As far as I can tell, the Bush administration is putting it's hopes on transforming the Mideast. I don't know why--perhaps they've been informed that no real security measures have a chance in Hades of ever being put in practice here. You and I know damn well that we will never build up massive troop levels on the borders and shut them down, kill all bureaucratic and union controls on security employees, fix the CIA, and nuke Iran, Syria, North Korea, and China until they glow like a raver in 1997. It'd be nice, but those things will never happen. And that's what really needs to happen unless we're going to try to end radical Islam itself.

Very interesting article, Ace. The kind that gives you an uneasy/sick feeling and makes you angry at the same time.

Rhetorical Question: why are we applying 4th Amendment search and seizure safeguards to Syrians.

Constitutional Rights (CRs) should exist to protect America from unwanted government action -- CR's should not be extened to foreigners who possibly threaten our lives and liberty.

A few extra pat-downs at the gate and a peek into every bag is not an undue burden to place on any non-American (or American, for that matter) when they are boarding an airplane.

A little personal privacy needs to be sacrificed for the safety of all.

Well. That was scary as hell.

She asks: "So here's my question: Since the FBI issued a warning to the airline industry to be wary of groups of five men on a plane who might be trying to build bombs in the bathroom, shouldn't a group of 14 Middle Eastern men be screened before boarding a flight?"

Let's assume the Bush administration finally gives a "yes" answer to this question. How many electoral votes would he lose in then? In today's pussified America, certainly enough to be sent back to Texas. Obviously, if Bush doesn't do enough, Kerry wins. Less obviously, if Bush does everything logic (as opposed to ACLU philosophy) demands and then nothing bad happens, Kerry still wins simply because, gee, nobody likes a racist, and there's apparently nothing more than racist than doing security checks on Arabs at a time when Arabs make up 99.99% of the people actively engaged in the kind of jihad that includes the blowing up planes in flight.

Pretty fucked situation.

In a lighter note, she asks: "I wonder, if 19 terrorists can learn to fly airplanes into buildings, couldn't 14 terrorists learn to play instruments?"

Hey - they did and they're called The Polyphonic Spree.

The only problem is, when you cast your vote, they don't give you a space to explain "why". Kerry could just as easily assume that by not re-electing President Bush, we want him to roll back the tax cuts, pull out of Iraq, pass an amendment requiring the legalization of gay marriage, and extend the assault weapons ban.

Too dangerous.

Well, yeah, he shoulda fired Tenet and Mineta on 9/12. But he didn't.

I don't think the point of the story is, or should be, look, this happened, and we did nothing about it, because that isn't the case at all. There were several sky marshals on the flight. That's not usual. And Glenn's "pack not a herd" thing was in full effect, too. This lady was freaked that it was occurring, but it wasn't like nothing happened during or after the event.

I think they were trying to get intel on their operations, etc., which is why they let them do whatever while they were observed. And then detained and questioned afterward.

And then the FAA released a new reg about it - and as I note at my place, it made Sullivan embarrassed to be an American.

It wouldn't be legal, but an airline could probably charge quite a price premium if they didn't allow Arabs on flights.

"Firing" Bush wouldn't fix that situation for a minute.

You want to fix it, you have to not expect the big man in D.C. to do it for you.

You bring pressure to bear at every level. The reason airlines and enforcement authorities don't practice common sense about many of these things is the old squeaky wheel getting the grease. In other words, start sqeaking.

Blaster,

No offense, but bullshit.

The sky marshalls didn't actually do anything, assuming they were there. (And assuming they were plural.)

They may have been prepared to resist a hijacking attempt, but they let these guys go back and forth to the bathroom, where they could have been assembling the parts of a bomb each had smuggled aboard.

I'm not really afraid of more hijackings. I think that problem is taken care of.

Bombing airplanes out of the sky, however, seems to be allowed, if not actively encouraged, by Dormant Norman Mineta.

Uh-oh, this post makes it look like we need an Ace of Spades Kerry Endorsement Watch. Are you going Sully on us?

If planes start falling out of the sky because Bush refused to give Syrian men more scrutiny at the gate, what choice would I have?

