or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Bush's Arab Secret Service agent
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush's Arab Secret Service agent

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020104/us/agent_removed_3.html" target="_blank">http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020104/us/agent_removed_3.html</A>

One of Bush's Secret Service agents, who is Arab-American, was trying to fly to Texas on Christmas day, but the pilot stopped him from getting on the plane. American Airlines said that the agent's paperwork wasn't in order and the pilot said the agent was hostile. Other witnesses say the agent wasn't hostile, and the airline had run out of the right forms.

When asked about it, Bush said he would be "madder than heck" and "plenty hot" if the agent was singled out because of his ethnicity.

In reality, Bush has no problem whatsoever with singling out residents of the US because of their ethnicity.

See, for example: <a href="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020108/ts/attack_deportation_dc.html" target="_blank">this recent policy cracking down on Middle Eastern illegals but not others</a>, and the policies from this fall involving mass detentions of Arabs on possible immigration charges, and mass "invitations" of Arabs to be questioned by the FBI and local police.

And then Ashcroft says to Congress that if you criticize these policies, you are aiding terrorists.
[quote]To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.<hr></blockquote>So, is Bush aiding terrorists now, too?
post #2 of 31
I don't care about the Bush angle. However, I don't find any fault with AA for not letting a Middle Easter guy with a gun on a plane, if everything wasn't in check.

I agree that perhaps AA needs to have a better way of checking these things out. But I don't fault them for being better safe than sorry. The reason they wouldn't let him on the plane was - to check him out. It's not as if he was arrested and beaten.

Besides, we were/are on another one of those alerts where we are supposed to be extra aware. Hell, (again not to take the Bush angle SCOTT ) Bush himself has said, if you see something out of the ordinary report it.

The pilot's responsibilty is to ensure the airplane safely makes its trip on time. Not to do security stuff.

Not being there, and not knowing all the facts, I'm pretty much talking out my ass though.

Just my opinion.
post #3 of 31
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
So, is Bush aiding terrorists now, too?</strong><hr></blockquote>

post #4 of 31
You're an idiot.
post #5 of 31
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Gregg:
<strong> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I rolled my eyes at Ashcroft's statement, too.
[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>I don't care about the Bush angle.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know polls say no one cares about the civil rights policies since 9/11. Most liberals even seem to think it's OK. But then why is Bush coming out against the same principle that his administration endorses?

The gov't thinks it's OK for them to engage in racial profiling to get terrorists, but it's not OK for others? Especially airlines?

Bush should have said what you said - that some people are inconvenienced, and that's life. We're at war. The rules are different, etc.

My question is, does he think this type of racial profiling is acceptable or not?

With his getting "madder than heck" about it, it seems like if it affects him or someone he know, it's bad. But if it affects others, he's all for it.
post #6 of 31
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>When asked about it, Bush said he would be "madder than heck" and "plenty hot" if the agent was singled out because of his ethnicity.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Seems the British Press were a little "madder than heck" and "plenty hot" after Bush called Pakistani's "<a href="http://uk.news.yahoo.com/020107/80/cnnmz.html" target="_blank">Paki's</a>"...oooops.

It's tough being conservative... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #7 of 31
ahhh, you have to love any government whos head thinks that hes on a mission from god...
Quoth The Boondogs:
"We are thankful that our leader isn't the spoiled son of a powerful politician from a wealthy oil family who is supported by religious fundementalists, operates through clandestine organizations, has no respect for the democratic electoral process, bombs innocents, and uses war to deny people their civil liverties."
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
post #8 of 31
Arg, things get so confused when smeone is accused of targeting specific races. It doens't really matter what they believe; a single statement that is halfway offensive is grounds for a "racist" brand on the forehead. It's the Scarlet Letter of the 90s and Aughts.
post #9 of 31
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>You're an idiot.</strong><hr></blockquote>Yeah? Well you're a Paki!
post #10 of 31
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>Yeah? Well you're a Paki!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Is that supposed to be an insult? By who's invention?
post #11 of 31
John Ashcroft: [quote]To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.<hr></blockquote>

Ari Fleischer: [quote]Americans had better watch what they say<hr></blockquote>


~


Benjamin Franklin [quote]"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."<hr></blockquote>

Abraham Lincoln: [quote]This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their Constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."<hr></blockquote>
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #12 of 31
Samantha Joanne Ollendale does it bother you that you've misquoted people your reply? I'm guessing it doesn't. Care to correct it?
post #13 of 31
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Is that supposed to be an insult? By who's invention?</strong><hr></blockquote>It actually is an insult. It's British.

