***
Previous:

The curse of Norm Mineta, contd.
The curse of Norm Mineta
Racial profiling for dollar$

Kathryn Lopez calls Sen. Debbie Stabenow’s stand “the anti-photo-op.”

Caption and photoshop contest over at GOP and College.

Reader Eric: “Say what you will about Sen Debbie Stabenow, at least she has the guts to stand in front of a big sign that accurately proclaims her
own capabilities. I mean, how many Senators would be so honest about
themselves? I think we should make it a Senate rule, don’t you? With tongue firmly in cheek…”

Transcript:

THANK YOU. MR. PRESIDENT, I RISE TODAY TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO THIS WILL BUDGET RESOLUTION THAT WOULD PROVIDE $5 BILLION FOR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS SO THAT THEY CAN EFFECTIVELY AND RELIABLY COMMUNICATE WITH EQUIPMENT THAT CAN SPEAK TO EACH OTHER, INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT. I REGRET TO SAY THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN DANGEROUSLY INCOMPETENT IN PROVIDING HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING, AND PARTICULARLY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING FOR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS AND THEIR ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE…

Flashback March 17, 2004: The Dems’ first responder fakeout

“I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the war on terror,” droned Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry at a campaign event in Washington this week.

Zzzzzz.

“I believe he’s done too little.”

What was that? My ears perked up slightly. Would this “proven leader” who claims he will “stand up to the special interests” talk about the need for racial, ethnic, nationality and religious profiling? Would he attack the Bush White House for appeasing the ethnic grievance industry and keeping silly Norm Mineta in his Cabinet during these deadly serious times?

Or would he propose a temporary visa moratorium on terror-friendly countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Morocco? Or how about the open-borders lobby? Would Kerry have anything to say about the continuing security threat that unchecked illegal immigration poses to the “hardworking families” he claims to represent?

Naaah.

Kerry, you see, was speaking before the International Association of Fire Fighters, whose president, Harold Schaitberger, is national co-chair of the Kerry for President Committee. Their complaint is not that Bush has done too little to fight terrorism, but that he has showered too little government funding on certain Democratic constituencies. Hence, the First Responders Fake-out.

Kerry’s big proposal to fight the global war on terrorism (borrowed from Bill and Hillary Clinton) is to add 100,000 “first responders” to the ranks of firefighters and emergency medical personnel in cities and towns across the United States. In other words: Wait until the terrorists strike us again and then do a really, really good job of cleaning up the mess afterward.

Of course, our brave firefighters, cops and emergency personnel need better training and equipment to respond in the event of another attack. But responders, no matter how courageous, prevent nothing. Dialing 911 is not the solution to stopping another 9/11…

It’s one thing for feckless grievance-mongers on the Left to accuse Americans genuinely concerned about national security of Islamophobia. It’s quite another for the Right to sink to such a level in accusing all good-faith critics of demagoguery. Reasonable people can disagree on the process pitfalls and security implications of the deal. But the elite Right, has simply lost its marbles:

Here’s GOP strategist and Muslim voter outreach architect Grover Norquist in the Los Angeles Times dismissing critics of the deal: “The only whiners left by next week will be the registered bigots.”

Conservative commentator Larry Kudlow: “This whole brouhaha surrounding the Bush administration’s green-light to a United Arab Emirates company slated to manage six major U.S. ports has nothing to do with protecting homeland security. Allow me to give it its proper name: Islamophobia.”

New York Times columnist David Brooks: “This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven’t seen in decades. First seized by the radio hatemonger Michael Savage, it’s been embraced by reactionaries of left and right, exploited by Empire State panderers, and enabled by a bipartisan horde of politicians who don’t have the guts to stand in front of a xenophobic tsunami.”

The UAE is our “friend,” we are told, and to question that assertion, we are scolded, is to engage in reckless prejudice and life-threatening insult. Yes, well, some friends are more equal than others. To instinctively trust a longtime, stalwart Western democracy more than an Arab newcomer with a mixed record on combating terror, international crime, and Islamic extremism is not “Islamophobia.” It’s self-preservationist in a time of war.

We are at war, aren’t we?

President Bush himself is ultimately responsible for encouraging the race-card players, thanks to his stunning comment that “those who are questioning” the deal need to “step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company.”

