Zach D.

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Part II:

As for that rule about not searching more than two Arab males - that seems ridiculous. I would hope that is not the case.

Here is how I would run things:

You have ten arab guys with syrian passports who are boarding a plane. Then you pick them and 10 other passengers and do a secondary search on 20 people. Could anyone claim discrimination if this was how it was done? Maybe, but it seems to me it would be good CYA on the airline’s part.

Also, if you have to go through a secondary search (and it looks as though you are not a terrorist) - you should get something extra - like say a free ice cream cone from TCBY and a copy of the wall street journal, Vogue, People, or Teen People. Then people aren’t so up in arms about being searched.

All in all I don’t know if it’s so much a case of security vs. political correctness or security vs. convenience at our airports.

I do find that foreigners would not be searched more thourougly wrong.. there is a big difference in them searching say, my manager, who is a big Iranian guy but who has lived in the US most of his life and has credentials and 14 guys fresh of the boat (plane) from Syria who are all traveling together on Syrian passports.

One more thing - no one in any of the threads I read had anything like this to say, and that is perhaps the outcome of this ‘dry run’ was a complete success for US - maybe these guys came away with the thought - there is no way we can do this - the passengers were on to us, the crew was on to us, and probably air marshals were on to us and now they are trailing us around the world..

Worst case - it’s all a diversion. The next terrorist attack will sadly (and I would hope to be wrong) be more devious than the last, - maybe not as catastrophic - and probably not on an airliner - how about suicide bombers sky diving from a small plane on to targets? Or a guy on a motorcycle full of explosives driving in to the ny stock exhange? Sounds ridiculous but I think terrorists will do something incredibly sneaky that most people haven’t even considered. They would love to blow up LAX but probably as likely from the ground as from the air.

I dunno. I’ve thought about it enough for this morning. I have little else to do so I am catching up on all the blogs.

Zach D.

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

That’s interesting and scary stuff, Bill.

First, the author makes a lot of statements that lead things off in random directions. The whole question of whether they were really a band or not - what does it matter? They got on a plane, they acted suspicious. Maybe they were a band - could a band not also be terrorists? It’s ridiculous to think that if they were a band then they would be clear of being terrorists or if they were not a band that they were definately terrorists.

Next, a sure fire way to allow another catastrophic event to happen is to only be suspicious of Middle Eastern Men age 20 to 50. With this style of ‘improvised bomb’ - do you think one of the terrorists would try and carry on the active explosive - or do you think they might slip it in your grandma’s purse and then recover it when they had the rest of the device assembled?

This reaction to scrutinize only a certain profile could be disasterous. EVERYONE should be scrutinized. EVERY suspicious activity should be monitored. EVERY suspicious bag should be checked.

Next - was this scary situation handled well? It is strange that the pilot or flight attendants would not make annoucements that people could not congregate around the rest rooms but perhaps they were in ‘terrorist’ mode where they are trained to let flight marshals handle things one suspicious activity if detected. Do you really want your friendly flight attendants to be the first to challenge terrorists on your flight? “Excuse me sir, I’m going to have to ask you to take your seat now.” “By the great Allah I must say NO!”.

As far as what happened to these 14 guys after they were questioned - if our feds are doing their jobs then those 14 guys were tracked, traced, surveiled - of course the feds are not going to say ‘have no fear, we have 20 men tracking, tracing, and surveiling the 14 suspicious men.. we have the dogs on 6 of them now and they are starting to talk’.

Billy

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

The reason I think the “band theory” is important is because the NY Times
concluded that “what really happened” is these guys were simply in a band–case closed. Yet this conclusion has largely been debunked. So the case isn’t at all closed. Part of the larger story is that the mainstream media has slept on this… Right now CNN.com is sporting a headline about Britney Spear’s fiance.

But you’re totally right–if they were in a band, does that rule out that they might also be up to no good? An interesting angle.

