The Laughing Wolf: The Real Problem With The Jacobsens: They Did Not Do Enough

July 25, 2004

The Real Problem With The Jacobsens: They Did Not Do Enough

Blackfive hits the nail upon the head, and in so doing has helped me make a decision. When I have been asked “What would you have done?” I have given some tepid answers. The fact is, I was not on there so can’t tell you exactly what I would have done. What I will do, is tell you what I have done.

You see, back in the days right after 9-11, there really was no air marshal program and things were more than a bit unsettled. A group of people got together, with several of us being pilots, and found that we had each made a decision that this would happen again only over our dead bodies – and as many dead bodies of terrorists as we could manage in the process. This was an individual decision, but we each had made it and we each worked to implement it and a bit more. We chose our seats with care, and where possible we upgraded or got reassigned to seats that let us better act if something happened.

Something you should know about good flight training: it teaches you to protect the controls. A pilot is the law in the sky, and can injure or kill you if you attempt to tamper with the controls, particularly in a small plane. Where I learned, we were forced to face this, and to think about what we would do if someone freaked out or otherwise attempted to take the controls. What this means is that most pilots have thought about it, and each of us has made the decision on how far we would go long before we ever got our ratings. A lot more thought wasn't needed, especially since I know a lot of pilots did not like the bureacratic order to give hijackers and terrorist full cooperation that was in place before 9-11.

On one of the first flights I took after 9-11, I found myself giving a flight crew a quick course in hand-to-hand. Was glad to do it, and a lot of so doing is simply changing a mindset. Once that takes place, they pick up the tricks quick and these people had a will. They also helped make sure that I was in place to get between the cockpit and the cabin if needed, and spread the word.

This was entirely unofficial, unsanctioned, and effective. I and others got a lot of help from flight crews, who while not told anything seemed to have a sense of what was being done and did all they could do – unofficially – to help. In a few special cases they were told, and I was told where an eye might ought to be kept. This was all done with discretion, care, and civility.

When someone tried to stand up during the final approach to National, I did not even get a chance to move before several people informed the person to sit down. When he tried the “do you know who I am” routine, he got informed what he would be if he did not sit down. He sat. I did speak to another such person on another flight, and he sat back downyet . A friend who was not a part of the group helped sit a person down during another approach to National. The person was not from the U.S. and didn’t understand. My friend used patience and firmness to explain things politely to him, and to make sure he stayed seated the rest of the flight and understood. He was thanked, profusely, for his efforts and for helping the person do right.

I can tell you that I and others have had the dress code for the air marshals and others, and have tended to dress according to it. It helps divert attention and can make the enemy think that security is more than it is, or at least waste time trying to figure out who is and who is not security. The blogger who recently suggested this has a very good idea, and I am only sorry I can’t remember their name. Confusion to our enemies! May I strongly suggest you do the same?

I can tell you that I and others have moved between the cockpit and the cabin, and we have asked people what they were up to, in a polite but firm way. We have never made out that we were more than we were, but made it clear that we would carry out our responsibilities. In those incidents, we never had anyone get truly belligerent or upset with us. They understood, even when they needed to go potty really bad.

Air marshals are not as plentiful as many would like, or that I think we need, and are not on every flight. Other security can also be sparse. I can tell you that while I out myself here, that others of the group still fly and we still hold our word. Never Again.

What would I have done? I don’t know. I do know, however, that I damn well would have said something, and moved to block, during that landing rush – particularly towards the cockpit. I do not and will not depend on the government to protect me, for I AM the Government and security and safety are my responsibility just as it is the responsibility of every Citizen. I would far rather apologize to someone, needed or no, than to die not trying.

No, Blackfive is right and the Jacobsens did not do enough. No one on that flight did what they should have done, much less enough. That scares me more than anything else in this whole sordid tale. No one did anything, and two towers fell. Several someones did something, and only a plane fell. No one did anything, and this time we were lucky. Next time…

-30-

Posted by wolf1 at July 25, 2004 12:40 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Thank you for helping spread the word. It's past time for the safety of the flying public to start taking priority over political correctness.

Posted by: bdfaith at July 25, 2004 01:26 AM

Thank you for helping spread the word. It's past time for the safety of the flying public to start taking priority over political correctness.

Posted by: bdfaith at July 25, 2004 01:28 AM

Excuse me, but those men were not terrorists, Wolf. What are you saying here, you're willing to physically attack any Arab that gets out of their seat on a plane?

This is starting to sound both disturbing and xenophobic. Why is no one dealing with the reality of who these men were?

Wolf, I get the feeling you still haven't read the NRO piece. These men were NOT terrorists, and they have rights too. What you're talking about borders on racism. Jacobsen has no right to be continually attacking these men in the press, and she deserves derision for her terrible reporting and borderline racism.