This post is a little overstated for effect. As Sully goes apeshit over the fact that he can't get married (by the way-- when will Sully be tying the knot? I've heard no announcements, despite the fact that Boston is just a five-hour train trip away), I go apeshit over the fact that terrorists are being allowed to kill Americans.

We all have our priorities.

If the worst comes to pass -- and I fear that it will -- I will have a very hard time arguing against Bush's re-election, in truth. I think I will still decide that Kerry isn't going to start racially profiling, either.

But the whole point of a blog is putting out an opinion and trying, no matter how futilely, to have an effect on policy. Saying that I will retract my support for Bush is the best way to do that. (although it's futile either way.)

I don't think I'd actually retract my support. Let's say, though, that it will be much more muted and mixed.

Air Marshalls are only allowed to respond to "an event"? WTF? What's an event, the wing getting blown off?

I didn't see any of Glenn's pack mentality at work either. Sounds like a bunch of sheep that sat and waited for the authorities to act. Were the passenger's waiting for 'an event' too?

No one has learned a damned thing. Oh sure, hijacking won't work (maybe), but it seems neither the government nor the passengers of Flight 327 were willing to adapt those lessons to the situation as it developed.

Disheartening. It makes me feel sick and angry inside.

Was it too much to "cut in line" and just go into the lavatory?

But the marshals were there - in plural. Why would that be? And the FBI and TSA and all of that did snag them when they hit the ground.

I think that we - i.e., DHS - knew it would be a trial run, and wanted to see what they would do. Why wouldn't the flight attendants have sat them down? I think the marshals told them to let them be.

But that's just a guess.

The point still remains that the system actually did do something about this - it didn't just happen while Norman Mineta slept at the switch. There was a reaction, and it resulted in a new policy.

I don't think this is sound strategy at all, Ace. A defeat for Bush would be viewed as (or certainly spun as) a rejection of an aggressive, anti-terrorist foreign policy and the "draconian" Patriot Act - a mandate to become more "multilateral" if you will. You've got to know how this would be presented. The effect would be precisely the opposite of what you're hoping for.

In my opinion, what Bush needs is support and political capital. That means votes, which ultimately gives him a mandate, which is what he is going to need to continue his work against stubborn opposition. If that fails to convince you, remind yourself that we will be far less safe under Kerry, period. Allowing Kerry to win is unconscionable.

Bush may not be everything that you want him to be, but he has staked his entire political life on doing what he can to combat terrorism. That I respect and he gets serious props from me. That's the kind of courage we need from our leaders and I will not soon forget it.

Ace,

I see what you're saying, and I was just riffing on a previous post of yours about an Andrew Sullivan Kerry Endorsement Watch.

I completely understand where you're coming from. Bush does stupid things (e.g. amnesty for illegals), and if I had a blog I would love to rant and rave about how dumb that is, how it opens us up to attack, how it's an insult to people who get here legally, how it's pure pandering, etc. And ultimately, it doesn't affect my vote, because I'm a single-issue voter (I'm in the "Not Letting Americans Get Blown Up By Terrorists" constituency), and I think Kerry would be far worse at border control. And I think Kerry would be worse for the economy. And worse fighting the War on Terror, assuming he even realizes there's a war going on. And worse at dealing with the French and Germans. And worse at inspiring and responsibly deploying our troops. He looks like a very boring horse. And the list goes on.

So I see where you're coming from, because no matter what Bush does (well, almost), I cannot help but believe that Kerry would be much, much worse - and so I'm powerless to withdraw my vote, or even credibly threaten to do so. Democracy can be a real bitch. But that's too pessimistic - my vote means very, very little on a national scale, but it means more on the state-wide scale, even more on a county scale, and so on, so we can always have an impact. But it's frustrating because my local city council, where my vote has the most impact, is not making national policy decisions.

The solution? Simple: go be President, Ace. I'll vote for you. Don't run until 2008, of course. And when you're president, make sure you keep checking your blog, so I can tell you when you're being an idiot.

See that? I'm all about the elegant solution.

P.S. - Johnny Coldcuts for Veep.

Ace,

I fly several times each month. To date, I have already logged 101,000 miles in the air.

And yes, the proscription against congregating in the galleys or near the lavatories is being employed (recently I might add, to my recollection it began sometime in June).