And, I don't see any incorrect quotes in SJO's post. What, is one word wrong somewhere?
post #14 of 31
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
My question is, does he think this type of racial profiling is acceptable or not?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I think he does. But I also think he's smart enough to know that if he's flippant about admitting it, yahoos everywhere will take it as the green light to firebomb the Pakastani market around the corner "in retaliation for 9/11." I may be giving GW too much credit, but I'd like to think that he knows where to draw the line...

Actually, I think this is a big snafu on the part of the airlines, and shows how disorganized (re: incompetent) they are. They should have had a procedure in place that allowed them to 1) verify the identities of armed, law enforcement agents before they boarded an aircraft, and 2) allowed a flight crew to easily re-verify said agents identity through a central airlines office. ("Hello, Captain Smith? This is airlines security. We have been notified in advance by the Secret Service that Agent John Doe would be aboard your aircraft, and have already confirmed his identity upon check-in. He is sitting in Row 31A. Thank you, and have a nice day.")
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
post #15 of 31
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>It actually is an insult. It's British.

And, I don't see any incorrect quotes in SJO's post. What, is one word wrong somewhere?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well there is so as homework why don't you check them all out and correct them if they are wrong.


It may be an insult in Britain but it may also go no further. Go to Britain and call a white guy a honkey and they'll have no idea what you are talking about.

Considering the people in Afghanistan are called Afghans NOT Afghanis and the people of Pakistan are called Pakistanis it seems like a simple mistake that NO ONE took offense to but the press Thus and invented insult.
post #16 of 31
The fact that AA had this 'problem' is horrifying to me. We're not only talking about an American here, but an American who's job it is to give his life up to save the President, and this is how he is treated?

I also think it is horrifying that Americans of Middle Eastern descent are being singled out. They aren't second class citizens and shouldn't be treated like that.

On the other hand, foreigners are completely different. If you are an American citizen, you have rights to not be treated differently than other people. Foreginers, however, can and should be treated differently.

I'm sorry to see that Middle Easterners may be getting more attention than other ethnic groups for deportation, but I think that everyone who isn't here legally should be taken care of and deported immediately. If you're not supposed to be here, now is not the time to come.

Americans profiling other Americans is wrong. Americans profiling foreigners, unfortunately, is needed.
post #17 of 31
[quote]Well there is so as homework why don't you check them all out and correct them if they are wrong.<hr></blockquote>

The quotes are, AFAIK, correct. What inaccuracies did you find? (Apologies on behalf of Lincoln and Franklin if you disagree with the quoted sentiments).

[quote]Go to Britain and call a white guy a honkey and they'll have no idea what you are talking about.<hr></blockquote>

Having lived a couple of years in the UK, let me inform you that "Honkey" is a standard insult for a white man.
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #18 of 31
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>Well there is so as homework why don't you check them all out and correct them if they are wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>I think they're accurate. You said there were all these misquotes, you point out where.

Honkey.

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
post #19 of 31
Thread Starter 
Oops, meant to edit, not reply.

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: BRussell ]</p>
post #20 of 31
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>

Having lived a couple of years in the UK, let me inform you that "Honkey" is a standard insult for a white man.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well fine then. Fact is there was no insult and none was taken except by the American press.
post #21 of 31
Scott H:

[quote]Samantha Joanne Ollendale does it bother you that you've misquoted people your reply? I'm guessing it doesn't. Care to correct it?<hr></blockquote>

The quotes are accurate I believe; what would be the point of deliberately misquoting someone when it can be easily checked?



and...re. your assertion, here's another quote from Lincoln, kind of apt perhaps:

[quote]It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the
accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him<hr></blockquote>
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #22 of 31
Not only is it incorrect but it's also out of context. Since when is it good forum to quote a fragment of someone's sentence?
post #23 of 31
[quote]Not only is it incorrect but it's also out of context. Since when is it good forum to quote a fragment of someone's sentence? <hr></blockquote>

Maybe you should show how the quote is either incorrect or out of context. I think that's what both BRussell and Samantha Joanne Ollendale are waiting for you to do.
post #24 of 31
[quote]Famous remarks are very seldom quoted correctly.

