Who’s freaking out?
Following the lead of anonymous air marshals (see Eric Leonard’s KFI news story), some in the blogosphere are piling on Annie Jacobsen. One blogger calls her a “sniveling little twit.” Kevin Drum pooh-poohs “Panic in the Skies.” Armed Liberal advises Annie to take a “chill pill.” And Commissar at Politburo Diktat writes:
We are freaking out. Panicking. Overreacting. Getting jumpy. For Chrissakes, GET A GRIP, comrades. We (I mean Ms. Jacobsen) are, by the words of our federal air security officials, creating a danger in the air.
I respectfully take issue with this characterization. Let’s remember what exactly Annie and Kevin Jacobsen did on their flight. By one unnamed marshal’s own words:
Jacobsen and her husband had a number of conversations with the flight attendants and gestured towards the men several times, the source said.
Who’s freaking out? The unnamed marshals who spoke to KFI are popping veins over the Jacobsens for having merely discussed their concerns with the flight crew and “gestured towards the men.” The couple didn’t jump up and scream “We are going to die!” They didn’t faint or have heart attacks. And they didn’t confront the 14 Syrians while they all stood up before landing, went to the bathroom, and congregated in the aisles in violation of security regulations. (No one confronted them, for crying out loud. That is the problem.)
The Jacobsens didn’t even muster up the courage to say meekly to the Syrians, “Hey, could you please sit down. You are making me nervous.” And they didn’t blab to other passengers about their fears.
The Jacobsens talked to the flight attendants and they kept to themselves. In fact, in their MSNBC interview, Kevin Jacobsen said he sat quietly with his wife and son during the landing and resignedly wrote about his concerns in his journal. Out-of-control menaces in the air? Come on.
The message that the alarmed and panicked marshals are sending out is that if and when we view suspicious behavior, we should all just sit tight in our seats, shut up, and do nothing until it’s too damned late lest we possibly risk blowing their cover.
Meanwhile, Tom Ridge and Norm Mineta ask us all to be vigilant, buy our duct tape, hand over our nail clippers and knitting needles, keep our lips sealed, and relinquish complete control and responsibility for homeland defense–and self-defense–to The Professionals.
Two words: Hell, no.
(Now, read this: When government failed: Passengers of Flight 93 saved America from even greater horror.)
***
Some annoyed bloggers wonder why I keep “flogging” this subject. For the same reasons they keep discussing it themselves: Very simply, it’s interesting and it’s important and there’s much to learn here about how both the government and citizens should properly respond to real and perceived homeland security threats. If you’d rather read about what the Bush twins are wearing and who saw whom at what restaurant, you are in the wrong zip code.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Laughing Wolf
- The Spoons Experience
- Captain's Quarters
- Rox Populi
- Blogs of War
- InTheBullpen.com
- Serenity's Journal
- BLACKFIVE
- Right Moment
- Twisted Spinster
- Tom McMahon
- Dean's World
- Winds of Change.NET
- LilacRose
- Who Tends the Fires
- damnum absque injuria
- Media Lies
- The Blue State Conservatives
- The Blue State Conservatives
- The Blue State Conservatives
- planck's constant
- planck's constant
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Airline Security, Annie Jacobsen, Norm Mineta
Power Line
» The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study
Mudville Gazette
» When the wind won't blowMudville Gazette
» Bad Weather (Part I)Legal Insurrection
» Hacked E-mails or Else!Pundit & Pundette
» About last night's voteJustOneMinute
» "Unequivocal"?
Explain this to me, oh wise liberals……
The latest reports are that 13 of these 14 Syrians had expired visas…. Can you give me ANY justifications for any alien in this country on an expired visas NOT being apprehended INSTANTLY upon discovery by law enforcement, and why Airlines, bus lines and Amtrak should not assist in this policy?
