As a photography buff who travels with a lead bag to protect film in my carry on-- it strikes me odd that my bag is never searched. Anything could be in that lead bag.

To some extent, I think it depends on the airport.

I used to fly a lot televising sporting events and always carried a couple of stop watches and a headset with a spiral chord. You can imagine what that looked like on an X-Ray.

In Denver, I never was questioned -- they actually figured out that I was in TV in some cases and mentioned it.

In the smaller airports, though, my brief case always got searched.

DeltAlum, I think you hit the nail on the head - it depends on the airport. Some, I have no troubles at all. Others, I was searched (as in, just short of a prison-style search!) because I was wearing an underwire bra! There were so many remarks I wanted to make, but decided not to create a scene...!

I find it extremely interesting and curious about what happened the Imams. It hurts to see men become dehumanized. We will never know what was exactly said before they boarded the plane. Non-muslims often are fearful when they speak to Muslims about their faith. So it is conceivable that the other passengers became extremely fearful.

However, my conspiracy theorist gene is activated and I think since US Airways was attempting a hostile takeover Delta Airlines, that to buttress themselves against the takeover bid, Delta Airlines planted folks KNOWING that US Airways probably does "strip searches"...

Besides all the Airlines are probably planting folks who do buckwild things that would "offend" or "scare" the personnel into doing "thangs" beyond the US Constitutionally given rights... I.e. the breast feeding woman...

I do have 2 ironic stories about all of this drama on the plane:

1) One of 9-11 terrorists was a student in one of the classes I taught... He only showed up to one class. Apparently, he dropped it. It was Biology Lab 101.

2) My brother in law is former Atlanta PD. He was ready that if he saw funkiness on a plane, like 9-11, we was going to go sit next to homey and say "Wassup H----? It's on..." What was ironic, was on the show 24 on Fox, the "terrorist character's name" was the same as my brother IL said...

If it was just a matter of praying, that would be one thing, but there was a lot more to it. Witnesses say they were angry, and making anti-American statements before boarding the plane.

Once on board, they left their seats and sat in what is recognized as a pattern Al Qaieda uses to test the security of a plane-- blocking both the entrances and exits.

They also asked for seat belt extenders that they did not need. Then they tucked them below their seats. Witnesses say they then made more anti-American comments.

Please read this op/ed piece in the Washington Times. It may change how you feel about the incident.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/200...5036-7940r.htm

and this editorial from the Toledo Blade

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll...311/-1/OPINION

and this one from the Star Tribune

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/833103.html

Are we expected to accept all behavior, no matter how suspicious and how outlandish, in the name of political correctness?

Could I get a primary-source cite on this? The Washington Times op/ed self-refers, and refers to another op/ed piece - any major outlets reporting this? Also, who recognized this?

While the seat belt extensions are really up for interpretation, I'm 100% sure we don't want to rely on "making anti-American statements" in any way whatsoever - unless you're comfortable pissing on the Constitution?

Also the reports conflict, saying they made anti-American references in Arabic without any explanation of how this was known . . . this is quickly turning into journalistic/editorial onanism, in my opinion, when it comes to determining "facts."

I do agree with you here - I just don't think this is very cut-and-dried, and I think media reports are really pooping the bed here. It's a soapbox more than an illustrative example for either side.

even i get up and walk around - mostly cause i hate to sit still for too long

NOT DIRECTED AT ANYBODY IN PARTICULAR -->

but people will ALWAYS try to justify their paranoia and racism after the fact so that they can feel better about themselves and not look like a total bigot

- m

I agree. I think it's just simpler to say "Yes, we were paranoid and biased but we were scared and our decision was made under those conditions."

I wonder what people would think if they ever flew El Al. My flight to Tel Aviv had a bunch of rabbis (including the one from my youth group) flying out there for a convention. In the middle of the flight, they all got up, went to the back of the plane, and started praying (we're talking at least 20 men here).

http://www.creators.com/opinion_Shel...olumnsname=mch

Mona Charen is a syndicated partisan hack who I doubt has ever been to Minneapolis. If you want a real editorial from the Strib try this one:

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/840610.html

Yeah! Lets avoid profiling at any cost! We shouldnt sink to that level just because theres a chance it could save lives. Seriously, you're a moron.

