I am reminded of Tom Lehrer paraphrasing Shakespeare - "a rousing finale, full of words and music and signifying - nothing."

What do you really want to say - that it is ok to harass anyone who is Middle Eastern on the assumption that they will probably be bad men? Isn't this simply a thinly veiled assault on political correctness? Aren't there any better windmills to tilt at these days?

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

what I am saying is that we know there are patterns to terrorist behavior and they employ certain tactics and these guys didn't come close to fitting in the category of "anyone who is Middle Eastern". They fit the category of "I am a terrorist" and as evidenced in the article we are aware there is a clear tactic being tested and yet we let large numbers of people who fit the profile (religion, sex, travel patterns, country of origin, carrying packages, strange shoes...) on a plane without questioning them or there motives. This is highlighted by the fact that they brought items on the plane that seemed to be very normal but could be used for other purposes. I am not sure how many times they need to use the same tactics before we catch on. Last time they brought things that were easily passable and this is an example of the same approach. Had they carried out an attack on that plane, people would rightfully be asking, "how can this happen again?"

Yes! I want them to harass, interrogate, question, search, and scrutinize any and all groups of people who fit certain criteria, in short profile. If I made a checklist of things to watch out for regarding airline terrorism they would have met just about everything I could think of. Profiling works, but as to not offend anyone maybe we should just assume everyone is flying the friendly skies until they storm the cockpit?

Let me anticipate a comment. If you are someone who fits the "profile" and you get on a plane with 12 or 13 other men, then you probably should not behave as they did. The behavior was inappropriate for anyone on a flight but especially for them. If I believed they were truly just on an innocent flight I would say to them they should behave in a way that doesn't draw attention to them.

I am not clear on what you think of the experience, but if you say you would have sat on that plane and not felt fear or apprehension then you are either lying to yourself or to me.

[reply]
Let me anticipate a comment. If you are someone who fits the "profile" and you get on a plane with 12 or 13 other men, then you probably should not behave as they did. The behavior was inappropriate for anyone on a flight but especially for them. If I believed they were truly just on an innocent flight I would say to them they should behave in a way that doesn't draw attention to them.

I am not clear on what you think of the experience, but if you say you would have sat on that plane and not felt fear or apprehension then you are either lying to yourself or to me.[/reply]

And how does behaving inappropriately on a flight give you the right to harass them BEFORE they get on the flight? And why especially them? Would it have been ok for 14 redheads to be on the planes together and hang out around the bathrooms?

I guess I don't understand the point of the article - I'm sure it was very frightening for her, because she was keeping an eye on a specfic group of people who were quite easily identifiable in her own mind as being suspects. Did she keep tabs on any other groups on the plane to see what they were up to?

Where they musicians or not? It doesn't seem clear from reading the article. The article doesn't say anything apart from "I think it's bad that one vaguely described ethnic group should be allowed to travel on a plane together because nothing happened to me on a flight when 14 of them were on my flight and I am terrified since 9/11 of anyone who vaguely resembles that ethnic group"

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

The point is, as she states in her article,

"So here's my question: Since the FBI issued a warning to the airline industry to be wary of groups of five men on a plane who might be trying to build bombs in the bathroom, shouldn't a group of 14 Middle Eastern men be screened before boarding a flight?"

and

""...it was the policy (before 9/11) and I believe remains the policy today to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning because that's discriminatory."

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" How stupid is that?

What gives me the right to harass them BEFORE the flight isn't the behavior on board but that they fit a profile that exactly matches a terrorist. If it walks like a duck....If a group of 14 redheads behaved like that it would have been inappropriate and should be told to sit down, but not threatening. People (non arab) get arrested and thrown off planes all the time for bad behavior.

"because she was keeping an eye on a specfic group of people who were quite easily identifiable in her own mind as being suspects." Are you serious? they are not identifiable as suspects to you? Fair or not, they are suspects post 9/11.

The point of the article is that we are not doing some very simple, common sense things to deter this type of event from happening. This type of account requires no special technology to defend, no great training or education in anti terrorism.

Musicians? Well she says you get to decide which for you I think the answer is yeah, just some nice guys on the way to the next gig. For me, definitley not mucisians and wouldn't be suprised if those same names show up again some day.

You have an intersting view point. Where you see a vaguely described ethnic group I see a clear threat. Do they fit into a "vaguely described ethnic group? Sure, but the other facts of the incident take them down a flow chart that leads to having specific chareteristics that make them look suspicous and threatening.

