filling in the blanks. And I was just having fun tweaking some people….
December 28, 2009, 1:08 am