… Yes, there are countless homegrown terrorists across England, where Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the maritime company purchased by state-owned Dubai Ports World, operates. So what? So, now, a peaceful Western democracy that is infiltrated against its will by al Qaeda is on the same plane as an Arab federation whose ruling emiratis ran interference for Osama bin Laden before Sept. 11, which continued to be a logistical hub for al Qaeda for years after, which refuses to recognize the existence of Israel, bans our textbooks as “racist” because they point out Syria’s state sponsorship of terrorism, and is boycotting Denmark over the Mohammed Cartoons?

Now, all the proselytizers who tell us to collect the dots and connect the dots want us to throw them all away lest we give offense?

Perhaps Bush should consult with his own Justice Department, which understood the need for heightened scrutiny of Middle Eastern illegal aliens in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, and instituted temporary targeted fingerprinting and registration policies for Middle Eastern tourists, businessmen, and students.

Bigots!

Perhaps he should ask his own Border Patrol, which is on heightened alert for illegal Middle Eastern border-crossers.

Bigots!

Perhaps he should ask his own FBI, which is zeroing in on mosques and Muslim charities instead of Lutheran churches and the March of Dimes in the domestic War on Terror.

Bigots!

(But don’t bother asking Transportation Department Norm Mineta anything — well, other, than “Why the heck are you still here, Normie?”)

The sad lesson of Portgate: Scream “racism” loud enough, and people will blame the messengers and back down. By the Bush standard, we who put American security above Arab sensitivity are all bigots now.

***

Tony Blankley is on the same wavelength: Read Islamistphobia-phobia.

Andy McCarthy, a “registered bigot” by the Norquist/Bush standard, asks: Is the UAE guilty of providing material support to terrorism since 9/11?

What do you do?

Do you think nothing of the incident? Hope for the best, sell them what they want, and move on?

Do you feel guilty for “profiling” them and dismiss any misgivings you have?

Or do you listen to your post-9/11 conscience and contact the authorities?

Lucky for us, some clerks who work at Wal-Mart and Target did not give in to ingrained P.C. impulses. ABC News reports:

Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.

The phones — which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card — have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.

…Law enforcement officials say the phones were used to detonate the bombs terrorists used in the Madrid train attacks in March 2004.

…The FBI is closely monitoring the potentially dangerous development, which came to light following recent large-quantity purchases in California and Texas, officials confirmed.

In one New Year’s Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said.

In an earlier incident, at a Wal-mart store in Midland, Texas, on December 18, six individuals attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.

ABC News has posted the Midland Police Department police report of the incident, which notes that “Upon the arrival of special agents, and as a result of subsequent interviews, it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex.”

Click here for full size document.

According to ABC News, “other reports have come in from other cities, including Dallas, and from authorities in other states. Authorities in Pennsylvania, New York and other parts of Texas confirmed that they were alerted to the cases, and sources say other jurisdictions were also notified.”

The investigations may yield solid terrorism leads. Or they may not. But if 9/11 taught us anything, it was to be unapologetically vigilant. To act now and avoid the cacophany of hindsight hysterics later. What good are all the “Be alert” admonitions from the government if no one alerts authorities when their alarms go off?

Some civil liberties absolutists will no doubt go bananas over “racist” store clerks who blow the whistle on suspicious behavior. But the rest of us, including the feds who are now following up on the citizen watchdog reports, should be nothing but grateful–and ready to do the same.

***

Textually.org noted back in October 2005 that Thailand authorities had taken steps to regulate pre-paid phone users after a spate of terrorist bomb attacks in which mobile phones were used:

Starting November 15, no matter if you’re travelling from Bangkok or Malaysia, you must have registered your number… in order to be able to use your mobile in the three provinces,” Deputy Prime Minister Chidchai Vanasathidya told reporters on Tuesday, reports Todayline.

“Otherwise your signal will be cut.”

Since May only users of pre-paid mobile services have been required to register with authorities, but Thai communications authorities have expanded that programme to include all cell phones.

The plan aims to stop bomb attacks triggered by mobile phones in the three southern provinces bordering Malaysia — Narathiwat, Pattani and Yala — where an insurgency has raged since January 2004 and claimed more than 970 lives.

“We wanted the three southern provinces to be a special zone, and for the sake of public safety, in summary we must know all telephone numbers in the area,” said Chidchai, who is also justice minister…

***

Lastango at Daily Pundit commends the local Midland police for taking the clerks seriously and adds that “every one of us, no matter what we do, can make a difference. I know that if I see something suspicious I’ll be calling it in.”

