Radical Departure

The Orwellian phrase of this week is "domestic radicalism," which on the surface seems like something aimed at heading-off the nurturing of potential domestic terrorists, but which could, under the Obama administration, easily become an effort to marginalize and intimidate anyone who says anything harsh about the government. If they want to purge "radicalism" from schools, they could start by banning the extreme left-wing and environmentalist teachings that have become part of the accepted curriculum. Where do you think Earth-Firsters and other eco-terrorists get the idea that "saving the planet" justifies acts of vandalism and violence?

Blocking the Exits

The Airport Advisory Board, in a memo responding to my questions about exploring a private option for handling passenger screenings at Colorado Springs Airport, recently recommended against replacing TSA. The costs and complications of making the change far outweigh any tangible benefits, in terms of improved service, according to the board. Relatively few passenger complaints have been heard at COS. And relations between TSA and airport managers have been good, according to the memo.

Fair enough. That no doubt will please those on council who do everything possible to not rock the boat. I still think the question was worth asking. I fear the situation will deteriorate once TSA screeners gain collective bargaining rights and the union ethos -- which I know first-hand thanks to nearly two years as a card-carrying member of the United Auto Workers -- seeps deep into the bureaucracy's pores. Airports should at least have an option regarding TSA, in my opinion, even if they don't take it, this being a free country and all.

Such discussions just became completely irrelevant, however, because Moscow .. . . sorry, I meant Washington . . . last week slammed the door on the option, by declaring that no more airports will be allowed to go private. That doesn't sit well with certain members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, who say Congress wrote an opt-out clause into the original legislation for a reason, so the last word on this has not been heard. Maybe a sharp reduction in TSA funding will lead to a change of heart. But the move drew loud cheers from the National Treasury Employees Union, which hates private sector competition and wants to turn every airport screening station in America into a union shop. Just think of the efficiency and improvement in work ethic and service that will bring.

There's no evidence that private screeners are less competent than federal screeners. I'm aware of no security breaches linked to airports opting-out. The 16 airports that contract-out these services (which suggests to me that there must be some benefit) seem perfectly happy with the choice they made. So why wouldn't Moscow . . . . there I go again, sorry . . . permit the expansion of a program that seems to be working well?

That could be the first problem: It's working well. Or this could just be another case of heavy-handed Washington lording it over the peons beyond the beltway. A third possibility suggests itself, however -- that this union-friendly White House fears a stampede of airports to the exits once collective bargaining rights are finally granted TSA workers, which could really put a dent in the union dues collected by organizations that gave (and will give) a lot of campaign money to Barack Obama

Could this administration's motives for slamming the door on the private option really be that base, that tawdry, that self-serving? Could this really be just another way for the White House to throw Big Labor a bone? With no better explanation to offer, that's the one I'm going with for now.

No! No! Not the Plea Bargain, Please!

Stung by criticism that it has taken a too lenient and legalistic approach to homeland security, The Obama Administration yesterday unveiled what could be the most potent weapon yet against terrorism: the plea bargain.

That's right, the plea bargain.

Those who think underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be treated just like any other terror war detainee -- that he should be shipped straight off to Cuba, with no chance to lawyer-up and no Get Out of Gitmo Free card -- may be overlooking the incredible power of the plea bargain, as a tool for getting him to tell all that he knows about this and other plots.

There are no plea deals in Gitmo. That's an arrow that only U.S. prosecutors have in their quiver. And it makes waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques look like child's play.

"We have different ways of obtaining information from individuals," President Obama's chief counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan said yesterday on Meet the Press. "A lot of people . . . understand what they're facing, and their lawyers recognize that there is advantage to talking to us in terms of plea agreements, [and] we're going to pursue that." Brennan also told CNN's "State of the Union" that other terrorism suspects have "given us very valuable information as they've gone through the plea-agreement process," reports The Washington Post.

How timely that "valuable information" will be, if it's forthcoming, is an open question, given the glacial pace with which the wheels of justice turn in the United States. If Abdulmutallab knows of other pending bomb plots, but doesn't cop a plea before they unfold, that might be a slight hitch in the plan. But let the word go out to all terrorists, wherever they may be, that attempted mass murder against U.S. citizens won't be treated lightly by the Obama administration.