I don't understand your view. Do you believe that we should just do random screening and scrutinize the 5 year old or the 80 year old grandmother the same as a middle aged Syrian male?

Racial prfilign aside for a second, is it surprising that this story was never picked up by major news outlets? I've never seen this story reported anywhere else...

---

_______________________________________________

I think we are overlooking something that is key. It seems apparent to me from that story that in our post 9/11 world there is in general increased situational awareness. This is a good thing.

I think if the exact same 9/11 hijacking attempt (men with boxcutters) were made today it would stand a much greater chance of being unsuccessful. Just my $.02.

Exactly, that is why I posted it, and according to the response she got from airline employees it sounds like it happens more then anyone thought. I stumbled on to this article at another site which pointed me there, otherwise I wouldn't have seen it either.

Hmmm. Picture a group of nuns, 14 of them, behaving in the same way. For most people, nuns are as about as non-intimidating as you can get. (Except for me, I attended a lot of Catholic grade schools in my youth. But, I digress.) All the same, if I were to see such a large group congregating around the bathroom/lavatory, a) it sure would be noticeable, and b) I would definitely think something was wrong, possibly someone was ill given that it was a group of sedate nuns. I would hope someone in authority (i.e. flight attendants) would inquire. I would probably check with the nun sitting across the isle from me, if I were in the journalist’s shoes/seat. Would I, should I think any different because it was a group of men clearly with Middle East origins? Even before 9/11, I would be equally curious and concerned. Post 9/11, I would have to be severely mentally deficient to ignore the observations reported by the journalist.

What I don't understand is your full blown unwavering commitment to political correctness at all cost attitude. Do you not understand that there are ongoing efforts to conduct violent operations against Western countries and the United States in particular? Do you not understand that shutting down the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan, and the invasion of Iraq has not completely eliminated those threats? Do you not understand that the observations reported in the article are consistent with previous tactics and operations by Islamic fundamentalists? Do you not think that it is a logical outcome that Bin Laden would move operations from Afghanistan to other countries and utilize extremists from other countries where the human resources in terms of radicals are plentiful?

The question is where do you strike the balance? You are obviously fighting for one extreme, which comes across as irrational. No one would stop 14 nuns on a flight. But, the probability of 14 Middle Eastern men, from two separate groups, getting on one non-charter flight inside the U.S is so remote that some one should take notice. I have watched gate security search grandmothers because passengers were chosen randomly. Clearly, what purpose does that serve, other than to say “gee we are a non-discriminatory society.” It definitely doesn’t do much to improve security. Particularly as it appears that the suspected drills are one step ahead by using multiple people to provide components for whatever purpose.

News organizations and this article in particular have shown that there are serious holes in the front side security of airports in the U.S. The big secret, or not so secret, is that the backside is even worse. There is more motivation than ever for fundamentalist radicals to conduct operations with the occupation of Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian morass. Your attitude seems to be an alternative method of sticking your head in the sand, under the guise of political correctness until death. The only outcome I can foresee with that attitude is more airliners falling out of the sky with tragic consequences.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

"I think if the exact same 9/11 hijacking attempt (men with boxcutters) were made today it would stand a much greater chance of being unsuccessful."

I agree with you, as would most people. The thing is, international terrorist groups are just as smart as we are. They know that if they tried hijacking a plane, everyone on the plane would jump on them in a minute. Which is why they would try to blow it up instead.

---

I find that story to be very disturbing. But I think it does a good job of underscoring the current dilemna that we are in: We know that the majority of terrorists attacks are carried out by Islamic militants(is that better than "Middle Eastern men"?), and that those militants fit a rather specific description. But we do not want to appear to be targeting that description, so we intentionally allow people fitting that description greater leeway than the people who do not fit that description, but who can very reasonably be eliminated as a threat with a glance.

Discrimination, strictly defined, is the act of discerning one thing from another, and this is an act that is critical to our ability to detect danger and protect ourselves. We should use this ability to focus on those people who pose a real threat, rather than focusing our attention on people who do not present a danger to us. This isn't racism, it is common sense.

---

------------------------------------------------------------

I knew I shoudn't have posted in this thread.

Look, just before you immolate yourself in the name of destroying political correctness forever, can we make sure we are actually arguing about something/anything?