It is troubling (to say the very least) that the Air Marshals did not get involved (as above, what exactly constitutes an event?).

My experience is that although the one-time fliers (holiday goers, visits to Grandma, etc.) do bitch and moan about the so-called "abusive" security screening, the frequent fliers neither seem to mind nor do they find it in any way overly time consuming.

Furthermore, I take exception to the characterization of the passangers as reported in the referenced post as "sheeple". It seems that the writer and her husband both got involved, and short of taking custody of the suspicious men (hell, the Air Marshals didn't even do that), they did what they could under the circumstances.

And no, Kerry-Edwards will not change the danger we face, nor will four more years of Bush-Cheney (full disclosure, I fully support W.'s reelection).

Stringent and consistent interdiction is our best hope against these and other threats. Sadly, the Pyrrhic victory of political correctness (as evidenced by Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. submitting to additional screening at US airports) is the current loathsome calculus of our ruling elite and the useful idiots who triumph at this narcissistic suicide.

Aaron, I believe you confused Ronald Reagan and GWB in regard to amnesty for illegals. One actually did it , the other proposed something similar but not amnesty.

Replace Mineta with Cheney. Replace Cheney with Condi.

Dman, GWB said it wasn't amnesty, but if it looks like amnesty, and it walks like amnesty, and it quacks like amnesty, then it's either amnesty or else a duck disguised as amnesty.

So the Democrats would be worse but Bush would deserve to lose. What do we gain if Bush loses, then? Usually, I agree with you, but here your logic escapes me.

Ace: Your rant seems a bit over the hysteria line. I'm afraid that it makes you look foolish. Vote against Bush because a woman hyperventalated? Are you serious? Grow up.

Regards JFK

@ Jeff,

You rock. Dude, you just described the perfect solution.

Aaron said, "Uh-oh, this post makes it look like we need an Ace of Spades Kerry Endorsement Watch. Are you going Sully on us?"

And Ace replied, "If planes start falling out of the sky because Bush refused to give Syrian men more scrutiny at the gate, what choice would I have?"

Ace, the dilemma on which you may find yourself impaled at the polls has little to do with the choices you face in crafting your commentary. I don't think you should think of your task as one of moving voters one way or the other between Bush and Kerry. Your task as a commentator is to shape people's opinions both for now and for the long term. If you think, as I do, that Kerry deserves withering criticism and that Bush deserves almost-withering criticism, then turn yourself loose on both of them.

On matters of national security, I've long tended to attack Bush from the right. I despise the decency and restraint that he exhibits toward the Arab and Islamic nations and toward North Korea. I think that every day that the West leaves Allah with a shred of credibility is shameful. I want to watch Allah die and to watch His people turn up their faces to their empty Paradise in bewildered anguish, flashburned by the fires of Mecca's immolation. I don't want to waste time, thought, and treasure on reforming the stupid f^cks in the Middle East. I want to destroy their governments, make "their" oil ours, and silence our venal critics by selling them the oil dirt cheap. I want to end the threat to my life on the one hand and the threat to my civil rights on the other hand, by entirely removing the common occasion for the threat to either. I have no reason to tolerate Islamic or Arab immigration, tourism, or student enrollment in the U.S. I can even face down the guilty feelings involved in expelling foreign-born "citizens" of doubtful loyalty. Etc.

You don't have to go that far if you're still squeamish or if you think God or a Kennedy will punish you for thinking wicked thoughts. But, to return to the starting point, no matter how much you think you have to vote for Bush in the polling booth, because Kerry is even stupider, there's still ample reason why a man of your opinions should be attacking both Bush and Kerry from the hardheaded, warlike right.

We're in this for the long haul. The horizon is far beyond the first week of November. No matter who is elected, the policies in the near future are going to range somewhere between dumb and dumber. If you see this, too, then go ahead and turn the full force of your mocking, bad-@ss comedy against both of these womanish men.

Questions:

How was this lady able to tell from the 17th row in coach that a middle eastern guy in first class sat down in seat 1A with everyone boarding the plane. And I wonder if Northwest has a curtain between the coach and first class seats--because she says she saw what was going on in first class during the flight.