AJ Strata connects the incidents to the publication of the NYT/NSA leak stories. His message for James Risen: “If you ever needed evidence you are a Benedict Arnold this is it. And if we do get attacked because of these adjustments by terrorists – you and the NY Times will have the blood of innocents on your hands.”

Reliapundit: “ALL of these large sales came RIGHT AFTER the NYTIMES NSA leak (12/15/05). Though this is circumstantial, it is HIGHLY SUGGESTIVE that the leak alerted the sleeper cells HERE (and perhaps elsewhere), and that they are adapting their SOP’s as a result; thus, they are making it tougher for us to prevent an attack.”

Bryan Preston at Junkyard Blog is on the same wavelength.

Chris Christner has similar thoughts.

And don’t miss The Anchoress, who puts us all in the right mindframe: “I haven’t forgotten.”

***

A Power Line reader and Sensible Mom raise questions about the MPD report obtained by ABC News. I’ve got a call in to to the MPD, but Sensible Mom has already heard from the public affairs officer, Tina Jauz. The document’s real–it’s an internal, official-use-only preliminary report that was leaked to ABC News. (Just talked to Jauz. Confirmed. Identifying headers and footers were removed from the document.)

Meantime, the Midland Reporter-Telegram has more details on the Wal-Mart incident. And Chris Christner has further updates.

***
Previous/related:

The do-nothing ACLU
NYC subway alert
Hey, terrorists: We’re still not profiling
NYC plays eeny meeny miney mo
Heather Mac Donald: Looking the wrong way
Paul Sperry: Politically Correct Suicide: Still No Subway Profiling
The 7/7 attacks: Looking homeward
Heather Mac Donald on profiling
The curse of Norm Mineta
In support of profiling
Flying blind
On profiling
The Mohammed Atta Memorial Quota Plan
It had nothing to do with “luck”

You may recall that the Bush administration angered and disgusted conservatives by defending DOT racial set-asides four years ago–putting the Republican White House on the same side as the Clintonistas. Since then, the fraud, abuse, and fronting scams have continued under the so-called “disadvantaged business enterprise” scheme that amounts to dollar-driven discrimination.

See here in Philly. Here in Miami. And here in Denver. Plenty more examples here.

Conclusion:

September 11 was supposed to have “changed everything.” But for Bush and his Clinton holdover, Norm Mineta, it’s business as usual at the Transportation Department. You can profile for profit, but not for public safety.

Homeland security? What homeland security?

***

Roger Clegg, who has been fighting the battle against pro-preference forces on both the left and right for many years, passes along info on a new study by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights showing that the DOT and many other agencies are–surprise, surprise–failing “to seriously consider race-neutral alternatives as the Constitution requires” in federal procurement programs.

GoxExec.com reports on the study here.

Mineta and his minions remain strangely silent about these violations of equal protection under the law.

***
Getting lots of reader feedback from folks with experience in federal contracting/procurement exposing how the process is undermining homeland security. Keep sending. I may do a follow-up.

Failures to detect weapons and explosives at airport security checkpoints are being incorrectly attributed to shoddy work by screeners, the head of the Transportation Security Administration said Saturday.

So-called human failures were often the result of government watchdogs intentionally loading the bags a certain way into the machines to exploit the limitations of the screening equipment.

“It really is unfortunate that people take the results and blame the screeners,” Stone said. Stone said the findings illustrate the need for a new type of machine that can look at the insides of a bag from multiple angles.

Yet, a Government Accountability Office found airport screeners employed by private companies under a pilot program at five airports do a better job detecting dangerous objects than government screeners, according to Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. and chairman of the House aviation subcommittee. Using the same damned machines.

At least someone at the Louisville airport was able to catch this woman who had a pistol in her fanny pack.

Oh, wait. No. No one spotted the weapon after she walked through the metal detector with it. She reported herself to airport security.

Your tax dollars at work.

Hat tip: Steve Elson.

***
Previous:

Airport security follies: Seaworld edition
Still flying blind
TSA: Taking stupidity apart?
TSA: Thousands standing around
Update on the air marshals
The curse of Norm Mineta

Under provisions of President Bush’s 2006 budget proposal favored by Congress, the TSA will lose its signature programs in the reorganization of Homeland Security. The agency will likely become just manager of airport security screeners — a responsibility that itself could diminish as private screening companies increasingly seek a comeback at U.S. airports.

