NWA 327: Dry run for terrorists or misunderstandin

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hold on a second . . . was she advocating taking away their civil liberties???

[/ QUOTE ]

What I experienced during that flight has caused me to question whether the United States of America can realistically uphold the civil liberties of every individual, even non-citizens, and protect its citizens from terrorist threats.

Yeah. She is. Tell me any other way to interpret that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has been a question ever since 9/11. Hence the dreaded Patriot Act, questions of enemy combatants and their status etc. I don't see much advocacy in her statement. The question for everyone is: which do you desire; freedom and the risks that entails, or security with the requisite loss of freedom. Americans over the years have opted for less freedom and more security. That's how the federal government has gotten so huge. A lot of liberties had already been given up in the name of the war on drugs. So it's a great question.. On the one hand I favor everybody getting a gun and handling any bad guys ourselves. Lots of liberty. On the other hand these guys are working toward playing with nukes and chemical and biological weapons so they've got me outgunned. Dead doesn't give me and mine much liberty either.

Man whatr a downer subject.

[Windchill]

[ QUOTE ]
What I experienced during that flight has caused me to question whether the United States of America can realistically uphold the civil liberties of every individual, even non-citizens, and protect its citizens from terrorist threats.

Yeah. She is. Tell me any other way to interpret that.

[/ QUOTE ]

That she's QUESTIONING it, NOT ADVOCATING it! You quoted it yourself . . . "caused me to QUESTION . . . "

questioning is not advocating . . . or is it wrong to question things also?

[tonyw]

[ QUOTE ]
That she's QUESTIONING it, NOT ADVOCATING it! You quoted it yourself . . . "caused me to QUESTION . . . "

questioning is not advocating . . . or is it wrong to question things also?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if it's only the freaking foundation of what this country was founded on. Questioning that is just, well, un-American.

Ben Franklin said it best. Give up a little liberty to get some security, and you deserve neither.

Someone needs to pound that into Jacobsen's head.

If you want to live in a free society, there are some risks associated with that freedom. In a country where people can walk around unchallenged by the cops, rent SUVs, and so on, there's always the risk that someone will rent an SUV, pack it full of explosives, and detonate it. Or walk on down to the mall with a backpack full of explosives and blow that up.

But the alternative is worse.

[Windchill]

[ QUOTE ]
Ben Franklin said it best. Give up a little liberty to get some security, and you deserve neither.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes he did, and he was a great founding father for America, but as others have said regarding other issues (i.e. homosexuality is wrong according to the bible, slavery is normal) . . . times change.

This country is not USA of 1776. Because of our growth and the threat of destruction unparalleled in the 1700s, giving up just a little libery may be a necessary evil.

I would hate to think of it, or actually witness our country track movement across state borders and other stuff, but I REALLY hate to think about another 9/11 after 9/11 after 9/11 because we are hated so much by the world, with many willing to go to great lengths to carry out such horrific acts.

[UA_Wildcat]

JH
I think we agree somewhat on this one. You are always going to have a few bad apples...blah blah blah you know the rest. What was this post about again?

UA

[flyover]

Yeah, it's getting harder to talk about founding principles with a straight face. None of the founders would recognize the US as a model for what they formulated. Income tax, Federal Departments of Education, Agriculture, etc. welfare, agricultural subsides, on and on. But then again they might not be too surprised. That's why they wanted the people to have the right to bare arms. so they could rise up again when it all went south. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[mtsu_av8er]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ben Franklin said it best. Give up a little liberty to get some security, and you deserve neither.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes he did, and he was a great founding father for America, but as others have said regarding other issues (i.e. homosexuality is wrong according to the bible, slavery is normal) . . . times change.

This country is not USA of 1776. Because of our growth and the threat of destruction unparalleled in the 1700s, giving up just a little libery may be a necessary evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

I told you, Tony....

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's that saying of Franklin's again about liberty and temporary security?


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



He was a hippie communist anyway, Tony . . .

Besides, he didn't know how different the future would be. Anyone can tell that if he were here now, he'd say . . .
[/sarcasm]


[/ QUOTE ]

You predict it!!

[kellwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
What happened here, I think, is someone observed something and was in a position to write about it. Like many people who bring messages that are unwelcome to bureaucrats, she's getting her knees cut off. She is sticking to her guns and getting some support from other passengers. Clearly it is her opinion that it was a dry-run. She could be right or wrong. But the idea that nothing unusual or suspicious was going on during that flight just doesn't add up, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Yeah. And I was abducted by aliens. Granted the doctors said it's a delusion, and the bureaucrats refuse to listen to me. But DAMMIT! I know what I saw!"

How is that statement any different? This woman is given facts to back up what, in some cases, the people she complained to told her to her face. Instead, she sticks to her original story. I'm not "villifying" her, I'm just saying she's not listening to reason. It would be totally different if this were just a post on someone's blog, but this is in a published magazine. How can we laugh off the Star and the Enquirer, but take this one seriously? The magazine gives her story weight, that's why. I can guarantee you on any flight I go on, I can FIND suspicious activity if I'm looking for it. That guy over in 13A keeps going to the bathroom. Is he building a shoe bomb, or does he have a bladder infection? Those two teenagers are looking at me funny. Are they just being normaly angst ridden teens, or are they plotting on how to take me down during a hijacking? The big guy in 24C keeps getting up and opening the overhead bin. Is there something suspicious in there, or was there not enough room under the seat in front of him for his bag?

A little dose of paranoia is fine, but jumping at shadows is ridiculous. If articles like this make they're way into Time and Newsweek, Ashcroft will have his wish, and we'll all have cameras in our homes. It's bad enough the government knows what I check out from the library.

[tonyw]

Two questions:

1. Do you really think that giving up some civil liberties will make things safer? Fine, let's not let any Syrians, Iranians, North Koreans, or Iraqis into the country. And al Qaeda will just find another way to attack us. There are Aussies and Brits down at Gitmo. John Walker Lindh was as American as can be. It will be just like Franklin said. We will give up essential liberties for temporary security, and we'll get neither.

2. Tell me just what more you'd like from these musicians. What would it take to make you say, you know what, that woman was out of line? Actually, let me ask you this. Prove you're not a terrorist. I mean, after all, you might be an al Qaeda operative under deep cover, learning to fly, trying to get a job at an airline, and then you'll take over the plane and crash it into a building. Oh, you're not? Well, prove it to me. Can't do it? No, you can't. It's impossible to prove a negative.

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
Two questions:

1. Do you really think that giving up some civil liberties will make things safer? Fine, let's not let any Syrians, Iranians, North Koreans, or Iraqis into the country. And al Qaeda will just find another way to attack us. There are Aussies and Brits down at Gitmo. John Walker Lindh was as American as can be. It will be just like Franklin said. We will give up essential liberties for temporary security, and we'll get neither.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, border control is a necessary part of security. If we shut border entry down completely to all but US citizens it would have absolutely nothing to do with civil liberties. No foreigner has a "right" to come into the US unless we grant that courtesy.

[ QUOTE ]
[2. Tell me just what more you'd like from these musicians. What would it take to make you say, you know what, that woman was out of line?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget Jacobsen was just the messenger. You've got her pegged as the central character in this. The cabin crew was the first to go to the FAM with their suspicions early in the flight. Other passengers were concerned, at least one to the point of crying by the end of the flight. And one frequent traveler positioned himself in the forward galley to protect the cockpit. And the FAM decided to call in backup at the airport. So we have a long line of people that need to apologize to these poor abused band members.

I think what these guys need to do in the future is advise the airline beforehand that they are "special needs" passengers. That they require frequent trips to the lavoratory, are unwilling to comply with the seat belt sign or directions from the crew, and must move around and communicate with group members on a frequent basis. Then the captain could make a PA advising the other passengers and everyone would be happy. Is this enough Tony? That would certainly be accomodative of these guests in our country, and would not oblige them to act like reasonable people.

For their part they could make an announcement either saying they aren't into the whole terrorism thing, or that they are only interested in the death of those passengers that are Jewish. (This might upset Jacobsen again, but she's an hysterical bimbo anyway).