In her follow-up (the Part II link) she realizes that the flight attendants did handle the situation appropriately and goes on to publish comments from pilots, etc.

Your points about the Feds, the diversion possibility, and the notion that this may have been a dry run and the result was that they thought “we can’t pull this off”, etc.– all valid and worth consideration.

The goal is that this incident is investigated–again it is not being covered, as far as I can tell, thoroughly in the mainstream press. Perhaps they’re hart at work on cracking it. If not, why not?

The Salon piece, while well-written, was disingenous and missed big time. These people (and 95% of the American population that would have reacted in a similar fashion) were not mindlessly hysterical, racist, ultra-neurotic, etc. As she said, just last month she was in a Muslim village in India working on a story–hardly your average jingoist….

Of course there are reactionary bigots out there, but I also feel that reasonable, intelligent, well-meaning people should be able to discuss the civil liberties vs. security dynamic without fear of being labeled a racist or ugly American. (I think the Salon article was counter-productive here…)

Zach D.

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

I keep thinking of these 14 guys in detention at the airport and the feds making them get out their instruments and run through a song or two… and the chief wiggums says, “You boys are pretty good.. not exactly my thing but you’re alright. You’re free to go”.

I see what you are saying as to why we would not hear about this at all in the media.. on Fox News this morning I was half way listening as they blurted out each new story and the gist of one of them was that someone, somewhere in the US, set of a pipe bomb. They showed a picture of a house with a mailbox. And that was it, that was the whole story in about 25 seconds.
You would think they would be all over this Syrian Jug Band story.

Wouldn’t you hope that one person who was sitting next to one of the 14 guys would just ask, “Hey, how come all you guys keep going to the bathroom? What’s going on?”.

three

Thursday, July 22, 2004

At least we know it really was a band:

http://nationalreview.com/comment/taylor200407211921.asp

and a funny looking one at that:

http://hometown.aol.com/musicaxis/mehana.htm

And for better or worse, this Jacobsen lady with the funny glasses has prompted America to have a healthy, if not heated and sometimes hateful, discussion about how we feel towards groups of arab men congregating around airplane bathrooms. Personally I get embarressed (maybe for the person’s lack of awareness) when people of any ethnicity, gender or religion get up to use the the cramped bathroom as the plane is obviously about to land. Just feel bad for the people that they don’t know the routine. Is that political correctness? Or maybe just my lack of social skills rendering me not very helpful?

Billy

Thursday, July 22, 2004

A few months ago a rumor was going around Austin that our beloved governor had been cheating on his wife. The rumor spread, and even pols in Washington were excited. I was skeptical at first but after reading the blogs and talking to people plugged in to state politics (from both sides of the fence), I thought, “looks like this has legs…” The story finally hit the front page of the Statesman, Perry denied everything, and that was it. The ruomor was BS. It was anticlimactic and a little disappointing! I felt a bit guilty.

So our 14 guys are musicians. I have this strange feeling they will soon be back Stateside and performing on Leno or Letterman. I plan to atone by looking for a Nour Mehana CD at Waterloo. But I have admit that if I’m on a plane and a situation like this occurs, I’ll still probably pee in my pants.

Zach D.

Thursday, July 22, 2004

Billy, I wouldn’t feel so bad, even though the ladie’s story was painted by her own fear and hysterics the bits of facts that she mentioned - that other passengers were crying, that the flight attendents were scared, that feds ran to the plane on the ground - those bits give her story ‘legs’ if you ask me and the fact they they really were a band doesn’t make their activities any less scary and or innapropriate..

I have mulled over some possibilities for what they might have been doing that was suspicious.. maybe they had to play that same night and all took turns going in to the lav to do some coke? Maybe they took turns praying and the lav was the only place they could face east? Who knows. Someone should have asked what they were doing.

Another funny thing is where the lady said one guy came out and ran his finger across his throat and said “No” to the other guy. I think that is the international sign for ‘don’t go in their bro-bro, let it air out, that paneer did a number on me.”

