12 August 2006

Latest terror plot.

Wall Street Journal is the source of all quotes following.

British antiterrorism chief Peter Clarke said at a news conference that the plot was foiled because "a large number of people" had been under surveillance, with police monitoring "spending, travel and communications."

Read it carefully.

British antiterrorism chief Peter Clarke said at a news conference that the plot was foiled because "a large number of people" had been under surveillance, with police monitoring "spending, travel and communications."




In case you weren't reading with intent to comprehend, let me repeat it again.

British antiterrorism chief Peter Clarke said at a news conference that the plot was foiled because "a large number of people" had been under surveillance, with police monitoring "spending, travel and communications."

I wonder, was this monitoring conducted with due regard for what in America would be these terrorist's 4th Amendment Rights, as interpreted by the ACLU, the Democratic Party, the New York Times, and other organizations who want Americans to be murdered because it would make George Bush look bad?

Oh, maybe that wasn't a fair spin.

Maybe the Democratic Party doesn't believe in using this sort of incident for purely partisan political ends.

"Harry Reid, who's bidding to run the Senate as Majority Leader, saw it as one more opportunity to insist that 'the Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists.'
"Ted Kennedy chimed in that 'it is clear that our misguided policies are making America more hated in the world and making the war on terrorism harder to win.'"

I guess they do. Wouldn't it have been cool if the plot had succeeded? Then we could have REALLY roasted George Bush for not doing anything! Not that there is any course of action that the Democratic Party would approve of. Regardless of the merit of that course of action, it would be slammed because it is an Administration proposal. It's even better if the Administration does nothing, because then the Dems can roast them for not doing anything.

After all, what would Mr. Reid propose we spend that $300 billion dollars on? Not anti-terrorist surveillance programs. Last time Mr. Reid heard the Bush Administration was conducting such programs, the key quotes to sum up his opinion of them were "illegal" and "NSA domestic spying program."

Maybe Mr. Reid thinks we should station the ENTIRE United States Armed Forces as guards in airports to prevent travellers from carrying water bottles, insulin, or toothpaste aboard airplanes and to strip-search fully-uniformed miltary personnel returning from combat duty in Iraq and elderly women. Since we can't "profile". God forbid. The action taken to bad all liquids and gels from aircraft is a 'feel-good' initiative which is driven by the prime political imperative in the post-Katrina world to DO SOMETHING, even if it is wrong or meaningless.

Explosives can be disguised as soap. Easily. I can think of several explosives which would serve.

Explosives can be flattened and sewn into the liners of garments.

Explosives can be wrapped in condoms and hidden in body cavities.

A truly determined terrorist can get his stuff into an airport if he really wants to. Passive measures only add hassle and waste time, without significantly increasing real security. Real security comes from old-fashioned detective and intelligence work, arresting bad guys before they pull the fuze.

I'm waiting for a suicide bombing at an airport. Imagine it: Hundreds of harried travellers standing in line behind a Middle-Eastern military-age male with a freshly shaved beard, smelling like flower water, mumbling prayers to himself (don't you DARE profile him, screams the ACLU) when, instead of emptying his pockets at the security counter into the nifty plastic tray, he shouts "Allahu Akbar", and blows himself to smithereens. How many would be killed by the ball-bearings he's carrying in his coat pockets and the 5 or 6 kilos of plastique he's wearing under his jacket?

What will the politicians do then? Require nudity when entering an airport?

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What will the politicians do then? Require nudity when entering an airport?"

since i live in USA which eascaped british rule many years ago and created a constitution ,i must be misunderstanding
your question.just because a law is inconvenient does not give government a right to ignore it.since repugs are in control they could ask for the law to be changed.now explain why they havent done that with complete control of both house and senate?

it is because they doing much worse than what we have heard.they dont want another uprising of the people but peoples eyes are opening and the terror crap is NOT keeping us in line anymore.
we are starting to think and reason for ourselves.
br3n

3:20 PM  
Blogger Just A Decurion said...

Cite source, or retract.

3:42 PM  
Blogger Zero Ponsdorf said...

Like the way you think.

Linked at OWD, and my place.

8:02 PM  
Anonymous cMAD said...

Well, you DO SOMETHING in al-Raghad land.

8:48 PM  
Blogger A Soldier's Girl said...

cmad- WTF are you talking about? Are you telling John to go do something othe than his military service or what?

10:02 PM  
Blogger tychecat said...

This is a late comment: but an interesting fact has just come up. Apparently the British wanted to delay the raid on this terrorist cell until they had more evidence (the explosives had not been obtained, nobody had plane tickets ,etc.) because they may not be able to charge or convict most cell members. The U.S. apparently insisted on immediate action and has certainly given it enormous publicity - for obvious partisan political reasons.

7:41 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home