|
|
|
|
|
LETTERS: Whatever Happened to Airport Shooting Follow-up? Editor And Publisher | February 6 2006 Where's the Follow-Through on Air Marshal Shooting Story? Shame on journalism. Some two months ago -- Dec. 7, 2005 to be exact -- two federal air marshals shot and killed an American Airlines passenger at Miami International Airport. Since then, there has not been one follow up story despite what was reported initially as conflicting accounts of the incident. For example, someone -- some say the victim, some say another passenger -- shouted something about a "bomb being in a backpack." The story noted that the victim's wife shouted that he had a mental problem as he raced down the aisle. When confronted by the air marshals, he "allegedly" reached into his backpack. None ever was found. Certainly, all passenger luggage, including carry-ons had to be screened at least once. Was that done? If so, how could the victim have had a "bomb?" Certainly, every passenger and the air marshals had to be interviewed afterward. What was the result of this? Why didn't the air marshals just try to wound the man? Not long before this incident, British police shot and killed an innocent man in the belief he was a terrorist. Lastly, I have tried to point out that in 1972, the FBI was given the sole responsibility of dealing with incidents when the aircraft is on the ground, as was the case here. Has that changed? Is the air marshal policy to shoot first and ask questions later? Back in the days when I was a reporter, our city editor never would have overlooked a second-day story answering the questions posed above. David H. Brown Ed's Note: For more on the media's handling of this story, see James Bovard's Dec. 12 column, "Fact Checking the Feds in Airport Shooting." *** In Praise of Beth Fallon, RIP I was very sad to read of Beth Fallon's long illness and death. I always wondered what happened to her after she left the NY Post, which I still read. I was surprised that the NY Post had very few words to print about her death. They should have had at least a whole page. Beth Fallon was a great writer. Susan Smpadian *** More on Warrantless Searches In his Feb. 1 letter to E&P, Alan Meese asserts that obtaining a warrant to search and seize is, constitutionally, entirely at the discretion of the police. If that were true, then warrants would have become obsolete a long time ago. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but as a layman it seems likely to me that the intent of the Fourth Amendment was to check the absolute police power of the State, as embodied in a Crown or an erstwhile republican government. Otherwise, and especially in a state of emergency, no one is, potentially, more than one denunciation or dragnet away from a cell. In the case of legally permissible warrantless searches and seizures, the persons or properties to be searched are in public places subject to the rules of publicly acknowledged laws and permissions, such as at airport security gates. By attempting to board an airplane, travelers are tacitly accepting the right of the state to search and seize. Could it have been the intent of the Founders, who had just been in rebellion against the Crown, that domiciles may surveilled -- in effect, searched -- at the discretion of the police without any judicial oversight whatsoever? That was the "next" revolution, Mr. Meese -- under the Committee for Public Safety and Fouché. Pavel Chichikov *** More on Cartoon Controversies Re: 'Inquirer' One of Few U.S. Papers to Publish 'Muhammad' Cartoon Yet, how sad and and sick that the network media have no problem running offensive shows impugning Christianity, as we see with the recently-cancelled Book of Daniel, and the Brittney Spears (also cancelled) appearance on Will and Grace, where Brittany was going to mock the crucifixion. As Billy Graham quipped long ago: "If God doesn't judge America, He's gonna owe Sodom and Gomorrah a big apology". And we've gotten MUCH worse since his comment. Edd Forke *** Toles Cartoon Re: 'Wash Post' Defends Toles Cartoon That Drew Angry Protest Letter from Joint Chiefs I really don't have time to argue the point. I'm busy with my real job of helping Soldiers deploy fit and to recover when they do suffer catastrophic injuries. However, I can't let this one go by without saying that I think Toles' cartoon is reprehensible and about as poor in taste of any I've seen in my entire life. I classify your defense of him right up there with anyone defending Mayor Nagin's right to want a God-planned chocolate city. Mr. Toles and those of you who printed the hurtful cartoon are insensitive and your hatred of those who are involved in the war is evident by your actions. What you thought or his artistic freedom doesn't matter -- they are just poor excuses for the inexcusable. Maria A. Worley *** I thought it important enough to write to point out the differences between the reactions of the Muslim world to the Danish cartoon depictions of Muhammad and the Joint Chiefs of Staff's reaction to Tom Toles' cartoon. I think the JCofS were well within their rights to send the letter of condemnation to the Post. Was it distasteful, disrespectful, or offensive to the men and women who have given their lives to protect the liberty to publish such material? Maybe. Just like beauty, offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. And maybe the Muslims were offended by the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. (Obviously so if you've read a newspaper lately). The key difference I've seen is the publicized reaction of the Muslims to the cartoon versus the reaction of the JCofS. Not one of the JCofS called the author, editor, or owner of the newspaper threatening them with bodily harm or killing of family members. The Post did not have to order extra security for the lobby and rest of the building. The management did not have to post any memos informing employees they should be extra watchful or cautious. Maybe not all Muslims are willing to go to war and risk death to themselves and family members over a cartoon but you certainly wouldn't know it by the Danish flag burnings, death threats, bombings, and violence visited upon anyone even remotely related to publishing that cartoon. If the members of the Muslim community wish to be thought better of, or more accepted by, the parts of the world that don't feel having an opinion different than the current governing body of the hour, warrants killing and maiming of you, your family and any innocents that happen to be standing within a hundred yards of you, then maybe they should practice more of the peace the profess to pray for a dozen times a day. T. Scott Humphries *** No, you don't get any credit for being "brave"
for standing up to the If you haven't printed the Mohammed cartoons, you're cowards. George Booth *** It is obvious that the Joint Chiefs of Staff understand political cartoons about as well as they are willing to realistically assess the situation in Iraq. I was surprised when I first saw the cartoon, until I realized what the soldier in the hospital bed represented. Since it was not about a person, but rather the condition of the Army itself, there was no offense in what was being depicted. The reaction by the pentagon, Rumsfeld, and conservative leaders is an obvious attempt to distract the public from the ridiculious presentation by president Bush in his State of the Union address to the nation. There is nothing to opologize about in this cartoon, but thanks to the Joint Chiefs and Rumsfeld, the cartoon got more opportunities to open our eyes to the problems within the military establishment. Thanks to Tom Toles for his outstanding ability to bring this situation to the forefront! Richard S Goldman *** Re: Violence Over 'Muhammad' Cartoons Spreads It just shows the vast insecurity in their faith that they would get so angry over a few harmless cartoons! Rand MacPherson |
