Homeland Security to ‘battle’ climate change

Homeland Security to ‘battle’ climate change

Rick Moran

 

I imagine they’ll call this a “man
caused disaster” too:

At an all-day White House conference on “environmental justice,”
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that her department is
creating a new task force to battle the effects of climate change on domestic
security operations.
Speaking at the first White House Forum on Environmental Justice on Thursday,
Napolitano discussed the initial findings of the department’s recently created
“Climate Change and Adaptation Task Force.”
Napolitano explained that the task force was charged with “identifying and
assessing the impact that climate change could have on the missions and
operations of the Department of Homeland Security.”
According to the former Arizona governor, the task force would address
specific questions, including:
“How will FEMA work with state and local partners to plan for increased
flooding or wildfire or hurricane activity that is more serious than we’ve seen
before? What assistance can the Coast Guard bring to bear to assist remote
villages in, for example, Alaska which already have been negatively affected by
changes up in the Arctic?”

This sounds like a lot more fun than protecting the country from terrorists,
doesn’t it? It actually makes sense – if you believe that there will be
“increased flooding or wildfire or hurricane activity that is more serious than
we’ve seen before.” So far, sorry Janet but the disasters just aren’t big
enough. Of course, that won’t stop DHS from carving out a bureaucratic niche for
themselves so they can horn in on some of that global climate change dough the
government is throwing around.
Just another opportunity to grow the size of government at our
expense.

Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/homeland_security_to_battle_cl.html

at December 18, 2010 – 11:35:17 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//  

With border in chaos, J-Nap proclaims “environmental justice” a priority

With border in chaos, J-Nap proclaims “environmental justice” a priority

By Michelle Malkin  •  December 17, 2010 10:09 AM

Photoshop credit: Another Black Conservative
It is now day three of the hunt for one of the suspects in the murder of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.
The Arizona Republic reports:
As the manhunt for a fifth individual in the shooting death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry stretched into its third day, local law enforcement continued to scour the rugged terrain in Santa Cruz County while federal officials provided few details on the crime or suspects in custody.
…Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada said the FBI has custody of the suspects.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano visited border areas Thursday as part of a previously scheduled visit to the region.
Napolitano’s team referred requests for comment to the FBI.
Napolitano met with Estrada Thursday afternoon.
Before the meeting, Estrada said he planned to ask Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, to continue providing federal support for local law-enforcement agencies fighting illegal immigration.
Estrada said his message to Napolitano would be clear: “Obviously she’s concerned about what happened, and obviously she’s committed to make things safe for the people who work here along the border and the residents as well.”
That wasn’t obvious to several law enforcement officials in Arizona whom J-Nap refused to meet.
Nor is it obvious given the warped priorities she laid out a recent White House environmental justice conference. Yes, environmental justice.
Carter Wood at Shopfloor has the scoop. Be sure to click on the link for access to the full, nausea-inducing transcript:
This isn’t necessarily surprising rhetoric to have come the “environmental justice” crowd, but it’s alarming to hear at the White House. And it’s just weird to hear Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, describe her department’s focus on environmental justice and climate adaptation. (Audio, our transcript):
So as we look at climate change, the climate change that we are in, and think about the environmental phenomenon that is happening in the course of our own lives, we translate that into increased drought. We translate that into increased likelihood of wildfires, particularly catastrophic fires in the West, we translate that into more category four and five hurricanes, and that affects communities around the gulf but also up and down the Atlantic seaboard and the Pacific as well, and other natural occurrences that are affected by changes in climate.

Changes in climate really translate into huge environmental changes that have impacts on communities and also on national security, because they raise not only the issues of making sure that we are taking into account and caring for the most at-risk populations, but that we are also looking at and planning for the potentiality of mass migrations, demographic changes, patterns, concentrations of economic assets, population growth in different areas, deteriorating infrastructure. All of this gets knit together under this umbrella of climate change and environmental adaptation.

That’s an expansive, expensive agenda, isn’t it? We thought Congress formed the Department of Homeland Security to more effectively address imminent threats to the American people, priorities like fighting terrorism, controlling our borders, and handling security at our ports and airports. Turns out the Department is instead working on EVERYTHING!
And remember that this is all happening as Democrats try to push through a land grab that would undermine the already imperiled enforcement efforts at the border and an illegal alien student bailout that would encourage more illegal immigration.
Heckuva job, J-Nap. Heckuva job.

