frightening flight experience
Not sure if this has been discussed yet, but a co-worker shared this link with me. Absolutely terrifying story, if it is true. It makes you wonder the state of the willingness of our country's citizens to go above and beyond in the event of scare like this.
http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=711
And then her follow up:
http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/article_landing.aspx?titleid=1&articleid=716
Apologies if this has already gone around. I realize it's about a week old.
Fourth thread on the page man... but we did not have the followup. Reading now.
OK the followup confirms some details, but the more striking part of it is the quotes from people connected to the airlines, such as:
According to Mark Bogosian, B-757/767 pilot for American Airlines, "The incident you wrote about, and incidents like it, occur more than you like to think. It is a 'dirty little secret' that all of us, as crew members, have known about for quite some time."
Oof.
OK the followup confirms some details, but the more striking part of it is the quotes from people connected to the airlines, such as:
Oof.
Yeah, I notice that's what another pilot said - that these incidents (dry runs) were common and the topic of much industry gossip. Why are they not being reported? Public awareness is likely the best deterrent (though not always the most rational or logical - instead I imagine it would create quite a state of panic).
I still don't see the usefulness of the dry runs unless they're to create terror in and of themselves. The dry runs tip off the Feds to other kinds of attacks and "waste" personel. It really looks more like a test of the aircrews. Either way it is scarey stuff.
Rand K. Peck, captain for a major U.S. airline, sent the following email: "I just finished reading Annie Jacobsen's article, TERROR IN THE SKIES, AGAIN? I only wish that it had been written by a reporter from The Washington Post or The New York Times. My response would have been one of shock as to how insensitive of them to dare write such a piece. After all, citizens or not, don't these people have rights too?
Seems Capt. Peck is more worried about noncitizens rights(feelings) than airline safety. Wrong priorities, methinks. :eyebrow:
Seems Capt. Peck is more worried about noncitizens rights(feelings) than airline safety. Wrong priorities, methinks. :eyebrow:
Whatever happened to "presumed innocent till proven guilty"? Or does that only apply to Christians?
-Pie
"The incident you wrote about, and incidents like it, occur more than you like to think. It is a 'dirty little secret' that all of us, as crew members, have known about for quite some time."
I tend to think this quote is taken a bit out of context. In its current place, the editor makes it sound like the airlines are hiding some deep secret of ongoing terrorist plots that they can legally do nothing about. I'm sure a lot of incidents like this happen in which suspcisious activity causes flight delays,
like people shaving in the restroom or people getting sick who don't speak English, but I doubt any of them are real security risks. Do airlines get probed? I'm sure they did, but I noticed that we never learned much about the original 19 hijackers and their practice attempts, so as the public, we don't quite know how it works, anyways.
I would love to know what the actual events were on that flight and the findings of the authorities. This person's perception of it makes it sound absolutely horrific and, if that is the way it all went down, I would have been scared shitless and very concerned for my life. So how come no one else on the flight has mentioned anything? How come this hasn't hit the media? Why didn't this make the same news the way the previous incidents I linked did?
I keep thinking back to a photograph I saw in the Los Angeles Times called "Falling" by Pulitzer Prize winning AP photographer Richard Drew. It's a photograph of a man, his body is stretched out, one knee at a right angle, as if he's lying on a couch, watching television in the living room, relaxing and enjoying life. But he's not. It's a photograph of a man falling from one of the top floors of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. This man jumped to his death, most likely because it seemed a less painful way to die than being engulfed in flames.
This picture is haunting. For a long time I kept it in my office. I still think about this picture and I wonder about this man -- his daily life, what he did for work, what he did for play, what his thoughts were about the world. I think about this person. I think about the meaning of "dry run." And then I think about what it means to be politically correct. And I keep coming up blank.
This is a really bizarre way to end this article and it really bugs me. I can't pinpoint why, but this woman sounds really paranoid to me, even if it is just because she kept this picture in her office, has never been able to get that man's life out of her mind, and blames his tragic death on rampant political correctness in our country. Something about the article, the way its stated, and the heavy political overtones make me question exactly what happened.
"So even if Northwest Airlines searched two of the men on board my Northwest flight, they couldn't search the other 12 because they would have already filled a government-imposed quota."
This is a serious problem, but not one that arises out of rules regarding profiling. A terrorist out of the Middle East can just as easily get a fake passport, shave clean, and walk onto an airline and not ever look as if he needs to be searched nor be flagged by the security system to be checked. The real problem is that there isn't enough money for the security needed to search every person. If each of these people were searched and they really did all have a single component to a weapon, how would searching all of them have helped? Each bag that goes on board an airplane is sniffed with an explosives detector and each carryon bag goes through a scanner that detects oganic material (explosives). What would have helped, here? Removing political correctness and searching each person with an Arab name?
So she asked me some of the questions that she had wanted to ask him: Where exactly did this band of 14 musicians play? What was the name of the band? Who booked the band and what kind of music did they play? Did anyone follow up and actually witness these 14 men performing at their desert casino gig?
I don't think this is any of her business and here is the reason why:
I asked a friend who is a local news correspondent if there were any arrests at LAX that day. There weren't.
Sounds like a lot of nothing to me.
But I wonder, if 19 terrorists can learn to fly airplanes into buildings, couldn't 14 terrorists learn to play instruments?
I love that line.
Whatever happened to "presumed innocent till proven guilty"? Or does that only apply to Christians?
-Pie
That pertains to punishment not prevention or investigations.
Considering the laundry list of bombings and hijackings committed by middle eastern men between ages 20 and 40, anyone trying to prevent more would be stupid not to notice, and yes investigate, anyone fitting that profile. It's just common sense to anyone charged with protecting us from these acts. :eyebrow:
That pertains to punishment not prevention or investigations.
Considering the laundry list of bombings and hijackings committed by middle eastern men between ages 20 and 40, anyone trying to prevent more would be stupid not to notice, and yes investigate, anyone fitting that profile. It's just common sense to anyone charged with protecting us from these acts. :eyebrow:
Hmmmm. I thought racial profiling was not accepted practice. Well, let's just pack off all the Japanese back to their internment camps...
- Pie
You're right, it's not accepted practice and that's just plain stupid. Every law enforcement professional knows that. Being politically correct is not the best way to prevent the atrocities these people have in mind.
Your internment camp remark is a straw man I won't bother to address. :p
Considering the laundry list of bombings and hijackings committed by middle eastern men between ages 20 and 40
Say we were to concentrate our efforts on Middle Eastern men aged 20-40. How long do you think their efforts to sneak weapons in on themselves is going to last? Do you think they would just keep trying it over and over again, knowing that it is almost a garuntee they will get searched?
Granny and the kids aren't going to get searched, so how long do you think it will be before a Middle Eastern man, aged 20-40, figures out he can sneak the weapon in on his kid? Or how long do you think it will be before the terrorists start using people other than Middle Eastern men? Plenty of Islamic extremists in the Phillipenes and Africa that would love to walk into a plane knowing they aren't going to get searched because the TSA is too busy checking the eight Middle Eastern males who are also boarding.
Random searches = good.
Limiting the scope of your security based on an expected pattern = bad.
Ignoring the most likely perpetrator of a hijacking and/or terrorist act because it might be deemed politically incorrect = Really Fucking Stupid and We Deserve to Die
Ignoring the most likely perpetrator of a hijacking and/or terrorist act because it might be deemed politically incorrect = Really Fucking Stupid and We Deserve to Die
And how do you identify that likely perpetrator? The guy from Saudi Arabia here in the US on a visitor's passport? What about the guy from the Phillipenes here on a work visa? How about the man from Syria with a fake driver's license that has been marked as a US citizen in the flight ticketing system? Remember the British citizen that placed a bomb in his shoe and intended to blow up the plane? He wasn't checked, nor would he have been had we been checking all men from the Middle East aged 20-40.
