8 ms·

Meh... the whole thing didn't sound so unreasonable to me. The guy took a trip to two places well known for harboring and training terrorists. They found a bull

by enjo 16y ago

Meh... the whole thing didn't sound so unreasonable to me. The guy took a trip to two places well known for harboring and training terrorists. They found a bullet, a piece of terrorist propaganda, a burqa, and a note in his journal outlining some desire to renounce his citizenship. I'd be pretty damn suspicious too. I may not like it, but there are folks trying to kill us (all of us). These agents have a job, and that's to try and ferret out as many of these people attempting entry to our country as possible. It may be inconvenient, and it may be pretty nasty...but it's necessary. That's the reality of the situation. I'll also remind everyone to take any one-sided account like this with a certain grain of salt. It's a pretty emotional thing, and often certain points are quite exaggerated. Sometimes "yelling" is really "stern questioning". Other times "an hour and a half" is really "15 minutes". Ok.. let the down-voting commence :)

ojbyrne 16y ago
Having been through many secondary inspections at the US border (don't ask) I kind of agree with you. Essentially they're doing an interrogation, and they deliberately browbeat you in the hopes that you'll actually reveal something incriminating. Anything that will give them a shred of leverage they will use to try and intimidate you (none of the things in the article are actually incriminating, but they're "leverage"). EDIT (sober second thought): The phone tap (if true) does seem a little beyond the pale.
jemfinch 16y ago
Customs agents' job is to prevent contraband and unauthorized individuals from entering the country. It is not their job to berate American citizens returning from trips abroad. It is not their job to engage in emotionally charged interrogation regarding a person's religious views. It is not their job to intimidate, harass, or jump to unsupported conclusions.
- confuzatron 16y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's their job to ask people questions and put them off balance while doing so. Even to the extent of saying unreasonable things and raising their voices. It is irritating to be on the receiving end and I say that having only got the low-level treatment that I think everybody gets. But there you go.
  - jemfinch 16y ago
    It's not their job to be unprofessional or abusive. People are innocent until proven guilty, even when they're crossing the border.
- hop 16y ago
  Thats not true, customs agents, TSA and Air Marshalls are all definitely trained to look for anything suspicious and/or fits a rough potential terrorist profile. Coming back from the Pakistan/Afghanistan, having a live round you carried on a plane, Osama Bin Laden candy... You are pretty much asking to have a sit down chat when going through customs.
  - jemfinch 16y ago
    Do you really think the terrorists that pose a real danger to the U.S. are so inept that they'd carry a burqa, "Osama bin Laden" candy, and a round of live ammunition on a plane? Which do you think is more likely? That a terrorist secretly plotting against the United States is willing to risk capture over a package of propaganda candy? Or that an American abroad found the candy notable enough to bring a pack back as a conversation piece? The terrorists we ought to be afraid of (if we ought to be afraid of any at all) are not the ones bringing Osama bin Laden candy and burqas on planes. They're the ones who blend in perfectly, the ones we would never pick out of a lineup, the ones who would never make amateur mistakes like bringing a Qu'ran onto a plane. Customs agents aren't going to frazzle the dangerous terrorists by yelling at them. No, to catch the dangerous terrorists, we need real intelligence gathering and analysis. Customs agents on power trips will not suffice.
    - msbarnett 16y ago
      > Do you really think the terrorists that pose a real danger to the U.S. are so inept that they'd carry a burqa, "Osama bin Laden" candy, and a round of live ammunition on a plane? Well, the ones inept enough to do that are only not a threat if we stop them when they do inept stuff like that.
      - jrockway 16y ago
        Well, the ones inept enough to do that are only not a threat if we stop them when they do inept stuff like that. Good thing this policy stopped the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh.
  - 16y ago
- matwood 16y ago
  And they have a tough job. What if the story played out that customs/border patrol found ammunition falling out of a guys pocket and just confiscated it with no further questioning. Then a week later that guy blew up a building? It is their job to determine if someone entering the country is here to do harm. There are plenty of problems with whole airport security thing right now, but questioning this guy further probably isn't one of them.
  - pyre 16y ago
    In reality, if the guy went on to blow up a building, major media outlets would be calling for any government official that so much as came into contact with him to be brought before a firing squad (regardless of whether or not there was a real reason to suspect him).
  - ajays 16y ago
    You're missing the point. There's questioning, and then there's questioning. What these officers were doing was not "questioning", it was berating. They were just trying to act like sheriffs from an old Western. If they really wanted to question him, they would have done so gently, by gaining his trust and slowly loosening his lips. This is why the FBI is dead against torture (I know, this was not torture by any sense of the word) : it doesn't give them anything of value. On the other hand, they have had huge successes by winning the suspect's trust and letting him talk.