“Napolitano: The Ball’s in My Court Now” By Ann Coulter

Napolitano: The Ball’s in My Court Now
By Ann Coulter On November 19, 2010 @ 12:04 am In FrontPage | 15 Comments
After the 9/11 attacks, when 19 Muslim terrorists — 15 from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates and one each from Egypt and Lebanon, 14 with “al” in their names — took over commercial aircraft with box-cutters, the government banned sharp objects from planes.
Airport security began confiscating little old ladies’ knitting needles and breaking the mouse-sized nail files off of passengers’ nail clippers. Surprisingly, no decrease in the number of hijacking attempts by little old ladies and manicurists was noted.
After another Muslim terrorist, Richard Reid, AKA Tariq Raja, AKA Abdel Rahim, AKA Abdul Raheem, AKA Abu Ibrahim, AKA Sammy Cohen (which was only his eHarmony alias), tried to blow up a commercial aircraft with explosive-laden sneakers, the government prohibited more than 3 ounces of liquid from being carried on airplanes.
All passengers were required to take off their shoes for special security screening, which did not thwart a single terrorist attack, but made airport security checkpoints a lot smellier.
After Muslim terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria tried to detonate explosive material in his underwear over Detroit last Christmas, the government began requiring nude body scans at airports.
The machines, which cannot detect chemicals or plastic, would not have caught the diaper bomber. So, again, no hijackers were stopped, but being able to see passengers in the nude boosted the morale of airport security personnel by 22 percent.
After explosives were inserted in two ink cartridges and placed on a plane headed to the United States from the Muslim nation of Yemen, the government banned printer cartridges from all domestic flights, resulting in no improvement in airport security, while requiring ink cartridges who traveled to take Amtrak.
So when the next Muslim terrorist, probably named Abdul Ahmed al Shehri, places explosives in his anal cavity, what is the government going to require then? (If you’re looking for a good investment opportunity, might I suggest rubber gloves?)
Last year, a Muslim attempting to murder Prince Mohammed bin Nayef of Saudi Arabia blew himself up with a bomb stuck up his anus. Fortunately, this didn’t happen near an airport, or Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano would now be requiring full body cavity searches to fly.
You can’t stop a terrorist attack by searching for the explosives any more than you can stop crime by taking away everyone’s guns.
In the 1970s, liberal ideas on crime swept the country. Gun owners were treated like criminals while actual criminals were coddled and released. If only we treated criminals with dignity and respect and showed them the system was fair, liberals told us, criminals would reward us with good behavior.
As is now well known, crime exploded in the ’70s. It took decades of conservative law-and-order policies to get crime back to near-1950s levels.
It’s similarly pointless to treat all Americans as if they’re potential terrorists while trying to find and confiscate anything that could be used as a weapon. We can’t search all passengers for explosives because Muslims stick explosives up their anuses. (Talk about jobs Americans just won’t do.)
You have to search for the terrorists.


Fortunately, that’s the one advantage we have in this war. In a lucky stroke, all the terrorists are swarthy, foreign-born, Muslim males. (Think: “Guys Madonna would date.”)
This would give us a major leg up — if only the country weren’t insane.
Is there any question that we’d be looking for Swedes if the 9/11 terrorists, the shoe bomber, the diaper bomber and the printer cartridge bomber had all been Swedish? If the Irish Republican Army were bombing our planes, wouldn’t we be looking for people with Irish surnames and an Irish appearance?
Only because the terrorists are Muslims do we pretend not to notice who keeps trying to blow up our planes.
It would be harder to find Swedes or Irish boarding commercial airliners in the U.S. than Muslims. Swarthy foreigners stand out like a sore thumb in an airport. The American domestic flying population is remarkably homogenous. An airport is not a Sears department store.
Only about a third of all Americans flew even once in the last year, and only 7 percent took more than four round trips. The majority of airline passengers are middle-aged, middle-class, white businessmen with about a million frequent flier miles. I’d wager that more than 90 percent of domestic air travelers were born in the U.S.
If the government did nothing more than have a five-minute conversation with the one passenger per flight born outside the U.S., you’d need 90 percent fewer Transportation Security Administration agents and airlines would be far safer than they are now.
Instead, Napolitano just keeps ordering more invasive searches of all passengers, without exception — except members of Congress and government officials, who get VIP treatment, so they never know what she’s doing to the rest of us.
Two weeks ago, Napolitano ordered TSA agents to start groping women’s breasts and all passengers’ genitalia — children, nuns and rape victims, everyone except government officials and members of Congress. (Which is weird because Dennis Kucinich would like it.)
“Please have your genitalia out and ready to be fondled when you approach the security checkpoint.”
This is the punishment for refusing the nude body scan for passengers who don’t want to appear nude on live video or are worried about the skin cancer risk of the machines — risks acknowledged by the very Johns Hopkins study touted by the government.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that we need to keep the government as far away from airport security as possible, and not only because Janet Napolitano did her graduate work in North Korea.

