
A frequent question being asked following the failed Flight 253 terrorist attack on Christmas Day is why wasn't suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's name on the watch lists that could have prevented the transport of explosive material in a second screening.
President Obama has ordered a review into the travel security and watch-listing procedures, and an administration official detailed for TPMDC the multiple agencies what the review will examine.
An administration official told us there are more than 400,000 people in the Terrorist Screening Data Base (TSDB), which is the United States' main identities database for international terrorism.
That list is a subset of the 550,000 people contained in the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), which is the Intelligence Community's central repository of information on known and suspected international terrorists, the administration says.
The official said fewer than 4,000 of the names in the TSDB appear on the "No Fly" list. Another 14,000 names are on the "Selectee" list, which calls for mandatory secondary screening during travel.
After Abdulmutallab's father spoke to the US Embassy in Lagos, Nigeria, the U.S. shared the information with multiple government ageinces. That created a TIDE record for Abdulmutallab in November 2009, the official said.
But there there was insufficient information at that time based on the existing watch list criteria to include Abdulmutallab on the terrorist watch list, the no fly list or the mandatory secondary screening list, the official said.
The criterion will be part of the review Obama ordered, and the president wants an accounting of all the decisions related to the inclusion of Abdulmutallab's name.
There are several agencies involved in the watch-listing process, including the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, the National Counterterrorism Center, the Department of Homeland Security and State Department and other agencies within the Intelligence community.
Michael A
December 27, 2009 2:32 PM
Can the "watch list" be any more unmanageable? 550,000? That is absurd and a waste of time. Even the culling down of the list is a waste of time. More than 10,000 names? Hello, you have a better shot at hitting the lottery than nabbing one of the bad guys.
As opposed to wasting time on this, they should be using other strategies and tactics to deal with this problem. As I recall, one of the highjackers for 9/11 was on the "watch list" and what help was that? History shows that it was meaningless. The problem is that there are too many names on it, so naturally the reaction to a hit becomes over time, less and less meaningful.
Throw on top of that the ability to obtain false documents and numerous different names and you have a system that gives a blatantly false sense of security. Can you imagine the number of "hits" for the arabic equivalent of joe smith or joe jones or the like? I would be willing to bet that there are 200,000 plus names on the list with some version of mohammed in the name.
There has to be a better way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jyrinx
December 27, 2009 3:20 PM in reply to Michael A
Well, my hope is that Obama knows this and it'll shake out in the review. Whatever my policy reservations about him these days, he remains a hypercompetent technocrat, so hopefully some good'll come of this yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 28, 2009 3:39 AM in reply to Jyrinx
I agree with this. And there is a *lot* of room for improvement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
December 27, 2009 3:37 PM in reply to Michael A
Michael,
I wonder if they took Ted Kennedy off the list. Wasn't he stopped once?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 27, 2009 4:10 PM in reply to JohnW1141
I recall a bunch of silly names on the list over the years. Ted Kennedy is probably still on the list, amazingly. Can you believe over 500,000 names??? Who isn't on the list? That's absurd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kaha
December 27, 2009 8:37 PM in reply to Michael A
Apparently the list also includes children. I remember few years ago a family that had their 3 year old placed in the list.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 28, 2009 3:41 AM in reply to Kaha
You need to be careful what you wish for. Some stray names will get on these lists. The point is catching errors when they manifest themselves but also being tough and fast about the lists when it comes to heightened security and visas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Wesley Harding
December 27, 2009 8:44 PM in reply to JohnW1141
and have they taken Naomi Wolf off the list? She reports being stopped every time she flies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
December 28, 2009 1:20 PM in reply to John Wesley Harding
Back in 2003 a 71 year old nun from Milwaukee was stopped and prevented from flying from San Fransisco to D. C. She was a peace activist.
I wonder if pro war types ever get stopped.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kenneth Thomas
December 27, 2009 8:57 PM in reply to Michael A
How is 550,000 "unmanageable?" I have a database of 3.5 million chess games on my 2003 Gateway desktop, and searching for a name on it is fast and easy. Finding a name on a modern computer would be even quicker. You could make the whole 550,000 mandatory secondary screenings without any trouble.
