Jet Passenger "Mutiny" a "Victory for Terrorists?" -- No, A Victory for Common Sense

The U.K. Daily Mail reports that passengers on a flight from Malaga, Spain to Manchester, U.K. refused to take off until two scruffy-looking Asian men wearing inappropriately heavy coats, and who were speaking what the passengers assumed to be Arabic, were removed from the flight:

British holidaymakers staged an unprecedented mutiny - refusing to allow their flight to take off until two men they feared were terrorists were forcibly removed.

The extraordinary scenes happened after some of the 150 passengers on a Malaga-Manchester flight overheard two men of Asian appearance apparently talking Arabic.

Passengers told cabin crew they feared for their safety and demanded police action. Some stormed off the Monarch Airlines Airbus A320 minutes before it was due to leave the Costa del Sol at 3am. Others waiting for Flight ZB 613 in the departure lounge refused to board it.

The incident fuels the row over airport security following the arrest of more than 20 people allegedly planning the suicide-bombing of transatlantic jets from the UK to America. It comes amid growing demands for passenger-profiling and selective security checks.

It also raised fears that more travellers will take the law into their own hands - effectively conducting their own 'passenger profiles'.

More details from the story:

College lecturer Jo Schofield, her husband Heath and daughters Emily, 15, and Isabel, 12, were caught up in the passenger mutiny.

Mrs Schofield, 38, said: "The plane was not yet full and it became apparent that people were refusing to board. In the gate waiting area, people had been talking about these two, who looked really suspicious with their heavy clothing, scruffy, rough, appearance and long hair.

"Some of the older children, who had seen the terror alert on television, were starting to mutter things like, 'Those two look like they're bombers.'

"Then a family stood up and walked off the aircraft. They were joined by others, about eight in all. We learned later that six or seven people had refused to get on the plane.

"There was no fuss or panic. People just calmly and quietly got off the plane. There were no racist taunts or any remarks directed at the men.

"It was an eerie scene, very quiet. The children were starting to ask what was going on. We tried to play it down."

Mr Schofield, 40, an area sales manager, said: "When the men were taken off they didn't argue or say a word. They just picked up their coats and obeyed the police. They seemed resigned to the fact they were under suspicion.

"The captain and crew were very apologetic when we were asked to evacuate the plane for the security search. But there was no dissent.

"While we were waiting, everyone agreed the men looked dodgy. Some passengers were very panicky and in tears. There was a lot of talking about terrorists."

Incredibly, some have had the unmitigated gall to condem the passengers for their decision:

Patrick Mercer, the Tory Homeland Security spokesman, said last night: "This is a victory for terrorists. These people on the flight have been terrorised into behaving irrationally.

* * *

First of all, this "victory for terrorists" nonsense has got to stop.  It is not a "victory for terrorists" if passengers refuse to take a flight with men aboard who look like possible terrorists.  The goal of Islamic terror is not to cause "infidels" mild inconvenience.  It is only a "victory for terrorists" if innocent men, women or children are actually killed.

When passengers use their own instincts and common sense and act independently in protection of their own safety, it's a victory for us -- the people of the civilized nations of the world.  It means that we've finally begun to recognize the existence of mortal danger and respond to it immediately, when there's still enough time for our choices to make a difference.

It's not only acceptable -- but it's wise -- to avoid certain activities in this age of Islamic terror, simply out of an abundance of caution.  Thankfully, passengers are no longer sitting ducks, happily boarding planes with groups of angry young Islamic men aboard who are indeed ready and willing to detonate explosives and kill them all. 

According to the report of this particular passenger "mutiny," nobody was impolite to the two men who were feared to be terrorists.  People merely refused to fly under circumstances that seemed alarming to them.

This certainly isn't about race.  In fact, it's a slander against the passengers of this flight to claim that they refused to board because of the color of the mens' skin.  People of color uneventfully board flights in every city on earth every day, without objection or alarm from their fellow passengers.  It takes a lot more than race or language to arouse the concern of fellow passengers to the point where they are afraid to fly with you at all.

There are plenty of things that these two men could have done to reassure their fellow passengers and avoid this entire incident.  I could easily spell out some of those things here, but I won't because such a list could just as easily be used in the service of terrorism. 

And don't condescend to passengers who act in their own defense.  Airline passengers are becoming more aware that their own safety is at least partially in their own hands.  That's not a myth; it's reality.  It was passengers who subdued "shoe bomber" Richard Reid before he could detonate the explosives hidden in his shoes.  Those passengers saved their lives and the lives of everyone on that flight. 

The terrorists wouldn't have "won" if Richard Reid had turned out to be just another crazy passenger trying to strike a match on his perfectly normal shoe.

