Update on the Middle-Eastern Musicians on the Plane...

[Draft Dodger]

I didn't read the initial thread, but I did read the article, and this is pretty much how I had it pegged...

http://www.kfi640.com/ericleonard.html

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Interesting, but understandable all the way around IMO.

I had a kind-of opposite experience on a flight last year. The passengers were fine,
but the crew was a bit freaked out (we must not have had air marshals on board).

It's a long story, but easily the most nerve-wracking flight experience I've ever had. And not something I hope to ever go through again.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Let me make sure I understand what this unnamed "source" is saying....

There are 14 middle eastern men between the ages of 18 - 45 aboard this plane acting suspiciously, who have since been determined to have expired visas and were in this country illegally, and this unnamed source thinks Jacobsen was the problem? I know it's been a few years, but I don't remember, how many of those 9/11 hijackers were caucasion females? How many of the members of al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc..are caucasion females?

The fact that this unnamed "source" even considered Jacobsen to be a decoy should scare everyone. The refusal to admit who the enemies really are, by anyone in the government for the sake of political correctness or not offending anyone is what is going to get more Americans killed. We're doomed.

Oh, and before someone replies with the typical "it's just right wing fearmongering" argument, read the second chapter of the 9/11 Comission Report, and then tell me that it's fearmongering.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Using the above story only, I don't see where the source is saying that Jacobsen was "the problem." The source thinks that she overreacted. Unless you're referencing another story, Farrah, where is anyone suggesting that Jacobsen was a decoy? I'll submit that maybe I just missed something, but I got the impression that the air marshals felt that they had things under control, and they were just trying to do their job without interference.

And are we really "doomed"? I mean, really?

[Blackadar]

Plus, most of what we know is written through the eyes of Jacobsen. When you read her original story, she makes it sound like everyone on the plane is crying, very upset, scared, etc. Perhaps it was just her and her husband who were "freaking out" and everyone else on the plane was pretty calm.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Using the above story only, I don't see where the source is saying that Jacobsen was "the problem." The source thinks that she overreacted. Unless you're referencing another story, Farrah, where is anyone suggesting that Jacobsen was a decoy?

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.”

That first comments seems to indicate they thought that maybe Jacobsen was some sort of terrorist plant with which to pull out who the air marshalls are.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Plus, most of what we know is written through the eyes of Jacobsen. When you read her original story, she makes it sound like everyone on the plane is crying, very upset, scared, etc. Perhaps it was just her and her husband who were "freaking out" and everyone else on the plane was pretty calm.

that's how I spun her article as well. she definitely seemed a little "high maintenance". to me, once a flight attendant said "there are air marshalls on the plane, and they are aware of the situation" then, to me, this woman needs to chill the fuck out and let it go.

[Peregrine]

Definitely good to see the full story here. I certainly can understand the concerns expressed in the original article, but it definitely seemed to me that there was a fairly good chance the author had been overreacting, particularly as she was told that all the men had been checked out through the government's lists, had valid passports etc.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Arles

That first comments seems to indicate they thought that maybe Jacobsen was some sort of terrorist plant with which to pull out who the air marshalls are.

well, the fact that they are prepared for more possibilities than just a group of middle-easterners is comforting to me. ymmv.

[Ben E Lou]

Wouldn't it make more sense to let them think they can get away with this sort of thing and then catch them in the act flat-footed with air marshals, as opposed to validating her story and making them go further underground?

Just a thought...

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Pumpy - The story says "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." This implies that the air marshals must have thought Jacobsen was with working with the 14 syrians to distract them.

While I applaud them for trying to keep an open mind, I contend that this means they don't have an understanding of who the enemy really is. If this unnamed "source" was so focused on Jacobsen, how much attention was he really paying to the 14 syrians? How many Palestinian suicide bombers are caucasian females traveling with their families? How many terrorist in Iraq on the videos with kidnapped westerners are 30-something American females or even European females? None. So where is the pattern that would establish Jacobsen as someone who would work with a terrorist group? There isn't one. What pattern is there?

I stand by my statement. If the people entrusted to protect us don't want to identify who the enemy really is, for whatever reason, then I think we're all in trouble.

[Dutch]

DD, I agree, that thought didn't cross my mind. However, I have heard that air marshals are pretty easy to pick out on an airplane. If the passengers were running up and asking the air marshal if he was going to do anything, that's pretty bad cover.

[Peregrine]

Wouldn't it make more sense to let them think they can get away with this sort of thing and then catch them in the act flat-footed with air marshals, as opposed to validating her story and making them go further underground?

