I was watching Joe Scarborough on MSNBC last night and he was discussing the Terror in the Skies story (see previous posts here, here, and here). He had a reporter on from WNBC,  Scott Weinberger, who reported that the 14 Syrian band members on the flight from Detroit to LA all had expired visas.  That is bad enough, but it gets worse, authorities didn't even notice this until after they had already released the suspects! As usual, Michelle Malkin is all over this:

WNBC investigative reporter Scott Weinberger reported on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC show tonight that the 14 Syrians on Northwest Flight 327 ALL had expired visas. He said his sources told him that law enforcement officials xeroxed the men's paperwork without looking at the dates. The visas had expired nearly a month earlier, according to Weinberger.

This does not give me much confidence in the background checks that the Joint Terrorism Task Force, FBI, and LAPD may or may not have conducted on the men before letting them walk away. Would you trust the terrorism investigation of officials who apparently neglected to verify whether these men--coming from a designated state sponsor of terrorism, flying on a day on which Department of Homeland Security officials had issued a warning about a possible terrorist attack--WERE EVEN IN THE COUNTRY LEGALLY?!?!?!

If Weinberger's reporting is accurate, I won't be surprised. The 14 men join a club of at least an estimated 2.3 million illegal visa overstayers currently living in the U.S. today. Until September 11, 2001, the Visa Overstayers Club also included "student" Hani Hanjour and "businessmen and tourist" Nawaf al-Hazmi and Satam al-Suqami.

If a "student" and "businessmen and tourist" were among the 9/11 hijackers, why is it so hard for people to understand that terrorists might call themselves "musicians" to get in the country! It is not exactly surprising that their names would not show up in any terrorist databases since Al Qaeda is always recruiting new members.

Obviously I have no way of knowing whether these musicians were conducting a "dry run" or not. But I don't have a lot of confidence in law enforcement, if they don't even verify if their suspects are here legally.  Especially when they are from a state sponsor of terrorism like Syria!

Be sure to read the rest of Michelle's post which includes a quote from FBI chief of counterterrorism, Steve Pomerantz.

If you missed yesterday's article in the Washington Times about terrorists conducting "dry run" tests, make you sure you go read it.  Here is one chilling example from the article:

A second pilot said that, on one of his recent flights, an air marshal forced his way into the lavatory at the front of his plane after a man of Middle Eastern descent locked himself in for a long period.

The marshal found the mirror had been removed and the man was attempting to break through the wall. The cockpit was on the other side.

The second pilot said terrorists are "absolutely" testing security.

Why is this the first we have heard of this? No wonder half the country is lulled back into 9/10 thinking. The gov't and media are not giving them any reason to be worried. VodkaPundit has similar thoughts:

If that little anecdote is even remotely accurate, why the hell wasn't it reported to the public? Don't give me any bureaucratic BS about "ongoing investigations" or "we don't want to spook the big fish," either. If a "man of Middle Eastern descent" was caught trying to break into an airline cockpit, we damn well ought to know about it before he's had a chance to try out the shiny new toilet in his maximum-security holding cell.

***

Among other reasons, I'd be too afraid that people will get lulled into apathy again if reports about possible terrorist attempts get squelched. No attempts might mean they've given up, right?

Speaking as somebody who flies--a lot--I want the people around me to be part of a very alert pack ($1 to Instapundit). I'm not going to hope there's a sky marshall on board--I want my countrymen to be just as aware of the threat, and just as ready to deal with it as anybody with a government badge.

Cori Dauber at RantingProfs makes a good point here in defense of Annie Jacobsen's reactions to the suspicious behavior on her flight:

Oh, please. Honest to God, if you see several "Middle Eastern looking" men on your flight, and they're sitting there reading magazines, listening to their CD-players, and talking quietly to their seat-mates, and that freaks you out to the point where you contact the flight attendant or feel compelled to contact the FBI, you know what, you have a problem with ethnic stereotyping. This is a situation where country of origin and, yes, ethnicity, was one factor among many -- almost all of which were behavioral. We were told over and over again that the only legitimate "profiling" was behavioral profiling. So here these people engage in behavioral profiling, but because the people whose behavior they were profiling shared a single ethnicity, the bar gets raised on them and they're accused of stereotyping. What, precisely, constitutes legitimate behavioral profiling of a group of people, if that people share a country of origin, that won't open you to a charge of ethnic stereotyping? Where's the threshold? An actual hijacking?

Patterico points to this report that has some disturbing reactions by air marshals on Annie Jacobsen's flight:

Undercover federal air marshals on board a June 29 Northwest airlines flight from Detroit to LAX identified themselves after a passenger, “overreacted,” to a group of middle-eastern men on board, federal officials and sources have told KFI NEWS.

The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service.

Jacobsen, a self-described freelance writer, has published two stories about her experience at womenswallstreet.com, a business advice web site designed for women.

“The lady was overreacting,” said the source. “A flight attendant was told to tell the passenger to calm down; that there were air marshals on the plane.”

***

The source said the air marshals on the flight were partially concerned Jacobsen’s actions could have been an effort by terrorists or attackers to create a disturbance on the plane to force the agents to identify themselves.

Air marshals’ only tactical advantage on a flight is their anonymity, the source said, and Jacobsen could have put the entire flight in danger.

“They have to be very cognizant of their surroundings,” spokesman Adams confirmed, “to make sure it isn’t a ruse to try and pull them out of their cover."

Sounds like a case of smearing the messenger to me.

Also be sure to read Michelle Malkin's USA Today article on security moms.