The case against the underwear bomber

Theme week here I guess.  The case against.  Court cases are such tricky endeavors.  Does someone plead guilty or not guilty based on their actual position of being guilty or innocent or are there underlying circumstances that sends a case one way or another.  This seems like it might be the case with the underwear bomber.  After months of claiming he was innocent and the government offering absolutely no plea deal, this week Umar Abdulmutallab submitted a plea of guilty.  Maybe the accused man that tried to light his underwear bomb on fire on Christmas 2009 realized that he had no chance and rather than deal with court, he tossed in his own towel and accepted guilt for the crime.  Though, this same week, there was something else new that was interjected into the case.  Umar, defending himself, listed one witness to call on his behalf.  A Detroit attorney named Kurt Haskell.  Every since the attempted bombing, mister Haskell has claimed that the events of the day was not as simple as a crazy man getting on a plane with a bomb (scary enough as is).  Haskell's claims that Abdulmutallab was escorted through security on the fateful morning by a well dressed Indian man who, despite Umar's being listed on a terror watchlist and having no passport, was able to get the "bomber" through and onto the plane.  Even without the well dressed Indian man or the eye witness reporting from Kurt Haskell, the ability for someone with a trail like Abdulmutallab to get on a plane is unsettling enough.  If cancer scanners and trips to second base with passengers are not getting the job done, what good then is TSA good for?  

(Touch Me for Mainstream News Story)

(Touch Me for Kurt Haskell's Radio Show)