Now my favorite: US Airways

[blueangel]

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.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

[honeychile]

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...!

[AKA_Monet]

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...

[blueangel]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

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?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

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?

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

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."

Originally Posted by blueangel

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

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.

[blueangel]

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?

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

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."

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

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.

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

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

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

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

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."

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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?

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

[shinerbock]

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.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by blueangel

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.

Same thing with my girlfriend. Neither one of us have ever understood it. Unless of course the bags to not really stop X-Rays.

I have been stopped due to my shoes having metal supports inside as well as my C-Pap machine.

Now, I just take it everything I am carrying and put it into my travel vest and place it, my belt and shoes into the X-Ray.