American Airlines plane diverted...

Dec 27th, 2001, 05:29 AM
  #41  
Keith Legg
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I think the sad lesson is that if someone is determined enough to blow up a plane then they will try it regardless of the amount of security. By all accounts it didn't seem to matter to him where the plane was going, he just wanted to blow it up. Sky marshalls are a great idea - I thought that they had already been put on board US planes, but obviously not - but if there's a bomb in the hold or in someone's shoe, even they won't be able to stop it.
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 06:06 AM
  #42  
Tony Hughes
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Tend to agree with Keith. It's very hard to completely eradicate the threat of a bomber - especially a suicide bomber. One way or another if they are determined enough and there are a sufficient number of them, they'll do it. Nevertheless, nothing that has happened in the last 4 months has put me off flying.
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 06:50 AM
  #43  
anon anon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
what do I think?

these guys, when caught, should be executed on.the.spot. a little too much sedative, a little too much pressure on the neck when 'subduing' them.

they wanted to commit suicide ANYWAY, so, no waste there, and, if it thwarts their 'holy plans', then maybe enough of them will get the hint that their efforts are in vain...

plus, less of a chance of getting a hand-tap cuz they can't pin anything more heavy than 'interfering with a flight crew' on them (cuz nothing actually "did happen").

that BS makes about as much sense as people who can't have stalkers committed because they haven't 'done anything yet'

grrrrr
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 07:10 AM
  #44  
sss
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thing is Anon your idea still makes them Martyrs and helps them carrying out their original goals, life in prison keeps them a big fat looser even in their own eyes.
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 09:41 AM
  #45  
xxxx
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
But if they get good enough lawyers, Dersherwitz, they may get light sentences, such as interfering with a flight crew, the same as someone who gets loud and boisterous. Makes you wonder, doesn't it Anon Anon?
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 10:23 AM
  #46  
Emily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
xxxx,
You have been joking about getting someone like Dershowitz, but seriously Dershowitz has joined the legal team to represent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in his upcoming appeal of the Pan Am 103 bombing trial verdict.

 
Dec 27th, 2001, 10:40 AM
  #47  
Nancy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Emily, what is a person like Dershowitz thinking? There has to be a limit to bending over backwards (or forwards) for potential or known terrorists. I just dont know what we are coming to. I believe it is a mockery of our judicial system, no wonder terrorists think (or know) they can get away with their acts.
Grrrr, too.
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 11:55 AM
  #48  
xxx
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Have you watched a single news clip about non-U.S citizens being held and all kinds of rights being denied. They are hardly going to get Alan Dirshowitz (sp) to represent them if they get representation at all.

Here we are again debating nonsense. You should be writing your legislator and asking what happen with Sky Marshals on board.
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 12:03 PM
  #49  
xxx
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
If Dershowitz is involved what he is thinking is that he does not want to see 30 years of civil liberties roll back. It is not rocket science he remembers the days when police office could break down your door, ran sack your apartment without a warrant. When you could get hauled off to a police station without being told what you did. Think that was a wonderful time JUST IMAGINE what this meant for minorities, or anyone that fell victum to someone that was just plain stupid in who they suspected of a crime. THIS IS WHAT HE WAS THINKING
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 12:10 PM
  #50  
xwoman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Well, when we are at war with a group, I think their rights are forsaken. Do you want the USA to be the universal patsy?
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 12:37 PM
  #51  
xxx
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Why not pick up a book on recent world history before you start calling the U.S a Patsy. We can take care of ourselves and the world seems to know more than just this.

