Traci Hallstrom
Federal Whistleblower

news…

You still haven’t a clue what my objection was. You should reread my posts, this time carefully and not just skimming through like a NYT legal reporter.

Or go ask Patterico. He understands why I objected, even though he doesn’t agree with me.

Re: # 155. Your argument comes across as a triviality. The original debate was actually whether or not writer Annie Jacobsen was justified in writing her original article expressing fear about her experience on the plane, or whether she was a delusional paranoid who wanted to stoke bigotry against Middle Eastern men. It is now quite clear that she was quite justified and that she was smeared by some in the press and in the blogosphere, and her doubters come across as buffoons who are liekly to make the skies less safe in the future.

Given the fact that the Times article linked to the actual report for everyone to read, I’d characterize that as “backing up” what it reported. It was quite easy for everyone to read the report and draw their own conclusions.

I criticized the Washington Times article for failing to back up what it claimed. The article claimed that current air marshals who read the report concluded that the flight was a terrorist dry run.

Nowhere in the article is that claim backed up with a quote from even current one air marshal. So your quoting from the report itself shows you didn’t really understand what my objection was in the first place.

Patterico did get air marshal Black on the record specifically stating that the flight was in his opinion a terrorist dry run. Yet the Washington Times article nowhere quotes him to that effect, although it does quote two former air marshals.

AND ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING.

Incidentally, I believe that the band had return tickets already, but on Jet Blue.

You’ll note that I’ve quoted that report several times. My favorite paragraphs are where the TSA and FBI state that on further investigation, they don’t believe the band is connected to terrorism.

Is it possible that the appropriate lawyer readers can take up Mr. Black’s cause if necessary?

So, the next time I’m on a plane (never cross-country) and I see suspicious activity by a number of Moslems going into the bathroom, do I get up and get in line to interfere??

Here are the facts that are asserted in the government report itself (compiled from interviews with various law enforcement officials, airline staff and at least 6 passengers) WHICH WAS LINKED TO IN HUDSON’S ARTICLE THAT YOU FELT THE NEED CRITICIZE:

12 of the men were Syrians. 1 was Lebanese.

The Lebanese man was listed in an FBI database for acting suspiciously aboard another flight months earlier. He was “one of eight passengers acting suspiciously aboard Frontier Airlines Flight 577 from Houston through Denver, to San Francisco. Flight attendants reported all eight passengers kept trying to switch seats while boarding and during the flight, made repeated service requests in what the attendants described as an effort to keep the flight crew occupied. One took a cell phone into the front lavatory, remained in the lavatory for over 15 minutes, but did not appear to have the phone when leaving the lavatory.”

The Lebanese man was detained a THIRD time in September on a return trip to the U.S. from Istanbul [details of which were redacted in the report].

All of them purchased one-way tickets from Detroit to Los Angeles.

During the flight, eight of the 13 Middle Eastern males behaved in a manner “that aroused the attention and concern of flight attendants and passengers, and later of the air marshals and pilots.”

“Six of the men arrived at the gate together after boarding began, then split up and acted as if they were not acquainted.”

“According to air marshals, the men also appeared sweaty and nervous.”

“An air marshal assigned to Flight 327 observed their behavior and characterized it as ‘unusual,’ but made no further reports at the time.”

Flight attendants first notified air marshals of suspicious actions by the passengers 20 minutes after the flight departed.

Suspicious activities noted by flight attendants and other passengers included:

• One man, with a limp, sitting in the emergency row area, repeatedly refused to exchange seats, pretending not to understand English, even though he spoke English to the gate agent. The [Lebanese] promoter eventually helped convince him to change seats.

• One or two men walked the aisle, appearing to count passengers.

• One man rushed to the front of the plane appearing to head for the cockpit. At the last moment he veered into the first class lavatory, remaining in it for about 20 minutes.

• One man carried a large McDonald’s restaurant bag into a lavatory.

• Several men spent excessive time in the lavatories.

• Another man, upon returning from the lavatory, reeked strongly of what smelled like toilet bowl chemicals.

• Some men hand signaled each other. The passenger who entered the lavatory with the McDonald’s bag made a thumbs-up signal to another man upon returning from the lavatory. Another man made a slashing motion across his throat, appearing to say “No.”