I only hope I have one of you guys on a plane with me at the time its being hijacked, hopefully you'll be able to use your reason on these people, after all, they're probably just misunderstood.

As for the Constitution, I buy any copy I find, I'm obsessed. That being said, I'd gladly piss on it to prevent another 9/11.

No one would probably say anything because we all know that only Muslims kill other people. :rolleyes:

You might want to quote someone to indicate who you're talking to - I'm 100% sure you're bright enough to know that I did not take this stance at all, but it's hard to tell.

The problem is that there's no guarantee you'll be preventing - how many times would you do it to prevent a 9/11? Twice? Twenty? Every time?

This epitomizes 'slippery slope' fallacies . . .

I hope you mean that the whole "we can't violate the constitution this time, because where will it lead" falls under the slippery slope fallacy.

I was talking to whoever brought up the bigotry, not really directed at you. In reality, much of the terrorism (if not the large majority) which threatens America originates from Muslims. Is it unreasonable to consider every Muslim a terrorist? Of course. Is it unreasonable to take extra precautions when Muslims are acting suspicious, especially at places like airports? Not at all. I feel bad for Muslims in America, I really do. They've gotten a raw deal here. However, if hurting 1000 people's feelings saves one life, sign me up.

Quick, quick, somebody look up a Ben Franklin quote about safety and liberty!

You can't say "bomb" in an airport, and you can't yell "fire." There is a limit to the Constitution. While putting down the U.S. does not violate "freedom of speech"-- it was not a single reason why they were removed from the airplane. It is the combination of their suspicious actions which resulted in their removal.

"A half-dozen Muslims were removed from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis on Monday evening after nervous passengers alerted the flight crew about suspicious behavior.
The men, who officials later learned were Islamic religious leaders, refused to leave the plane and were escorted by security off Flight 300 from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport to Phoenix at 6:30 p.m.
Conflicting reports say the men were praying in the concourse or on the plane, and a Minnesota television reported that the imams were chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah," as they left the plane.
Douglas Hagmann, director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, a private organization that investigates terrorist threats, said his contacts are reporting the men did begin the prayers in the concourse, then continued prayers and discussions once on board.
"One of the passengers who understands Arabic passed a note to the crew that what she heard, she did not like," Mr. Hagmann said.
Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, said the men reportedly made anti-American statements relating to the Iraq war, asked to change seats once inside the cabin, and that one requested an extender to make his seat belt larger even though he did not appear to need it.
"There was some peculiar behavior," Mr. Hagmann said."http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20061121-105648-5375r.htm

You're right, the reports are different. It is a "he said, she said" account of what was said. There will always be different interpretations by witnesses as to what actually happened. However, news reports say that one of the passengers who understood Arabic notified the crew what she heard:

"One of the passengers who understands Arabic passed a note to the crew that what she heard, she did not like," Mr. Hagmann said."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...5648-5375r.htm


Here are some other accounts from news sources:

"An airport police report said a US Airways manager said three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage. A passenger told police the men were praying and making critical comments about the war in Iraq. Some of the men also asked for seat belt extensions even though a flight attendant told police she thought they didn't need them."http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S20152.html?cat=1

"The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.
A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious. "
http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...522r_page2.htm

Patrick Hogan, spokesman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports Commission, said the airline asked airport police to remove the six men from the Minneapolis to Phoenix flight because their actions were "arousing some concerns" among both passengers and crew.

He said the men had been praying at the gate area but he did not know if they tried to pray once at their seats inside the plane.

He also said some witnesses reported the men were making anti-American statements involving the Iraq war, asked to change seats once inside the cabin, that one requested an extender to make his seat belt larger even though he did not appear to need it and that in general "there was some peculiar behavior."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...112100687.html

Both fall under the classical definition of the Slippery Slope Fallacy, clearly, as they're inferring a preordained outcome (or are denying an outcome based on an action) - this is entirely the problem with this discussion...

Past that, I don't think we're far off from each other - profiling is successfully used in many parts of the world, and doesn't have to rely simply on demographic information (although it is integrated as well).

My point was entirely that relying solely on statements like these are insane.