On the issue of civil liberties: Do you think Japanese American families that were separated for as much as two years during tough war times were just inconvenienced. Not having rules leaves room for error. You can lock up a lot of people unjustifiably. This is not about finding loop holes to help terrorist run free this about doing what is prudent and fair so that we don't set a precident other judges can use to deny others their rights. This is about preserving a system that has forced Judges to be more accurate by having set standards of justice. This is not about governing out of fear but with prudent judgment. Things are not going to get better for you just because anyone is in prison.
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 12:51 PM
  #52  
xxxxx
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
How about as a deterrent?
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 01:03 PM
  #53  
Emily
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Nancy,

I should have made clear that the Lockerbie trial (PA103) took place in a Special Scottish court held in the Netherlands. It’s a bit complicated but this was the only way Libya would allow the two men to stand trial (one was acquitted). Scottish law allows appeals. Remember terrorism was hardly a concern to most people when the verdict came down last January.

Apparently Dershowitz believes the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt had not been met in the trial. Many people agree the evidence was slim. Whatever the result of the appeal the mastermind of that bombing, Libyan leader Mommar Ghadafi, will never be brought to justice.
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 02:28 PM
  #54  
Holy Cow
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I saw on the news today that American Airlines would not allow a Secret Service agent of Arab descent on one of its plane (he was a member of the president's security detail). On the other hand, if it's a real terrorist, they put him up in a four star hotel. What the heck is going on with this airline?
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 04:05 PM
  #55  
Kay
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Do you want to be PC or save lives?
 
Dec 27th, 2001, 06:39 PM
  #56  
Holy Cow
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I want to be safe - that's my point. They prevent a secret service agent from boarding, but treat a terrorist like an AAdvantage Executive Platinum flyer. Look, it has to be relatively easy to verify that a person is a secret service agent. On the other hand, they had an additional 24 hours to check out R. Reid and did nothing.
 
Dec 28th, 2001, 06:08 AM
  #57  
sss
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yeah Kay people are being PC when they are unjustifiably screwing with others well being when it is your tail it will be a civil liberties violation.

I had a friend that is also of Arab decent he is a civil engineer. He was working at ground zero. I am guessing it was a volunteer who saw him (after a full week of being on site)on walkie talkie and thought he looked suspicious. Let's all remember “looking suspicious” today means looking Arab. This person alerted a police officer who along with 9 buddies surrounded my friend and said "FREEZE". He had been on the site for a week as an engineer. He has been a citizen of this country for 25 years. To look at him he could be Greek, Italian or Spanish as he is fair and also a yuppy. Was it really necessary to surround my friend with 10 police officers instead questioning him with one first? Did they think he was going to detonate his walkie talkie?

My sister in-law was on a flight where a man sitting next to her again Arab decent was frisked on board in front of a cabin full of people. She thought this is what has to be done these are different times. She felt bad for the guy but soon forgot about it and actually distanced herself from this guy by not speaking with him. On the way back she was frisked also (again no other passengers were frisked) and again onboard in full view of seated passengers, now she was outraged. This is clearly something could have been done on the ground. Nevertheless my sister in-law could only understand the indignity of this act when she was confronted with it personally. WE ALL NEED TO REMEMBER THIS. Yes we want to be safe but that does not mean that don't pull someone into a private space and offer them a little dignity.
 
Dec 28th, 2001, 06:58 AM
  #58  
sss
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
to top
 
Dec 28th, 2001, 08:17 AM
  #59  
it _is_
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I think Billybob is right, one can't draw conclusions about the presence or absence of sky marshalls simply because noone came forward and identified themselves. Which would, of course, compromise their efficacy on future flights.

Kay, while I understand your frustration, I think xxx's point is that maybe the lives we save won't be worth saving, if we don't protect what makes them valuable in the first place. It is precisely for times like these that civil liberties were designed in the first place.

Don't forget, also, that terrorist incidents occur in countries where civil liberties are all but nonexistent, so safety wouldn't necessarily be increased by squashing civil liberties.
 
Dec 28th, 2001, 09:34 AM
  #60  
sss
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
So does that mean that they (sky marshalls)don't identify themselves to attackers either? I think this is what people are finding alarming not that they were not available for after the fact interviews.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:11 AM.