muslims on a plane......

[ig-88]

I think there seems to be a general misunderstanding of the TSA's role both in the US and Canada. I think people are assigning too much responsibility to the TSA.

The TSA cares about your STUFF. They don't necessarily care about who you are, unless you're on a list, in which case you simply get turned away at the security checkpoint.

The TSA screens property going on the aircraft, and to a limited capacity, the person getting onboard from the perspective of no-fly lists.

As for investigations, background, etc., that is FBI and other agencies.

 

[RTRD]

Yes....and no.

See #120. I'll agree the decision was probably not wise. However the decision was entirely legal - lawsuits are based on points of law, not subjective questions of wisdom.

Yes - of course.

No - as in no law / regulation / rule can supersede more broad far reaching ones.

In this case - yes, Airtran, per the law / regulation, can deny boarding based on suspicions, etc.

However, given that any reasonable suspicions had been cleared...TSA screen them, FBI performed a background check...my guess is that in a court of law Airtran would be asked WHY they denied boarding to this family...and would be pretty hard pressed to come up with an answer that didn't remove the suspicion on their part of a civil rights violation.

 

[RTRD]

No...

You have clearly never heard the BBC describe racially-motivated riots in south London with reference to "African Americans" -- describing individuals who had never stepped foot outside of London, let alone ever been to (or come from) Africa or the U.S.

...I haven't. Doesn't make it correct however.

I have no idea how a person with no Americans ancestry or linage is called an American.

 

[RTRD]

From another thread...I think we all should be working as hard to be open minded...

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=219297

 

[crystalpalace]

With all due respect you are making this up. You don't know.

Here is another possibility:

1) TSA clear them

2) FBI become suspicious as a result of complaints

3) FBI informs TSA of its concerns

4) TSA orders the airline to ground the plane and remove the passengers

5) FBI screen the passengers and clear them

6) FBI informs TSA of its decision

7) TSA is really fucking slow in processing information

8) TSA is really fucking slow in processing information

9) TSA is really fucking slow

10) TSA finally informs the airline that they are OK to fly, and not until this point is it legal for the airline to allow them to fly

So if their later flight was somewhere between steps 6 and steps 9 then they missed it because the TSA is fucking slow.

I don't know that is true.

You don't know it isn't true.

You keep on making this stuff up as you go along because it suits the ideological chip on your shoulder but the reality is that unless you are privy to information that has not been printed in the news then you are ignorant of the truth.

Ignorant and yet you keep speaking...

heh, ignorant?

Fuji, you don't even take the time to read my posts I guess and accuse me of making things up? That I have an agenda? I'm neither an expert in the relationship between United States Government agencies nor airport operations however, I firmly stand behind my statement that, based on numerous news reports, AirTran denied booking them on another flight and the 9 were forced to find last minute seats on US Airways. That is what my post was about.

Just so that I'm not accused of being ignorant again:

Even after the FBI cleared the family and their friend, AirTran refused to book them on another flight.

Link from Chicago Tribune.

 

[fuji]

The TSA screens property going on the aircraft, and to a limited capacity, the person getting onboard from the perspective of no-fly lists.

You're missing an important function of TSA. They are also the agency with the authority to ground planes and order passengers off, and while you are right that they usually do that via a list, it is not clear that in THIS CASE they did it with a list.

I suspect there is a protocol in place between FBI and TSA and that when the FBI became interested in these people they went through TSA to have the flight grounded and the passengers removed. The FBI would then have to go through TSA again to re-authorize these people. The article is COMPLETELY silent on FBI efforts to go through TSA to re-authorize. My speculation is that TSA was simply slow in updating the airline with the "cleared" status after having received that information from the FBI.

In other words the FBI probably has to use TSA as its channel to communicate this information officially to the airlines. If it tooks a few hours for TSA to receive from the FBI the clearance information and disseminate it to the airline(s) that would fully explain the situation.

 

[crystalpalace]

Ok, to take your points one at a time:
AA in baggy pants, hoodie, and jeans pulled down to their thighs: if it walks like a duck talks like a duck and goes quack, it's a mother fuckin duck lol. Now if one doesn't want to be treated like a gang banger, then maybe they shouldn't dress like one?

It's called how one presents themselves....which is the first thing the vast majority of people base their impression on.....Now an AA dressed in an armani suit could be the biggest drug runner on the planet yet he'd be approached quite differently.

How to differentiate between the good and bad? You look for things that might be clues, in this case, discussions about the structure of the plane. So am I to understand that we (everyone including all races) should simply ignore anything that MIGHT be a clue?

