UC Berkeley student questioned, refused service after speaking Arabic on flight
dailycal.org
dailycal.org
When I travel I opt out of the scanner every time, ask the pat-down guy what happens if he finds drugs on me, and sometimes refuse the search by asking them if I'm under arrest ('if not, am I free to go?').
If the TSA agent won't let me leave without a search, I demand they call the cops, who are obligated to let me leave (not enter the airport, though) because I haven't committed a crime.
One time in SFO they called the bomb squad because I tested positive for fertilizer (or something) and I still went through all this. I refused something called a 'private room crotch rub', which I regret a little.
When I talk to friends who are any shade of brown they tell me 'you should have had your ass handed to you'.
Can you elaborate on the utility of this? I currently opt for the pat down and refuse the private search ("no, I'd rather do this in the open for everyone to see"), and generally end at that. Are you further describing what you do if something is found in the pat-down that you don't want escalated to the police, or what?
I just assert myself during the process, but leave escalation up to them (like the time some goon-manager decided to re-search me after I was already in the process of reassembling myself).
BTW what do they say happens if they find drugs during one of the pat-downs? Since you mentioned SFO, have you found the answers/process/etc varies between there and TSA airports?
They say various stuff. They're training these guys better now and usually they're like 'do you have any?'. In the old days they'd say scary things like 'oh we have friends who deal with that' or 'I can't tell you our policies'.
In my experience (sparse data here) california pat-down guys were the friendliest, sharing my take on the absurdity of the process and willing to go with whatever. My worst experience was with the chicago cops; they sided at first with the TSA manager and I think I came close to being arrested. I also tried to record them and that didn't go well.
JFK and LGA 'male assists' are serious about their jobs but also cognizant of the law. Once the cops get involved in new york, the situation feels controlled and safe to me.
No, it's a damned right to not be disassembled, scrutinized, and groped just to move about. Instead of nipping at the people whose rights are being violated the least, recognize that you're both fundamentally trying to help the people whose rights are being violated the most.
You go out of your way to be a dick to people doing their jobs because you feel the need to prove some point in the most obtuse way.
In my case, I oppose the forces of chaos by making a fuss about search without probable cause. I recognize the social cost of acting this way, but it's not in my personality to blindly consent.
I can't justify making someone else's day more shitty (the employee who has to deal with this and the people behind you in line) and changing nothing just to make myself feel better.
The second time I tried using the TSA web feedback form but it crashed when I hit submit.
It's their job to politely deal with a traveller who declines a suspicion-free search. If that "makes their day shitty", they're in the wrong line of work.
* People actually doing wrong things are 'just doing their jobs'. They are also underpaid, with no job security, so only a bad person would make their job even harder.
* Ones who order them are not actually doing anything wrong. It doesn't help that you often can't find the person responsible up in the chain of command.
So it works as intended.
Good and bad should be evaluated independently from, "I'm just doing my job here." No, nobody is ever just doing their job. We're all affecting each other, for better, worse, and all gray things inbetween.
More likely that someone that's "had enough" with "people like you" would "magically" find something in your bag, say that you made statements that you did not, etc.
Be careful.
See also: swatting.
Edit: omit "sickening". changed "you" to "we". Changed "three people" to "some of us"
Careful with that; it's the no true scotsman fallacy. The sad thing is that these people are, in fact, True Americans.
The problem is that people have been passing around a cheat sheet of logical fallacies, but using the mental version of a regex to try and match them. This is not a reliable technique for identifying fallacies. Usually, you would want to recognize them by their content, not their form, and it's essential to know the difference between formal and informal fallacies.
What those silly charts get wrong, is that the other 'fearful' things they compare terrorism to are well understood phenomena with linear input, outputs. More vehicles on the road, more traffic casualties, more smoking, more lung cancer, more overeating, more diseases of obesity, etc. etc.
In taking precaution against terrorism we must be aware that there is potential for nonlinear type events. A single event can drastically alter any metrics of average terrorism damage over a given time frame.