//
//


Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

Statement on Senator McCain’s Border Enforcement

Statement on Senator McCain’s Border Enforcement

April 19, 2010

Local 2544 is the largest Border Patrol local in the United States. We represent nearly 3,000 Border Patrol agents in the Tucson Border Patrol Sector.  We police the busiest corridor in the nation, with apprehensions of illegal aliens and drugs equaling that of all the other Border Patrol Sectors combined.   

Senator John McCain announced a Border Security Plan today. Senator McCain is currently in a statistical dead heat with former House Representative JD Hayworth. Senator McCain, out of apparent frustration, is turning to border security issues to bolster his campaign. Senator McCain has been on the wrong side of border issues for many years. One must ask why he is now portraying himself as a “get tough” politician on border enforcement. McCain has represented Arizona in the Senate since 1987.

Senator McCain had the opportunity to consult with the men and women who are experts in protecting our borders before releasing his Plan, but he failed to do so.

JD Hayworth, on the other hand, has reached out to law enforcement statewide in order to gain a better understanding of the needs and difficulties law enforcement professionals face.  After reviewing Senator McCain’s plan, Mr. Hayworth immediately consulted border experts in an effort to ascertain its feasibility.  Mr. Hayworth is committed to working with the men and women of the United States Border Patrol in finding real solutions to border issues that affect Arizonans.     

Senator McCain’s record indicates he will vote against meaningful pro-enforcement legislation when push comes to shove. We want a representative who will fight for legislation that will help us in our mission to protect our borders when it really counts. Senator McCain’s campaign promises are like a mirage. He wants you to think that the blue color you see on the horizon is water, when it’s really just hot air that looks like water. We’ve had enough hot air from Senator McCain for far too many years. We want a representative who will fight to keep the citizens of Arizona safe. We have had enough of representatives who say one thing on the campaign trail and do the opposite after the campaign is over. Senator McCain has aligned himself with people such as former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, a vehement anti-Border Patrol activist. Facts are hard things to ignore, even in “campaign mode”.

When it comes to border issues, we trust the man who searches for solutions amongst those who know.  JD Hayworth is the candidate who is willing to tackle and solve the issues Arizona faces with illegal immigration and border violence. Senator McCain has had years to do something, yet he has failed us time after time. We strongly urge you to ignore Senator McCain’s campaign rhetoric.

New York Times – Muslims Shaping War On Terror Policies!!!: Obama, Jarret, Holder, Napolitano In Clandestine Campaign To Build Islamic Power In America

New York Times – Muslims Shaping War On Terror Policies!!!: Obama, Jarret, Holder, Napolitano In Clandestine Campaign To Build Islamic Power In America

April 19th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

valerie_jarrett_with_hillary_clinton_and_barack_obama

New York Times:

When President Obama took the stage in Cairo last June, promising a new relationship with the Islamic world, Muslims in America wondered only half-jokingly whether the overture included them. After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.

Nearly a year later, Mr. Obama has yet to set foot in an American mosque. And he still has not met with Muslim and Arab-American leaders. But less publicly, his administration has reached out to this politically isolated constituency in a sustained and widening effort that has left even skeptics surprised.

Muslim and Arab-American advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss civil liberties concerns and counterterrorism strategy.

The impact of this continuing dialogue is difficult to measure, but White House officials cited several recent government actions that were influenced, in part, by the discussions. The meeting with Ms. Napolitano was among many factors that contributed to the government’s decision this month to end a policy subjecting passengers from 14 countries, most of them Muslim, to additional scrutiny at airports, the officials said.

That emergency directive, enacted after a failed Dec. 25 bombing plot, has been replaced with a new set of intelligence-based protocols that law enforcement officials consider more effective.

