Flight Canceled due to Arabic Writing

[Trytostaydead]

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin (AP) -- Midwest Airlines canceled a flight ready to take off for San Francisco after a passenger found Arabic-style handwriting in the company's in-flight magazine and alerted the crew.

The plane, carrying 118 passengers and five crew members, had already pulled away from the gate at Mitchell International Airport Sunday evening. It returned to the gate, the passengers got off, security authorities were notified, all luggage was checked and the aircraft was inspected. Nothing was found.

The passengers were put up in nearby hotels and booked on a Monday morning flight.

The writing was in Farsi, the language used in Iran, said airline spokeswoman Carol Skornicka. She said she didn't know exactly what the writing said but was similar to a prayer, "something of a contemplative nature."

Anyone else find this somewhat disturbing? Talk about profiling. Understandable, but for some reason I can imagine someone saying, "Juuuden!!!" God help you if you're Arabic and decide to speak to your parents on a flight or something.

[General Zod]

that's just a wee bit of an overreaction, innit? i mean, come on. what are they going to do, start cracking down on anyone that writes stuff that isn't in english on a flight?

[Faram]

and yet stuff like this is ok:

Trusted Traveler Program



If you fly out of Logan Airport and don't want to take off your shoes
for the security screeners and get your bags opened up, pay
attention. The U.S. government is testing its "Trusted Traveler"
program, and Logan is the fourth test airport. Currently only American
Airlines frequent fliers are eligible, but if all goes well the program
will be opened up to more people and more airports.

Participants provide their name, address, phone number, and birth date,
a set of fingerprints, and a retinal scan. That information is matched
against law enforcement and intelligence databases. If the applicant
is not on any terrorist watch list, and is otherwise an upstanding
citizen, he gets a card that allows him access to a special security
lane. The lane doesn't bypass the metal detector or X-ray machine for
carry-on bags, but avoids more intensive secondary screening unless
there's an alarm of some kind.

Unfortunately, this program won't make us more secure. Some terrorists
will be able to get Trusted Traveler cards, and they'll know in advance
that they'll be subjected to less-stringent security.

Since 9/11, airport security has been subjecting people to special
screening: sometimes randomly, and sometimes based on profile criteria
as analyzed by computer. For example, people who buy one-way tickets,
or pay with cash, are more likely to be flagged for this extra screening.

Sometimes the results are bizarre. Screeners have searched children
and people in wheelchairs. In 2002, Al Gore was randomly stopped and
searched twice in one week. And just last month, Senator Ted Kennedy
was flagged - and denied boarding - because the computer decided he was
on some "no fly" list.

Why waste precious time making Grandma Lillie from Worchester empty her
purse, when you can search the carry-on items of Anwar, a
twenty-six-year-old who arrived last month from Egypt and is traveling
without luggage?

The reason is security. Imagine you're a terrorist plotter with half a
dozen potential terrorists at your disposal. They all apply for a
card, and three get one. Guess which three are going on the
mission? And they'll buy round-trip tickets with credit cards, and
have a "normal" amount of luggage with them.

What the Trusted Traveler program does is create two different access
paths into the airport: high security and low security. The intent is
that only good guys will take the low-security path, and the bad guys
will be forced to take the high-security path, but it rarely works out
that way. You have to assume that the bad guys will find a way to take
the low-security path.

The Trusted Traveler program is based on the dangerous myth that
terrorists match a particular profile, and that we can somehow pick
terrorists out of a crowd if we only can identify everyone. That's
simply not true. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were unknown, and not on
any watch list. Timothy McVeigh was an upstanding U.S. citizen before
he blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Palestinian suicide
bombers in Israel are normal, nondescript people. Intelligence reports
indicate that al Qaeda is recruiting non-Arab terrorists for U.S.
operations. Airport security is best served by intelligent guards
watching for suspicious behavior, and not dumb guards blindly following
the results of a Trusted Traveler program.

Moreover, there's no need for the program. Frequent fliers and
first-class travelers already have access to special lanes that bypass
long lines at security checkpoints, and the computers never seem to
flag them for special screening. And even the long lines aren't very
long. I've flown out of Logan repeatedly, and I've never had to wait
more than ten minutes at security. The people who could use the card
don't need one, and infrequent travelers are unlikely to take the
trouble -- or pay the fee -- to get one.

As counterintuitive as it may seem, it's smarter security to randomly
screen people than it is to screen solely based on profile. And it's
smarter still to do a little bit of both: random screening and
profile-based screening. But to create a low-security path, one that
guarantees someone on it less rigorous screening, is to invite the bad
guys to use that path.

From:

Huge Link

[Stormbringer]

[Anyone else find this somewhat disturbing? Talk about profiling. Understandable, but for some reason I can imagine someone saying, "Juuuden!!!" God help you if you're Arabic and decide to speak to your parents on a flight or something.

Of course it's profiling. But then again who the hell was it that hijacked the September 11th airliners? Oh yeah, Arabs. For all they knew it could have been notes for an attack or a last message to Allah. Better safe than sorry.

[Gil Hamilton]

Of course it's profiling. But then again who the hell was it that hijacked the September 11th airliners? Oh yeah, Arabs. For all they knew it could have been notes for an attack or a last message to Allah. Better safe than sorry.

The problem with that logic is that not all Arabs are potential hijackers by a long shot. Are you saying it's a good think to shake people down and halt flights on no other basis than someone has something written in Arabic, even if there is absolutely no indication of anything being not square with the person?

