The Politburo Diktat

Comrade,

I think there is some overreaction here. One, the news article is unsubstantiated: anonymous sources and the flight crew and others are not allowed to comment or talk. Previous reports are in contrast to what is being said now. As far as I know, Joe Katzman has not said anything on this, it is all Armed Liberal so far. Until people are willing to go on the record, and ALL are allowed to speak freely, this is a mess, plain and simple; and, it may also be an effort to damage the reputation of Anne Jacobsen for various reasons. Flatly, more info is needed before any judgement can be reached about Ms. Jacobsen and her actions.

Thanks. Corrected to 'Armed Liberal.'

Rule of thumb, comrade! WWVD!!!

______________What Would Vyshinsky Do?

Tovarich:

Yes, overreacting by some parts of the blogosphere.

Maybe, overreacting by Ms. Jacobsen.

Your comments re: long, hard, and courageous are on the beam, and I appreciate your words and tone.

A close look at airline security practices - and all security practices - are in order.

Here's a quotation from a document I read once or twice:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The militia, as described famously by Joseph Story in his expostion on the Constitution in the 1840s, is citizens under arms against a threat to the nation - internal, external, or governmental in nature. Consequently, in this counterterrorism times, the militia are all of us, right now, defending our country. How this turned into a 2nd Amendment thing is beyond me, but that's how it goes.

Boy, would an armed citizenry standing in line next to yardbirds keep terrorists a bit more at bay?

Something just occurred to me - the marshalls in the story say they were concerned that this might have been an attempt to ID who was a marshall and who wasn't...

If the marshalls need to reassure the passengers, there is absolutely NO NEED for them to identify themselves. A simple discreet message to their HQ, who then contacts the purser on the airplane, and passes on the appropriate information.

This makes me think about about calling "shenanigans" on the above story...If I can think of such a simple system, why can't the Air Marshall's service ? I think they probably already have.

Overreaction? I dunno. Reaction, certainly, but overreaction?

I guess the standard I would apply is that old saw, the reasonable person. What would a reasonable person have done if he'd witnessed what Annie Jacobsen witnessed? There's been a lot of water over the dam since 9/11, but I think it's still close to the forefront of a reasonable person's mind. I think a reasonable person is more aware of his surroundings today than he was on September 10, 2001. I think a reasonable person knows that Arab men took the four aircraft by force and that despite all our best efforts they could probably do it again if they wanted to. I think a reasonable person would have been more than a little freaked out, too.

Lots of courses of action have been justified or maligned by saying that that's just what the terrorists want us to do. Let us not be too generous. The terrorists want us to die. Anything we do that lessens the chance of an American's dying at the hands of a terrorist is not something the terrorists want us to do.

If Annie Jacobsen was wrong—I'm still not entirely sure, and probably never will be, because that's how things like this turn out—then we can all sit around and talk about how she overreacted. If she was right, we would be sitting around talking about why she didn't do more. Monday-morning quarterbacking isn't something I'm interested in. I'm going to apply my reasonable-person standard, and by that standard I think what she did was just fine.

The air marshals on the plane, professional by definition and presumably reasonable, felt that Ms. Jacobsen posed the greatest danger.

She also blew their anonymity; not a good idea.

I don't see the story. Donald Sensing was right in the first place: nothing happened. Now he thinks something did happen: Anne Jacobsen jumped at shadows. But as far as I'm concerned, that is not important news either. Some people are a bit jumpy. So?

Go back to sleep.

"She also blew their anonymity; not a good idea."

Are you sure she did that? The way I read it the marshalls were afraid that the situation might escalate and in turn blow their cover. If that actually did happen I missed it. Still, it does appear that she and her husband took things a bit too far.

Incidents like this are relatively rare. however, I don't think that this is an indication of widespread panic. After years of threat warnings and CYA statements from Homeland Security it's suprising that it doesn't happen with greater frequency.