As for the WTC being built to withstand the impact of a 707, I heard on one of the specials that it was designed for a light aircraft, not an airliner. The architect specifically said in an interview that it wasn't designed to withstand the impact of an airliner.......and with new ideas come new practices, when a group of one race commits a crime, the authorities and civilians learn and keep an eye out for clues. Now they may be fishing with a 700 mile drift net instead of a net specifically designed to catch that one fish, but that's the fallout of taking precautions.

Now what would you have anyone do? Ignore anything that might be a sign or a clue and only react to someone who is specifically stating one of the 10 words you can't say on an airplane?

1) middle eastern people(s) commit terrorist acts
2) Middle eastern families have committed terrorist acts
3) yes other races have committed terrorist acts which is why EVERYONE is subject to search, seizure and removal from an aircraft
4) Some words spoken by some people have no meaning, some words spoken by other people have meaning. That is an undeniable fact.

It is unfortunate and terrible that many have to pay for the deeds of a few but as for your last statement?

YES that is the case. Just as I (being a white person) can't use the N word, middle eastern people can't discuss plane safety. Sucks, I know, but what are you going to do?

tboy I appreciate your truthfulness. At least you're not a closet racist. While the logic beats me I commend you for expressing your opinion openly.

As far as the TWC, they were designed to withstand a hit from a 707, while apparently the method of analysis was questionable it was conceived and considered so it was not as if flying planes in to buildings was never thought of.

Here is the link from the NIST discussing the issue.

 

[tboy]

Sorry, I don't have the time nor patience to read through the entire link but in the first paragraph it states "indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers."

It states analyzed NOT designed for...there is a difference. That indicates they took their design and did tests to determine what would happen if a 707 hit it, not designed it to withstand the impact of, those are very different things.

Now I will ignore you calling me a closet racist because you are talking out of your ass......because I specifically stated on more than one occasion ALL races...TYVM.

 

[crystalpalace]

The airline isn't legally allowed to let them on the plane until they are cleared by the TSA. Being cleared by the FBI does not mean you have been cleared by the TSA.

Since the TSA rely heavily on the FBI it's a good start but it is not the final step.

For someone who calls other posters ignorant you seem to care very little to at least try to read the other posts:

Here it is again from the TSA website:

The TSA is solely responsible for carrying out screenings of passengers and their baggage (both checked and carry-on) at 450 airports across the country.

In simple terms: If you are on the plane already, you've been cleared by the TSA.

 

[crystalpalace]

Sorry, I don't have the time nor patience to read through the entire link but in the first paragraph it states "indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers."

It states analyzed NOT designed for...there is a difference. That indicates they took their design and did tests to determine what would happen if a 707 hit it, not designed it to withstand the impact of, those are very different things.

Now I will ignore you calling me a closet racist because you are talking out of your ass......because I specifically stated on more than one occasion ALL races...TYVM.

hummm... we were talking about if the idea of flying planes in to the buildings was conceived before 9/11 which obviously it was. And I did not say you ARE a closet racist, I said you are NOT.

 

[papasmerf]

In simple terms: If you are on the plane already, you've been cleared by the TSA.

Well no

if conversation that brings into question the safety of the plane is or the lives of its passengers is overheard then the suspects can be detained for questioning.

 

[fuji]

In simple terms: If you are on the plane already, you've been cleared by the TSA.

You are wrong. TSA can change its mind at any time, and in this case apparently did so on information from the FBI. You could be in the air flying and TSA can order the plane to land and you off. For example that decision could be made by a TSA officer on the plane in flight.

As I said you are making this up as you go along. You don't know what the process is and you are making up a process that suits the ideological chip on your shoulder.

 

[tboy]

hummm... we were talking about if the idea of flying planes in to the buildings was conceived before 9/11 which obviously it was. And I did not say you ARE a closet racist, I said you are NOT.

LOL I hope you didn't hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back for being SO witty ayuck ayuck ayuck lol you're SO cwever!!!

 

[crystalpalace]

You are wrong. TSA can change its mind at any time, and in this case apparently did so on information from the FBI. You could be in the air flying and TSA can order the plane to land and you off. For example that decision could be made by a TSA officer on the plane in flight.

As I said you are making this up as you go along. You don't know what the process is and you are making up a process that suits the ideological chip on your shoulder.

That's irrelevant to why they were denied booking on another flight with AirTran but were allowed on board another flight with US Airways. Perhaps you know the inter-agency relationships and jurisdictions of the US Government much better than I do.

 

[crystalpalace]

LOL I hope you didn't hurt your shoulder patting yourself on the back for being SO witty ayuck ayuck ayuck lol you're SO cwever!!!

