Follow-up on earlier Annie Jacobsen article. Maybe there was nothing to it, but the article raises some questions about overall security.
The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service.
“Initially it was brought to [the air marshals] attention by a passenger,” Adams said, adding the agents had been watching the men and chose to stay undercover.
Jacobsen and her husband had a number of conversations with the flight attendants and gestured towards the men several times, the source said.
“In concert with the flight crew, the decision was made to keep [the men] under surveillance since no terrorist or criminal acts were being perpetrated aboard the aircraft; they didn’t interfere with the flight crew,” Adams said.
The air marshals did, however, check the bathrooms after the middle-eastern men had spent time inside, Adams said.
“We have to take all calls seriously, but the passenger was worried, not the flight crew or the federal air marshals,” she said. “The complaint did not stem from the flight crew.”
1. Jacobsen said the flight attendant she talked to was worried. This report makes it sound like only Jacobsen was worried. This helps to marginalize her experience.
2. Why did the flight crew allow the men to huddle around the laboratories when the fasten seatbelt signs were on and the plane was clearing to land? In my experience, just starting to get out of your seat at that point will bring pouncing crewmembers.
3. How did the Air Marshals know that no terrorist or criminal acts were being perpetrated? If they were so sure they wouldn't have needed to check the laboratories.
The source said the air marshals on the flight were partially concerned Jacobsen’s actions could have been an effort by terrorists or attackers to create a disturbance on the plane to force the agents to identify themselves.
Air marshals’ only tactical advantage on a flight is their anonymity, the source said, and Jacobsen could have put the entire flight in danger.
“They have to be very cognizant of their surroundings,” spokesman Adams confirmed, “to make sure it isn’t a ruse to try and pull them out of their cover.”
I don't see how the flight attendants would have ignored the bathroom huddle without getting orders from the air marshals. The passenger not only saw weird behavior from the men, but also noticed that the flight crew wasn't behaving according to the usual rules. If the air marshals were worried about having their covers blown they should have let the flight crews usher the men back to their seats. The rule bending gave passengers a feeling that something wasn't right. Therefore, the Air Marshals were trading the possibility of blown covers for more surveillance of the men.
Another thing that isn't mentioned is the government's failure to search these men at the gates. The lack of search was the beginning of this lady's worry throughout the flight.
They took a chance not searching them. They took a chance letting them huddle around the bathroom. Somehow passengers are to feel perfectly secure with this kind of risk-taking. If they become alarmed they are blowing the poor man’s cover.
Instead of blaming this passenger, the government should take her example as a reason to reform the current procedures. Otherwise, they should prepare for more of the same behavior.
No comments:
Post a Comment