Raja Bomoh Says He Has Been Protecting Malaysia Since Before Independence

Ibrahim Mat Zin, known more popularly as Raja Bomoh, claimed that he had been protecting Malaysia from harm over the past seven decades.
Ibrahim, who said that he turned 86 last week, told Singapore’s The Sunday Times, the Sunday edition of The Straits Times, that he did his infamous rituals in order to “ring-fence Malaysia”.
“We don’t have modern weapons like Korea. If we go to war with weapons, we will lose. But we use ancient methods to fence the air, the earth and the water, so that missiles will go missing and not reach Malaysia,” he was quoted as saying.

Ibrahim attracted attention again recently after he conducted a series of rituals claiming to protect Malaysia from North Korea.
Malaysia’s relations with North Korea soured in recent weeks following the murder of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s estranged half-brother, Jong-nam, at KLIA2 on February 13.
Malaysia had insisted that it would handle the murder investigation according to local standards and refused to give in to demands from North Korea to hand over the body.

The fallout led to both countries expelling each other’s ambassadors, while North Korea has refused to allow any remaining Malaysians there from leaving the country.

Ibrahim’s rituals gained attention following the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 in 2014.
He also reportedly claimed that the plane is now is another realm.
“The plane is in a parallel realm. It will be missing for 25 years before it returns, but the people may still be alive because the air is different, a month is like a day to them,” he told The Sunday Times.

Raja Bomoh's car outside PM residence Seri Perdana in Putrajaya

Nope he is no witch doctor

Yes Below is Raja Bomoh and associates protecting Malaysia

Not this Indian as he is only protecting a larger place called India

Yup one of Raja Bomoh's sharpshooters

His Raja Bomoh is scaring off North Korean leader

raja Bomoh's air force protecting Malaysia

The Raja Bomoh's special forces in training

Ooops was it Malaysia or the Planet of Apes that he was  protecting

Yup one of the Monkeys who knows how to contact the Raja Bomoh with his strange monkey dance

Malaysian Immigration Officer Raped Me’ Says A Thai Woman

What to do with these Civil servants who are indoctrinate by the Government Propaganda unit Biro Tata Negara , that the civil servants from the Malay race are superior human beings and all others from other races are inferior beings. Blame the Government education system and mostly blame the Bangladeshis workers who are much sought by for love and marriage by the Malay women folks and leaving the Malay males with the ugly ones. So what to do, thinking if he rapes this woman, the most the authorities will make him marry his victim and that what he was told by his elders.

I asked many years ago why do Malay women love to marry non-Malays and answer was to improve their Genetic pool and have better looking kids who can compete in the real world and the Malay youth are just plain ugly short and too much inbreeding

Malaysian Immigration Officer Raped Me’ Says A Thai Woman

A 32-year-old Thai woman claimed that she was raped by an Immigration officer in Malacca.
The victim worked as a masseuse in a massage center in Malacca, and her younger 28-year-old sister and a friend had decided to pay her a visit that night, New Straits Time reported.
However, the immigration department suddenly raided the center at about 11PM on March 7, and things took a horrible turn. The two sisters and three other female workers were rounded up by the officers and was brought to the Machap Umboo immigration depot located in Alor Gajah the next day.
At the detention centre, the victim was allegedly raped by the accused

During a press conference, the sister of the victim told reporters:

“My sister and I each had our statement recorded separately. 

“My sister spent about 15 mins in the room.

“When she came out, she appeared furious.

“When I asked her why, she told me that she had been sexually assaulted.”

According to the victim, the accused had demanded a massage from her and then forced her to give him oral sex. He then proceeded to rape her, without even using a condom.

The victim sister also said that her sister had vomited after the traumatising experience:

“I was eventually released after I showed proof that I had valid documents.”

The sisters have lodged a police report and the state immigration is currently investigating the matter

Road Users Take Note!] PLUS Highway Tolls Will Officially Be Cashless Starting 16 April 2017!!!

Why do we do this just and create chaos. The Malaysian drivers at large are selfish drivers and the authorities know this and still again tangling with the demons and then making a U-Turn but not before inflicting damage . I guess the authorities love to shoot their foot over and over again. Best cut their silly foot once for all

Road Users Take Note!] PLUS Highway Tolls Will Officially Be Cashless Starting 16 April 2017!!!