If I get stopped by police for a broken tail-lite, the cop demands: Driver’s License, proof of insurance, and proof of registration. Even the most casual police stop involves snoopy questions regarding what work I do and where I am going and where I have been. If everything is not in order I may get an expensive ticket, if I behave “fishy”, and am missing several of those items, I am good for arrest, and my car is good for a search. However we feel about it this is current SOP for CITIZENS in this country.
Explain why any one should be here ILLEGALLY, anytime? Much less when we just happen to be under threat of attack from Islamo-Fascists who just happen to be A) Muslim, and B) overwhelmingly Arab?
If you claim that their visas were NOT expired, is it not strange that they all left the US rather hastily after performing a musical gig at an Indian Casino.. 2000 miles from their origin, of Detroit? They DID leave, didn’t they?
If they were here would they not be screaming on CNN at how they had been unfairly “suspected”, and “looked at” funny?
Were they expelled or did they run for it, knowing their cover was blown?
Aren’t you liberals getting strained from bending over backwards in denying a justifiable suspician of Arab men from terror-sponsoring countries?
Can you as glibly explain away the 3000 some deaths on 9/11 caused by… my goodness! Arab Muslim men from terror suporting countries?!?!
I hope you are so Smug at the end of October….. Hillary has warned of an October surprise. Maybe she’s really smart or maybe she is a premium member of
ALQUAEDA.com
Liberal Avenger:
How about this hypothetical, hyperbolic, over the top question:
You’re a flying pig, and presented with a red herring. Do you eat it?
On second thought, scratch that. Instead, please explain to me how the Bill of Rights applies to 14 Syrians in the US on expired visas?
Robert,
A few examples of racism for you…college addmission that let a less qualified person in due to race, that sends a message that minorities cannot compete on an even level…another example Jayson Blair.
Any program or system that makes race an issue for extra consideration demeans the person…even a qualified person of color will question his/her worth if society says “although you are not as qualified because you are of color we will give you extra points”…The liberal social welfare system is designed to keep person’s of color beholden to the system rather then to impower the individual. And before you scoff research some of the people who advocate this theory…Bill Cosby comes to mind.
And to Liberal Avenger you need to read in the constituation and quote to me where it states that A) it applies to persons in this country illegally and B) where it states that as a nation we must forgo any common sense measures to insure our security rather then inconvienence the few
Kotthoff:
Our Constitution is valid for anyone in our country – citizen and non-citizen, legal and illegal, guilty and innocent.
I don’t think racism is an issue in spite of the term being flung at Americans (no matter what their race) who want to defeat terrorism.Protection of our way of life is the issue. We must prevent terrorists from bringing chaos and division to our country.
Considering the events in the Sudan, Russia,Spain,current al-Queda threats against Australia and Italy yesterday, and 9/11, and terrorists arriving from Mexico/Canadian borders. We should take this seriously, united, and fight to stop illegal aliens, no matter where they are coming from. Our country needs to get tougher on security measures. And political correctness is not the way to do it.
I do not have dates but think this quote was from the late 1990’s.I did not see the entire context, only what I have copied.
“A famous “moderate” of a Muslim College in England wrote: “Islam endeavors to expand in Britain…It hopes that one day the whole of mankind will be one Muslim community.”
In 1999, the Vatican hosted a conference of Muslim and Christian leaders. It was reported that a Muslim participant was frank about the purpose of Islamic settlers in Western societies. Addressing the Christian delegates from Europe, he allegedly said”Because of our religion, we will invade you; because of your democracy, we will destroy you.”
I do not object to any religion, Muslim or otherwise. I do object to radical Islamic extreemists who do not care who they kill as long as they die martyrs.And these are the “people” who are trying to highjack planes and blow up buildings.
Will no one take a stab at my hypothetical question?
Perhaps Michelle will solve this dilemma for us.
To Liberal Avenger,
Re: Our Constitution is valid for anyone in our country – citizen and non-citizen, legal and illegal, guilty and innocent.