Of particular note (and why I introduced the topic) is that the other suspicious actions are being widely reported in completely different ways, and that the most extreme sources are from somewhat specious (and not exactly primary) sources - it's almost like a giant game of telephone - and as such, it seems like the anti-American statements are taking a strong front seat . . . this is pretty goofy, to me.

OK - I really didn't need additional sources to prove that the journalism sucks here, that was kind of my point. Thanks for the legwork though.

Still no primary source on the "al Quada bomb formation" line?

I hate to be mean but blueangel, did you see the movie "Soul Plane"

There is just some chit that terrorists won't pull... Like driving down Slauson, Florence and Normandie at midnight in South Central LA... That would be stoopid... And they'd better be WELL-EQUIPPED if they pull some itsh, because it will be an all day affair...

Same holds true way out in Nelson, Georgia un in Tate County... Just places you don't go...

Same holds true in some places in Brooklyn or Bed-stuy...

All the Terrorist see what they pirate off our cable satellites and they think the chit is real...

They can pull another 9-11, what city? Where? A city in Texas where it's folks constitutionally guarenteed right to carry a concealed sawed off or pistol grip pump? Yeah, I'd like to see some terrorist jack anything in South Dallas... Or even Little Mexico... Good luck with that... They can try The Bubble, but the cops pull you over for going over 25 mph on their speed bumps... I should know, I lived there...

And yeah, they'd really terrorize the Bubba's off the I-25... Yepper, I don knows they will...

What's left, San Diego, TX? C'mon. Good Luck...

They did this isht in Minneapolis... Not trying to knock the Twin Cities, but what's there, really? Nuke sites? Where's the symbolism? Minneapolis where Prince was born? Okey...

So, what, LA? Frisco? Portland--maybe? Seattle? They are under a sheet of ice right now. Besides slippin' and sliding, what else? And I'd think neo-cons would be happy to ouster Seattle for being wacko-pinkos... Hayle, the Jonger wants to take out Seattle 'cuz he can't get his iPOD downloads... :rolleyes:

At some level we all need to show some nutz and the confront terrorists as citizens of the Untied States...

I dayum sho would like to see some terrorist ride up in my 'hood...

How come they don't roll up in the 'hoods or barrios? That's one thing I haven't figured out...

Oh noes... they're making critical comments about the Iraq War, were Praying, and some even <gasp> had no checked baggage :rolleyes: Well if this is the standard for detecting terrorists I can see a hell of a lot of empty planes domestically.

...says the guy from a country which hasn't had terrorist hijackings lately...

Fair enough (they just blow ours up)....

Anyways then, riddle me this: Why are nations that have been subject to more terrorist attacks and hijackings not over-reacting like this as well?

You are assuming our nation is "over-reacting" at airports. I think it is "under-reacting."

Maybe if our airport security was as stringent as Israel's.. 911 might not have happened.

Is it really over reacting? Last time I checked this was a new thing for the US.....you know, jacking airplanes and then flying them into buildings. Perhaps if we handled things the way they do in Israel and other middle eastern countries, it wouldn't have happened. I'd rather an airport be overly cautious than nonchalantly brushing off a bunch of Muslim men with one way tickets and no luggage who are praying to Allah before boarding a plane. Maybe they are more tolerant up there in ole Canada. I dunno. Also, you're an idiot.

Hmmm.. still haven't answered the question - why aren't Europeans over-reacting as well; afterall they have been subject to terrorism for alot longer, so with all that experience they don't seem to consider 6 unarmed, praying Imams a threat?

Oh as for the idiot comments - considering it's source I'm not overly concerned.

How do you know they aren't? Do you keep close watch over European transportation security incidents? I'm sure if the situation took place at Heathrow instead of the US, similar action would have taken place.

Hey Canadian.......are you a foremost expert on European transportation safety? How the hell do you know that they don't take security as seriously as we do. Stop speaking on behalf of Europe. I've been to several airports in Europe and they were no different than here. I had family in London when the bombings took place...I can assure they didn't come home telling us all about how nonchalant and tolerant they were after it happened. From my experience they wouldn't have called USAirways actions as "over-reacting" one bit. They would have probobly approached it in a similar manner. It is quite obvious that YOU don't consider 6 unarmed, praying Imams a threat. Many of us don't see that. We see six praying Arabs with one way tickets and no luggage. Quite similar to the group of men that jacked our airlines and killed a couple thousand people. Perhaps a foreign terrorist will fly an Air Canada 747 into downtown Toronto.....then we will see who is "overreacting."

hahaha, why are we overreacting and Europe isn't? Are you kidding? Holy crap. Wow, if you really think Americans are overreacting and Europeans are more tolerant, please, send me some of whatever you're on. Maybe you missed the response to the London bombings. Or the situation in France? Must have.

