Security vs. Civil Liberties

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:54 am

http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/art ... icleid=711

This is the scariest story I have read in a while. It honestly made me pause and consider my position on extending civil liberties to non-citizens belonging to certain ethnic or religious groups.

I have always maintained that one of the true measures of greatness of our Country and its Constitution is how we respond, civil liberties wise, to troubling times. It is easy to uphold peopleâ??s rights when times are good. But when times are bad, that can be a different story.

Based on this article, it would seem that maybe we canâ??t be ever vigilant, guard against terrorism, and yet protect everyoneâ??s civil liberties at the same time.

What does everyone think?

Can we protect civil liberties and maintain security at the same time, or must we trade one for the other? How much is too much?

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:25 am

That is scary stuff. I tihnk they should screen them and using "national security" as the reason.

I'm sorry if I sound racist but it's hard not to be against a civilization that is known to be terrorists.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:38 am

I found it incredible that there's a DoT rule that says no more than two persons of apparent Middle Eastern ethnicity can be subjected to secondary security or the airline will be fined.

In related news, one interesting theory I've read about this incident was that the Syrians were praying in the bathroom as per their religious requirements. But one would expect if that was the case at least one of them would have apprised the flight crew that 16 Arabs were about to monopolize the facilities for a substantial amount of time.

From other sites I've read two pretty good suggestions on what to do if such a suspicious occurence were to happen while you're in flight. The first was to interrupt the procedures by camping in the locked lavatory (this assumes the theory that AQ may be testing the ability to construct a bomb in flight). The second was what to do if faced with the need to go on the offensive. The suggestion was to fly wearing a belt with a substantial belt buckle. Wrap up the belt in your hand for easy swinging and wield a pillow or cushion in your other hand as a shield.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:44 am

Racial profiling does have it's merits. I think it should be put to use in this case.

This is totally different than pulling over more blacks than whites on the road.

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:45 am

Bash wrote:The suggestion was to fly with a belt with a belt buckle of substance. Wrap up the belt in your hand for easy swinging and wield a pillow or cushion in your other hand as a shield.

Awesome.

And I'm going on a flight to Europe during the democratic convention [flight leaves from boston, where the convention is], should I worried? heh, answer is "nope."

With bash's key advice on being an airline warrior, I will be safe.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:53 am

If they're not Americans they should not have American rights, it's really that simple.

B-

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:58 am

Tough thing to decide. On the one hand, you want to feel secure, on the other, you want to make sure people aren't more mistreated than they already are. Civil liberties should always be a priority, but weren't the lives of the 3000+ a priority? Case in point with the Walker kid, the terror kids arent always Arabs. makes you think.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:08 pm

The airlines received a mandate from the TSA that we make our lavatories tamper proof. We are now in the midst of complying with said mandate.

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:12 pm

I hate to be a left-wing conspiracy theorist, but doesn't this kinda go along with what Moore talked about in Fahrenheit 9/11? That our "beefing up" of homeland security is just BS and all the hubbub was done on purpose to scare us?

But in any case...

Everyone should have the same rights. Everyone should be screened and checked more thouroughly. We have complete idiots running security checks. They get paid minimum wage to "scan" people...what do they care? Arabs aren't the only ones who have produced terrorists. We've got to check everyone.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:31 pm

Our goal should be to protect Americans, not the feelings of the world abroad. If they don't like being heavily screened they always have the option of not traveling to the states. I've grown weary of the politically correct sissies who fear hurting someones feelings in place of our safety.

Zuruck, civil liberties should be a priority for AMERICANS. If your stay includes a passport, the only liberties that you have are the ones Americans *give* you. Allowing them the same liberties provides them with ammunition to use the liberties AMERICANS have to carry out an attack.

Screw them. It's them or us and I'm all about us.

You need to get your head out of the sand and realize what is at stake. These people want to kill you and everyone you know who is not muslim. If you're willing to risk your life in place of sparing someone's feelings, go ahead, They certainly won't.
B-

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:32 pm

Beo, I kinda agree with you but would you be willing to wait 5-10 hours for everyone to get checked?