The terrorists win, for real and with horrible consequences, when we let down our guard; when we rely exclusively on bored security screeners and preoccupied flight crews for our own safety; and when we ignore that sick feeling that tells us something is wrong.

It is not "irrational" for people to listen to their own instincts.  As far as the passengers awaiting this latest flight knew, their lives depended on getting it right.  It's easy to use the benefit of hindsight to conclude that there must have been no risk here.  But there was a risk.  That the risk didn't materialize, or was not discovered, doesn't take away the fact that something seemed wrong.   When something seems wrong, the prudent thing to do is to stop and take care of it before proceeding.

Everyone agrees that if a plane seems to have something wrong with it -- a strange sound, a funny feeling to a control or system -- it's appropriate and prudent for the pilot to refuse to fly until the plane is fully checked out.  In fact, doing anything else would be careless and wrong.

If it turns out that the plane was actually in fine shape and ready to fly despite the pilot's concern, we don't berate or second-guess the pilot.  We appreciate the pilot's effort to ensure a safe flight.

In this age of widespread aggressive Islamic terror that knows no national boundaries or human decency, for a plane to leave the terminal with suspicious passengers aboard, without a full and thorough check, is also careless and wrong.  Terrorists are an even greater a threat to passenger safety than ordinary mechanical malfunctions.

Forgotten in all the latest tsk-tsking are the hundreds if not thousands of innocent airline passengers who have peacefully boarded flights with nervous or angry-looking Islamic or Arabic-speaking men aboard, and who are now dead at the hands of those terrorists.  Whatever internal suspicions or gut feelings those passengers or flight crews may have had, we will never know.  (This isn't to fault those passengers.  Prior to September 11, 2001, the assumption was that even if a plane was boarded or hijacked by Islamic terrorists, it would not mean the death of everyone onboard.  Now we now better.)

Anybody who believes that security should be left exclusively to the "professional" airport screeners is dangerously naive.  Security screenings are wide but not deep.  Everyone gets screened, but in a rushed, superficial way, by screeners who are pretty much prohibited from paying attention to their own gut instincts lest they inadvertently profile or offend.  Besides, It's just a job to them.  Their own lives are not on the line. 

Of course the vast majority of Arabic-speaking passengers who fly are not terrorists.  They couldn't possibly be.  But how do those odds change if the passengers are young men?  What if they are wearing heavy coats that are inappropriate for the weather?  What if the men are scruffy looking?  What if they keep checking their watches?  What if something about their demeanor sets off alarm bells in several other passengers taking the same flight? 

At some point, it's reasonable for passengers to say, "That's it.  It may be a false alarm, but I'm not going to bet my life on it, or my childrens' lives."

That's how it is when you take responsibility for your own safety.  You make your best choice and you risk being wrong.  The consequence if you are wrong is that you take a later flight, or the entire flight is delayed, and some foolish politician berates you after the fact for having acted "irrationally" and for letting the terrorists "win."  The consequence if you are right is that you spare yourself and your loved ones suffering and death. 

It's wrong to berate passengers for refusing to be act like passive sheep, blindly accepting the conditions in which they find themselves whether they seem secure or not.  In this age of Islamic terror, we don't need passengers to be sheep.  We need passengers to have the courage to say "no" when something doesn't seem right.  And we need to support them in their decisions.

If we don't, then the terrorists really will win -- sooner or later.

* * *

Like this story?  Visit Digg.com and "Digg it" (move it up a notch in the Digg rankings).

_________________________________

Update 8/19/06:  Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has more commentary on this story, noting that the British reference to "Asians" usually means Pakistanis or Arabs.  Morrissey concludes that "citizens will start imposing their own solutions to flight safety in the absence of demonstrably intelligent security . . . ." 

Woman Honor Thyself says "Bravo Brits!"  Freedom Folks adds more cheers.

Blue Crab Boulevard points out that it could easily have been a terrorist "dry run."  Sister Toldjah has more commentary.

And Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler uses a few words we don't allow around here, but says it so well that it would be a crime not to link.

Comments

[Angel]

Excellent read!..and thank u for the link as well!..well done!..:)

[benning]

I'm in complete agreement. We are responsible for our own safety. Our governments from the Feds to our local towns, have proven time and again that they are beholden to political considerations no matter the actual results - murders, rapes, bombings, and so on. We must do what we feel is right, never mind the mindless carping of the Media. Feel suspicious? Say something about it. Period.

[Ken]

"Anybody who believes that security should be left exclusively to the "professional" airport screeners ..."

Local morning drive-time radio has their own name for "professional airport screeners":

"Shaliqua with the 60-inch waist"

[Erik]

I like the way you blog - keep on posting please. Greetings, Erik