So how many of you folks blasting Napolitano and Co. right now...

[Oscar Wao]

Why is there a Napolitano in DC to blast?!

Because...

A GOP President...

*drumroll please*

CREATED THAT DEPARTMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. So?

We aren't objecting to the DHS. Or, at least that's not what I'm objecting to.

I am objecting to how the ill-suited present director is performing her actual duties.

I know you aren't objecting to the DHS-proper.

I just think it's so funny about who's in there now.

I think now you see why we "Paulbots" objected to more expansion of government.

I'm sure there still would have been a "right-wing wacko" list somehow (with or without DHS), but still...

 

[Liability]

OK counselor...freshen me up. By what treaty or law do American companies call the shots in foreign countries? As far as I know there are no airlines owned by our government. I as a pilot know a few things but not being a commercial pilot I don't know the authority of which you speak. One thing the public may not know is that all air traffic control world wide is spoken in english.

I have already provided one such link.

I am tired of doing other folks' homework.

Since the fucking flights are coming into the USA, the Federal Government by laws (and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to those laws) DOES tell the airlines what they must do.

The airlines do not need to be "owned" by the Federal Government to be obliged to abide by such laws and rules and regulations.

For example, here's an interesting tidbit of information which is (itself) more or less directly responsive to your question:

Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 49, Volume 8]
[Revised as of October 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 49CFR1544.207]

[Page 321]

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER XII--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY

PART 1544--AIRCRAFT OPERATOR SECURITY: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS
--Table of Contents

Subpart C--Operations

Sec. 1544.207 Screening of individuals and property.

(a) Applicability of this section. This section applies to the
inspection of individuals, accessible property, checked baggage, and
cargo as required under this part.
(b) Locations within the United States at which TSA conducts
screening. Each aircraft operator must ensure that the individuals or
property have been inspected by TSA before boarding or loading on its
aircraft. This paragraph applies when TSA is conducting screening using
TSA employees or when using companies under contract with TSA.
(c) Aircraft operator conducting screening. Each aircraft operator
must use the measures in its security program and in subpart E of this
part to inspect the individual or property. This paragraph does not
apply at locations identified in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this section.
(d) Locations outside the United States at which the foreign
government conducts screening. Each aircraft operator must ensure that all individuals and property have been inspected by the foreign
government. This paragraph applies when the host government is
conducting screening using government employees or when using companies
under contract with the government.

Section

There are actually innumerable such laws, rules and regulations.

I apologize. I do not always participate in a thread from the start and only read the last few replies to catch up when I get in late. Then I seldom reply to someone unfamiliar so as to have seperated wheat from chaff. Like I said...my mistake.

Now that's the rub isn't it...forcing airlines to force a foreign government to do something.

No need for an apology. It was no big thing.

Anyway, the task for the airlines is NOT really to GET the foreign governments to do their "jobs." That would be nice, but it is (I acknowledge) beyond the realm of what we can rationally demand of an airline.

Instead, the regulation seems to require the airlines to either see to it that the foreign government has done its job OR -- cease flying out of that nation until the foreign nation complies. At least that's my read.

But I do see your point.

 

[Liability]

Why is there a Napolitano in DC to blast?!

Because...

A GOP President...

*drumroll please*

CREATED THAT DEPARTMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah. So?

We aren't objecting to the DHS. Or, at least that's not what I'm objecting to.

I am objecting to how the ill-suited present director is performing her actual duties.

I know you aren't objecting to the DHS-proper.

I just think it's so funny about who's in there now.

I think now you see why we "Paulbots" objected to more expansion of government.

I'm sure there still would have been a "right-wing wacko" list somehow (with or without DHS), but still...

The DHS bureacracy is bloated. That much I certainly agree with its numerous detractors on.

But it's not (imho) "funny" that Napolitano is the one "leading" it. That's just fucking tragically stupid.

