Aviation Security

amnesty, Aviation Security, War on Terror

Flight 327: a Washington Times editorial

by  • 

A newly released report from the inspector general for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security about the government’s handling of 13 suspicious passengers on a June 29, 2004, Northwest Airlines flight serves as a reminder of why so many Americans are rightly skeptical of Washington’s ability to manage a mass-amnesty program. The report, which details what happened on the flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles, confirms eyewitness accounts describing suspicious behavior on the part of 12 Syrian musicians before and during the flight.

Initially, Homeland Security officials tried to downplay its seriousness and suggested that other passengers had overreacted. But the report corroborates the passengers’ accounts and suggests that what took place was a dry run for a terrorist attack — which first was reported by Audrey Hudson of The Washington Times. The report raises disturbing questions about the handling of the case by several agencies: Homeland Security, the Federal Air Marshal Service and the Citizenship and Immigration Services, which will play the lead role in overseeing the amnesty program for illegals.
…
Pilots and former air marshals told this newspaper that federal security managers have been concealing information on dry run probes from other federal agencies and that most of our flights today do not have armed pilots or air marshals aboard. And yet the president and “immigration reform” supporters on Capitol Hill insist that the dysfunctional bureaucracies responsible for Flight 327 security are up to the task of overseeing mass amnesty for illegals.

Related report: DHS IG’s report confirms terror dry run aboard Flight 327

6 imams, Aviation Security, John Doe protection

US Airways seeks dismissal of Flying Imams’ lawsuit

by  • 

Last November, six imams were removed from a US Airways flight after passengers and flight crew reported their suspicious behaviors. They boarded the aircraft, without objection, after three of the six prayed loudly in the gate area. Yet, while boarding and the plane waiting to push back from the gate, passengers became alarmed when some of the imams exchanged seats, occupied seats to which they were not assigned, asked for seatbelt extenders they seemed not to need, and spoke disparagingly of US foreign policy in Iraq. The imams were questioned and released but US Airways denied them further service. The incident earned the six the moniker The Flying Imams. In March, they sued US Airways, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the yet to be named ‘John Doe’ passengers who reported their behaviors. Yesterday, the Washington Times reported:

US Airways is asking a court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a group of Muslim imams, saying the airline followed government guidelines when it removed the men from a flight because of suspicious behavior.

The response to the lawsuit, filed March 12 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, says the airline “is required to adhere to the main points of the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Common Strategy regarding security threats in the aviation context.”

The strategy advises flight crew members to be “alert for odd or suspicious behavior during all interactions with passengers in the gate area, during the boarding process and during routine flight duties and passenger interactions,” the response to the lawsuit states.

“Flight crewmembers are required to mentally assess each passenger’s behavior and the potential for threat. Moreover, the common strategy notes that this is a subjective analysis, and recognizes that there is no key factor that applies in every situation,” it states.

“Notably, the common strategy advises flight crews to “Presume the worst,” and “Be suspicious about any passenger disturbance,” the response states.

The imams’ lawsuit also names the Metropolitan Airports Commission and unidentified John Does as defendants. Their claims include false arrest, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, failure to train, conspiracy to discriminate and negligence.