Posted by: JimK at July 25, 2004 03:44 AM

I'm kinda curious, Jim... your characterization of this as borderline xenophobic and racist seems at odds with what you wrote on your own site:

"Now...was she wrong to be worried? No. I do not believe she was wrong to be worried. The behavior WAS suspicious. I would have been scared the hell out of my mind as well. I believe that airline personnel should have been a LOT more careful with their information and a lot more placating toward the scared passengers. But I believe a healthy dose of fear IS warranted. And furthermore, I do not believe it is racial profiling. The fact is, almost every terrorist in recent history has been of Arabic decent. It?s hard to fight that reality." - JimK

By your own admissiion, she was in a situation where she was justified in being nervous, and where you yourself would have been scared. How is her concern "over reacting"? [which seems to be todays Blogosphere Buzzword, along with Pantsgate]

Did she have any way of knowing at the time that the mn weren't terrorists? Would you have? Were they acting in a suspicious manner?

I'm not reading the 'Wolf as being xenophobic or advocating "attacking any arabic looking men".

What I am reading is the 'Wolf stating factually that in similar circumstances, he would move between the cockpit and *any* individuals acting in a bizarre fashion - regardless of race - and ask them politely but firmly to please sit and stop acting in a threatening manner: they're making the other passengers nervous.

Are you reading something different? Where? Can you quote from him and show me where my interpretation is in error?

Posted by: Ironbear at July 25, 2004 09:00 AM

Jim, what you are saying borders on idiocy and is beyond insulting. Are you reading what I have said? What I said is that in the case of them getting up during the landing approach that yes, I would get between them and th cockpit. Fact is, they could be purple with pink polka dots, and if they get up during that time and make a rush towards the cockpit I WOULD act. This goes double since at the time the reality is that they WERE acting strangely and there was no way AT THE TIME to know that they were not terrorists. To be blunt, the reality is there is STILL no way to know exactly what was going on. Just because we have NOW found out that they were musicians does not address any other issues, and damn well doesn't address what what going on at the time.

The rest of us are dealing with reality, including that there are many issues here separate from what seems to be your obsession. Why can you not separate what happened then from what is happening now, and why can you not deal with the various issues in an honest manner?

For you to come in here and distort what I have in such a fashion is different from what you accuse Ms. Jacobsen of exactly how? If Ms. Jacobsen is doing so many evil things, call her on it with citations and offer to find the band a good lawyer to take her to court. Most of all, where the hell do you see me saying in any way that she has the right to make false charges against them?

Your charges here do you and your arguments no credit at all.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at July 25, 2004 11:55 AM

Assuming this Syrian group of musicians were merely that, musicians, they still deserved more trouble from those passengers than they received.
Muslims that are not part of any terror group are still doing their part to terrorize civilians with actions such as those on the Jacobsen flight. They, like nit-wit teenagers, get a charge out of scaring the infidel kafirs.
Does anyone remember the woman from Georgia, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, overhearing the group of muslims talking Jihad in a diner. They noticed people watching them, and decided to have some fun at the patrons' expense. The cops caught up with them in Florida and declared themno threat.
I say "Bullshit!". Acting like terrorists to provoke concerned citizens seems like yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. There oughta be a law!

Posted by: Holographic Patriot at July 25, 2004 01:57 PM

FWIIW, JimK seems stuck in the loop of a logical fallacy. He is fixated on the fact that they are paid musical perfomers (they may or may not be musicians, I have not heard them, but that is a semantic quibble and possible rant for another day). I concede that point as fact and have never attempted to argue against it. What I do put forward is that this proves nothing beyond the fact that they are paid musical perfomers. It neither proves nor disproves that they are angels. It neither proves nor disproves that they are devils. It does not prove, disprove, or answer any intent, action, or other consideration in regards the discussion. To make any leap in any direction from this single point of information is a whopper of a logical fallacy, as is any attempt to apply information and conditions of the present to a point in the past where they did not exist.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at July 25, 2004 02:37 PM

Wow.

I hardly know where to begin.

The fact is, Jacobsen did no investigating whatsoever after the fact to discover who these men were. Someone else found out for her. After this information came to light, she did nothing to retract her accusatory and xenophobic statements.

I think the problem here is some folks seem intent on attacking me for not worrying about security on the plane. You're not seeing what I am actually saying. I'm attacking Jacobsen for her behavior long after the incident was over, NOT her behavior *during* the incident.

A good reporter would have discovered who those men were without the help of another publication. A decent reporter would have retracted the personal and xenophobic portions of her two stories after being rebutted so thoroughly by another publication. A decent human being would have at least apologized after the truth was known.

