"Thy face is, vizard-like, unchanging, made impudent with use of evil deeds."
Now for a September 11th story that you haven't heard. Michael Smerconish's Philadelphia Daily News column today relates the fascinating, tragic story of US Airways employee Michael Tuohey who came face-to-face with Mohammad Atta on that fateful morning. (note: free subscription required).
"By now, everyone in America has seen a picture of this man, but there is more life in that photograph we've all seen than he had in the flesh and blood. He looked like a walking corpse. He looked so angry. And he wouldn't look directly at me."As in his book Flying Blind, Smerconish's newspaper column has an absolutely vital message for all of us: even if this employee would have wanted to stop Atta, he probably would not--even today--be allowed by law to do so! This must-read tells you how political correctness continues to hamstring our efforts to fight the WOT.
PRINT SMERCONISH'S COLUMN AND SEND IT TO YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE!
[Incidentally, the editor who gave Smerconish's column its title clearly didn't get his message--the failure is not so much Tuohey's, as it is the whole burden of PC-driven litigation.]
UPDATE (9/24/05, 3:57pm): Welcome Michelle Malkin readers! Here's a little background. Notice a crucial point that Smerconish keys-in on in the column: Tuohey's years of experience tell him one thing rather instinctively: these guys are Arab terrorists! Then he has to mentally check his thoughts--knowing that they wouldn't be acceptable in our PC age. The centerpiece of Flying Blind is a very similar situation: the story of a great American named Jose Melendez-Perez, whose Army training, professional instincts, and years of experience as a customs agent in Orlando international airport allowed him to successfully prevent the entry of one of Osama's goons--a guy that 9-11 Commission members are sure would have been on Flight 93, and may have tipped the scales against the heroes aboard that flight.
Which returns us to the problem that Smerconish highlights in this column and in Flying Blind: our federal government's policies--as stated by the TSA--are specifically opposed to the use of race, ethnicity, or religion to profile suspected terrorists. And in fact several major airline companies have been sued by the government in a whole series of cases for just such infractions--and this, unbelievably, happened after 9-11.
Now, one point needs to be made very clearly: no one (including Smerconish) is suggesting that race be the only factor in profiling. But it is common sense that it should at least be a factor--just look at the mug shots of those 19 hijackers. That is why I'm asking that you print out Smerconish's column and send it to your congressional representative. Thank you!
Since God so graciously hath brought to light
This dangerous treason lurking in our way...
We doubt not now but every rub is smoothed on our way.
Then forth, dear countrymen: let us deliver
Our puissance into the hand of God,
Putting it straight in expedition. (Henry V)
posted by WillyShake at 6:12 AM
21 Comments:
Now, c'mon Willie, how can you bash political correctness? We wouldn't have wanted to hurt Mr. Atta's feelings, right?
With all the attempts to be politically correct, we have gotten further and further away from being correct at all.
if anyone wanted to point to a specific reason why our "modern" civilization tumbled into dust as so many have before, the current trend to be "correct" will surely be in the top 2 or 3 items on the list. this is frightening. why is it that "we" allow this to occur? isn't it a fact that most people don't actually believe or follow this warped concept of human interaction? it's one thing to be polite and civil. it is diametrically opposed to survival. screw a polite society if it means we will turn a blind eye to behaviors that are detrimental to the well being of our society. actually, to take it one step further, to permit unacceptable behavior in the name of "fair treatment" is one of the reasons why this country has such a burgeoning prison population. in the "bad old days", the kinds of problems we seem to be having in plenty were simply not allowed. did that hinder personal freedoms? i don't think so. we have so many different rules and regulations now that our freedoms have been eroded to the point where our founding fathers wouldn't recognize most of what we accept as normal.
thanks for the link to the article. and copying it and sending it to my senators would do absolutely no good, considering both boxer and feinstein are at the cutting edge of this trend.
One of the things that make this country truly great is that people of all races are treated equally under the law. This includes security from unreasonable searches. Racial profiling is a violation of the civil rights of millions of Arabs in this country (of which the vast majority aren't terrorists). This isn't merely "government policy" - it's constitutional protection.
Perhaps the opponents of "political correctness" would be happier living in a place where these rights don't exist.
*sigh* Cyrus, nobody wants "a place where these rights don't exist"--except the terrorists who would love nothing better than to revive a medieval Arab caliphate. So please don't make snarky comments when I'm trying to have a good-faith discussion.
