Is Atheism a Religion?

Yesterday's post about the Mt. Soledad Cross controversy spurred me into further investigation of the question of whether atheism is a form of religious belief. As I discussed yesterday,

"If belief in a Higher Power is considered a religious faith, then an equally powerful argument can be made that the non-belief in a Higher Power is also a religion. To put it another way, a religious person believes in a Higher Power. An atheist does not. Neither position can be proven with facts or science; each requires faith in an idea."

A Google search of the title of this post reveals many relevant links to this discussion. Many of those who consider themselves atheists bristle at the charge that atheism is a religion. Many of these people have a very simple adherence to atheism that they don't believe in any Higher Power, no After-Life, no Supreme Being, nothing.

There is also a very large segment of the atheist population who very actively seeks to abolish any references to any form of religious faith in any public forum, governmental agency, or public schools, or any organization or activity open to the general public. I would characterize this group of atheists as "activists", and suspect that many of them would also characterize themselves as politically liberal.

The latter group is the more vocal 'face' of atheism, and are usually the ones filing lawsuits to remove religious symbols from public buildings, schools, etc. These activist atheists zealously and ruthlessly pursue their non-believer goals—which seem to this writer as ultimately the elimination of all religious activity anywhere except possibly in the privacy of one's home. One such zealot sued to remove the Cross atop Mt. Soledad, and another sued to stop public schools from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and its reference to "under God".

In researching this question, however, I discovered a recent United State Appellate Court ruling that held that atheism is indeed areligiouss belief. The August, 2005 decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has spurred furious debate between those of religious faith and atheists, and even among atheists themselves.

Since the federal courts have now affirmed that atheism is a religion, my argument that the San Diego judge who ruled that the public vote to transfer the land under the Cross on Mt. Soledad to private hands was an unconstitutional promotion of religion, was by her ruling violating the constitution by promoting atheism. Atheists want the Cross removed because their religion (atheism) says such symbols are opposed to their religion. If you are anti-religion, then you are pro-atheism. Therefore the removal of religion and religious symbols from public property is the promotion of atheism. The promotion of atheism is the promotion of a religion. The promotion of a religion by government is unconstitutional, therefore the order to removereligiouss symbols and practices from government property and institutions is, in fact, the unconstitutional promotion of a particular religious faith over others.

The Supreme Court has held (the Lemon Test) that to beincompletelye with the1stt amendment, government must be secular in nature, must neither promote nor inhibit religious activity, and must not excessively entangle government and religion.

The ruling on the Mt. Soledad Cross, given the above, is in clear violation of the Lemon Test in that it promotes atheism, inhibits Christianity, and, through its promotion of atheism, excessively entangles government and religion.

Mt. Soledad Cross Controversy

Justice was again delayed by a San Diego county superior court judge who ruled Friday that the transfer of Cross and land around it atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego to a veteran's group was an "unconstitutional preference of the Christian religion to the exclusion of other religious and non-religious beliefs in violation of the No Preference Clause of the California Constitution."

Some quick background: The current Cross has been there since 1954, and was preceded in the same location by another Cross since 1913. In 1989, a local atheist began litigation to have the Cross removed, since it was on city-owned property. In 1991, a superior court judge held that the Cross, located on city property, violated the Separation clause of the US Constitution. Legal sparring has continued since that ruling, culminating with Prop A, which overwhelmingly passed last July by a 75% "yes" vote to transfer the Cross and the land on which it rests to a private veteran's group. Opponents filed legal challenges that judge Patricia Yim Cowett ruled to be unconstitutional.

This ruling makes no sense to me. Essentially, the judge held that the existence of the Cross, and it's transfer to a private group is unconstitutional. So the judge rules that the Cross on government property is unconstitutional, and the transfer of the Cross and land to a private entity is also unconstitutional. The only possible remedy then, would be to either move or destroy the Cross. What the judge failed to address, however, is the Free Exercise clause of the US Constitution. Every Easter, probably since 1913, various religious groups hold services at Mt. Soledad, and I would argue that to now deny them this opportunity would be a clear violation of the Free exercise clause.