I know people who believe this, they get irate whenever they see "credible threats" announced by the government, and even the color coded security levels, because they think we'd be better off not telegraphing what we know by publically announcing it.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Definitely good to see the full story here. I certainly can understand the concerns expressed in the original article, but it definitely seemed to me that there was a fairly good chance the author had been overreacting, particularly as she was told that all the men had been checked out through the government's lists, had valid passports etc.

Valid passports, but expired visas*. How extensive did the FBI check them out? I would think that if these 14 syrians had expired visas, they would be on the next plane back to Damascus. Yet they were allowed to continue on.

*Reported on Scarbourough Country Thursday night.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Pumpy - The story says "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." This implies that the air marshals must have thought Jacobsen was with working with the 14 syrians to distract them.

While I applaud them for trying to keep an open mind, I contend that this means they don't have an understanding of who the enemy really is. If this unnamed "source" was so focused on Jacobsen, how much attention was he really paying to the 14 syrians? How many Palestinian suicide bombers are caucasian females traveling with their families? How many terrorist in Iraq on the videos with kidnapped westerners are 30-something American females or even European females? None. So where is the pattern that would establish Jacobsen as someone who would work with a terrorist group? There isn't one. What pattern is there?

I stand by my statement. If the people entrusted to protect us don't want to identify who the enemy really is, for whatever reason, then I think we're all in trouble.

1. There are now female suicide bombers. They may not be of European decent, but they're female none the less.

2. Timothy McVeigh wasn't Middle-Eastern.

Put those two together...

Frankly, Farrah, I resent your statements quite a bit. It's like you think that women of European decent aren't capable of such an act. That's a bit naive and misguided, if not outright sexist/racist. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or can't happen.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

I know people who believe this, they get irate whenever they see "credible threats" announced by the government, and even the color coded security levels, because they think we'd be better off not telegraphing what we know by publically announcing it.

Here's a thought...

NON-SPECIFIC, CREDIBLE THREATS
Announce them. Let everyone know that "they might do something on a train" or whatever, to make the populace more diligent, because in these cases, we might be helpful.

SPECIFIC, CREDIBLE THREATS
Say nothing. If asked, divert attention, flat-out lie to the public, mischaracerize, do whatever it takes to lull them asleep, then catch the slime when you can both stop them AND lock them up for the rest of their lives.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Valid passports, but expired visas*. How extensive did the FBI check them out? I would think that if these 14 syrians had expired visas, they would be on the next plane back to Damascus. Yet they were allowed to continue on.

*Reported on Scarbourough Country Thursday night.

I hadn't heard this, but, yes, if they did check out the people after the flight, they should have definitely discovered that they had expired visas, and should have been given the boot. if not, something is definitley fucked up with the system, and needs to be fixed and needs to be fixed today.

doesn't change anything IMO about the actions of the air marshalls on the flight, or the overreaction from the Jacobsens.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

1. There are now female suicide bombers. They may not be of European decent, but they're female none the less.

2. Timothy McVeigh wasn't Middle-Eastern.

Put those two together...

Frankly, Farrah, I resent your statements quite a bit. It's like you think that women of European decent aren't capable of such an act. That's a bit naive and misguided, if not outright sexist/racist. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or can't happen.

Female middle eastern suicide bombers, yes. But not caucasion and not traveling with families. They are usually alone. How many females are in the hirearchy of al Qaeda? None. Why? I think that's an interesting question. I think its based on the fact that women are essentially garbage in the eyes of Islamic fundementalists. So why would they work with one? I don't think they would.

I resent the fact that instead of debating the issue you immediately call me a racist. How is it "like me" to think European women aren't capable of such an act? Do you even know me? I don't care if you don't like me, there's no need for name calling.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

How is it "like me" to think European women aren't capable of such an act?

Umm, I'm on your side here but I think there's a misinterpretation in there.

Far be it from me to try to put words in this particular poster's mouth, but I believe the "like you" was meant as "It's as though", not as "That's just like you, to do xyz". From your quote above, it seemed to me that you were reading it more like the latter than the former.

Trivial semantic sidebar concluded

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

It's like you think that women of European decent aren't capable of such an act. That's a bit naive and misguided, if not outright sexist/racist. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or can't happen.

A lot of fighting Terrorism involves playing the %s. Considering none of the last 20 or plane terrorism incidents have involved black or white women, it doesn't make a lot of sense to put a lot of effort into that possibility. However, nearly all have involved Middle Eastern or Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 45. So, therefore, it would make sense to "raise an eyebrow" if a big group of people in that demographic boarded the plane.

