View Single Post
  #4  
Old July 18th 04, 04:46 AM
tscottme
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
You're right, it IS scary such an ignorant person managed to get

published.


Here's the letter I wrote to them:
----------------
Living is dangerous. If you want to be sure you're not going to be killed

by
a terrorist, build a bomb shelter and stay in there. Do not EVER leave it.
And definitely don't open the door for a terrorist, including the white
ones.

The more sensible of us will recognize that we can choose either to live

in
a totalitarian police state, in which case the terrorists will have at

least
a slightly lower chance of success (but still well above non-zero), or we
can choose to live in a traditional American-style free country, in which
terrorists and law abiding citizens alike have the freedom to move about

the
country and do whatever they like as long as they are not hurting anyone.

Maybe the guys on the airplane were terrorists. Maybe they weren't. But as
near as I can tell, they didn't actually hurt anyone, nor did they commit
any crime. Keeping in mind that terrorist attacks almost always are

preceded
by some other illegal activity (usually involving the acquisition of
firearms, explosives, or the like), it is perfectly reasonable to limit

our
law enforcement activity to focusing on ACTUAL illegal activities, rather
than stirring everyone into a paranoid frenzy.

snip

The Sept 11 hijackers didn't break any law until they started slicing
passengers with box cutters, spraying mace, and rushing the cockpit.
Everyone on an aircraft after Sept 11 has to act in a way to not provoke
reasonable suspicion by all others. After Sept 11, what is reasonable
suspicion has changed. Just as after you slip and fall on particular set of
stairs you are reasonable in a more careful examination of them or the next
set of stairs you approach. Suspicions must be investigated. I don't wish
to impress the world with my ability to rationalize away suspicious
behavior. Suspicious behavior must be investigated promptly and anyone
taking offense can speak to a lawyer afterwards.

Back to the original story, a passenger should have complained to the flight
crew, or a passenger should have attempted to get in the the line to use the
forward lav while the suspicious men were playing musical johns. That would
have either interrupted the trial run or provoked a discussion which could
be used as a pretext for any flight crew to close the lav or further
investigate.

I see no value in going to my grave to make some historian happy. Permanent
critics will never accept any action we take to defend ourselves so I
couldn't give a rip about trying to make them happy. I'm over it and don't
much care if anyone else likes it. Any apparent coordinated acitvitiy by a
group of passengers near the cockpit should be promptly investigated and
stopped unless proven to be innocent. And yes it is reasonable to notice
that people of any description are involved. You can call me a name, I
don't care. But if I can notice if that object swimming besides my
surfboard is a shark or a dolphin I can notice a person's description and
activity.

It's not racist for a crew member to break line to investigate the lav if
someone complains. Nobody was being denied anything and answering a
question is not a civil rights violation. Any item brought onboard should
be subject to scrutiny by a crew member if suspicion is raised. Any area of
the aircraft must be investigated if suspicion is raised. Being cautions
might hurt someone's feelings, but it shouldn't. Being lax could kill
thousands.


--
Scott