As discussed in this space back in May of 2005, the Supreme Court has made very clear that the "wall of separation of church and state" is not a wall at all, but a fuzzy line. The government cannot promote NOR inhibit religion. By transferring the Cross, a now-historic part of San Diego, the government is certainly not promoting a religion. Since so many religious activities have occurred there by so many Christian sects for so many years, to argue that government has been somehow sponsoring or promoting religion is preposterous.

In fact, I would argue that by ordering the removal of the Cross, this judge is essentially promoting a form of religion, that form being atheism. If belief in a Higher Power is considered a religious faith, then an equally powerful argument can be made that the non-belief in a Higher Power is also a religion. To put it another way, a religious person believes in a Higher Power. An atheist does not. Neither position can be proven with facts or science; each requires faith in an idea.

I would therefore argue that to order the removal of the Cross is an unconstitutional promotion of a religion by government, that religion being atheism.

Key words
Mt. Soledad
Cross
Wall of Separation
Lemon Test
Separation of Church and State
1st Amendment

Harriet Miers

Like most people watching to see who President Bush would nominate to fill retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, my first reaction to news reports that White House Council Harriet Miers was the nominee was, "Who?" I am, as you might guess, something of a newshound, and thought I knew all the major players in the Bush White House, but I must confess I had never even heard her name before she was announced as his choice.

Many in the MSM and the Blogosphere on both the Right (here, and here, and here, etc.) and Left (here, and here, and here etc.) have been either happy or sad with this news, and there is no real concensus as to whether the Left or the Right are more disappointed. Based on all I have so far heard, seen, and read, I would say that there are more conservatives who are disappointed than liberals, though I don't see how anybody could possibly know enough about her to even form an opinion yet.

I believe that the president could have, and probably should have chosen someone with much better credentials, though the choice is his and his alone. I hope he knows something that we don't.


Keywords:

Miers

California Proposition 77: Redistricting

California's Prop 77 is an amendment to the state constitution that reforms how legislative districts are drawn. Under existing law, the legislature draws the boundaries of all statewide legislative districts, as is done in many, if not the majority of states. "Redistricting" is mandated by the federal constitution following the decennial federal population census, and usually provides incumbent politicians with the opportunity to draw political boundaries that favor their re-election, or at least the election of a member of their party to their seat. In fact, in the last election (November 2004) not a single legislative or Congressional seat in the state of California changed political party.

Under the current system, "gerrymandering" by the legislature reduces competitiveness and increases reelection rates of incumbents. This gerrymandering has resulted in average reelection rates in the US House and Senate of an average of approximately 93% and 81%, respectively, between 1964 and 2002.

Prop 77 seeks to change this system so that a three-member panel of retired state and/or federal judges would be empowered to draw up all statewide legislative districts. The recommendation would then be placed on the ballot for approval by the voters. Having read the entire text of the bill, there are many checks and balances that ensure that those in power will not in control of the process, which, under the current system is a huge conflict of interest.

The panel will be required to create boudaries that are contiguous, are geographically sensible, and that will strive to ensure that existing city and county boundaries are used whenever possible. If the voters reject the redistricting plan, then a new panel will be formed who will re-draft the proposal, which will again go to the voters. This process repeats until a plan is accepted.

I strongly support the passage of Prop 77.



Keywords: Prop 77

Postings

Sorry I haven't posted in too long. Been really busy, but have been formulating posts in my head. I hope to get some big ones going this weekend, so please check back!

Depleted Uranium: Is it a Health Hazard?

Doesn't appear to be, despite the wild assertions of the Left. The World Health Organization doesn't seem too concerned, nor does Sandia National Labs.