A little inconvenience for somebody now or then if it means heading off a potential explosive black swan type event, is just a fact of the modern world as long as there is Islam in the west.
But the salami slicing of convenience means hundreds of millions of people have been inconvenienced (by having to remove their shoes) because one guy one time tried to set fire to his plastique explosive footwear. How many human hours have been spent in queues at airports for this?
What's ironic about the point you raise, is that it stems from one of the main topics of this thread.
Our collective refusal to admit that perpetrators of Islamic terrorism are heavily concentrated under a narrow band of characteristics means we all have to endure abject silliness like grannies and children being groped, and having to take off our shoes.
What's next, suggesting for everyone's safety people are seperated from other people based on their beliefs or ethnic background?
Notice how my comment laid out a logical sequence of statements that amounted to coherent reasoning.
While yours is nothing more than a hostile attack, attempting to a apply a witchhunt type label.
What are you trying to contribute to this conversation?
Edit:
I initially took your comment for sarcasm. I guess it's probably not, but I find it really strange.
There isn't even an implied or explicit mention of race in the comment you attacked.
Are there racial restriction on who is allowed to join Islam?
Can you explain to me why you took such umbrage to me stating the obvious, which is, that chart is flawed because the calculus around terrorism is different in important ways to the calculus around heart disease and car accidents?
https://www.aclu.org/cases/raza-v-city-new-york-legal-challe...
Still believe you're right, and if so, why?
What questions have I not answered?
What are you basing such a claim on? If you ask the Islamists committing attacks, they will tell you just the opposite. If you read their literature, it will tell you just the opposite. I'm guessing you've done neither of those.
How one can conflate apathy, and the numerous proactive measures and actions necessary to carry out one of these attacks is beyond me...
If more people aren't disabused of these silly, naive, indoctrinated notions, we aren't going to make any progress in solving this problem.
The fact that I'm just stating facts, but many will no doubt read it as 'radical' or 'racist,' should give everyone pause.
It's not always white vs other. You can find this kind if fear in India (where you have violent clashes pretty frequently). Are you saying somehow Americans are better than other people and somehow therefore should be other than human? I know we should all strive to be better people. Looking at things along stark racial lines is not always helpful. Treating a subgroup of people as the Other is not particularly a "white" thing. It happens to all people --travel a bit. We should expect more from all people.
And the existence of racism on the other side of the planet does not somehow diminish or excuse or modulate how racism occurs in the USA.
I'm amazed how bigotry against Muslims and Arabs has become so 'accepted' in today's America. My 6 year old kids get called terrorists at school and nobody bats an eye. Imagine if Black or Jewish or Asian kids were called bigoted adjectives at schools, there would be a public outcry, but it's ok, they're just A-rabs, and people, including the potential next president, are playing that dirty game.
It's sickening and it's simply emotional terrorism.
Nice social justice warfare you've got here, accusing me of bigotry for not believing the usual journalistic gospel blindly. I'm certainly implying that reporters often don't tell their audience all the facts to push a specific narrative. Were you in the plane ? me neither so I'm skeptical and just choose not to blindly follow the "muslim thrown out of a plane because muh islamophobia" narrative. The article is one sided, that's not news that activism.
If i'm a bigot then you're the most gullible person on this planet.
Not sure if anyone did anything wrong other than mishearing. A passenger thinks she hears someone sign off of a conversation with "martyr" and reports it. Given that information he's thrown off the plane which is also reasonable.
The guy who got kicked off also did nothing wrong. He was just talking to his uncle.
I suspect the same thing would happen to anyone regardless of race or nationality should the words Allah and martyr be uttered in close succession on a plane.
So no. Many people did lots of things wrong that day. The passenger who obviously doesn't know arabic mishears a word and reports him out of prejudice. The staff who took the complaint seriously because of his race. The security and FBI who harassed him for a long time as a result.
