My Editor & Publisher hit on TSA’s Miami Killing

I wrote a piece for Editor & Publisher in late 2005 on TSA’s killing of a passenger in Miami.  The link is no longer working, so here’s the piece….

Editor & Publisher, December 15, 2005
Media Docility & Another No Cost Federal Killing?

by James Bovard

 In the weeks after the Hurricane Katrina debacle, many media commentators gushed about how the Fourth Estate had finally rediscovered its courage in exposing government debacles. However, the reports of spinal recovery were premature.

Two air marshals gunned down an American citizen last week in Miami and most of the establishment media seemingly couldn’t care less. Immediately after 44-year-old Rigoberto Alpizar died on December 7  in a hail of bullets from two air marshals, Dave Adams, a spokesman for the Federal Air Marshal Service, told CNN that Alpizar had shouted “I have a bomb in my bag” as he ran up and down the aisle of the plane as it sat on the runway. This was the version of events that the vast majority of the media repeated unquestioningly in the first days after the killing.

However, online articles on December 8 by and contained quotes from passengers debunking the feds’ story.   The Orlando Sentinel reported on December 9: “Seven passengers interviewed by the Orlando Sentinel — seated in both the front and rear of the main passenger cabin — said Alpizar was silent as he ran past them on his way to the exit.” No passenger the Sentinel spoke to offered any account akin to what the feds claimed.

It is not yet clear exactly what happened on December 7 at the Miami airport. But the primary justification the feds offered for using deadly force did not survive even two full news cycles.

Regardless, the conservative press rushed to exonerate. Investors Business Daily, in a December 9 editorial, hailed the marshals’ action: “The Miami incident lets all Americans know — and puts would-be terrorists on notice — that we are able and willing to use lethal force to kill someone viewed as a potential threat.” The Washington Times derided any “second-guessing” and drew the happy moral to the story: “Mr. Alpizar’s death is a reminder of how seriously the marshals treat airline security. We should all take due notice.”

But other publications also raced to take the government’s word. A Washington Post editorial on December 9 proclaimed, “There is, at this stage, no reason to doubt the official account of the slaying Wednesday of Rigoberto Alpizar by federal  air marshals  in Miami.”  The Post editorial was reprinted in numerous papers the following day.  Apparently, the official account had instantaneously become sacrosanct.

The Boston Herald on December 10 used the killing to slap down anyone who would grouse about TSA checkpoint delays: “The shooting of a passenger on an American Airlines flight bound for Orlando is a reminder to passengers harping on frustrating lines at security checkpoints, that aviation security is a deadly serious business.”  The Herald did see one risk from the killing: “Members of Congress ought not use the excuse of the Miami incident to stick their noses into a layer of security that is clearly the most effective defense we have against future hijackings.”  But oversight has been an unnatural act for members of Congress since at least 9/11, so the Herald has little to fear.

Newspaper editorial writers were hellbent on promulgating the government version of events.  The Louisville Courier-Journal announced in a December 10 editorial: “The passenger, Rigoberto  Alpizar,  a naturalized American citizen said to be suffering from bipolar disorder, shouted that he had a bomb and ran from a plane.” The crucial medical problem in this case was not Alpizar’s bipolar disorder but the pervasive attention deficits among American editorial writers.

A Memphis Commercial Appeal editorial on December 12 explained the marshals’ dilemma: “A youngish [44 years old?] male bolts from his seat in the rear of the plane and sprints toward the cockpit, yelling that he has a bomb.”   This is an interesting hypothetical but the only people who report that Alpizar claimed he had a bomb are spokesmen for federal agencies.   Regardless of how many passengers directly contradict this key  claim, the feds’ version of the killing is correct because the government said so.

The Daily Oklahoman, on December 12, asked, “when  Alpizar  became agitated and began running down the aisle of the airplane, claiming he had a bomb in his bag, what were marshals to think?” The Oklahoman assured its readers that “We’re not about to second guess” the marshals. Or to fact check the feds.

The Brahmins at PBS NewsHour announced in an online article on December 12: “No serious questions have been raised about the actions of the air marshals who killed the passenger last week.”  Apparently, it is not serious if federal officials apparently make false claims in a case in which an American citizen is killed. 