And I can't believe the captain wouldn't tell everyone to return to their seats. What would he be waiting for?

I have a lot of questoins about this. And I really am surprised I haven't heard this anywhere else.

At a minimum a noon flight from Detroit to LAX would have about 200 people on board. Not one mentioned this to the news?

That just seems very odd. Remember, local news affiliates across the country pick up stories al the time about weird goings on on planes. There was even a story about how a bunch of people on a plane got nervous because a guy went into a lavatory to shave his neck. That made the news and it made Drudge. And I seem to recall a lot of stories about air marshalls getting up to get involved on the basis of much less than what was going on here.

I just can't believe that all these people could be on a plane with this going on and not say something to somebody.

Something about that story just sounds fishy to me. Has anyone fact-checked it? There were probably 200 other people on that plane; I'll be interested in seeing whether the incident gets reported elsewhere.

And I'm not sure the author is using the most reliable information. For instance, when she referred to Lehman's "statement" about airlines being fined for subjecting >2 passengers of the same ethnicity for secondary screening, what happened was that Lehman *asked* Condi Rice at the hearing -- "Were you aware that it was the policy, and I believe remains the policy today, to fine airlines if they have more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning, because that's discriminatory?" Condi said she didn't know anything about it. And Jeff Rosen, counsel for the DOT, just testified a couple weeks ago before the Senate's "Transportation, Treasury and General Government Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on Passenger Screening and Airline Authority to Deny Boarding", that there is no such policy, and that its existence is a "myth".

He also testified that TSA policy lets pilots divert the flight if they're truly suspicious of a passenger's behavior. That the flight in the story was not diverted seems strange in light of that policy. I don't know what to think; the story's certainly plausible, but I'm not ready to take it at face value without some corroboration.

You should check out those subcommittee hearing transcripts, if you can get hold of them; they're thought-provoking. I can pull them off Lexis, but my law student account expires forever in two weeks since I've graduated, so let me know soon (note: I've slightly altered my e-mail address in the mailto link but it should be obvious how), and someone will have to post them somewhere. You can read a couple of the witnesses' written statements at:

http://appropriations.senate.gov/hearmarkups/topics.cfm?code=hearings

(They're from the June 24 hearings.)

I'm about 95% on this thing. I once was on a night flight out of SFO--it was United flight 60, two years ago in the spring--and one of the engines caught fire just after takeoff, out over the Bay. They turned it around and landed again and we boarded another plane like nothing had happened. I thought I we were dead.

Nothing made the press. United never said they were sorry. Never heard anything more about it. So yeah, it's plausible that somehting like this could happen and not get picked up unless there was someone with a media outlet on board.

That said, I googled Annie Jacobsen and I found one who looks like she does a lot of weird creative writng/suppressed dream/ ooga booga Jungian psychotherapy. Here's a link with a picture:

http://www.spiritcentral.com/dreams/2001.htm#jacob

Now compare that to the only other article by her in Womens Wall Street (which I've never heard of before, BTW) and it has her picture--a much hotter picture, I must say, without the bangs, but I think the same person: http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/Article_Details.aspx?articleid=389&Titleid=7&titlename=Budgeting

Now--I'm not saying she made this up because she does "dream research" or whatever. Just that it's really weird, though plausible, and I hope it will be confirmed and hit the big media. But I'll be looking for some corroboration on this story to make sure we're not going to wake up and find Bobby Ewing in the shower...

--See Dub

I also googled that name. I came up with a third picture that looks a lot like the first you posted (I think it's the same woman). I don't think that picture or the one I found are the Annie Jacobsen that wrote this article. The other woman is much, much older that the second pic you posted indicates.

A lot of the facts are verifiable--there is a flight 327# from DetWayne to LAX and she's right on the time. And anyone could call the FA Marshall's spokesmen and see how much of this is true.

She says the WaPo interviewed her. Even if this is much ado about nothing (i.e., to terrorist act planned) wasn't this behavior odd enough to merit a stronger reaction from those "higher ups" on the plane? Unless the behavior was just not as odd as she describes (which could be why not one of the other passengers has said anything about this).

The post above was mine, sorry.

http://www.anniejacobsen.com/

Click on about. It's not the same woman.