Hurricane Forecasters Got it Right, But the AP Gets the Story Wrong

Much has been reported and written about hurricane Katrina and the poor response from government at all levels. The president has even accepted responsibility for the shortcomings of the federal government, but as written about in this space previously, the real tragedy was the inability or unwillingness of local officials to implement their own well-documented emergency plan and evacuate those people who could not get out themselves.

Much has also been made, especially by those opposed to everything the president does and says, to his comment that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breech of the levees." In an otherwise good article about the accuracy of the hurricane forecasters, John Pain of the Associated Press writes,

"The performance by the two agencies calls into question claims by President Bush and others in his administration that Katrina was a catastrophe that no one envisioned."

For example, Bush told ABC on Sep. 1 that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." In its storm warnings, the hurricane center never used the word "breached." But a day before Katrina came ashore Aug. 29, the agency warned in capital letters: "SOME LEVEES IN THE GREATER NEW ORLEANS AREA COULD BE OVERTOPPED."

Note that the president says "breached", whereas the warnings Mr. Pain cites warns of levee "overtopping". "Breaching" and "overtopping" are not the same thing. Breaching refers to a hole or break in the integrity of the levee, while overtopping describes the water level rising above the top of the levee, but not the failure of the levee itself. The distinction between the two is crucial to the crux of this article.

The article does go on to cite dire warnings given to the administration by the director of National Hurricane Center, but fails to cite specific sources or quotations. It makes one wonder if specific warnings about "levee breaches" or "levee failures" were ever actually given. If such evidence were available, I would think Mr. Pain would have cited references.

I will give Mr. Pain credit for adding, albeit at the very end of the article, the fact that the National Hurricane Center director took the unusual step of personally calling "the governors of Mississippi and Louisiana and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin two days ahead of time to warn them about the monstrous hurricane."

Unfortunately, most of the blame for the slow response to the disaster continues—from the left, anyway—on the president, when the mayor and governor had ample warning to get the residents out two days before the hurricane struck.


Keywords:


Katrina

The Liberal Mind

I spent time with a committed liberal recently, and it was a real eye-opener. Like you, I have heard and read about the differences between how liberals and conservatives think, but here before me like a freshly opened oyster was liberalism in all its glory... or misery, depending on your point of view.

For context, we spent time together while the tragic events unfolded in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. My liberal comrade was deeply offended that the media referred to those people who sought refuge from the storm and its aftermath as "refugees". He actually believes that the apparent slowness of the aid response is because most of the people who live in New Orleans are black.

On a broader level, he believes that everything printed in the New York Times is gospel truth, and everything broadcast on Fox News is a lie. He is, at 25 years old, still in college studying to be a social worker. A social worker. No doubt a noble pursuit, but one that will forever place him under the control of, and in support of a growing Welfare State. I know his heart is in the right place, and he doesn't qualify (yet) as a classic "angry liberal", but he isn't yet old enough to become angry and bitter.

His choice of career, however, compared with another 20-something acquaintance of mine who is more conservative is stark. Here he is, still in college, with no plans for his future other than doing social work. He doesn't own a car, or a computer, or a TV, or really anything except, of course, his Ipod. He does have very good musical talent, but doesn't have the drive to succeed at music. He is irresponsible about many things, and completely lacks a sense of urgency in just about anything he does.

My more conservative friend, however, is also in his twenties, is a college graduate, has a good job with a high five-figure salary, owns a house, two cars, has a family, and pays lots of taxes. In fact, if it weren't for my more conservative friend who earns money and pays taxes (and the millions like him), my liberal friend (and the millions like him) wouldn't have the grant money to go to college, perform social work, or generally be the lazy and irresponsible guy he is.

It seems clear to me that my liberal friend is very typical of many liberals. It is also very clear why so many liberals go into journalism, academia, government and the public sector, and why so many conservatives prefer to go into business and private sector. Liberals, to their credit, seem to understand that by controlling the news media, academia, and government, that their collectivist goals can be reached. Whether by design or by accident, liberals have for a very long time been working to institutionalize their agenda through control of these three areas, with average Americans unaware of this creeping revolution.