Simeon Strunsky
<hr></blockquote>

post #25 of 31
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>

Maybe you should show how the quote is either incorrect or out of context. I think that's what both BRussell and Samantha Joanne Ollendale are waiting for you to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It took me about 30 seconds using google to find the mistake. You'd think the person who posted it could be bothered?
post #26 of 31
Actually Scott, it wasn't the American Press that was offended. It was the Pakinstani Gov't and population, both in Pakistan, the U.S. and abroad.

It would be nice if our president was a little more informed of other countries cultures. Especially countries that we need to have strong alliances with right now.

Fran, while I undertand the problems with singling out Middle Eastern people, sometimes, if they have guns - on airplanes, its necessary to single them out - in light of current events. As I said before, it should've been something that the airlines prevented from becoming a problem in the first place.

I wonder if the airlines were to be 'federalized' if it would've prevented this from happening. We all know those private companies haven't been doing the best job possible. Oh well, the Reps decided it wan't a good idea - too expensive - so we'll never know. Enjoy the private security firms. I think they're the ones who dropped the ball on this.

But like I said, I don't know all the facts - none of us were there - so who knows for sure. All discussion will be opinionated conjecture in this thread.
post #27 of 31
Hmmm...Seb, youre right that the details on this are still being sorted out. Now that I think about it, I suppose one of the scenarios is that the agent didnt follow proper procedure by identifying himself to AA as an armed, secret service agent beforehand, which would have complicated matters immensely since AA would have had no way to verify his identity without contacting the agents supervisor. Which would put the fault on the secret service. Be interesting to see how it plays out.

I didnt think that the proposal to federalize airport security would pass (mostly for the reasons that it didnt-not opinion here, just being realistic), but I agree that there needs to be some kind of federal accountability for those private security firms. Maybe having a federal airport security certification process that these firms would have to pass in order to qualify for an airport contract, and a means to track/rate these firms by incidents would be the answer?
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
post #28 of 31
[quote]Fran, while I undertand the problems with singling out Middle Eastern people, sometimes, if they have guns - on airplanes, its necessary to single them out - in light of current events. As I said before, it should've been something that the airlines prevented from becoming a problem in the first place.<hr></blockquote>

Well, I agree with this because I don't think ANY American should have a gun on a plane, regardless of what ethnic background they might have. I think it's just better to keep guns off of planes altogether, regardless of whether or not the person is FBI, Secret Service, etc. Let's say that someone wanted to take control of the plane and managed to get that weapon somehow. All of a sudden, you have a BIG PROBLEM again. Just keep the guns off the planes, is that so hard?
post #29 of 31
[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>Actually Scott, it wasn't the American Press that was offended. It was the Pakinstani Gov't and population, both in Pakistan, the U.S. and abroad.
</strong><hr></blockquote>


Um? No it wasn't. This "insult" is a creation of the US press. Read the article.


[quote]Originally posted by seb:
<strong>It would be nice if our president was a little more informed of other countries cultures. Especially countries that we need to have strong alliances with right now.</strong><hr></blockquote>

So he should learn all the different ways to insult everyone from every country when in every other country so he can avoid saying them? The guy misspoke and the people who were "supposed" to be offened weren't so where's the story?
post #30 of 31
[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>

Just keep the guns off the planes, is that so hard?</strong><hr></blockquote>

With ya there. Armed Sky Marshals on commercial flights? Do they realize what would happen if a gun fight broke out on a packed 747 at 30,000 feet?
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
Reply
post #31 of 31
[quote]Originally posted by jesperas:
<strong>

With ya there. Armed Sky Marshals on commercial flights? Do they realize what would happen if a gun fight broke out on a packed 747 at 30,000 feet?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think we do know what happens. The paying passengers have to fight for their lives or get killed by some dim wit with a bomb built into their shoe.

Why can't they have some system to lock the guns up in the baggage compartment? Any "cop" could, just before the flight, check it in and then just after landing get it back. Why do they have to carry it onto the plane?

Right now, depending on the airline, I could check a gun/rifle in my bag. Why can't the various "cops" around the country do the same?


This case this the SS and pilot seems like two ego trip guys facing off. IMO the pilot has to go with his gut.

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Bush's Arab Secret Service agent