Not really, it doesn't take a lot of wits to argue your whole dismissive argument based on the "needs of many outweigh the needs of one", which reeks of communism BTW, but oh well Canada is a socialist country after all.

 

[Anynym]

..I have no idea how a person with no Americans ancestry or linage is called an American.

Your lack of awareness of the world around you doesn't make you an expert in what is or is not correct: that has been delegated to the group being represented, by consensus (not by individual).

As for the current thread, let me try a third time: it doesn't matter a whit what these people said. They could have been talking about how nice a day it was to be going home. They could have said that they hoped everything went well. It doesn't matter. (Some have claimed an inability to grasp this; that's unfortunate, but that's not anyone's problem but their own.)

What matters is that a third party overheard something which they regarded with suspicion, reported it, and correctly triggered additional screening. This family was (apparently correctly) cleared during that additional screening.

The airline would likely have held the flight pending the outcome of that additional screening, in case further actions were required on their part to remove additional passengers or luggage. But whether the airline then permitted this family to reboard this flight, or declined them travel that day (based on the costs the airline incurred in delaying the flight) is up to the airline. Apparently the airline chose to refund the fares paid, and sent the family to another airline (inviting them back in the future, according to reports).

Was the comment suspicious? We really don't know. We have the family's report (are they really going to say now that they said something suspicious?), but beyond that all we have is that it was suspicious enough to someone that it was reported. And being reported, it appears to have been correctly acted upon.

Note that none of the above had anything to do with the family's religion. Only after the fact are people asking if this family was singled out for their religion and making religion an issue. Was the person who reported the suspicious remark affected by the family's religion? There is nothing in the story to substantiate that claim - just the apparent xenophobic reaction trying to create a bigger problem than previously existed by claiming that they were singled out because they were Muslim.

 

[RTRD]

I do...

That's irrelevant to why they were denied booking on another flight with AirTran but were allowed on board another flight with US Airways. Perhaps you know the inter-agency relationships and jurisdictions of the US Government much better than I do.

...think it is interesting that people are putting forth as a rational position that TSA would have denied the family boarding on to one plane, but allow them to board another going to the same destination within minutes on another airline.



These people weren't denied boarding by TSA folks. They were denied boarding by Airtran. They flew THE SAME DAY on another airline, and were offered a free trip back home on Airtran. Does it seem at all rational that this would happen if TSA had some issue with them??

I do not know for certain what happened, because I was not there, but based on what I read (and input from others), this is what I would conclude:

• Family is cleared by TSA against the no fly list and after being screened by airport security (TSA) and having their bags screened (TSA) and also either passing the "randomly administered" additional pre-boarding TSA check, or were deemed as not requiring said check.
  
  
• Family boards plane, and in the course of taking their seats a discussion ensues about the safest portion of the airplane in the event of a crash. Given that they were traveling with six children, some or all of whom might have been first time travelers, this is not a surprise to me at all, and accordingly it is pretty stupid to put forth that some people are allowed to say some things in a private conversation but others are not - and the decision about what is permitted and what isn't is left up to third parties (which is why the "nigger" analogy does not work...YES, there is a double standard, but *I* get to decide when to apply it...not some arbitrary third party....if T-boy decides to call some friend of his "nigger" and that friend decides they are ok with it, the affair is none of my business...same would apply if he were to say it to me...)
  
  
• Some xenophobic dumbass overhears said conversation, decide that while it is ok for WASP families to assure their children that flying is safe, Muslim / Arabic families cannot, and reports the conversation to a flight attendant, almost certainly distorting it in the process. Said flight attendant, almost certainly not a Rhodes scholar, reports this conversation to the captain, again almost certainly distorting it as well. Captain overreacts, calls airport security (TSA), who, because they have already cleared this family, now want bring in the big guns (FBI) while at the same time covering their ass.
  
  
• FBI does a seance...declares family fit to fly.
  
  
• Captain, realizing he has delayed a flight by emptying its passengers and luggage for no good reason, decides to cover HIS ass by refusing to board family, so that he can later claim HE thought they were a threat and acted in his best judgment.
  
  
• Ticket agent, also not a Rhodes Scholar, is then asked to pull 9 seats out of his / her ass for a later Airtran flight during a holiday period. Fat chance...and besides, he / she decides THEY aren't going to get involved in this shit anymore than they are already, so they let the Captain's decision that the family is a threat stand.
  
  
• Family, needing to get to their destination, buy tickets on another airline. Accordingly, they are AGAIN screened against the no fly list (TSA), and their baggage AGAIN screened (TSA)...and depending on the configuration of the airport, they again have to pass through airport security (TSA). And again, TSA clears them to fly, which they do.
  
