« A War We Can Lose -- Chapter 6.9 | Main | Six Uncomfortable Answers »

Dec 26, 2009

Comments

"The terror suspect who tried to blow up a Detroit-bound plane is the son of a Nigerian banker who alerted U.S. authorities to his “extreme religious views” months ago, it was reported Saturday.

"The father, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, a former minister and chairman of First Bank in Nigeria, is shocked that his son was even was allowed to fly to the U.S., family members told the Nigerian newspaper This Day.

"He is an engineering student at the University College in London. His last-known address near the school is a $4 million apartment in Central London. Police were searching there Saturday morning.

"This Day reported that the suspect has been known for extremist religious views since high school at the British International School in Lome, Togo.

At the secondary school, he was known for preaching about Islam to his schoolmates and he was popularly called ‘Alfa,’ a local coinage for Islamic scholar,” This Day reported."

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.

Looks like he already had a tourist visa issued in 2008. So the question for State's Bureau of Consular affairs is: Why didn't State revoke his visa 4 weeks ago upon receiving the information from the father? Revocation is completely discretionary under section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1201(i)). Why in the world wouldn't State revoke a visa upon receiving information like that?

State's bungling in 2000/2001 (recall the infamous "Visa Express" program) and its institutional preference for approving visa applications whenever possible is what led to the creation of DHS in the first place. They've been chipping away over the past 8 years at the restrictions, both legal and bureaucratic/cultural, imposed on them in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. One can only hope this scandal will knock them back a few years. I wonder if there are any ICE Visa Security Officers stationed in Abuja. I doubt it. State has resisted mightily allowing any such officers - authorized under section 428 of the Homeland Security Act - at more than just a handful of embassies.

Ship of State obviously knows the federal bureaucracy well. State could have revoked the visa and probably should have. That would have forced Abdulmutallab to come in and answer questions before traveling. Having ICE officers in country could have helped set security standards, and it is true that lots of Ambassadors have resisted such deployments, insisting that the names and number of ICE security deployments must be approved by the Ambassador before deployment.

This poster is ignorant:

"Let's get this straight...It is said this guy was travelling to US to attend a regigious event. Perhaps a Billy Graham retrospective rally at Madison Square Garden? No....Just another phoney Muslim holiday plucked from the Islamic calendar that is literally peppered with a plethora of phony holidays dreamed up by a phoney religion that is really a cult not a true religion. Meanwhile, little old American ladies have to endure humiliating searches of their medications and prosthetic devices. This creature apparently walked on the plane wired up like a Roman candle! Thanks Janet Napolitano for keeping us safe during Christmas....an actual religious holiday with real significance. Go back to your previous day job with the rest of this administration of criminals!"

Fuck religion and whose right or wrong. I'm not supporting that terrorist, but I hate the ignorance it brings about. (Unless this poster was being sarcastic? ...nah, just a bigot who can't spell)

Abdulmutallab had no passport, but was escorted onto the plane by a well-dressed someone who cleared the way for him.

The "well-dressed" man needs to be tracked down and investigated. He's the insider.

Well, question number one should be "when was he issued his visa?" I've read it was a multi-entry visa. If it was issued *before* the red flags went up, then your first 3 questions are moot (to be replaced with "isn't there a mechanism to invalidate visas after they are issued, and why wasn't this done in this case?")

Questions 7,8, 9 seem to assume that U.S. airport screening is better somehow... Is this based on any valid info, or is it just a 'them evil furriners" observation? Are you assuming that a U.S. screen would have picked this up (doubtful based on my travel experiences...)

The comments to this entry are closed.