Could be--BUT the older looking lady lives in Toronto, right across from Detroit, where the flight originated--and we don't know which photo was taken when. The author of this article has a four year old son. If it's not her, then who is Annie Jacobsen? I mean, my mom turns up more google hits than this journalist.

Back in a minute--I'm off to Lexis-Nexis.

Oh--one think I don't find wrong with this story is the flight attendant reassuring the passengers about the Air Marshals. That seems like something they would say to try to keep you calmed down, whether it's true or not. I don't even think the attendants know who the air marshals are.

Like I said, I'm 95% on this and it's worth verifying.

Another point, she says she saw one of the men mouth the word "no". yet they were speaking in Arabic. Does she read lips in Arabic?

That FA Spokesman is going to have to say something about this in about 6 hrs, by the way.

And the Annie Jacobsen in the story says she connected to Detroit from RI, then on to LA. So the one in Toronto is not likely her.

I've got more issues with this. . .

Nope, nothing on Lexis-Nexis about her.

Ninety percent.

You know something? She's a damn good writer. I mean, I got more scared just reading that than I've been in any film since The Hitcher or maybe Deliverance. I mean, it's like the Twilight Zone one where there's something out on the wing, and you can't do anything, and no one seems to care...

Nightmares. Dreams. Jung.

Eighty eight percent.

Keep looking.

One more thing-- the day this happened, this warning came out:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/29/eveningnews/main626679.shtml

If you view the video there, they mention Detroit and LAX as targets of interest.

Bayesian updating: Back at ninety percent confidence.
If this was a hoax, it could have been retroactively chosen. So it doesn't prove anything, but it makes it more plausible that something was up that day. Also helps explain why the plane went on in to LAX--they probably had a counterterror/FBI squad ready for them there.

Good night.

See-Dubya, the reference to "Bayesian updating" drew a laugh from me. I know that's the first time I've ever heard someone mention Bayesian probability outside of a specifically statistical setting.

Pardon the "off-topicality," but I keep my curiosity on a long leash: Your nickname "See-Dubya" sounds like "CW," as in "conventional wisdom." Do you use Bayesian inference in your daily work and, if so, may I ask what sort of work that is?

Since I fly only when ripped to the gills or sedated, I would not have been in any position to do much about these guys. But say my wife, fatigued with towing me around airports and shoehorning me into coach seats, confiscates my Oxy and Black Bush: What are the odds that as soon as I start flinging these guys away from the can, I get sued for stopping them from going in the lav to pray?

Pretty good, I'm thinking. We can't win.

Confirmed: Michelle Malkin heard from the Air Marshal quoted in the story and he confirms the details: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000207.htm

It was fourteen Syrians in a musical band. We needed Vinnie Falcone on that plane, to come in and straighten shit out.

You know, I don't know if I was hoping this was all a hoax, or if it was real. But Annie Jacobsen sure is cute.

A great deal of consensus among the blogosphere is that this story is a fake, though admittedly I haven't been able to run it completely to the ground. However (and forgive me for going a bit Moore on the assembled throngs), even though it might not be a real anecdote, there's enough in it (a higher truth, perhaps?) to make one concerned.

Now whether the reaction from readers of the piece is to pave Mecca, force CAIR to issue a denunciation every time Saddam cuts the cheese or go Abu Gharaib on every Arab male who flies the friendly skies, I can't say. It would be interesting to know whether Jacobsen is engaging in a bit of creativity in order to force changes that ought to occur.

But I think we can all agree that airline security is, at points, unforgiveably lax, and something needs to be done. Beatnik Joe makes the point - Dubya needs the political capital to force unpleasant truths down the throats of the professional whiners who would rather a dozen flights vanish in a puff of smoke than have one Muhammad complain about "Flying While Arab." But more, he needs pressure from us. He needs to know that there is deep, widespread support for making Mineta actually do his job. The peace and safety of the international and domestic traveller comes first, hurt feelings and "profiling" smears be damned.

But as usual, Mr Paul Anka asks the one question concerning this we all want to know:

"Where's Joe?"

Doug: I think everyone uses Bayesian updating all the time, it's just that most of us aren't pedantic enough to call it that. I'm in the field of international narcotics trafficking.