A December 13 Pittsburgh Post Gazette editorial relied on a slightly different quote to buttress the killing: “According to law enforcement officials, Alpizar ‘uttered threatening words that included a sentence to the effect that he had a bomb.’” It is a long ways from someone running up and down aisle shouting about having a bomb to using threatening words to the effect that he had a bomb.  What sort of sentence includes threatening words “to the effect” that one has a bomb – but apparently does not include the word bomb? Alpizar was not an English professor giving a lecture on deconstructionism at the time he was shot.   The feds may be backtracking – and newspaper editorial writers are rolling out the red carpet for every step.

The Post-Gazette concluded: “But by all initial accounts, the marshals did their job.”1  Except for the accounts of the passengers on the plane who said they never heard Alpizar mention a bomb. But mere private citizens don’t count, since they do not provide exclusive access and hot tips to newspaper writers and editors.

Some editorials called for an independent investigation of the shooting.  This is a triumph of hope over experience, given how such investigations over the past 15 years almost always whitewashed federal action. Perhaps some truth will seep out as a result of jurisdictional conflicts between the Federal Air Marshal Service and the FBI or Miami police.   If the media continue acting like the cop on South Park – “Nothing to see here, folks, just move along,” the odds of any such revelation go from slim to none. 

Perhaps if Alpizar had regularly attended Georgetown dinner parties, the media would show more curiosity about his fate.  In the old days, Americans were taught that the media would serve as a check and a balance on government powers.  The same media docility that helped the Bush administration sell the war in Iraq is still there, now serving Leviathan on the homefront. 

Tagline: Bovard is the author of the forthcoming Attention Deficit Democracy (Palgrave, January 2006), Terrorism & Tyranny (Palgrave, 2003), and seven other books


, , ,

9 Responses to My Editor & Publisher hit on TSA’s Miami Killing

  1. MarkN March 16, 2007 at 7:18 pm #

    Your post reminds me of something Jefferson wrote when he had enough of the lying in the press:

    “Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into four chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2nd, Probabilities. 3rd, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The second would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The third and fourth should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.”

    Pretty funny for a Dead White Male.

  2. Jim March 16, 2007 at 8:57 pm #

    Jefferson was prudent to limit his idealism to liberty, and not to newspapers.

  3. Orville H. Larson March 16, 2007 at 10:58 pm #

    For the most part, the press is worthless when it comes to challenging the bullshit of officialdom. The Washington Times says we shouldn’t “second-guess” the killing. In other words, then, if sky marshals unjustifiably blow you away, it’s their mistake at your expense. To quote Maxwell Smart: “Sorry about that, Chief!”

    However, suppose that leading neocon light William (“The Gambler”) Bennett had been gunned down
    after passengers supposedly heard him yelling, “Let me off, I’m on the wrong plane, I’ve got to get to Vegas!” There would be hell to pay. Bush would ram through emergency legislation abolishing the TSA, and Bennett would be given a state funeral at the neocons’ insistence.

  4. Joe B. Carter March 17, 2007 at 10:10 pm #

    I agree that if “Blackjack Bill” Bennett (that’s what Tom DiLorenzo of once called him) had been shot by sky marshals, the investigation would be exhaustive.

  5. Dawg March 18, 2007 at 10:03 am #

    Maybe you guys should do some research before you spout off. You know, journalism –

  6. Jim March 18, 2007 at 10:51 am #

    What a novelty!

    An innocent man gunned down by govt. agents…

    And the govt. telling people, “Nothing to see here, people – just move along…”

  7. Dawg March 18, 2007 at 11:17 am #

    Jim, read the final Miami District Attorney (NOT Federal Gov’t) report then get back to me.

    Innocent? Guy claimed to have a bomb, reached into his backpack (worn on front of his chest) and said he was going to blow himself up!

    Yeah, that’s innocent all right……

  8. Jim March 18, 2007 at 11:23 am #

    So why did the passengers on the plane not hear him make these threats?

    And why did the TSA spokesman change his story?

  9. Dawg March 18, 2007 at 1:15 pm #

    What statement did the TSA spokesman change?

    And, notice the seating arrangement of the witnesses who did not hear Alpizar’s bomb statement – the back of the plane. Alpizar made his statement at the front of the plane, once the flight attendant tried to stop him from getting off.

    Its hard to hear a statement made in first class when you’re sitting back in row 25.