Do you really think a white man uttering Allah (where that's the only word heard by another passenger) would be subjected to the same treatment? And also, even if the man WAS a terrorist, do you really think he would go on the phone and talk about his terrorist plots in the open? Even if this guy said "martyr", that still does not warrant the treatment he received. Just like if Bob actually said "suicide," literally it's just a word that's sometimes used in a bad context. He wasn't misheard as saying "I will blow up this plane." So it took many layers of prejudice for this to happen.
Southwest should have also removed the reporting woman from the plane so the victim could face his accuser, and also to reduce frivolous complaints. If she really thinks he was a t'rist, she should be wanting to get off that plane regardless.
It seems reasonable, and incentive-aligning, for both of them to be removed from the plane.
So a ban on saying the word "Allah" is basically a ban on speaking any normal variant of Arabic.
"inshallah" (God willing): Hopefully
"al-hamdu lillah" (praise the Lord!): Fortunately
"wallah" (oh God, wow): I swear, I promise
etc.
What if the guy was actually a terrorist? Would you praise that woman because she was the one alarming the police?
Instead of judging the woman, put yourself in her position - she panicked and reacted, if you had a child near you - would you have done the same?
Don't generalize too early - this is an isolated case.
Security takes that very seriously, so of course they get everyone off the plane. You, along with every other passenger, are separately questioned about your activities, politics, and religious beliefs. Your carry on and checked luggage are both searched carefully. Your kid is interrogated to make sure that you're not lying about being their guardian, and that your stories add up.
Of course, they find nothing. There are no terrorists on the plane (although a couple of teenagers are arrested for failing a breathalyzer test). But out of an abundance of caution, the airline elects to cancel the flight, and bar you all from further travel with them for 24 hours. You're refunded your original ticket price, of course, with no hard feelings!
Does that still seem like a reasonable response to you? Or is it only when you're not subject to it that draconian security measures are an appropriate way to deal with a ludicrous imagined threat?
I'm Serbian and I do not have a green card. I speak "buga, buga" language as my team mates call it. I look bulky since I do sports and weight lifting plus I have a shaved head and I have a beard. Typical criminal type looking. For the past six years I have been on an F-1 visa. Numerous times was my passport taken longer to "process", my I-20 and my emails taken longer to read. I was 10 finger printed every time, you know, just in case. I had to retake photos all the time. I am still looked down upon because my passport is not from the EU, but I'm European. People do not hear my accent.
Once my I-20 was not signed by my school - I was taken to a separate room - interrogated for 45 minutes and then they finally called the school and the school verified.
Once I took my shaker bottle and my protein with me in a carry on. I was moved aside to a separate room, interrogated for 20 minutes as they were running some kind of tests to the powder.
In London I was denied a visa for a 24 hour stay, when British Airways was on strike so I have spent the Christmas Eve with a security officer at the airport.
Have I ever called that racism/nationalism or whatever? No, not really. Police are there to protect you and are there to protect your interest.
9/10 times the police is wrong, but what about that 1/10 times when they're right? People just assume that cops will figure it out - they still have to do their jobs.
EDIT: For the people that forgot - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
PS Oh man the downvotes, gotta love HN.
That's clearly absurd. But it became absurd well before then. If we are willing to grit our teeth and do the math, almost any cost is too high to prevent the statistical non-event of a fatal terrorist attack.
In my country, good, innocent people, people with families and careers and dreams for the future, die every single day in senseless traffic accidents that could have been avoided if our incredibly safe public transportation were a little bit cheaper, or just a little less stressful. Every day, someone's son or daughter or mother or fiancee doesn't come home, ever again, because... "Anyone could be a terrorist."
Sorry, I'm not buying any of this "that one time out of ten" bullshit. If the security forces are indeed tasked with helping us to feel safe, they are doing an admirably shit job of it.
Now if you were Bosnian, they'd care more :)
https://www.southwest.com/assets/pdfs/corporate-commitments/...
Which of course doesn't mean those assertions are legally valid, but that's the contract.