The next attack, and there will be one, will not involve airliners flying into buildings. The flight crews aren't going to let that happen again. They aren't going to open the cockpit door no matter what happens in the back of the plane. If the bad guys try to force the door they'll find themselves on the ceiling as the pilots show that yes indeed a 737 can do a barrel roll. If they actually did get into the cockpit does anybody seriously think that the pilots won't drill a large hole in Farmer Brown's field rather than let their bird be used as a WMD?
Still, I think this batch was up to no good. What better way to get everyone looking the wrong direction than have various bunches of Arabs acting strangely on airplanes? We all know that lots of Muslims with no connection whatever to the Islamic terror groups are sympathetic to them. How easy would it be for an AlQ or Hamas operative to ask them to, when on a flight, act strangely, take bags to the john and return without them congregate by the exit door in flight, all that stuff.
Meanwhile there's a barge coming up the river with forty-leven thousand gallons of liquified natural gas and ten kilos of Semtex. Or a nice gasoline tanker truck filling up at the refinery rigged to blow.
Misdirection, every second lieutenant learns it, every football coach and chess player. Get everybody looking up while the attack is coming at ground level.

Patterico's Pontifications reports through Malkin's blog that all 14 Syrians had lapsed visas. WTF were they doing on an airplane?

Mineta must go.

Cover was NOT blown and they were not exposed any more than REMF dress and related codes already make them stand out like sore thumbs. More on this tomorrow, but think the hysteria is going another way now.

Commissar, you are of course correct (by definition), but there is more.

I wish to offer an aphorism, which you may post on the wall if you like:

Perimeter Security is Bad Security

The only real security is security in depth. If airline passengers were knowledgeable and alert, the system would be impenetrable. As it stands, it's not quite a joke, but it's porous as a sieve, and there's no way to really, finally fix it, no matter what statists, enthusiasts for police power, and lazy assholes who want it done for them want or say.

Every wall can be defeated -- broken, bored through, or climbed. TSA is trying to do an impossible job: keeping every threat off of the airplanes. It simply cannot be done. If they are efficient and alert they can reduce it enormously, but we are already well past the point where the intrusion is a significant economic hit, and things keep happening. They will continue to keep happening.

This is supposed to be the United States of America. The Constitution begins, "We the People..." According to our theory, sovereignty rests in the people and is delegated to officials, rather than the other way around. The power of arrest rests in the citizens and is granted to police who are trained to handle it efficiently. If we are not too timorous to live up to our own ideals we can handle terrorism threats handily.

Ms. Jacobsen almost certainly overreacted. I don't really see the danger in outing the Air Marshalls, especially if there were several on board; revealing one and not more, to reassure a passenger, seems a reasonable tactic.

But airline passengers need to be informed about the threats and about how to react properly. "Sit tight and let the officials handle it" is NOT sufficient information -- it wastes resources and, more important, leaves the field open for eager beavers to interfere, possibly disastrously. The TSA and airlines should work out what people can do, and offer mini-courses to explain and teach (departure lounges for delayed flights would be a good venue.) A Deputy Sky Marshall course, available to anyone willing to pay the freight (yes, charge for it), would get lots of takers, and fuller info could be given there and would diffuse into the public from course-takers. There are many other ways.

Regards,
Ric Locke

If Ms. Jacobsen's account of her observations is accurate (not her interpretations, necessarily, but her observations), then she did not overreact. Objectively, I would have had the same concers she did, and would likely have reacted more forcefully than she did.

There are a lot of straw-man arguments being thrown out aginst Ms. Jacobsen. First, people are saying that it's unreaasonable to fear attacks directed at airliners because we'd never let a hijacking take place again First, that is by no means certain. At the very least, it's by no means certain that the terrorists would reach the same conclusion and not even try. More importantly, however, hijacking is hardly the only way terrorists could target an airplane. Their preferred M.O. used to be to blow them up. The 9/11 commission determined that one of the things that made it difficult to prevent 9/11 was a "failure of imagination." Well, I see a lot of failed imagination by those hawking a superstitious belief that lightning can't strike place on an airplane again.

Besides, what did Jacobsen supposedly do wrong? She observed suspicious behavior by a group of Arab men. Aren't we supposed to be on the lookout for stuff like that? Beyond that, what did she do other than report it to the flight attendants. That's it. She also worried to death about it, but that's to be expected, isn't it? You Monday-morning quarterbacks have a problem with that? You think she should have simply trusted the flight attendant's assurance that "we're aware of the problem, and there are sky marshalls, so don't worry about it." One of you even advises, "go back to sleep." The irony of that statement is palpable.