Conservatives, on the other hand, generally tend go into business and the private sector because they believe that by helping themselves, they can best help society. Conservatives, while working to build success in their own lives and the lives of their fellow Americans, haven't and still don't seem to understand that liberals have a seven-decade head start on controlling government, academia, and the news media. Fortunately, however, the conservative counterrevolution is underway, with control of the government now in Republican hands.

One other interesting illustration of how conservatives and liberals think is their respective reactions to hurricane Katrina. Liberals, who prefer strong central control over local control, were aghast at the response of the federal government. Conservatives, on the other hand, were aghast at the response of the state and local authorities to the hurricane, as conservatives prefer control by state and local authorities through the concept of federalism.

It seems to me that to be a liberal, you must first react emotionally to a situation. You must also be able to overlook reality if you find it offensive. Like referring to those seeking refuge as "refugees"; even though that is what they are, it is 'mean-spirited' to call them that. And you must believe that the best way to solve problems is by a consolidation of power in fewer hands.

Who's Fault is Katrina? **UPDATE**

The destruction and misery brought on by Hurricane Katrina has been viciously exploited by the Angry Left, the Hate-Bush crowd, and even the leadership of the Democrat party. The unfortunate truth in this tragedy, despite the lies of the left, is that many of those people killed, or raped, or murdered during and in the aftermath of the storm would likely have been saved had they been properly evaculated.

The emergency plan in place prior to Katrina's strike clearly outlines that the evacuation of New Orleans is "responsibility of the Mayor of New Orleans in coordination with the [state] Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the OEP Shelter Coordinator." If the people who had no transportation were looked out for as described in such great detail in NO's "Hurricane Emergency Evacuation Standard Operating Procedure", the horrific situation that followed the hurricane could have been avoided. Had the people not been in NO, as ordered by the mayor (but not enforced), then whether federal response was fast or slow would have made no difference.

There is also evidence (though I have not been able to confirm this yet) that the president had urged the governor or Louisiana to formally request federal assistance as early as Friday night before the storm hit, and again on Saturday. It wasn't until Sunday, the day before the storm hit that the governor actually requested federal assistance. Until this request is formally made, the president does not have the authority to order federal troops or other aid into an affected area.

It is also important to remember that the mayor of NO did not order mandatory evacuations until Sunday, the day before the hurricane hit. Had he done so even 24 hours earlier, or on Friday night as apparently urged by the director of the National Hurricane Center, the situation during and following the hurricane would likely have been much better.

It is clear that the federal response to Katrina was inadequate, but more importantly, the state and local response was even worse. Had they not delayed requests for federal aid, and not delayed mandatory evacuations, and had they actually implemented their own emergency plans, federal aid would probably have come sooner, and more importantly, those most vulnerable to the wrath of Katrina could have gotten out of harm's way before the storm hit.

A timeline of Katrina

**Update** A better timeline of Katrina

*Fixed misspelling

Low post rate

Sorry, been really busy, but will post more this weekend, mostly about Katrina.

Are You a Democrat, Republican, or Southern Republican?

Here is a little test that will help you decide...

Question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes on you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

Democrat's Answer:

"Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!"

"Does the man look poor or oppressed?"

"Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?"

"Could we run away?"

"What does my wife think?"

"What about the kids?"

"Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?"

"What does the law say about this situation?"

"Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it?"

"Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?"

"Is it possible he would be happy with just killing me?"

"Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?"

"If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?"

"Should I call 9-1-1?"

"Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior."

"This is all so confusing! ! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus."


Republican's Answer:

BANG!


Southern Republican's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

click.....(sounds of reloading).

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

click

Daughter:

"Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?"

Inside the Sheehan Camp: A Conservative's View

The RadioEqualizer has an interesting post by Curtis Loftis, a conservative activist. He managed to infiltrate the Cindy Sheehan camp in Crawford, Texas, and while incognito, saw the inner workings of this very professional public relations operation.

Costs of the Iraq War

David Francis pens a great article in today's Christian Science Monitor regarding the costs of the war in Iraq. It is stacking up as the third most costly war in 2005 dollars, going back trough all the wars since World War 1.

The last two paragraphs I found particularly interesting:

"From one standpoint, the US economy should find it easier to absorb the present war. Today's defense budget is about 4 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's output of goods and services. That compares with 6.2 percent in the 1980s, 9.4 percent in 1960 (Vietnam), 14.2 percent in 1953 (Korea), and 38 percent in 1944 (World War II).

In that respect, today's war "is much cheaper," says Kosiak."

Able Danger: A Third Source Corroborates Initial Claims

Fox News is reporting today that JD Smith (no relation), a defence contractor who was part of the Able Danger team, has come forward to confirm that at least some of the 9-11 hijackers were identified well before 9-11, but were not allowed to report the information to the FBI.

The most troubling thing about the Able Danger story is that the infamous "wall" between intellgence and law enforcement, created by Jamie Gorelick while in the Clinton Administration, and later a member of the 9-11 Commission, prevented this information flow, and the specter of a cover-up by Commission staff to protect those responsible hangs over the whole affair.

Interesting Stuff I Noticed Today

Michelle Malkin links to more lies from the Left (aka Mainstream Media).

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal has a great article on the continuing and irrational obsession of some on the Left claiming stolen elections in 2000 and 2004. (Hat tip American Thinker)

Patterico shares with us his letter to the New York Times regarding their columnist Paul Krugman's article on the election of 2000 in Florida.

A scientist quits an important panel studying global warming over charges that his co-panelists don't want to consider possibities other than established dogma.

The debate over whether global warming is increasing the severity and frequency of hurricanes rages on, though my money is on the guys who actually study hurricanes. (They don't think so.)

California Academic Performance Index (API)

The California 2004 API scores came out this week. The API is a measure of student performance in English, math, science, and related subjects. The scores are reported by county, district, and school, and even includes charter schools. The scores run between 200 and 1,000, with 800 being the target.

The API has become the primary yardstick for school performance since passage of the Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. Each summer parents, teachers, and administrators wait anxiously for the scores to come out as so much is riding on the results. There are people who have sold their homes in one lower-performing district an bought another in a district with better API scores. New people moving in to an area often base their buying decisions on API scores. I suspect that teachers and administrators have been promoted or demoted based on their school or district's API rise or fall.

The scores are very easy reading, and most people assume that a school with low scores has bad teachers and/or administrators. But looking more deeply into the API report one can see that there is far more than meets the eye, and many schools and school employees have no doubt been unfairly judged as a result of not looking beyond the obvious. Digging just a little deeper into the report, results are listed by race. Reviewing the data by race suggests that something other than schools, teachers, and curriculum may be to blame for poor performance. By no means am I suggesting that one race is inherently smarter; I believe the source of the difference by race is the type of support that many kids at home.

Take San Diego County schools, since that is where I live and have the most familiarity. When an individual school is picked at random from the list linked above, a breakdown by race is shown. The Encinitas school district is in a fairly affluent coastal city of northern San Diego County. Capri Elementary has about an even mix of White and Latino students, but their scores are quite different. Whites scored 855 whereas Latinos scored 649. At a similar school in the same district, Park Dale Lane Elementary, whites outnumber Latinos by more than 3.5:1, and score 865 to Latinos 694. [Note: "Socioeconomically Disadvantaged" is defined as children of parents who both have not finished highschool, and/or participate in the school lunch program. Race is not a factor.]

So given the mix of students, Capri's overall API is a respectable yet below target 759, whereas Park Dale Lane scores an above-target 833. Most people who follow the API scores would rather send their kids to Park Dale Lane, of course, because it scored better. However, given the fact that the White students at Capri scored nearly identical to the White students at Park Dale Lane, a successful argument cannot be made that the school, the administrators, and the teachers are not adequately teaching their students. Click around some of the other schools, and you will find similar results almost everywhere. It is also interesting to note that when the racial breakdown is studied by district, where the samples are large enough, that is, Asian children seem to easily score the best. In the Encinitas district, Asian's cored 950, to White's 891, to Latino's 676.

Why though? What is the reason for the better scores of the White students? I don't for a second think that Latinos are in any way 'not as smart' as Whites. I work with many Latinos, I have many Latino friends, I married a Latina, my children are Latino, as are, of course, my in-laws. Latinos are smart, caring, hard working, happy people, and I am proud to have become part of the Latino culture. So if 'smarts' is not the answer, what is it? Why don't Latinos score higher as a group?

I believe that the reason is their parents. Many of them are first or second generation immigrants, and language is a big problem for them. They have not fully assimilated into American society, and often live each day speaking only Spanish. They watch Spanish TV, listen to Spanish radio, and read Spanish newspapers, and then when their kids come home they can't help them with their homework. Because of the schools, fortunately, the kids speak perfect English, but at home they must speak Spanish. This is not alway the case, of course, but seems to be the rule more often than not.

There also is the feeling among some parents, and this cuts across all races, is that educating children is the job of the schools, and parents don't think they have to do their part. But lets face it, education at the primary and secondary level is like a three-legged stool, where schools, students, and parents are each one leg. If one of the legs doesn't hold up its weight, the stool will fall over.

Can schools and teachers do a better job? I'm sure they would be the first to say "yes", and I believe they try to do so everyday. But we as parents MUST do a better job of helping our childen learn by helping, challenging, and nurturing their intellectual development.


This post also appears on Blogger News Network.

Able Danger Getting Uglier by the Day

Even the MSM smells blood in the water.

The New York Times has several new articles on the Able Danger scandal that put the 9-11 Commission, 9-11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, and the Clinton administration's "wall" between intelligence and the FBI in a very, very bad light. Could 9-11 have been prevented if information that can flow freely now have been in effect then?

Here are the articles:

"State Department Says..."

"Officer Says Military..."

Able Danger: Were the 9/11 Hijackers Known to the US Government As Early As 1999? ***UPDATE***

Saw this interesting article today that the 9/11 Commission will investigate claims by Congressman Curt Weldman (R-Penn), vice-chair of the Homeland Security and House Armed Services committees that "U.S. defense intelligence officials identified ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as a likely part of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the hijackings but didn't forward the information to law enforcement."

***UPDATE***

As I suspected this story has started to reverberate throughout the blogosphere, and even the MSM is starting to take notice (unlike the [Hot]AirAmerica scandal). Michelle Malkin has agreat round-up on the subject with lots of links.

UAL Flight 934 Diverted to Boston

I received a copy of an email circulating in the airline/flight community detailing the events that took place aboard United Airlines Flight 934 late last month causing it to be diverted to Boston. This was written by one of the airline employees who was on the flight, and details what happened and why the flight crew was concerned about these passengers.

The email (slightly edited for clarity and privacy concerns) is below:

"Many of you may have seen CNN and other news reports or read in the papers about the LAX/[London] flight that diverted to Boston to remove three suspicious passengers. Well, guess who was lucky enough to be on the flight? Thanks to those of you who have called or written with their concern. I am fine and other than a million reports I have to write, all is well.

The three Pakistani passengers, two in BC [business class] seats (8A and 14D) and one in economy, got our attention before takeoff with self upgrading, moving about the plane, changing seats several times and asking the crew about our layover, where we stayed, etc. We basically ignored them and wrote them off as bothersome. During the bar service, two of the guys kept drinking a lot, and asking for refills before we got two rows away. Now we wrote them off as obnoxious, as well as annoying. We cut down the drinks to the guy in who wanted more scotch and wine with dinner. After the meal service, the guy in 8A, who hadn't said a word, got up and went to 14D and spoke with him for 10 minutes. We didn't even know they knew each other as they had no prior contact. The F/A's [flight attendants] in economy were concerned over the behavior of the economy passenger and asked for a name check. The cockpit got back to us to let us know all had gone through secondary clearance in LAX and were all ticketed to Islamabad, Pakistan. All the guys kept going to the bathroom and now we were checking the loos every time they came out. After 8A spoke with 14D, he (14D) went to economy and went straight to the overhead in 32CDE, took out a briefcase and brought it back to his BC seat. 32E was where the economy passenger was originally seated, but he had moved to 31G on the aisle. All the F/A's were keeping an eye on these three and every time we would casually look at them, they were staring at us, watching everything we were doing. The economy guy went to the back galley and kept the duty free sellers busy by asking to see everything and having them open several items to the point where one of them wrote on a piece of paper to another F/A, "He's distracting us, see what's happening in the cabin"....

I was communicating all this information to the cockpit, as well as our concerns. I don't think they took it as seriously as we did. That was until the economy guy went to the F/A's in the back and asked them if we had been up in the air for 3 1/2 hours yet. He kept asking when 3 1/2 hours would be. At the same time, the 14D guy went up to the BC F/A's and asked if we'd been flying 3, 3 1/2 or 4 hours yet. Now most passengers ask how much longer we have to go and not if we've been flying a specific time, and we figured with all their drinking, they didn't want to know the time so they could face Mecca for their prayers.

UAL and the pilots decided we needed to divert before we got over the Atlantic (we were about 3 1/2 hours out from LAX, over the Hudson Bay) so we did a slow turn and descent to Boston for 1:50 hours. We also pulled the circuit breaker on the airshow [stopped the in-flight entertainment]. About 5 minutes before landing, the Captain made announcement we had a navigational problem that needed to be looked at before we crossed the ocean. We were all watching the guys when they were told we were landing, and none reacted abnormally. We moved a very muscular passenger to seat 1E on the aisle and an SA to seat 1A and told them we had security issues and if anyone not in uniform came up the aisle towards the cockpit, they were to try and do anything to stop them. We also moved one of the F/A's sitting up front (she is 5 foot and weighs about 100 pounds) to another jumpseat and moved another male F/A up front so there were three guys in the jumpseats by the cockpit. Having done that, we realized [that she,] the F/A we moved, was so pissed off at these guys, she could have beat the [heck] out of all of them. The one nervous Nellie F/A who walked around with the ice mallet for the last two hours of the flight, we kept in the back where if anything did happen, he could scream and hit himself with the mallet. The Captain informed me just about everyone would meet the airplane.

The landing was normal, and very quiet on the plane since it was 0300 and most passengers were asleep when we woke them. [We] pulled to the gate, but the jetway didn't come toward us for two minutes. I looked out and saw about 30 swat team guys in flak jackets and machine guns. Well, I guess everyone figured out at this point it was not a navigational problem. As I went to door 2, the guy in 8A was staring out the window at our welcoming party. The guy in 14D was on his mobile phone and he was later observed hiding the phone in the pillow when the armed guys came on board. 20 swat team guys boarded the plane, ten down each aisle with guns ready. Most of the passengers were pretty freaked by this. The police took the three guys off. We had to help them find all their carry on. Most of the passengers were very helpful in trying to ID their hand carry on as we really had no idea of what was theirs.

The FBI, TSA, Joint Terrorism Task Force Rep, Boston Police, Airport Police and Massachusetts State Troopers interviewed the Captain, the two F/A's who had the most contact with them and me for two hours. The FBI also interviewed the passengers sitting around the guys. The FBI asked the Captain when he realized the severity of the situation, and he replied, "When he saw the fear in the eyes of his crew..."

By the time we got back to the plane, UAL Ops had shown up and arranged for the passengers to go to hotels for an 1100 departure to continue to London with a new crew. Of course, we then had to wait for immigration to show up since all the non-US and greencard holders were now reentering the US and had to fill out I-94 forms as new visitors and be fingerprinted and photographed again.

When we finally got to the hotel around 0730, we were already on the news, and several hours later, we heard the passengers were interviewed, cleared and released. The FBI told me they felt they were on a test run surveillance flight, observing and watching our routine and looking for weaknesses in our security. All the authorities reassured us we did the right thing and that was backed up by the passengers who thanked us and said that they were so glad we watching out for their well being. I think as F/A's, we sense when something just isn't right, and this flight had too many small incidents that didn't add up, and thankfully, we acted on our feelings."

We should all be on guard for similar circumstances.

Gitmo Detainees: Is their Detention Legal And Moral?

I had an email exchange with a reader this week regarding the detainment of so-called "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo), Cuba. My correspondent cited the judge's statement (PDF) at sentencing of Ahmed Ressam, the "Millenium Bomber", who was apprehended while he attempted to cross from Canada into the United States at a remote border crossing in the state of Washington. He was planning to bomb the Los Angeles International airport on New Year's Eve in 1999 at the "millenium". Mr. Ressam was found guilty, and was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

Here is what I consider the key passage of US federal Judge John Coughenor's statement at Mr. Ressam's sentencing:

"...I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to counsel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or contrary to the United States Constitution.'

I would suggest that the message to the world from today's sentencing is that our courts have not abandoned our commitment to the ideals that set our nation apart. We can deal with the threats to our national security without denying the accused fundamental constitutional protections.'

Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effective, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens."

I agree completely. I don't support the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants", though Mr. Ressam doesn't fit the criteria for that status anyway. I do understand the reasoning behind the detentions, though I think that indefinite detention for these people is the wrong approach.

The Third Geneva Conventions clearly spell out how prisoners of war shall be treated, and Part 1, Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the III Geneva Conventions defines precisely who is a "prisoner of war":

"(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.'

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[ (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Given the specific conditions of part (2), it seems unlikely that many of those detained at Gitmo could be considered POW's under the Geneva Convention. In fact, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (July15, 2005) that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to al Qaeda, and that the Geneva Conventions themselves cannot be enforced in US courts.

But ruling in the Rasul v. Bush case in June of 2004, the US Supreme Court held that Gitmo detainees are entitled to challenge their incarceration in federal court, arguing essentially that since the US government holds legal authority over Gitmo and its facilities, that federal courts also hold jurisdiction over the detainees, hence their right to habeas corpus.

In discussions with my email correspondent, I argued erroneously that,

"...there is some contradictory logic here, in my opinion.'

"On the one hand, the government argues that since these people were not in uniform as "citizen" soldiers, that the Geneva Conventions don't apply. If that is true, then why can they [US Administration] at the same time detain them as "enemy combatants" under the same Geneva Convention?"

The flaw in my argument cited above is that the administration does NOT argue that that the detainment of these people, since they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, is in any way governed by those very Conventions. In fact, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the appellate court held that the president had and has the authority, as Commander-in-Chief, and under the the Joint Resolution passed by Congress in 2001 giving the president the authority to use "all necessary and appropriate use of force", and, specifically the Presidential Military Order of November 13th, 2001. which outlines in detail the how "enemy combatants" are defined and treated.

Based on this more in-depth view of the circumstances surrounding the detainees at Gitmo, I believe that their detentions have so far been, and will continue to be lawful and moral, yet politically unwise. The American justice system and our unusual (by global standards) attention to the rights of the accused renders these long-term detentions inappropriate. Being who we are, the United States should, in my opinion, anyway, stand for justice even for those people that we find despicable.


This post also appears on Blogger News Network.