So guys and girls…NST just reported that starting from 26 April onwards, there will be zero cash transaction at tolls on all PLUS-operated highways! They will be going full on with PLUSMiles cards, Touch ‘n Go and SmartTags only!

This fully electronic toll transaction initiative will be involving 71 more toll plazas between Juru and Skudai on the North-South Expressway. Don’t wait any longer, everyone! Faster get your electronic cards to avoid getting stuck or creating jams!

PLUS Managing Director, Datuk Azman Ismail said:

“Beginning 26 April, all toll plazas on all PLUS-operated highways will be operating electronically. The same initiative was successfully implemented in stages at several other locations along the main line since 2008.”

“As such, we advise highway users who have yet to get the electronic cards to purchase them at any PLUS customer service centre along the highway before April 26.”

It’s no brainer that paying the toll electronically will be much faster than paying by cash, however, users must keep in mind of the balance amount that they have!

According to Azman, a SmartTag and a Touch ‘n Go lane can accommodate up to 1,000 and 600 transactions respectively in an hour. But cash lanes can only cater up to less than 200 motorists per hour.

Of course, there’ lesser jams now compared to before, but if more than 20 road users forget to top up their cards then we are pretty much back to square one. Just my opinion, though. So, please do make sure that your cards always have a minimum balance of RM10-20 before setting out on your journey.

Former anti-vice police chief jailed 40 years for rape

The jail term was reduced from 80 years on appeal for raping and sodomising a 13-year-old girl five years ago.

PUTRAJAYA: A former Sabah anti-vice police chief was sent to jail for 40 years and ordered to be whipped 15 times for raping and sodomising a 13-year-old girl five years ago.

Rohaizat Abd Ani, 58, who was a former deputy superintendent, lost his final appeal at the Court of Appeal today to set aside the rape and sodomy convictions meted out to him by the Kota Kinabalu Sessions Court in Sabah.

His jail term was, however, slashed by half from 80 years to 40 after the court’s three-man panel of judges ordered him to serve his jail sentences for three rape charges concurrently instead of consecutively.

His counsel, Geethan Ram Vincent, said taking into account the one-third remission of jail term for good behaviour, Rohaizat would be behind bars for 27 years until the age of 85.

Rohaizat, who wore a black jacket, appeared to be composed when the decision was delivered by the court.

A court interpreter was seen relating the court’s verdict to him. He was taken to the lock-up in the court building after the verdict was handed down.

Justice Mohd Zawawi Salleh, who presided with justices Ahmadi Asnawi and Kamardin Hashim, issued a warrant of committal against Rohaizat to commit him to prison since he had been released on bail pending disposal of his appeal today.

Rohaizat was convicted by the Sessions Court of four counts of raping the girl and one count of sodomy, which he allegedly committed at Tang Dynasty Hotel, Kota Kinabalu, between Feb 1, 2012 and May 6, 2012.

He lost his appeal at the High Court, prompting him to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Sessions Court had sentenced him to 20 years’ jail each and three strokes of the cane each for the first and second charge of raping and sodomising the minor, the jail terms to run concurrently, and another 20 years each and three whippings each for the other three rape charges, to run consecutively.

Justice Mohd Zawawi dismissed Rohaizat’s appeal on his convictions but allowed his appeal for a reduction of his jail term by requiring him to serve the 20-year jail sentence for three rape charges concurrently instead of consecutively.

Rohaizat was ordered to begin his 20-year jail term for the three rape charges after the completion of his jail term for the first two charges.

Justice Zawawi said there was sufficient evidence to support Rohaizat’s convictions.

At one point in the proceeding, Justice Zawawi described the case as a “crime of temptation” when deputy public prosecutor Hamdan Hamzah told the court that Rohaizat was formerly a law enforcement officer.

Hamdan argued that the victim was a credible witness and that there was no reason for her to implicate Rohaizat, adding that she delayed lodging the police report because she was afraid they would not believe her story.

Geethan Ram earlier submitted that the girl implicated Rohaizat because she was angry with her mother, to whom Rohaizat was giving financial support.

He said there were contradictions in the evidence given by the girl, whom he described as a brilliant person who claimed that she was forced by her mother to have sexual intercourse to settle her mother’s debts, as her mother had given a different version.

Rohaizat, in his defence at the Sessions Court, denied raping or sodomising the girl but admitted to having sex with two woman, including the mother of the victim.