In some ways, the process is a lot like coaching a football team. What you are saying is akin to a defense playing the Chargers saying "Well, LT has been on fire for the past few weeks, but we are going to focus on stopping Reche Caldwell. I mean, the guy did have a good game back in 2002 and there's a chance he could have another one today".

If you take the aspect of race out of the equation and look at the situation logically, it certainly makes a great deal of sense to "profile" people that board planes from a % standpoint. El Al has been doing it for years and has one of the safest flight records in the middle of a terrorism hotbed.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm, I'm on your side here but I think there's a misinterpretation in there.

Far be it from me to try to put words in this particular poster's mouth, but I believe the "like you" was meant as "It's as though", not as "That's just like you, to do xyz". From your quote above, it seemed to me that you were reading it more like the latter than the former.

Trivial semantic sidebar concluded

Good point. I think I was distracted by the racist/naive comments.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Female middle eastern suicide bombers, yes. But not caucasion and not traveling with families. They are usually alone. How many females are in the hirearchy of al Qaeda? None. Why? I think that's an interesting question. I think its based on the fact that women are essentially garbage in the eyes of Islamic fundementalists. So why would they work with one? I don't think they would.

I resent the fact that instead of debating the issue you immediately call me a racist. How is it "like me" to think European women aren't capable of such an act? Do you even know me? I don't care if you don't like me, there's no need for name calling.

Your own comments set the stage, Farrah. Let's replay a few...

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I know it's been a few years, but I don't remember, how many of those 9/11 hijackers were caucasion females? How many of the members of al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc..are caucasion females?

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

The refusal to admit who the enemies really are, by anyone in the government for the sake of political correctness or not offending anyone is what is going to get more Americans killed.

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

How many terrorist in Iraq on the videos with kidnapped westerners are 30-something American females or even European females?

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

If the people entrusted to protect us don't want to identify who the enemy really is, for whatever reason, then I think we're all in trouble.

Let me start by saying the musicians should be watched, by simple profiling, I'd say yes. So should Jacobsen, by her own actions.

By your own statements, you consider American or European women above suspicion. Obviously, you think that you (and those like you) shouldn't be watched simply due to your ethnic origin.

Yea, I'd say that's pretty naive or racist. I'll let you pick.

Me? If someone is on a flight acting suspiciously or causing a disruption, I want the Air Marshall(s) watching that person, regardless of color or creed. Tim McVeigh proved that threats can come from any number of directions.

It's also interesting that twice you've used the word "enemy". These musicians were no more the enemy than the author. In fact, it sounds like the alarmist, hyper Annie Jacobsen was significantly more of a danger than they were.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Did you read the 9/11 Commission Report?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Good point. I think I was distracted by the racist/naive comments.

Understandable, I just figured that I might eliminate one aggravation from the pile

This thread/subject reminds me of the classic quote (often attributed to Jeff Jarrett) about wrestling, which goes something like this: "For those who understand no explanation is necessary, for those who don't get it, no explanation will be sufficient."

[Peregrine]

While I applaud them for trying to keep an open mind, I contend that this means they don't have an understanding of who the enemy really is. If this unnamed "source" was so focused on Jacobsen, how much attention was he really paying to the 14 syrians?

This seems like a bit of an unfair judgement. I'm sure the air marshals on the plane were monitoring the Syrians and their behavior. But if some passengers on the plane were getting "freaked out" to the point that it was becoming an issue, and coming up to the air marshals to report their suspicions, despite being asked to calm down, it obviously made them a subject of at least passing concern, right?

The air marshals are trained to spot possible trouble, and implying that they were spending more time watching the author of the piece than the middle-eastern men does them a disservice.

[Arles]

I was thinking about this again. And I think an actual example may help here. Let's say we know that nearly all of the prior airline terrorists over the past 30 years had a tattoo of a sun on their right bicep. Would people have a big problem with stopping or atleast checking people that had that same tattoo before boarding a plane?

I mean, I'm sure there are a ton of non-terrorists out there with that same tattoo. Yet, I would also bet that most here would have no problem with that type of a policy and probably consider it good police tactics.

Now, by no means does this amount to ignoring everyone without the tattoo. But, I think it's safe to say that putting a great deal of more scrutiny on the people with that tattoo is in the best interest of the safety of all passengers - even though many people in that group will be completely innocent.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

Did you read the 9/11 Commission Report?