Brian Noel

Friday, July 23, 2004

great point about the finger across the neck not being the universal sign for a smelly doodie. Bill, you shouldnt feel guilty for being curious about these guys. Look, like a number of readers have already mentioned, there is still no explination for the orchestrated bathroom visits. There is still no explination for the odd bathroom routine. Maybe this lady was overreacting, but I dont think so. I find it highly unlikely that everyone in the band is going to have to use the john at the same time. The fear these passenger felt is not a result of racism, BUT good ol’ common sense!!

Billy

Saturday, July 24, 2004

Terrorists attempt fresh wave of US hijackings

“Devastating new evidence has emerged that terrorists are preparing another attack on the United States, with air marshals and flight crews reporting a series of dry runs for attacks on aircraft in mid-air.

At least two flights are thought to have been targeted so far by groups of Middle Eastern men who appear to be forming a plan of attack.

On one flight an air marshal reportedly broke into an onboard toilet to find that a mirror had been removed and that a Middle Eastern man was trying to break through a wall to the cockpit…”

“In another incident, the Washington Times revealed, a flight attendant reported a passenger using a long lens to take photographs of the cockpit door.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that Islamic militants had found a new way to circumvent security systems at airports. Instead of trying to take bombs onto aircraft, they would place the components on board, which they can then assemble in mid-flight.

Security sources told newspapers that the tactic had already been tried out, again in dry-run form, on flights between the Middle East, North Africa and western Europe.”

Zach D.

Saturday, July 24, 2004

So, putting the two stories together.. with the report of a person taking pictures of the cockpit door.. and the “band” quote unquote as I will henceforth refer to them as having been reported to have carried cameras in to the bathroom as well… I would maybe conclude these guys were on a ‘fact finding mission’. They might not be terrorists themselves, just guys who are helping terrorists, which I guess makes them terrorists if that’s what they were doing. Nothing has to be so black and white. I don’t know if I buy the report of a guy trying to burrow through the wall though. Check behind the mirror to see if there was storage space - maybe. I’ve always assumed the must have a camera behind those mirrors. But I assume that about most mirrors. And that there’s a tracking device under my left pinky fingernail.

Robert Taylor

Saturday, July 24, 2004

I read an article in the Dallas Morning News today that said 13 of the Syrian Musicians were in the country with expired visas. They were here illegally! The government had them in hand at LAX and…. LET THEM GO! 13 folks from the same part of the world that gave us the 9/11 terrorist and the government didn’t care that they were here illegally. What’s with this Homeland Security? Is this just window dressing to get Bush re-elected?

three

Saturday, July 24, 2004

Look, I want this country to be ready for attack because the threat is real. But, I don’t think being alarmist to the point of easily inciting hysteria is the right attitude. Especially, when the facts can’t be verified beyond anonymous air marshal source. Billy, this most recent article you cited seems to be an odd mix of previous Jacobsen claims coupled with 9/11 commission quotes. I mean don’t you find it strange that in recounting the story of Jacobsen’s flight they don’t mention that it was a verified band playing a casino? It may just be the scotsman summary analysis of other news stories, albeit certainly out-of-context in some places. For instance it seems to mostly draw from this story in the Washington Times:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040721-101403-1508r.htm

What can you say about an article that reports such significant information about potential terrorist probes, but only quotes anonymous sources? If a potential terrorist was burrowing through the wall into a cockpit this is a serious story. Why doesn’t this thing have legs beyond the Washington Times?

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Washington_Times

Billy

Sunday, July 25, 2004

Part I
Three, I?d like to address your comments. First of all, I agree that the Scotsman piece was largely parroting other stories and the Washington Times? findings did not supply rock-solid evidence in regard to the mirror incident. Still, it adds to a mounting case for the possibility of an attempted hijacking/bombing happening in the near future.

And what is the basis for this claim?