We have limited TSA security resources. I understand the problem of ignoring the obvious, but concentrating on one group of people simply opens holes everywhere else. How about we make it difficult for anyone to bring a weapon on board?
Kitsune, you make a lot of sense.
Remember the British citizen that placed a bomb in his shoe and intended to blow up the plane? He wasn't checked, nor would he have been had we been checking all men from the Middle East aged 20-40.
If I recall, he definitely LOOKED Middle-Eastern. That's all that counts, he would have been searched if a widespread "search all men of Middle-Eastern descent" order were in place.
The problem is the answer is better communication between baggage screeners and law enforcement combined with some cluey guys on screening so they know what to look for today and whether someone looks suspicious or not. It is no stretch to envisage Middle Eastern, Asian African or on the odd occasion, caucasian Islamic terrorists (let's face it, noone is going to be doing a good old hostage these days, that game is over), good intel and passing it around is paramount. That said, the most likely bombers today are 20-40 men of middle eastern decent, not skewing the random searches in their direction is paramount to dereliction of duty, I said it in the other thread.
That said, I fly all the time and I know full well that airport and plane security are a goddamn joke. It is so damn easy to carry on or manufacture weaponry it's not funny, I could list 20 ways off the top of my head.
And I can give you 400,000 other instances of a location and method that somebody of any ethnicity could kill you if they were so inclined.
How many drinking reservoirs do we have open to the air? How many stadiums feature 60,000 people packed into a tight area?
I find it laughable that people think once they figure out the whole airport safety thing, they're safe from terrorism.
It's like adaptability goes right out the window. We get a plane-based terror attack and BAM, all future ones must have something to do with planes. How blind is that?
Spend a day with a notebook downtown just walking around, and note potential dangers on-par with a plane hijacking. You'll find dozens. Every day.
The world is a scary place....if you want it to be.
I choose not to live in fear. I don't hate arabs or islam, because I know that the troublemakers are an EXCEPTION to the rule. I know that the probability of being involved in a plane hijacking is about the same as me being in an Oklahoma government building when that WHITE guy blew it up.
Maybe you blokes should investigate why extremists want to kill us in the first place. Because trust me, it isn't because "they hate our freedom."
That said, I fly all the time and I know full well that airport and plane security are a goddamn joke. It is so damn easy to carry on or manufacture weaponry it's not funny, I could list 20 ways off the top of my head.
I've not flown in a long time, but I'm certainly in agreement with you there. I have a couple doodads that would likely get confiscated off my keychain, but have fun collecting things that will make it through my metal detector at work and are still signficantly dangerous.
Like
this.
And
this.
CF blades are one thing but when you get creative the opportunites are endless. Matches are easy enough to conceal, buy two large bottles of wiskey, pour both over a row of seats during a long haul flight at night and before anyone's noticed you've got a major fire on your hands.
carbonated_brains, I agree entirely
Maybe you blokes should investigate why extremists want to kill us in the first place. Because trust me, it isn't because "they hate our freedom."
Oh man I hate that arroganct line. The idea that a whole bunch of people would hate America for it's freedom. Why would they hate freedom? What the fuck is there to hate about freedom? All the reasons that do exist and are relevant stack up to a bloody great mountain of grievances .....but no, the reason Bush and his cadre choose is that they hate freedom. Pathetic. It's like reading a superhero comic book. I am surprised the villains arent bright green and armed with killer frogs.
If I recall, he definitely LOOKED Middle-Eastern. That's all that counts, he would have been searched if a widespread "search all men of Middle-Eastern descent" order were in place.
This is silly. "Pardon me sir, you have dark skin and that means you have been flagged for security purposes. All the people with pale skin may go ahead and board."
I'm not pulling the "politically correct card" here, because about everytime I go into an airport, I'm the one that gets pulled aside and I don't consider it an inconvience. Its either because I have an overstuffed, suspicious bookbag as a carryon or, I dunno, maybe I just look like a terrorist. (I think the military hat and scruffy face might have something to do with it. Hmm.) Regardless, it doesn't bother me that I'm selected nearly every time and they decide to pick through my bags or sweep over me with a metal detector. If I am being selected at the X-ray line based on my looks, I don't care.
What I am saying here is that I'd like for you to go to any major airport and count how many people "look Middle Eastern" to you and tally the number that you think should be checked and I'm sure you will find that it is no small number. I admit that the most recent time I flew I glanced around at all the people who "fit the profile". The number was huge, mostly because its almost impossible to tell the difference between an Arab, an Indian, and someone from a lot of the Eastern countries. The simple matter is that there is not enough security to screen them all and, by concentrating our efforts on people "who look the part", we open the doors through security for hundreds of other methods to sneak something on board by simply changing that single aspect.
If you fly a lot, you know they already profile people, but more on suspicious patterns rather than skin color. Visiting with a passport? You're going to get checked. Switch carriers midway through your trip? You're probably going to get checked. One-way ticket? Expect to get lots of little 'X's on your boarding pass. Person under 18 who doesn't have to show proof of ID? They almost always get checked if they're over the age of 12. Even the technical field workers at my office that make regular trips to and from DC on a schedule get checked everytime they fly. Frustrated, they asked why and the response they got was that because they fly as a group on a regular basis, they're acting in a suspicious way and the system flags them for security reasons.
Is this perfect? Hell no. But I think its better than what we had before, which was essentially nothing, and I think its better than keeping the security screeners busy with the huge group of people that happen to have darker skin than an albino Finn in the wintertime. The random selection is there to both break the expected pattern and prevent human error -- there is a reason the computer makes half of the decisions.
Want all Arab-looking people checked? There is a really easy way to solve this, I suppose, but no one is willing to do it: pay more for your airline ticket and wait in longer lines. Just the same way with the bomb-proof luggage containers for checked-in bags -- they've had them for years, but insurance companies did the math and figured that losing one or two planes every so many years to an onboard bomb outweighs the cost of installing the reinforced bins. Higher cost for safer flight makes customers, and the airlines, unhappy and drives down business. Its the same reason you haven't seen any of the Boeings get their wires re-done or routed outside of the center gas tanks post flight 800 -- the risk outweighs the cost. No one is willing to pay for extra security or longer lines, but anyone will dish out some extra cash to sit in a seat with a little LCD TV installed in the back of the seat in front of them. Checking everyone is impossible. Checking all people who "look Arab" is impossible and creates a very easily broken security pattern. Random, for now, is as good as it gets.
I'm not sure I get the whole "political correctness is the problem" thing, anyways. Any captain of any commercial airline has the ability to remove any passenger for any reason, stated or not. In the days after September 11th, a number of pilots requested people who "appeared suspicious" to remove themselves from the flight prior to departure. I don't remember anyone screaming back then. In the X-Ray lines, people that are checked are selected on their appearance and/or their baggage. The only random part is the check prior to boarding based on your seating pass.
but have fun collecting things that will make it through my metal detector at work and are still signficantly dangerous.
Whoa, those are freaky. I thought they passed some kind of law that required some bits of metal be included in the blades in order to set off metal detectors?
I've been profiled. I have long hair, and I don't shave when on vacation.
First I was profiled by every weed provider in Jamaica, offering.
Then I was profiled by every security person in the US, assuming I'd accepted.
It was sort of weirdly amusing.
Nice.
Of course, someone noted before -- all you have to do is take a knife from one of the restuarants in the airside that exists beyond the metal detectors. Ugh.