rickharrison 16y ago
I cannot believe that you actually think this was warranted. How does having a burqa indicate that you are a possible terrorist. Points of view like this one is what lets custom agents and TSA high school dropouts drive this security theatre every single day. I travel all the time, and our security system does not protect anything but our peace of mind.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  > How does having a burqa indicate that you are a possible terrorist. By itself? It'd be a stretch. When found with a bullet, Osama Bin Laden merchandise, a journal detailing how you can revoke your US citizenship, and trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan...
  - rickharrison 16y ago
    A bullet does not signal any form of terrorism. What can you possibly do with one bullet without any form of firing it. Also, he hardly detailed how to revoke your citizenship; it was just one sentence. I guess I can understand how these agents would not understand the intellectual curiosity of a trip to this part of the world.
    - confuzatron 16y ago
      Coming home from Pakistan with a bullet in your pocket does point to the possibility that while in Pakistan you were dealing with weaponry. The guy doesn't give enough context to understand how the journal entry actually looked. From your last sentence, I can see you are no stranger to making snap judgements without all the details. ;)
      - sprout 16y ago
        Wow, you travelled to a warzone and you dealt with weaponry. Clearly you're interested in expanding the warzone.
        16y ago
jdietrich 16y ago
None of these are red flags. Al-Qaeda might be fundamentalist arseholes, but they're not stupid. Imagine you've been to a terrorist training camp. You're packing your bags to fly home to the US. Are you going to pack a bullet, a box of Bin Laden crackers and a Burqa? It's like arresting a kid in a Hamburglar outfit because he's got a mask, a striped shirt and a swag bag. The obvious red flags aren't red flags because they're obvious. If someone isn't smart enough to realise that, they're not smart enough to pose any real threat. We're dealing with focused people who know that huge resources are going into finding them. What we're looking for is people trying to conceal their actions and obfuscate their movements. By jumping on a chair and screaming "Aaaagh, terrorist!" every time we see a piece of Islamica, we're just reinforcing the idea that people are suspicious for 'looking Muslim'.
- confuzatron 16y ago
  Al-Qaeda might be fundamentalist arseholes, but they're not stupid. You're over-generalising; I reckon there are plenty of idiots in Al-Quaeda.
  - jemfinch 16y ago
    The Al-Qaeda that we have any reason to fear aren't idiots. The idiots will be caught whether or not they have Osama bin Laden candy in their carryons.
    - lukesandberg 16y ago
      Here's one view on the matter: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-case-for-calling-them-nitwits/8130/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-case... and there is plenty of reason to be afraid of an idiot if they have access to bombs.
    - ceejayoz 16y ago
      THe Al-Qaeda that we have any reason to fear are often using idiots to carry out attacks. Most of them screw up and get caught, or blow themselves up, or chicken out. It's a volume game, and it's very hard to fight.
jasonwatkinspdx 16y ago
I'm disturbed that you aren't outraged both by the inappropriateness of the behavior described as well as the utter ineffectiveness of their methods at finding and stoping someone who truly did intend a terrorist act.
scrod 16y ago
>Of course, the Customs Officer ignored the other four books and while holding up the book of quotes from the Prophet, proceeded to repeatedly scream “Do you believe in the words of the Prophet Mohammed?” over and over again while standing one foot away from my face. No, certainly, that doesn't sound unreasonable at all.
- AndyKelley 16y ago
  Is this sarcasm? It sounds completely unreasonable to me.
  - scrod 16y ago
    Fortunately it's completely sarcastic. The only thing more outrageous than that customs officer's behavior is the implication that a person's religious beliefs could ever be used as justification for preventing or controlling their entry into the United States.
    - AndyKelley 16y ago
      1. If there exists a religious belief that states you should kill every United States citizen that you meet, then that religious belief is dangerous to United States citizens. 2. If a particular religious belief is dangerous to United States citizens, then it makes sense to use that religious belief as justification for preventing or controlling their entry into the United States. 3. People can make up whatever they want and call it a religion. In fact that is how many (all?) religions have been formed. 4. From 1, 2, and 3 it follows that it can in fact make sense to use a person's religious belief as justification for preventing or controlling their entry into the United States. 5. The Qu'ran can be legitimately interpreted to mean that Muslims should kill United States citizens: http://www.bloggersbase.com/politics-and-opinions/3-islam/ http://www.bloggersbase.com/politics-and-opinions/3-islam/ 6. From 5, the Muslim religion is dangerous to United States citizens. 7. From 6 and 2 it follows that it makes sense for Muslim beliefs to be used as justification for preventing or controlling entry into the United States. That being said, I still think the security guard was in the wrong. Clearly, our protagonist was not a problem, and the guard should have been able to discover that without stomping all over his rights. What's so hard about innocent until proven guilty? It ensures justice, even if the person turns out to be guilty. This is controversial, because there are many Muslims who do not have ill intent toward United States citizens. I have good friends who are Muslim. Unfortunately, they have been raised with a religion that is potentially dangerous. Such is the problem with indoctrinating kids. I dropped the religion I was brought up with (Christianity) when I finally realized that it wasn't true and therefore shouldn't believe it. Perhaps Muslims need to do the same. Most religions are innocuous enough that you can just let people believe what they want, and no harm done. But when leaving them to practice their religion might lead to them killing you, it's a little different.
moron4hire 16y ago
To start, I agree with your post. He was definitely suspicious, and one-sided accounts are not reliable. However, I do take issue with one of your incidental comments: >> "...but there are folks trying to kill us (all of us)..." Either this is not true, or it is true and our enemy is inept. If we had a competent enemy who was trying to kill us, then there would be a lot more of us dead. Just this last Saturday presented and excellent opportunity to strike terror into the populace in our nation's capital. John Stewart's "Restoring Sanity and/or Fear" rally saw thousands of people densely packed in what had to have been--judging from the amount of alcohol consumption going on--a very loosely secured area. I've been to other events of similar scale that have been open season on comings and goings. There are opportunities for our enemies to hurt us, hurt us very badly, every day, and they do not take them. I think this is an important issue to point out because fear of a bogeyman is still fear. Richard Nixon said, "People react to fear, not love--they don't teach that in Sunday School, but it's true." Rahm Emmanuel said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Bill Clinton identified the soccer-moms as the most important demographic in America, and he was right: they way to vast policy change is to connect it to a threat to a soccer-mom's babies. There has been a resurgence in fascist and totalitarian ideology within Western government, all based around a hyped-up version of a nebulous, nefarious "them". We continue to play this security theater because it serves a purpose. The classic answer is that security theater instills confidence in the system. But I think it goes deeper. I think it gives the people a target, something to hate, something we can all agree sucks, and then see the futility of trying to change it. It's an indoctrination system to make "us" accept that the "right" way is a militaristic way.
- YooLi 16y ago
  "Either this is not true, or it is true and our enemy is inept. If we had a competent enemy who was trying to kill us, then there would be a lot more of us dead." I don't think we all need to live in fear, but I don't think we should live oblivious to threats just because things don't blow up more often.
  - moron4hire 16y ago
jbrennan 16y ago
I don't see how the burqa has anything to do with it.
mrtron 16y ago
Really? Those two regions train individuals to terrorize Americans? How many such attacks have there been? What percentage of the population is even anti-American let alone involved in terrorism? The people there are trying to kill ALL Americans? I don't think it reflects the reality of the situation there. Your comment is basically an admission of giving up personal rights and liberties because of a blind fear.
rickmb 16y ago
Frankly, I'm too stunned by the fact that this kind of paranoid and pseudo-fascist (yes I went there, fuck it, if you feel the state has the right to treat its innocent citizens that way, that's how I'm gonna call it) rambling gets 54 points and counting on HN to think of a decent reply. There's no excuse for this kind of treatment in a free country. Absolutely none. This kind of attitude destroys freedom, not terrorists.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- llimllib 16y ago
  > There's no excuse for this kind of treatment in a free country You and I are in a fringe minority there, my friend.
CapitalistCartr 16y ago
Whether or not the author's behavior was 'suspicious' is irrelevant. The problem is with the actions of the officer. He handled it terribly wrong. The proper approach is NOT that Law & Order routine, but friendliness, and understanding. It garners far better results than that movie cop silliness. Whether the author was a terrorist or not doesn't make the officer's incompetence any better.
mcantelon 16y ago
>there are folks trying to kill us (all of us That's what we're told to believe, but given the propensities of those pushing this idea (who, by their own records, killed 60,000+ civilians in Iraq) I'd take the threat with a grain of salt. If terrorists want to target civilians rather than the military, my guess is they'd be going after the low hanging fruit (starting forest fires and the like).
lhnn 16y ago
He didn't express desire to renounce citizenship, and calling a book about Mohammed terrorist propaganda is exaggerating at best, and disrespectful at worst.
- endtime 16y ago
  I think the "propaganda" was the Osama bin Laden snacks...

