Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Arab Hijackers Now Eligible to Pre-board

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

Dennis Miller

What about my Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2003
Posts
200
Thu Apr 29, 6:21 PM ET

By Ann Coulter

In June 2001, as Mohammed Atta completed his final "to do" list before the 9/11 attacks ("... amend will to ban women from my funeral ... leave extra little Friskies out for Mr. Buttons ... set TiVo for Streisand on 'Inside the Actors' Studio' ..."), Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was conducting a major study on whether airport security was improperly screening passengers based on ethnicity. As Mineta explained: "We must protect the civil rights of airline passengers." Protecting airline passengers from sudden death has never made it onto Mineta's radar screen.

A few months later, after 19 Muslim men hijacked U.S. airplanes and turned them into weapons of mass destruction on American soil, Mineta was a whirlwind of activity. On Sept. 21, as the remains of thousands of Americans lay smoldering at Ground Zero, Mineta fired off a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from implementing the one security measure that would have prevented 9/11: subjecting Middle Eastern passengers to an added degree of pre-flight scrutiny. He sternly reminded the airlines that it was illegal to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin, or religion.

Mineta would have sent the letter even sooner, but he wanted to give the airlines enough time to count the number of their employees and customers who had just been murdered by Arab passengers.

On Sept. 27, 2001, The ACLU sent out a press release titled, "ACLU Applauds Sensible Scope of Bush Airport Security Plan," which narrowly won out over the headline: "Fox Approves Henhouse Security Plan." As a rule of thumb, any security plan approved by the ACLU puts American lives at risk. ACLU Associate Director Barry Steinhardt praised Bush's Transportation Department for showing "an admirable degree of restraint by not suggesting airport security procedures that would deny civil liberties as a condition of air travel." The ACLU had zeroed in on the true meaning of 9/11: Americans needed to be more tolerant of and sensitive toward ethnic minorities.

Flush with praise from the ACLU, Mineta set to work suing airlines for removing passengers perceived to be of Arab, Middle Eastern or Southeast Asian descent, and/or Muslim. If we're going to start shifting money around based on who's rude to whom, my guess is Muslims are going to end up in the red. But that's not how Mineta's Department of Transportation sees it.

Despite Mineta's clearly worded letter immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and another follow-up letter in October, the Department of Transportation found that in the weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks carried out by Middle Eastern men, the airlines were targeting passengers who appeared to be Middle Eastern. To his horror, Mineta discovered that the airlines were using logic and deductive reasoning to safeguard their passengers -- in direct violation of his just-issued guidelines on racial profiling!

The Department of Transportation filed a complaint against United Airlines, claiming United removed passengers from flights in "a few instances" based on their race, color, national origin, religion or ancestry. Mineta gave United no credit for so scrupulously ignoring ethnicity on Sept. 11 that it lost four pilots, 12 flight attendants, and 84 passengers (not including the nine Arab hijackers). In November 2003, United settled the case for $1.5 million.

In another crucial anti-terrorism investigation undertaken by Norman Mineta, the Department of Transportation claimed that between Sept. 11, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2001, American Airlines -- which lost four pilots, 13 flight attendants and 129 passengers (not including 10 Arab hijackers) on Sept. 11 by ignoring the ethnicity of its passengers -- removed 10 individuals who appeared to be Middle Eastern from American Airline flights as alleged security risks. On March 1, 2004, American Airlines settled the case for $1.5 million.

The Department of Transportation also charged Continental Airlines with discriminating against passengers who appeared to be Arab, Middle Eastern or Muslim after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In April 2004, Continental Airlines settled the complaint for $500,000.

Like many of you, I carefully reviewed the lawsuits against the airlines in order to determine which airlines had engaged in the most egregious discrimination, so I could fly only that airline. But oddly, rather than bragging about the charges, the airlines heatedly denied discriminating against Middle Eastern passengers. What a wasted marketing opportunity! Imagine the great slogans the airlines could use:

"Now Frisking All Arabs -- Twice!"

"More Civil Rights Lawsuits Brought by Arabs Than Any Other Airline!"

"The Friendly Skies -- Unless You're an Arab"

"You Are Now Free to Move About the Cabin -- Not So Fast, Mohammed!"

Worst of all, the Department of Transportation ordered the settlement money to be spent on civil rights programs to train airline staff to stop looking for terrorists, a practice known as digging your own grave and paying for the shovel. Airlines that have been the most vigilant against terrorism are forced by the government into re-education seminars to learn to suppress common sense. Airlines are being forced, at their own expense, to make commercial air travel more dangerous.

If John Kerry would promise to fire Norman Mineta and start racial profiling at the airports, I would campaign for him. Unfortunately, like George Bush, Kerry doesn't travel commercial air with the little people.
 
Right on the money!!! It's a cotton-pickin shame that one can't call a spade a spade here. We're endangering ourselves to try and appease a people (and ACLU) that will hate us no matter what policy the airlines use--politcally correct or not!

