Monday, April 27, 2009

So diverting a plane to land because of a "No Fly List" passenger is a matter of opinion?

This is what the Obama regime at the Department of Homeland Security seems to think. In This article from "The Progressive" entitled "U.S. Diverts Plane Because of Journalist" we're told how a flight from Paris to Mexico City carrying a Columbian journalist in exile was diverted to Martinique in the Caribbean. The journalist was then questioned, then let go several hours later. Interestingly enough, Homeland Security has denied that it ordered the plane to stop, “If it’s not bound for the United States, we’re not going to receive that manifest information to see whether someone is on the No Fly list or not.” Now, the problem here is that either a plane going to Mexico City was diverted to Martinique because of a passenger or it wasn't. This isn't something that's subjective, and it isn't something where there were no witnesses. It's pretty cut and dry. In fact, the article states that the pilots announced the detour to the passengers by saying that it was because there was someone considered a security risk on board. That means that there are quite a few people who either heard or who didn't hear the announcement. There's no in between.

Yet, we appear to have entered the world of "unknown knowns" that typified the Bush administration, where something was deemed false not because there was no evidence for it but because the department in question decided it was false in order for the action to be palatable for public consumption.

The smart money is on the incident actually taking place, and on the officials in Obama's Department of Homeland Security being liars.

No comments: