Duane Thomas Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/articl...1&articleid=711 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 And so..... What is the specific? The nasty ole racial profiling - or - the lack of proper safety precautions/screening apparent in the article in regard to the suspicious acting passengers? Whats the quote I am trying to remember..The rights of the few may suffer for the survival of the many? or something to that effect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted July 17, 2004 Share Posted July 17, 2004 Merlin, Are you trying to channel Spock? "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or one." Personally, I think it should be the other way around. Racial profiling is not the way to go. I'm with you on that. -David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liota Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I would have been suspicious of any group of individuals acting that way. Race isn't an issue. Safety of the people on board the aircraft is the issue. On the flipside, profiling is proven and viable. Just ask the Behavioral Sciences Unit of the FBI. John Douglas's first book Mindhunter is a great read with a lot of good information about profiling. Liota Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted July 18, 2004 Author Share Posted July 18, 2004 Racial profiling is not the way to go. I'm with you on that. I think that what we have here is a failure to communicate. I could stand to be corrected on this, but I'm pretty darn sure that when MerlinD said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one," he was saying that racial profiling (or at least county of ancestral geopolitical origin profiling) IS the answer. It is a sad fact - which makes it no less a fact - that 100 percent of terrorist hijacking over the past 30 years have been conducted by people from one area of the world. To ignore that fact in the name of some sort of fuzzy-minded political correctness is at best foolish. Those who refuse to learn from the lessons of the past (read: 9/11) are doomed to repeat them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Orr Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Racial Profiling done to harass or intimidate is WRONG. Racial Profiling done to save lives and prevent disasters like 9/11.. Well, it may be distasteful but.... At the very least.. The 14 fellows that boarded that plane were surely aware that the events that transpired on 9/11 have deeply affected every person in the USA, if not the entire world. How, with that in mind, could anyone/group behave in such a manner as they did, and not be Fully aware of the fear, apprehension and anger that their behavior would invoke? I feel their actions were consciously considered and done with purpose of mind to PISS US OFF, or worse yet, as a practice run for another terror strike. If any other single or group of passengers behaved in such a manner the sky marshals would have had them in handcuffs before the plane got to its destination IF an unscheduled landing was not done to remove them. If the passengers in question had been of any other nationality besides Middle Eastern I believe the response would have been much swifter. It was for fear of the appearance of "Racism" that the "situation" was handled as it was. If you act the fool the consequences may not be to your liking. "Provoke not your Brother to Anger." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Capizzo Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 God we're a bunch of gutless pin heads. No wonder the arabic world has such a low opinion of us. We can't decide whether to defend ourselves or not for godsake. Someone I once knew (Otto Scott) said, " A decadent people are a people who no longer have the will to defend themselves." All the bluster in Iraq aside, I'm worried about us. Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 I agree that in the case of the linked story, we don't need to look at the skin color of someone to see that there was suspicious activity going on. However, I believe that we should be wary of the possibility of using race/ethnicity/religion in our anti-terrorist efforts. For those asking about lessons from the past to learn from, you can start with: 1. Executive Order 9066 2. Korematsu v. United States 3. CWRIC 4. Tule Lake, CA 5. Manzanar, CA 6. Topaz, UT and just for fun (but slightly less on point), 7. 100th Infantry Battalion 8. 442nd Regimental Combat Team Which is more gutless; to stand fast on the fundamental principles on which our country was founded, or to give in to xenophobic hysteria and ignore the rights of others whenever we are threatened with harm? Seems to me, the Constitution might as well be 2-ply Charmin if we only follow it when it's convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Capizzo Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 It is gutless, being at this point where no one can use their judgement in a specific situation, because we're all afraid of facing legal consequences. And don't get me wrong, I'm not excluding myself from this sort of paralysis. I know there is such a thing as mass hysteria or whatever you wish to call it, but in this account there is a plane load of people aware of very unusual and even suspicious activity, and we can't BY LAW do anything but see if we die or not. Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 It is a sad fact - which makes it no less a fact - that 100 percent of terrorist hijacking over the past 30 years have been conducted by people from one area of the world. To ignore that fact in the name of some sort of fuzzy-minded political correctness is at best foolish. Those who refuse to learn from the lessons of the past (read: 9/11) are doomed to repeat them. Duane, I couldn't have said it better. We're at war, and the time for Marquis of Queensbury Rules has long past. The gloves must come off and they must stay off. And, despite being a citizen of one of America's two strongest allies, I'm willing to forgo my civil liberties for the general good, so I don't think it's asking too much for those in the "high risk group" to do likewise. If you don't agree with the added security checks and micro-scrutiny, stay home. Simple really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidwiz Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Ben Franklin said it best. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." If anyone wants to debate the merits of racial profiling, please talk to someone who was pulled over/searched for DWB. -David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpolans Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 So for those willing to give the civil liberties of themselves and others, if/when the government asks you to turn in your guns, how quick will you be to obey? As I recall, some old, dead, white guy said something to the effect of: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I've always thought he was pretty wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Guys, Yes, Ben Franklin was indeed a smart guy, but the subject is Air Travel, not the broader issues (or are you suggesting that we all be allowed to travel by air armed?). And DWB? No comparison to flying in an aluminium tube at 30,000 feet with 400 other people. POSTSCRIPT: Gentleman, this is Duane's rant. If you don't agree, please start your own (see the rules for this particular forum). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 The plausibility of the scenario in the article is DAMN' SCARY. PERIOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Guys,Yes, Ben Franklin was indeed a smart guy, but the subject is Air Travel, not the broader issues (or are you suggesting that we all be allowed to travel by air armed?). And DWB? No comparison to flying in an aluminium tube at 30,000 feet with 400 other people. POSTSCRIPT: Gentleman, this is Duane's rant. If you don't agree, please start your own (see the rules for this particular forum). The subject is not air travel, but the general state of affairs in the US. My wife is a nurse and just went through "privacy training" - lots of stuff like don't release medical information without authorization, even if they are a relative, blah, blah... BUT... the training also mentioned that all medical records are, by law, an open book to "homeland security". Several years ago, the US federal govt passed a law providing a $10,000 per day penalty to any telephone company which fails to provide the ability to tap any phone in the country from the convenience of a government facility. There is a currently a move to extend this requirement to VOIP (voice over IP) services. US citizens can be arrested on US soil and detailed indefinitely without trial if the feds feel their offense is so serious the formality of charges heard before a jury of their peers would undermine national security. You cannot travel by air without carrying official government ID - previously, there was a "selectee" process where you could travel without ID, but would get an extra inspection of your person and baggage. This is not quite the same as requiring an "internal passport", but is a step in that direction. Library and bookstore records are not only open to the government, but telling someone the government has asked for such records is a federal offense. We now have secret trials which are maintained in federal courthouses on a separate docket, which members of the press and public may not see or even learn the existance of by examining public records. One can argue that air travel security impositions are "voluntary", but there are lots of non-voluntary erosions of personal liberty in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diehli Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Nicely said, Rob. Oddly enough, we don't even have "Safety." Raw deal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 One can argue that air travel security impositions are "voluntary", but there are lots of non-voluntary erosions of personal liberty in the US. Understood, and I appreciate that such erosion of freedoms is a major concern to Americans, but this thread is about Air Travel - in fact, the topic heading is "Terror In The Skies". However I'm willing to admit that, having lived in Hong Kong for 23 years, where you can't do zip without a HK Government Identity Card, perhaps I've grown accustomed to the practice, and I don't object to it, because I'm comfortable that the information is used for the right reasons here. No, I'm not naive, but in a place where illegal immigration is a major problem (sound familiar?), it definitely helps to separate the good guys from the bad guys and reduce serious crime. BTW, isn't an American SS card tantamount to an "internal" identity document, but without a photo (forgive me - I've never actually seen one!). Anyway, I certainly don't profess to know the answers to your legitimate broader privacy concerns, and I realise it's an extremely complex issue but, when it comes to air travel, hi-jacking is not something which started in 2001. We've been living with it for, what, 40 years now, and 9/11 was a terrible wake-up call for the entire global community. I therefore sincerely hope that none of our Governments hits the snooze button again, and I'm willing to accept the considerable nuisance that the vast majority of regular air travellers (as I am), must endure, for the sake of defending ourselves against the relative handful of fanatics hell-bent on destroying us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 IAmericans are nBTW, isn't an American SS card tantamount to an "internal" identity document, but without a photo (forgive me - I've never actually seen one!).Anyway, I certainly don't profess to know the answers to your legitimate broader privacy concerns, and I realise it's an extremely complex issue but, when it comes to air travel, hi-jacking is not something which started in 2001. We've been living with it for, what, 40 years now, and 9/11 was a terrible wake-up call for the entire global community. I therefore sincerely hope that none of our Governments hits the snooze button again, and I'm willing to accept the considerable nuisance that the vast majority of regular air travellers (as I am), must endure, for the sake of defending ourselves against the relative handful of fanatics hell-bent on destroying us. Americans are not required to carry the SS card or any other document on their person except when engaging in licensed activity (driving a car, carrying a firearms in some jurisdictions; and air travel which is de-facto licensed), and it's rare to need the actual card for anything. Unemployment benefits often require the actual card, and the I9 form employers are required to keep to prove the right to work in the US lists the SS card as one of several acceptable "proof" documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyB Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 Why even put Air Marshalls on planes if they're going to wait until after the bomb explodes to act? The "we don't deploy until there's an 'event'" is the most moronic policy in history. So much for "homeland security." Glad I don't fly commercial anymore... But what of this hypothetical: The Air Marshalls deploy, two of them against however many are perceived to be a threat, this could be anything from one to the fourteen in this case. If they manage to take control of the situation, their attention will be directed towards the situation in hand. What happens if there are other criminals, who have not been identified as targets? The opportunity will arise for them to overpower the marshalls, by attacking from behind when their attention is diverted. I sincerely hope that this situation never arises, but one thing needs to be remembered when this subject is discussed. These people have no fear of death, they will use whatever means necessary to achieve their goals. Regretably, there is no simple solution to this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz-0 Posted July 19, 2004 Share Posted July 19, 2004 I don't know about anyone else, but after reading the article, It really surprised me that a couple of individuals didn't feel it was wise to develop a several hour case of "explosive diarrhea" and occupy the heads for the rest of the flight. Also, I have to ask why the pilot didn't declare turbulance and wiggle the plane a bit while ordering eveyone to stay buckeld in. And if people were concerned enough to have the FBI and other agencies greeting the plane, why the heck not land early for "mechanical problems"? Also, if a palne load of cencerned people ona plane landed amidst LEO greetings after said occurance, it really suprises me that the only place we are hearing about it is a website. I don't know, maybe it si jsut me, but if things are going to go badly, I'd rather it be according to my plan than the bad guys plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimel Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Well, Snopes.com had a response to this one on their "What's New" page. I generally browse this page once a week or so but I have been rather busy of late and am just getting caught up. Sky Terror Of course maybe snopes.com is just a tool of the govt...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 This reminds me of some ninny that was sitting next to me on a flight back from Chicago once. We're all in first class - it's a few months after 9/11. A businessman got delayed by security and his friend said, "So, they put you in handcuffs or what?" At which time the dipshit next to me flipped out. "Stewardess!! Stewardess!! That man there was late on the plane, and *that* man said 'handcuffs'!!!" At which point in time, I made laid it down in no uncertain terms to the flight attendant that there was no threat and that the guy was an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now