I think we can all agree that letting people bring bombs on to planes is a bad idea. To me, that's where the argument begins and ends, because if you go beyond that then you are going to take shortcuts, and you apparently are going to do that by simply scrutinising Middle Eastern men. Here's the newsflash : if people want badly enough to get a bomb on board a plane, it will happen, with or without Middle Eastern men. If you want to stop people bombing a plane, don't let people bring bombs on a plane. Insititutional racism in the name of security is not a substitue for that. Find out how the bomb would be bought on and how you could spot the compoents. Unless you can do that, there really WILL be more planes falling out of the sky. Scratching your head afterwards and saying "I don't understand it, we checked the passnger list and there weren't any funny looking names on there" isn't a valid scenario in my view. If you are serious about security then why isn't everyone a suspect? Why isn't everyone strip searched on every flight?

My "full blown unwavering commitment to political correctness at all cost attitude"? Where did that come from? Simply because I pointed out that there may be a subtext to the authors article? I'm not fighting for any extreme, unless trying to be thorough and keeping everyone safe is an extreme.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

I didn't see political correctness as a subtext to the original article. I saw it as the entire crux of the whole story. In keeping with the traditions of this country, society/government is trying to hold onto treating everyone equally, i.e. the American Ideal. In so doing, they inspect everyone equally which means grandmothers and six foot tall blond blue eye Norwegians on one end, and apparently no more than two Middle Eastern men per flight on the other end. Those are facts, not an argument for or against, just the current system. I think everyone agrees that it is not a system to brag on, let alone believe that it will provide the necessary level of security.

I love the American way. It is also what the extremists seem to hate about this country the most. That is an opinion.

The debate is how to balance the American Ideal with the perceived threats. I think it is an important debate. However, a debate or discussion requires give and take, I didn't see that in your first response.

I don't have an answer. I would like to see a better approach to the situation in the article than the one reported of wait and see and what you seem to support. Literally, if the plane lands at the other end of the flight, then they weren't terrorists. Maybe, having flown to LA and back this past week makes me a little more sensitive to this.

Were any grandmothers or Norwegians inspected before 9/11? No, the events of 9/11 perpetrated by mostly Saudi Arabians, Yemenis and a few other Middle Eastern nationalities produced the changes. Are grandmothers or Norwegians any more of a threat now than before 9/11? Not in my opinion.

For the record, I am also not fond of the other extreme. Ashcroft makes me very concerned about his thought process and goals. I can appreciate his position, and If anything happens on his watch, he will be blamed for not having done enough. Yes, his requests for power would significantly improve the ability to combat terrorists. But, I think the price to be paid is too high for us as a society if everything he wants is passed.

So, I lie somewhere between not inspecting grandmothers, and not strip searching every male of non-Caucasian skin. Not a very good answer.

As far as the comment "Find out how the bomb would be bought (sic) on and how you could spot the components." I would take you to task for sounding really lame. It is really major league hand waving at best, and spoken like a politician at worst.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

[reply]As far as the comment "Find out how the bomb would be bought (sic) on and how you could spot the components." I would take you to task for sounding really lame. It is really major league hand waving at best, and spoken like a politician at worst.[/reply]

Apologies for the typo(s) - my point is that bombs are made of *things*, and you should be able to spot bombs no matter who carries them. I don't know enough about bombs to be able to discuss this in detail - what would have been worse surely would have been if I had tried to bluff that I knew how to make a bomb (I'm guessing there are people better qualified to do that here) and how to get it onto a plane - but I do think that it isn't easy to do, and I assume that is why there aren't more planes falling from the sky right now. Which, once again is the bottom line - that was the shock of the box cutters - not being able to tell a bomb from a bon-bon is what will really do the trick. This is not the same as waiting and seeing. It's being smarter, not complacent that you can predict what quintessentially unpredictable people will do.

I will let it drop - but my closing suggestion is that what would be really lame would be to assume that simply narrowing your search would be a good way to put off or stop people who cannot be put off and do not want to be stopped.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

I'm not too concerned by the typos, I grow them here by the bushel, it was the simplistic implication of "Find out how the bomb would be brought on" I was referring to. It implies that Intelligence departments should and can anticipate every potential effort, not real world. Furthermore, wouldn't it also require such Intelligence outfits to specifically target certain groups in order to anticipate efforts? Isn't this just shifting the profiling from the airport gate to an offshore site? Out of site, out of mind?

Narrowing the search isn't a complete answer even if adopted. Security officials are worried about such things as Stinger type ground-to-air anti-aircraft missiles being used on departing flights. The article, and my interest, focused on the debate of screening.