China Won’t Solve Washington’s Problem with Kim Jong Un

China wants the cake and wants to eat it alone and it is pure selfish on China's part. read below about China's double game and North Korea is used as pawn in the game of world domination with USA and the free world and remember Malaysia is already a pawn of China

China Won’t Solve Washington’s Problem with Kim Jong Un

Beijing’s current policy risks such a disaster, but the alternatives are hardly more palatable.

When Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi gave a news conference during the annual session of the National People’s Congress on March 8, he warned that the United States and North Korea were behaving “like accelerating trains coming toward each other,” and wondered whether the countries were “ready for a head-on collision.”

Wang’s remarks and the accompanying imagery certainly drew the attention of the international media. But as Wang surely knew, this proverbial train wreck would also do grievous damage to Sino-U.S. relations: China would inevitably be dragged into a military conflict, should one erupt as a result of North Korea’s provocations. Indeed, as Pyongyang continues ratcheting up tensions through its repeated nuclear and missile tests, Beijing faces stark strategic choices, each of which comes with its own fraught trade-off.

China could, of course, always elect to maintain its current policy of pushing the United States to talk (and offer concessions) to North Korea while applying only modest pressure on its client state across the Yalu River to roll back its nuclear and missile programs. But the long-term feasibility of this approach appears doubtful. Circumstances may well eventually draw the Trump administration back to the negotiating table with North Korea, but it is unlikely to be blackmailed by Pyongyang into making any substantive concessions, like a peace treaty coupled with economic aid, without a credible commitment to nuclear disarmament

Barring such a miracle, the status quo, as Wang argued, is untenable. North Korea is on the brink of a nuclear breakout. With its recent advances, the Kim Jong Un regime may acquire a large number of powerful nuclear warheads and the long-range missiles to deliver them, posing a direct threat to America. A burgeoning nuclear arsenal would also tempt a cash-starved North Korea to proliferate nuclear materials and missiles in exchange for foreign currency.

Such developments would force the United States and its regional allies, Japan and South Korea, to beef up their deterrence and even consider pre-emptive strikes to defang Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal. The military deployment required for such efforts, such as the recent installation of Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), an advanced anti-missile system, will raise fears in China. Beijing, as is widely reported in the Chinese press, believes that the United States wants to use the brewing crisis on the Korean peninsula as a pretext to introduce capabilities that will make the Chinese military more vulnerable. As a result, China regards the U.S. response, not North Korean provocations, as the primary threat to its security. This underlying dynamic could eventually spark a collision between China and the United States.

Related: US Anti-Missile Batteries Arrive in South Korea, Touching Off Geopolitical Tumult

If Beijing’s current policy risks such a disaster, the alternatives are hardly more palatable. China may be tempted to increase its aid to North Korea in hopes of bribing Kim Jong Un to slow his nuclear and missile programs. But the chances of success for such a strategy are slim. Relations between Beijing and Pyongyang are at an all-time low, with the Chinese and the North Koreans barely on speaking terms. And an increase in Chinese support would risk violating UN sanctions. The Kim regime would also view such an about face by Beijing as an acknowledgement that its policy of penalizing Pyongyang for its provocations was wrong headed, and fresh Chinese aid as compensation for its mistake. In any case, North Korea has a track record of taking Chinese aid without moderating its behavior. The Kim dynasty knows perfectly well that China values North Korea as a strategic buffer so much that it simply cannot afford to lose it.

Another alternative would be a complete reversal of China’s current stance. Under this scenario, rather than keeping North Korea on life support, China would work with the United States to force Kim Jong Un to abandon his nuclear ambitions. This revolutionary shift in policy would require that Beijing demonstrate it is prepared to tolerate the collapse of the Kim dynasty, whatever the costs or consequences.

In practical terms, executing such a policy would necessitate strategic trust between China and the United States. Both sides would have to engage in a serious dialogue on the endgame in North Korea. Negotiations over that endgame would include the restoration of peace and security in the event of the Kim regime’s collapse. North Korea’s nuclear weapons and materials would have to be secured through a combined American, Chinese, and South Korean effort. This would require joint planning over issues such as demarcation lines, temporary settlement of refugees, and disposal of Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal.

In such a scenario, the United States would have to address China’s long-term security concerns over the Korean peninsula. Beijing would almost certainly demand that Washington end its military alliance with Seoul and withdraw its troops from the peninsula. China may sweeten this deal by proposing that the United States work to jointly guarantee the security of a neutral unified Korea.

