Angry Seatmate

N E W Y O R K, Jan. 4 — An American Airlines passenger says he believes an Arab-American Secret Service agent who was kicked off a Christmas Day flight was targeted because of his ethnicity.

"I feel he was most likely removed from the plane — obviously I wasn't privy to the paperwork or that he was a Secret Service [agent] or such — but I think he fit a profile," the passenger, Mark Pueschel, said today on ABCNEWS' Good Morning America.

Pueschel had been seated next to the agent as the American Airlines flight prepared to take off from Baltimore to Dallas. The agent, who was armed, was on his way to work at President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. He was removed from the flight after the captain questioned the validity of his credentials.

Pueschel contacted the Council of Arab-American Relations after seeing a press release on the incident.

Bush told reporters last week he would be "madder than heck" if a government inquiry into the incident found that one of his Secret Service protectors was the victim of discrimination.

The agent demanded an apology from the airline through his attorneys at a news conference Thursday. The agent, whose identity has not been released, did not attend because he was on a security detail and not available for comment in person, his attorneys said. They read a statement in which he said he did not have a vendetta against American Airlines.

"It has never been my desire to make this incident personal," the statement said. "This case is only about the facts. I love my job, and I want to thank my fellow agents for all their support. God bless America."

American Airlines officials have said the agent was removed at the pilot's request because of "inconsistencies" in the paperwork he filed that is required of all federal agents flying on commercial airlines. Religion and ethnicity, American Airlines said, had nothing to do with his removal.

The pilot also released a statement saying the agent was "confrontational" and "abusive."

Christy Lopez, an attorney for the agent, said the agent was a victim of discrimination: "We believe the captain is using that as an excuse for taking him off the plane, but it is quite clear he took him off the plane for other reasons."

The agent has not ruled out filing a lawsuit against American Airlines, Lopez said. He still seeks an amicable resolution of the incident, but he wants airline officials to review their practices so no one else is victimized, she said.

In a statement, American Airlines called the agent's claims "frivolous" and supported the pilot's actions, saying they were based on concerns for the security and safety of the passengers and crew.

"American carries out its security obligations according to the guidelines provided by the federal government," the airline's statement said. "Those guidelines are applied equally among all passengers, and the company vigorously resents any suggestion of racial discrimination."

You still don't get it. . .The Pilot claims he thought he was a terroist. This scares me more. He lets an armed terroist free???

Trust me. . .I do 'get it'.

Comments like. . .'letting an armed terrorist free' show that this 'story' is slip-slidin away here, so will just post some excerpts of the story as it was reported January 3, in Washington Post. . .which may inform/remind those who are building their case for the agent at the expense of American Airlines and the pilot. . .

#By Connie Cass Associated Press Writer Thursday, January 3, 2002; 4:48 PM (exercpts. . .) WASHINGTON –– An American Airlines pilot refused to fly an armed Secret Service agent partly because the Arab-American agent became loud and abusive after his identity was questioned, the airline said Thursday.

"American will not allow any armed individual onboard, regardless of who he or she is, if that person is angry or acting in a manner that the crew believes could jeopardize the safety of the flight," the statement said.

"With the lives of the entire passengers and crew, I was uncomfortable with his actions and did what a captain should do and edge toward the side of safety," the pilot wrote.

The agent left his carry-on bags on the second plane. The pilot said his suspicions were aroused in part because a flight attendant said the passenger was acting strangely and she found a book with Arabic markings among his belongings. The agent's lawyers said it was an English-language textbook on Arab history.

The agent earlier had filled out in triplicate a required form for law officers traveling with guns. . .But the pilot reported that the carbon copy he was given was unreadable and some parts were not filled in. He said the agent was asked to complete a new copy and again left out some required information.

The pilot said while police were working to verify the agent's identity, he "came up to me with loud abusive comments."

"The police agreed with me that there was a legitimate concern because of his unprofessional behavior," the pilot reported. A separate report from an American Airlines operations manager said a police officer confirmed that account.

Relman said the pilot's story wasn't believable.#

This was left in the hands of the police, who did eventually confirm his identity - in the meantime, the pilot had a plane to fly. . .

Hope we get the full story on Wallid Slatter; inclined to think there is one. . .and hope more understand the story as we know it so far. . . –––

"It is just beautiful to me how people are coming to the defense of an industry who has taken the abuse of its customers to an art form."