On the subject of bombs, though, bombs are actually made of chemicals. Surrounding the chemicals with material such as metal produces more devastation. However, in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing, it was simply 4,000 pounds of fertilizer and ammonium nitrate (if I remember correctly). McVeigh's goal was to take out a large stationary building. To bring down an airplane, I would think a much smaller amount of several highly reactive chemicals, mixed appropriately and placed near a critical structural or mechanical component of the aircraft could be sufficient. No real bomb components in the traditional sense. No C4 or readily recognizable odor, perhaps just simple dry powders or a gel. Harmless enough by x-ray inspection machines, maybe not on the list of agents for the explosive sniffing equipment. A much more technologically difficult problem than indicated by your comment, and thus my criticism.

It has been almost three years now, and people have grown complacent. I'd just like to see them wake up a little.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

I hate reading stuff like that. I have a friend who is an air marshall and I fear these types of incidents are all too common. He's been on flights where he was convinced he was going to have to shoot someone; spent the whole time with his hand on his gun.

Now I'm really not looking forward to my flight this afternoon.

Question - Did this incident actually happen?

There appears to be quite a bit of debate about this. Here is the discussionon snopes.com as well as a couple of links discussing it. When I first read the article it just seemed a touch off. I don't know but I think we need some more confirmation. Also the link to the promise of a follow-up on the womenswallstreet.com site leaves me with even more questions.

http://www.snopes.com/...kyterror.asp?print=y

link to follow-up mention http://www.womenswallstreet.com/...id=713&Titleid=0

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

[reply]No real bomb components in the traditional sense. No C4 or readily recognizable odor, perhaps just simple dry powders or a gel. Harmless enough by x-ray inspection machines, maybe not on the list of agents for the explosive sniffing equipment. A much more technologically difficult problem than indicated by your comment, and thus my criticism.[/reply]

I wasn't implying that detection was technologically simple at all - that's my problem with the article. It tries to sove a problem by focusing on something I see as irrelevant to the problem.

Screening people has nothing to do whatsoever with the technology of the bomb. If it's difficult to spot the components then surely we should be more suspicious, not selectively suspicious. Do people want to fly safely? If so, then everyone has to submit to measures to make sure everyone is safe. Who's to say that you coudn't use something that someone else innocently brought on to the plane? If you can make a bomb out of everyday items then no-one can take everyday items onto the plane - why can't it be that simple? And if there's more to it than that, then surely that favours people trying to find them?

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

Do people want to fly safely? If so, then everyone has to submit to measures to make sure everyone is safe. Who's to say that you coudn't use something that someone else innocently brought on to the plane? If you can make a bomb out of everyday items then no-one can take everyday items onto the plane - why can't it be that simple?

I think that anyone who wants to fly on an American airplane today should willingly submit to the following measures: Strip naked and be subjected to a cavity search. If cleared, they will be permitted to board the plane, where they will be shackled securely to their seat at the wrists, ankles, and neck.

If we do any less, the terrorists win.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I can't tell if you're serious that you think this is what I was suggesting, or not...

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

Thanks JPO.

I'm out of this one. Follow the links - it's all being said somewhere else

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

I wasn't really directing my comments at anyone in particular, Goobie. I'm disturbed generally by this obsession we seem to have with making every situation 100% safe, and damn the costs.

It's a dangerous world, people. Grow up and deal with it. We are not going to be able to stop 100% of potential terrorists, whether we profile people or subject everyone to "heightened" security screening. We are not going to be able to prevent every item that may be used in a harmful manner from getting on a plane.

The precautions we take against terrorism should be reasonable. Our present expectations are simply not.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Oh ok. Sorry. Now I know a little of what it feels like to be you!

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/~psyc382/rockgold.html
(Norman Rockwell's "Do Unto Others")

Great question, thanks for pointing me to those pages. I disagree that her detail means it is exaggerated or is a lie. I know that people don't need motivation to lie but can't figure out why she would lie about this or do anything but tell the truth. She also has recieved letters and emails with attribution from airline employees who say they face this regularly. I guess we have to decide, but it doesn't seem like a stretch to me.

Aah, a little skepticism never hurts. I was wondering about the part in the original story where the author said that 5 or so of the Middle Eastern men were standing near the lavatory during approach. Most flight attendants I know would have chased Attila the Hun back to his seat, let alone the guys in the story. That said, I am still concerned about the bigger picture, and what will it take to to have effective security.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

Mystery solved, although all the isssues raised remain, unfortunately. http://www.nationalreview.com/...ylor200407211921.asp