You can't be too careful.

* josh:

"Bush Secret Decoder Ring / Dictionary for Insiders.
Central Front in the War on Terror = Geographical setting of Failed Bush Policy"

* josh:

"Over the last few years, there have been several occasions when -- for all my skepticism about the Bush administration's politicization of terror alerts -- I've been surprised at how my skepticism, even cynicism, about terror alerts just can't keep pace with the administration's bad faith. I'm not ready to say the London bomb plot is another bamboozlement. But even this now seems to be turning out to be less than met the eye. And there appear to be real questions whether Bush and Blair jumped the gun for reasons other than counter-terrorism. We'll see, I guess."

* josh points to sully, who points to craig murray:

"None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth ...

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.

We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.
[]
In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.

Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical."

meanwhile:

"A commercial flight from London to Washington was diverted to Boston today, flanked by fighter jets, after a claustrophobic female passenger caused a disturbance and had to be tied up.

An airport spokesman initially said that the woman had taken a screwdriver, matches, vaseline and a note mentioning al-Qaeda aboard the United Airlines flight from Heathrow - but security officials later denied that and said there was no terrorist link.

[]

George Naccara, federal security director for the Transportation Security Administration for Massachusetts’ airport, said that he did not believe any items she was carrying were the cause of the outburst and denied that she was carrying matches, vaseline or a screwdriver.

It was the most serious security alert since British anti-terror police announced last week that they had foiled an allged plot to blow up transatlantic flights. Twenty-four people are in custody for questioning.

[]

Brandon Borrman, a spokesman for United Airlines, said the female passenger was spotted engaging in some suspicious activity, but he could not say what that was.

The female passenger said that she was claustrophobic and became very upset and got into some kind of confrontation with the flight crew, said Mr Naccara.

American television networks said a passenger was being questioned at Boston’s Logan airport. Reports said that she was 60 years old, from Vermont."

oh well - you can't be too careful, i guess.

BULLSHIT.

You really can be 'too careful.'

Remember this one? This is one of my favourites (July 04) :

"A United Airlines flight from Australia to Los Angeles returned to Sydney International Airport today after cabin staff found a note carrying a bomb threat.
[]
Anderson said the note carried "some words that implied that there might have been a bomb on board." He said he had not heard of any other threat directed at the flight."

The note which 'implied that there might have been a bomb on board' was actually a piece of paper with 'Bob' written on it.

You can't be too careful. Right?