  
• Airtran management, getting word of all this, has someone with a fucking brain do damage control, issues an apology, refunds all costs to family, and offers them a free flight home...where they will be AGAIN screened by TSA (something they undoubtedly would not have offered if TSA had any issue with the family).

Now I reached this conclusion via a combination of two inputs...my own deductive reasoning based on the article and input from a person who, despite apparently being judged a fat pig by someone who has never met her, probably knows more about how these things work than anyone else reading this right now.

 

[crystalpalace]

...think it is interesting that people are putting forth as a rational position that TSA would have denied the family boarding on to one plane, but allow them to board another going to the same destination within minutes on another airline.



These people weren't denied boarding by TSA folks. They were denied boarding by Airtran. They flew THE SAME DAY on another airline, and were offered a free trip back home on Airtran. Does it seem at all rational that this would happen if TSA had some issue with them??

I do not know for certain what happened, because I was not there, but based on what I read (and input from others), this is what I would conclude:

• Family is cleared by TSA against the no fly list and after being screened by airport security (TSA) and having their bags screened (TSA) and also either passing the "randomly administered" additional pre-boarding TSA check, or were deemed as not requiring said check.
• Family boards plane, and in the course of taking their seats a discussion ensues about the safest portion of the airplane in the event of a crash. Given that they were traveling with six children, some or all of whom might have been first time travelers, this is not a surprise to me at all, and accordingly it is pretty stupid to put forth that some people are allowed to say some things in a private conversation but others are not - and the decision about what is permitted and what isn't is left up to third parties (which is why the "nigger" analogy does not work...YES , there is a double standard, but *I* get to decide when to apply it...not some arbitrary third party....if T-boy decides to call some friend of his "nigger" and that friend decides they are ok with it, the affair is none of my business...same would apply if he were to say it to me...)
• Some xenophobic dumbass overhears said conversation, decide that while it is ok for WASP families to assure their children that flying is safe, Muslim / Arabic families cannot, and reports the conversation to a flight attendant, almost certainly distorting it in the process. Said flight attendant, almost certainly not a Rhodes scholar, reports this conversation to the captain, again almost certainly distorting it as well. Captain overreacts, calls airport security (TSA), who, because they have already cleared this family, now want bring in the big guns (FBI) while at the same time covering their ass.
• FBI does a seance...declares family fit to fly.
• Captain, realizing he has delayed a flight by emptying its passengers and luggage for no good reason, decides to cover HIS ass by refusing to board family, so that he can later claim HE thought they were a threat and acted in his best judgment.
• Ticket agent, also not a Rhodes Scholar, is then asked to pull 9 seats out of his / her ass for a later Airtran flight during a holiday period. Fat chance...and besides, he / she decides THEY aren't going to get involved in this shit anymore than they are already, so they let the Captain's decision that the family is a threat stand.
• Family, needing to get to their destination, buy tickets on another airline. Accordingly, they are AGAIN screened against the no fly list (TSA), and their baggage AGAIN screened (TSA)...and depending on the configuration of the airport, they again have to pass through airport security (TSA). And again, TSA clears them to fly, which they do.
• Airtran management, getting word of all this, has someone with a fucking brain do damage control, issues an apology, refunds all costs to family, and offers them a free flight home...where they will be AGAIN screened by TSA (something they undoubtedly would not have offered if TSA had any issue with the family).

Now I reached this conclusion via a combination of two inputs...my own deductive reasoning based on the article and input from a person who, despite apparently being judged a fat pig by someone who has never met her, probably knows more about how these things work than anyone else reading this right now.

And at the most tragic bit of the story is these families are for all we know model citizens. The heads of household are both educated, one is a physician who worked the new years eve shift and the other is a tax lawyer for the library of congress, both born and bred in the US of A.

 

[rama putri]

Not really, it doesn't take a lot of wits to argue your whole dismissive argument based on the "needs of many outweigh the needs of one", which reeks of communism BTW, but oh well Canada is a socialist country after all.

His thing has nothing to with needs, but whatever is popular and in fashion should be the opinion that counts. And remember don't fight the system, just be a lemming like every other stepford conservative whitebread type.

 

[fuji]

That's irrelevant to why they were denied booking on another flight with AirTran but were allowed on board another flight with US Airways. Perhaps you know the inter-agency relationships and jurisdictions of the US Government much better than I do.

Because the TSA ordered AirTran not to let them fly and did not convey that same order to US Airways? Or maybe because TSA updated their status to "cleared" between the time they talked to AirTran and the time they talked to US Airways?

I put a question mark there because it's unknown. I expect you are ignorant of the answer. Given your ignorance you should not go around making grand claims of racism.