5 ms·

See, it wasn't just Arabic flash cards. It was Arabic flash cards plus a passport with recent stamps from Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan. It's unfortunate, but a yo

by seldo 17y ago

See, it wasn't just Arabic flash cards. It was Arabic flash cards plus a passport with recent stamps from Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan. It's unfortunate, but a young, single male, travelling alone, with recent visits to those countries (Sudan in particular) is exactly the profile of recent terrorists. He had a story and it checked out, so he should have been released sooner, but I don't think it was ridiculous of them to give him additional attention. It's also notable that he is an obviously white-looking guy. If he had been a brown-ish person of some kind who fitted the above description, would there be all this outrage?

daniel-cussen 17y ago
They TSA did not follow protocol.
- neurotech1 17y ago
  Can you be more specific? IMHO The TSA personnel should have questioned him, based on the information available - was there response proper and justified? thats debatable. He had traveled to the Middle East, learning Arabic (Farsi?), He would actually fit the profile of a "convert" terrorist. It could quite easily take 4 hours to do a quick background investigation. Remember there is always the possibility a terrorist operative being "white", and not appearing to be middle eastern.
  - pyre 17y ago
    > had traveled to the Middle East, learning Arabic (Farsi?) Couldn't that describe anyone that was planning on moving, working, or doing business (as in making deals with companies there while operating in the U.S.) there? Please don't try and make this about the color of his skin.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Couldn't that describe anyone that was planning on moving, working, or doing business (as in making deals with companies there while operating in the U.S.) there? Yes, it could. Short of perfect intelligence, we can't know who is planning to do something bad on a plane. Suppose that we had some markers that were more common among folks who were more likely to cause problems. What should we do? I've often thought that there should be a statutory payment to anyone who gets searched, wiretapped, what have you, regardless of the outcome of the search or the reason for doing it. Since those searches are for "our" benefit, why shouldn't we pay the folks who are being inconvenienced?
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
      - whatusername 17y ago
        The payment idea is interesting, but it creates an incentive to look suspicious.
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
pyre 17y ago
> It's also notable that he is an obviously white-looking guy. If he had been a brown-ish person of some kind who fitted the above description, would there be all this outrage? From me? Yes. From others? I can't really say. It would actually make less sense to flag someone for visiting those countries if they were dark-skinned. Wouldn't it be more likely that they had legit reasons for travelling to those countries, like visiting family?
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Countries are a figment of our collective imagination, and crossing from one border in to the next should by itself not be reason for suspicion. The simple desire to be somewhere else should not get one 'marked'. But traveling by air is now synonymous with giving up your every right as a human being and because of that we're all willing to take it without protest, the perceived cost of raising a fuss about this seems to outweigh the cost of pretending to be sheep. But the security situation is only very marginally improved by all these measures, long term there will be a new terrorist success, after which even more draconian rules will be enacted. We made this bed, now we have to lie in it, until we decide collectively that we're not headed in the right direction. Just today a dutch student protested at the court for having his finger prints put into a national database on grounds of privacy violation. It seems some people still understand when too far is too far, how about the rest of us? The 99.999%+ of the people that travel 'legitimately' should not have to pay to this extent for the < 0.001% of the people that intend to disrupt society by killing people, if the price of absolute safety in this sense is a totalitarian state with access to information on its citizens well in excess of what the Soviet block regimes could only have dreamed of then we're definitely on the wrong track. The more interesting question is if we let it go too far can it be rolled back?
- djcapelis 17y ago
  > Wouldn't it be more likely that they had legit reasons for > travelling to those countries, like visiting family? These systems work badly for exactly this reason. It's always more likely the person isn't a terrorist.

by seldo 17y ago

daniel-cussen 17y ago

They TSA did not follow protocol.

neurotech1 17y ago
Can you be more specific? IMHO The TSA personnel should have questioned him, based on the information available - was there response proper and justified? thats debatable. He had traveled to the Middle East, learning Arabic (Farsi?), He would actually fit the profile of a "convert" terrorist. It could quite easily take 4 hours to do a quick background investigation. Remember there is always the possibility a terrorist operative being "white", and not appearing to be middle eastern.
- pyre 17y ago
  > had traveled to the Middle East, learning Arabic (Farsi?) Couldn't that describe anyone that was planning on moving, working, or doing business (as in making deals with companies there while operating in the U.S.) there? Please don't try and make this about the color of his skin.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Couldn't that describe anyone that was planning on moving, working, or doing business (as in making deals with companies there while operating in the U.S.) there? Yes, it could. Short of perfect intelligence, we can't know who is planning to do something bad on a plane. Suppose that we had some markers that were more common among folks who were more likely to cause problems. What should we do? I've often thought that there should be a statutory payment to anyone who gets searched, wiretapped, what have you, regardless of the outcome of the search or the reason for doing it. Since those searches are for "our" benefit, why shouldn't we pay the folks who are being inconvenienced?
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - whatusername 17y ago
      The payment idea is interesting, but it creates an incentive to look suspicious.
      - deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]

pyre 17y ago

> It's also notable that he is an obviously white-looking guy. If he had been a brown-ish person of some kind who fitted the above description, would there be all this outrage? From me? Yes. From others? I can't really say. It would actually make less sense to flag someone for visiting those countries if they were dark-skinned. Wouldn't it be more likely that they had legit reasons for travelling to those countries, like visiting family?

jacquesm 17y ago
Countries are a figment of our collective imagination, and crossing from one border in to the next should by itself not be reason for suspicion. The simple desire to be somewhere else should not get one 'marked'. But traveling by air is now synonymous with giving up your every right as a human being and because of that we're all willing to take it without protest, the perceived cost of raising a fuss about this seems to outweigh the cost of pretending to be sheep. But the security situation is only very marginally improved by all these measures, long term there will be a new terrorist success, after which even more draconian rules will be enacted. We made this bed, now we have to lie in it, until we decide collectively that we're not headed in the right direction. Just today a dutch student protested at the court for having his finger prints put into a national database on grounds of privacy violation. It seems some people still understand when too far is too far, how about the rest of us? The 99.999%+ of the people that travel 'legitimately' should not have to pay to this extent for the < 0.001% of the people that intend to disrupt society by killing people, if the price of absolute safety in this sense is a totalitarian state with access to information on its citizens well in excess of what the Soviet block regimes could only have dreamed of then we're definitely on the wrong track. The more interesting question is if we let it go too far can it be rolled back?
djcapelis 17y ago
> Wouldn't it be more likely that they had legit reasons for > travelling to those countries, like visiting family? These systems work badly for exactly this reason. It's always more likely the person isn't a terrorist.