Nigerian tried to blow up the plane
 

Device was on fire in terror suspect's lap, plane passenger says
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* NEW: Man with same name was engineering student in London, professor says
* Passenger says he grabbed device, subdued suspect
* Nigerian in custody "talking a lot," U.S. official says after incident
* Obama orders "all appropriate measures" to increase security

Romulus, Michigan (CNN) -- A Nigerian man is "talking a lot" to the FBI, said a senior U.S. official, after what the United States believes was an attempted terrorist attack on an inbound international flight.

The initial impression is that the suspect was acting alone and did not have any formal connections to organized terrorist groups, said the official, who is familiar with the investigation.

The suspect, identified by a U.S. government official as 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, ignited a small explosive device Friday, shortly before a Northwest flight from Amsterdam, Netherlands, landed at Detroit Metro Airport in Michigan.

Passenger Jasper Schuringa told CNN that with the aid of the cabin crew, he helped subdue and isolate Abdulmutallab.

Abdulmutallab was taken into custody and is being treated for second- and third-degree burns on his thighs, according to federal law enforcement and airline security sources.

The sources told CNN that the suspect flew into Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam on a KLM flight from Lagos, Nigeria, and is not believed to be on any "no fly" list, although his name does appear in a U.S. database of people with suspect connections.

Abdulmutallab did not undergo secondary security screening in Amsterdam, an administration official and the Dutch counterterrorism coordinator said.

The administration official said there was no evidence that Abdulmutallab was a hard-core, trained member of al-Qaeda.

The Nigerian national, however, claimed to have extremist ties and said the explosive device "was acquired in Yemen along with instructions as to when it should be used," a federal security bulletin obtained by CNN said.

The remains of the device used were sent to an FBI explosives lab in Quantico, Virginia, for analysis, security sources said.

British counterterrorism police officers were searching houses Saturday in central London, England, in relation to the airline incident, a Metropolitan Police spokeswoman told CNN.

One piece of information led police to an ornate building on Mansfield Street in London, where Abdulmutallab may have once lived in a basement apartment. It wasn't clear as to what police were searching for.

"The security of the public must always be our primary concern," said a statement Saturday from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The statement was read over the phone by a spokesman at 10 Downing Street.

"We have been working closely with the U.S. authorities on investigating this incident since it happened yesterday. Because of the serious potential threat posed by the incident, I have spoken to the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, whose officers have been carrying out searches of properties in London.

"We will continue to take whatever action necessary to protect passengers on airlines and the public," Brown said.

Meanwhile, a spokesman at the University College of London said a student named Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was enrolled in the department of mechanical engineering from September 2005 to June 2008. Dave Weston said the college has no other information on the man.

President Obama, who is spending the holidays in Hawaii, was briefed on the incident during a secure phone call with aides and instructed in a subsequent discussion with security advisers "that all appropriate measures be taken to increase security for air travel," White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN. The president made no changes to his schedule, Burton said.

The Department of Homeland Security issued a statement Friday saying that air passengers "may notice additional screening measures put into place to ensure the safety of the traveling public on domestic and international flights."

Passengers described the brief moments of panic on board, as screams erupted and flight attendants ran for fire extinguishers.

Syed Jafry, who was sitting in seat 16G, said the plane was just beginning to descend when passengers heard a pop.

"Everybody got a little bit startled," he said. "After a few seconds or so ... there was ... kind of a flamish light and there was fire" and people around the immediate area began to panic.

Schuringa said he heard a big bang that sounded like a firecracker going off. He told CNN that he was the one who was able to subdue Abdulmutallab. CNN was not able to independently confirm Schuringa's account.

Schuringa said someone started yelling: "Fire! Fire!"

Then there was smoke. That's when Schuringa said he knew something was terribly wrong.

When he noticed that Abdulmutallab was not moving, he grew suspect. He jumped over the passenger next to him and lunged over Abdulmutallab's seat.

Schuringa said he saw that Abdulmutallab had his pants open and he was holding a burning object between his legs.

"I pulled the object from him and tried to extinguish the fire with my hands and threw it away," Schuringa said.

He said he managed to pull an object tucked between Abdulmutallab's legs. :lol: (They then proceeded to have the gay sex)

"Water! Water," Schuringa screamed. He heard fire extinguishers as he pulled Abdulmutallab out of his seat and dragged him to the front of the plane.

Schuringa said Abdulmutallab seemed dazed. "He was staring into nothing."

Schuringa said he stripped off Abdulmutallab's clothes to make sure he did not have other explosives on his body. A crew member helped handcuff him.

He said other passengers applauded as he walked back to his own seat.

"My hands are pretty burned. I am fine," he said. "I am shaken up. I am happy to be here."

Jafry said the incident was under control within minutes, crediting the crew and nearby passengers for the rapid response.