In the days after September 11th, a number of pilots requested people who "appeared suspicious" to remove themselves from the flight prior to departure.
As a side note, comedian Dave Attell (host of Comedy Central's "Insomniac") was one of those people.
As a side note, comedian Dave Attell (host of Comedy Central's "Insomniac") was one of those people.
:eek: What? But Dave would never hurt anyone! That man is my all-time hero! Poor, poor Dave.
Ah, he probably drank his way back across the country and had a good time at it.
"Ahhhhhh... drunks and losers, dwarves with limps..."
"_____s and ho's and one-eyed pimps!"
Anyone who can fill in that word for me will be my hero, I can never understand it clearly.
Ignoring the most likely perpetrator of a hijacking and/or terrorist act because it might be deemed politically incorrect = Really ------- Stupid and We Deserve to Die
And how do you identify that likely perpetrator? The guy from Saudi Arabia here in the US on a visitor's passport? What about the guy from the Phillipenes here on a work visa? How about the man from Syria with a fake driver's license that has been marked as a US citizen in the flight ticketing system? Remember the British citizen that placed a bomb in his shoe and intended to blow up the plane? He wasn't checked, nor would he have been had we been checking all men from the Middle East aged 20-40.
We have limited TSA security resources. I understand the problem of ignoring the obvious, but concentrating on one group of people simply opens holes everywhere else. How about we make it difficult for anyone to bring a weapon on board?
I'm not suggesting we ignore everyone else, I'm suggesting we don't *intentionally* exclude the most likely type of potential perp because we're afraid we'll hurt someone's feelings. Big difference.
Don't get me started on fucking profiling, might be the fact I carry lots of computer gear, I'm sure the passports thing plays a role (mismatching departures/arivals) but I get dragged aside and questions every second flight, had my luggege pulled apart countless times, had to prove every fucking device I carry isn't a goddamn bomb, be put in rooms and asked to list names dates and times of where I've been and who I've been with, demanding to know where I went on previous trips and drug sniffing dogs going over my clothes. Then they wonder why I get pissed off. The best one was the guy that asked me what the suspicious white pills were, the ones with panadol clearly imprinted on the side.
George Carlin cited exactly that as the reason he carries only Flintstones vitamins on planes now.
I'm tempted to start packing wierd random item in my luggage just to fuck with them a bit, maybe a single tomato wrapped in gaffa tape or a photo of a picasso.
Freaks?
I don't think so... it sounds kind of like "Flo's"--it definitely rhymes with "ho's."
Well,
this guy says it is indeed "flos". Alas, I was not able to discover what a "flo" is. I doubt he meant "
arrows", and "
floor" doesn't seem to fit.
I'm tempted to start packing wierd random item in my luggage just to fuck with them a bit, maybe a single tomato wrapped in gaffa tape or a photo of a picasso.
Peanut butter. No kidding. If you fly through an airport with the upgraded x-ray systems that flag organic material in red, packing a single jar of peanut butter (dense, organic, in a jar) will do it.
I'm not saying you should do this, by the way. ;)
I'm not suggesting we ignore everyone else, I'm suggesting we don't *intentionally* exclude the most likely type of potential perp because we're afraid we'll hurt someone's feelings. Big difference.
Indubitably. :thumpsup:
She survived a flight with 14 harmless Syrian musicians -- then spread 3,000 bigoted and paranoid words across the Internet. As a pilot and an American, I'm appalled
Sorry Salon link you may have to go via their add to get to see it, click enter Salon premium
Intriguing, no? I, for one, fully admit that certain acts of airborne crime and treachery may indeed open the channels to a debate on civil liberties. Pray tell, what happened? Gunfight at 37,000 feet? Valiant passengers wrestle a grenade from a suicidal operative? Hero pilots beat back a cockpit takeover?
Well, no. As a matter of fact, nothing happened. Turns out the Syrians are part of a musical ensemble hired to play at a hotel. The men talk to one another. They glance around. They pee.
That's it?
That's it.
The follow up link that Breakingnews posted says nobody checked to see if they really were musicians.......that we know of. ;)
And if they were, the bass player is suspect. :lol:
I'm not suggesting we ignore everyone else, I'm suggesting we don't *intentionally* exclude the most likely type of potential perp because we're afraid we'll hurt someone's feelings. Big difference.
Fair enough -- I think, also, that it would be a bad thing to not do a security check on someone because it might hurt their feelings. You can't be concerned with that when people's safety is at stake. Maybe we should be basing security checks on skin color/appearance. Should this also apply elsewhere? If so, in what situations?
You know what really annoys me? When I get picked out of line for "special treatment" - which seems to happen a lot recently - and there's no good reason I can think of.
It's always when I'm flying to the US. I'm always flying from the UK. I always have a return ticket. I always depart on a direct flight from London. I pack no suspicious items, and have one carry on & if I have to, one checked item. I have a visa in my passport from when I worked for a US company, and always ensure I fill in an I-94 rather than an I-94W waiver form and enter on my visa. This I do voluntarily (I'm still entitled to enter on a waiver), because I'm all for biometric screening at the point of entry and exit from a country and waiver bearers don't have to do it. So I'm voluntarily getting fingerprinted and photographed by the nice immigration guy when I don't have to. I have a full UK passport, which has 3 years left to run on it and contains a variety of stamps from various points of entry into the US and Canada over the last 7 years. I dress casual-smart, and do not wear a hat for check-in or screening. For what it's worth, I'm a white caucasian male.
At no point have I blown up or crashed any planes.
So why, oh why, do I get searched, swabbed for explosives and made to take off my shoes when there's no goddamn seats available, every time I fly to or from the US for the last few trips?
What bothers me is not so much that they keep searching me; I wouldn't mind if they searched everyone. What bothers me is that every time they're spending their time searching me (and about 50% of the time, my girlfriend who's travelling with me - otherwise, she strolls through and waits for me) they're not searching someone who might be a terrorist. I mean.. am I really such a high match on their profiling that it's worth searching me to the exclusion of other people, over and over and over?
If so, I humbly submit that their profiling algorithm is crap.
Post a picture, maybe that could clear things up a bit. We could vote on how terrorist-y you look. :)
Maybe you have beady eyes?
I'm a brit, so obviously I have beady little eyes that are too close together, and bad teeth. :)
Somewhat astonishingly (to me, at least) I have no pictures of me online which I've published. All I can find is this:
...but it should be noted that I don't attempt to board aircraft dressed this way.
...but it should be noted that I don't attempt to board aircraft dressed this way.
I, for one, would pay to see someone try it. "Seat cushion used as a floatation device? Screw that."
A bunch of dive buddies and I took a ferry to Ireland and suited & kitted up before walking aft and suggesting to fascinated passengers that they not worry, because it's probably nothing, and we'd be sure to inform them over the tannoy if the little problem turned out to be anything serious.
The staff thought it was quite funny, in the end, and they didn't have us sodomised by the police - much to my (retrospective) surprise.
Ah, it was a more innocent age back then.
I'm tempted to start packing wierd random item in my luggage just to fuck with them a bit, maybe a single tomato wrapped in gaffa tape or a photo of a picasso.
To roughly paraphrase Doug Stanhope, buy the largest sex toy you can find. Cover it with a mixture of melted chocolate and ketchup, and let it dry. Find some flesh-colored foam and rubber-cement a few tiny bits onto the side of it. Wrap it in aluminum foil, stick it in your suitcase, and enjoy the spectacle when it goes through X-Ray.
I want to knit iron filings into my entire suit.
"You need not scan me, I am magnet-man!"
I won't get deeply into the politics of it all, but would like to add, in case anyone missed it, that this woman used Anne Coulter as a cite in this article. The whole thing smells like a UL (and yeah, I'm aware it actually took place). I'm just sayin'. If there were air marshalls all over the plane, why did they need another passenger to write descriptions? If the airline or anyone else thought they were so F-ing dangerous, why weren't they questioned BEFORE they flight took off? The guy wouldn't return her friendly smile? Wahhh. Muslim men would consider smiling at a woman outside their own family way too intimate. Interesting to note that eating at McDonald's and needing orthopedic shoes should send up a red flag.
And if congregating around the bathroom was a crime, women all over the world would be in lockup for good. This whole thing rang of self-important, whiny, smarmy white-chick prejudice to me. NOTHING happened to the Precious Princess, and she still has to yodel about it.
...marshalls all over the plane...
I don't believe this for a second. They usually put, what, one air marshall on a plane? Maybe two at the most? Do the flight attendants really know who is and who isn't an AM? Is a flight attendant really stupid enough to tell a passenger if they did know?
Interesting to note that eating at McDonald's and needing orthopedic shoes should send up a red flag.
The multiple visits to the bathroom were flagged. To me, if you have a bag of McDonald's food and you aren't visiting the bathroom repeatedly, you're suspect.
You dive in english weather? Ye gods that brings new meaning to blue balls, and here's me thinking Melbourne in the summer was bad.
To roughly paraphrase Doug Stanhope, buy the largest sex toy you can find. Cover it with a mixture of melted chocolate and ketchup, and let it dry. Find some flesh-colored foam and rubber-cement a few tiny bits onto the side of it. Wrap it in aluminum foil, stick it in your suitcase, and enjoy the spectacle when it goes through X-Ray.
"what's this for?"
"I use it to violently sodomise off-duty baggage inspectors"
It's almost be worth the ensuing imprisonment and cavity search.
I won't get deeply into the politics of it all, but would like to add, in case anyone missed it, that this woman used Anne Coulter as a cite in this article. The whole thing smells like a UL (and yeah, I'm aware it actually took place). I'm just sayin'. If there were air marshalls all over the plane, why did they need another passenger to write descriptions? If the airline or anyone else thought they were so F-ing dangerous, why weren't they questioned BEFORE they flight took off? The guy wouldn't return her friendly smile? Wahhh. Muslim men would consider smiling at a woman outside their own family way too intimate. Interesting to note that eating at McDonald's and needing orthopedic shoes should send up a red flag.
And if congregating around the bathroom was a crime, women all over the world would be in lockup for good. This whole thing rang of self-important, whiny, smarmy white-chick prejudice to me. NOTHING happened to the Precious Princess, and she still has to yodel about it.
[COLOR=Navy]You can take it as "self-important, whiny, smarmy white-chick prejudice" if you want to, (and I'm sure many do) or you can take it as a wake up call. Even if nothing happened on this flight, and 17 Syrians just happened to know each other but didn't board as a group, and have a need to urinate and/or defecate more than twice on a short flight, and "hang out" near bathrooms, and not have seats booked together, and have a cover story that was never checked up on or followed up, that doesn't mean that we should be suspicious about it, right? It doesn't mean that they were doing a "dry run" or anything. Just coincidence. Yeah. That's it. Coincidence.
Most of the attacks on American interests overseas were perpetrated by "Middle Eastern" men, so maybe, just maybe, we should not worry so much about "political correctness" and get serious about securing our nation. Yes, that means we're going to lose some personal freedoms. Yes, that means we'll spend more for a plane ticket and wait in longer lines. I'd rather pay $300 more for an airline ticket and wait for 2 hours to get through security and eat with plastic forks at the $50 for a bagel restaurant AND BE SAFE, rather than bow to the "politically correct" viewpoint and security miss something because "we can't screen more than 2 people of this type", and die for some nut's religious views.
You know what? If "racial profiling" applied to white folks, we'd have a serious problem. "We can't screen more than 2 white people per plane." How about I scream discrimination?
Why is it discrimination when it's Middle Easterners but not when its whites?
Edit to add: You know what? The terrorists discriminate, too. Anyone not them. There could be Islamists on the plane they blow up. How do they know? They don't care. Why should we?
[/COLOR]
There were 14 Syrians, IIRC. And I agree, it should be a wake up call. We should be awakened to the fact that our prejudices don't always hold water. Their baggage was checked, just like everyone else's. Add that to not doing a fucking thing except making some white people uncomfortable. The widdle weporter was uncomfy on a fwight? Cry me a freaking river. Nobody proved they did ANYTHING wrong. WTF should they have to sit together? Maybe they booked their tickets on PriceLine and that's the only way they could get them. IT'S NOT OUR BUSINESS. THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG. I know! It must have been that weird, non-English language they were speaking. Ethnocentricity in action.
Who are the "terrorists" you're referring to here? Surely not these guys, as the only terror they caused was what Little Miss brewed up in her own mind. Again, they did NOTHING WRONG. But it's okay to discriminate against them, because they have dark skin... Go ahead and "scream discrimination" if that's what puts the starch in your socks. No skin off my teeth. Probably won't get you very far, unless you can back it up.
BTW, who was who said that people who would give up freedoms for a little temporary security deserving neither? Not being snarky, I really can't remember. I agree though.
Yeah.....what Jane Says :)
Ben Franklin said it.
And while under the rules at the time they didn't do anything wrong, the FAA changed the rules because of them and other situations like theirs, such that you can no longer congregate in the aisles or at the bathroom, and a flight attendant will rigorously check the bathroom every two hours. So next time, they WILL be doing something wrong, and it WILL be our business.
Franklin said it, but I seem to remember that someone else (Jefferson?) had a very similar quote, so one may have borrowed it from the other.
Yeah, next time, it will be. However, it wasn't "wrong" at the time, and had anyone else been doing it, they rules likely would not have changed at all.
Thanky for the amen, DanaC.
Who are the "terrorists" you're referring to here? Surely not these guys, as the only terror they caused was what Little Miss brewed up in her own mind. Again, they did NOTHING WRONG. But it's okay to discriminate against them, because they have dark skin... Go ahead and "scream discrimination" if that's what puts the starch in your socks. No skin off my teeth. Probably won't get you very far, unless you can back it up.
This is not the only
instance.
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.
Instance of what? Where did you read that one of these fourteen guys tried to break through a wall? Again, they were INNOCENT. Did NOTHING. They did nothing but offend the bigoted sensibilities of some white chick on a plane. That is all.
In this line of thinking, I have some other suggestions.
Students that attend High School that wear black clothing and listen to rock music should be subject to searches before they enter class. After all, as a nation, we cannot endure any more school shootings and to save our children, we must take note of those that are the most likely to be involved in such an activity.
African Americans, when pulled over for speeding, should automatically be subect to probable cause searches despite lack of it. They are, after all, statistically the most likely to be carrying an illegal substance or weapon in the vehicle.
In order to make security lines move faster at the airport, I suggest we have lines labeled "Dark-Skinned" and "Light-Skinned". Since very few people can tell the difference between someone from Greece, an Indian, and an Arab, everyone with dark skin should expect to arrive at the airport 2 hours prior to their flight and expect much more intense security checks than the rest. For the safety of the pilot and the aircraft, we should probably make all of them sit in the rear of the plane.
Sound familiar?
Did you read the link or just the quote?
"The FAMS never broke their cover, but monitored" the activity, Mr. Adams said. "Given the facts, they had no legal basis to take an enforcement action. But there was enough of a suspicious nature for the FAMS, passengers and crew to take notice."
Well the "Little Miss" wasn't brewing it up in her mind if the Federal Air Marshalls, other passengers and crew also noticed. The article cited other INSTANCES. :smack:
I read the whole sordid many-paged piece of barf days ago. And what I want to know is why, if they were so suspicious, they were not questioned BEFORE THE FLIGHT OOK OFF. People "noticing" does not, hasn't ever, and WON'T equal another group of people doing anything wrong. Also, failure to follow up on their "story" says to me that whatever they were doing did not warrant them being harrassed any further by airport security, air marshalls or anyone else. It doesn't prove they were up to no good; rather the opposite.
Instances of what, I ask again? Instances of people freaking out over having to share the same space with "undesirables"? Unless they are instances of something actually taking place, rather than some imaginary wrongs committed against gunshy racists, I fail to see the problem.
Reread the part you yourself quoted above. Specifically "given the facts".
And what I want to know is why, if they were so suspicious, they were not questioned BEFORE THE FLIGHT OOK OFF.
They specifically addressed this in the article. It is because the (politically correct) quota says they may only question 2 men of Middle Eastern descent, and no more. If they had questioned 2 of them, they would have lost the right to further investigate ANYTHING about the other 12. So they waited for something more concrete to go on.
And again, it didn't. I can't for the life of me understand why this article has gotten the attention it has on news sites, conservative radio shows and the like - it was a non-event.
Further, since no problems have arisen over the enforcement of this politically correct quota, it appears to be perfectly reasonable.
Reread the part you yourself quoted above. Specifically "given the facts".
That's right, the Air Marshalls don't interfere with people without cause. But they are there to watch for people acting suspiciously. That's their job, that's what they did.
Hey, go fly a plane. :p
I'm sure you'll forgive me if I fail to take this woman's word for gospel. She also quoted Anne Coulter in the article, and anything I heard from her would also have to come from the mouth of Jesus before I'd believe it.
As my sainted grandfather used to say, "A piece of paper will lie still and let you write anything you want on it".
And again, it didn't. I can't for the life of me understand why this article has gotten the attention it has on news sites, conservative radio shows and the like - it was a non-event.
You wouldn't think so if you had been on the plane, yourself. It must have been absolutely terrifying. I hate discrimination too, but if I had been on the plane I would have been hoping that the air marshals would lock the whole 14 up in chains! It's all well and good to take the high road, sitting in our comfortable offices, and homes, but just think about what it was like for those passengers. :(
I hate discrimination too, but if I had been on the plane I would have been hoping that the air marshals would lock the whole 14 up in chains!
Nothing like letting our fears get in the way of other peoples' rights. (yeah, yeah, these guys were Syrians... Syrians don't have rights in the US, etc, etc)
These guys weren't even charged with interfering with a flight crew. They weren't charged with anything. The plane's crew and FAMs acted appropiately. I'm with Jane_Says. What's the big deal?
We're still a really nervous nation, it seems.
A woman on a plane got scared and wrote an article about it. Terrifying, but I'm sure she'll live. And here I thought all of our irrational reactions to fear instilled by the media were beginning to subside. The suggestions made in the article, and by others, seemed logical at first. "It would be stupid to ignore the obvious." "We can't be concerned with hurting other people's feelings." But after reading through some of Jane_Says' posts and thinking about the suggestions I've read, I've come to realize that the proposal of "searching everyone looks like an Arab" and "treating Arabs on airplanes as potential terrorists" is racism, pure and simple. The arguments had me going for awhile, but when you boil it down that's all this is: You're taking a group of people and subjecting them to treatment based solely on their appearance and, I think, that would be wrong. Either make security equal for everyone, or don't mess with it at all. Hurting feelings has nothing to do with this, but subjecting people to extra security based on a stereotype and hyped-up fear is wrong and, as a US citizen, I feel that I have the right to walk into an airport and not be singled out based on my race. I also expect the same treatment when boarding a bus, riding a train, attending a sporting event, or walking down the street. I tend to hope that every citizen would expect that. And while everyone hates the analogy that this is like locking up the Japanese during WWII, its the same thing: irrational fears leading to the mistreatment of and removal of rights for innocent US citizens based on their lineage.
Stop, take a deep breath. The Arab next to you might look scary, but they're probably not going to try to hurt anyone. Honest.
These guys weren't even charged with interfering with a flight crew. They weren't charged with anything. The plane's crew and FAMs acted appropiately. I'm with Jane_Says. What's the big deal?
The deal is that they acted suspiciously; they weren't just sitting quietly in their seats, sipping coffee and reading a magazine. Sure, the fact that they were Syrians added to the passengers' anxiety, but I'm sure if the same set of events had occurred, but with 14 Anglo Saxons instead, there would still have been a considerable degree of alarm generated by their actions.
Don't forget that Annie's account of the flight was corroborated by the flight crew and other passengers. There is no doubt that her story is accurate.
There is also no doubt that the Syrians' behaviour on the plane was very odd if indeed they were just innocent musicians. What sort of plausible reason could anyone put forward to explain their actions? I hate to sound like a conservative, but the story
does ring alarm bells. If Annie had not been supported by other accounts, then yes, you could dismiss the whole thing as alarmist trash, but this is
not the case!I agree Dave! When was the last flight any of you were on when people of any color behaved in those ways? Groups congregating by the bathrooms? A group of 8 (?) getting up to use the rest room as soon as the captain announced the descent? This is odd behavior on an airplane! It deserves to be thought of as suspicious.
OC, why are you suddenly Navy? (if this is addressed elsewhere, excuse me, but this is the first thread I read, and it , well, surprised me a lot)
Further, since no problems have arisen over the enforcement of this politically correct quota, it appears to be perfectly reasonable.
This statement only cements further for me my belief that you didn't actually read the article, you got to the Anne Coulter quote, got pissed off and stopped. They talk about THIS in the article too--YES, problems HAVE arisen over the enforcement of this policy, two airlines were fined in the realm of 250 to 500,000 dollars for questioning more than 2 Middle Eastern men when more than two of them were acting suspicious. The airline did what they felt they needed to do to be safe, and they were fined heavily for it. I suppose if you're saying no additional planes have been hijacked, I guess you're right, but then again if there were, none of the crew would survive to tell you, "You know, we knew something was going on, and we really wanted to question some of the men who were acting very strangely, but the quota wouldn't let us." Is that what has to happen in your mind, the quota must be proven to have tragically failed us before we can say it's wrong?
Don't forget that Annie's account of the flight was corroborated by the flight crew and other passengers. There is no doubt that her story is accurate.
I missed the other accounts. I'd be curious to read them to see other peoples' takes on the events.
There is also no doubt that the Syrians' behaviour on the plane was very odd if indeed they were just innocent musicians. What sort of plausible reason could anyone put forward to explain their actions? I hate to sound like a conservative, but the story does ring alarm bells.
It rings alarm bells for me, too, but nothing came of it. I would have been very nervous on the flight, too, but the reactions suggested in the article concerning security changes over such a non-incident are far reaching and unneeded. No one died, no one was arrested, no one was charged with anything.
Groups congregating by the bathrooms?
During my flight last month, this happened. You're not supposed to form a line or stand around near the fore restroom, either, but people still did it. It happened throughout the entire flight because we had a full 737.
A group of 8 (?) getting up to use the rest room as soon as the captain announced the descent?
It sounds really strange when you read it in the article, but it was a normal occurance on both my departing and arriving flights out of Tampa. Everyone was sitting calmly, the captain announces that he's beginning descent, and suddenly everyone and their brother on board realizes that this is their last chance to go to the bathroom before they have to sit and wait during landing. Lines formed at both fore and aft, flight attendants got irritated, people were told to sit down and fasten their seat belts. How many of them listened and followed the instructions? Not a one: there was bladder pressure priority. It makes much more sense to me that everyone got up after the decent announcement than just doing it during a random part of the flight.
