Attemped bombers visa was expired?

So his visa had expired? Why was he allowed to board then? Seems nothing done on this end could prevent this, yet we are the ones with all of the new security measures and rules. Why?

www.breitbart.com...

Visa is not a passport.

I posted an article yesterday that the Dutch authorities stated he did indeed have his passport.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Abdulmutallab was carrying a valid Nigerian passport and had a valid U.S. visa, the Dutch said. His name did not appear on any Dutch list of terror suspects.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by Libertygal]

Having traveled a bit I understand the difference between the two. However, if his visa was expired, why was he allowed to board?

The Nigerian suspected in the attempted attack on a U.S. airliner had stayed on in Yemen illegally after his visa expired three months ago and should have been stopped by authorities from leaving the country, Yemeni security officials said Thursday.



[edit on 31-12-2009 by adifferentbreed]

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Yep I read it, and posted the conflicting quote from my article.

So there are still very many unanswered questions, and the American public is making this very hard for them to keep lying. IE: Mr Haskell's story.

Keep asking the good questions, because they seem to not be able to answer them.

I think I read in another article that the reason he was banned from Britain was the expired Visa as well as claiming to have applied to a University that doesn't exist, so perhaps he was expired there and not the US? I do not travel, and as such I have no idea if there are two Visa's or what.

If the Britain Visa is expired, but he had a valid one for the US, then that technically makes both articles and claims correct, but as I stated, I know nothing of how Visa's work, and if they can be issued multiple times for different locales.

I don't think it's so much that people are lying per say. I think it has to do more with being politically correct on the world stage.