But given the strategic distrust between America and China and their great-power rivalry, it’s hard to imagine either government embracing this radical alternative. There is good reason why they have not yet engaged in official or semi-official discussion on the future of the Korean peninsula (no such meeting has ever been reported in the media, and my colleagues both in China and America know of no such discussions). In Beijing, a regime collapse in Pyongyang is a taboo subject the Chinese official media has never broached. At the same time, Washington would likely reject the idea that it should accommodate China’s security concerns and withdraw its forces after the reunification of the two Koreas (leaving aside whether a reunified Korea would want the U.S. troops to leave). An obvious concern of Washington’s is that an American exit from the Korean peninsula could perhaps fatally undermine the U.S.-led system of alliances in East Asia. Once the U.S.-Korea military alliance dissolves, Washington would be left with Japan as its sole treaty ally in northeast Asia. 

With the alternatives appearing either infeasible or unthinkable, China is likely to stick with its current policy for the foreseeable future, despite the fact that this is unlikely to reverse the dangerous dynamics on the Korean peninsula. In the short term, the political turmoil in South Korea may give China a chance to complicate the life of the Trump administration. The impeachment of President Park Geun-hye has created an opening for South Korea’s leftists, who favor a softer line toward North Korea.

In the event that Moon Jae-in, the leader of the opposition Minjoo Party, wins the special presidential election in May, China is expected to pursue two immediate priorities. First, it will push Seoul’s new government to back out of the THAAD deal with the United States. Second, it will throw its weight behind Moon’s more conciliatory approach to Pyongyang, thus raising the pressure on Washington to reengage Pyongyang diplomatically.

The combination of China’s continuation of its current policy and South Korea’s political uncertainty has made Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s upcoming trip to the region a challenging task. In all likelihood, the most he can hope for is some non-committal reassurance from Chinese leaders about working with the United States. To be sure, the just-announced summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping in Mar-a-Lago in April should be welcomed as a positive indicator of potential improved U.S.-China cooperation on the Korean peninsula.

But we should also temper expectations. Unless the upcoming summit reaches a grand bargain that stabilizes U.S.-China relations across the board, the risks that the Trump administration will push back against China on trade and security will remain high and China will have little incentive to help America out where North Korea is concerned. If anything, the unfolding crisis in North Korea could get far more dangerous.

Minxin Pei is a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and a non-resident senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund of the United States

Three Lingering Questions For Trump’s New Plan to Fight ISIS

The world needs American world leadership very badly for these pressing times to keep the world safe. Only USA can be a world policeman and a fair policeman . with the Middle-Eastern madmen running amok everywhere , time to hit and destroy the head Snake which is causing all these problems with its Oil Money

If Trump sends more American boots to Syria, who will fight alongside them, and — stiil — what comes next?

Right now, the U.S. military is finalizing its options in Syria for President Donald Trump. The troop caps of the Obama era are a thing of the past. At least for now. These personnel limits, so popular among some in Washington, served as brakes against accelerating conflicts, made art of numbers, and led to some military units being broken up and deployed in different pieces. Or in the case of the 101st Airborne Division, deploying some soldiers while forcing the Army to leave its helicopter mechanics behind.

As military planners look ahead to the next stage in the ISIS fight, three questions present themselves:

1) Is the “no boots on the ground” era over, in Syria? 

Will Obama’s “no U.S. boots on the ground” policy that large ground forces must be avoided in Syria at all costs come to an end alongside the troop caps?

Right now the answer is: more Americans may go in. But don’t look for American troops in combat roles. “Advise and assist” remains the guiding principle.

Obama publicly remained steadfast on “no boots on the ground,” but quietly sent special operations units both to Iraq and to Syria. Already Army Rangers are providing security in Manbij and Marines, in the area around Raqqa, are in Syria to hoist U.S. flags and keep Russian and Syrian forces at bay. The question is: how many more are coming? And can the mission be contained to remain support rather than fight?

“Coalition forces have continued to train, advise, assist and accompany Manbij Military Council forces as they provide security to the people of Manbij and restore local governance and public works to the city,” Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve Spokesman Col. John Dorrian said. “[The] coalition is in part a reassuring presence for partner forces that they can rely on to ensure the focus is against ISIS as we turn toward Raqqa.” 

Despite Trump speaking of the virtues of a no-fly zone, few inside the administration expect to see them come any time soon given the possibility such a space could put the U.S. in direct conflict with Russian forces backing the Syrian regime.