You folks with your incredible sense of prescience should work for airport security. I know I could never work out the safety of an otherwise odd-looking situation until I had all the facts in hand, but you folks seem to figure it out within a few paragraphs. That's some amazing work.
I know I could never work out the safety of an otherwise odd-looking situation until I had all the facts in hand, but you folks seem to figure it out within a few paragraphs. That's some amazing work.
Its all elementary, my dear Undertoad.
Either that, or bad armchair politics being discussed online, again. What else would I do at work, otherwise?
:guinness:
Armchair politics? Online?
You mean when people find a medium where they are anonymous and faceless, where fact-checking is nary impossible, no comment carries any consequences, nobody has any credibility whatsoever, they proceed to make...baseless claims?
That's preposterous ;-)
It'd be neat to set up a proper debate online. Get a bunch of people to argue a topic, and the spectators are responsible for checking every cited fact and then bashing the ones who pull "facts" out of thin air. You might say "nobody would be that anxious to nitpick".
And then I chuckle.
...bashing the ones who pull "facts" out of thin air...
But pulling facts out of my ass is still okay, right? If you take that away from me, this wouldn't be a real online debate, anymore! :)
I like the idea of a true, formal debate taking place online. I'm not sure how'd you'd do the fact checking, though. What would qualify as a "good source"? Its gotten to the point that if you provide a URL as a reference, I'm likely to dismiss it no matter where it points to. And that includes the news sites, because they don't always get it right and when they get it wrong they're often hesistant to do a proper retraction.
We must look to Ann Coulter for unbiased and accurate information.
You folks with your incredible sense of prescience should work for airport security. I know I could never work out the safety of an otherwise odd-looking situation until I had all the facts in hand, but you folks seem to figure it out within a few paragraphs. That's some amazing work.
My problem with airport security is that they don't seem to figure it out until 3 years later with the aid of a congressional investigation.
Airport security, and in fact any kind of security designed to protect the safety of a populace and its state, should not be the lowest paid job in the whole wide world, and should not attract the contempt of those it encounters.
I've lost count of the number of times I've been in an airport in the UK and the US and been "questioned" by someone who can barely string together three words of English (not because they're foreign, just because they're uneducated). And I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people around me berating security staff for being idiots, inconveniencing them, delaying them "unnecessarily" or being invasive.
I wonder which came first; our desire to cut costs so we can pay a high-school drop-out $2.40/hour to sleep while scanning bags or our desire to belittle those around us performing menial yet necessary jobs.
And I wonder if we'll ever realise that perhaps, in security as in the rest of the world, you get what you pay for.
I could be wrong, but after 20 minutes of thinking I'm pretty sure I detected a whisp of sarcasm in UT's post.
I never get to Anne Coulter and get pissed. If I get to Anne Coulter being listed as a reference, I get ready to grin, because it's certain that what I'm reading is a parody, and the punchline is just ahead. I read this article several times (yes, all the way through) because I just knew I had missed the joke. Coulter's every bit the reliable sorce that Rush Limbaugh is. She's nothing but a right-wing joke, on par with Pat Robertson, and everyone here is aware of that.
I'd like to read an independent account of this by one of the marshalls or flight attendants. People who deal with the flying public on a daily basis are bound to have a more reasonable view than this woman. If not, we're destined to turn all areas surrounding the U.S. into giant Gitmos where these fourteen innocents and others who look like them can be "locked up in chains" :mad: until our superior military and legislative minds can decide how to dispose of them.
anne coulter is a flame throwing entertainer... get over it. discount her all you want, but ignoring what another person says or reports just because they happen to find some value in coulter is foolish.
one of my friend's here in phoenix happens to think Mike Newcomb* is a brilliant political mind, and quotes him often. i think he is an ass, but i don't discount what my friend says just because he finds value in the ramblings of an ass.
*an extremely liberal talk show host who has gone so far as to say that bush may have helped the towers come down some how. about as fair and reasonable as hannity, just louder.
I won't get over the fact that we are treating this article like serious journalism. If that's the case, cites must come from reliable sources, and Anne Coulter is anything but. That's like getting cites about automobile safety from the guy who runs the demolition derby at the fair.
He probably knows more about automobile construction and safety than most people. It's worth a listen.
He probably knows more about automobile construction and safety than most people. It's worth a listen.
Newcomb? he is just a 3 hour belligerent political rant. on most days he makes al franken look like a bush supporter.
I think he meant the demolition derby guy...
I want to see the charges laid against the flight attendant for revealing the presence of air marshals on an aircraft.
Then I'll believe her whole account.
You know, I thought of that too. I imagined that old Eddie Murphy skit on SNL where he has makeup applied to appear white and goes about his business as a white man, finding that when blacks leave any given area, like the subway, a party starts immediately. He's given bank loans without credit hsitory or referneces, etc. "Shh! Don't tell anyone who's not lily-white, but I'm going to impart some secret information to you about our safety situation. Those dirty old darkies over there aren't being as outgoing and friendly and we'd like. They're acting weird and not speaking English. So just for you, because we're in a Special Club, here's some information that might ease your troubled little mind."
Then I imagined those fourteen guys standing around with their instruments before they got on board, saying, "You know what would be funny, guys? Why don't we walk around a lot on the plane. Back and forth to the shitter, right? I'll carry this Mickey Dees' bag around, and then you poke around in your carry on a couple of times. For a grand finale, Ali, you flip through the prayer book a coupla times and try to look pious."
You've got it all figured out, dontcha jane? Wouldn't it be funny if you were on the flight where they made that decision? You'd know exactly what was going on... it would be a laugh riot to you.
Quick question on the Coulter quote. IIRC it was made to point out the policy of not questionning more than 2 arabic people per flight. A) Do you believe this is not the policy or effect of the policy? and B) Are you in agreement with it (and if so, what the fuck?)
you're right jane. absolutely right. having air marshalls watching those 14 syrians was nothing but racist.
it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that 19 middle-eastern men flew 4 commercial aircraft into buildings and the ground with innocent civilians as their victims.
it has nothing to do with the fact that the intel currently available says that there is likely to be another attempt at hijacking a plane.
it has nothing to do with the fact that the people who have stated they intend to cause further death and destruction on american soil happen to be middle eastern men.
it has nothing to do with the fact that IF these 14 men were not truly musicians, but were hijackers who got control of the plane and used it as a weapon, people would be screaming "why didn't we do more" "you should have known..."
it has nothing to do with any of these points. you are so right jane. thank you for your wisdom.
I don't understand what "decision" you mean.
As for the policy, I didn't write it. Like I said before, if that's the case, surely a better source than Anne Coulter could have been found for it, no? As I also said before, we have zero terrorist incidents as a result of the policy. You know the old adage that begins "if it ain't broke..."
When we become so freaked out over everyone who doesn't look and act exactly the way we do that people are crying on an airplane over the mere prescence of someone who fits their image of a terrorist, then yes, that's racism. Those Middle Eastern men were not the bad guys. They committed no crime. When people are scrutinized more closely for what they might do, even when there's zero evidence, because of the way they look, that's racism. "IF" won't work in this case. We don't arrest people or harass them because of things they haven't done yet. I might be statistically more likely to be able to buy crack from a young black man in the ghetto, but that doesn't mean we should arrest them all. Middle class white guys who act strange at work might be more likely to be serial killers, but that doesn't mean we get to detain them until we're sure they're not. Uneducated, poor single mothers might beat their children more often, but that doesn't mean they should be questioned by the grocery store cashier when they use their food stamps.