Load factors would probably increase if some of your suggested slogans were used.

Keep up the common sense Dennis.
 
Time to pay the piper

Seems like you would be ahead to discrimintate and pay the fine.

If a crash costs 1.5 billion and discrimination is only a couple of million, you do the math.

American and Delta did the same thing in the 90's when their pilot "quotas" weren't being met.
 
Yeah right on lets do that! Lets keep out of the cockpit any of the groups that have been represented at some point by a terrorist act. That will definitely keep us safe!...


But wait: Wasn't that timothy Mc something guy your average white american? Born and raised? MMMhhh, well, let's screen all those white americans trying to fly with us today. That will definitely keep us safer.

Don't be blind guys! Extra screening of middle Eastern "looking" people would not have saved any extra lifes that day. The attackers had no criminal records and the box cutters were harmless in our minds until after 9-11.
What would have stoped them that day? Perhaps if the crews would have had different training. However Training is the result of experience, and what happened that day was totally new. It was something nobody had imagined before and the crew were trained to obey the attackers to the extend they thought it was necesary to save the lifes of the passengers. Now we know that that didn't work.

Such extremist thoughts are the purpose of terrorist attacks. They slow us down as we loose trust in everyone and everything.
 
Its like the real Dennis Miller said, "14 of the 9-11 murderers were from the same country. I don't call that profiling, I call that being mildly observant."

Fact is, we are either going to have to get serious about protecting ourselves. Can you imagine how many people we are going to have to kill if they actually get a weapon of mass destruction set off on American soil?

When I write what is next, I'm not advocating anything, just something I'm hearing more and more. Unload a nuke or bio agent over here, and no 2 stones in Mecca are left on top of each other, plus we'll come take the oil. My point is just that if Muslim extremists accomplish their obvious goal, its WWIII and no more airline interviews to worry about.
 
A Captain I flew with recently had a similar idea. Let it be known to ALL Muslims that any nuclear or biological attack will result in the immediate destruction of Mecca, Medina and the Dome of the Rock (holiest mosque in Jerusalem) . . . and let it be known that the choice is theirs. . . . but that will be the consequence of their actions.

These "people" have no belief in the sanctity of life. Right or wrong, if you're a Muslim, you're OK, and if you're not, you deserve to die.

I also have to laugh about how the Arab world is up in arms about the humiliating things done to them while in custody, but it's OK to drag the severed, burned body parts of American soldiers through the street.

Hello??????????? Am I the only one who is outraged by this?

I am not in any way condoning the mistreatment of prisoners, but let's point out the obvious, huh?
 
Concur w/you Ty, having your picture taken while naked is humiliating, bad, ect, but I guess everyone in the media forgot what happened to those Americans a few weeks ago.
 
Ty Webb said:
I also have to laugh about how the Arab world is up in arms about the humiliating things done to them while in custody, but it's OK to drag the severed, burned body parts of American soldiers through the street.

Hello??????????? Am I the only one who is outraged by this?

H*ll no... I'm STILL of the mindset that we should set up perimeter camps with gunship air support, give the residents 36 hours to leave the city... THEN LEVEL IT. Reduce the area to glass with the biggest and hottest weapons we have available short of nuclear devices, then pick off the dissidents who have fled the city, provide aid to the NC's, and MAYBE rebuild their city when it's all over. Or we can let the French do the rebuilding part... ;)

It would provide the exact kind of example we need to set for these people - that there are levels of accepted acrimony in any confrontation, but they crossed the line when they dragged the burning bodies of our honored dead through the streets... I don't give a sh*t if the rest of the world would be happy or not - if they're not helping us fight the war or helping us retaliate against these acts, then they have waived their right to complain about how we fight it...

Either way, it needs to end. This political pus*yfooting around is exactly the kind of trouble this country got into before several decades ago...
 
islandhoper said:
Extra screening of middle Eastern "looking" people would not have saved any extra lifes that day.

Seems to work fine for El Al. It's the "lack" of extremist thoughts that provide for terrorist attacks. Someone once said "Desperate time call for desperate measures". As far as McVeigh, I'm all for extra checks for crew cut white guys renting Ryder trucks without furniture to move. The problem with this country is 30 years ago people rejoiced in the undercover work of two journalists to find out what Howard Hunt had for breakfast, but fast forward to today and people are screaming because someone is looking into what library book Ramzi El-Kaboom has checked out. That’s why I like Bush. You have two types of world leaders, you have the chess players who have to psycho analyze every move until the nuclear egg timer goes off. And you have the checkers players, like Bush. And every once in awhile you have to jump a punk.
 
Due to the high bran content in my cereal, I just finished taking a huge mohammed. I had a little trouble flushing the mecca.
 
vschip said:
Concur w/you Ty, having your picture taken while naked is humiliating, bad, ect, but I guess everyone in the media forgot what happened to those Americans a few weeks ago.

Okay, I'll bite...

