4 ms·

An FBI agent in the article: "You’ll have to understand, when a person of your… background walks into here, traveling alone, and sets off our alarms, people st

An FBI agent in the article: "You’ll have to understand, when a person of your… background walks into here, traveling alone, and sets off our alarms, people start to get a bit nervous. I’m sure you’ve been following what’s been going on in the news recently. You’ve got people from five different branches of government all in here - we don’t do this just for fun." That's profiling. Edit to add: in other words "The questions about race/religion weren't profiling, because they weren't used to select him for additional scrutiny" is false. They even admitted to subjecting him to additional security because of his "background".

anigbrowl 13y ago
What an investigator says during an investigation isn't testimonial. There isn't even any obligation that it be truthful; it's OK for investigators to lie in the hope that it'll lead the suspect to incriminate themselves. Simple example: Cop tells Joe Blow that they have a witness to the crime, and Joe Blow may as well confess. Joe Blow makes a full confession. Turns out there was no witness. Perfectly legit; what Joe Blow should have said (if anything) was 'there couldn't be, because I didn't commit that crime.' Yes, that means that agents of the state (LEOs, prosecutors etc.) have an incentive to misbehave, but in the common law system the adversarial nature of the legal process allows the defense to challenge that. In a civil law system the investigating officer is supposed to be compelled to search for truth above all else, but if the investigating officer is corrupt or inefficient it is much harder to challenge in court, and defense attorneys are much less aggressive on behalf of their clients.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  >What an investigator says during an investigation isn't testimonial. There isn't even any obligation that it be truthful; it's OK for investigators to lie in the hope that it'll lead the suspect to incriminate themselves. Who cares if it's legal testimony? It's still racial profiling, which is still uncool for any reason.
  - lem72 13y ago
    Exactly. TO quote the dude, You're not wrong, you're just an asshole
- icambron 13y ago
  I don't think I understand how your point applies here. The FBI agent's admission to having profiled the OP seem to be just that; I'm not sure how it could have been a ruse to get him to admit something. If we believe the story, it constitutes strong evidence that he was being profiled, and we should certainly see it that way and be outraged accordingly. In terms of courts, I'm not sure what context we're talking about, since there are no courts involved. IANAL, but if the OP were to sue, rules about testimonial hearsay don't apply because it would be a civil case, not a criminal one. Even if it were criminal (if the OP had been arrested and was mounting a defense or the FBI agent was, I guess, arrested?), it's not obvious to me that the agent's statement qualifies, since its purpose has to be to assist the investigation. And finally, the rule that police are allowed to lie to get you to confess (as in your example) is actually separate from whether it's testimonial or not, and simply hinges on whether it's coercive. If I understand it, the testimonial hearsay rule as applied to cops lying is for when the cop says, "Oh, it's no problem; I make bombs at home too" in that it doesn't allow the defense to say, "see that cop makes bombs!" So that's all to say I don't understand what all that has to do with whether the OP was being profiled or not. Possibly I misunderstood something or have my legal facts wrong, though; can you clarify? Edit to add: but regardless, it shouldn't change how much we're outraged at home, assuming we believe the OP's story, which I certainly do.
laureny 13y ago
> It's profiling. No, it's not. He was picked because he set off explosive detectors. Repeatedly. The racial opinions of the person asking the questions doesn't change the fact that this is not racial profiling.
- icambron 13y ago
  The question is not why he was "picked" to be investigated. The question is why he was kept so long even after it was determined that he did not, in fact, have explosives, and why he was questioned at such length and aggressiveness. The opinions of the people interrogating him are precisely what determine that, as explained by the actual person interrogating him. It really couldn't be any more straightforward.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  A non-transient false-positive does not typically get you the sort of treatment that the author got. Usually you are out of there in minutes.
biot 13y ago
The FBI agent's statement rephrased in boolean logic: nervous = background && companions && alarm If the value of alarm is false, nobody gets nervous because the whole expression evaluates to false. The FBI agent did not say "You are being subjected to additional screening because of your background and because you're traveling alone". That they are nervous because of his background and lack of companions is orthogonal to the fact that the additional screening happened because of the positive match for explosives. Or are you suggesting that if a white person traveling with companions matched positive for explosives, that they wouldn't be subjected to additional screening?
- icambron 13y ago
  I think you're missing that there is a sequence of things that happens here: 1. he sets off the chemical detector 2. he is pulled aside for questioning 3. in that questioning, they discover he has a background that makes them nervous 4. they hold him for a great deal more questioning 1->2 is standard and would happen to anyone. As other people have pointed out in this thread, it generally takes 15 minutes and is no big deal. It certainly doesn't involve the FBI. While it's never happened to me, it's happened to several people I know and while it was a bit of a hassle, it did not come anywhere near this. The alarms have already gotten us to 2, and they're not even nervous yet, because they don't know his background and, like you said, without the background being true, the whole expression evaluates to false. That's why the 3->4 transition is a problem, and that's where the profiling comes in. The agent's explanation isn't some non-sequitur, like "yeah, this is totally standard and incidentally we're nervous". He's explaining why they're holding him longer and have brought in agents from five different departments instead of just having a TSA guy chat with him and send him on his way. Notice the escalation as they become more concerned; they care about his background because it makes them think he might be a terrorist. Holding people for questioning when they're nervous that the passenger is a terrorist is actually their job. That's why they did so much, even to the point that they felt the need to explain it. If answers about his background would not change their behavior towards him, why would they ask about it all? The whole point of gathering information is so that you can make decisions with it. So then we get to the crux of it: his background makes them nervous and their nervousness causes them to subject him to additional scrutiny, above and beyond the screening he would have endured had he set off the alarm and not had a nervousness-causing background. That's profiling.