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:38 pm

I'm not being PC Barry, you know me better than that (or so I hope). I'm saying that screening Arabs just because they're Arab doesn't cut it. If a bunch of crazy white folks decide to blow up a plane its ok because they're American and they have rights...right? Security should be increased across the board, not just for suspicious looking Arabs. Like I said, Arabs aren't the world's only terrorists.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:47 pm

I read that story last night. For me, preserving the aircraft and the lives within it trumps politeness, manners, inconvenience, and profiling. I think the airlines should be hiring bouncers instead of stewardesses. I don't care about food, booze, movies, or perky service. I want someone on the plane who can unleash gratuitous pain and injury on anyone who screws around ... someone who could tell people to sit the hell down with authority ... someone who could accomodate belligerence with an incapacitating beatdown. Cry me a friggin' river if anyone's feelings are hurt. Civil liberties are dandy and all, but making them an Achilles heel at 30,000 feet isn't my idea of how to best preserve them.

Headline: 284 die in plane bombing, FAA investigates to ensure perpetrators felt welcome.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:19 pm

If a bunch of crazy white folks decide to blow up a plane its ok because they're American and they have rights...right?

You're right, I mean.. that happens so often.

Look, Arabs may not be the worlds only terrorist, but they're the worlds only terrorist that have taken recent action against America. However, when others become a problem we can target them as well.
The bottom line is, we can tip-toe around the issue of profiling and pretend that if we don't insult these people they'll play nice. eff them!! Play nice and we won't insult you. You come to the states, you play on our terms. It's for our own safety..

B-

B-

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:31 pm

I hear those Presbyterians are starting to get out of hand...

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:36 pm

I'm with Fusion Pimp. Even in Canada our Gov't is a pussy when it comes to foreigners. I can't stand the treatment they get. Everything for free. Then they bring in theri relatives who are lazy no good for nothing (_O_)'s. Live off gov't welfare and suck our country dry.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:46 pm

Lothar, that's cute. Dance away.

B-

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:09 pm

Wait a minute Fusion Pimp, we went into Iraq saying they deserve what we have. But now you're saying only we deserve what we get and to fack everyone else when it comes to safety and security. So when someone comes to the US they dont get any of the "freedoms" that we get? Should we lock them in the paddy wagon when they want to eat a sub? Should we put a monitoring device on every single Arab in this country? How many Arabs live in the US compared to how many terrorists there are? WTF is the matter with you people? I actually feel sick knowing that people like you exist and I have to call you an American. How about being called a piece of neo con ★■◆●?

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:48 pm

Apples and oranges, Zuruck. When you go to visit someone else's country, it is not the same as being a citizen of that country. The USA's self-preservation comes before giving foreigners rights granted to Americans. If the USA feels that its existence or its citizens are threatened by the presence of a particular foreigner on its soil, the US has every right to kick that person out. Just like if you let a guest into your home and then that person starts brandishing a gun, in which case you have every right to kick that person out of your home in the name of self-preservation.

And you missed the entire point anyway. This entire thread is about visitors, not citizens.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 2:58 pm

Wait a minute Fusion Pimp, we went into Iraq saying they deserve what we have.

You're assuming I agree with why we're there in the first place. Thanks for asking.

But now you're saying only we deserve what we get and to fack everyone else when it comes to safety and security.

Our first priority should be American safety. When we can guaranty our own safety only then should we bother worrying about anyone else.

So when someone comes to the US they dont get any of the "freedoms" that we get?

Did you hear me say that they won't have *any* freedoms? I believe my arguement is in favor of racial profiling in this instance.

How many Arabs live in the US compared to how many terrorists there are?

Try reading before you shoot off at the mouth, Mr. American. I am/was not talking about American citizens. I made that clear.

WTF is the matter with you people?