Not yet. Does this make me unqualified? I'd dare say that given my background, I'm FAR more qualified to judge who or what is a threat than you are. That is unless you've spent more time in the intelligence community than I have. The chances of that are unlikely. My time was spent under William Webster.

Plus, basing the next attack from the profile of the last attack is a horrid misjudgement and very shortsighted. It's easy to prepare for that scenario. It's the one you don't expect that's the difficult job. Not only thinking of it, but getting people to realize it's credible and preparing for it.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

I was thinking about this again. And I think an actual example may help here. Let's say we know that nearly all of the prior airline terrorists over the past 30 years had a tattoo of a sun on their right bicep. Would people have a big problem with stopping or atleast checking people that had that same tattoo before boarding a plane?

I mean, I'm sure there are a ton of non-terrorists out there with that same tattoo. Yet, I would also bet that most here would have no problem with that type of a policy and probably consider it good police tactics.

Now, by no means does this amount to ignoring everyone without the tattoo. But, I think it's safe to say that putting a great deal of more scrutiny on the people with that tattoo is in the best interest of the safety of all passengers - even though many people in that group will be completely innocent.

I am 100% IN FAVOR of racial profiling. However, I also believe in watching everyone else who is acting suspiciously/erratically as well. If Jacobsen was that much of a distraction, then she should be watched just as closely - IF NOT MORE CLOSELY.

[Peregrine]

I am 100% IN FAVOR of racial profiling. However, I also believe in watching everyone else who is acting suspiciously/erratically as well. If Jacobsen was that much of a distraction, then she should be watched just as closely - IF NOT MORE CLOSELY

Completely agree with this.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Completely agree with this.

me too.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

This seems like a bit of an unfair judgement. I'm sure the air marshals on the plane were monitoring the Syrians and their behavior. But if some passengers on the plane were getting "freaked out" to the point that it was becoming an issue, and coming up to the air marshals to report their suspicions, despite being asked to calm down, it obviously made them a subject of at least passing concern, right?

The air marshals are trained to spot possible trouble, and implying that they were spending more time watching the author of the piece than the middle-eastern men does them a disservice.

It wasn't a judgement, it was a question. If the air marshalls on board were concerned that Jacobsen was trying to get them to reveal themselves as part of a terrist plot, would they just ignore her? I doubt it, they would be watching her because they would have thought she was working a terrorist group. They would have wanted to see who she spoke to, who she made eye contact with. Did they have enough personnel on board to handle both the 14 syrians and Jacobsen?

Also something I find missing from this article - none of the airline personnel or other passengers have come out and said that Jacobsen was overracting. None the air marshalls have either. The only mention of overraction came from this "source close to the secretive federal protective service" almost a week and a half after Jacobsen's article came out. Sounds like someone in the secretive federal protective service is trying their hand at damage countrol.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

once a flight attendant said "there are air marshalls on the plane, and they are aware of the situation" then, to me, this woman needs to chill the fuck out and let it go.

Depending on how the the flight attendant said it, that comment has the potential to make somebody even more nervous. If somebody is already in a panicked state, that comment may 'confirm' their fears.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I am 100% IN FAVOR of racial profiling. However, I also believe in watching everyone else who is acting suspiciously/erratically as well. If Jacobsen was that much of a distraction, then she should be watched just as closely - IF NOT MORE CLOSELY.

Outside of this one "unamed source", no one said she was disruptive. Not the air marshalls, flight attendants or other passengers. So, my guess is she was a little worried and pulled the flight attendents over a few times to make sure they saw what she did. Perfectly normal and what I would expect a "worrisome" person to do if 14 Syrians boarded a flight and acted a little odd in a post-9/11 world.

If she was that frantic or that much a distraction, I would guess that atleast one of the flight attendents, pilots or passengers would have mentioned it after the AP story ran.

[Blackadar]

Don't count on it, Arles. I'll just leave it at that...

[Arles]

Again, look at the chronology. The lady comes out with her story. Two AP sources do an initial follow up talking to a pilot, flight attendent and other passenger from that flight and no mention of the lady as "distracting" occurs.

Then, this story gets legs and all kinds of press. Suddenly, an "unnamed source" appears out of nowhere to debunk the whole thing and pass it off as the lady was just frantic and erratict. If I am with the Air marshalls or homeland security, I probably don't want another week of press on this potentially worrying even more passengers and maybe even causing a legit overreaction from fear on a future flight.