Where is Jacobsen calling for tighter security, but acknowledging her OWN shortcomings in the reporting of this incident after the fact?

I believe that we are arguing two separate things here, and I HAVE tried to separate them from the very beginning of my own take on this matter.

1. The incident on the plane. Was she right to react at all? Of course. Would *I* have been scared? Of course. There is a difference between being alert and being ready to physically assault of any Arab that dares use the rest room. Would I beat someone in the face with my laptop if they made a move to grab a passenger or a flight attendant? You bet her ass Would. Arab or not. I NEVER travel without looking around, figuring my placement in a given situation, and looking for makeshift weapons. Last flight I was on, my wife and I discussed how we would tag-team someone using the fire extinguisher and the broken edge of the glass salad plate.

That is the first part, which I have NO PROBLEM WITH. What I *do* find offensive is the idea that people are quick to condemn all Syrians, or all Saudis, or all *any* nationality over the actions of a few. When it happens to us, we scream about it to the high heavens. How many of my fellow right-leaning bloggers went off for weeks about the bad apples at Abu Ghraib not representing the entire military, much less all Americans?

We must be vigilant among ourselves not to fall into the same racial hatred that our enemies posses. Otherwise we are at best equals, and at worst hypocrites.

2. Jacobsen's handling of the story after the fact. This is the second part, with with I find GREAT fault, with on her part, the part of her publication, and those who would champion her now.

It was good to hear about the possible security issues. However, EVERY story I have heard, both from news and from the blogosphere, says that his is already a known fact. Therefore, I believe Jacobsen only served to illustrate it to the public. That's not a bad thing per se. I never claimed it was. However...

I don't see how anyone can say this reporter was thorough. The NRO piece clearly and succinctly identifies the men, and puts her two stories in the context of reality. The entire blogosphere was up in arms about the terrorists when this story broke...but they weren't terrorists. All I'm saying is we should be telling BOTH sides of the story, and I don't see anyone doing that. I see a lot of people willfully ignoring the reality of this particular situation in favor of talking about what might have been. To be honest, a lot of it is fear-mongering. And please don't be so arrogant as to think *I* don't remember 9/11. I still have *nightmares*.

It is possible to discuss the security issues and still take issue with Jacobsen's sloppy reporting. And it is possible to be vigilant without laying blame for terrorism at the feet of every citizen of Syria (as an example). Just as I do not believe the U.S. Government represents everything *I* stand for and approve of, I doubt every Syrian citizen approves of what their government stands for.

I'm asking...nay, BEGGING, that we do not turn into the people the left accuse us of being. As vigilant as we are about security, we must be just as vigilant that we don't become the thing we hate. If this somehow makes me a bad person, then so be it.

Posted by: JimK at July 25, 2004 02:56 PM

I have one more thought:

Why is everyone so willing to accept Jacobsen's portrayal of events as 100% factual? I'm not accusing anyone of anything with that question, I'm genuinely curious as to why people are so willing to accept her version of events as 100% accurate. Isn't there a chance she *did* overreact? Why is that so easily dismissed?

I'm not at all saying "oh, hysterical woman" here. I don't dismiss female opinions like that. The only person I dismiss that easily is Michael Moore. I'm saying why is it so improbable that she wasn't distorting reality with her recount of events?

Posted by: JimK at July 25, 2004 03:02 PM

Jim,

I strongly disagree that you have separated these issues at all in previous discussions -- this is the first time I have seen you do it.

Let me take your numbered points real quick:

1. You would react, but I am a racist bigot for saying that I would? I clearly state that I would no matter race, sex, etc., and yet you accuse me of denying Arabs their rights? Where in the hell do you see me, Blackfive, or anyone else going after all Syrians, Arabs, etc.? If it is on another site, take them to task and don't try to tar me with that brush. And, yes, that is exactly what you have done.

2. If you have problems with how she has handled this after the fact, then by all means go after her. I have not touched that issue here, yet somehow it is my fault? When and where did I say she was thorough? When and where did I say I would have done as she did? When and where have I addressed her reporting at all, other than reporting on her initial story?

My coverage has been on the problems identified by her story, the problems that every blogger I have linked to is discussing. Where is all the Syrian/Arab/Etc. bashing you are screaming about?

Yes, it is possible to discuss the security issues, the serious security issues and plain out fuckups, while taking issue with Jacobsen and/or her coverage. The problem is, you didn't. The problem is, you accuse myself and others of racism and worse, and scream to heaven about a problem, without apparent logical basis or fact in terms of what I have written. If you can make a case, make it. So far, you haven't. All you have done is throw around that they were musicians, obsess on the NRO article, and argue statements and positions never made here.

