Posted on 01/09/2002 3:39:27 AM PST by Byron_the_Aussie
US President George W. Bush is sceptical about American Airlines' claim that it removed an Arab-American agent in Bush's security team from a plane for being "hostile".
"I know the man, I am most appreciative of his service to me and my wife. He is an honorable fellow," Bush said.
"I would be surprised if he was hostile."
The US Secret Service, which is responsible for presidential security, said in late December it had launched an inquiry into why the agent, headed to Texas to protect a holidaying Bush, was removed from the aircraft.
The agent, speaking through his lawyers, said he was barred from the Baltimore (Maryland) to Dallas (Texas) flight because of his ethnicity, amid fears sparked by the September 11 terrorist strikes.
"If he was mistreated because of his ethnicity, I'm going to be plenty hot. That means angry," Bush said.
But he added: "I wasn't there, so it's hard for me to comment on something which I did not see."
I read the pilots report. The pilot knew what he was supposed to have in reference to the armed passenger. He couldn't read the paperwork for whatever reason. He judged the agent to be acting in a way not becoming of SS--maybe a little too insistent--I don't know.
But I bet that the pilot, whether he was in the air or sitting at home watching his company's plane hit the WTC on 9/11, has put himself in that cockpit over and over again and wondered what he would have done if his flight attendants necks were slashed and he was losing control of his craft knowing that all the passengers on board were his responsibility. Of course, the actual pilot of that plane probably didn't know that his craft was going to fly into the building-he may have been dead by then. But since this pilot was not on that flight, he might have briefed his crew, in flights he captained after 9/11, to use boiling water or the corkscrew as weapons; or the food cart to block the cockpit--what else could he do? (The doors are reinforced now) Don't you think that before every flight, he takes his job of securing his aircraft very seriously and when his flight attendants come to him with concerns, it's his JOB to make sure in no uncertain terms that the person in question is not a security risk? He wasn't convinced.
If the agent had crossed all his t's and dotted all his i's (both flights) and stayed in his seat with his bag without getting all trumped up and threatening, he would have arrived a day earlier in Crawford. For you to call the pilot a cowboy sounds derogitory (to him and to cowboys). Maybe you have facts I don't but you and One-Particular-Harbour and Dave S and Poohbah and the few others of you who yell "ground him, ignorant racist, cowboy, etc!" sound like you have some personal grudges that may be clouding your objectivity. We already know OPH is carrying a big chip.
My bet is the pilot "erred" on the side of caution. You and I both know he did the right thing.
Also, I think it was the day after Richard Reid pulled his stunt and scooted by all the security that you feel the pilot should have staked his trust in. The agent should have expected heightened security measures.
The paperwork screw-up was 100% American's. The Secret Service agent was bumped. The ticket agent didn't have a "fresh" form. So the American agent marked through the first flight number and wrote in the new. The Secret Service agent did not screw up his paperwork. I have asked seven ways to Sunday for people to look at this "form" and no-one will - please look at this "form." It asks for nothing the airline doesn't already know. The denial of boarding was pretextual. Why did the captain not talk to his own American Airlines employees - or did they lie to a steamed captain?
The "form" issue is b.s. You'll see from American's release of the witness statements by the time the final decision was made to refuse boarding the captain knew he really was a Secret Service agent. Boarding was refused because the agent allegedly became "abusive."
Believe me, if I'd been treated the same way by those clueless jerks I might have become a tad "abusive" as well.
Geeee....Someone acting one way with the boss and acting another way when the boss isn't around. Nahhhhh...that never happens.
Great, that sounds good to me, but I don't buy the regulation that pilots can't be armed.
America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)
The big question remains, though; with so many people staying home, or driving, at what point does increasing airline security become counter-productive?
Kind of ironic (or disingenuous) coming from you. Looking over your posting history you seem to have a strange obsession with racial issues. From my experience people who fixate on race invariably turn out to be a closet bigots.
148 posted on 1/9/02 6:00 PM Eastern by UberVernunft
[Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Welcome to FR. What brings you here - is the "Storm Front" website down?
133 posted on 1/9/02 4:07 PM Eastern by Who is George Salt?
[Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
It's quite clear that YOU WERE.
BTW, what was your former screen name?
he seemed to me to take careful prudent steps to insure the safety of his crew and its passengers that had absolutely nothing to do with the guys ethnic background and everything to do with the guys tempermant.
Right.
His 'arrogance', that he be 'allowed' to carry his gun.
Free Republic, Defenders of the Second Amendment.
Lets examine this. The second amendment works only because all us common folk can have weapons to protect ourselves. In the airplane the environment is changed, only those who are LEO's can have weapons. Therefore, in the spirit of the second amendment, which is designed to protect us from the excesses of out-of-control goverment agents, banning this man is in perfect harmony with the second amendment.
The only better solution is to let all the other passengers carry on their weapons.
If American Airlines is as incomptent as you say they are then doesn't that support the pilots descision not to trust anyone's work before him ? Based on your feelings about their competence, would you stake your life solely on the descision of their customer service department ?
Didn't know that the President was at BWI that day.
No, the initial odd behavior is leaving the plane without his luggage. That is a security breach right there. Only an idiot would leave their luggage unattended especially after listening to the ticket agent warning you not to leave your luggage and that constant airport recording played every few minutes. Everyone is so touchy right now, I cannot imagine boarding and then leaving my luggage on the plane. Heck, a guy goes backwards on an escolator and closes the airport, another guy tries to go to the bathroom before landing and gets tackled. This SS agent and the other passengers were lucky the pilot didn't just call the incident in and see to it the airport was closed.
The book merely upped the ante. Leaving the luggage was another example that the agent was arrogant about the security.
You realize you are making the pilots point to not trust the paperwork aren't you ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.