Also this month, Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim academic, visited the United States for the first time in six years after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reversed a decision by the Bush administration, which had barred Mr. Ramadan from entering the country, initially citing the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Mrs. Clinton also cleared the way for another well-known Muslim professor, Adam Habib, who had been denied entry under similar circumstances.

Arab-American and Muslim leaders said they had yet to see substantive changes on a variety of issues, including what they describe as excessive airport screening, policies that have chilled Muslim charitable giving and invasive F.B.I. surveillance guidelines. But they are encouraged by the extent of their consultation by the White House and governmental agencies.

“For the first time in eight years, we have the opportunity to not only meet, engage, discuss, disagree, but have an impact on policy,” said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington.

The administration’s approach has been understated. Many meetings have been private; others were publicized only after the fact. A visit to New York University in February by John O. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, drew little news coverage, but caused a stir among Muslims around the country. Speaking to Muslim students, activists and others, Mr. Brennan acknowledged many of their grievances, including “surveillance that has been excessive,” “overinclusive no-fly lists” and “an unhelpful atmosphere around many Muslim charities.”

“These are challenges we face together as Americans,” said Mr. Brennan, who momentarily showed off his Arabic to hearty applause. He and other officials have made a point of disassociating Islam from terrorism in public comments, using the phrase “violent extremism” in place of words like “jihad” and “Islamic terrorism.”

While the administration’s solicitation of Muslims and Arab-Americans has drawn little fanfare, it has not escaped criticism….research analysts, bloggers and others complain that the government is reaching out to Muslim leaders and organizations with an Islamist agenda or ties to extremist groups abroad.

They point out that Ms. Jarrett gave the keynote address at the annual convention for the Islamic Society of North America. The group was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a federal case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity whose leaders were convicted in 2008 of funneling money to Hamas. The society denies any links to terrorism.

“I think dialogue is good, but it has to be with genuine moderates,” said Steven Emerson, a terrorism analyst who advises government officials. “These are the wrong groups to legitimize.” Mr. Emerson and others have also objected to the political appointments of several American Muslims, including Rashad Hussain.

In February, the president chose Mr. Hussain, a 31-year-old White House lawyer, to become the United States’ special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The position, a kind of ambassador at large to Muslim countries, was created by Mr. Bush. In a video address, Mr. Obama highlighted Mr. Hussain’s status as a “close and trusted member of my White House staff” and “a hafiz,” a person who has memorized the Koran.

Within days of the announcement, news reports surfaced about comments Mr. Hussain had made on a panel in 2004, while he was a student at Yale Law School, in which he referred to several domestic terrorism prosecutions as “politically motivated.” Among the cases he criticized was that of Sami Al-Arian, a former computer-science professor in Florida who pleaded guilty to aiding members of a Palestinian terrorist group.

At first, the White House said Mr. Hussain did not recall making the comments, which had been removed from the Web version of a 2004 article published by a small Washington magazine. When Politico obtained a recording of the panel, Mr. Hussain acknowledged criticizing the prosecutions but said he believed the magazine quoted him inaccurately, prompting him to ask its editor to remove the comments. On Feb. 22, The Washington Examiner ran an editorial with the headline “Obama Selects a Voice of Radical Islam.”

Muslim leaders watched carefully as the story migrated to Fox News. They had grown accustomed to close scrutiny, many said in interviews, but were nonetheless surprised. In 2008, Mr. Hussain had co-authored a paper for the Brookings Institution arguing that the government should use the peaceful teachings of Islam to fight terrorism.

“Rashad Hussain is about as squeaky clean as you get,” said Representative Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat who is Muslim. Mr. Ellison and others wondered whether the administration would buckle under the pressure and were relieved when the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, defended Mr. Hussain.

“The fact that the president and the administration have appointed Muslims to positions and have stood by them when they’ve been attacked is the best we can hope for,” said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America.

It was notably different during Mr. Obama’s run for office. In June 2008, volunteers of his campaign barred two Muslim women in headscarves from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit, eliciting widespread criticism. The campaign promptly recruited Mazen Asbahi, a 36-year-old corporate lawyer and popular Muslim activist from Chicago, to become its liaison to Muslims and Arab-Americans.

Bloggers began researching Mr. Asbahi’s background. For a brief time in 2000, he had sat on the board of an Islamic investment fund, along with Sheikh Jamal Said, a Chicago imam who was later named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case.