No one has accused you of being a bad person. Indeed, you are the one throwing around the charges of racism and bigotry. I take issue with that, strong issue, and I will point out problems of logic and fact on your part -- none of which make you a bad person. A bad debater, yes. So don't try and play that card here.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at July 25, 2004 03:20 PM

Jim,

Again, where did I say I believed her 100 percent? Do I believe that they did act strangely? Yes, I do because it was corroborated by others, and this has been covered in several stories and in previous posts. Quit with the bad strawmans...

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at July 25, 2004 03:23 PM

"Yes, I do because it was corroborated by others"

Can I ask where? I've been all over looking for exactly that information. Who else on the flight corroborated her account? I'd like to see it for my own edification.

If I've tarred you with a broad brush, my apologies.

As for the characterization of my "obsession" with the NRO article...I think I'm going to stop commenting with you on this. I seem to have lowered the bar, and I've dragged you down with me. Again, my apologies. I'll shut up now.

Posted by: JimK at July 25, 2004 03:35 PM

I really doubt that hijackers will ever be able to bring down anything but an airplane again. My belief isn't based on anything the goverment is doing, I believe this because no pilot would, post 9/11, allow his aircraft to be used as a cruise missile. I don't believe the flight crew would open the cockpit door no matter what was happening in back and I believe that if an assault on the door happened in flight the pilots would put the airplane into such gyrations that anyone not belted in would be badly injured. I further believe that if, in spite of all other efforts, it looked like hijackers would gain control of the aircraft, the last act of those pilots would be to drill a large hole in some farmer's field.
I further believe that would-be hijackers know this.
Yet I believe Jacobsen as far as she goes to say there WERE Arabs acting strangely on that flight. This was confirmed by both flight attendents and government types before the Big Debunking.
The question to me is what were those Syrians trying to accomplish? I don't think it was a test run for taking over an airliner for my reasons stated above.
Instead I believe it was a misdirection play. There are bazillions of Muslims with no obvious connection to AlQ, Hamas, Hizbollah or any other of the God only knows how many Islamic terror groups, yet those Muslims are generally sympathetic to those groups. It would cost nothing at all for an operative of one of these groups to approach a group of Arabs to simply act odd when they are on an airliner. Don't DO anything, just act suspicious.
We know that these groups desperately want a big hit in mainland America because they want revenge for their losses since 9/11 and just because they've always wanted to hit us.
How much easier will it be for them to move on the ground if all our security types are looking up in the sky at airliners?
That's what I think this, and the other instances of strange behavior on aircraft is. There have been several others, one being where the Arab-looking feller went into the forward john and removed the mirror from the bulkhead seperating the john from the cockpit.
I believe they are trying to make us look up while they are rigging a full gasoline tanker truck with twenty kilos of Semtex on the ground. Or maybe they're rigging a liquified Natural gas tank ship with explosives. Or any of a dozen other scenarios.
I further believe they are being successful at this. We are all looking up, I damned sure hope somebody has their eyes on what's going on at ground level.

Posted by: Peter at July 25, 2004 05:16 PM

Jim,

Is being a musician mutually exclusive of being a terrorist? Let me think for a moment. If I was a terrorist and wanted to find a way to freely move about my enemies country what might I want to do to go about unnoticed? If I came as a tourist, probably no problem but I think my visit length is going to be limited. What else might allow me to travel around and check out different areas of the country without raising concerns? Doctor? Lawyer? Nurse? Probably not as each state has separate licensing issues except for the 16 compact states. How about something like a plumber, electrician, carpenter? Similar problem, each state has their own licensing. So someone in a licensed profession is probably out. Student? It could work but we all hope our government is at least trying to track students. How about musician? Hey, that could work. I could travel about the country, visit all sorts of places and not have to worry about licensing at all.

I’m not saying that these guys were terrorists. It just hasn’t been proven that they were not. We do know they are musicians, that’s a different line of thought. They are also probably husbands, brothers, fathers, and a whole host of other things. None of which prevents them from also being a terrorist. Is this racist thinking? To answer that let me ask who the majority of terrorists in the world are today? I’ll wait… sounds of toes tapping. What you say, Arab men are currently probably the majority of the terrorists in the world. No, really, Get out. This brings us to the issue of racial profiling. If we know that the majority of the terrorists are young Muslim men who look a certain way, why are we still giving extra scrutiny to the 40ish blond-haired, blue-eyed husband and wife college professors, and ignoring the 6’ 3” tall, 275 lb Muslim male boarding the plane in front of me last week?

The fact that nothing happened is a good thing but it does not negate that if some of these guys were terrorists we may have given away valuable intel.

Posted by: Azygos at July 26, 2004 03:01 AM

Comments are Closed.