In short, you want Americans to stop being on the lookout for suspicious behavior. To you, combatting terrorism is "the experts" problem. We apparently have no responsibility for our own safety, but instead should place our trust on a system that allowed 14 Syrians with expired visas to board a plane on the same day that there was a major terrorist alert at airports, and then allowed these men to violate security rules by congregating at the bathroom, and getting up out of their seats in unison after the plane started its descent -- all without anyone ever confronting these men for their security violations.

Sorry, but the next time I fly, I hope I have a lot more Annie Jacobsens, and a lot less of you "go back to sleep" people with me.

Maybe she was jumping at shadows. Now I feel like I am jumping at shadows. But shadows don't arise in unison as the plane is descending on LAX and go to the lavatory. What are the chances that everyone of a certain nationality has to piss at the same time which just happens to be before landing? Don't they know there are restrooms in the airport? And now the marshals are attacking the messenger? It is a shadowy conspiracy, comrades. Let us await the return of the shadows for their next gig and report again on their need to relieve themselves in unison.

I went ahead and posted my take today, as it is food for thought if a bit "savory" rather than sweet. I agree with Spoons on this one: I want observant people with me who are not afraid to point out suspicious behavior, and who will stand with me if things go south.

If I'm in that woman's situation, I'm not going to just sit back and wait for the grownups to take matters in hand. I may well make a big mess out of an innocent situation, but hey! I don't care even a little bit.

The next attack, and there will be one, will not involve airliners flying into buildings.

It wont? Did you hear about the arab guy who locked himself the bathroom on a flight recently and had begun tearing down the wall that lead to the cockpit before the security finally kicked down the door? There have been many attempts since 9/11 on airlines and they certainly wont stop if we get all huffy at ourselves every time someone is suspicious. I doubt that Anne caused a security breach - I think the others were happy that someone cared.

liberty: Citation for that story, please.

Spoons: "Sorry, but the next time I fly, I hope I have a lot more Annie Jacobsens, and a lot less of you "go back to sleep" people with me."

Not a problem, Spoons: I also hope I am not on the next plane that gets hijacked, and as I rarely fly, that seems likely.

I have no problem with the principle that perimeter security is bad security. I don't think "remain passive and hope that officials handle everything" is adequate or even good advice. I agree with the explosives expert Peter Gurney (author of _ Braver men walk away_) that "knowledge is armour" and that keeping the public in the dark, as officials routinely do is counterproductive. I agree that the probing on airlines is a serious issue, and that there is real danger than when the terrorists have gathered enough information and when our nerves and alertness have been worn down with futility (either false positives or hostile acts that were deliberately just petty enough to avoid serious legal consequences) we may be hit seriously again.

I just don't think this one incident or rather non-incident is an issue. I suggest: discuss policy, but not Annie Jacobsen's flight and how she allegedly did or didn't over-react.

K.M.

Sorry to disagree, but her over-reaction (and the blogosphere's) is, IMHO, the problem. That is the issue. Why? Because such over-reactions are playing into Osama's hands. The terrorists (despite what one commenter said) know that they cannot 'kill all of us.' Thay CAN terrorize us, make us scared to go about our lives, and end up hurting ourselves.

Should we start ejecting suspicious passengers at 30,000 feet?

That's my issue with this story. It's exactly what Osama wants; it's not what WE want.

I was going to join the debate on Laughing Wolf's side, but now that you've said it's ok to be contrary in the post above... sheesh. The thrill is all gone now. ;]

"Should we start ejecting suspicious passengers at 30,000 feet?" - Commissar

Should it bother me that I don't find that concept as horrifying as some seem to?

The thought occurs that a few well timed *splat!*'s might be discouraging to some of the people who are reportedly casing airports looking to see if a repeat of 9/11 might be feasible. The blot on the pavement might be unaesthetic - but it might suggest that another Flight 93 won't go any more gently into the Long Night than the last one did.

Ironbear, I realize you are being facetious, but I am troubled by the fact that some people seem to feel that we should indeed "react first and think later." How do we choose who to condemn? Do we eject anyone who "looks suspicious"? Do we start "shooting first and asking questions later" for anyone we don't like, as has been suggested indirectly by The Laughing Wolf on his weblog? Next thing you know, we're shooting and throwing out of planes anyone who "isn't like us". Is this really what America stands for?

Is America really so fragile, truly so weak, that we have to abandon our principles? Yes, we are at war, but the tactics being advocated to fight this war approach those of "the operation was successful, but the patient died". If we destroy the idea of America in our war, we have given the terrorists their victory.