What's the matter with us? How about, for starters, pussies like you who claim to be for America but are afraid to step on the toes of a group of foreigners who have proven that, since the 70's that they are out to kill us. What's the matter with us? How about, pussies like you who are crying freedom for them while they plot to remove ours? How about allowing them to enter *our* country unchecked so they can murder thousands of innocent lives while using the freedoms *we* have provided.

I actually feel sick knowing that people like you exist and I have to call you an American.

Support your local terrorist! They need people like you.
You are the enemy hiding behind our flag.

B-

To the rest of you, I apologize for my mouth, but that really pissed me off.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:14 pm

w3rd B.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:15 pm

Zuruck are you actually trying to be stupid?
I mean it's great you have aspirations but if your going to get all motivated and shiz, why not at least exercise some common sense in your endeavors!

You've become nothing but a troll!

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 7:52 pm

Zuruck wrote:we went into Iraq saying they deserve what we have.

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone from the anti-war side actually recognize this point. It seems my continual repetition of the actual Bush quotes has done some good against the left's continual repetition of "WMD was the only reason, and we didn't find them!"

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:32 pm

One important consideration is that regardless of what the civil libertarians demand of the airlines or the security agencies about profiling, it doesn't stop each one of us from our own profiling. Simply put, if suspicious activity or passengers become apparent, keep your eyes open and form a plan. Decide for yourselves what your reaction is going to be and mentally prepare yourself to go into action if that is your decision. It's nice knowing there are air marshalls but ultimately you have to make the decision that you're not going to be a victim and will do whatever you can to assist. Confusion and indecision were among the assets the terrorists used on 9/11 when they lied to the passengers. It was only on Flight 93 where the passengers decided not to accept what they were being told that the larger objective of the terrorists was thwarted.

In related news, another site recommended flying with a quality pen or pencil to use as a weapon. Whether you feel capable of wielding a belt buckle/pen with a cushion as a sheild effectively is almost irrelevant. It's something that will better your chances, present a bigger challenge to the terrorists and will likely delay them from consolidating control until which time--hopefully--the superior outnumbering of passengers-to-terrorists will enable an overwhelming response.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 6:54 am

A roll of quarters in each fist and a pair of steel toe work boots = 'Doctors removed a box cutter from the colon of a would be hijacker'

Wolf on Air · Post by **Wolf on Air** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:35 am

As far as I'm concerned, next time you'll be keeping Stasi tabs on the airlines, and then get your water supply poisoned or something... anything. The whole point of terrorism is unpredictability - fear, uncertainity and doubt, in a nutshell.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 2:43 pm

"against the left's continual repetition of "WMD was the only reason, and we didn't find them!" "

That's an unfair and paltry depiction.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:23 pm

Am I the only one here who wonders why the air marshals on board did not even question these folks while they were in the air? Was there really anything going on like what the writer claims? I Snopesed the thing and there are some links to others who find the details of the article lack credibility although it does appear that 14 Syrians who are members of a band did take a flight to play a gig. Imagine making a living in America playing ethnic music.
Decide for yourself. Search Snopes.com for the date June 29, 2004.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:33 pm

She's written a follow-up article.

Sounds like the mainstream media has looked into it and her story checks out. It would seem pretty stupid for a Wall Street Journal writer to make all this up when it could be so easily refuted by contacting the FBI, the airline, and other passengers.

NBC was the first major news outlet to contact WomensWallStreet. The producer I spoke with on the telephone said the FBI had confirmed that 14 Syrians were on the flight, they confirmed the details about what happened upon landing in Los Angeles, and they said that the accounts from the flight attendants regarding what happened during the flight matched the accounts given by me and my husband to the FBI after we landed. Link

Arol · Post by **Arol** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 9:35 pm

You don't have to be a citizen of the land of the free and the brave to think that is one scary story. Also, because even without commiting any actual crime, simply behaving in a way that was bound to raise concern, they are making people question their own values and attitudes. A win-win situation for the bad guys!!!

