5 ms·

Nice to know that if they don't have any legal way of stopping you or coercing information out of you, they'll only resort to harassment and intimidation for a

by dkarl 16y ago

Nice to know that if they don't have any legal way of stopping you or coercing information out of you, they'll only resort to harassment and intimidation for a little while before letting you go. 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. Every time I tried to mention the other books, and the one time I tried to ask why that question was even relevant, I was immediately cut off and told to be quiet. So in the end, the only reply I gave to his question was, “What?” They love yelling, and it isn't because they want you answer or comply. Apparently yelling serves some purpose in itself. Whenever someone shows me a police video, I take careful note of when they stop yelling variations on "Get down on the ground!" I saw one recently where the police fatally shot a guy (completely justified; he actually attacked a cop who was holding a gun on him, and another cop shot him) and one cop yelled "Get down!" or "Get down on the ground" at him three times after he had already fallen on the pavement.... I saw nothing inappropriate in the shooting, but I got a morbid chuckle out of the cop screaming at the dude to comply when the dude was already flat on the ground motionless and bleeding. It's also pretty shocking to watch the video of the guy being shot in the BART station in Oakland and try to figure out in what way he was resisting the two cops who were holding him face down on the ground while he was handcuffed. The cop who shot him kept yelling at him to stop resisting and then just popped him. He was -- what, shifting his weight? Trying to raise his head to answer their questions? Who knows. No level of compliance would have saved him, just like the guy who wrote this article didn't actually have to answer the questions. They just wanted to yell at him; they didn't want answers.

pyre 16y ago
> Nice to know that if they don't have any legal way > of stopping you or coercing information out of you, > they'll only resort to harassment and intimidation > for a little while before letting you go. The point of yelling at him, and repeating the question was an attempt to 'throw him off his game.' Hopefully, you'll get him frustrated enough that he'll let slip something that give him away. It's a hell of a lot better than waterboarding him in the back room at the airport. > They love yelling, and it isn't because they want you > answer or comply. Apparently yelling serves some purpose > in itself. Explained above. Granted they might be able to achieve the same result by using a line of questioning that keeps circling back in on itself with slight variations of the same question being repeated over and over again (sans yelling).
- dkarl 16y ago
  Here's an idea: why don't they pick on people who have actually done something wrong, and then use that wrongdoing to put legal pressure on them? Justice is built into the system: do something wrong, and you'll have an unpleasant experience. Don't do anything wrong, and you won't be yelled at and intimidated and possibly made to miss your flight. In addition, instead of using empty threats and just hoping that a criminal or trained terrorist will be so unnerved by your bullying that they voluntarily incriminate themselves, you will have a credible threat of consequences and therefore a real incentive for them to cooperate.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >you will have a credible threat of consequences and therefore a real incentive for them to cooperate This will definitely work against anyone who is expecting to die in the process of carrying terrorist activities. Don't ban guns from schools, just tell them to play nice or they'll get detention.
    - pyre 16y ago
      Most of the people willing to die in the process of a terrorist attack, aren't looking towards consequences (i.e. they won't deal with any after they are dead), but they will have to deal with consequences if they are imprisoned before they can carry out their attack.
    - dkarl 16y ago
      This will definitely work against anyone who is expecting to die in the process of carrying terrorist activities. Ah, I see, so we should break them by sweating them over a water bottle that's slightly too big. Really, if the terrorists are too smart and too hardened to be scared by real consequences, can we shake them with groundless harassment? If not, then what's the point of being a jerk to people who merely have "suspicious" cultural allegiances (e.g., having a book about Islam and having some funny souvenirs) and who break minor rules in ways that clearly don't pose a threat? It isn't some clever attempt to smoke out terrorists. They're policing our respect for their paranoia and profiling-based hot buttons. Showing a flagrant interest in Islam (even one that doesn't show any seriousness, as in this case) is, to them, the same as singing "Ba ba ba, ba Barbara Ann" in the security line -- it's a really rude abuse of their poor nerves! -- except that for some weird reason it isn't against the law. The main thing is for travelers to go out of their way to avoid making them nervous, and to be apologetic if you actually do make them nervous. Then they know your heart is in the right place. This guy could have put his "Muslim paraphernalia" in his checked baggage, or just left it at home. The fact that he didn't showed disrespect for their prejudices and their blood pressure. That's why they yelled at him; to restore his respect for their authority. The bottom line is that the bullet is the only thing he was carrying that was actually an infringement of the rules, but they mostly yelled at him for his interest in Islam and a few Islamic countries. And they actually asked him if he found Pakistanis friendly. Rudeness and prejudice -- our greatest tools in the fight against terrorism!
moultano 16y ago
Sure, but there's a big difference between "customs agents were jerks" and "customs agents violated my civil liberties." So much of the latter happens that I'm not inclined to care too much about the former.