I think this would fix things up. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
I can guarantee you on any flight I go on, I can FIND suspicious activity if I'm looking for it. That guy over in 13A keeps going to the bathroom. Is he building a shoe bomb, or does he have a bladder infection? Those two teenagers are looking at me funny. Are they just being normaly angst ridden teens, or are they plotting on how to take me down during a hijacking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you considered a position at the TSA? (I'm talking management, not screening). This sounds right in line with their philosophy. And you left out that blue-haired lady with the knitting needles. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[tonyw]

But if we close down the borders to all but US citizens (and I suppose the citizens of the 20 other countries that let us just send our people over with no visas since they extend that courtesy to us) would it really make us safer? Timothy McVeigh was the all-American boy, after all. John Walker Lindh joined al Qaeda, and so did Jose Padilla. And then there are the Brits and Aussies as well.

As for the musicians, I said they were bungholes. But bunghole does not equal terrorist. Otherwise, the guy who took a dump on the serving cart would be rotting in Gitmo right now.

[flyover]

[ QUOTE ]
But if we close down the borders to all but US citizens (and I suppose the citizens of the 20 other countries that let us just send our people over with no visas since they extend that courtesy to us) would it really make us safer? Timothy McVeigh was the all-American boy, after all. John Walker Lindh joined al Qaeda, and so did Jose Padilla. And then there are the Brits and Aussies as well.

As for the musicians, I said they were bungholes. But bunghole does not equal terrorist. Otherwise, the guy who took a dump on the serving cart would be rotting in Gitmo right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, again, their behavior was the crux of the problem. Remove that and there arabness would have not caused a problem. (Although I still suspect they were the reason FAMs were assigned to the flight). No need to document anymore that more people then Jacobsen, including the crew, and the FAM found reason to suspect their behavior.

As to the border. My point is that it is not a civil liberties issue. Every country has the right to defend it's borders and allow entry as it sees fit.

And I hope you are right that our biggest threat now comes from non-arab, non-muslims. If we can eliminate them from the equation we are in pretty good shape. I've always said a threat is a threat. Prior to 9/11 our biggest threat for violence in the air was a white american male on prozac. These were the guys flipping out and having to be restrained by passengers. Airliners have had restraint devices onboard for years because of that. So one threat at a time.

[tonyw]

Oh, I'm not that naive. I wish we could say that non-Arab, non-jiahdists are our greatest threat now. Unfortunately, we know that is not the case.

My point is that al Qaeda is smart. They ain't gonna be sending guys over with long beards and turbans to attack us. Look at the pictures of the guys who committed the September 11 attacks at the security gates. Would anyone have thought, hey, this guy is going to take over a plane and crash it into a landmark?

That is what makes them so scary.

And it's what makes trying to stop them with profiling so ineffective. While we're running around, looking for "middle Eastern looking" men, they'll slip a light skinned Pakistani or Syrian in who looks more "American" than I do.

[jtrain609]

Ok, so I havn't read this in a day or so, but I just want to throw down and say that I'm more scared about redneck white dudes than I am arab guys on airplanes. Stupid white rednecks have almost gotten me killed more than arab's have.

AND YOU PLAY BALL LIKE A GIRL...there, that should stir things up good [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[tonyw]

Non-Arab Recruits for al Qaeda

To avoid the intense scrutiny on travelers from certain Middle Eastern countries, al-Qaeda is believed to be using operatives from Chechnya, Bosnia and, when possible, Western Europe. Not all are Arab, and not all are men. All are thought to be Muslim, but a few have pretended to convert to Christianity to deepen their cover, the senior intelligence official said.

“There was a legitimate concern right after 9/11 that the face of international terrorism was basically from the Middle East. We know differently,” Ridge said. “We don't have the luxury of kidding ourselves that there is an ethnic or racial or country profile.”

[flyover]

Well sounds like Ridge is on the case. This sould be good news.

BTW, I was thinking about the American "tradition" of only going to war when threatened so I looked up a quote from JFK (the original, not the new one). This was from his inaugral address and at that time was not controversial as we still, as a nation, had a clear understanding of our history: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."