[IP] more on more on DHS Passenger Scoring Illegal?
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Atkinson, Robert" <rca53@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: December 11, 2006 8:23:41 AM GMT+09:00
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [IP] more on DHS Passenger Scoring Illegal?
A related point of view from Debra Burlingame written as a result of US
Airways having six imams removed from a flight as few weeks ago (full
article at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116536358202641738-search.html?KEYWORDS=
Burlingame&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month)
"Here's what the flying public needs to know about airplanes and civil
rights: Once your foot traverses the entranceway of a commercial
airliner, you are no longer in a democracy in which everyone gets a vote
and minority rights are affirmatively protected in furtherance of fuzzy,
ever-shifting social policy. Ultimately, the responsibility for your
personal safety and security rests on the shoulders of one person, the
pilot in command. His primary job is to safely transport you and your
belongings from one place to another. Period.
This is the doctrine of "captain's authority." It has a longstanding
history and a statutory mandate, further strengthened after 9/11, which
recognizes that flight crews are our last line of defense between the
kernel of a terrorist plot and its lethal execution. The day we tell the
captain of a commercial airliner that he cannot remove a problem
passenger unless he divines beyond question what is in that passenger's
head and heart is the day our commercial aviation system begins to
crumble. When a passenger's conduct is so disturbing and disruptive that
reasonable, ordinary people fear for their lives, the captain must have
the discretionary authority to respond without having to consider equal
protection or First Amendment standards about which even trained lawyers
with the clarity of hindsight might strongly disagree. The pilot in
command can't get it wrong. At 35,000 feet, when multiple events are
rapidly unfolding in real time, there is no room for error.
We have a new, inviolate aviation standard after 9/11, which requires
that the captain cannot take that airplane up so long as there are any
unresolved issues with respect to the security of his airplane. At
altitude, the cockpit door is barred and crews are instructed not to
open them no matter what is happening in the cabin behind them. This is
an extremely challenging situation for the men and women who fly those
planes, one that those who write federal aviation regulations and the
people who agitate for more restrictions on a captain's authority will
never have to face themselves.
Likewise, flight attendants are confined in the back of the plane with
upwards of 200 people; they must be the eyes and ears, not just for the
pilot but for us all. They are not combat specialists, however, and to
compel them to ignore all but the most unambiguous cases of suspicious
behavior is to further enable terrorists who act in ways meant to defy
easy categorization. As the American Airlines flight attendants who
literally jumped on "shoe bomber" Richard Reid demonstrated, cabin crews
are sharply attuned to unusual or abnormal behavior and they must not be
second-guessed, or hamstrung by misguided notions of political
correctness.
Ultimately, the most despicable aspect about the imams' behavior is that
when they pierced the normally quiet hum of a passenger waiting area
with shouts of "Allahu Akbar" and deliberately engaged in
terrorist-associated behavior that was sure to trigger suspicion, they
exploited the fear that began with the Sept. 11 attacks. The imams,
experienced travelers all, counted on the security system established
after 9/11 to kick in, and now they plan not only to benefit financially
from the proper operation of that system but to substantially weaken it
-- with help from the Saudi-endowed attorneys at CAIR.
US Airways is right to stand by its flight crew. It will be both
dangerous and disgraceful if the Department of Homeland Security, the
Department of Transportation and, ultimately, our federal courts allow
aviation security measures put in place after 9/11 to be cynically
manipulated in the name of civil rights."
-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 5:44 PM
To: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [IP] more on DHS Passenger Scoring Illegal?
Begin forwarded message:
From: Edward Hasbrouck <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: December 11, 2006 7:27:12 AM GMT+09:00
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] DHS Passenger Scoring Illegal?
On 10 Dec 2006 at 5:56, "David Farber" <David Farber
<dave@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
The Identity Project <http://papersplease.org/wp/> , founded by online
rights pioneer John Gilmore, filed official objections
<http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ContentViewer?
objectId=09000064801e80
c8&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf> (.pdf) to the Automated
Targeting System, or ATS, on Monday, calling the program clearly
illegal.
Unfortunately Regulations.gov doesn't allow direct permanent links to
individual documents. The IDP comments on the ATS are copied at:
http://hasbrouck.org/IDP/IDP-ATS-comments.pdf
If people are moved to write their own comments, or contact politicians
about this, I have some suggestions for questions to ask at:
http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001185.html#questions
There's more in a series of recent articles in my blog.
Peace,
Edward Hasbrouck
----------------
Edward Hasbrouck
<edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://hasbrouck.org>
+1-415-824-0214
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as rca53@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/