Shortly after his appointment to the Obama campaign, Mr. Asbahi said, a Wall Street Journal reporter began asking questions about his connection to the imam. Campaign officials became concerned that news coverage would give critics ammunition to link the imam to Mr. Obama, Mr. Asbahi recalled. On their recommendation, Mr. Asbahi agreed to resign from the campaign, he said.

He is still unsettled by the power of his detractors. “To be in the midst of this campaign of change and hope and to have it stripped away over nothing,” he said. “It hurts.”

From the moment Mr. Obama took office, he seemed eager to change the tenor of America’s relationship with Muslims worldwide. He gave his first interview to Al Arabiya, the Arabic-language television station based in Dubai. Muslims cautiously welcomed his ban on torture and his pledge to close Guantánamo within a year.

In his Cairo address, he laid out his vision for “a new beginning” with Muslims: while America would continue to fight terrorism, he said, terrorism would no longer define America’s approach to Muslims.

Back at home, Muslim and Arab-American leaders remained skeptical. But they took note when, a few weeks later, Mohamed Magid, a prominent imam from Sterling, Va., and Rami Nashashibi, a Muslim activist from Chicago, joined the president at a White-House meeting about fatherhood. Also that month, Dr. Faisal Qazi, a board member of American Muslim Health Professionals, began meeting with administration officials to discuss health care reform.

The invitations were aimed at expanding the government’s relationship with Muslims and Arab-Americans to areas beyond security, said Mr. Hussain, the White House’s special envoy. Mr. Hussain began advising the president on issues related to Islam after joining the White House counsel’s office in January 2009. He helped draft Mr. Obama’s Cairo speech and accompanied him on the trip. “The president realizes that you cannot engage one-fourth of the world’s population based on the erroneous beliefs of a fringe few,” Mr. Hussain said.

Other government offices followed the lead of the White House. In October, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke met with Arab-Americans and Muslims in Dearborn, Mich., to discuss challenges facing small-business owners. Also last fall, Farah Pandith was sworn in as the State Department’s first special representative to Muslim communities. While Ms. Pandith works mostly with Muslims abroad, she said she had also consulted with American Muslims because Mrs. Clinton believes “they can add value overseas.”

Despite this, American actions abroad — including civilian deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan and the failure to close Guantánamo — have drawn the anger of Muslims and Arab-Americans.

Even though their involvement with the administration has broadened, they remain most concerned about security-related policies. In January, when the Department of Homeland Security hosted a two-day meeting with Muslim, Arab-American, South Asian and Sikh leaders, the group expressed concern about the emergency directive subjecting passengers from a group of Muslim countries to additional screening.

Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, pointed out that the policy would never have caught the attempted shoe bomber Richard Reid, who is British. “It almost sends the signal that the government is going to treat nationals of powerless countries differently from countries that are powerful,” Ms. Khera recalled saying as community leaders around the table nodded their heads.

Ms. Napolitano, who sat with the group for more than an hour, committed to meeting with them more frequently. Ms. Khera said she left feeling somewhat hopeful.

“I think our message is finally starting to get through,” she said.

BIG SIS: Set aside cultural differences for air security…

Set aside cultural differences for air security: US
Apr 11 08:02 PM US/Eastern
Cultural, political and legal differences must be set aside to heighten global aviation security, a senior US official urged African ministers ahead of a regional air security conference opening Monday.Despite privacy concerns and cultural sensitivities to introducing full body scanning technology, “we shouldn’t allow these differences to keep us from working towards a common goal” of tighter air security, said US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Nigeria hosts from Monday a three-day meeting of African ministers on aviation security in response to the failed terror attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 as it approached Detroit from Amsterdam on Christmas Day.

A young Nigerian man was charged with attempting to blow up the plane with plastic explosives strapped to his underwear.

In the wake of the botched attack, airports around the world, including in Nigeria, from where the suspected bomber took off, are installing 3-D full body scanners for passengers.

The new technology has raised cultural sensitivities and may violate privacy laws in some countries as it produces explicit images of passengers.

“Transparency and respect for privacy are fundamental values of all democracies” Napolitano told ministers from 37 African countries and other international experts on the eve of the African regional aviation security conference.

“All countries have unique legal traditions, cultural differences and political realities,” she said.