The agency’s very existence, in fact, remains an open question, given that the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security contains a clause permitting the elimination of TSA as “distinct entity” after November 2004.

“TSA, at the end of the day, is going to look more like the Postal Service,” said Paul C. Light, a public service professor at New York University and a Brookings Institution scholar who has tracked the agency since its birth in February 2002.

In other words: At the end of the day, we’ll still be stuck with it.

***
Previous:

TSA: Thousands standing around
Pouring fuel on the homeland security fire
Norm Mineta’s Transportation Security Administration: Another 9/11 disaster

Some more reading assignments for Kaus:

The Mohammed Atta Memorial Quota Plan

Flying Blind

Michael Smerconish’s testimony

United Airlines to Spend $1.5 Million on Civil Rights Training

The wrong man at the wrong place at the wrong time

The Curse of Norm Mineta

The man who said this…

Kroft: Are you saying, at security screening desks, that a 70-year-old white woman from Vero Beach, Florida, would receive the same level of scrutiny as a-a-a Muslim young man from Jersey City?

Mineta: Basically, I would hope so.

…is staying in the Bush administration.

Flashbacks:

Rich Lowry on Mineta, January 2002:

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta may not necessarily be the least impressive Bush cabinet secretary — there’s competition there — but he is certainly the most dangerous.

When President Bush the other day said that he would be “madder than heck” if his Secret Service agent had been ethnically profiled, he wasn’t just playing to the media or seeking to assuage the agent’s feelings, he was enunciating administration policy: no profiling on the basis of ethnicity or national origin whatsoever.

As I write in the latest National Review, this is an instance of a piety of our racial politics — no “racial profiling” — triumphing over experience and commonsense. Islamic terrorists will necessarily be Muslims, and probably from the Arab world.

Not to try to single out young males with these characteristics for extra attention — more extensive searches and questioning — is folly. It ignores, among other things, the successful Israeli experience securing El Al from attacks.

But adopting something along the lines of the Israeli system would require a tough-mindedness, and instead of tough-mindedness, we have Norm Mineta. On the issue of profiling, Mineta’s ignorance appears to be nearly invincible.

Michael Smerconish, testifying before the Transportation, Treasury and General Government Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on Passenger Screening and Airline Authority to Deny Boarding, June 2004:

Time and again Secretary Mineta has made clear his refusal to consider personal characteristics in the war on terrorism. In particular, I note his Statement to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on October 12, 2001, and his speech in Rochester, New York on that same date. Secretary Mineta was active in the aftermath of 9/11 in dictating to the airlines his view of the world. In the months after 9/11, the DOT issued several memos to the airlines, warning them against “profiling” passengers. Consider that on October 12, 2001, the DOT issued a memo titled “Carrying Out Transportation Inspection and Safety Responsibilities in a Nondiscriminatory Manner…”

Peggy Noonan, June 2002:

Mr. Mineta has received many awards for his sensitivity to ethnic profiling. Good for him, but I’d personally give him an award if he’d begin to act like a grownup and recognize that his childhood trauma shouldn’t determine modern American security policy.

Ann Coulter, April 2004:

In June 2001, as Mohamed Atta completed his final “to do” list before the 9/11 attacks (“… amend will to ban women from my funeral … leave extra little Friskies out for Mr. Buttons … set TiVo for Streisand on ‘Inside the Actors’ Studio’….”), Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was conducting a major study on whether airport security was improperly screening passengers based on ethnicity. As Mineta explained: “We must protect the civil rights of airline passengers.” Protecting airline passengers from sudden death has never made it onto Mineta’s radar screen.

A few months later, after 19 Muslim men hijacked U.S. airplanes and turned them into Weapons of Mass Destruction on American soil, Mineta was a whirlwind of activity. On Sept. 21, as the remains of thousands of Americans lay smoldering at Ground Zero, Mineta fired off a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from implementing the one security measure that would have prevented 9/11: subjecting Middle Eastern passengers to an added degree of pre-flight scrutiny. He sternly reminded the airlines that it was illegal to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin, or religion.

Mineta would have sent the letter even sooner, but he wanted to give the airlines enough time to count the number of their employees and customers who had just been murdered by Arab passengers…

Glenn Reynolds, August 2002:

DO I REALLY WANT TO IMPEACH NORMAN MINETA? Some people have emailed with that question. And the answer is — Hell, yes!