by dkarl 16y ago

pyre 16y ago

> Nice to know that if they don't have any legal way > of stopping you or coercing information out of you, > they'll only resort to harassment and intimidation > for a little while before letting you go. The point of yelling at him, and repeating the question was an attempt to 'throw him off his game.' Hopefully, you'll get him frustrated enough that he'll let slip something that give him away. It's a hell of a lot better than waterboarding him in the back room at the airport. > They love yelling, and it isn't because they want you > answer or comply. Apparently yelling serves some purpose > in itself. Explained above. Granted they might be able to achieve the same result by using a line of questioning that keeps circling back in on itself with slight variations of the same question being repeated over and over again (sans yelling).

dkarl 16y ago
Here's an idea: why don't they pick on people who have actually done something wrong, and then use that wrongdoing to put legal pressure on them? Justice is built into the system: do something wrong, and you'll have an unpleasant experience. Don't do anything wrong, and you won't be yelled at and intimidated and possibly made to miss your flight. In addition, instead of using empty threats and just hoping that a criminal or trained terrorist will be so unnerved by your bullying that they voluntarily incriminate themselves, you will have a credible threat of consequences and therefore a real incentive for them to cooperate.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >you will have a credible threat of consequences and therefore a real incentive for them to cooperate This will definitely work against anyone who is expecting to die in the process of carrying terrorist activities. Don't ban guns from schools, just tell them to play nice or they'll get detention.
  - pyre 16y ago
    Most of the people willing to die in the process of a terrorist attack, aren't looking towards consequences (i.e. they won't deal with any after they are dead), but they will have to deal with consequences if they are imprisoned before they can carry out their attack.
  - dkarl 16y ago
    This will definitely work against anyone who is expecting to die in the process of carrying terrorist activities. Ah, I see, so we should break them by sweating them over a water bottle that's slightly too big. Really, if the terrorists are too smart and too hardened to be scared by real consequences, can we shake them with groundless harassment? If not, then what's the point of being a jerk to people who merely have "suspicious" cultural allegiances (e.g., having a book about Islam and having some funny souvenirs) and who break minor rules in ways that clearly don't pose a threat? It isn't some clever attempt to smoke out terrorists. They're policing our respect for their paranoia and profiling-based hot buttons. Showing a flagrant interest in Islam (even one that doesn't show any seriousness, as in this case) is, to them, the same as singing "Ba ba ba, ba Barbara Ann" in the security line -- it's a really rude abuse of their poor nerves! -- except that for some weird reason it isn't against the law. The main thing is for travelers to go out of their way to avoid making them nervous, and to be apologetic if you actually do make them nervous. Then they know your heart is in the right place. This guy could have put his "Muslim paraphernalia" in his checked baggage, or just left it at home. The fact that he didn't showed disrespect for their prejudices and their blood pressure. That's why they yelled at him; to restore his respect for their authority. The bottom line is that the bullet is the only thing he was carrying that was actually an infringement of the rules, but they mostly yelled at him for his interest in Islam and a few Islamic countries. And they actually asked him if he found Pakistanis friendly. Rudeness and prejudice -- our greatest tools in the fight against terrorism!

moultano 16y ago

Sure, but there's a big difference between "customs agents were jerks" and "customs agents violated my civil liberties." So much of the latter happens that I'm not inclined to care too much about the former.