I DO get why "Paul-bots" objected to the expansion of government. There was then (and there still is) SOME merit to your position. But the real problem is not that the government got unduly expanded and bloated. (That's a problem worthy of discussion, just not the present problem.) The real problem is that THIS Administration is asleep at the damn switch.

 

[Navy1960]

Abdulmutallab's father called the American embassy in Abuja in October. The father told U.S. officials that his son, who had attended college in London, had developed radical Islamic views, disappeared and possibly traveled to Yemen -- a nation known for harboring al-Qaida terrorists.

American officials took the warnings seriously enough to mark Abdulmutallab's U.S. visa for review -- but only if he applied for an extension next year -- and to place him in the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment. The TIDE database allows authorities to collect and compare information -- including mere suspicions -- on more than 500,000 individuals.

But, The New York Times reported, it's common for someone to be placed in TIDE but not on the stricter "no-fly" list containing about 4,000 names, or the 14,000-name "selectee" list; individuals on the latter list are supposed to be subject to more thorough searches before boarding.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20091229/OPINION/912291036/-1/NEWSSITEMAP


The TSC is a multiagency collaborative effort administered by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The NCTC shares international terrorist identities
data, which is TIDE-generated, with the TSC. Combining these data with other
government watchlists, the TSC has established and maintains a consolidated
Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). In addition, the TSC has developed
comprehensive procedures for handling encounters with known and suspected
terrorists and their supporters, and provides terrorist screening authorities with
around-the-clock operational support in the event of possible terrorist encounters.
According to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Inspector General (OIG), as
of January 2005, the TSDB included nearly 238,000 records
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33645.pdf

Are you claiming now that Homeland Security has no responsiblity here because this person is a CIA asset? based on your previous post? The person was placed on the TIDES database, he paid cash for his ticket on an American Carrier that pre-screens though CAPPSII and is Administered by the TSA which is under the control of Homeland Security. I will also remind you that the Director herself has admitted has admitted that it was a screening failure...

"Obviously this individual should not have gotten on the plane carrying that material. And we can explain all of the reasons, but they're not satisfactory,"

"Our system did not work in this instance,"

While I commend her for taking responsibility for this, if your claiming now that the FBI,CIA, NSA, etc. are not adding names as they should be to the DOJ Administered database then thats well documented and a big problem and as I have said before doesn't exclude them from responsibility.

 

[SFC Ollie]

What a jerk you are!!! All the father knew was that his son's ideas were off, you moron. What do you think the father said?? That his son was plannng to blow up a plane very soon??

We actually had a lot more warning before 9/11 that a terrorist attack was imminent. A month before 9/11 Bush received a Presidential Daily Briefing titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." Remember that?? Of course you don't.

There IS somebody that looks very foolish right now, but it sure isn't me!!! You tea bagging nuts are getting dumber by the day, I swear.

And when Bush received that daily Brief, just what is it that he could have done to prevent the attacks? How loud would have been the cries for impeachment because people were held up for security reasons when there was no danger? Remember the people did not see the brief and if Bush had done anything it would have been fear mongering and unconstitutional. If you deny that you lie.

Who made you the last word?? I'll deny what I think is untrue. And you are such a hypocrite. You're asking what poor Bush could have done?? Oh, he gets a pass, but you're blaming this administration because they should have known what to do, right?? Why are you holding Bush and Obama to two different standards??

I was defending an innocent person. Bush could have done nothing to prevent the Attacks of 9-11-01, that is simple fact. Now, I have not blamed Obama for this latest attack. I have said that someone blew it. That this clown should have been on the no fly list. Even that the plane should have been redirected to a safer port because he was on it. I also made a comment on some thread about Obama saying that this terrorist allegedly tried to ignite a bomb, that is not giving Obama any blame for anything other than sounding like an ass. I hold no one to any standards I do not hold myself to. Now if you want to put words in someones mouth please try someone else. I don't play well with stupidity.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Despite the barrage of complaints, neither Ms. Collins nor Mr. Lieberman, the Senate committee's leaders, called for Mr. Chertoff to resign. Instead, they said that decision was up to President Bush.