But what they really mean, I think, is: do I really think that impeaching Norman Mineta is the way to do something about the idiocy of air security? That’s a bit more complicated.

It’s certainly possible to impeach a cabinet official — they’re “officers of the United States,” and hence subject to impeachment. But it never happens, because a cabinet official who’s that unpopular will be fired by the President first.

Mineta isn’t the whole problem, of course. He’s a symptom as much as a cause, a symptom of a bureaucratic mindset in which — it must be said — he participates fully. (And according to Gary Leff, who is all over this story, James Loy, the new TSA chief, is no better).

But since everyone knows that Mineta personifies the very mindset that is causing the problem, and since “Impeach Norm Mineta” makes that point nicely, it’s not a bad slogan. And judging by the glee with which a colleague of mine grabbed one of those bumperstickers, it reflects a widely shared sentiment.

Mineta will probably withstand the blogosphere-generated juggernaut, of course — especially as Republicans won’t want to attack a member of the Administration, and Democrats won’t want to attack one of their own. (Yeah, Mineta’s a Democrat, actually). But there’s nothing like bumperstickers calling for impeachment to bring home the unpopularity of a politician’s actions. So get one, and display it proudly!

Looks like the Bush administration still hasn’t gotten the message. Maybe I’ll wear the bumper sticker on my forehead the next time I’m on TV…

Update: 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman agrees with me. According to Rod Dreher, Lehman told the Dallas Morning News editorial board that “The Secretary of Transportation is obsessive about [racial profiling]. He will not relent on it.”

When one of Dreher’s colleagues suggested that “perhaps as a Japanese-American who was interned as a child during WW2,” Mineta has “a special perspective on how badly things can go when profiling goes too far,” Lehman responded, “Look, that’s his problem, not my problem….I’ve got problems too, and I don’t take them out on [public policy].”

Update II: Lucianne Goldberg’s readers agree with me too.

Update III: An American Airlines pilots writes:

Right on!!! As a pilot for American Airlines I vividly remember how I felt when I saw the 60 minutes segment with Secretary Mineta. I recall I shouted obscenities at the TV and almost threw the remote through it. I told anybody that would listen that if I were the President I would have fired Mr. Mineta on Monday morning and done it in the Rose Garden. “We need a person responsible for the transportation systems of this country who understands the realities of today’s dangerous world. Mr. Mineta is not that man.”

Furthermore Michelle, myself and my fellow pilots were furious when our airline was strongarmed into paying a large fine for protecting our passengers and ourselves. I guess bruised egos and hurt feelings outweigh defense of the aircraft at all costs.

We are freaking out. Panicking. Overreacting. Getting jumpy. For Chrissakes, GET A GRIP, comrades. We (I mean Ms. Jacobsen) are, by the words of our federal air security officials, creating a danger in the air.

I respectfully take issue with this characterization. Let’s remember what exactly Annie and Kevin Jacobsen did on their flight. By one unnamed marshal’s own words:

Jacobsen and her husband had a number of conversations with the flight attendants and gestured towards the men several times, the source said.

Who’s freaking out? The unnamed marshals who spoke to KFI are popping veins over the Jacobsens for having merely discussed their concerns with the flight crew and “gestured towards the men.” The couple didn’t jump up and scream “We are going to die!” They didn’t faint or have heart attacks. And they didn’t confront the 14 Syrians while they all stood up before landing, went to the bathroom, and congregated in the aisles in violation of security regulations. (No one confronted them, for crying out loud. That is the problem.)

The Jacobsens didn’t even muster up the courage to say meekly to the Syrians, “Hey, could you please sit down. You are making me nervous.” And they didn’t blab to other passengers about their fears.

The Jacobsens talked to the flight attendants and they kept to themselves. In fact, in their MSNBC interview, Kevin Jacobsen said he sat quietly with his wife and son during the landing and resignedly wrote about his concerns in his journal. Out-of-control menaces in the air? Come on.

The message that the alarmed and panicked marshals are sending out is that if and when we view suspicious behavior, we should all just sit tight in our seats, shut up, and do nothing until it’s too damned late lest we possibly risk blowing their cover.

Meanwhile, Tom Ridge and Norm Mineta ask us all to be vigilant, buy our duct tape, hand over our nail clippers and knitting needles, keep our lips sealed, and relinquish complete control and responsibility for homeland defense–and self-defense–to The Professionals.