by enjo 16y ago

ojbyrne 16y ago

Having been through many secondary inspections at the US border (don't ask) I kind of agree with you. Essentially they're doing an interrogation, and they deliberately browbeat you in the hopes that you'll actually reveal something incriminating. Anything that will give them a shred of leverage they will use to try and intimidate you (none of the things in the article are actually incriminating, but they're "leverage"). EDIT (sober second thought): The phone tap (if true) does seem a little beyond the pale.

jemfinch 16y ago

Customs agents' job is to prevent contraband and unauthorized individuals from entering the country. It is not their job to berate American citizens returning from trips abroad. It is not their job to engage in emotionally charged interrogation regarding a person's religious views. It is not their job to intimidate, harass, or jump to unsupported conclusions.

confuzatron 16y ago
I'm pretty sure it's their job to ask people questions and put them off balance while doing so. Even to the extent of saying unreasonable things and raising their voices. It is irritating to be on the receiving end and I say that having only got the low-level treatment that I think everybody gets. But there you go.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  It's not their job to be unprofessional or abusive. People are innocent until proven guilty, even when they're crossing the border.
hop 16y ago
Thats not true, customs agents, TSA and Air Marshalls are all definitely trained to look for anything suspicious and/or fits a rough potential terrorist profile. Coming back from the Pakistan/Afghanistan, having a live round you carried on a plane, Osama Bin Laden candy... You are pretty much asking to have a sit down chat when going through customs.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  Do you really think the terrorists that pose a real danger to the U.S. are so inept that they'd carry a burqa, "Osama bin Laden" candy, and a round of live ammunition on a plane? Which do you think is more likely? That a terrorist secretly plotting against the United States is willing to risk capture over a package of propaganda candy? Or that an American abroad found the candy notable enough to bring a pack back as a conversation piece? The terrorists we ought to be afraid of (if we ought to be afraid of any at all) are not the ones bringing Osama bin Laden candy and burqas on planes. They're the ones who blend in perfectly, the ones we would never pick out of a lineup, the ones who would never make amateur mistakes like bringing a Qu'ran onto a plane. Customs agents aren't going to frazzle the dangerous terrorists by yelling at them. No, to catch the dangerous terrorists, we need real intelligence gathering and analysis. Customs agents on power trips will not suffice.
  - msbarnett 16y ago
    > Do you really think the terrorists that pose a real danger to the U.S. are so inept that they'd carry a burqa, "Osama bin Laden" candy, and a round of live ammunition on a plane? Well, the ones inept enough to do that are only not a threat if we stop them when they do inept stuff like that.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      Well, the ones inept enough to do that are only not a threat if we stop them when they do inept stuff like that. Good thing this policy stopped the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh.
- 16y ago
matwood 16y ago
And they have a tough job. What if the story played out that customs/border patrol found ammunition falling out of a guys pocket and just confiscated it with no further questioning. Then a week later that guy blew up a building? It is their job to determine if someone entering the country is here to do harm. There are plenty of problems with whole airport security thing right now, but questioning this guy further probably isn't one of them.
- pyre 16y ago
  In reality, if the guy went on to blow up a building, major media outlets would be calling for any government official that so much as came into contact with him to be brought before a firing squad (regardless of whether or not there was a real reason to suspect him).
- ajays 16y ago
  You're missing the point. There's questioning, and then there's questioning. What these officers were doing was not "questioning", it was berating. They were just trying to act like sheriffs from an old Western. If they really wanted to question him, they would have done so gently, by gaining his trust and slowly loosening his lips. This is why the FBI is dead against torture (I know, this was not torture by any sense of the word) : it doesn't give them anything of value. On the other hand, they have had huge successes by winning the suspect's trust and letting him talk.

rickharrison 16y ago

I cannot believe that you actually think this was warranted. How does having a burqa indicate that you are a possible terrorist. Points of view like this one is what lets custom agents and TSA high school dropouts drive this security theatre every single day. I travel all the time, and our security system does not protect anything but our peace of mind.

