but only enough to give the wearer 2nd degree burns in his sensitive spots. It was designed and built by the same agency that shepherded the wearer onto that flight to Detroit. He was boarded even though he didn't have a proper passport and had to be taken into a back room at Amsterdam Airport by an Agency minder to talk to an airline official who boarded him anyway.
The fact that the Underwear Bomber got special treatment by the US Government to put him aboard an airliner was admitted publicly a month later before a Congressional Committee by Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy.
The State Dept. acknowledged that the CIA let him on the plane knowing he was involved in a terrorist cell. On January 27, 2010, an official from the U.S. State Department said that Abdulmutallab's visa was not revoked because federal authorities believed that it would have compromised a larger investigation. The official, Patrick F. Kennedy, Undersecretary of State for Management, said intelligence officials had told the State Department that letting Abdulmutallab keep his visa would allow for a greater chance of exposing the terrorist network. Here is the relevant section of Kennedy's statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 20, 2010. It explains why the State Dept. did not revoke his visa, even though he was on several terrorist watch lists: http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/testimony/testimony_4635.html
We recognize the gravity of the threat we face and are working intensely with our colleagues from other agencies to ensure that when the U.S. Government obtains information that a person may pose a threat to our security, that person does not hold a visa.
We will use revocation authority prior to interagency consultation in circumstances where we believe there is an immediate threat. Revocation is an important tool in our border security arsenal. At the same time, expeditious coordination with our national security partners is not to be underestimated. There have been numerous cases where our unilateral and uncoordinated revocation would have disrupted important investigations that were underway by one of our national security partners. They had the individual under investigation and our revocation action would have disclosed the U.S. Government’s interest in the individual and ended our colleagues’ ability to quietly pursue the case and identify terrorists’ plans and co-conspirators.
Can it honestly be said under these circumstances that a plot that was facilitated was also thwarted by the same gov't agency?
= new reply since forum marked as read
- ''The most potent weapon of the oppressor, is the mind of the oppressed.'' - Steven Biko