You'll be arrested, handcuffed, comfortably housed and fed, given a lawyer. And if at that point you don't break, and won't spill the beans about the al-Qaeda Network, you'll be offered the dreaded plea deal -- which forces you to choose between divulging secrets and serving only 5 of the 7 life sentences you're likely to face, if convicted. Refuse the plea, decline to give up your information, and we could go hard on you. Very hard, indeed.

You'll be given Constitutional protections. You could face a jury trial. The media spotlight will follow you everywhere. Your battery of lawyers will run up huge legal fees. The trial could take years. Proceeds from any book deals will be confiscated. And, if convicted, you'll live out your days with few creature comforts (but complete medical and dental care, as well as recreational amenities and nutritionally-balanced meals, as required by law), in a federal prison somewhere -- maybe even one designated to warehouse jihadists (just so you don't get lonely).

So think long and hard before trying anything, terrorists. We aren't messing around any more. Barack Obama is ready to open a can of whup-ass on you if you come around here, setting off underwear bombs. And if you fail to give up your co-conspirators, you'll be presented with a plea bargain!

The Silence of the Lambs

We all knew al Qaeda wasn't above hitting below the belt. But an underwear bomb? They really stooped to new lows this time.

But there's a certain genius in the underwear bomb, whether or not it succeeded as a weapon, given the American propensity to overreact to each new terror tactic. We all had to start taking off our shoes at airports after the failed shoe bombing. Now, presumably, TSA screening efforts will focus on our underwear. What new humiliations and indignities will follow, one can only imagine.

Al Qaeda may be as interested in inflicting mass humiliation on America as mass casualties: stripping away our last shred of dignity, along with our clothes, may be the group's ultimate goal. When we're all forced by TSA to board airplanes wearing nothing but hospital gowns -- our ass checks hanging out there, exposed to the elements, in order to better accomodate the body cavity search -- that will be the end of America as we know it. We'll have been reduced by al Qaeda to a nation of bleating sheep, all the better to be led off to slaughter -- a people who will bow to (or bend over for) each new security measure, no matter how humiliating, idiotic or pointless, even while the federal bureaucrats in charge of homeland security are bumbling and fumbling with our lives.

TSA is a lot like "the great and powerful Oz" -- all smoke-and-mirrors bluster, meant to awe and bamboozle the boobs. And as long as we pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, and passively and mindlessly comply with the Wizard's demands, the flimsy illusion called "homeland security" can be maintained.

How Will She Manage?

Barack Obama tapped former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to run the Department of Homeland Security because of her claimed expertise on border issues. But Napolitano's ability to manage one of the largest federal bureaucracies is being called into question, indirectly, by her successor in Arizona, Jan Brewer, who complains that accounting gimmickry and poor management during Napolitano's watch left her with a huge mess.

The Arizona Republic earlier this week:

"Calling herself "very angry" and "furious" about the fiscal condition she inherited last month, Gov. Jan Brewer lashed out Friday at the former gubernatorial administration and warned that bleak times await Arizona. "We have very deep valleys ahead of us," said Brewer, a Republican. "We are facing very, very critical times. I'm very angry, basically, that Arizona is in this shape that it's in."

Brewer went on to call the situation, which includes a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall, a "product of mismanagement," and to liken the state's fiscal condition to "the Titanic."

"She pointed to what she called budget gimmicks and rampant borrowing in recent years that enabled the state to keep spending in the face of a slowing local and national economy. "It is the responsibility, I would assume, of a few legislators and the last administration," Brewer said, ostensibly referencing Napolitano and the handful of Republican lawmakers who sided with Democrats to pass recent state budgets."

Brewer, in a wide-ranging critique, also took aim at photo radar speed enforcement, a signature program of Napolitano's, saying it is "inherently wrong" to use law enforcement as a revenue raiser for government. "I hate it," Brewer said of the program, which state legislators currently are re-thinking.

Napolitano's people dismiss Brewer's critiques as partisan whining, since she's a Republican. But the statements can't help but sow doubts about whether Napolitano, whatever her experience with border control, has enough managerial moxie to handle day-to-day operations at the massive DHS. The department's budget now hovers at around $50 billion, while Arizona's budget is less than $10 billion.