And no, I don't have everything figured out, not do I claim to. But I do know that when we start giving people grief for making some of us uncomfortable merely by being here, it's a short ride to holding people indefinitely without legal counsel and without charge, to having our private phone conversations tapped by the government, ad nausem. And that would be quite a leap of logic if it hadn't already started.
Doesn't the Cellar have any arab members?
Speak up!
I'm curious what their stance is on all of this.
The moral of the story is "If you're a Brown Person, ride Amtrak so that White America can relax when flying."
And the "policy" has nothing to do with arabic people. The fine is for ANY 2 visible minority members detained for secondary questioning, not "we'll fine you as per the Too Many Brown People clause".
I personally completely disagree with any sort of hard-fast guideline such as this, but you damn well better have excellent watchdogs keeping an eye on the errant stupid fuck who wants to harass all the black people, or brown people, or something.
It may make statistical sense in light of recent events to place enormous scrutiny on arabs. But as soon as you take away all the guidelines that PROTECT the innocent arabs just trying to make a flight, a lot of them are going to get exploited.
With the amount of people in here acting the way they are, I'm willing to bet at least a couple of the airport security personnel currently employed (especially those employed since 9/11) are just itching to catch some "dirty arab" ready to bomb a plane.
Once an ethnicity is put under the magnifying glass on account of a bunch of assholes from that ethnicity, it is IMPERATIVE we make sure that the vast majority of innocent arabs aren't targeted.
And I don't give a shit about how uncomfortable white people are at the moment. Think about how insanely uncomfortable regular-Joe arabs are right now, knowing that every time they go outside, someone thinks they're going to set off a bomb, and if they look at somebody the wrong way, they're a terrorist.
I As I also said before, we have zero terrorist incidents as a result of the policy. You know the old adage that begins "if it ain't broke..."
we also used to allow cockpit doors to stand open in flight, the policy used to be for pilots to comply with terrorist demands if immediate landing wasn't available... those practices never had negative results, until...
sometimes you can't wait for bad shit to happen before you open your eyes. "brown people" are not being targeted. the current intel suggests that there are going to be further attempts at hijacking from muslim terrorists, who are generally, from arab descent. certain things raise red flags. if there are enough red flags then further scrutiny is required.
14 syrians - check against data base for terrorist affiliation, if none found clear for travel
14 syrians on one way tickets, pay closer attention
14 syrians who do not sit together but take items into a restroom and pass it off to each other pay very close attention.
anything other than this and the air marshalls, DHS, who ever is responsible, would have been remiss in their duties.
the 14 syrians were not denied access to flights, they were not harassed in the air, they were not detained on the ground. they were watched, as they should have been.
As we exited the jetway and entered the airport, we saw many, many men in dark suits. A few yards further out into the terminal, LAPD agents ran past us, heading for the gate. I have since learned that the representatives of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), the Federal Air Marshals (FAM), and the Transportation Security Association (TSA) met our plane as it landed. Several men -- who I presume were the federal air marshals on board -- hurried off the plane and directed the 14 men over to the side.
Not detained my ass.
the 14 syrians were not denied access to flights, they were not harassed in the air, they were not detained on the ground. they were watched, as they should have been.
If they were watched, investigated and cleared and went on to play their concert without incident, that'd be one thing.
If they were watched, investigated and cleared and went on to play their concert, oblivious to the fact that their mere presence and innocuous behavior creeped out a skittish white fellow passenger with 9/11 on the brain (they didn't SMILE BACK at her! The horror!), who then posted a paranoid rant about her flight experience online, lighting up the Internet and talk radio with debate as to whether they were REALLY sinister Syrian terrorists testing out methods of blowing up American airplanes in the name of Allah, making them minor celebrities of an unwelcome variety, that's quite another.
I thought Driving While Black was a bit much, but Flying While Arabic takes it to a whole new level.
BTW, the lead picture on this <a href="http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2004/07/21/askthepilot95/">Salon article</a> is hysterically appropriate.
Never trust a man with an accordian.
That white chick in the front freaking out looks like Beth Littleford. Beth Little ford is hot. That is all.
I'd be all worried that she'd pull that face during coitus.
As an aside, has anyone seen any mainstream media coverage of this episode? I know it's been all over the internet, and my husband is the producer of a local radio talk show and the rednecks have been burning it up there, but has CNN or any "reliable" news source had anything to say?
If she did, I'd assume I'd done something very, very right or very, very, wrong.
How to get you to support the current president. It's an old old trick. Promote fear. Only question remaining is who really is the source of this speculative article. He looked Arabic and did not smile back. Dear god. The world is going to end. Did I mention the Arabic looking character driving slowly through my neighborhood looking at front doors?
I believe the guy wrote a book called "Give me a Break". Promote fear and suddenly enemies are everywhere.
Last time Ashcroft tried to promote fear, the centrist Tom Ridge instead said it was nonsense (chatter was not unusual) and refused to raise the Warning to Orange. This must have infuriated the extremists who needed that threat warning for that week's approval numbers.
"I thought Driving While Black was a bit much, but Flying While Arabic takes it to a whole new level."
*chuckles* well said
ok, no body questions the fact that this woman is an idiot just trying for her 15 minutes of fame. the debate was whether the 14 syrians should have been a subject of interest or not.
her article was foolish and serves no purpose except to stir people up. it shouldn't have been published. that does not change the fact that the 14 raised a lot of little flags and LE has learned that you have to pay more attention.
Not detained my ass.
how long were they in prison? did they have cuffs put on? or were they merely questioned? i have been questioned in airports before because of my flight patterns and some items i used to carry. answer the questions; if you have valid, answers carry on with your life. i don't really give a shit about hurting feelings, i don't really give a shit what color they are. if they were 14 white guys in the exact same situation, they should also be questioned.
As an aside, has anyone seen any mainstream media coverage of this episode? I know it's been all over the internet, and my husband is the producer of a local radio talk show and the rednecks have been burning it up there, but has CNN or any "reliable" news source had anything to say?
Here is a NYTimes article on the story.
Even so, he said, he had no doubt that "most of the stuff did happen" as Ms. Jacobsen described it.
Already there's a problem... they claim to be musicians, but one of them admitted he was a drummer.
And yet
another point of view. :)
Just one week later, the same company that arranged Mehana's performance, also booked Carrot Top!
Dun dun duuuuun! :eek:
There are other terrorist acts we should consider, here.
I'm not registering for NYT, but appreciate the link. If anyone who is already registered would like to provide any more of the text, I'd much appreciate it. And I just know that the National Review link was offered in jest. At least, that's what I'm going to pretend...
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=842422004
Being a selfish bastard, the bit that really got me is that they were doing dry-runs on middle east to western europe flights, i take the damn flights.
AIR MARSHALS SAY PASSENGER OVERREACTED
By ERIC LEONARD
KFI NEWS
LOS ANGELES | July 22, 2004 – 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 middle eastern men were identified by federal agents as a group of touring musicians travelling to a concert date at a casino, said Air Marshals spokesman Dave Adams.
Jacobsen wrote she became alarmed when the men made frequent trips to the lavatory, repeatedly opened and closed the overhead luggage compartments, and appeared to be signaling each other.
“Initially it was brought to [the air marshals] attention by a passenger,” Adams said, adding the agents had been watching the men and chose to stay undercover.
Jacobsen and her husband had a number of conversations with the flight attendants and gestured towards the men several times, the source said.
“In concert with the flight crew, the decision was made to keep [the men] under surveillance since no terrorist or criminal acts were being perpetrated aboard the aircraft; they didn’t interfere with the flight crew,” Adams said.
The air marshals did, however, check the bathrooms after the middle-eastern men had spent time inside, Adams said.