Another passenger, Richelle Keepman, told CNN affiliate WDIV-TV that the experience was terrifying.

"I think we all thought we weren't going to land, we weren't going to make it," Keepman said.

One person was taken to the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, hospital spokeswoman Tracy Justice said.

"All passengers have deplaned and, out of an abundance of caution, the plane was moved to a remote area," where the plane and baggage were rescreened, the Transportation Security Administration said in a statement. Passengers were interviewed by law enforcement authorities before being allowed to leave the airport.

No other suspicious materials were found on the plane or in luggage, the law enforcement and airline security sources said. The suspect had only carry-on luggage.

Another passenger on the Northwest flight transferred from the same KLM flight in Amsterdam, but officials found no connection between the two, the sources said.

The plane, an Airbus 330, landed shortly before noon. It was carrying 278 passengers.

Delta is the parent company of Northwest.

CNN's Christy Lenz, Mike Brooks, Jeanne Meserve, Kevin Bohn, Elise Labott, Ed Henry and Rachel Streitfeld contributed to this report.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/26/...ack/index.html

When I open my pants up I'm holding a burning object, too. They shouldn't have stopped the guy, maybe he was finally coming to give out that money!

Because half of it was probably BS.
Dude probably wants to jump-start a reality TV career. :lol:

What's hilarious to me about the whole story is all the reporters and witnesses who keep calling him "African American." I didn't even notice until some chode was bitching about it in the comments section under the first CNN article on the story. What's even more hilarious is that there would probably be complaints if they used any other term.

If he was going to Detroit to blow it up then he was going to be severely disappointed.

Why not just say black, or more accurately, Nigerian, since that's what he is. He's not an American, so he can't be an African American.

Typical for white professionals to be afraid of using the word black.

There as to be a nigerian scam joke somewhere in this whole story

I think he got scammed by the Nigerian who sold him the bomb.

Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to buy a lap bomb?

JC

And TSA begins another fun-filled round of "punish the innocent."

TSA, keeping you safe despite our best efforts!




Airlines: New rules keep passengers in seats

By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer Joan Lowy, Associated Press Writer – Sat Dec 26, 3:53 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing

The regulations are a response to a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day.

Air Canada said in a statement that new rules imposed by the Transportation Security Administration limit on-board activities by passengers and crew in U.S. airspace. The airline said that during the final hour of flight passengers must remain seated. They won't be allowed access to carryon baggage or to have any items on their laps.

Flight attendants on some domestic flights are informing passengers of similar rules. Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn't have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows.

The TSA issued a security directive for U.S.-bound flights from overseas, according to a transportation security official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly.

The official said passengers traveling internationally could see increased security screening at gates and when they check their bags, as well as additional measures on flights such as stowing carryons and personal items before the plane lands.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in a statement Saturday that passengers flying to the U.S. from overseas may notice extra security, but she said the measures "are designed to be unpredictable, so passengers should not expect to see the same thing everywhere."

A Nigerian passenger on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam allegedly attempted to start a fire as the plane prepared to land in Detroit on Friday, according to authorities. The incident has sparked a major international terrorism investigation.

Air Canada said it was limiting passengers to one carryon bag in response to a request from the U.S. and Canadian governments.

The airline advised U.S.-bound passengers to restrict their carryon item to "the absolute minimum" or to not carry any bag on board at all.

"Carriage of any carryon item will result in lengthy security delays for the customer," the airline said.

U.S.-bound flights on all airlines are experiencing significant delays, said Duncan Dee, Air Canada's executive vice president and chief operating officer.

A spokeswoman with Infraero, a Brazilian government agency that oversees airport infrastructure, said that airlines had been asked by federal authorities to add another layer of security for international flights originating in the country after the attempted attack in the U.S.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to discuss the matter, said that passengers would face an extra screening that would take place just before they boarded planes. She would give no more details, citing security concerns.

David Castelveter, a spokesman for the Air Transport Association, said the domestic airline industry has been in close coordination with the security administration since Friday's incident and there will be increased scrutiny of passengers. He declined to comment on whether new regulations have been put in place.

___

Associated Press writers Eileen Sullivan in Washington and Bradley Brooks in Rio de Janeiro contributed to this report.





http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_airlin...ck_regulations




Talk about closing the gates after all the horses have trampled you on their way out...

In related news, the TSA announced today that passengers with laps will not be allowed to board US bound flights.

JC

i smell a hundred billion dollar airline bailout coming

Homeland Security: The worst legacy of the Bush Admin. Whenever you create another goverment agency, you create another bunch of people who need to justify their jobs by creating new rules and procedures.

completely agree. Satan mut be busting out his ics skates bout now

How convenient. First they start charging for checked bags, and now they want to limit or eliminate carry-on?

Funny how every time the terrorists do something, the government's immediate reaction is to impose some legislation that either grossly inconveniences us, costs us money, or both.