• Several men congregated in the aisles, changed seats, and arose when the seat belt sign was turned on in preparation for landing.

[end of report excerpts]

So with all of this being demonstrated based on interviews with MULTIPLE WITNESSES, why is/was Black’s declaration so important in your mind? Even if you have reason to discount both Hudson’s reporting and Annie Jacobsen’s original account, wouldn’t an objective reader be able to look at this report and at least reasonably SUSPECT that it might be a dry run for a terrorist operation?

If we encounter similar suspicious activity on an airline in the future, do we have your permission to characterize it as a possible terrorist dry run? Or do we need to get an official declaration from an air marshal in a newspaper report first?

Your criticisms have struck me as bizarre from the start of this debate. While I am gratified for Black’s response, it is ultimately unnecessary and doesn’t change anything here.

What perplexes me is why you feel that Black’s comments are so vital and why you felt the need to question Hudson’s reporting when she LINKED TO THE REPORT ITSELF in the article.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/elections/DHS-IG-Northwest-327.pdf

The report was compiled by interviewing various airline and law enforcement officials – as well as at least 6 passengers on the flight (2 of which were presumably Annie Jacobsen and her husband). The report itself confirms the following:

12 of the men in question were Syrians, 1 was Lebanese.

The Lebanese man was listed in an FBI database for acting suspiciously aboard another flight months earlier. (He was “one of eight passengers acting suspiciously aboard Frontier Airlines Flight 577 from Houston through Denver, to San Francisco.

Flight attendants reported all eight passengers kept trying to switch seats while boarding and during the flight, made repeated service requests in what the attendants described as an effort to keep the flight crew occupied. One took a cell phone into the front lavatory, remained in the lavatory for over 15 minutes, but did not appear to have the phone when leaving the lavatory.”)

The Lebanese man was detained a THIRD time in September on a return trip to the U.S. from Istanbul [details of which were redacted in the report].

All of the Syrians were traveling on expired visas.

All purchased one-way tickets from Detroit to Los Angeles.

During the flight, 8 of the 13 Middle Eastern males behaved in a manner “that aroused the attention and concern of flight attendants and passengers, and later of the air marshals and pilots.”

“Six of the men arrived at the gate together after boarding began, then split up and acted as if they were not acquainted.”

“According to air marshals, the men also appeared sweaty and nervous.”

“An air marshal assigned to Flight 327 observed their behavior and characterized it as ‘unusual,’ but made no further reports at the time.”

Flight attendants first notified air marshals of suspicious actions by the passengers 20 minutes after the flight departed.

Suspicious activities noted by flight attendants and other passengers included:

• One man, with a limp, sitting in the emergency row area, repeatedly refused to exchange seats, pretending not to understand English, even though he spoke English to the gate agent. The [Lebanese] promoter eventually helped convince him to change seats.

• One or two men walked the aisle, appearing to count passengers.

• One man rushed to the front of the plane appearing to head for the cockpit. At
the last moment he veered into the first class lavatory, remaining in it for
about 20 minutes.

• One man carried a large McDonald’s restaurant bag into a lavatory.

• Several men spent excessive time in the lavatories.

• Another man, upon returning from the lavatory, reeked strongly of what smelled like toilet bowl chemicals.

• Some men hand signaled each other. The passenger who entered the lavatory
with the McDonald’s bag made a thumbs-up signal to another man upon returning from the lavatory. Another man made a slashing motion across his
throat, appearing to say “No.”

• Several men congregated in the aisles, changed seats, and arose when the seat belt sign was turned on in preparation for landing.

So after reading all of this, why would you poo-poo a suggestion from ANYBODY suggesting that this is a terrorist dry run? Why do you feel that Black’s own opinions are even necessary in this regard when you have access to the original document? Why is a debate over Annie Jacobsen’s credibility necessary when the report was compiled from interviews with SEVERAL passangers, law enforcement personnel and witnesses??

This entire debate has struck me as bizarre from the very start. To me it proves just how far people will go to stick their head in the sand.

The next time that Middle Eastern males engage in objectively suspicious behavior on an airplne, do we now have your permission to suspect that it might be a terrorist dry run based on our own perceptions and common sense? Or do we need to find an air marshall to give an on the record pronouncement to a newspaper first?