Sorry, but you’re wrong. If it were ONLY about weapons, they wouldn’t give the first class customers actual forks and knives. It’s not about nutjobs either, at least not completely. It’s about what it’s always been about since 9/11, making people feel safer than they actually are by checking people who stick out. This guy stuck out. Rest assured though, if he was detained for 4 hours and put in a cell, he was searched for weapons.
The guy stuck out?? How so?
The possession of flashcards clearly indicated intellectual curiosity about foreign cultures. That’s definitely un-American.
Zing!
Here’s the thing, flash cards by themselves are innocuous, I don’t think anyone would say otherwise. However, add the many trips to the middle east, add the fact that a few of the cards said what they did and that makes the kid stick out, if only a little. Look, don’t make me seem like I’m trying to defend these nitwits, I think what they did was completely out of line, but the guy deserved a quick look-see.
Just like anybody could have a gang tattoo on their arm, hand, neck, whatever. That doesn’t MEAN they’re a gang member, unless they’re hanging in known gang territory, wearing known gang colors. When you roll up, you stop, have a nice chat, send the citizen on his way. No harm, no foul. IF you’re a stand-up officer/TSA nitwit etc. If you’re either stupid or power-drunk, you hold the innocent person in shackles for four hours and he tells CNN.
imagine that this person is a terrorist sympathizer. has not done anything illegal - has not conspired to commit terrorism, has no accomplice liability to a terrorist, hasn’t funded terrorism - but has met with Osama Bin Laden himself
you’re 99.9% sure he has absolutely no weapons on him - as sure as you can be by putting someone through a metal detector, backscatter, millimeter scans, and a full body pat down with nothing but his pants, socks, and t-shirt
do you think he should be denied boarding? is it justifiable to detain such a person?
Holy crap. Rand Rover is a right-wing nutjob Cheney dick-blower? My world is seriously rocked.
I mean, if you can’t count on the [del]Randians[/del] objectivists to fight the man, who can you count on?
Wow. Saying “hey, wait for the facts before spilling your liberal douche all over the place” gets one labeled a “right-wing nutjob Cheney dick-blower” by some people.
I think that says more about your unfulfilled gay sex fantasies than it does about me.
Mind addressing any substantial posts or are you planning to troll more.
I addressed every substantial post in this thread.
Which means, “I’ll take Door #2.” Given two choices the “Monty Hall Problem” is not nearly so complex.
Uh huh. You must be such a hit at parties. You must not have seen these then.
I agree. I don’t think anyone would argue that the TSA shouldn’t have the right to take someone aside and ask additional questions where they feel it is warranted. That’s not the problem here. The problem is that once you have questioned someone and found nothing, you let them go and go back to watching for the next suspicious person.
Only the chronically insecure (and boy howdy, there are a lot of these in the security industry) keep badgering the person in order to justify detaining the person in the first place because they’re afraid that they’ll look bad if they’ve questioned someone who turns out to be innocuous. These tin-star heroes do far more damage than good to airport security, and they need to be called out on their bullshit.
Whether this particular case will prove to be such an instance remains to be seen, but the public must be able to watch the watchmen, as it were.
As many events as we hear about and as many of us have direct experience, no, this case will make no difference at all.
TSA representatives have a history of screwing up by the numbers so nothing short of a screwup involving multiple casualties will prompt any significant change. Something that gets voters screaming at their congresscritters.
(raising hand)
We don’t have an airport gestapo in this country charged with detaining people who they think know something about terrorists.
They aren’t police officers - they are security scanners charged with a task to ensure that no weapons/prohibited items are brought on board by passengers. They have no investigatory mandate whatsoever
Regardless, there is no generalized right of any police officer to haul you in for questioning in this country.
You’re weighing things that are outside the context of the issue, but I’ll bite anyway.
Using your scenario, there would be no reason to detain, in a custodial OR non-custodial interrogation, the person in question. UNLESS he met with OBL within the last, say 6-12 months.
Not however for anything related to flying but because I’m relatively certain there are some people who are going to want to talk to him. So I sit him in a chair, where he is free to leave, have my supervisor contact the alphabet rangers and, at their direction, take him into custody or release him.
Totally Agreed.
**Here’s where we part a little. I think the people in ‘charge’ of security ought to be insecure (read:suspicious). As a 6’4" 300# American white boy, I’ve gotten pulled from security lines in airports for years. I suspect that’s because a weapon in my hands is made that much more dangerous because of my size and strength. I’ve never cared about that at all, it’s what they should be doing. This scenario is dangerously stupid though, because of the fact that they took him into custody instead of the short look-see that was required.
Still though, because the fact is the civilized word doesn’t have the stomach to approach so-called ‘national security’ in the way that would be most effective against those that wish us harm, this security theater is going to be the last, best offer until we either get the cojones on our own, or something REALLY bad happens**
Absolutely! Nothing I do on a daily basis, with the exception of ongoing investigations and personal health/employee/victim information should be necessarily out of the public view. I don’t need a person who doesn’t understand my job telling me how to do it, but if someone has a question about how we do business, without giving away things that might help the bad guys, this house MUST be made of glass.
Irrelevant.
No-one said they shouldn’t be suspicious. It has been conceded that they should pull people aside who raise concern. The point was specifically that, once they have determined that their concern was unfounded, they should have the integrity and the professionalism to admit that the person is harmless, and send him on his way rather than fucking with him some more in a retarded attempt to create a post hoc justification for pulling him aside.
Ok, I’ll amend the scenario because I didn’t intend to set it up so that Traveler X is a material witness as to OBLs wherabouts, rather was just trying to portray a 100% non-violent, non-weapon holding, non lawbreaking traveler who is, unquestionably, a cheerleader for islamic fundamentalism (or whatever term you care to use for “terrorist sympathizer”
and I don’t think they’re out of the context of the issue at all. indeed, they’re precisely at the crux of the issue. You and Gyrate are on here crooning about how it’s justifiable to be denied passage through a guns-n-explosive check at an airport because of ones belief, ideology, outlook, etc.
Tell me, what if this student answers the first question of the TSA guys with “yep, I’m learning Arabic so I can read the original works of my idol Osama”. Is there any cause to detain him?
(oh, and isn’t this a bit inconsistent: he’s invited to sit down, free to leave, but he’s gotta stick around for long enough so the alphabet squad can decide what to do with him? What do you propose happen if he flatly rejects the invitation to “come and sit down”)
I just figured something out.
The military wasn’t getting rid of so many Arabic linguists because they were gay. It’s pretty easy to allege someone is gay. They got rid of them precisely because they understood Arabic.
It’s not a matter of integrity and professionalism, it’s a matter of courage and bureaucracy. Detaining someone is easy; *releasing *someone, OTOH, means taking responsibility. It means making a judgment call, which TSAs don’t have the guts to do, if they even have the authority to do it.
So they cover their own asses, booting the issue upward until it reaches a supervisor capable of taking responsibility. It has nothing to do with professionalism, and everything to do with fear of being the gyu who let the terrorist through. What consequences will a TSA suffer for detaining a man for 4 hours? Absolutely nothing. What consequences will he suffer if someone blows up a plane on his watch?
The math is pretty simple. Unless screeners are authorized and encouraged to make actual decisions, they’ll always take the path of least resistance.
No question about it. Spot on. It’s the same thing I said in, I think, my first post in the thread.