I think the terrorists are driving capitalism now. Ain't that grand (and ironic)?

I looked and lost interestzzzz..........

so you are only for over legislation when it doesnt inconvieniance you? Interesting

Now it's being revealed that this guy was on the general watch list because his father warned the US Embassy several weeks ago about him. So why not simply give a secondary screening to anyone on that list (a swab test would have most likely detected the explosives)? Why does the TSA need to make things more strict for the rest of us? Remain seated for the last hour, don't use laptops, yeah like that's going to accomplish anything. :rolleyes: Bunch of fucking idiots who just create some new rules to act like they're "responding" and "doing something". :rolleyes:

They wouldn't because of his last name. Especially with recent Muslim rioting in western Europe plus he was coming from Denmark where you had that cartoon controversy where the artist was murdered. They rather finger fuck grandmas in wheelchairs.

The TSA may not be the dumbest government program ever but it sure ranks up there in the top.

I'm only for legislation when it's warranted to curb otherwise uncontrolled Capitalism which can erode and undermine our Democracy, and personal sovereignty.

Jesus fucking christ, when will you grow a brain and learn that the United States of America is not a fucking democracy? Not once in the U.S. Constitution is the word "democracy" used.

as opposed to uncontrolled government :lmao:

It simultaneously fitting and ironic, that you would come down on the side of the founding fathers, who established this country as a Republic, as opposed to a direct Democracy.

Considering that the framers chose this path specifically because they believed the "average guy" (that would be you), could not make informed decisions on their own.

I guess you loves you some Big Government after all. :lol:

JC

Crap...there goes the lap dances...

Yeah funny how that works...

Capitalism has much less of a chance to be uncontrolled than the government because buisnesses are usually independant of each other.

Exactly.

That's why the general public gets to vote on who controls businesses.

Wait, that not right is it?

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong about everything? :lol:

I'm exhausted just watching you.

JC

You were right in the other thread. I think he's just anti-American.

Save your Einstein rhethoric...it's getting old.

Collectively companies have power to control people. Independantly not so much. And when did typical citizen voting yield any power to determine where monies are alloted in the federal government? Congress who represents the "people" represent buisness, not you.

Then don't fucking read it. Problem solved.

Somewhere in the universe, there's a giant basket that collects all the points you've missed.

It's full now.

JC

About the time that you learn that a republic is a specific form of representative democracy.

you're right, cartoon characters and the undead have no say in corporate policy. How unamerican!

That's right, AMJ! Einstein was intelligent. How dare you try to inject intelligence into a discussion with 101...

It is not that either. A representative democracy would be where a congressman finds out what the majority of the people of his state wants and votes that way. They would be bound by law to do so or there would be no point to elections. Just appoint someone to go up there and cast a vote. They campaign on certain platforms but once elected they are not bound to do "the will of the people".

We elect leaders to make decisions on what they feel are best but who are bound by the Constitution (like that means shit anymore).

So now the conversation turns again to GWB? Sorry, but I can think of no other person responsible for shredding the Constitution more than him during my lifetime (and remember Smittie, that's twice yours).

Perhaps, in terms of your argument, bringing Constitutional attacks into this was a bad idea, huh?

Why the fuck do you think I like President Bush? I think he should have been impeached for McCain-Feingold since he said he felt it was unconstitutional and signed it anyways. He increased the size of government to levels that most Democrats could only imagine in their wet dreams (up until President Obama), yet you think I like that despite I bitch about the size of government and its intrusion into our lives. Personally I don't see why liberals didn't embrace him so much other than the wars.

Which reminds me, I remember in the State of the Union address in 2005 President Bush said he wanted to set up health clinics in rural areas that don't have access to big hospitals and blah, blah, blah. I cringed when I heard that but why didn't you guys embrace it?

Because liberals are proven better at spotting lies (and sarcasm, and parody, for that matter).

Did you catch President Bush lying right before he didn't sign the prescription moderization act in 2003 for Medicare with half a trillion dollars?

Frankly, it became pretty obvious fairly soon in the game (to me, at least) that all that came out of GWB's mouth was crap, so really, I then just assumed that if his mouth was moving, he was probably lying.

Unfortunately, Presidents (and candidates put into office) usually try to fulfill their promises, but they aren't always succesful because of our checks and balances. President Bush couldn't even get congress to move to a very slight privitization of social security despite it was Republican controlled.

Still, when President Obama, Bush, future presidents say they want to do something, I take note because in general they try to do it.

Yeah like..."the 787 Billion Stimulus package is going to stimulate the economy..."

"...healthcare reform isn't going to increase the national debt..."

"...I'm not gonna raise your taxes...."

There are lies are both sides snappy. The best thing is Government least so they quite fucking watering down the dollar (which is down 19% from March this year). Yay

Yeah! I mean, what?