Canadian airlines racially profile as well. Just recently, wasn't there an Orthodox Jew who was kicked out of his flight while praying in his seat, because it "made other passengeres uncomfortable". He was flying with a Canadian airline...not sure which.

The article Ive read only stated they were Muslims. were their ethnicity verified?

No kidding. People who think that americans are outragously racist have never been to Europe. The average european has the mindset of a klansman.

Awww that's sweet. Thanks for thinking of me!

I dont see what is a threat about 6 unarmed praying Imams. Sorry.

They know karate, duh! Hiya!

Dude, it said no CHECKED luggage. There are these things called carry-on bags that lots of people try to use when flying so their luggage doesn't get lost.

Yes Geeky, but remember about the reported suspicious behavior onboard the plane. Doesnt matter if your an old grannie or a Imam, if you start freaking people out on an airplane your going to get booted. It wouldn't suprise me one bit if this whole thing was staged.

I know, things like that probably aren't a threat. however, I recently saw a couple of guys praying outside of perimeter mall behind the bushes, and while I realize they're just performing their salat or whatever, it freaked me out a bit. I mean, I've seen that episode of Sleeper Cell.

LOL..it freaked you out because of a TV show..:rolleyes:

I realize that.....thanks. Way to miss the point. Obviously the fact that they didn't have any luggage was relevant enough that it was included in the story. They still made alot of people uncomfortable so it really doesn;t matter.

If I indicated that I thought they were a threat....I didn't mean to. I don't think they are/were.....however, you can't tell me their actions before they boarded and while on the plane weren't very suspicious and could have easily freaked alot of people out.

I'm sorry, most European countries do not have this thing call the Bill of Rights: namely the "right to bear arms"... When I was both in Paris and in London, the military had a presence at their major airports, not a "TSA" agents who are bound by certain regulations. Which means that the average European citizenry is not strapped... They may have bombs, but they don't have Glocks with 2 clips...

And dudes carried submachine guns both at Orly and at Heathrow.

Also, most European countries don't have the "right to free assembly" or the "freedom of religion"... Which means they can record all your conservations with a microphone and have it on wide-screen in the restrooms...

US Airports are only relegated to having eyes in the sky and major entrances, thru-fares, and checkpoints. Recording for now it not allowed although they have that capability.

The question remains is how inconvenienced do you want to make the average airline business class passenger?

Prepaid Luxury Skate Thrus won't work 'cuz terrorist homies can buy those or hack into the system and look like Joe Doe. Even if we use biometrics...

One way to stop them is... Well think Rick Ross' "Hustlin'" meets TSA Bob... Most of the agents look like thugs anyway, even the women...

I don't know - I live in Minneapolis so it'll be interesting to see how this keeps playing out on the news up here. There was surprisingly little coverage of it. They could very well have been suspicious based on the other behavior - especially the changing seats. Heck, somebody got booted for breastfeeding on a Delta flight a few weeks ago. I just think that the lack of checked baggage isn't suspicious by itself - I've flown 12-15 times this year and I've checked once.

I was told by a guy who worked for the TSA that people with one way tickets were flagged to be watched carefully, especially if they had no checked luggage.

Let's look at this realistically though. The airline was damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they hadn't acted and these guys did have a terroristic intent, and witnesses were able to say "They did some really suspicious things but nobody did anything", the whole country would be in an uproar. If they act and it turns out that they were innocent, then people are in an uproar. When it comes down to it, I'd rather they err on the side of safety. The whole liquids thing is a good example. There was a threat in Europe of liquid based bombs in innocent looking containers. Now we are severely limited in what liquids we can carry on. Initially they were more strict and now they have lightened it up a little. Was it extremely inconvenient for everybody? You bet. Was it worth it? I think so.