I am happy to report to you that as much as I may wish this was so, it is not. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that non-citizens may not have the protections of the Constitution in some cases. The most recent being confirmed by those detained ‘Enemy Combatants’ of alien origin. The SC merely stated that they had the right to counsel on the basis of International treaties. Pedulla was adjuacated differently because the WERE citizens.
The other item I find so amusing by the Left is the knee jerk reaction to profiling. Profiling is done every day. Don’t believe it? Go apply for a loan. You are instantly profiled about one of your most important secrets — how you handle your finances. And yet you never hear a peep from the Left on this one.
So what’s the issue?
My impression is that the Syrians were taunting the flight crew and the obviously nervous passengers on that flight as a prank. They were playing to the passengers who were responding with fear. You don’t hear much about any actions they took towards others on the flight who were ignoring them…
Liberal Avenger:
Disappointed no one will choose sides in your false dichotomy?
It seems pretty clear that:
a. It *isn’t* possible to guarantee, for every citizen, complete and total safety from terrorist attacks, and
b. Given a, it is clear to anyone with a modicum of common sense that some restriction of civil liberties is necessary to ensure the safety for as many citizens as is reasonable and prudent. Furthermore there is ample legal precedent for EXACTLY such limitations during times of national crisis (cf. Lincoln’s suspension of haebeus corpus).
Your implication that the singling out for additional security of people who are citizens of terrorist-sponsoring states, and who fit the demographic profile of people who have attacked the country in the past is somehow MORE threatening than the terrorists themselves, is absolutely absurd.
Secondly, it is most assuredly NOT the case that there is broad legal agreement among constitutional and legal scholars about the extent to which constitutional protections apply to non-citizens who are in the country illegally, least of all those suspected of terrorism. So your statement that “Our Constitution is valid for anyone in our country – citizen and non-citizen, legal and illegal, guilty and innocent” is demonstrably NOT TRUE.
Now, will you take your smelly red herring somewhere else, please.
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
- Samuel Adams
Oh please, Chad.
Expand further on this theme of how Samuel Adams would surely oppose additional questioning, baggage searches, and background checks for Muslim citizens of states who openly support and sponsor terrorism, along with deportation of same who are in the country on expired visas.
Liberal Avenger,
Actually you are wrong the guarentees in the constituation apply to citizens, we as a caring nation have just generally extended them to illegal aliens
No, you are wrong.
The protections of the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights extend to everyone, with one notable exception:
We don’t allow foreign-born nationals to become the President of the United States.
We may be drawing dangerously close to the police state many of you would like to see, but fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed.
Michelle,
Thanks for staying on top of this.
Liberal avenger,
you are a total moron. The Constitution is a framework that defines what government CAN NOT do to its citizens. Under the Constitution, foreigners have no due process. It’s up to the Executive Branch to determine these matters when dealing with foreigners. I refer you to the preamble of the Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
‘The blessings of liberty to OURSELVES and our Posterity…’
Have fun voting for John Kerry this fall. Then you’ll know what being in the minority is really like.
-Respectfully
“Nice comments, Ironbear, but I am convinced that not all of us are in “blogistan.” It’s just too difficult to morph the two words “blog” and “turkey”.
How do we define the place from which the far-libs who enjoy randomly calling names and refusing to be confused by the facts? Blurkey, anyone?” – Blogbat
*ROFL* Thanks. Maybe we can get the Commissar to locate Blurkey on his next mapping project? ;]
Samizdata’s glossary has a nice selection of choice terms we can draw from also. And there’s always “blogweasel”, for blogdom’s equivalent of the forum weasel.
No, you’re right: it’s not all of it from bloggers. But it’s the ones who *are* bloggers, and especially the ones from the conservative/libertarian end of the blogpool that have me a bit annoyed.
You expect blogroaches to ehrmm… what’s the term? Ah “overreact hysterically”. That’s their speciality. ;]