It's still unclear to me what did or didn't happen in Amsterdam, though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 27, 2009 9:04 PM in reply to Kenneth Thomas
Do 200,000 plus of your moves have the name mohammed abdul mohammed or some variation on that?
Nah, 550,000 names sounds like complete bullsh*t and that's what people plugging in the names to do the search would think as well.
Incidentally, you actually think a real "terrorist" would use his own name on a passport? If you believe that, I have a bridge in New York to sell you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kenneth Thomas
December 28, 2009 1:55 AM in reply to Michael A
Actually, it's "a bridge in Brooklyn" that you'd offer to sell me. I hate it when people get standard jokes wrong. :-) (movie allusion)
If screening passports had 0 value, why have even the smaller lists? Or even passports? The fact is that a number of the 9/11 terrorists entered under their own names.
How many of the 550,000 do you think are entering the US on any given day? I would doubt it's even 500. Even if you add in false positives on common names (and false positives will be reduced by comparing passport number and issuing country, for example), the burden of secondary screenings shouldn't be unmanageable. Basically, I think you overestimate how difficult it would be to work from the larger list because it's so hard to comprehend how much information computers can process in seconds. My "Chessbase" program can search every single position in all 3.5 million games in a flash, and that's an off-the-shelf commercial program working on an old computer. The information for a 550,000 name database is much smaller. The best chess-playing computers are better than the world champion (IBM's Deep Blue beat Kasparov in 1997), and that is primarily based on sheer processing power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Anasazi
December 27, 2009 4:09 PM
“You have to understand that you need information that is specific and credible if you are going to actually bar someone from air travel,” Ms. Napolitano said on CNN. “He was on a general list, which over half a million people — everybody had access to it. But there was not the kind of credible information, in the sense derogatory information, that would move him up the list.”
???
His father reported him to the US Govt as radicalized by extremist propaganda and he recently traveled to Yemen. Are the warnings of a father about his son and visits to Yemen not credible? Is the No Fly list by invitation only?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Wesley Harding
December 27, 2009 8:53 PM in reply to Anasazi
And his father wasn't some kind of crackpot. I understand he was a former cabinet minister in Nigeria. If he can't get the attention of the securicrats, who can?
Napolitano's performance on the Sunday game shows was pathetic. She should be kicking ass and demanding answers from the securicrats in DHS and State.
Instead, she robotically repeated "what's important to remember is the system worked..." like a lullaby to calm us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 28, 2009 3:50 AM in reply to John Wesley Harding
*Nothing* worked, of course. The *only* things that saved us that are that the defendant didn't handle the explosives successfully and that muscular and attentive passengers jumped in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 28, 2009 3:57 AM in reply to Anasazi
Don't let anybody snow you about there not being specific, credible information, blah-blah. There is an intermediary list called "selectee list" that just requires further searching. There is no doubt whatsoever he should have been on the intermediary list/selectee list at least, and the only reason he was not, is the system failed very badly in practice. Very bad formal procedures.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mare_nostrum/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
December 27, 2009 5:02 PM
Who governs the list of who can board a flight to the US? Also, who controls the security guidelines for what can be brought on board a plane bound for the US? First, Richard Reid tried to blow up his shoe, resulting in people having to remove their shoes to get on planes. Now this fellow allegedly had explosives sewn into his underwear, so you can see where I'm going next. My point is not to be flippant, but to ask what is reasonable, in the way of searches. What if someone had put this explosive in a baseball cap, or I once had a down jacket with a collar that would have been the ideal place to secret explosives, what about that? Where do you draw the line?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
December 27, 2009 5:32 PM
The real facts, as best I've been able to understand the logic behind them, is that it is simply impossible to catch every independent cell member or lone-wolf style terrorist on any "list."
The whole modus operandi behind these folks is to be quiet and unobtrusive until they strike. Of course, in the case of lone-wolves that are mentally unstable they may end up leaking their intentions like a sieve but, if their friends and relatives know they're 90 degrees out of phase with reality, how can they be sure when they're going to pop-off -- unless they catch them in the act of stockpiling weapons or building their suicide vests or luggage?
For me, the bottom line is simple: We get lucky when luck rolls our way and people get stopped, but not all of them will be stopped because not all of them can be stopped. It's for that reason that this whole war-against-a-tactic, this "war on terror(ism)," is insane because like the failing and failed War on Drugs, it can not be won.
Of course this is not the neocon strategy for world relations, since they believe we should simply subjugate the world (which is itself impossible and therefore insane). However, this is the real Long War, to stop behaving like arrogant pigs and daring others to do anything about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
December 27, 2009 7:08 PM in reply to TheRealFish
Well, Joe Lieberman (yeah the same one who says we can't afford health care reform) says we should attack Yemen. He probably would have been Sec'y of State or Defense if McCain had won, so that just lets us know one other bullet we dodged.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbramh
December 27, 2009 6:05 PM
You're correct. The War on Terror is as absurd as the War on Drugs. You cn't wipe out insanity with an army, nor even with effective police action - and this is a job for International police forces working in harmony - and with smartly.
I would differ with you on the solution being the end of arrogance on the part of victims. That won't put an end to the sick fantasies of religious lunatics. Never has - never will. It didn't stop the Christian Crusades against Muslims (and Jews), and it won't stop the current extremist Muslim Crusades against the rest of the World (they murder Hindus and Buddhists with similar finesse).
I believe that most people, no matter their religious affiliation (or non-affiiation) just want their own family to be safe, don't contemplate murder and don't resemble "arrogant pigs."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
December 27, 2009 6:26 PM
Other administrations make believe incompetence. Most employees that you would see on c-span are not interested in doing more than stealing tax dollars. You can trust Obama to have transparency and competence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
inokeah
December 27, 2009 6:56 PM
"Obama has orders a review" ?? Sure, just like the review that Congress did on ACORN or the Review that Rep. Franks did on "Fanny and Freddy".
President Obama ordered bombing of terrorist camps (schools) in the area that the airliner bomber are coming from. No report on how many woman and children killed in these attackes. Our President is doing just what a Nobel Peace Prize winner would be expected to do. No booths on the ground just body parts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 28, 2009 3:36 AM in reply to inokeah
Your imbecilic hyperpartisanship is not welcome on this blog and completely out of place as we try to deal with a difficult subject.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ClosetLuddite
December 28, 2009 7:12 AM in reply to inokeah
I'm not sure what kind of booth you think would help to have on the ground. Perhaps a toll booth? Maybe a kissing booth! Or maybe one of those passport picture booths so we can have cute pictures of all the trrsts...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gotalife
December 27, 2009 8:09 PM
“We’ve known for a long time that this is possible,” said Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar and ABC News consultant, “and that we really have to replace our scanning devices with more modern systems.”
Clarke said full body scans were needed, “but they’re expensive and they’re intrusive. They invade people’s privacy.”
Al Qaeda, said Clarke, is aware of this vulnerability in the U.S. airport security system. “They know that this is a weakness and an Achilles’ heel in our airport security system and this is the second time they’ve tried it.”
Both times failed or psychological warfare?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
December 27, 2009 9:51 PM in reply to gotalife
They invade people’s privacy.”
Well la-di-fuckin-da.
If you can't stand the idea that a cartoon of your naked form will be briefly visible to a bored tsa screener, then drive, asshole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
December 27, 2009 9:51 PM in reply to gotalife
They invade people’s privacy.”
Well la-di-fuckin-da.
If you can't stand the idea that a cartoon of your naked form will be briefly visible to a bored tsa screener, then drive, asshole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PissedOffAmerican
December 27, 2009 8:10 PM
Truth is, it doesn't matter whether or not this guy was on a no fly list, or what kind of security protocols were in place. Apparently, he was walked AROUND security in Amsterdam.....
http://tinyurl.com/y8u6omf
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kaha
December 27, 2009 8:35 PM in reply to PissedOffAmerican
If he was in transit in Amsterdam, he will not be checked since he is already inside the security area. He will be boarding the connecting flight. In that case Nigeria is to blame for the lack of security.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 28, 2009 3:45 AM in reply to Kaha
There is no doubt that there was a failure in Lagos. First level failure was USG's inaction in not dealing with his listing after his father turned him in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PissedOffAmerican
December 27, 2009 8:23 PM
One needs to consider the possibility that this wackjob believed he would be martyred, and believed that Yemeni Al Qaeda had supplied him with the materials. But his handlers KNEW that the materials provided were insufficient to do the job, and that he would sing like a bird when in custody. The timing for this is just too pat, coming just days after the State Department DENIED military involvement in Yemen, then reversed itself when the facts could no longer be denied.