[Stormbringer]

Of course it's profiling. But then again who the hell was it that hijacked the September 11th airliners? Oh yeah, Arabs. For all they knew it could have been notes for an attack or a last message to Allah. Better safe than sorry.

The problem with that logic is that not all Arabs are potential hijackers by a long shot. Are you saying it's a good think to shake people down and halt flights on no other basis than someone has something written in Arabic, even if there is absolutely no indication of anything being not square with the person?

I do believe that I said that I agree with shutting down the flight; harassment shouldn't be allowed. I think if there's something suspicious it's far, far better to play it safe. They didn't know what that was and they made the right call.

[Gil Hamilton]

I do believe that I said that I agree with shutting down the flight; harassment shouldn't be allowed. I think if there's something suspicious it's far, far better to play it safe. They didn't know what that was and they made the right call.

How is Arabic writing suspicious on an Arab? You know that Arabs carry notes and lists too, right? That blurb could have been anything. Why shut down the flight then?

Oh right, because it's Arabic. Because the 9/11 hijackers are Arabic, therefore all Arabs are potential hijackers, in your mind. Do you know how much is wrong with that kind of logic?

[Stormbringer]

How is Arabic writing suspicious on an Arab? You know that Arabs carry notes and lists too, right? That blurb could have been anything. Why shut down the flight then?

It's suspicious when it's left in the in flight magazine. This wasn't something found on some one, it was some writing left in the magazine. It could be anything as you said. And it's far better to be safe than sorry.

Oh right, because it's Arabic. Because the 9/11 hijackers are Arabic, therefore all Arabs are potential hijackers, in your mind. Do you know how much is wrong with that kind of logic?

Yes, because it's Arabic and we don't know what it says. Again rather safe than sorry.

And news flash, the September 11th hijackers were Arab and while all Arabs are not hijackers they do belong to a group that is statistically much more likely to be hijackers. That does mean things like odd writings on airplanes in Arabic are going to be taken more seriously than if it was English or Spanish.

[Gil Hamilton]

It's suspicious when it's left in the in flight magazine. This wasn't something found on some one, it was some writing left in the magazine. It could be anything as you said. And it's far better to be safe than sorry.

I leave notes and little messages in magazines all the time. Millions of people do. What difference does it make?

Yes, because it's Arabic and we don't know what it says. Again rather safe than sorry.

So what? I can't read Arabic, most Americans can't, but if I find a note in it, I'm not going to go "OMG! I can't read this! This must be a TERRORIST MESSAGE!" because the overwhelming statistical odds say that it's going to be something rediculously mundane (just as it was in this case and the vast majority of other cases).

And news flash, the September 11th hijackers were Arab and while all Arabs are not hijackers they do belong to a group that is statistically much more likely to be hijackers. That does mean things like odd writings on airplanes in Arabic are going to be taken more seriously than if it was English or Spanish.

...so you are making the leap in logic that all Arabs are potential hijackers and need to carefully scruntized more than everyone else, even when there is absolutely no indication they are doing anything wrong or are any more dangerous than any of the other passangers.

That's great logic. "Wait... some Arabs individuals have hijacked planes before... OMG! Arabs are all potential terrorists! We bet keep a close eye on the lot of them, even though we've got no indication at all they are doing anything wrong or are in any way associated with the hijackers other than by race and language!" What do we call assumptions that are solely based on race, Storm?

[Gil Hamilton]

Slightly on a tangent, but since Stormbringer is defending racial profiling, let's put racial profiling this way.

Statistically, by race, black males are the most likely to rip off a store. So you are working behind the counter at the Qwik-E Mart and in rolls in a black guy. He's minding his own business and disappears behind some aisles, so you decide to keep an eye on him and when he leaves, make him turn out his pockets. After all, by race, he's part of a group that is more likely to walk off with something in his pockets that he didn't pay for. Better safe than sorry, right?

Now lets rewrite that. Statistically, by race, Arabs are the most likely to hijack a plane. You are working at the counter of a airport ticket taker and in rolls in an Arab guy. He's minding his own business and disappears down the boarding ramp, having a valid ticket, so you decide he's suspicious and have him turn out his carry on luggage. After all, by race, he's part of a group that is most likely to attempt to hijack a plane. Better safe than sorry, right?

See the issue with racial profiling there? We'd call it racism and harassment if you shook down the first guy, but it's prudent security in the second case, even though you used exactly the same reasoning and amount of evidence for both?

You've got absolutely no evidence in either case that that specific individual is a danger to anyone. The only connection these individuals have to the people in the statistics who rip off stores or hijack planes is their race and/or language. However, last I checked, a person's race or language does not determine their actions, at all. That makes racial profiling really bad logic, since it makes an assumption of suspicious based upon a characteristic that has absolutely nothing to do with their character or link them other individuals who actually did hijack planes.

But better safe than sorry, right?

[Sir Sirius]

Americans who fly frequently and think that this is stupid should learn how to write "Humpty Dumpty", "Mary had a little lamb", "Old MacDonald had a farm" ot something equally silly in Arabic and then start scribling them in to magazines, brochures, catalogues and what not at airports and aboard planes.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Americans who fly frequently and think that this is stupid should learn how to write "Humpty Dumpty", "Mary had a little lamb", "Old MacDonald had a farm" ot something equally silly in Arabic and then start scribling them in to magazines, brochures, catalogues and what not at airports and aboard planes.

Nah, writing nursery rhymes in arabic is obviously some sort of secret code used among the terrorists, and any Mother Goose found on flight articles should be immediately confiscated so that we may eventually unravel the terrorist plot to destroy the US through use of curds and whey.

-Damien