For those of you who continue on defending the government’s action in holding people in Guantanamo and elsewhere without having to present any evidence whatsoever that they have committed a single act that would qualify them as a danger to the U.S. and beyond that without giving them a chance to defend themselves, I suggest you read the story of Adel Hammad, a man who was taken from his bed in the middle of the night and has been held at Guantanamo for the past 5 years. Thats right, he was NOT taken in the field of combat, but from his bed, in the middle of the night.

Heh.

ABC News reports:

Mimicking the hijackers who executed the Sept. 11 attacks, insurgents reportedly tied to al Qaeda in Iraq considered using student visas to slip terrorists into the United States to orchestrate a new attack on American soil. …

Sources tell ABC News that the plot may have involved moving between 10 and 20 suspects believed to be affiliated with al Qaeda in Iraq into the United States with student visas — the same method used by the 19 al Qaeda terrorists who struck American targets on Sept. 11. …

The plot was discovered six months ago, roughly the same time that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, was killed by coalition forces. Sources tell ABC News that the suspects involved in the effort to launch the U.S. attack were closely associated with Zarqawi.

The plan also came only months after Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s No. 2, had requested that Zarqawi attempt an attack inside the United States.

“This appears to be the first hard evidence al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to attack us here at home,” said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, former chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council.

The plan was uncovered in its early stages, and sources say there is no indication that the suspects made it into the United States. Officials also emphasize that there is no evidence of an imminent attack.

Cue the arguments from both sides: This proves that the war in Iraq has made us less safe. This proves that Iraq was always a threat to our interests. This proves that we need to get out of Iraq. This proves that we need to win in Iraq. Et cetera, et cetera.

Not good. (Hat tip: Insty.)

Perhaps due to boredom brought on by a decrease in the volume of offensive Danish cartoons, the Council on American-Islamic Relations is now directing its perpetual-outrage generator at 24:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said “24’s” season premiere, in which Islamic terrorists detonated a nuclear bomb near Los Angeles, risked stoking racial hatred. …

“The raw emotional impact of fictional scenes that include widespread death and destruction in America may adversely affect the public’s attitude toward civil liberties, religious freedom and interfaith relations,” the CAIR statement said.

“The program’s repeated association of acts of terrorism with Islam will only serve to increase anti-Muslim prejudice in our society,” it added.

Hmm. Well, that’s one perspective. Here’s another. You know what I think increases anti-Muslim prejudice in our society even more than a TV show’s “repeated association of acts of terrorism with Islam”? Umm, how about the repeated association of acts of terrorism with Islam IN REAL LIFE??? You know what I think is more significant than “fictional scenes that include widespread death and destruction”? How about actual widespread death and destruction brought on by Islamic terrorists? Yeah, I think that might be a little more relevant to “anti-Muslim prejudice in our society” than a TV show that’s merely mirroring the undeniable reality that the terrorist threat to this country is primarily coming from people who pursue their deadly ambitions in the name of Islam!

Look, anti-Muslim prejudice is a bad, bad thing. Just because the terrorist threat faced by our society is coming primarily from Muslims (who pervert their faith to violent ends) doesn’t mean that it’s okay to be prejudiced against Muslims. Not by a long shot. Prejudice against Muslims is entirely wrong, and ought to be condemned in every instance. In this country especially, the vast, vast majority of Muslims are patriotic citizens who completely oppose violence and terrorism.

But to claim that popular culture should IGNORE the real-life reality that is being created by the small but potent minority of Muslims who like to blow up buildings — and their occupants — in the name of Islam? That’s ridiculous!

And make no mistake, what CAIR is demanding is that 24 ignore Islamic terrorism altogether. Clearly it isn’t enough that they mix it up, and have some non-Muslim villains in addition to Muslim ones — because if that was enough to satisfy CAIR, they’d already be satisifed:

Representatives of the award-winning series responded by pointing out that during the show’s five seasons villains have included Americans, Baltic Europeans, Germans, Russians, Islamic fundamentalists and the fictional president of the United States. [Um, and the Chinese! -ed.]

“The producers are sensitive to the fact that over the course of the series no ethnic group be singled out for persecution or blame,” a statement from Fox said.

“In fact, the show has made a concerted effort to show ethnic, religious and political groups as multi-dimensional, and political issues are debated from multiple viewpoints.”

But that’s not enough for CAIR. They don’t just want Muslims to “not be singled out.” They want Muslims to be shown in a universally positive light, with absolutely no suggestion that there might be any such thing as Islamic terrorism. CAIR doesn’t want “multi-dimensionality” or “multiple viewpoints.” They want one viewpoint: theirs. Because if we stick our heads in the sand, and just ignore Islamic terrorism, it will go away!

I really don’t understand why anyone, anywhere takes CAIR seriously. There are serious issues, and even more serious potential issues, with civil liberties and anti-Muslim prejudice in this country, and yet somehow, CAIR always manages to pick the wrong battles, say ridiculous things, and vastly overreact. If their public statements are any indication, they’re a useless, worthless organization, and I really wish the Muslim community would find itself a more rational spokesgroup.