Second, you clearly didn't read the last paragraph of my post very carefully (if at all). If you had, you wouldn't have used the phrase "unreasonable searches" interchangeably with "racial profiling". There's a huge difference. I am talking about criminal profiling; example, that cop who has work her/his beat for years can tell you suspicious activity by instinct, experience, and training: every detail is factored in to their assessment. But current government laws forbid the inclusion of race *as a factor* for any sort of consideration. That's not "unreasonable searches", that's an unecessary restraint on law enforcement. How many 81yr. old Norwegian nuns do you know who've blown up airplanes recently? Of course no single rule/factor is iron -clad, but no one is saying it is. I really think you should read Smerconish's book; he explains it much better than I can.
Thanks for your comments!
People who work in Customs, for airlines, as police officers, etc., develop a sixth sense about the public with which they come in contact. This is a very valuable tool which is not permitted to be used in today's PC society.
I remember my first return through Customs in NYC at JFK airport, in 1978. I had been sleepless for 38 hours, travelling from Saudi Arabia, overnight in the Bahrain airport, landing in Athens for an extended tarmac wait, and finally on to New York.
As I stood, braindead, waiting for bags, a Customs agent came over and struck up a conversation with me. He said "After a while, we can read minds. Like this fellow is going to ask me ...," and HE DID!! He predicted the needs of several other passengers while we stood there, before my bags arrived and I got on my way. I was utterly amazed, and also glad that what I was carrying was within the law.
When we prohibit these seasoned professionals from checking out the vibes they get from passengers, we surrender a valuable weapon in the GWOT.
All I can say, is, way to go, Underperformin' Norman! (With thanks to Michelle Malkin for her title for the Secretary of Transportation, Norman Minetta.)
Great story, Math Mom. Thanks! Yes, that is the kind of culture that I'm endorsing for our police and federal officials. --Will
there was a post wandering around the web last year that broke down this "profiling issue" pretty well. the post consisted of a multiple choice quiz, with things like: who carried out the first bombing of the WTC in the early 90's: a>15 year old african american student, b> 74 year old german grandmother, c> 35 year old business man, d> arab male age 20 to 35.
the quiz went on with questions regarding the kobar towers bombing, the marine barracks bombing in beruit, suicide bombers in tel aviv, airplane hijackers, the uss cole bombing, etc.
i think the whole "racial profiling" issue can be boiled down to it's essence. if a certain catagory of folks have been proven to participate in extremist activities, how law enforcement responds needs to address this problem.
how many crooks and bad guys have been popped by the law simply because they exhibit certain characteristics that prompted the cops to check them out?
and here's a question for cyrus: suppose you were sitting on an airplane at 30000 feet, and two 20 something arab males were sitting two rows ahead of you. now suppose they are looking around nervously, and quietly talking together so that nobody can hear what they are saying? would you feel nervous? if so, you are now guilty of racial profiling. what if they are only nervous because they'd never flown before? see, the world isn't black and white. if i was an air marshal, and i saw that, you can bet your ass i'd be checking to make sure my gun was handy.
Bo, well said--and I like your final scenario as a litmus test.
As for that multiple choice test, Smerconish includes it (or a version of it) in the Introduction to his book.
Thanks.
--Will
Yep, ever since Oklahoma city, if I see a guy who looks like a midwestern christian redneck, I tackle him to the ground and refuse to let him up until he proves he wasn't planning on blowing anything up in the next year.
(P.S. If you were planning on blowing up a plane you caught at 6:45 a.m. in Boston, why would you be in Portland Maine an hour before... Not great planning...)
willyshake wrote:
But current government laws forbid the inclusion of race *as a factor* for any sort of consideration. That's not "unreasonable searches"I contend it is, but see also the 14th Amendment. It's the same reason cops can't pull over only black people.
bothenook said:
here's a question for cyrus: suppose you were sitting on an airplane at 30000 feet, and two 20 something arab males were sitting two rows ahead of you. now suppose they are looking around nervously, and quietly talking together so that nobody can hear what they are saying? would you feel nervous?I dunno, probably not unless they pulled out weapons. I certainly hope I wouldn't pull an Annie Jacobsen (I can't find the original article anymore, but here's a response to it on Salon - you'll have to watch a dumb ad first).
Look, the thing is there are a vast number of Arabs living in this country. In my personal experience, they are a peaceful, spiritual people who cook tasty food. A very tiny minority of them are terrorist assholes. It is simply unfair to single out that entire population as criminal suspects because of a few rotten eggs.
Furthermore, let's talk about "hunches" for a moment. People get "gut feelings" all the time, and are often totally wrong. Think about the last time you were screaming at the coach to pull out the QB/pitcher/goalie and he did okay anyway. Of course hindsight is 20/20, so we remember and glorify the moments when we were right. How many "hunches" do you think paranoid Americans have had about sinister Arabs since the attacks on September 11? Yet that strike was the sole Arab terrorist attack in the US in the last ten years.