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:36 pm

Fact: If someone wants to blow up a plane - HELLO! THEY WILL.

Fact: There is NO WAY TO PREVENT 100% OF BOMBS GETTING ON TO PLANES.

Opinion: There is no point putting a bomb on a plane because you lot are so freaking paranoid, that by doing all the extra security you scare the crap out of people.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:08 pm

Mobius wrote:Fact: If someone wants to blow up a plane - HELLO! THEY WILL.

Fact: There is NO WAY TO PREVENT 100% OF BOMBS GETTING ON TO PLANES.

FACT: if someone wants to kill you, they will.
FACT: there is NO WAY TO PREVENT 100% OF MURDERS.

So what's your point? That we should try to prevent as many as possible? None at all? 90%?

Opinion: There is no point putting a bomb on a plane because you lot are so freaking paranoid, that by doing all the extra security you scare the crap out of people.

Opinion: an actual bomb on an actual plane would be a hell of a lot scarier than simply being worried about the possibility of a bomb being built on a plane. I'd much rather be slightly over-paranoid and prevent most of the bombings than be slightly under-paranoid and allow one or two extra.

Of course, one other question needs asked: is it "paranoia" if they really *are* out to get you? On the one hand, people complain that the war in Iraq was based on evidence that was too flimsy and we were being too paranoid -- but on the other hand, they suggest that we could've prevented 9/11 if only we'd been more paranoid. MAKE UP YOUR DAMN MINDS! Are we too paranoid, or not paranoid enough?

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:25 am

First, this is strangely similar to the cold war. In the midst of all this fear, completely innocent people will get mistreated in the name of "national security." At the same time, security breaches will be made in the name of "civil liberties." So, first of all, everyone needs to get thoroughly checked when they come into the country. Second, I would suggest that FAA policy should be that standing up and walking around in flight should be only allowed to use the rest room. Third, they should not allow bags of any sort of be taken into the bathroom- if you have personal stuff to do (women) you can carry it with you discreetly. Fourth, people shouldn't be allowed to line up for the bathroom- once its unoccupied, whoever gets up first gets the next dibs. Fifth, first class only should use the front lavitory.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:25 am

Here is the same story from a slightly different angle. Basically, the Air Marshalls say her facts are correct, no one is disputing them. Her conclusions however leave something to interpretation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/business/20road.html

I can't remember if you need to sign in to read this article or not. If so, let me know and I will post the text of the article itself. It isn't very long.

Vertigo 99 · Post by **Vertigo 99** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:39 am

ya it requires sign in

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:50 am

What Really Happened on Flight 327?
By JOE SHARKEY

Published: July 20, 2004

here 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..

Arol · Post by **Arol** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:08 pm

You; the American people are at war! Your enemy has already shown quite clearly he means to harm/kill/destroy you. The enemy is not someone who's wearing a uniform or brandishing any obvious weapon. He is someone who because of the very freedoms your society is built on, can be anyone and be almost everywhere. So how can it be paranoia when you look over your shoulder an extra time, or are extra cautious when someone matching the profile (political correct or not)of the facesless enemy acts in an obvious suspicious manner. Healthy paranoia can be good thing. It might make you duck at the right time.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:08 pm

Basically, I think whatever "descrimination" that happens needs to happen to everyone. Don't pick people out because of how they look- if things need to change, then make everyone abide by the changes.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:25 pm

I admire your naivete, snoopy. I wish we were all as blissfully ignorant as you of the fact that those most likely to commit acts of terrorism (why does that sound so cliche and forced?) are Middle-Eastern males?

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:13 pm

Oh, this is good. One of the fattest targets in the country and a Dem judge says the cops can't search those who have come for the express purpose of disrupting it (or worse).

NYPD cops blasted a federal judge's ruling aimed at stopping them from searching demonstrators' bags outside the Republican National Convention, saying the decision gives "an open door to terrorists."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/s ... 4246c.html