CW's Conventional Wisdom, Country and Western, and, hopefully, See Dubya kick some more evil dictator butt and render the world safe for democracy. And my first two initials.

Malkin's verification that, at a minimum 14 people with syrian passports and one way tickets were allowed to get on the same plane is chilling enough. But the guy also verifies that some pretty funky stuff DID happen on that plane (or else why were these guys rushed off the plane?).

I'm sure they had good reasons for why each of the fourteen had to use the restroom a couple of times (including during the last 10 minutes of the flight). But I'd like to know what it was.

And if that one guy did give the slash across his throat--the international sign for death--I'd like to know why.

Somebody needs to track these guys down. SHouldn't be that hard. A little snooping around Vegas for who booked the act should make it easy enough to find them.

Ted: Not Vegas--they flew into LA and out of Long Beach. So by the Desert I think they mean Palm Springs/Palm Desert, where there are a lot of casinos and a few clubs. Google hasn't turned up anything yet.

This story seems like a big steaming pile of crap. I think it's a fake.

Re-read that bit. You're right. It probably was someplace like Palm Springs (why not fly out of Ontario or Palm Springs airport then?). Someone out in the desert must know something. . .

Kerry would be infinitely worse. Anyone who votes against Bush for this reason would the the fool of fools, not the ace of spades.

Just a minor point: Mineta hasn't had control over the Air Marshals since last summer. They're now under ICE.

The Polyphonic Spree aer terrorists? Why are they so happy?

Call me a racist, but if i wouldn't have boarded that plane after i had seen all the Arabs.

That "if" wasn't supposed to be there. Sorry.

This story has concerned me somewhat. Especially since M. Malkin has confirmed parts of it with the FAA? DHS? I am large >6'2" > 250 lb. southern male who travels from the SE to the NE several times a year on business. I am also a veteran and took several years of karate in college. I remember after 9/11 surveying all of the passengers on each flight and saying to myself. OK who am I going to have to kill on this flight? If I saw any swathy looking Middle eastern men (I was definitely doing the racial profiling thing) I would keep an eye on them for the entire flight. I would also look around to see if any of my fellow passengers were doing the same thing. Usually there were two to three of them. We would make eye contact and nod to one another. I noticed most of these carried themselves like cops or veterans. I felt somewhat relieved in knowing that there were other viligant passengers on the flight. In the last year or so I have relaxed and haven't been as viligant. Hell I didn't even perform any of my routine on my last flight to Minneapolis. Just sat there big and dumb and happy. I definitely won't being doing that on my upcoming flight to NY now. If on your next flight, if any of you see any middle eastern appearing men heading for the bathroom and then you see a big hulking bear with a southern accent who seems to have an overactive bladder follow them. I'll be checking out the lavatory for any bomb components or other suspicious material. Just say hello, I'll feel better knowing that you're there and that I'll have some back up if the balloon goes up.

Ripper must be reading a different blogosphere than I am, because I don't see anything like a consensus that the story is fake. The overwhelming majority of blogs I read and link to seem to believe it.

Spoons said, "Ripper must be reading a different blogosphere than I am, because I don't see anything like a consensus that the story is fake. The overwhelming majority of blogs I read and link to seem to believe it."

Either way, very few people take issue with the view that security is so lax and misfocused and consciences are so tender that the story verges on believability.

Like any other investigative story it requires corroboration from one, perhaps two, passengers or crew members. The SouthWest Airlines flight attendants web bulletin board has nothing on this story that I have found. It would have spread like wild fire among SouthWest on-board employees. Still, a story that turns out to be nothing but creative imagination put down in writing would spell the end of Ms. Jacobsen's career.
And how about the band? Any band comprised of Syrian musicians that travels long distances is no ordinary bar mitzvah band (Sorry for the attempt at humor). This troupe should have a web page somewhere or at least a listing.

I think they might have all been "famous Baghdad wedding singers."

Liberty: That's cause it was Northwest airlines. Also see my post above about my experience with a fire on a United flight. Just because we don't hear it on the internet doesn't mean it didn't happen. Why assume this band has a website, for example?

Read what some pilots think of the story
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1654841/

Great site http://test1.com test2 [url=http://test3.com]test3[/url]