1) US intelligence stated on July 8 that arrests of terror suspects in Europe has resulted in new information about a plot to disrupt our November elections, possibly in a Madrid model of attack.

2)According to today?s London Telegraph (subscription-only? I used Lexis-Nexis) eight days after Annie Jacobsen?s flight, “customs officers at Minneapolis arrested a Syrian who was carrying a suicide note and DVDs containing what has been described as ?anti-American material.?”

3) According to the same Telegraph article, hours before flight 327 departed, the “Department of Homeland Security had issued an urgent alert at half a dozen airports for a group of six Pakistani men believed to be training for a terrorist attack in the US. Two of those airports were Detroit and Los Angeles.” (flight 327 left Detroit and arrived in LA)

4) The US Transportation Security Administration issued a warning in February that teams of five may be planning suicide missions on commercial jetliners possibly using “common travel items, such as cameras, modified as weapons,” according to a February 18 story in The Guardian (specifically Manchester Guardian Weekly).

5) The article also states, “Officials in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere are believed to have warned that at least 12 dry runs may have been completed and to have said that the terrorists intend to try out their plans on flights around the Mediterranean and the Middle East before trying to target a transatlantic flight, where precautions are strict. Militants know individual components are easier to smuggle through airport security than an assembled bomb.”

Billy

Sunday, July 25, 2004

Part II
6.) A growing body of stories, allegations, and observations of unusual activities aboard recent flights. Such as:

A. The arguably erratic behavior of the Syrian musicians on flight 327.
B. The mirror incident.
C. A flight attendant claiming to see a man using a long lens to photograph the cockpit door.
D. Commercial airliner pilots, such as Gary Boettcher, who is a member of the board of directors of the Allied Pilots Association, saying he and other pilots had witnessed similar practices runs.

A skeptical, open-minded, and critical thinker will agree that when you look at what we do know for certain (9/11, Madrid, Bali, car/caf?/bus bombings, world anger toward our occupation of Iraq, US acquiescence to Sharon’s hard-line policies, etc.) and you mix in the above points, it would be foolish not to be alarmed. Is it “inciting hysteria” to discuss the unfolding situation? At what point is it OK to let the public know about these incidents–if at all? Even if an Annie Jacobsen does overreact from time-to-time, what if the increased attentiveness prevents the deaths of 200 people? With our civil liberties and the desire to be culturally sensitive, what do we do with the knowledge that there is a threat?

A few related thoughts:

1. Our beacons of journalistic standards regularly cite unspecified sources. “A senior intelligence official” anybody? What about “an official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.”? Or maybe “A Democratic senator who attended the CIA and FBI briefing said…”, This practice is widespread and has been part of newsroom culture for years. This is harly exclusive to questionable publications like the Washington Times. Just check a recent issue of the Washington Post.

2. It is also worth noting that it was serial fabricator Jayson Blair at the New York Times who lied, distorted, and plagiarized in at least 36 (!!!) stories. Our skepticism should be directed at not just the Washington Times and Faux News (but OMG should we ever be skeptical about Fox), but unfortunately also at the best out there.

three

Monday, July 26, 2004

PART I: First, I’d like to point out that I don’t discount that a terrorist attack involving an airplane is unlikely. In fact, I think from the hard evidence we do have, 9/11, it easily makes it into the top 3 potential methods of attack, if not at the very top. However, I’m skeptical that any “mounting” evidence has been provided that an attack will occur in the “near future”. Specifically I take issue with the Jacobsen article and the follow-on coverage. In fact your last thoughts regarding the media coverage of this topic only proves my point. You’re correct - our skepticism should be directed well beyond the Washington Times and Fox News. It should include every report issued from every quarter. I mentioned the Washington Times only because they decided to pick Jacobsen’s ball up and run with it. They were one of the first large publications to give the story legs. So I singled them out. But, more importantly there is Jacobsen’s story. A story written from the first-hand perspective of fear. Not an unbiased account of the experience. Why is this troubling? She made the accusation that this group of Syrians were not a band, but terrorists. She wasn’t even the person to seek out and report the facts on this group of inviduals. Somebody fired up Google and did that for us. However, she made plenty of time to discuss the issue of “probing” with Gary Boettcher of the Allied Pilots Association (a group that only represent American Airlines). And this is from a guy who was at the forefront of a move to arm pilots. Wouldn’t he be more than eager to embellish the security threat on the planes if this is one of his initiatives? Her first-hand fear, that she has no trouble recounting for the television audience, is what drove her piece, not a journalistic pursuit of the facts.