I don't think that just because somebody's "advocating" something or other, that there's any reason to panic over what they're "advocating." There are people "advocating" that President Bush get the death penalty. Putting ideas in perspective is good, but dredging up "...the terrorists will have won" doesn't exactly get your objections taken seriously either.

There were professionals on the flight in question, and they certainly didn't try to toss anyone overboard at altitude -- and if any civilian had tried, the pro's would have stopped them.

Behavior by passengers that alarms other passengers is A Bad Idea™ and one would think that frequent air travellers -- as presumably these Syrians would be -- would be aware of this fact by now.

Sinister? Okay, maybe not, but stupid beyond belief. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, sometimes stupidity does indeed carry a death penalty even when it isn't criminal.

The Commisar: "Sorry to disagree, but her over-reaction ..."

You have cause to be sorry, comrade. Even though you declared the disagreement first, I was already in disagreement with you. Therefore, this counts as my weekly disagreement with a blogger I respect, but as I am not a blogger, it doesn't count as yours. (does Cossack dance of glee) Ha!

Ironbear,

Let us let the ACLU worry about the rights and fates of the 14 Syrians, and anyone else that we don't like. (I'm less kidding than you might think about that.)

The problem with opening the cabin at 30,000 is that it de-pressurizes and probably kills everyone on board.

I don't think you can actually open the cabin door at altitude.

What -- you mean all those action movie heroes were deceiving us!?

No, Thibodeaux, you can't. The doors are designed so they have to be pulled inward a little before they can be swung open. At any respectable altitude it would take several thousand pounds of pull to do that.

Sanity Inspector: I think this is the article.

The Commisar:

Given the new information, I think that rationally the conclusion is obvious. One must ask one's self what is more likely; that a writer (a literate artist) over-react or that the air marshals have launched a (rather pathetic) to discredit her in order to cover up the fact that there are foreigners in this country with expired documentation and that those same foreigners sometimes board planes.
There may be (and most likely is) more information, but given the information we have to arrive at any conclusion other than over-reacting is to be less than rational.

"Ironbear, I realize you are being facetious..." - Jack

Am I, Jack? Or am I applying a certain amount of ruthless [and admittedly unpalatable] foxhole logic to the situation? As well as, I'll admit, more than a bit of gallows humour. ;)

Hell, when they hang me I'll probably go out with a tacky wisecrack on my lips. ;]

A combat mindset is a bit different from a peacetime or civilian mindset, and we really are at war here. If the choice is between possibly killing an innocent person, or that *not* taking that chance might result in another airliner being crashed into a building... ?

Somone has to coldbloodedly examine the ruthless scenarios, even when they're distasteful.

It's a moot point in my case: I'm not going to use commercial aircraft in a country that doesn't trust me to be armed, so I'm not likely to encounter Jacobsen's exact situation.

"The problem with opening the cabin at 30,000 is that it de-pressurizes and probably kills everyone on board." - Commissar

Admittedly, the pressurization and the design would make it impossible to open the doors, most likely, as several have pointed out.

I'm kind of doubtful that the depressurization would kill everyone on board though. You study combat aircraft and politing, as I do. I'm sure you've seen some of the damage that planes have taken at altitude and both the crews, passengers, and planes have survived.

Immediately after 9/11, when the discussions were being made on wether to arm pilots or not, there were a number of photos of planes with huge holes in cockpit/fuselage circulating that demonstrated that the dangers of breaching cabin at alitude weren't as catastrophic as Hollywierd effects had been convincing everyone for decades.

I'm going to add a couple of thoughts here for you to chew on, Jack.

1) You may think my gallows humour examination of the deterrence possibility of ejecting a threatening passenger was tacky and horrifying - but: over the course of the past four years, it has become plain that our airline security measures aren't very serious. The very lack of even minimal common sense proceedures, such as teh enormous resistance to arming pilots and flight crews tells us that. So do the "prank" smugglings of weapons on coard, and people doing idiotic crap to "protest" Homeland Security.

If we don't get serious, then at some point, someone will determine a way to take over another plane... and some 20 year old in an F-16 cockpit is going to have to examine the ruthless logic of having to shoot down a civilian airliner to prevent it from being used as a cruise missile. And that will be very ugly, and very horrifying.