So, it makes sense to debunk the woman and alleviate everyone's fears. My point was that if this women was as much of a distraction as the source seems to indicate, why didn't the passengers/pilots/attendents of the flight that were later interviewed admit that?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Not yet. Does this make me unqualified? I'd dare say that given my background, I'm FAR more qualified to judge who or what is a threat than you are. That is unless you've spent more time in the intelligence community than I have. The chances of that are unlikely. My time was spent under William Webster.

Plus, basing the next attack from the profile of the last attack is a horrid misjudgement and very shortsighted. It's easy to prepare for that scenario. It's the one you don't expect that's the difficult job. Not only thinking of it, but getting people to realize it's credible and preparing for it.

I simply asked a question. If I thought it made you unqualified I would have said so.

You're probably right though - determining where the next attack will come from based on who's attacked in the past isn't really going to help. It's not like there is a history of Islamic fundamentalists trying to attack this country. There was just the Beirut Barracks in 1983, the first WTC attack in 1993, Embassy bombings in 1998, USS Cole in 2000. Nope, no reason to be more concerned about the 14 syrians with passports from a country that hosts such peaceful organizations as Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Arles

I was thinking about this again. And I think an actual example may help here. Let's say we know that nearly all of the prior airline terrorists over the past 30 years had a tattoo of a sun on their right bicep. Would people have a big problem with stopping or atleast checking people that had that same tattoo before boarding a plane?

I mean, I'm sure there are a ton of non-terrorists out there with that same tattoo. Yet, I would also bet that most here would have no problem with that type of a policy and probably consider it good police tactics.

Now, by no means does this amount to ignoring everyone without the tattoo. But, I think it's safe to say that putting a great deal of more scrutiny on the people with that tattoo is in the best interest of the safety of all passengers - even though many people in that group will be completely innocent.

While I completely understand what you are saying, I think the analogy is a bit off for the following reason. Its one thing to have a tattoo to align yourself with a specific group, and quite another to be born into a specific group. These people can't help that they were born Syrian or have olive skin, but a person can help getting a revealing tattoo that shows their with a terrorist group. I think the two instances are different enough to distinguish between correct and incorrect means of profiling.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I simply asked a question. If I thought it made you unqualified I would have said so.

You're probably right though - determining where the next attack will come from based on who's attacked in the past isn't really going to help. It's not like there is a history of Islamic fundamentalists trying to attack this country. There was just the Beirut Barracks in 1983, the first WTC attack in 1993, Embassy bombings in 1998, USS Cole in 2000. Nope, no reason to be more concerned about the 14 syrians with passports from a country that hosts such peaceful organizations as Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

You probably need to limit this to airplane related terrorist events. Otherwise, you have to consider Oklahoma City, the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, etc. And if you consider all of those, I'm not sure the race or ethnicity gets us anywhere. Limiting it to airplane hijackings (as I believe Arles did earlier) and I think your point is valid.

[Passacaglia]

Pumpy - The story says "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." This implies that the air marshals must have thought Jacobsen was with working with the 14 syrians to distract them.

I don't get it. It sounds like they're taking a situation (a woman causing a disturbance) and seeing how it relates to the potential threat (the Syrians). What's the problem?

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I am 100% IN FAVOR of racial profiling. However, I also believe in watching everyone else who is acting suspiciously/erratically as well. If Jacobsen was that much of a distraction, then she should be watched just as closely - IF NOT MORE CLOSELY.

So you are saynig that if she was there to act as a distraction, theyshould have watched her even more closely. Thus allowing her to become that distraction that she was planned on being and taking the focus off whatever was really going on (in the case that she was meant to be a decoy).

GOing back to the football analogy. It's like seenig an offensive team lineup in the same formation that they have always passed from with a fullback who has 2 carries in 10 games in the backfield and having your team totally commit to stopping the run, hence allowing the play-action to work.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by digamma

You probably need to limit this to airplane related terrorist events. Otherwise, you have to consider Oklahoma City, the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph, etc. And if you consider all of those, I'm not sure the race or ethnicity gets us anywhere. Limiting it to airplane hijackings (as I believe Arles did earlier) and I think your point is valid.

My point exactly. It's not just who, which Farrah's line of thought, it's how. We've been hit by cars. Boats. Planes. Trucks. Mail. And many others. We've been attacked by Middle-Eastern radicals. Philippineos. Good ole' Americans. South Americans. And many others.

No one is above suspicion. You can profile for likely suspects, but you just can't concentrate on ONLY those. Farrah, white women can be suspects too. Deal with it.