FBI agents met the plane when it landed in Los Angeles and the men were questioned, and Los Angeles field office spokeswoman Cathy Viray said it’s significant the alarm on the flight came from a passenger.
“We have to take all calls seriously, but the passenger was worried, not the flight crew or the federal air marshals,” she said. “The complaint did not stem from the flight crew.”
Several people were questioned, she said, but no one was detained.
Jacobsen’s husband Kevin told KFI NEWS he approached a man he thought was an air marshal after the flight had landed.
“You made me nervous,” Kevin said the air marshal told him.
“I was freaking out,” Kevin replied.
“We don’t freak out in situations like this,” the air marshal responded.
Federal agents later verified the musicians’ story.
“We followed up with the casino,” Adams said. A supervisor verified they were playing a concert. A second federal law enforcement source said the concert itself was monitored by an agent.
“We also went to the hotel, determined they had checked into the hotel,” Adams said. Each of the men were checked through a series of databases and watch-lists with negative results, he said.
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.”
KFI reporter Jessica Rosenthal contributed to this report.
Copyright 2004 KFI NEWS. All rights reserved.
Sorry for the long post.
And I just know that the National Review link was offered in jest. At least, that's what I'm going to pretend...
I believe you. I'm sure you pretend all points of view, you don't subscribe to are a joke. Don't forget to pretend that truck isn't coming when you step off the curb, Dave...er, uh....I mean Jane. :)
Thanks, CB. I appreciate the text. Considerably different view of the same situation than Ms. Annie, huh?
Bruce, I'm betting there was a joke there, but consider me whooshed.
The NYTimes article:
What Really Happened on Flight 327?
By JOE SHARKEY
Published: July 20, 2004
There is no doubt that something out of the ordinary happened on Northwest Airlines Flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles on June 29. The plane was met at the airport by squads of federal agents and police responding to radio messages from the pilots about concerns that 14 Middle Eastern male passengers had spent the four-hour flight acting suspiciously.
But was the episode a dry run for a terrorist attack, as is now being widely suggested on the Internet and on talk radio, or an aborted terrorist attack? Or was it an innocent sequence of events that some passengers, overcome by anxiety and perhaps ethnic stereotyping, misinterpreted as a plot to blow up their plane?
The story of Flight 327 was first told in a 3,300-word online article, "Terror in the Skies, Again?" by Annie Jacobsen, a 37-year-old freelance writer from Los Angeles. Ms. Jacobsen's report was published last Tuesday on a Web site for women,
www.womenswallstreet.com. It is compelling reading.
I have since spoken at length with Ms. Jacobsen, and also with an official of the Federal Air Marshal Service, who confirmed the gist of Ms. Jacobsen's narrative, if not her interpretation.
On June 29, Ms. Jacobsen; her husband, Kevin; and their 41/2-year-old son were returning home from a family visit in Rhode Island when they boarded a connecting flight in Detroit, Northwest 327. While boarding, both she and her husband became aware of a group of six men of Middle Eastern appearance who followed them on board. One wore a large orthopedic shoe. Two carried what appeared to be small musical instrument cases. One wore a yellow T-shirt and was carrying a big McDonald's sack.
As the Jacobsens settled into their seats, they watched a second group of Middle Eastern men board. These men were in communication with the first group "absolutely from the get-go," Ms. Jacobsen said. Furthermore, she said, "they all seemed to be checking in with the guy in the yellow shirt," who was sitting across the aisle from her.
Mr. Jacobsen, 38, who is the president of an import-and-design company as well as an actor in television commercials, was already feeling uneasy. "When I first got on the flight, my instincts said that something was wrong,'' he recalled. "I did turn to my wife and say, 'We must get off this flight.' " He didn't follow through on that, however, because he didn't want to create a commotion based on a whim, he said.
In great detail, Ms. Jacobsen's article describes the "unusual activity" the men engaged in during the flight. Other passengers and the flight attendants became alerted to it, also. Ignoring the "fasten seat belt'' signs, the men went frequently and in succession to the lavatories, and congregated near the galleys in pairs or threesomes. The man in the yellow shirt gave her a "cold, defiant look" when she caught his eye, she said.
About two hours into the flight, with tension building, her husband decided to approach a flight attendant with his suspicions. The flight attendant said the crew were already aware of the odd behavior, including the fact that parcels like the McDonald's bag were carried into the lavatories.
"She said I was 'right on schedule' with what I was feeling was happening, that she was aware of it, that they were passing notes to each other, that the pilots were aware of it, and that there were people on board who are 'higher up than you or me' that were watching them," Mr. Jacobsen said. He presumed, correctly, that this was a reference to undercover federal air marshals.
Later, as the plane was in its final approach to Los Angeles, at the stage of a flight when even the flight attendants are strapped into their seats, "suddenly, seven of the men stood up in unison," Ms. Jacobsen said. Some walked toward the back lavatories and some toward the front. Two stood by the aircraft door. The flight attendants remained silent, she said.
"I don't have any words to explain how terrified I was" at that point, said Mr. Jacobsen, who added that he clutched a pen in his hand to use as a weapon, while thinking: "I hope I'm not the only one who will react. I hope I don't choke and get scared."
Then the plane landed without a problem. Waiting at the door were officers from the Federal Air Marshal Service, the F.B.I., the T.S.A. and the Los Angeles Police Department. The 14 men were questioned at length and released. The Jacobsens also were questioned for over an hour.
Yesterday, a Federal Air Marshal Service spokesman, Dave Adams, a law enforcement officer for 30 years, said that the suspicious characters on Flight 327 were musicians. The man in the yellow shirt was a drummer, he said.
"We interviewed all 14 of these individuals,'' Mr. Adams said. "They were members of a Syrian band" traveling to a gig at a casino near Los Angeles, he said, adding that their names were run through "every possible" data bank and terrorist watch list. "They were scrubbed. Nothing came back."
Mr. Adams said he spoke by phone to Ms. Jacobsen for 90 minutes on Friday night. "This is an individual's perceptions," he said of her account of the flight. "Obviously, since 9/11, everybody's antennas have risen, and people are very concerned when they see something like this." He said that onboard air marshals did not intervene because the men weren't "interfering with the flight crew."
Even so, he said, he had no doubt that "most of the stuff did happen" as Ms. Jacobsen described it.
Aware of recent reports that the F.B.I. is worried that teams of terrorists may be practicing ways to sneak explosive device parts onto planes and assemble them in flight, Mr. Adams said, air marshals aboard Flight 327 "checked out the lavatories, and nothing looked like it was in disarray after these people went inside; everything was thoroughly inspected."
Ms. Jacobsen isn't convinced. No one has disputed any of her facts, she said, and in an article that she posted on the Web site yesterday, she asked why the Syrian band hadn't been identified. (I couldn't locate them, by the way). She wrote of receiving numerous e-mail messages from airline crew members, several of whom said they believed that terrorist-team dry runs had happened on flights. She said that "political correctness" had become a "major roadblock for airline safety."
I asked her about the inevitable charge that ethnic stereotyping was driving her narrative. "I am simply not a racist," she said. "I travel everywhere. I was just in India, working in a Muslim village. I'm not afraid of any culture. This situation was entirely different. I have never been so terrified."
Imad Hamad, the regional director of the Michigan office of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said that he knew nothing more about this incident than what Ms. Jacobsen had reported. "I think this level of high anxiety has been implanted in our hearts and minds, and even those who are good people with good intensions cannot help but to look at things in a very suspicious way," he said. "We've got to be vigilant as citizens, but we also have to be calm."
As for the Syrian band, "They gave their little performance in the casino and two days later they flew out on a JetBlue flight from Long Beach to New York," Mr. Adams said.
Thanks, I really appreciate it.