And it will be all the uglier becuase there's a possibility that it didn't have to have happened.

2) Fighting to bloody well *win* when you are at war doesn't automatically "make you the same as the enemy" even when winning requires that you take severe action and make ruthless choices.

There is a major damned internal difference between a civilized human being and a savage. During WWII and Korea [Research Chosin Resevoir sometimes], American troops in Europe and the Pacific faced horrifying things, and often had to commit horrifying and ruthless acts in order to win and survive. One of our Presidents authorised use of an atomic bomb - twice.

And after the wars, those men and women came home, put e war and combat behind them, started business and families, and went back to being more or less normal principled Americans. And we've managed to not have another President drop a nuke since.

That's what civilised people do. We face the need when it arises to use the savage in us, but we do not *have* to become it, for we are not intrinsically savages at heart. We do what is needed, and then we go back home.

True savages don't act barbarically and then put it down and walk away from it, because it's not soemthing they can take on and off.

If you think that there is truly no difference between us and them, and that having to make a few hard choices in this war will automatically cause us to become them... then speaking as a barbarian myself, and as someone who has seen violence, you are wronging your fellow countrymen very, very badly. And you apparently have very little faith in the "American principles" and character that you are prattling on about.

Chew on that a bit, sirrah.

Ironbear, I never said that I saw no difference between us and them. To remind you, what I said was:

If we destroy the idea of America in our war, we have given the terrorists their victory.

---

That is not the same as saying I see no difference between us and the terrorists. If you are going to use pejorative terms like "prattling on" at the very least get the ideas you are arguing about correct.

"Is this really what America stands for?" - Jack

"that we have to abandon our principles?" - Jack

"If we destroy the idea of America in our war" - Jack

"have given the terrorists their victory." - Jack

I think I read between the lines pretty good, kiddo. ;]

What do you think America is going to stand for if we lose the battles here, while our troops are bleeding for them there? I don't care to have to explain to my nephew why we allowed another WTC here while he was fighting in the 'Stan.

And, by the way: "prattling on" is a descriptive, not a pejorative. "Fuckwit" is both a pejorative, and a descriptive. Now you can be offended - I've applied an actual pejorative to you that you can point at and put on your Marvin the Martian voice over.

You haven't bothered to delve into specifics on how tightening our security is going to "destroy the idea of America in our war", instead choosing to swell up like a horned toad over your imagined pejoratives. Do you have any specifics, rather than general hyperbole?

It was a nice sidestep from having to address the concept that we need to deal with the hard questions now in cold blood, rather than in the heat of passion after the next attack. Didn't work, but nice attempt.

As far as the pejoratives go... I became tired of bandying words with the vacuous a long time ago.

If you have some working alternatives to offer, rather than platitudes, by all means: lay them out and let's argue the merits. And I'll lay out a few I've been thinking on, and we can argue the merits of those.

Otherwise, you're wasting my time when I'm trying to talk to the grownups here like the Commissar and McGeehee, and I have small patience for it. Lead, follow, or get the fuck out of my way.

Commissar,

You seem to be putting a lot of credence in the assertions of air marshals who did nothing on this flight, and may feel the need to justify their total inaction.

They are the professionals. Absent better evidence, which AJ's version doesn't constitute, I'll accept their version.

My first reaction to AJ's story (her version)was "Sheesh, get a grip." The marshals' version confirmed my reaction to hers.

In a way, the numerous blogosphere posts and this thread, illustrate my main point, my first reaction to AJ's story.

This is what Osama wants.

We can discuss cockpit doors, visa expirations, witness credibility, etc. etc.

The fact is 14 Syrian musicians flew on a commercial flight. They had no intention of hijacking it. They were not doing a dry run. A totAL non-event. But ONE FUCKING PERSON "freaked out" and now all this goddam paranoia and conspiracy theories and "Only good Indian is a dead Indian" and "The Air Marshals fucked up" and all sorts of nonsense are flooding the blogosphere.

Fuck! OBL would be laughing his ass off if he could read all this.

I repeat: NOTHING HAPPENED. EXCEPT IN MS. JACOBSEN'S OVERACTIVE IMAGINATION.

Couldn't disagree more. Ms. Jacobsen has pointed out some problems with our security. Given that Osama clearly intends more hijackings (witness the Washington Times story linked in this thread), I can't imagine that he would welcome any new focus on our security shortcomings.