Forgive me for indulging in this following paragraph:
Please, don't let those 20 assholes from 2001 make our lives a paranoid nightmare! That's exactly what the terrorists want! (It's also what the media wants because fear sells more papers, and it's what the Republicans want because it wins them more elections). Worry instead about the things that are far more likely to affect you, like car accidents and heart disease!
Cyrus, Thanks again for your comments. The analogies you give of heart disease and car accidents ignore the fact that cars don't declare fatwah's and heart attacks don't have a thirty year history of attacking Western civilians who ride airplanes. In short, like it or not, the elephant in the room is Islamofascism: it is a real and grave threat, and though you may wish to minimize 9-11 as a single isolated incident, it was nevertheless unparalleled in terms of American lives lost in a single day. It is an event that I would not wish to see repeated, particularly because we are (with undue timidity of litigation), wearing boxing gloves to a street fight.
I could take offense at the implication that I am a paranoid racist, but I will assume your best intentions and let it pass. Besides, who could argue with you when you say you don't want a country full of paranoid xenophobes? Nobody wants that, of course, and while you're quite right to be alarmed about it, please don't let that distract you from what Smerconish is pointing to.
You may be right about Annie Jacobsen, I'm not sure...but please don't rely on Salon as your reason for throwing her under the bus. (I realize you may have just grabbed whatever popped up on Google).
Also, I think that there's a difference between the "gut feel" you describe (quite rightly) as often innacurate, and the intangible yet vital skills that professionals develop over time.
If you read Smerconish's book, then you'd know that no one is proposing that we simply pull every Arab out of line for inspection. [Btw, I'm not convinced that asking someone questions is an infringement of rights; the same goes for the library card issue.] Rather, the present policies/laws prevent the use of race as a determining factor and yet, (to quote Flying Blind) "in certain circumstances, it will be the appearance of the individual that is a determining factor in singling them out, and to do otherwise is to ignore critical, valuable information about that which can be said about our enemy....we need to acknowledge the limitations imposed by the present system...No one of those factors [race, ethnicity, religion] should subject an individual to greater scrutiny, but taken in tandem with additional information, yes, indeed, those items will be given weight" (188).
Again, thank you for your time and comments--I do appreciate the depth and purpose your thoughts bring to my web log!
--Will
Since you keep thanking me for my comments, I'll give it one last go :-) This time, instead of rehashing my ethical argument, I will advance a more logical one:
To start off, I'll even concede that racial profiling would be probably more effective at catching a hypothetical terrorist. But to implement these changes brings a cost of diminishing the rights of a large number of citizens. Smerconish would argue that the cost is worth it because of the increased security. As you know, I would argue that the cost is so high, it would almost never be worth it. But here are two reasons that racial profiling won't actually prevent terrorist attacks anyway:
1. There are too many other ways to launch a terrorist attack besides blowing up planes. Even if we could achieve 100% airline security, it's next to impossible to prevent suicide bombers from blowing up cars, buses, shopping malls, nightclubs, etc (Just look at the police state of Isreal). The terrorists are smart enough to attack us in ways we don't expect. They can also get into our country without flying. This is despite all of the billions we've spent on domestic security.
1a. One might argue terror in the skies is worse than other kinds of attacks, but I don't really buy this. Yes, 300 people could be killed by a bomb, but after 2001, there would be considerable resistance to a cockpit takeover/WTC-style attempt. Also, you don't need a plane to blow up a big building, as Timothy McVeigh proved.
2. Now, here's the real kicker. There just aren't that many Arab terrorists in our country. If there were, how come they've attacked only twice in the last twenty years? Because of the war on terror??
To answer a few more other points:
I didn't mean to imply anyone here is a racist.
Also, I have doubts that security personel (which Tuohey was not, incidentally - he worked ticket counters) develop a 6th sense for sniffing out terrorists. How could they develop such an ability when terrorists are a once in a lifetime encounter?
That heart disease thing wasn't an analogy - it's a call to put things in perspective. Fatwahs or not, terrorism doesn't even come close to being a leading cause of death in this country. Let's spend our time and taxes working on preventing cancer, accidents, etc. Or worrying about nuclear non-proliferation.
Hope this post was at least thought-provoking. On that note, it's time for me to kill some braincells with beer :-)
Third try here on the comments!!
First of all, I'm not going to weigh in with my own political opinions on this issue.
I would just like to say this is obviously a hot bed issue with each of you adamately defending your perspectives. I think that is great.