I think the idea is, by taking pictures while naked, etc., we're showing that we're not much different than them. I'd like to hope we're better than this.
 
I usually refrain from "political" posts on FltInfo, but...while digging post holes yesterday my father pointed out that Iraqis turning into another Vietnam...in the eyes of the media.

There is one question everyone has to ask and answer in their own mind. Do you believe that there is a difference between the individuals we are fighting (a mixture of jihadis, Baathist dead-enders, Palestians, et al.) and us? If you don't, I doubt there is an argument that would convince you that we are at war with a significant portion of the Islamic world. And that is cold hard reality. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. That was established in the first days of the republic. Ergo we can take measures, as distasteful as they may be, to ensure the survival of constitution. And racial profiling, simply put, isn't as distasteful as pulling shattered bodies out of rubble.
 
$0.02....

I realize that across our land we believe in "innocent until proven guilty, etc." However, I find it odd that everytime I hear about a train station being bombed, an embassy being leveled or a cache of fertilizer and chemicals turning up in a residential apartment, it turns out to be radical middle eastern/north african Muslims. No two ways about it. It is not the radical blond haired, blue eyed Scandinavians, nor the pale Canadians, or the funny talking Australians.

Common sense tells me to keep my eye on these guys and be suspect of their actions. Spades are spades. Let's have the stones to say so.

EB
 
Re: $0.02....

Emerson Bigguns said:
I realize that across our land we believe in "innocent until proven guilty, etc." However, I find it odd that everytime I hear about a train station being bombed, an embassy being leveled or a cache of fertilizer and chemicals turning up in a residential apartment, it turns out to be radical middle eastern/north african Muslims. No two ways about it. It is not the radical blond haired, blue eyed Scandinavians, nor the pale Canadians, or the funny talking Australians.

Common sense tells me to keep my eye on these guys and be suspect of their actions. Spades are spades. Let's have the stones to say so.

EB

The problem isn't so much saying all terrorists are Middle-Eastern, it's saying all Middle-Easterners are terrorists.

It's a slippery slope. If we start racial profiling now, then what's next?

It could be said that everybody that bombed Pearl Harbor was Japanese, so we were justified in "keeping an eye" on all Japanese-Americans. We all know (hopefully) what happened next. I'm not suggesting that the government is going to start illegally taking land and putting individuals into internment camps, just that we have to be careful about overlooking constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.

Benjamin Franklin's quote is probably pretty trite by now, but it's one that I believe...

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 
"If we start racial profiling now, then what's next?"

I'll tell you:

If someone started to racial profile me, and caused me a bunch of heartache maybe I would go to those of my race and tell them to stop doing what they are doing to cause this. Its about time we made them mad at each other instead of being mad at us.

But if they get mad at us, at least we still are alive to see them mad as opposed to being dead from not profiling.
 
lurker - I agree. Not all middle-easterners or Muslims are terrorists. However are you ready to accept the consequences for inaction. What is your acceptible limit of damage before you begin to say that we must accept racial-profiling or other measures to ensure our safety.

Would 50,000 dead at 9/11 made a difference in people's views? What if a nuke goes off in the mainland? Does Ben Franklin's meaning of "temporary safety" change in such a case. In my opinion, that day is coming.

I would rather act now than to wait and have to tell the nay-sayers "I told you so."
 
Emerson Bigguns said:
lurker - I agree. Not all middle-easterners or Muslims are terrorists. However are you ready to accept the consequences for inaction. What is your acceptible limit of damage before you begin to say that we must accept racial-profiling or other measures to ensure our safety.

Would 50,000 dead at 9/11 made a difference in people's views? What if a nuke goes off in the mainland? Does Ben Franklin's meaning of "temporary safety" change in such a case. In my opinion, that day is coming.

I would rather act now than to wait and have to tell the nay-sayers "I told you so."

I'm not suggesting inaction. Perhaps just a more analytical approach to screening than making sweeping racist generalizations. I would like to hope that we're getting better at profiling potential terrorists without having to discriminate against an entire race.

I agree, much of the alleged profiling the TSA does now is nonsense, and largely for the sole appearance of safety. I know danm near every time I go through the airport I get the body cavity search because I almost invariably fit one or more of their criteria. However, I'd like to hope that it's moving in the right direction.

As somebody previously posted, racial profiling would not have stopped 9/11. They manipulated flaws in the system.

Incidentally, I find it very interesting that the same people on this board who frequently pound their chests about how this is the greatest danmed country on earth, and how everybody in the free world owes their liberty to the US of A, yada yada yada are the first people in line for racial profiling. It's like they don't get the fact that the reason that this country is great is because we don't (generally) make it policy to discriminate. Am I the only one seeing the irony? I'm talking a little out of my ass with what follows, but if you want racial profiling, I'm betting there's plenty in Iran, Pakistan, Russia, etc.

Anyway, I recognize I'm being a little idealistic, and that it's not a perfect world, but I'd like to hope that we don't have to stoop to discrimination to fix our security problems.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top