anigbrowl 13y ago

What an investigator says during an investigation isn't testimonial. There isn't even any obligation that it be truthful; it's OK for investigators to lie in the hope that it'll lead the suspect to incriminate themselves. Simple example: Cop tells Joe Blow that they have a witness to the crime, and Joe Blow may as well confess. Joe Blow makes a full confession. Turns out there was no witness. Perfectly legit; what Joe Blow should have said (if anything) was 'there couldn't be, because I didn't commit that crime.' Yes, that means that agents of the state (LEOs, prosecutors etc.) have an incentive to misbehave, but in the common law system the adversarial nature of the legal process allows the defense to challenge that. In a civil law system the investigating officer is supposed to be compelled to search for truth above all else, but if the investigating officer is corrupt or inefficient it is much harder to challenge in court, and defense attorneys are much less aggressive on behalf of their clients.

Karunamon 13y ago
>What an investigator says during an investigation isn't testimonial. There isn't even any obligation that it be truthful; it's OK for investigators to lie in the hope that it'll lead the suspect to incriminate themselves. Who cares if it's legal testimony? It's still racial profiling, which is still uncool for any reason.
- lem72 13y ago
  Exactly. TO quote the dude, You're not wrong, you're just an asshole
icambron 13y ago
I don't think I understand how your point applies here. The FBI agent's admission to having profiled the OP seem to be just that; I'm not sure how it could have been a ruse to get him to admit something. If we believe the story, it constitutes strong evidence that he was being profiled, and we should certainly see it that way and be outraged accordingly. In terms of courts, I'm not sure what context we're talking about, since there are no courts involved. IANAL, but if the OP were to sue, rules about testimonial hearsay don't apply because it would be a civil case, not a criminal one. Even if it were criminal (if the OP had been arrested and was mounting a defense or the FBI agent was, I guess, arrested?), it's not obvious to me that the agent's statement qualifies, since its purpose has to be to assist the investigation. And finally, the rule that police are allowed to lie to get you to confess (as in your example) is actually separate from whether it's testimonial or not, and simply hinges on whether it's coercive. If I understand it, the testimonial hearsay rule as applied to cops lying is for when the cop says, "Oh, it's no problem; I make bombs at home too" in that it doesn't allow the defense to say, "see that cop makes bombs!" So that's all to say I don't understand what all that has to do with whether the OP was being profiled or not. Possibly I misunderstood something or have my legal facts wrong, though; can you clarify? Edit to add: but regardless, it shouldn't change how much we're outraged at home, assuming we believe the OP's story, which I certainly do.

laureny 13y ago

> It's profiling. No, it's not. He was picked because he set off explosive detectors. Repeatedly. The racial opinions of the person asking the questions doesn't change the fact that this is not racial profiling.

icambron 13y ago
The question is not why he was "picked" to be investigated. The question is why he was kept so long even after it was determined that he did not, in fact, have explosives, and why he was questioned at such length and aggressiveness. The opinions of the people interrogating him are precisely what determine that, as explained by the actual person interrogating him. It really couldn't be any more straightforward.
jlgreco 13y ago
A non-transient false-positive does not typically get you the sort of treatment that the author got. Usually you are out of there in minutes.

biot 13y ago

The FBI agent's statement rephrased in boolean logic: nervous = background && companions && alarm If the value of alarm is false, nobody gets nervous because the whole expression evaluates to false. The FBI agent did not say "You are being subjected to additional screening because of your background and because you're traveling alone". That they are nervous because of his background and lack of companions is orthogonal to the fact that the additional screening happened because of the positive match for explosives. Or are you suggesting that if a white person traveling with companions matched positive for explosives, that they wouldn't be subjected to additional screening?

icambron 13y ago
I think you're missing that there is a sequence of things that happens here: 1. he sets off the chemical detector 2. he is pulled aside for questioning 3. in that questioning, they discover he has a background that makes them nervous 4. they hold him for a great deal more questioning 1->2 is standard and would happen to anyone. As other people have pointed out in this thread, it generally takes 15 minutes and is no big deal. It certainly doesn't involve the FBI. While it's never happened to me, it's happened to several people I know and while it was a bit of a hassle, it did not come anywhere near this. The alarms have already gotten us to 2, and they're not even nervous yet, because they don't know his background and, like you said, without the background being true, the whole expression evaluates to false. That's why the 3->4 transition is a problem, and that's where the profiling comes in. The agent's explanation isn't some non-sequitur, like "yeah, this is totally standard and incidentally we're nervous". He's explaining why they're holding him longer and have brought in agents from five different departments instead of just having a TSA guy chat with him and send him on his way. Notice the escalation as they become more concerned; they care about his background because it makes them think he might be a terrorist. Holding people for questioning when they're nervous that the passenger is a terrorist is actually their job. That's why they did so much, even to the point that they felt the need to explain it. If answers about his background would not change their behavior towards him, why would they ask about it all? The whole point of gathering information is so that you can make decisions with it. So then we get to the crux of it: his background makes them nervous and their nervousness causes them to subject him to additional scrutiny, above and beyond the screening he would have endured had he set off the alarm and not had a nervousness-causing background. That's profiling.