What I appreciate and admire is the civil manner in which this discourse has been conducted.
Each of you gentlemen is to be commended.
; )
Hi, Cyrus -
Also, I have doubts that security personel (which Tuohey was not, incidentally - he worked ticket counters) develop a 6th sense for sniffing out terrorists. How could they develop such an ability when terrorists are a once in a lifetime encounter?It is true that a security person may encounter a Mohammed Atta only once in their life (al-hamdulillah!) but they always watch for evidence of strangeness or guilt. Someone boarding may have the peculiar glint to the eye that suggests he is bi-polar and has not taken his Lithium in a while - you want that guy as a seatmate? Especially in Customs, they are watching for people who are bringing in contraband, drugs, illegal amounts of cash, items made of ivory, plants and organisms which could disrupt the ecology in the US, etc. Remember when the drug cartels in Colombia began to use average-looking, middle-aged American women as mules? The people in Customs caught on because there were suddenly too many average-looking, middle-aged American women coming through.
I like the fact that they have a (thanks to Men In Black) a "Weird Sh*t-o-Meter" that periodically begins to twitch, or even hit the redline, and I believe that should be one of the permissible tools to find the one-in-a-lifetime suicidal maniac.
It's also true that terrorists can come in a variety of ways. Yes, McVeigh blew up a building with a car bomb. But only a couple hundred people died in that explosion, and the building remained standing. It didn't even start on fire, did it? (I drove through OKC the next day - saw helicopters flying overhead but saw no black plumes of smoke rising into the sky.)
I lived one mile as the crow flies from the Khobar Towers when it was blown up. Fewer than 20 people died, yet the building looked almost exactly like the OKC bombing , only with a larger crater in the street. The blast shook the ground and my house. It was sufficient to kill a bunch of servicemen, cause grief to their families, but was not sufficient to cause Bill Clinton to do more than talk tough - and believe me, we were waiting for action, not words after this happened.
When you have a flying indendiary device (say, a Boeing 757?) with a full tank and you are able to commandeer it to do your evil deed, the fact that a flammable substance is brought into the equation makes the chance of greater harm more likely. McVeigh's influence reached into 200+ families, shook the illusions of a medium-sized city, caused the Clinton Administration to blame rednecks, and cost in the high millions. Moh'd Atta and his Band 'o Bombers caused devasation to the entire country. He killed thousands, brought down massive buildings, caused the entire aviation system to be shut down for days, eventually caused layoffs and government bailouts, depressed the stock market to the extent that it took three years to regain its losses, and could have caused the nation to sink into depression if it were run by panty-waisted poll-takers who would "retaliate" by lobbing a cruise missile or two into somewhere in Afghanistan.
I lived in the Middle East for 11 years. Every time I went through the Bahrain airport I was physically frisked and wanded, every single bag was x-rayed before I could even get near a ticket counter, and I was a woman travelling with a toddler still in diapers, and a 5-year-old! There, if you think you are being profiled and complain, the man with the machine gun can help you see the error in your thought processes. (Don't get me started on trying to board a plane in Beirut!)
As for heart disease, choose a diet low in refined carbohydrates and processed fats, eat lots of fresh vegetables and fruits, drink at least 2 quarts of water each day, and tie on your walking shoes. Heart disease is an invention of the 20th century, caused by lifestyle. "Heart attacks" were unheard-of until almost 1900.
MathMom: Great comments--funny yet thoughtful! Thank you.
I do think you raise a good point about the economic impact of 9-11. It is easy to underestimate the vital role that air travel plays in our modern econmy, but step back and think for a moment about how many men and women have to travel for business on a daily basis.
I also appreciate your perspective on Israel/Beirut. One of the most important lessons to be learned from the Israelis--you're frisking/wanding experiences not withstanding--is that you have to look for bombers and not simply bombs. It is the questions they ask, and their investigative techniques that are telling them far more than the x-rays are as they screen you!
Love having you visit; come back often. --Will
Thanks, Will -
This is a nice conversation you have going here.
I must say your titles for your other posts are a touch of genius. I know very little of Shakespeare, but you seem to know his work deeply enough to bring his verse into sharp focus with your posts. Good work! (hmmm - your name is a little like his!! Any relation?)
Cyrus, 2 things:
1. Not all Muslims were 9/11 terrorists, but all 9/11 terrorists were Muslims. To this day, most Muslims are not terrorists, but still to this day, most terrorists are Muslims.
2. You said Tuohey was not part of Security, he was working the ticket counter. You missed the boat, he IS part of security and IS trained to be the first line of defense against terrorists boarding planes.
Part of his job is to ask the usual questions, "Has anyone else had access to your baggage?"
