Discrimination Suits Hit Four Airlines

[Visceral]

I was watching the Discovery channel one night, and I think the the Brits have a far better way of dealing with this than the way we are currently doing it. The program said certain terminals in Heathrow use facial scanners that access databases of known threats to look for trouble. Supposedly it can recognize features even through disguises. Since it seems we (CIA) knew about many of these guys before Sep 11, this technology had huge potential in identifying them when they entered the airports. Much more so than Joe Schmo. Brit Pilot, I don't argue with you when you say the crews should not be screened like they are. But for all else, if you are innocent, the technology makes more sense to me.

 

[pilot141]

Ok, late jumping into the discussion but here it goes:

TWADude: I agree with what you say, but some of these lawsuits are being brought by the ACLU and NOT the plaintiff (ie the Secret Service guy who got denied boarding [rightly, in my opinion] in Baltimore), is not party to this suit, but since he's of Arab descent the ACLU has taken up his cause. And, of course, everything gets blown out of proportion. Two weeks after Sep 11th some flight attendant is nervous about two guys getting on her flight. She raises the flag, the captain says "prove they're OK", the paperwork is slow to arrive, and the flight is approaching push-back time. Instead of delaying hundreds of passengers the captain elects to leave these two men behind and leave on time. The men are put on the next flight after proof arrives that they are not terrorists. This is the basis for the lawsuits.
If these guys are entitled to anything its a $300 pass on whatever airline they missed their flight on - and nothing more.

As for the application of resources debate, I think there is definite room for improvement. Remember when the TSA first actually took over security and told AA, DAL, CAL, UAL and others that "special" (read: "shorter lines") checkpoints for premium passengers violated some imagined law? Is that the same law that says a $1,500 first class seat should be the same as a $99 super-saver seat? For some really interesting reading and an actual new, amazing perspective on this, go to:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27846

No plugs here, just a new view on what we're all discussing here.

BTW, TWADude, I got bumped from the 727 to the MD-80 as well.

Long live the Mad Dog! (Not!)

 

[waka]

Juicy string. I have to go with the ACLU. There was absoltuely no justification for ejecting these folks from the plane. It is apparent that emotions, not logic, drove the crew's decisions.

TWA Dude and Viceral couldn't have said it better.

 

[Snoop]

Visceral...

Sorry about the names, but McVeigh was an oddity. The MAJORITY of terrorist acts were perpetrated by men of MIDDLE EASTERN descent. Therefore, to profile tourists and immigrants that fit this is **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** reasonable. I may have gone a bit far with letting the government do whatever comment, I would rather have someone thrown off a plane that my mom is on than have some whimpering ACLU keep him on and fly the **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** plane into a building. My passengers have rights, and none of them involve killing them.

 

[dav8or]

Hey I've always wanted to be a NBA star, anyone got the ACLU's # I think I have a case.

 

[TWA Dude]

TWADude: I agree with what you say, but some of these lawsuits are being brought by the ACLU and NOT the plaintiff (ie the Secret Service guy who got denied boarding [rightly, in my opinion] in Baltimore), is not party to this suit, but since he's of Arab descent the ACLU has taken up his cause. And, of course, everything gets blown out of proportion.

141: There's no doubt that the Secret Service guy got hot in the collar and deserved to get booted, yet it was his Arab appearance that arroused "suspicion" in the first place. I also agree that the ACLU does blow things out of proportion sometimes and also goes for high-profile cases leaving the little guys behind -- as if the right-wingers are any different.

To no one in particular:
We need to keep our eye on the big picture here. We all know that most of the terrorism today is Arab or Muslim but that doesn't justify what amounts to collective punishment, which is a war crime. If one wishes to be supicious of Arabs on their plane then go right on ahead; keep an eye on them. But before booting them off try to use the same standards we used before 9/11. Whatever security profiling is to take place needs to be done before they board. Even El Al has to let suspicious pax on board when they can find nothing bad in their records -- but then they just put a marshall nearby. We do need to improve our security measures but we need to be smart and not emotional.

 

[trigeek]

While I don't agree with booting a passenger off just because they appear to be of Middle Eastern descent, I am certainly in favor of profiling. Like it or not, there IS a pattern here.

Side note; as for turbins, I see many more Indians and Pakistanis wearing turbins than I do Saudi's, Iraqi's, or Iranians. Gross generalizations out of ignorance will get any of us in trouble very quickly. How many on this board truly know the difference between an Iraqi, Iranian, or a Saudi? There are signifigant differences. Food for thought.

And for the record, I'm just a redneck from Texas.