I'm about 20 years down into a 30 year old bottle of Scotch, and I'd have a better chance of learning Chinese algebra than I would understanding what you just said. :lol:

JC

I have a decoder ring from an old box of Quisp that might help...

Oops! There you go, back to civics class with you.

You appear to think that majority of the blame for the failures in this incident falls on Bush. Do you think the same of September 11th?

His post referenced the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and nothing else. Are you not against the creation of additional bureaucracy and government glut?

'Nother one:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...950623,00.html

What I took from the post was that failures at Homeland Security caused this incident and by calling it "the worst legacy of the Bush Admin." I implied some level of Bush responsibility for this incident. Since it was my implication from the statement rather than directly stated I posted "you appear to think". If my implication was incorrect Homeslice can correct me.:idk:

I think that something like the Department of Homeland Security is necessary. I also think that, being a government agency, the bureaucracy and glut that seems to require has made it inefficient and (to a degree) ineffective. It certainly didn't function well in this case. That is too bad.

The good done during the Bush administration was, unfortunately, quite little, and it was far outweighed by the bad. History is usually kind looking back - anger fades, and we all tend to remember the good things more than the bad.

I suspect this aspect of human nature will still not be able to transcend the sheer magnitude of "bad" in GWB's case, and he likely will go down in history as one of the worst, if not the single worst president this country has ever known.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=...6c7832dbb01be6

Then you were ascribing a great deal of content to the statement that was not present.

There are several government agencies that handle the sort of thing that Homeland Security does, creating ADDITIONAL replication of tasks. Simply creating an oversight board, or even just going so far as creating efficient sharing of records would be more useful, as well as more fiscally responsible.

Bingo.

I don't know what Homeslice was saying anymore than you do. That is why I phrased my statement the way I did.

What you stated is what Homeland Security is supposed to do. It wasn't meant to duplicate efforts, but to tie together the information generated by a number of disparate departments (CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.) in to one cohesive picture. It was also supposed to place more import on that information by making it a cabinet level department. What you state is exactly what DHS is supposed to do.

All that I did was read what he typed. You seemed to find more than was there.

What Homeland Security was supposedly intended to do, and the reality, are vastly divergent. You don't need an entirely new department to do what you say was the originally intended function. I wonder how much money has been sunk into HS? It rankles at my innate fiscal conservatism.

The different departments were supposed to work together before. They never did so effectively since they were never subordinate to those trying to get them to work together. Institutional barriers overcame any effort to change how things worked. By creating an additional department with oversight and control that barrier was supposed to be eliminated. It doesn't appear to have worked, but the milder form you are suggesting hasn't worked either.

As for the money, I believe DHS was supposed to save money by centralizing appropriations for a number of different departments in order to prevent redundant and unnecessary spending. That DHS doesn't appear to do that either shouldn't exactly come as a shock.

I dont work for Homeland Security but but one thing I learned from working for the government is that its very cliqueish every agency or even department within an agency feels like they need to protect their own interests against other agencies. They only work together if their forced to by regulations.

As a complete outsider I have only read the same thing, but the theme is repeated constantly. Even with a cabinet level department supposedly performing oversight and fostering cooperation between agencies they didn't work together in this case. I am using a wide brush, but it seems endemic in the government that most agencies are primarily concerned with protecting their agency and its budget rather than their primary mission (in this case protecting America).

I blame Bush for the HSA/TSA, not for this terrorist incident. The incident would have occurred with or without the HSA/TSA.

The existing intelligence & law enforcement community was already responsible for homeland security. The fact that certain information was allegedly not being shared between these agencies doesn't prove that a brand new agency needed to be created. Sounds more like a failure to hold certain individuals accountable. Instead the Bush Admin did something that they knew would be deemed more impressive: Create a new agency.

It's just like the business world, every time you create a new department or business unit, you've created a bunch of people who feel the need to justify their positions by creating new programs & policies.

Creating Homeland Security simply created a new "clique", rather than addressing the real problem.

I think your corporate analogy is inaccurate. It was previously like a number of separate companies had merged forming a number of subsidiaries with little executive structure on top to manage the subs in a common direction. DHS was supposed to create that "executive structure" as well as make the top "executive" a cabinet level position. In theory the idea was, in my view, a good one. In practice it has not achieved its objective.

As I have stated, I am a complete outsider so I don't know if it has created a new "clique". I haven't read about that being the problem like I have with interactions between the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc., but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Whatever the ultimate cause is, I agree that DHS hasn't been effective at fixing the problems its creation was supposed to fix.

They have a cabinet-level position, but other than that............

Does the DHS actually have any authority over the FBI in certain matters?

Nope, hence the theory vs. practice statement. Protection of individual fiefdoms outweighed actual effectiveness.