P.S. Hat tip: Michelle Malkin on the phrase “perpetual-outrage generator.” She calls Islam the “Religion of Perpetual Outrage.” I’m not endorsing that label — I don’t think the religion should be smeared in that manner — but there are certainly more than a few adherents who fit the “perpetual outrage” label, and it absolutely applies to CAIR, no question.

If only a bit more of the “perpetual outrage” was directed squarely at the real-life terrorists, instead of the ones on TV, we’d all be better off.

P.P.S. For heaven’s sake, 24 has a presidential advisor who is clearly depicted as the “weasel” arguing for Muslim internment camps, and the “good” people are fiercely arguing against it! They’ve got very straightforward, in-your-face depictions of civil-liberties violations… and not everyone whose liberties are violated is a terrorist (though some are). It’s very responsible and very real. No reasonable advocate would make the sort of blanket objection CAIR is making.

Re. Damn. Diculous.

P.P.P.S. Below the Beltway has more.

The senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees doesn’t believe terrorism suspects deserve good lawyers. In fact, he thinks anyone who loves America should refuse to do business with law firms that allow their lawyers to represent these suspects. I’m sorry, did I say “suspects”? I meant “terrorists.” Because that doesn’t beg the question at all.

You know, we hear a lot about how our brave men and women overseas are “defending our freedom” — and God bless them for it, they deserve all the praise in the world. But this story got me thinking: it would be helpful if the Bush Administration could provide us with a list of precisely which freedoms they’re defending, and which ones they’re not. It gets confusing sometimes, trying to figure it out.

P.S. In fairness, an anonymous, but apparently more senior, Pentagon official sorta-kinda-disavowed the deputy assistant secretary’s repugnant remarks. It’s interesting, though, that said “senior official” wouldn’t allow his name to be used, and that we haven’t heard any on-the-record renunciations from, oh I dunno, the president or the secretary of defense.

But no harm done:

December 20 2006 - A woman going through security at Los Angeles International Airport put her month-old grandson into a plastic bin intended for carry-on items and slid it into an X-ray machine.

…A screener watching the machine’s monitor immediately noticed the outline of a baby and pulled the bin backward on the conveyor belt.

The infant was taken to Centinela Hospital, where doctors determined that he had not received a dangerous dose of radiation.

Officials, who declined to release the 56-year-old woman’s name, said she spoke Spanish and apparently did not understand English.

…Nico Melendez, a spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration, which manages LAX screeners, said the agency doesn’t have enough workers to constantly stand at tables in front of the screeners to coach passengers on what should or should not be sent through X-ray machines.

…”There’s an obligation on the traveler to use some common sense,” said Larry Fetters, the TSA’s federal security director at LAX. “If they don’t understand, they should ask somebody. If they ask us, we are generally able to find someone who speaks that language and assist them.”

…”We’re trying to figure out what changes we can make, short of putting up signs saying, ‘Don’t put your baby through the X-ray machine,’ ” Melendez said. “We’re trying to determine how we can make this not happen again.”

[Comment: You can’t. The only real reason to stop “short of” posting those Signs is, they would Increase the incidence of Babyscanning pursuant to the No Peas Up The Nose principle. / But be Forward-leaning & Pro-active: focus on deterring people from checking their children through with the Non-carry-on baggage. :| ~the guestscreener :]

* * * * * * * * *
Radiation doses:

The baby that went through the airport luggage machine was exposed to less radiation than a passenger on a cross-country flight. Typical radiation exposures*:

Luggage screener: 1
Cross-country flight: 5
Chest X-ray: 10
Mammogram: 30

* Measured in millirems, which takes into account both the amount of exposure and the biological effect of the type of radiation in question.

Source: EPA

Scan the whole thing. :>

Thank goodness we have airport security to prevent Troy Smith lookalikes from disguising bombs as Heisman Trophies and bringing them onto airplanes. I think we can all sleep easier knowing that.

UPDATE: Apparently this story was incorrect. “Smith didn’t even take the…statue to the airport,” according to the Columbus Dispatch. (Hat tip: Below the Beltway.) Damn you and your lies, Associated Press! Forcing me to retract a mildly humorous blog post! Harumph.

The New York Film Critics named United 93 the best movie of the year yesterday.

I haven’t seen enough movies to know whether it was the best of the year, but it was certainly very, very good. (More here and here.)

How embarrassing.

Ann Althouse asks: “Remember how the Democrats ran on the competence issue?” (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

But hey, at least he’s not Alcee Hastings, right?

Cripes.

