"...that while the reveal was political in the global sense, I tend to doubt it was consciously timed to deal with Bush's current difficulties on the anti-terrorism front"

You can't be serious. "Politcal in the global sense"? It's political in every sense. The administration is under the gun for it's wiretapping, Iraq, budget follies, energy policy, etc. etc. ad naseum. Magically, full dislosure of a terror plot from four years ago.

"Thank you President Bush. Without you to remind us of what we're to fear, there'd only be you."

If this was the big Al Quaeda secret plan, they are more stupid then I thought. Try that on a modern plane, shoe bomb or no, and the passangers will shread the terrorists.

I agree with Nicholas. I'm a little sceptical -- give the terrorists a little more credit. They already did the plane hijackings and tried the shoe bomb and that's the one thing that the Americans are protecting themselves against (the last attack). American counter-terrorism is a joke b/c they don't understand militant Islam. The terrorists know better and will plan a different next attack.

Exactly how, in the post-9/11 environment, would a terrorist manage to "hijack" an airplane with a shoe bomb?

Funny how these revelations pop up just as W Bush's poll numbers drop. Every single time. And like Charlie Brown with the football, the traditional media falls for it _every single time_.

Cranky

"Exactly how, in the post-9/11 environment, would a terrorist manage to "hijack" an airplane with a shoe bomb? "

Um, by using it to blow off the secure cockpit door, thereby injuring or killing the pilots within? Granted, it's not brilliant (I would think you would have as much chance of blowing the plane open somehow and depressurizing). However, remember the 9/11 attacks were suicide missions too - Al Queda isn't too picky on how you die, just that you do die, for them.

> Um, by using it to blow off the secure
> cockpit door, thereby injuring or killing
> the pilots within?

About 7 months after 9/11 a gate agent upgraded me to first class on a long flight. I thought she had done me a favor until I realized the seat was the first row, aisle. I must have had a sickly look as I sat down because the flight attendent asked me what was wrong. I replied: "I just realized the free upgrade I got requires me to throw myself in front of any bad guys to give you time to brain them with the fire extinguisher". She gave me a hard look and said, "That's right".

No one can hijack a plane with a bomb anymore. If fact, I doubt any mode of transportation with mass destruction potential will be hijacked any time in the next 1000 years - the passengers just won't allow it.

McClellen was hit with this yesterday and all he could do was say, "Uh. Uh. I am not going to comment on Homeland Security issues".

Cranky

You may want to reviw this blog:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9665308/#051012a

This is too stupid; wait four years to release this info; he must think the public is dumber than the AG.

Um, by using it to blow off the secure cockpit door, thereby injuring or killing the pilots within?

Problem #1: as you mention, you have a chance of actually wrecking the airplane when you do this. While that might be OK with al-Qaeda in the general sense, it's not really a successful "hijacking", in the sense that they now don't have either (1) a bunch of hostages, or (2) an airliner to crash into their target -- and they were probably after one of those two if they were trying to hijack the plane in the first place.

Problem #2: even if the aircraft is airworthy afterward, using a bomb -- even a small one -- to blow a door open is not subtle. Someone is going to notice, and that means passengers are going to get suspicious, and that means the hijacker is screwed, barring the highly unlikely outcome of him being able to kill everyone on the plane before they can take him out.

Or, I suppose, the outcome of the passengers all assuming that the hijackers just want them as hostages and not trying to resist -- but I can't picture a whole planeload of passengers all choosing to make that bet post-9/11.

Of course, just because a couple of shoe bombers would find it nigh-impossible to hijack a plane doesn't mean they couldn't destroy it -- and that's still something we should have a very serious interest in foiling, because while losing a couple of hundred people is better than losing a couple of thousand, it's still disastrous.

> Of course, just because a couple of shoe
> bombers would find it nigh-impossible to
> hijack a plane doesn't mean they couldn't
> destroy it -

If the hijacker has already defeated the first and second level security designed to prevent that pre-takeoff then it is too late - there is nothing to stop him from destroying the aircraft.

All this is meaningless drivel anyway. Assuming there is still an organized al Quida, which itself is questionable, one thing is clear: they don't do the same thing two times. Particularly not when they see that their target is preparing for that possibility.

Cranky

If the hijacker has already defeated the first and second level security designed to prevent that pre-takeoff then it is too late - there is nothing to stop him from destroying the aircraft.

That was sort of the point of the press release -- that they foiled the attack before the people got on the plane.

I don't entirely follow your complaint -- are you saying there was no danger of the hijacking succeeding? I agree with that much. Are you saying there was no danger to the aircraft passengers, even if the hijacking couldn't possibly succeed? That I don't agree with -- unless the entire report is fraudulent from beginning to end, which is possible. Are you saying that Bush released the news when he did to give his poll numbers a boost? Almost certainly, but it doesn't follow from that that we shouldn't be concerned about people trying to hijack airliners.

Or are you just cranky? :)

Shoe bomb Terrorist hijacker?

That's silly.

There's a smell to this story.

One thing I just don't understand. Why are so many addicted to the 'hijack a airplane' scenario. Anyone seen the ample lines of passengers queued up before the first detector site? Do you really think that it is possible to prevent some whack job from detonating something there, as well as a dozen (hundred?) other targets that would come to mind? How can you believe all this talk about 'no attacks since 9-11', and then complain about innumerable immigrants crossing the porous borders? It really doesn't add up to me. Sorry if I just can't buy the "He's made it safe for us!" line.

It's rather hilarious to note how satisfied critics of the president are when the suggestion is that ordinary Americans are well-suited to defeat terrorists on planes. It's rather like thinking a 'Megans Law' for declared AQ operatives would be all we vigilant Yanks would need to take down the cells.

I don't suppose any of you would even think about the regulations required of certified air marshals. So long as the terrorists are 'stupid', anything Joe Sixpack might do to foil them is OK.

Here's a legalistic question. If you push *69 on your neighbor's phone, can she sue you?

I'm surprised that so few have noted that there was a similar escape from Yemen prisons in 2003. And it was of suspects in the Cole bombing then too.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83890,00.html