Not just that, you can't limit it to airplane hijackings. Take a guess what the last two airplane hijackings were involving the USA...

Give up?

Cubans. Yep, planes hijacked from Cuba and flown here.

So, no, you can't profile that easily.

[Maple Leafs]

I can't say I'm a huge fan of racial profiling. But is it possible to have the discussion without someone inevitably chiming in with this:

Originally Posted by Blackadar

2. Timothy McVeigh wasn't Middle-Eastern.

I'm not picking on Blacky, because this comes up everytime the profiling discussion happens. At least he resisted the urge to go into the "Let's profile all white males" routine.

Look, Oklahoma City was a terrible tragedy, but if you think all terrorism is the same, with the same root causes and the same corrective actions, you're just not taking the issue very seriously.

[Blackadar]

Would you have preferred Eric Rudolph?

[Dutch]

Hey, we liked to profile the Germans as the bad guys in WWII Europe. Sure we could have spent equal portions of the Allied Assault on Romania and Bulgaria to be more PC, but amazingly, when the "profiled" Germans fell, the rest of the bunch fell too.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Hey, we liked to profile the Germans as the bad guys in WWII Europe. Sure we could have spent equal portions of the Allied Assault on Romania and Bulgaria to be more PC, but amazingly, when the "profiled" Germans fell, the rest of the bunch fell too.

I'll give this what it deserves.

[Desnudo]

I appreciate that they were keeping tabs on everyone on the plane. The story says they were checking the bathrooms after the musicians exited. What else should they be doing? Kneecapping the musicians, just in case? Cuff them to prevent them from waving to each other? Does anyone else think that the fact that no one said anything about the woman possibly overeacting on the flight indicates that maybe no one else thought the whole incident was newsworthy?

I agree with Blackadar that solely focusing our energy on Arab males 18-45 is likely to result in disaster. The Homeland Security Dept. recently warned that Al Qaeda could attempt to use more European looking people, including women, to better avoid suspicion. All it takes is one. And they certainly are capable if you remember back to the 80s and the days of the Red Brigade and other groups. With resentment of the US building everywhere abroad, I wouldn't want our agents to overlook anyone.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I'm not picking on Blacky, because this comes up everytime the profiling discussion happens. At least he resisted the urge to go into the "Let's profile all white males" routine.

Look, Oklahoma City was a terrible tragedy, but if you think all terrorism is the same, with the same root causes and the same corrective actions, you're just not taking the issue very seriously.

the way I read this, you are actually backing up what Blacky is saying.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

With resentment of the US building everywhere abroad, I wouldn't want our agents to overlook anyone.

abroad AND at home.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No one is above suspicion. You can profile for likely suspects, but you just can't concentrate on ONLY those. Farrah, white women can be suspects too. Deal with it.

And which of those attackers you listed are white women? Let alone white women traveling with their families? None that I recall. So the only suspicious activity of Jacobsen was that she witnessed suspicious activity by 14 middle eastern men and was trying to get someone to do something about it? Yes, that is indeed something that would make me suspect her. I guess when government officials ask us to be vigilant, its only lip service? When someone actually tries to do something about it, well then they become a suspect.

Not just that, you can't limit it to airplane hijackings. Take a guess what the last two airplane hijackings were involving the USA...

Give up?

Cubans. Yep, planes hijacked from Cuba and flown here.

If I recall, once those planes reached Florida the only demands of those hijackers were asylumn. Their goal wasn't the destruction of every man, woman and child in the US.

Yet, there are organizations sponsored by countries like Syria whose only mission is to kill "infidels" and "zionists". I think people from those countries should be scrutinzed more closely. To not is just dangerous.

[duckman]

Here is something to consider:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jul16.html

Al Qadea Recruiting Non-Arabs, FBI Says

WASHINGTON IN BRIEF


Al Qaeda may be recruiting non-Arabs less likely to attract the notice of security personnel to carry out attacks inside the United States, the FBI warned yesterday.

The terrorist network especially seeks operatives who have U.S. citizenship or legal residency status, the FBI's counterterrorism division said in its weekly bulletin to 18,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide.

"Finding operatives with U.S. status would greatly facilitate al Qaeda's ability to carry out an attack within the United States," the bulletin said.

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

So now who's to say that a white female terrorist couldn't board a plane? There are several white people who are sympathizers of Al Qaeda that could be used in terrorist attacks on our country. Air Marshalls need to watch anyone who could be possible terrorist threat on an airliner despite their skin color. So if Jacobson was causing a panic on the aircraft, I would keep an eye on her too.