ceejayoz 16y ago
> How does having a burqa indicate that you are a possible terrorist. By itself? It'd be a stretch. When found with a bullet, Osama Bin Laden merchandise, a journal detailing how you can revoke your US citizenship, and trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan...
- rickharrison 16y ago
  A bullet does not signal any form of terrorism. What can you possibly do with one bullet without any form of firing it. Also, he hardly detailed how to revoke your citizenship; it was just one sentence. I guess I can understand how these agents would not understand the intellectual curiosity of a trip to this part of the world.
  - confuzatron 16y ago
    Coming home from Pakistan with a bullet in your pocket does point to the possibility that while in Pakistan you were dealing with weaponry. The guy doesn't give enough context to understand how the journal entry actually looked. From your last sentence, I can see you are no stranger to making snap judgements without all the details. ;)
    - sprout 16y ago
      Wow, you travelled to a warzone and you dealt with weaponry. Clearly you're interested in expanding the warzone.
      - 16y ago

jdietrich 16y ago

None of these are red flags. Al-Qaeda might be fundamentalist arseholes, but they're not stupid. Imagine you've been to a terrorist training camp. You're packing your bags to fly home to the US. Are you going to pack a bullet, a box of Bin Laden crackers and a Burqa? It's like arresting a kid in a Hamburglar outfit because he's got a mask, a striped shirt and a swag bag. The obvious red flags aren't red flags because they're obvious. If someone isn't smart enough to realise that, they're not smart enough to pose any real threat. We're dealing with focused people who know that huge resources are going into finding them. What we're looking for is people trying to conceal their actions and obfuscate their movements. By jumping on a chair and screaming "Aaaagh, terrorist!" every time we see a piece of Islamica, we're just reinforcing the idea that people are suspicious for 'looking Muslim'.

confuzatron 16y ago
Al-Qaeda might be fundamentalist arseholes, but they're not stupid. You're over-generalising; I reckon there are plenty of idiots in Al-Quaeda.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  The Al-Qaeda that we have any reason to fear aren't idiots. The idiots will be caught whether or not they have Osama bin Laden candy in their carryons.
  - lukesandberg 16y ago
    Here's one view on the matter: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-case-for-calling-them-nitwits/8130/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-case... and there is plenty of reason to be afraid of an idiot if they have access to bombs.
  - ceejayoz 16y ago
    THe Al-Qaeda that we have any reason to fear are often using idiots to carry out attacks. Most of them screw up and get caught, or blow themselves up, or chicken out. It's a volume game, and it's very hard to fight.

jasonwatkinspdx 16y ago

I'm disturbed that you aren't outraged both by the inappropriateness of the behavior described as well as the utter ineffectiveness of their methods at finding and stoping someone who truly did intend a terrorist act.

scrod 16y ago

>Of course, the Customs Officer ignored the other four books and while holding up the book of quotes from the Prophet, proceeded to repeatedly scream “Do you believe in the words of the Prophet Mohammed?” over and over again while standing one foot away from my face. No, certainly, that doesn't sound unreasonable at all.

AndyKelley 16y ago
Is this sarcasm? It sounds completely unreasonable to me.
- scrod 16y ago
  Fortunately it's completely sarcastic. The only thing more outrageous than that customs officer's behavior is the implication that a person's religious beliefs could ever be used as justification for preventing or controlling their entry into the United States.
  - AndyKelley 16y ago
    1. If there exists a religious belief that states you should kill every United States citizen that you meet, then that religious belief is dangerous to United States citizens. 2. If a particular religious belief is dangerous to United States citizens, then it makes sense to use that religious belief as justification for preventing or controlling their entry into the United States. 3. People can make up whatever they want and call it a religion. In fact that is how many (all?) religions have been formed. 4. From 1, 2, and 3 it follows that it can in fact make sense to use a person's religious belief as justification for preventing or controlling their entry into the United States. 5. The Qu'ran can be legitimately interpreted to mean that Muslims should kill United States citizens: http://www.bloggersbase.com/politics-and-opinions/3-islam/ http://www.bloggersbase.com/politics-and-opinions/3-islam/ 6. From 5, the Muslim religion is dangerous to United States citizens. 7. From 6 and 2 it follows that it makes sense for Muslim beliefs to be used as justification for preventing or controlling entry into the United States. That being said, I still think the security guard was in the wrong. Clearly, our protagonist was not a problem, and the guard should have been able to discover that without stomping all over his rights. What's so hard about innocent until proven guilty? It ensures justice, even if the person turns out to be guilty. This is controversial, because there are many Muslims who do not have ill intent toward United States citizens. I have good friends who are Muslim. Unfortunately, they have been raised with a religion that is potentially dangerous. Such is the problem with indoctrinating kids. I dropped the religion I was brought up with (Christianity) when I finally realized that it wasn't true and therefore shouldn't believe it. Perhaps Muslims need to do the same. Most religions are innocuous enough that you can just let people believe what they want, and no harm done. But when leaving them to practice their religion might lead to them killing you, it's a little different.