"Did anyone give you anything to bring onboard?" etc, etc.
You are putting up a valiant fight because you obviously have Muslim friends or live in a Muslim community. But don't let that blind you from preventing our airlines from protecting innocent people, even your Muslim friends.
If they are quilty of nothing, then they should not feel harrassed. They need to answer the questions and let the authorities decide if they should board the plane or not.
You zeal to keep Muslims from being questioned, is putting all decent people (decent Muslims too) from being protected.
Mathmom: you are absolutely right about the devastating power of a hijacked plane-bomb. They are especially dangerous because they can be used against well-guarded targets such as national landmarks. However, I sleep well at night when I consider how difficult it would be to pull off such an attack again - surely passengers and crew would fight to the death to prevent another cockpit takeover (as they did on flight 93). If I were a terrorist, I'd choose a plan that is more likely to succeed, such as a coordinated car bomb attack, or an attack in a subway system.
On life in Beirut: such hellish security measures are exactly what I don't want happening in this country!
Richard Davis:
1. Not all Muslims were 9/11 terrorists, but all 9/11 terrorists were Muslims. To this day, most Muslims are not terrorists, but still to this day, most terrorists are Muslims. Yes, I know, and I understand your argument. In my previous comment, I have already conceded that implementing Smerconish' plan would be better at catching a hypothetical Muslim airplane terrorist. It doesn't matter! Both because this proposed policy isn't actually going to improve security (see my other post), and more importantly, because it is still wrong to discriminate against individuals because of their ethnicity or creed.
Anyways, let's suppose you're right about profiling being a good idea. Why should it stop with Muslims? Black people are more likely to commit violent crimes (at least according to arrest records), so I guess they would need extra security screening, too. Those beltway snipers should count as terrorists...
And come to think of it: before 2001, the worst terrorist act in US history was committed by a white guy. Oddly, I don't remember a call for profiling of young white male military veterans in the aftermath of that attack...
And don't forget about teenagers wearing trenchcoats! Although we hassled this group a lot after Columbine, I think we've been slacking off lately. Did you know that Klebold and Harris wrote about plans to hijack and crash a plane in NYC way back in 1999?
I know you guys are going to pick at these examples (I can't believe you won't even give me the heart attacks thing!) and say they're irrelevant and ridiculous. But try to put yourself in the shoes of a motorist who's been pulled over for "driving while black" or an unpopular teenager who got sent to the principal's office for sporting the look of Neo from "The Matrix". Profiling sucks. It's dehumanizing and embarrassing to those it fingers. What happened to the 14th Amendment and "equal protection under the law" for all persons?
You are putting up a valiant fight because you obviously have Muslim friends or live in a Muslim community. But don't let that blind youPlease don't judge my writing based on speculation about the kind of company I keep. My arguments stand on their own. I'm just a concerned citizen, remembering the lines of a poem, "First they came for the Jews..."
If they are quilty of nothing, then they should not feel harrassed. They need to answer the questions and let the authorities decide if they should board the plane or not.Do you realize how this sounds? Yes, I'm sure they'll soon come to love Big Brother in the end.
Cyrus -
I have enjoyed reading your posts. I don't agree with you, and I have not convinced you, but you have remained civil while trying to bring some of us around to your point of view.
Thanks for the nice conversation. For now, I have to bow out (though I could go on at length!) because my husband is in the hospital and I have to keep my attention on matters there.
Cheers!
This is the first I’ve heard about Michael Tuohey. I’m surprised, however, that neither Smerconish or any other comments to this thread mention Johnelle Bryant’s encounter with Mohammad Atta in 2000. She was working as a loan officer for the US Department of Agriculture at the time. I encourage everyone to read about her at the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal (I’ve got more links about her story on my blog.) In short, my judgment is that Clinton-era Political Correctness led this woman to ignore all sorts of warning signs which, if acted upon, might have prevented the 9/11 attacks.
The first time I told my story about 911 publicly was last Friday. I saw Mohammad Atta on a dry run in the Portland Airport on 9-9-01. I recognized he was Middle Eastern etc. but the clue to me was his eyes showed evil intent.
I have been to the Middle East and Egypt his home country. It was not that he looked like "an Arab terrorist."
The point was that he looked like a man who was going to try and kill me in a prison as I did prison ministry there. It is not about nationality but about instincts. We cannot defeat terrorists without it.
My story is at http://thebahamabob.com and is a story about my spritual growth as a result, but even if you do not like spiritual talk, it is a chilling story and a good example of your counter agent's identical reaction. I felt exactly the same way.
TheBahamabob
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home