Two words: Hell, no.

(Now, read this: When government failed: Passengers of Flight 93 saved America from even greater horror.)

***

Some annoyed bloggers wonder why I keep “flogging” this subject. For the same reasons they keep discussing it themselves: Very simply, it’s interesting and it’s important and there’s much to learn here about how both the government and citizens should properly respond to real and perceived homeland security threats. If you’d rather read about what the Bush twins are wearing and who saw whom at what restaurant, you are in the wrong zip code.

Update: I agree with many readers that some skepticism is still warranted, especially if this is the same Annie Jacobsen that wrote the piece. (Update to the update: James Taranto notes that the Jungian Annie lives in Toronto, not Los Angeles). Another quick thought: Building a bomb in mid-air using 14 operatives to take down one plane seems like a rather inefficient means of terrorism. If al Qaeda has been driven to such pathetic plots, maybe (no thanks to Norm Mineta) we really are getting somewhere.

Update II: By the way, my friend and Philly talk show host Michael Smerconish was the first to pick up on the idiotic policy that Jacobsen mentions which punished airlines for pulling over more than two Arab/Muslim passengers for secondary questioning. More info here, including Smerconish’s testimony about what 9/11 commissioner and former Navy Secretary John Lehman told him.

Update III: Good discussion at Ace of Spades and via Volokh, Jeff the Baptist thinks the Syrians were just praying. Hmmmm. Thomas Galvin had his own experience observing a passenger with “an oblong object wrapped in cloth.” Via Daniel Drezner, here’s the February 2004 London Observer article on intelligence related to mid-air bomb plots. David Horowitz had an eyebrow-raising flight experience last month.

Update IV: The always incisive Michele Catalano writes:

If this story is real and these men were what Annie thought they were, it’s a frightening story, indeed. Enough to make me start doing that nervous twitch everytime a plane flies a bit too low over my house. I thought I got rid of that twitch.

The more I write about it (as I’m reading other bloggers’ reactions to the story while I compose this), the more I think, why not? They keep saying they’re going to do something, why would I think this story is not true?

Again, I don’t want it to be true. The implications are not something I can let my brain chew on right now. Head, meet sand.

But what if? What if they were making a dry run? You can’t really protect the country by dealing in what ifs. So what’s the solution? Or is there one? And what do you make of this story?

Update V: Just a side note. The air marshals’ spokesman, Dave Adams, was a bit defensive in confirming the story, which seems to lend unsettling credence to Jacobsen’s account, in my opinion. Also, I’ve been trying to get a hold of the p.r. reps for WomensWallStreet.com. A receptionist said they’ve been swamped with calls since this morning. Am hoping this means my colleagues in the mainstream media are digging into the story, too.

In an unusual move, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has ordered inspectors at America’s largest airports to examine all travelers of Pakistani descent — including U.S. citizens — for minor injuries such as “rope burns,” “unusual bruises” and “scars” possibly suffered while training in terrorist camps in that ally Muslim country, according to internal U.S. documents obtained exclusively by WorldNetDaily.

A two-page “action” bulletin, labeled “For Official Use Only,” warns that recent intelligence gathered in Pakistan and elsewhere indicates that individuals traveling to train at terrorist camps in Pakistan may be planning to carry out terrorist activities within the United States between now and the presidential election in November.

The bulletin directs agents at major international airports in New York, New Jersey, Washington, Detroit, Chicago and Los Angeles to “increase scrutiny” of passengers who are naturalized U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents of Pakistani descent, and “who exhibit evidence of suspicious travel, including short trips to Pakistan not related to family or business.”

The closely held bulletin, dated June 17, orders primary inspectors at the airports to refer suspicious persons to secondary inspections areas for further questioning. The special inspections are authorized to run at least through late July.

“If we see any irregularities,” an immigration inspector told WND, “we escort them to secondary for a very in-depth interview and search.”

Inspectors also have been advised to examine travelers of Pakistani descent for physical signs that they’ve engaged in paramilitary training in Pakistan…

All well and good. But meanwhile, the Department of Transportation is busy suing airlines, making them pony up extortion funds, and forcing them to conduct racial/ethnic sensitivity classes so that their stewardesses and pilots refrain from engaging in exactly the kind of vigilant security measures that Customs and immigration agents are now undertaking!

Thanks, Norm Mineta.