The Christmas day attempt, by a Nigerian man, to set off explosives onboard a Northeast Airlines jet bound for Detroit, is more than a little unsettling. With all the improvements in airport security since 9/11, it was still possible for this man to get an explosive device aboard a plane, perhaps aboard two planes, since he flew KLM from Nigeria to Amsterdam before he took the flight to Michigan.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/27/airline.terror.suspect/index.html

So many still unanswered, and troubling, questions regarding this incident.

Everyone should be grateful to the fast-acting and heroic fellow passengers on the Northwest flight who helped to put out the fire and subdue the man, and to the cabin stewards who acted professionally and swiftly in dealing with the situation. These people did help to avert what might have been a terrible tragedy.

One must also credit the father of this man for contacting the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria several weeks ago to warn them that his son was becoming radicalized and he feared what he might do. That could not have been an easy thing for a father to do.

This attempted terrorist bomber did slip through the cracks of current security systems. Even with the warning his father gave to the government, the man had a valid Visa to travel to the U.S., he was not on a no-fly list, and he was able to conceal explosives on his body when he boarded the plane.

Makes you wonder how many others, like him, are out there, waiting to board other planes. And whether they, too, will be able to slip through the cracks. Very unsettling indeed.

Apparently he was refused a visa for the UK back in May but this was because he applied naming a bogus college.

On the television news last night it was said that he paid a high price for his ticket and had no checked baggage but I haven't found this on the internet yet.

Found a reference...

Quote:

---

The Nigerian civil aviation authority said last night that Abdulmutallab bought his return ticket from Lagos to Detroit via Amsterdam at a KLM office in Ghana's capital, Accra, on 16 December, with a planned return of 8 January. He paid the £1,775 fare in cash. Before the flight departed on Thursday, he checked in as normal, taking only a carry-on bag.

---

This was reported in one of the UK's 'serious' newspapers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/28/plane-bomber-family-warning

Al Qaeda is now claiming responsibility for this attempted bombing.

Quote:

---

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility for the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack on a plane about to land in the U.S., saying it was in retaliation for alleged U.S. strikes on Yemeni soil.
In the statement, published on radical Islamist Web sites, the group hailed the "brother" who carried out the "heroic attack." The group said it tested a "new kind of explosives" in the attack, and hailed the fact that the explosives "passed through security."

The group threatened further attacks, saying, "since Americans support their leaders they should expect more from us."

"We have prepared men who love to die," the statement dated Saturday said.

---

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/28/airline.terror.attempt/index.html

President Obama has, quite rightly, concluded that this incident revealed an unacceptable gap in intelligence operations which must be rectified. Apart from better coordination and sharing of intelligence information, there are heightened security measures being taken in airports.

The Dutch are now going to use full body scanners on all passengers flying to the U.S. And debate is going on about whether to use them in all major U.S. airports.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/12/30/airport.security.screening/

Some have compared this technology to a "virtual strip search" since it gives an image of a naked body, including genitalia. It also reveals internal body information, such as the presence of breast implants.

Some have worried that images could be stored in the machines and posted on the internet.

Is this technology too invasive of personal privacy? Too high a price to pay for possibly increased airline security?

The ACLU objects to the body scanning, as too invasive and not of proven effectiveness.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34632576#34632576

As long as the image of my face was blurred, or indistinct, I don't think I'd mind standing in a body scanning machine. I wouldn't find it embarrassing. I'd certainly prefer that to a crotch-sniffing dog, or to an aggressive pat-down.

What do you think of the idea of using the body scanners?

Are you willing to forfit your personal privacy for safety on a plane?

Do you think enhanced security measures, like body-scanners, will really help to deter terrorist attacks on commercial airlines?