“But I believe we shouldn’t allow these differences to keep us from working towards a common goal and even stronger partnership with respect to security and privacy.”

Napolitano recommended a wide range of security measures, including information sharing on suspected terrorists and development of screening technology to protect passengers.

“This new bomb could not be detected by all technology, therefore let us respond by ushering in the next generation of aviation security technology by coordinating our training and technical assistant efforts,” she said.

The conference in one of a series being organised by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) across five global regions.

She said the United States has in recent months worked closely with ICAO and the International Air Transport Association to forge stronger international security standards.

“We must have the full engagement not just of government agencies in this effort, but our industry partners around the world,” she said.

ICAO secretary general Raymond Benjamin vowed “we will step up efforts to find global solutions to these global threats.”

Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

 

Big Sis drops air security targeting of Muslim nations…

U.S. changing the way air travelers are screened

By Anne E. Kornblut and Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 2, 2010; 10:25 PM

The Obama administration is abandoning its policy of using nationality alone to determine which U.S.-bound international air travelers should be subject to additional screening and will instead select passengers based on possible matches to intelligence information, including physical descriptions or a particular travel pattern, senior officials said Thursday.

After the attempted bombing of an Amsterdam-to-Detroit flight on Christmas Day, U.S. officials hastily decided that passengers from or traveling through 14 specified countries would be subjected to secondary searches. Critics have since called the measures discriminatory and overly burdensome, and the administration has faced pressure to refine its approach.

Under the new system, screeners will stop passengers for additional security if they match certain pieces of known intelligence. The system will be “much more intel-based,” a senior administration official said, “as opposed to blunt force.”

“It’s much more tailored to what the intelligence is telling us, what the threat is telling us, as opposed to stopping all individuals of a particular nationality or all individuals using a particular passport,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

On Christmas Day, Nigerian student Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab allegedly tried to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear as Northwest Airlines Flight 253 prepared to land, but the device failed and he was subdued by fellow passengers. Abdulmutallab has allegedly said he was trained by an al-Qeada affiliate in Yemen.The case exposed gaps in the government’s ability to identify people who might pose a threat.

Days later, the administration ordered a significant increase in secondary searches, requiring all passengers from or traveling through Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen to undergo extra security at the airport. Travelers from countries considered state sponsors of terrorism — Cuba, Syria, Iran and Sudan — were subjected to the same screening, including pat-downs and additional bag checks.

Airlines had warned that the measures instituted after the Christmas Day incident would need to be eased before the busy summer travel season. And critics objected that the added scrutiny amounted to a pretext for racial profiling that could potentially affect 675 million people, including American Muslims and religious pilgrims.

Administration officials briefed reporters about the revised policy Thursday. But they did so on the condition that reporters not publicize it or seek reaction to it until after midnight, saying they were still working to notify foreign partners and members of Congress.

The underlying airline security policy of checking passenger names against watch lists will continue, and certain passengers will still be banned from flying or required to submit to additional security based on names in intelligence databases. About 24,000 people around the world are currently on those “no-fly” and “selectee” lists.

Administration officials said the new system will “significantly” reduce the number of passengers chosen for mandatory extra screening, eliminating entire swaths of travelers who had been chosen based on their nationalities.

But it will also broaden the universe of potential targets for secondary searches, expanding the focus from the 14 named countries to dubious passengers from anywhere in the world, a move also designed to outsmart terrorist plotters who knew which countries were affected.

The rules will take effect within the month, the senior administration official said, acknowledging that the system instituted in January presented a severe inconvenience to travelers from the listed countries.

The official offered a hypothetical case to illustrate how the new system will work. If U.S. intelligence authorities learned about a terrorism suspect from Asia who had recently traveled to the Middle East, and they knew the suspect’s approximate age but not name or passport number, those fragments would be entered into a database and shared with commercial airline screeners abroad.

The screeners would be instructed to look for people with those traits and to pull them aside for extra searches, the official said, acknowledging that that in some cases, screeners will have to rely on their judgment as they consider the listed traits.

While intelligence officials had fragments of information about Abdulmutallab — including warnings from his father that he was becoming radicalized, and warnings about a Nigerian plot against U.S. interests — those pieces of information were not connected in time to keep him from flying.

Administration officials have said that, in hindsight, the central failure involved inadequate sharing of information. It is not clear whether the new screening measures would have been sufficient to block