The White House, which has also been criticized as having exercised flawed leadership in the Hurricane Katrina crisis, has made it clear that such a move is not being considered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/16/politics/16katrina.html

The point is if you are in charge of Homeland Security , regardless of who you are or what party you belong too the actions of those around you are YOUR responsiblity as is the safety and security of this nation. If you FAIL in that responsibility then you should recognize that and resign that post. The one thing I do respect the current director for is at least admitting that her department screwed the pooch and needs work. It is still my opinion that this Director based on her previous record as Gov. of this state should never have been confirmed or considered for the post in the first place.

It is my understanding that the FBI, the CIA, NSA and whatever other alphabet soups there are, are NOT sharing info......they are still jealously guarding it with "need to know" BS. This can't be Napolitano's fault. She doesn't control the CIA or the NSA. Some mechanism has to be altered to allow the exchange of info for us to go forward.

I do believe that was one of the measures covered in the Patriot Act. Of course I could be wrong.

 

[Liability]

And when Bush received that daily Brief, just what is it that he could have done to prevent the attacks? How loud would have been the cries for impeachment because people were held up for security reasons when there was no danger? Remember the people did not see the brief and if Bush had done anything it would have been fear mongering and unconstitutional. If you deny that you lie.

Who made you the last word?? I'll deny what I think is untrue. And you are such a hypocrite. You're asking what poor Bush could have done?? Oh, he gets a pass, but you're blaming this administration because they should have known what to do, right?? Why are you holding Bush and Obama to two different standards??

I was defending an innocent person. Bush could have done nothing to prevent the Attacks of 9-11-01, that is simple fact. Now, I have not blamed Obama for this latest attack. I have said that someone blew it. That this clown should have been on the no fly list. Even that the plane should have been redirected to a safer port because he was on it. I also made a comment on some thread about Obama saying that this terrorist allegedly tried to ignite a bomb, that is not giving Obama any blame for anything other than sounding like an ass. I hold no one to any standards I do not hold myself to. Now if you want to put words in someones mouth please try someone else. I don't play well with stupidity.

I have not blamed Obama for this latest attack. I have said that someone blew it.

It took a LOT of people to "blow it" in this case. And the guy at the helm is usually one who must take some of the heat.

I KNOW that the liberal Democratics love to "blame" President Bush for the 9/11 attacks.

I agree that assigning him the blame is rather stupid.

And thus, in fairness, I agree that it's silly to assign too much blame to President Obama in this latest attempt matter.

He bears some responsibility (he did nominate Napolitano and he is failing to correct that mistake, now). But he is not himself actually to blame for the failures here.

He is responsible however for setting the tenor of how his Administration and the bureacracy view these matters.

 

[Meister]

Who made you the last word?? I'll deny what I think is untrue. And you are such a hypocrite. You're asking what poor Bush could have done?? Oh, he gets a pass, but you're blaming this administration because they should have known what to do, right?? Why are you holding Bush and Obama to two different standards??

I was defending an innocent person. Bush could have done nothing to prevent the Attacks of 9-11-01, that is simple fact. Now, I have not blamed Obama for this latest attack. I have said that someone blew it. That this clown should have been on the no fly list. Even that the plane should have been redirected to a safer port because he was on it. I also made a comment on some thread about Obama saying that this terrorist allegedly tried to ignite a bomb, that is not giving Obama any blame for anything other than sounding like an ass. I hold no one to any standards I do not hold myself to. Now if you want to put words in someones mouth please try someone else. I don't play well with stupidity.

I have not blamed Obama for this latest attack. I have said that someone blew it.

It took a LOT of people to "blow it" in this case. And the guy at the helm is usually one who must take some of the heat.

I KNOW that the liberal Democratics love to "blame" President Bush for the 9/11 attacks.

I agree that assigning him the blame is rather stupid.

And thus, in fairness, I agree that it's silly to assign too much blame to President Obama in this latest attempt matter.

He bears some responsibility (he did nominate Napolitano and he is failing to correct that mistake, now). But he is not himself actually to blame for the failures here.

He is responsible however for setting the tenor of how his Administration and the bureacracy view these matters.

I said the same thing, and Rinata didn't believe me, maybe coming from another person he/she will believe it now. Good post.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yeah. So?

We aren't objecting to the DHS. Or, at least that's not what I'm objecting to.

I am objecting to how the ill-suited present director is performing her actual duties.

I know you aren't objecting to the DHS-proper.

I just think it's so funny about who's in there now.

I think now you see why we "Paulbots" objected to more expansion of government.

I'm sure there still would have been a "right-wing wacko" list somehow (with or without DHS), but still...

The DHS bureacracy is bloated. That much I certainly agree with its numerous detractors on.

But it's not (imho) "funny" that Napolitano is the one "leading" it. That's just fucking tragically stupid.

I DO get why "Paul-bots" objected to the expansion of government. There was then (and there still is) SOME merit to your position. But the real problem is not that the government got unduly expanded and bloated. (That's a problem worthy of discussion, just not the present problem.) The real problem is that THIS Administration is asleep at the damn switch.

You can tell when Obama cares about something on how long it takes for him to give an announcement about it.

When it comes to kissing Muslim's asses....he talks about it in a matter of hours. If it's health care or saving the envirionment...he won't shut the fuck up.

But if it's anything about defending the nation....he needs everywhere from 72hrs to 90 days to formulate his thoughts.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I know you aren't objecting to the DHS-proper.

I just think it's so funny about who's in there now.

I think now you see why we "Paulbots" objected to more expansion of government.

I'm sure there still would have been a "right-wing wacko" list somehow (with or without DHS), but still...

The DHS bureacracy is bloated. That much I certainly agree with its numerous detractors on.

But it's not (imho) "funny" that Napolitano is the one "leading" it. That's just fucking tragically stupid.

I DO get why "Paul-bots" objected to the expansion of government. There was then (and there still is) SOME merit to your position. But the real problem is not that the government got unduly expanded and bloated. (That's a problem worthy of discussion, just not the present problem.) The real problem is that THIS Administration is asleep at the damn switch.

You can tell when Obama cares about something on how long it takes for him to give an announcement about it.

When it comes to kissing Muslim's asses....he talks about it in a matter of hours. If it's health care or saving the envirionment...he won't shut the fuck up.

But if it's anything about defending the nation....he needs everywhere from 72hrs to 90 days to formulate his thoughts.

So remind me again of when exactly Obama "kissed Muslim's asses"?

 

[mudwhistle]

The DHS bureacracy is bloated. That much I certainly agree with its numerous detractors on.

But it's not (imho) "funny" that Napolitano is the one "leading" it. That's just fucking tragically stupid.

I DO get why "Paul-bots" objected to the expansion of government. There was then (and there still is) SOME merit to your position. But the real problem is not that the government got unduly expanded and bloated. (That's a problem worthy of discussion, just not the present problem.) The real problem is that THIS Administration is asleep at the damn switch.

You can tell when Obama cares about something on how long it takes for him to give an announcement about it.

When it comes to kissing Muslim's asses....he talks about it in a matter of hours. If it's health care or saving the envirionment...he won't shut the fuck up.

But if it's anything about defending the nation....he needs everywhere from 72hrs to 90 days to formulate his thoughts.

So remind me again of when exactly Obama "kissed Muslim's asses"?

Maybe it would be easier for you to point out when he's not.

He called this an isolated incident.......he refused to call it the war on terror....he doesn't want to see the enemy as a threat nor identify them for fear of offending them.

Liberals will not allow us to identify them or profile them. That was the root cause of this attack after all.