Feds Lie About Dead Miami Airline Passenger
The standard operating procedure for law enforcement personnel involved in shooting incidents has often been to lie about the circumstances. The "throw-down gun", planted at the scene of police shootings, is not just simply legend.
The shooting of a mentally ill man on the jetway at Miami International Airport had a funny smell from the beginning. Before the passengers had been taken off the plane with their hands up, cable network news was reporting that the man had claimed to be carrying a bomb. This information had to have come from Washington.
My suspicions are becoming vindicated with eyewitnesses coming forward to say that the man never made the threat of having a bomb.
The Washington Post apparently had hints of this official malfeasence judging by the peculiar wording (and timing) of an editorial today.
The Post doesn't come right out with everything it knows (it never does), but the editorial comparison with the case of the innocent man shot in the London subway was not a coincidence.
The quick action of the official lie machine is no surprise to any reasonably aware American. By the time of the evening network newscasts, there were politicians and terrorism "experts" blathering on the air about how the Miami incident proves the worth of the federal air marshal program. The apologists for the national security state know no shame. If shooting a mentally ill passenger is so good for airline security, why don't we shoot one or two every day?
Besides the lack of respect for the public shown by the government liars, there is an additional issue. This would be obstruction of justice. As one eyewitness passenger said, the FBI had been told by someone that the man said he had a bomb (the "b-word" in that FBI agent's lingo, nice). The passenger told the FBI that this was untrue, but clearly people were telling untruths to the investigators. As "Plamegate" and the "Martha Stewart case" showed, making up a story to serve one's agenda is frowned upon.
Or is it? If no one tries very hard to get to the bottom of the slanderous claims about the mentally ill man, it will become clear that the lie was sanctioned at a high level of government.
The shooting of a mentally ill man on the jetway at Miami International Airport had a funny smell from the beginning. Before the passengers had been taken off the plane with their hands up, cable network news was reporting that the man had claimed to be carrying a bomb. This information had to have come from Washington.
My suspicions are becoming vindicated with eyewitnesses coming forward to say that the man never made the threat of having a bomb.
The Washington Post apparently had hints of this official malfeasence judging by the peculiar wording (and timing) of an editorial today.
The Post doesn't come right out with everything it knows (it never does), but the editorial comparison with the case of the innocent man shot in the London subway was not a coincidence.
The quick action of the official lie machine is no surprise to any reasonably aware American. By the time of the evening network newscasts, there were politicians and terrorism "experts" blathering on the air about how the Miami incident proves the worth of the federal air marshal program. The apologists for the national security state know no shame. If shooting a mentally ill passenger is so good for airline security, why don't we shoot one or two every day?
Besides the lack of respect for the public shown by the government liars, there is an additional issue. This would be obstruction of justice. As one eyewitness passenger said, the FBI had been told by someone that the man said he had a bomb (the "b-word" in that FBI agent's lingo, nice). The passenger told the FBI that this was untrue, but clearly people were telling untruths to the investigators. As "Plamegate" and the "Martha Stewart case" showed, making up a story to serve one's agenda is frowned upon.
Or is it? If no one tries very hard to get to the bottom of the slanderous claims about the mentally ill man, it will become clear that the lie was sanctioned at a high level of government.
posted by Effwit at 11:44 AM
4 Comments:
If the story is true; that these marshals shot a mentally ill man, then this doesn't prove the worthiness of the air marshal program at all. It would only have proven the worthiness of such a program if there had actually been a bomb or an actual terror threat. Some guy going beserk on a plane in front of trigger-happy marshals doesn't prove anything.
I wouldn't doubt that the bullshit about the man's bomb claim came from official Washington. There's a lot more to this than people are letting on, and it stinks to high hell.
vcthree:
It certainly isn't terribly re-assuring to the average airline passenger.
I really hate the "lie first, ask questions later" mentality that our government seems to have. Especially in a matter of life and death.
The initial media reports were sounding like: Federal Air Marshals--America's new heroes.
It is interesting - and a bit confusing - how reports that he claimed to be carrying a bomb could not be corroborated by ANY of his fellow passengers. Now the word seems to be that he used the "B-word" on the jet bridge, conveniently out of earshot of most/all of the passengers. So, what really happened on that jet bridge?
My wife, who is a flight attendant, recounted a story to me from the early part of her career when she was on a flight with a mentally-disturbed Vietnam veteran. In flight, he got out of his seat and attempted to open the aft doorway; he was having flashbacks to the war and this was his first airplane flight in the many years since he had been back from SE Asia. They were able to subdue him, but it does make one wonder how well the air marshals today are trained to deal with mentally unstable passengers, regardless of whether that instability is permanent or temporary (ie, fear of flying, claustrophobia, etc.). Just shooting unstable passengers isn't the answer. Any flipping moron can do that.
DrewL:
Excellent point about the value of flight attendants, they are able to control 99.99% of passengers by being firm but calm.
The federal air marshals in the Miami case were probably more jumpy than the agitated passenger.
About the jetway mystery, I have been told that the government's story about the man wearing his backpack "suspiciously" on his chest is to explain bullet holes through the poor guy's backpack. The dude was probably running away from the airplane when he was shot.
Besides, if the man was already off the plane, there would have been no real threat to the plane and passengers at that point even if he had a bomb. (As long as the marshals could keep him from returning to the plane.)
I think this episode is going to be swept under the rug.
Post a Comment
<< Home