moron4hire 16y ago

To start, I agree with your post. He was definitely suspicious, and one-sided accounts are not reliable. However, I do take issue with one of your incidental comments: >> "...but there are folks trying to kill us (all of us)..." Either this is not true, or it is true and our enemy is inept. If we had a competent enemy who was trying to kill us, then there would be a lot more of us dead. Just this last Saturday presented and excellent opportunity to strike terror into the populace in our nation's capital. John Stewart's "Restoring Sanity and/or Fear" rally saw thousands of people densely packed in what had to have been--judging from the amount of alcohol consumption going on--a very loosely secured area. I've been to other events of similar scale that have been open season on comings and goings. There are opportunities for our enemies to hurt us, hurt us very badly, every day, and they do not take them. I think this is an important issue to point out because fear of a bogeyman is still fear. Richard Nixon said, "People react to fear, not love--they don't teach that in Sunday School, but it's true." Rahm Emmanuel said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Bill Clinton identified the soccer-moms as the most important demographic in America, and he was right: they way to vast policy change is to connect it to a threat to a soccer-mom's babies. There has been a resurgence in fascist and totalitarian ideology within Western government, all based around a hyped-up version of a nebulous, nefarious "them". We continue to play this security theater because it serves a purpose. The classic answer is that security theater instills confidence in the system. But I think it goes deeper. I think it gives the people a target, something to hate, something we can all agree sucks, and then see the futility of trying to change it. It's an indoctrination system to make "us" accept that the "right" way is a militaristic way.

YooLi 16y ago
"Either this is not true, or it is true and our enemy is inept. If we had a competent enemy who was trying to kill us, then there would be a lot more of us dead." I don't think we all need to live in fear, but I don't think we should live oblivious to threats just because things don't blow up more often.
- moron4hire 16y ago

jbrennan 16y ago

I don't see how the burqa has anything to do with it.

mrtron 16y ago

Really? Those two regions train individuals to terrorize Americans? How many such attacks have there been? What percentage of the population is even anti-American let alone involved in terrorism? The people there are trying to kill ALL Americans? I don't think it reflects the reality of the situation there. Your comment is basically an admission of giving up personal rights and liberties because of a blind fear.

rickmb 16y ago

Frankly, I'm too stunned by the fact that this kind of paranoid and pseudo-fascist (yes I went there, fuck it, if you feel the state has the right to treat its innocent citizens that way, that's how I'm gonna call it) rambling gets 54 points and counting on HN to think of a decent reply. There's no excuse for this kind of treatment in a free country. Absolutely none. This kind of attitude destroys freedom, not terrorists.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
llimllib 16y ago
> There's no excuse for this kind of treatment in a free country You and I are in a fringe minority there, my friend.

CapitalistCartr 16y ago

Whether or not the author's behavior was 'suspicious' is irrelevant. The problem is with the actions of the officer. He handled it terribly wrong. The proper approach is NOT that Law & Order routine, but friendliness, and understanding. It garners far better results than that movie cop silliness. Whether the author was a terrorist or not doesn't make the officer's incompetence any better.

mcantelon 16y ago

>there are folks trying to kill us (all of us That's what we're told to believe, but given the propensities of those pushing this idea (who, by their own records, killed 60,000+ civilians in Iraq) I'd take the threat with a grain of salt. If terrorists want to target civilians rather than the military, my guess is they'd be going after the low hanging fruit (starting forest fires and the like).

lhnn 16y ago

He didn't express desire to renounce citizenship, and calling a book about Mohammed terrorist propaganda is exaggerating at best, and disrespectful at worst.

endtime 16y ago
I think the "propaganda" was the Osama bin Laden snacks...