UPDATE: In the interest of bipartisanship, it should be noted that Reyes isn’t the only member of the Intelligence Committee lacking in intelligence. The full article from CQ notes that whereas the new Dem chairman at least knew the basics about “the 1,400- year-old split in Islam between Sunnis and Shiites” — he just didn’t know which side of the line our principal adversary in the war on terror falls on — “two key Republicans on the Intelligence Committee…were flummoxed by such basic questions [about the difference between Sunnis and Shiites], as were several top counterterrorism officials at the FBI.” The Republicans in question are Reps. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., and Terry Everett, R-Ala. (Hat tip: Mike.)

Alas, there is enough ignorance and incompetence to go around, in both parties.

If you can’t light a match on an airplane to cover up the smell of your flatulence without thereby forcing the plane to make an emergency landing, the terrorists have already won.

If people can’t “snuggle and kiss inappopriately” on board airplanes anymore, then the terrorists have already won.

I blame John Ashcroft.

It occurs to me that the media reaction to today’s tragic plane crash in New York City is a great example of how we’ve changed since 9/11.

On Tuesday morning, September 11, 2001, when the first pictures of the burning North Tower appeared on TV, it would already have been entirely reasonable, if you think about it, to conclude that the tower had been deliberately hit; we were just too naive to see that. But the evidence was there: it was a crystal-clear day, the gash in the building’s side was huge and the fire massive (making the notion that terrorists would attack in such a manner entirely plausible), and the World Trade Center is so much taller than every other building in that area that it simply didn’t make any sense that someone would accidently fly a plane into it. If such an attack happened today, with our post-9/11 mentality, we would all immediately assume terrorism, even before the second plane hit. And yet on 9/11 itself, even after the second plane hit, some TV news anchors were still implausibly clinging to the notion that maybe this was somehow a freak double-accident (although at that point they acknowledged that was unlikely). If you watch the real-time coverage, it seems odd, really. It wasn’t until President Bush called it an “apparent terrorist attack” that the anchors really became comfortable raising the spectre of “terrorism.”

Flash forward to Wednesday afternoon, October 11, 2006. When the first pictures of the fire at Belaire Apartments appeared on TV, it was immediately, instinctively obvious that this was not terrorism. The fire was far too small to make an “attack” scenario seem plausible. Meanwhile, “accident” scenarios, unlike on 9/11, seemed instantly plausible: it was a foggy, dreary day in New York (though I have no idea if that was actually a factor in the crash), the plane that flew into the building was obviously small (increasing the possibility that there was no co-pilot, so maybe a heart attack or something caused it), and the Belaire building wasn’t nearly as disproportionately tall as the WTC had been, so it didn’t seem totally ridiculous that a plane in trouble might accidentally crash into it while trying to avoid other buildings. Point is, there was never any way this was terrorism. No way.

And yet, and yet. The attitude of the media was exactly the opposite of the initial 9/11 coverage. It wasn’t, “This is an accident, right? What else could it be?” Rather, it was, “This isn’t terrorism, is it? Are you sure? Please, tell us it’s not terrorism!” Virtually every question that was asked, every piece of information that was conveyed, was done so in the context of trying to figure out whether this was terrorism. Meaningless non-facts like “the FBI cannot rule anything out, including terrorism” were given major play. (Of course they can’t rule anything out; it happened 20 freakin’ minutes ago. They can’t rule out space aliens, either.) This is all quite understandable, beacuse the first thought on everyone’s mind was, of course, terrorism. That’s the post-9/11 reality. And it’s not just the media: the government dispatched fighter jets, the FBI dispatched terrorism investigators, and the Department of Homeland Security announced they were “closely monitoring the situation” — all because of a crash that was, instinctively, on its face, self-evidently not caused by terrorism.

Mind you, none of this is a criticism. As far as I’m concerned, everyone did exactly what they should have. With regard to the government response, even when there is self-evidently a 99.9% chance that something is not terrorism, it’s still prudent to take precuations until you’re 100% sure. And the media was just giving people the answers to the question we were all naturally asking — questions most of us weren’t asking when we initially saw that first fire at the WTC on 9/11.

I just think it’s an interesting reflection of how much we’ve changed since 5 years and 1 month ago.

Five years ago today, an unknown bioterrorist mailed two letters containing anthrax, one to Tom Daschle and one to Patrick Leahy. They bore October 9, 2001 postmarks from Trenton, New Jersey. The Daschle letter was opened six days later, on October 15, resulting in the shutdown of government mail service. The Leahy letter was discovered later. Both contained fine, white, powderized anthrax. They followed on the heels of as many as five letters that had previously been mailed on September 18, just a week after 9/11, to various media organizations; those contained a less potent grade of anthrax. All told, 22 people got sick, 11 from potentially deadly inhalation anthrax, and 5 of those 11 ultimately died.

And we still don’t know who did it.

Remember that the next time you’re tempted to say terrorists haven’t attacked us since 9/11. (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

I blogged previously about the Department of Homeland Security’s announcement that Indiana has more potential terrorist targets than any other state in the Union. Well, now fellow NDLSer Kevin sends along this YouTube version of a hilarious August Daily Show segment about that rather ridiculous (un)reality. See for yourself: