Debra Burlingame Responds

Debra Burlingame is the sister of Charles "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of the American Airlines Flight 77 that was crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. Ms Burlingame made a name for herself as a voice for those who opposed the International Freedom Center, the moonbat-inspired museum that would essentially insult the memories of the 2,749 people who died at the World Trade Center.

Ms Burlingame is an attorney and former flight attendant. She has a mastery of the English language, and her writing is often featured in the Wall Street Journal. She has a great response to the craziness revolving around the Flying Imams story. I have reprinted a portion of it; you may read the entire article at OpinionJournal.com.

The day we tell the captain of a commercial airliner that he cannot remove
a problem passenger unless he divines beyond question what is in that
passenger's head and heart is the day our commercial aviation system begins to
crumble. When a passenger's conduct is so disturbing and disruptive that
reasonable, ordinary people fear for their lives, the captain must have the
discretionary authority to respond without having to consider equal protection
or First Amendment standards about which even trained lawyers with the clarity
of hindsight might strongly disagree. The pilot in command can't get it wrong.
At 35,000 feet, when multiple events are rapidly unfolding in real time, there
is no room for error.

We have a new, inviolate aviation standard after 9/11, which requires that the captain cannot take that airplane up so long as there are any unresolved issues with respect to the security of his airplane. At altitude, the cockpit door is barred and crews are instructed not to open them no matter what is happening in the cabin behind them. This is an extremely challenging situation for the men and women who fly those planes, one that those who write federal aviation regulations and the people who agitate for more restrictions on a captain's authority will never have to face themselves.

Likewise, flight attendants are confined in the back of the plane with upwards of 200 people; they must be the eyes and ears, not just for the pilot but for us all. They are not combat specialists, however, and to compel them to ignore all but the most unambiguous cases of suspicious behavior is to further enable terrorists who act in ways meant to defy easy categorization. As the American Airlines flight attendants who literally jumped on "shoe bomber" Richard Reid demonstrated, cabin crews are sharply attuned to unusual or abnormal behavior and they must not be second-guessed, or hamstrung by misguided notions of political correctness.

Ultimately, the most despicable aspect about the imams' behavior is that when they pierced the normally quiet hum of a passenger waiting area with shouts of "Allahu Akbar"and deliberately engaged in terrorist-associated behavior that was sure to trigger suspicion, they exploited the fear that began with the Sept. 11 attacks. The imams, experienced travelers all, counted on the security system established after 9/11 to kick in, and now they plan not only to benefit financially from the proper operation of that system but to substantially weaken it--with help from the Saudi-endowed attorneys at CAIR.

US Airways is right to stand by its flight crew. It will be both dangerous and disgraceful if the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation and, ultimately, our federal courts allow aviation security measures put in place after 9/11 to be cynically manipulated in the name of civil rights.