The new president has not made clear how exactly he sees the role of U.S. ground forces in the fight against ISIS. But he has made clear he wants such options on the table for him to weigh.

RELATED: SPECIAL REPORT: The Military Loves the Obama Doctrine. Can It Survive Trump?
RELATED: US Special Operators Accelerate Killings of ISIS Leaders
RELATED: Corruption Helped ISIS Take Mosul. Victory Cannot Last While It Persists

The key word, say those familiar with the plans, is flexibility. Commanders want to be able to move forces across the border between Syria and Iraq as the mission takes shape. And conditions on the ground are taking shape in extraordinary ways as northern Syria grows crowded with Russian, Turkish, Syrian, Iranian, and American forces.

That leads to the next question, which has been brewing for months.  

2) Who will fight ISIS alongside the US?

Turkey sees Syrian Kurdish forces as terrorists connected to their own outlawed PKK. And Turkey has made no secret of its desire to see the U.S. divorce itself from the YPG and YPJ. At the same time, U.S. military leadership sees these People’s Protection Units as among America’s most battle-tested and reliable allies on the ground, a force both willing and formidable. These forces moved closer to the U.S. when the Obama administration opted to fight this war “by, with, through” local soldiers. 

In other words, America’s challenge right now is to lead the war without leading the battle and to shepherd the fight without losing its allies to infighting. 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to search for calm diplomatic waters when he travels to Turkey at month’s end. He is the latest American official — from the Obama administration and, now, the Trump cabinet — to come calling on Turkey to cool tensions with the coalition and stay focused on ISIS. Turkish officials have said publicly they do not want to see Kurds involved in the fight for Raqqa and that U.S.-Turkish relations will be hurt if they do. 

Part of Tillerson’s agenda will be to preserve that U.S.-Turkish relationship. And to keep it from becoming a casualty of the Raqqa campaign.

Add Russia to the mix, and it’s become so complicated and sensitive that Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford last week traveled unannounced and without reporters to meet with his Turkish and Russian counterparts. The leaders posed for a photo op. This week, U.S. military officials in Baghdad said the path forward remains a work in progress. 

“As far as a role for Turkey, we have made clear from — of many, many weeks, actually months, that we are open to a Turkish role in the continued operations to defeat ISIS in northern Syria,” Dorrian said, in a video press conference with Pentagon reporters. “We don’t — we haven’t come to an agreement about what that role will be or if there will be one, but we talk to Turkey through military channels and I believe at diplomatic levels every day.”

3) What happens after Raqqa?

The fight for Raqqa is now on the horizon. But the “…and then what?” question remains, and U.S. generals are asking it.

“The grievances of the civil war have to be addressed, the safety and humanitarian assistance that needs to be provided to people have to be addressed, and the multiple divergent stakeholders’ views need to be addressed,” said Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in February. “We do need to have a vision of how our military actions set conditions on the ground that actually then become the platform from which Secretary Tillerson goes to Geneva to come up with a political solution.” Dunford said the plan the Pentagon will deliver to Trump will not be a military-only plan, rather it will include post-conflict political needs that require whole-of-government efforts.

But while Dunford, CENTCOM’s Gen. Joseph Votel, and other military leaders want White House support for more than military action, the Trump administration has said it will not do nation-building and proposed deep cuts to the State Department, traditionally the architect of ending wars and keeping them ended.  

How does the U.S. make certain that any end to ISIS does not create a vacuum that leads straight to the start of its successor organization and, eventually, sends U.S. forces back to the region once more? And how do military officials find a partner for development and diplomacy under an administration that sees much of what the State Department does as superfluous?

In the next few weeks, these three questions will take center stage. The American public would do well to engage with them as potentially thousands of additional U.S. troops look headed to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Obama may have said in 2011 that “the tide of war is receding,” but he found it impossible to end America’s post-9/11 conflicts. His successor, who shares the Obama desire to pursue “nation building here at home,” may find the same challenge.

Gayle Tzemach Lemmon is a regular contributor to Defense One. Lemmon is the author of Ashley's War: The Untold Story of a Team of Women Soldiers on the Special Ops Battlefield and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

How the Rise of Electronics Has Made Smuggling Bombs Easier

When next time travelling on a plane beware if anybody carries an extra large IPad

New restrictions on flights from the Middle East reflect how just about anything with power can be turned into an explosive.

