Ann Coulter's latest: Arab Hijackers Now Eligible For Pre-Boarding April 28, 2004 In June 2001, as Mohamed Atta completed his final "to do" list before the 9-11 attacks ("... amend will to ban women from my funeral ... leave extra little Friskies out for Mr. Buttons ... set TiVo for Streisand on 'Inside the Actors' Studio' ..."), Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was conducting a major study on whether airport security was improperly screening passengers based on ethnicity. As Mineta explained: "We must protect the civil rights of airline passengers." Protecting airline passengers from sudden death has never made it onto Mineta's radar screen. A few months later, after 19 Muslim men hijacked U.S. airplanes and turned them into weapons of mass destruction on American soil, Mineta was a whirlwind of activity. On Sept. 21, as the remains of thousands of Americans lay smoldering at Ground Zero, Mineta fired off a letter to all U.S. airlines forbidding them from implementing the one security measure that would have prevented 9-11: subjecting Middle Eastern passengers to an added degree of pre-flight scrutiny. He sternly reminded the airlines that it was illegal to discriminate against passengers based on their race, color, national or ethnic origin, or religion. Mineta would have sent the letter even sooner, but he wanted to give the airlines enough time to count the number of their employees and customers who had just been murdered by Arab passengers. On Sept. 27, 2001, The ACLU sent out a press release titled, "ACLU Applauds Sensible Scope of Bush Airport Security Plan," which narrowly won out over the headline: "Fox Approves Henhouse Security Plan." As a rule of thumb, any security plan approved by the ACLU puts American lives at risk. ACLU Associate Director Barry Steinhardt praised Bush's Transportation Department for showing "an admirable degree of restraint by not suggesting airport security procedures that would deny civil liberties as a condition of air travel." The ACLU had zeroed in on the true meaning of 9-11: Americans needed to be more tolerant of and sensitive toward ethnic minorities. Flush with praise from the ACLU, Mineta set to work suing airlines for removing passengers perceived to be of Arab, Middle Eastern or Southeast Asian descent, and/or Muslim. If we're going to start shifting money around based on who's rude to whom, my guess is Muslims are going to end up in the red. But that's not how Mineta's Department of Transportation sees it. Despite Mineta's clearly worded letter immediately after the 9-11 terrorist attacks and another follow-up letter in October, the Department of Transportation found that in the weeks after the 9-11 terrorist attacks carried out by Middle Eastern men, the airlines were targeting passengers who appeared to be Middle Eastern. To his horror, Mineta discovered that the airlines were using logic and deductive reasoning to safeguard their passengers â in direct violation of his just-issued guidelines on racial profiling! The Department of Transportation filed a complaint against United Airlines, claiming United removed passengers from flights in "a few instances" based on their race, color, national origin, religion or ancestry. Mineta gave United no credit for so scrupulously ignoring ethnicity on Sept. 11 that it lost four pilots, 12 flight attendants, and 84 passengers (not including the nine Arab hijackers). In November 2003, United settled the case for $1.5 million. In another crucial anti-terrorism investigation undertaken by Norman Mineta, the Department of Transportation claimed that between Sept. 11, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2001, American Airlines â which lost four pilots, 13 flight attendants and 129 passengers (not including 10 Arab hijackers) on Sept. 11 by ignoring the ethnicity of its passengers â removed 10 individuals who appeared to be Middle Eastern from American Airline flights as alleged security risks. On March 1, 2004, American Airlines settled the case for $1.5 million. The Department of Transportation also charged Continental Airlines with discriminating against passengers who appeared to be Arab, Middle Eastern or Muslim after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In April 2004, Continental Airlines settled the complaint for $500,000. Like many of you, I carefully reviewed the lawsuits against the airlines in order to determine which airlines had engaged in the most egregious discrimination, so I could fly only that airline. But oddly, rather than bragging about the charges, the airlines heatedly denied discriminating against Middle Eastern passengers. What a wasted marketing opportunity! Imagine the great slogans the airlines could use: "Now Frisking All Arabs â Twice!" "More Civil-Rights Lawsuits Brought by Arabs Than Any Other Airline!" "The Friendly Skies â Unless You're an Arab" "You Are Now Free to Move About the Cabin â Not So Fast, Mohammed!" Worst of all, the Department of Transportation ordered the settlement money to be spent on civil-rights programs to train airline staff to stop looking for terrorists, a practice known as digging your own grave and paying for the shovel. Airlines that have been the most vigilant against terrorism are forced by the government into re-education seminars to learn to suppress common sense. Airlines are being forced, at their own expense, to make commercial air travel more dangerous. If John Kerry would promise to fire Norman Mineta and start racial profiling at the airports, I would campaign for him. Unfortunately, like George Bush, Kerry doesn't travel commercial air with the little people
I don't agree with racial profiling because it just doesn't work. If you are a U.S. citizen, you deserve the rights of citizenship regardless of race, creed or color. However, if you are a foreign national, get in the longer line. I do it every time I go to Europe. There is an EU line and there is the line for everyone else. For frequent fliers, let them register in a database if they so choose and use fingerprint / eye recognition systems and speed through security faster. 99.9999% of the time, a traveler just wants to get to their destination with as little hassle as possible. It is that .0001% of the time that some idiot wants to fly a plane into a building, hijack it or cause problems.
Since 9/11 I've driven as much as 10 hours to avoid an airline flight. When I do end up on the airlines anyway I have never seen a single arab being singled out for additional searches. The "security" guys do seem to have a fondness for young white females though. I always figure they are hoping to catch a glimpse of their panties while searching their suitcase.
PC concerns often conflict with common sense. Sometimes it's annoying or just laughable, but when our lives are at stake it's not a laughing matter. Security screening is done on a sampling basis, just like tax audits. Is it more reasonable and efficient, and thus safer, to pick people at random or to single out those who match the characteristics of 99% of hijackers?
Those working in security or law enforcement are in the business of apprehending wrong doers. Like any salesman or store owner those in authority target their most likely customers. Expecting the police or security guards to ignore profiling is like asking a trader to not employ statistical analysis to identify his most probable winning set-ups. Yes it sux being part of a notorious sub-group. Whether you're an Arab flying, a black motorist driving through an area that suffers from a high rate of crime committed by those of your skin, or a small businessman filing a tax return with "red flag" deprecations: at one time we're all singled out. Just as few of us believe in random price action, those in other professions have figured out tradable patterns also. Had FBI profilers not suggested that a white man be the odds on favorite as the D.C. area sniper, John Allen Mohammed , an African-American Moslem, would have been taken into custody days earlier. He had been stopped because his car matched a description but he wasn't detained because the police had been persuaded that "only whites kill like this." It all works both ways.
Dare we say your decision not to leave ET was a flip flop? Pabst Elite Member Registered: Dec 2001 Posts: 1947 04-26-04 12:44 PM Pabst Retire's From ET I wanted to get 2000 posts before my swan song but....... This place sux now. Not enough traders or ideas. Too many fag libs. Even as an alias I'm ashamed to say I'm part of this. Goodbye. Hmm, they used to say if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.... __________________ Free markets for free men!
In China to control their population, sterilization was common sense. To grow crops in the deep South and make a handsome profit slavery was common sense. Stealing land from Indians so that the white man could settle was common sense. Starting wars so that we can have control over the second largest oil reserve in the world so that we don't have to alter our lifestyle and drive energy efficient cars is common sense. There is common sense, and then there is the "sense" of entitlement that is all too common and frequently expressed on topics like this. It is a hoot hearing WASPS talk about how "right" racial profiling is.
Aphie..... Sometimes, certain types of profiling does work. (Doesn't necessarily have to be "racial profiling", but it sometimes may be.) Trust me on this one, Aphie.