Regardless, in a testament to the power of the internet, the story was bubbled up to the mainstream media by widespread blog coverage. By itself this is not a bad thing. It’s absolutely healthy for the nation to discuss these things - especially as it relates to the concept of political correctness. However, we should discuss all this in the context of confirmed and substantiated facts. I think we can agree that unless this is the case, the national dialogue is clouded. And all this brings us back to the media.

three

Monday, July 26, 2004

damn, should’ve previewed that last part

three

Monday, July 26, 2004

Part II: We’ve already discussed the Washington Times article. How about the Telegraph article (google is the poor man’s lexis-nexis)? Again most of what they have provided is nothing more than Jacobsen’s and follow-up”>orginal and follow-up articles recycled. Your point #2 found in the Telegraph is taken from her follow-up. And point #3, again taken from the Telegraph article, is in reference to this CBS News report. And although it does in fact mention those airports, it also says “Sources say there is no hard intelligence connecting the Pakistani camps to any imminent threat against the U.S.” Although both of these points are disturbing by themselves, they don’t prove the “dry run” allegation Jacobsen made about her flight. Honestly, can we say that the Telegraph brings any clarity to the circumstances surrounding flight 327? Nope. Certainly it provides some context for the airplane terrorism discussion, but so do many other events. I believe the headline of the Telegraph article is “Was an al-Qaeda plot unfolding on Northwest Airlines flight 327?” Recycling Jacobsen’s information doesn’t do much to help them or us answer that question.

I agree that in a time when our Homeland Security Department issues ambiguous terror warnings (point #1), even as most recently when they admit to having no new information, an open-mind would put all these things together and be concerned. Recently I did the same thing when the terror alert was announced and a week before a discussion had begun in regards to postponing the election in the event of a terrorist event. My open mind put things together. I guess what disturbs me is that the source of all this discussion is Jacobsen’s two articles, both written from a place of fear. One of which concludes that politcal correctness is the enemy. So to me Jacobsen did more than remind us to consider seriously the terrorist threat in the skies, she reminded us that rationality can easily be demonized as political correctness.

three

Monday, July 26, 2004

I lost myself.

I agree that people should not allowed to act suspiciously on an airline flight.

I’d just like to add (I think this was my entire point above) that people should not get away with calling other people terrorists when they in fact were not, especially when they are given a given a national platform to recount first-hand stories of suspicious activity as fact.

What’s it w/ parachuters anyway? Remember this 4th of July in Austin they had some parachuter break his legs. Enough with the parachutes.

Zach

Monday, July 26, 2004

Damn, I think you lost me.

People should not be allowed to act suspiciously on an airline flight.

guarding against the parachute threat:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/3576759/detail.html

Zach D.

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

OK, now I understand. I think she had enough facts to recount the story. It’s true she turned it in to a ’scary story’ and quoted Anne Coulter which brings a tone of hatefullness to any tale. She did some research and found similar flights where similar people were taking turns going to the can.

She deserved some backlash for her tone maybe, but I think it was good that she came forward with the story.

Question for journalistic types here: Could someone not find other passengers aboard the flight? There had to be hundreds right? Where is their story?

moses

Thursday, July 29, 2004

I heard on a conservative radio talk show that a small town reporter discovered, after the fact, that all of the visas for the band members were expired. I find this difficult to believe, given the relatively high profile this incident has received….can anyone confirm this?