Administration spokesmen have characterized the boarding of Abdulmutallab on an airplane bound for the US as a "failure to connect the dots" in the same way that allowed the 9/11 terrorists to board airplanes. Actually neither case was a failure to connect the dots particularly in the case of Abdulmutallab. In the case of the 9/11 terrorists at least two of them, the ones from San Diego, were in an FBI database. In the case of Mutallab the one dot that was big enough that it needed no connecting was the fact that his father had gone to the US embassy to tell them that he suspected that his son currently in Yemen was a terrorist. This fact in and of itself should have been sufficient to put Abdulmutallab on a no-fly list instantaneously. The other dots - that he bought a one way ticket with cash and didn't check any baggage, that there was some intelligence that a planned bombing was in the works, that he had been denied a visa to the UK - were clearly secondary and not necessary to the fact that Abdulmutallab should have been on a no fly list. The only reason that any dots would need to be connected in any case is if no one dot in and of itself was necessary and sufficient. When one dot is necessary and sufficient, there is no need for more dots. In fact the excuse that the dots were not connected is ridiculous on its face.
The other issue is that evidently anyone can walk on a plane under the current protocol with PETB in their underwear. Clearly, full body scanners are necessary to close that loophole, and they better get on with it, the sooner the better, because in future situations there may be no intelligence that would place a would be bomber on a no-fly list, dots or no dots, connected or not. In a concession to the politically correct crowd, I'm glad that they are going to start to "profile" people from countries such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other Muslim countries although the government won't characterize them as "Muslim" countries. That would be too politically incorrect.
But insofar as the use of intelligence that would prevent other Abdulmutallabs from flying, this is what should happen. The government should establish a hotline similar to 911 that anyone could call with intelligence whether they were inside or outside the government, whether they were official or inoffcial. There should be one level of interpretation on the other end of the line, the purpose of which would be to weed out crank calls. Other than that, if the intelligence was deemed to be credible, that person should be placed immediately on one all encompassing no-fly or complete security check database. There should be a very low threshold for flagging people as no-fly particularly if they're not US citizens because what is the worst that could happen? That some innocent person wouldn't be able, temporarily, to fly. Is that so bad compared to the worst that could happen - hundreds of innocent lives lost? Every airline should be required to check this no-fly or thorough security check list prior to issuing a ticket to anyone. So it takes a couple of seconds to input a name and have a computer match it with a database. Big deal. The whole thing would then only hinge on the fact that each flyer would have to present credible identification. Forged passports would get bombers on planes. Other than that scenario, a system in which any credible intelligence placed a potential bomber immediately on a no-fly list which would have to be checked before issuing any ticket, would solve the "failure to connect the dots" excuse. There should be no reason to connect any dots. One dot should be enough to flag a person, and there should only be one list not several. If a dot is considered to not be necessary and sufficient in and of itself, the person could be flagged for at least an extremely thorough search of person and baggage. This knowledge can then be conveyed by the ticket agent himself to the TSA agents at the gate in order to flag that person for a thorough security check. Or, alternatively, the ticket agent should refuse to issue a ticket.
There should be one and only one list, one and only one database, of suspicious persons. There was an excuse that Umar Farouk was on a database but one that consisted of 500,000 names implying that it was too large. C'mon!! That list is computer searchable in a couple of seconds. And, furthermore, there should be no intervening layer of government personnel which needs to make up its mind whether or not a person is dangerous. All information regarding any person on an overall list, that would be checked by each airline before issuing a ticket, should be available to the TSA agents at the security check at the gate. So the only decision that needs to be made is by the airline itself whether to not issue a ticket in the first place or to issue the ticket but submit the flier to a thorough security check in the second. And this would be a no-brainer. And there should be a very low threshold to designating a person as a no-flier. Once so designated that person should have the right of a thorough review of his case including the submission of information by himself which would determine whether or not that person should be considered a threat and not allowed to fly. At most this would only inconvenience the person temporarily if in fact he or she was placed on the no-fly list by mistake.
Of course, maybe it's too much to ask that the government put in place a streamlined system that takes advantage of the latest technology and solves the problem in a rational and expedient manner. After all the government is deeply in debt, does not operate rationally and spends $600 billion a year on the military industrial complex which has nothing to do with homeland security. A rational assessment of our real defense needs would take a large share of this money and put it into systems to actually protect our transportation and other vital systems and to protect our ports and borders. This is the central crucial distinction to make. Homeland security is the poor stepcousin of the military industrial complex which hogs all the money for unnecessary, but lobbyist protected, military components. The fundamental problem is a misallocation of resources. Homeland security is real defense. Military invasions of foreign countries is adventurism which only results in the enmity of the people in the country being invaded. How would we feel if a foreign power invaded our country? What is considered to be defense is just a defense of the financial interests of defense contractors by politicians whose pockets are being larded by them.