Last February, a Somali man boarded a Daallo Airlines flight in Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital. Twenty minutes after the flight took off, the unassuming laptop in his carry-on bag detonated, blowing a hole in the side of the plane. The bomber was killed, and two others were injured. But if the aircraft had reached cruising altitude, an expert told CNN, the bomb would have ignited the plane’s fuel tank and caused a second, potentially catastrophic blast.

The Daallo explosion was one of a handful of terrorist attacks that the Department of Homeland Security cited to help explain why it introduced new rules for some passengers flying to the U.S. with electronics. Starting this week, travelers on U.S.-bound flights from 10 airports in the Middle East and North Africa will be required to check all electronic items larger than a smartphone.

A senior administration official told reporters Monday night that the indefinite electronics ban was a response to continuing threats against civil aviation, but wouldn’t elaborate on the specific nature or the timing of the threat. Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement that the ban was “necessary and proportional to the threat,” and that terrorists continue to come up with “creative ways to try and outsmart detection methods.”

The specificity of the new rules could hint at the nature of the intelligence it’s based on, says Justin Kelley, the vice president for operations at MSA Security, a large private firm that offers explosive-screening services. The ban could be focused on simply separating items like laptop-bombs from passengers who would need to access them in order to set them off, Kelley says. A transcript of our conversation, lightly edited for concision and clarity, follows.

Kaveh Waddell: How much has bomb-smuggling technology changed since Richard Reid tried to hide explosives in a shoe in 2001?

Justin Kelley: It’s pretty common, and it was common even before Reid. But now, everything we have on our person has some sort of power source to it, and that’s what they’re looking for. Everything from a laptop to a phone to an iPad—most of those restricted items they want now in checked baggage—they all have a power source, which is what bombers are generally looking for: something to kick off their device.

Waddell: What’s most difficult about designing a bomb that’s hard to detect, and small enough to fit into something like a shoe or underwear?

Kelley: The bombs in underwear were pretty rudimentary—they needed a human element. But if we’re looking at an electronic device, they can be done a whole host of different ways. They don’t necessarily need an actor to set off the device.

The electronic version has been around since we’ve had cellphones. Even before cellphones, you could use a greeting card that sings a holiday tune or a birthday wish—those use power as well. There’s a whole host of things that can be used to initiate a device. But now, we travel with all these electronics on our person, we need to look even harder.

Waddell: DHS said the new ban was created in response to a threat. How do authorities monitor the state of adversaries’ bomb-making skills to have a sense of what to watch for in airports?

Kelley: That intelligence could have been gathered through social media, or people they’re monitoring. Terrorist groups are always changing and adapting to what we put forth as security principles, so this is just another step. When liquids were banned from planes, that was also a product of intelligence, and I’m not surprised they don’t want to disclose the source.

Waddell: What kind of extra screening might luggage be subject to in checked bags that they might not be if they were carried on?

Kelley: Anything on those planes is going to be screened, whether it’s passenger-carried or cargo. This may have been driven by intelligence that someone would use power sources during a flight, that there would need to be some human interaction.

If they were interested in banning electronics entirely, there would be a stronger restriction.

Waddell: So you’re saying that it’s not necessarily that it’s easier to detect a bomb in checked baggage—it could be that separating a person from their electronics breaks a necessary link for using it as a bomb?

Kelley: Yeah, it tells me they want to separate the human element from the device. That’s what jumped out at me. That could be part of the reason.

Waddell: Would it be that difficult to check a laptop that would be set to detonate at a certain time or altitude?

Kelley: No, in fact, we have seen that in the past. That’s why I think this specific ban was driven by specific intelligence that they’ve gathered. The Reid-type device was human driven. If their concern was about a device in the belly of the plane, I think they’d have imposed other restrictions, but this just says, “You can fly with it; you just can’t fly with it on your person.”

Waddell: The scope of the ban is pretty limited right now: It only covers direct flights to the U.S. from 10 airports in the Middle East and North Africa. Could this be broadened at some point? Might this be a pilot program that’ll end up being implemented elsewhere?

Kelley: I think that comes down to how comfortable DHS is with security at these host countries. Our hope is that other countries that other countries follow TSA-like guidelines for screening—but some don’t. Those that are at or near our standard wouldn’t be part of the ban.

Waddell: Earlier today, the U.K. introduced a similar ban. If enough other countries jump on board, could this become standard practice?

Kelley: No doubt. And once someone steps up with a concern, with real-time information sharing, I think you might see quite a few more countries jump on as well.