A cursury internet search reveals that he boarded in Nigeria, WITH a passport, and went through standard security protocols in Nigeria. It is in Amsterdamn that things seems to get a bit hinky. In Nigeria he has a passport, and in amsterdam he doesn't??? Huh? Interesting that the media is reporting the the White House is "blaming" the security at the Nigerian airport, when it is actually Amsterdam that seems to have been the spot where security protocols were circumvented. That is, of course, if one is to believe the eyewitness accounts of this attorney/passenger that one would think has no motive to lier.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PissedOffAmerican
December 27, 2009 8:28 PM
Israeli Firm Responsible for Amsterdam Airport Security Where Terrorist Boarded Aircraft
December 27, 2009
An Israeli firm is responsible for security inspections in the airport in Schiphol, Holland, the airport where Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarded the Airbus 330 heading for Detroit (USA).
The Israeli company, ICTS, is reportedly one of the leaders in security, & operates in Amsterdam and a number of other European countries.
continues.......
http://tinyurl.com/yhtpzvh
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Wesley Harding
December 27, 2009 9:07 PM
While we cogitate about watch lists, screening procedures, TSDB and TIDE, here's another four-letter combination to consider:
VISA.
After one of Nigeria's biggest bankers sings to the American Embassy about his whack-job son, why is it impossible to pull his visa?
Forget about no-fly lists - without a visa he no fly.
Paging Secretary Clinton...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 28, 2009 3:25 AM in reply to John Wesley Harding
First you start with the lists and visas which are completely mismanaged instead of hyperventilation about the impossibility of it all.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mare_nostrum/
If these were handled properly, this would easily have been stoppped.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PissedOffAmerican
December 27, 2009 9:38 PM
"If he was in transit in Amsterdam, he will not be checked since he is already inside the security area. He will be boarding the connecting flight. In that case Nigeria is to blame for the lack of security."
Then how do you explain what Haskell allegedly saw and heard. And to my knowledge, you are wrong. What is to stop someone from arming themselves while transiting from one aircraft to another?? I do not travel often, but the two times I have had connecting flights I was subjected to security protocols on both the original flight, AND the connecting flight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 28, 2009 7:10 AM in reply to PissedOffAmerican
I betcha it's like this: airport of origin has responsibility. As long as passenger doesn't leave secured area in transit terminal, follow-on checks may be less rigorous...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MyMy
December 27, 2009 11:08 PM
Let's hope that Obama's intelligence will find a better means of sorting these characters out. I have confidence in his abilities.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OutrageNation
December 27, 2009 11:41 PM
I was through Amsterdam recently - the different terminals all have different security. If you fly to or from the US, to get to another terminal you have to go through security. So he definitely went through screening in Amsterdam. And regular screening will not find explosives in your underwear, if that is where he put them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
December 27, 2009 11:57 PM
Obama is meeting all responsibilities. You wouldn't hear much about the avoidance from the other side on this issue. Getting rid of the Bush administration hiding behind these events is not easy. You know they planned them and they will not speak on their own behalf. They are getting called out all over the place and don't have much to say.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
December 28, 2009 6:14 AM
I don't know why it would. People like Hilary Clinton conspire ever yday to harm the uSA. Every day they want to let terroists in the country. That's all people who piss out do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 28, 2009 10:34 AM in reply to USgreentech
WHAAATTT???????????????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elf
December 28, 2009 10:04 AM
The administration should spend the money they're proposing for Afghanistan on dealing with this sort of security problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readytoblowagasket
December 28, 2009 10:12 AM
Except for the "6 months" part, I guess Joe Biden was right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?