LOL! As opposed to the sterling "customer service" record of the feds! I hate airlines and air travel more than anyone I know, and I'm madder than heck about the multi-billion-dollar pat on the back we just gave them for their incompetence. But when it comes to picking whether the airlines or the feds are more trustworthy, it's a coin toss. In fact, I believe both sides, because their stories don't contradict on the important point: The agent verbally abused the pilot. That's all the information I need to "pick sides," but I guess for some noblesse oblige prevents them from expecting SS agents to maintain even a veneer of civility.

What bemuses me is the way people—some of them self-avowed Libertarians, no less—are coming to the defense of a federal agent with anger management problems. If a citizen with a CCW permit got hostile and abusive when asked to show his license to carry, he'd get tossed in jail. Heaven help him if he even set foot in an airport. We the Sheeple are forced to stand in line for hours and strip ourselves of anything sharper than Al Gore's wit, just so that we can create a false sense of security while we enjoy our freedom of travel—a freedom which for us, we are informed, is a privilege not a right. But a federal agent throws a temper tantrum because he was expected to fill out a form correctly just once out of three tries, and everyone's ready to contribute to his CAIR-backed legal defense fund.

Another frequent assertion here is that everyone would be on the agent's side if he were WASP. Well, first off, we wouldn't be having this discussion if the agent were WASP, because the media wouldn't have touched the story. But even if it had spun it from the gun-control angle, then no, by G_d, I absolutely would not be on the SS agent's side. If you're going to keep me from carrying so much as my Swiss Army Knife on the plane, and if you're not even going to let the pilot have a weapon, then any fed who wants to carry a gun on board had better be calm, professional and polite, no matter how many times he's asked to document and authenticate this special "right" that he has and we peons don't.

As for this "protocol" that the SS theoretically have: I wish I didn't believe that was true, but that's exactly the sort of boneheaded system I expect out of the government. For "verification," I'm supposed to call a random phone number the purported SS agent himself gives me, and trust whatever the anonymous voice on the other end of the line says. Only Democrats could have come up with that "protocol," because only Democrats have that much blind faith in everything the government tells them.

Asking the pilot to leap to the conclusion of calling the White House itself is equally absurd. First, I don't see why any random person who's never tried should expect to be able to get through and get a response in mere minutes—it doesn't matter whether he can get through, what matters is that there's no reason to believe that he can, and he does after all have a plane to fly. Second, let's say the pilot called the WH and found out the ID was bogus: What then? Is the pilot expected to wrestle the armed terrorist to the ground? No, instead the pilot called BWI airport police and handed the entire matter over to them to confirm the ID, which was absolutely the right thing to do. When the police officer became the fifth person to ask to see the agent's ID, the SS agent became hostile and abusive, at which point the pilot told him to wait for the next plane while he cooled off.

Spare me all this bleating about the pilot's "motivations" for checking the ID, or how the agent's "feelings" were hurt, because that's neither here nor there. The bottom line is very simple: If you want to carry a gun on a plane, no matter who you are, then you had better demonstrate that you are cool, calm and collected under stress, because flying is an inherently stressful experience. But of course now, having filed his little lawsuit, this SS agent is completely immune to any reprimand for his unprofessional behavior, lest this turn into an Arab affaire Drefus. Pretty savvy move on his part.

”You dial 1411 then ask for the USSS number. They will even patch you through. Done this dozens of times. Pilot has no excuse.”

I will avoid making a sarcastic comment at this point such as asking why you have called the SS dozens of times. I’ll thank you for the 1411 number; I was not aware that it connected you to “information” nation wide.

I refer you to my post #119. The pilot’s job is to get the plane and it passengers safely from point A to B. If he is faced with an armed man who seems nervous, can’t fill out the appropriate forms after three tries and becomes belligerent, he SHOULD be suspicious since it interferes with his primary responsibility. At that point he does not become a detective. He does not call directory assistance; he calls for assistance from his company (the ops center) and from the local police. All these people together were not able to confirm the identity of our gun toting, sweating, form fumbling, angry SS agent. The plane is now ready to take off, identity is in doubt, and the agent stays behind.

But let’s assume the pilot knows how to get though to the SS. He gets them on the phone. After everything that has transpired, how do you make certain identification? SS operator: “yes, we have an agent X.” OK how do we know that agent X is the one standing there?

My friend, I don’t know if you are with the SS, or what you have against the airlines, but the SS agent in this case seems to be exhibiting a case of hubris. Employees of the government – with guns – are not better than the rest of us. They just think they are. I have a lot of respect for Bush, and admire and respect his bodyguards, but everyone has a bad day and the SS agent seems to have had his. A test of character is what does he do when he is denied boarding. This SS agent reacted by causing trouble for the pilot and the airline. He just flunked his character test.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.