1. Plaintiff received $25K (directed to ACLU legal and subject to tax)
2. Philadelphia PD must communicate the following for a period of months:
"Investigative detentions may be made only on reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct and any arrest must be based on probable cause. A referral by TSA agents is not grounds for arrest unless an officer makes a judgment ofprobable cause; similarly, referral by TSA agents is not grounds for detention unless an officer makes a judgment that there is reasonable suspicion ofcriminal conduct. Any detentions or arrests should be documented on appropriate police paperwork consistent with PPD Directives."
3. No admission of wrong doing or error on anyone's behalf
Seems like a lame outcome. If there is no admission or finding of wrong doing it really feels like there was no accountability whatsoever. The $25k is a rounding error and looks more like a token payment than anything else. They don't even have to make that paragraph part of their permanent police training.
edit: How did they manage to drag this out for 5 years and still not have an actual judge or jury rule on this.
Reading through the history of the case[1], it looks like the District Court ruled that the Federal TSA officers involved were entitled to qualified immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The reasoning was that the TSA followed appropriated procedures and wasn't responsible for the longer (few hour) detention by the Philly Police. In my opinion, that seems reasonable. The TSA only detained him for 15-30 mins to question him about the cards, then turned him over the the state police.
After that ruling, the parties settled. I'm not sure why the case wasn't pursued further against the Philly Police. It could be that the case wasn't likely to succeed under Pennsylvania law, or maybe the ACLU wasn't interested in continuing to pursue it, since a Pennsylvania precedent wouldn't be a "worthwhile" expenditure of ACLU resources.
...the TSA... wasn't responsible for the longer (few hour) detention by the Philly Police.
This rings true to me. The TSA in general does not want people in custody. They know themselves that most of what they do is bullshit, so what would be the point? When I was delayed by TSA, they were eager to turn me over to LVPD, who, after a short conversation about the best way to deal with TSA bureaucracy and escape with minimal fines, told me, "if you run you can still catch your plane". Which I did.
Author of TFA had the misfortune to deal with local police just as stupid as TSA, but without the built-in CYA aversion to arrests.
The TSA "officers" do not have arrest power and are forbidden by policy from using force (to perhaps perform a citizens arrest if allowed in state for a state law violation), so they really don't have the ability to take anyone into "custody", hence calling for local police.
The reason why they don't have arrest powers is because splitting up the particular duties involved in infringing liberties makes it impossible to pin it on anyone. The TSA can blame it on the locals, the locals can blame it on the TSA, and 9 times out of 10 they don't even need to find a patsy for a scapegoat.
(IANAL) The thing is the ACLU only has leverage against the Federal gov't if they pursue a settlement - the federal gov't doesn't want to see the agents deposed. Even if they have immunity, it'd make them look bad. If this went to trial, that leverage would be gone. So, the settlement deal gets them point 2 on that list, instead of just (potentially more) money.
If there is no admission or finding of wrong doing it really feels like there was no accountability whatsoever.
Accountability for what, exactly? He wasn't arrested. He was detained. Police have wide latitude to detain people that are suspicious. I think any objective human being would say that a second look at him was warranted with those items in his bag. Whether he meant to or not, he pretty closely matched the profile of a radicalized US citizen.
BTW, the title of this article isn't even accurate - he wasn't arrested - but then I guess "I was detained for a few hours because I raised several red flags at the airport" probably wouldn't make it to the front page of HN.
Being put in handcuffs and kept in a cell for several hours is not the same as being detained at a traffic stop to answer a few questions. And no, I don't think most objective human beings want to live in a police state where carrying arabic flash cards and a perfectly legal book is sufficient cause to be inconvenienced by the state in such a manner.
No, legally, they are not. Any time you are in the presence of a law enforcement official and you are not free to leave, your person has been seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. From a Constitutional viewpoint, both arrest and "detainment" are a seizure of the person, and legally indistinguishable from an individual rights standpoint.
Second, how are the TSA agents stopping people from leaving until local PD arrives, if not by making arrests? The moment of arrest is "determined by whether a reasonable person under the circumstances would believe he was not free to leave. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980)
There are stark legal differences between arrest and detention. TSA agents are authorized to detain, but not arrest, suspects. The bar for detention is lower, and detention may be performed by people other than sworn peace officers. Even private security officers - such as those at casinos in Nevada - are legally permitted to detain people for the purpose of notifying the police if they believe a felony has occurred on the property. NRS 171.1235
By contrast, an arrest may only be performed by a peace officer with probable cause to believe a crime has occurred. Detained suspects do not have to have their rights read to them, whereas they must be read to arrested individuals. Detained suspects are either arrested or released usually within hours, as was the case here.
Detention and arrest are vastly different things, both legally and practically, that are used for different purposes. The system worked here: he walked into an airport displaying many red flags. He was detained for a few hours, determined not to be a threat, and was released.
What were the many red flags? It looks to me like there was at most one: the flash cards. (And IMO zero, because the idea that having "bomb" written on a piece of paper makes someone suspicious is ludicrous.)
#3 is what really bothers me, and seems inexcusable.
I get it, liability is a bitch. But that's not a reason to refuse to admit guilt, that's the reason you shouldn't do the deed in the f*^king first place.
How are we going to grow and advance as a society when we can't even admit wrong-doing when there is sufficient evidence of a cockup? It's like trying to argue with Creationists.
I take responsibility for the mistakes I make, and I think a LOT less of people who do not.
Other notable facts: recent travel to middle east, flash cards included words like "terrorist", "explosion", "bomb", "to kidnap", etc., didn't follow basic screening process guaranteeing an elevated inspection (left large electronics in bag), had the cards in his pocket and handed directly to the TSA agent.
As soon as someone arrived who had the necessary pay-grade to release this guy, he was released. Sorry for missing your flight but I do expect TSA to flag me if I literally hand the agent a stack of cards with "bomb" and "terrorist" written on them.
It never occurred to Nick to put the cards away before going through security screening? Oblivious beyond belief.
> It never occurred to Nick to put the cards away before going through security screening? Oblivious beyond belief.
Obnoxious beyond belief. You're saying "he should know better and hide the perfectly legal thing that he was doing". In the same line of thought, if you're learning Arabic online without going through Tor, you're asking for it. Right?
EDIT: Found the source[1]. The full context is:
> The flashcards included every day words and phrases such as “day before yesterday,” “fat,” “thin,” “really,” “nice,” “sad,” “cheap,” “summer,” “pink,” and “friendly.” However, they also contained such words as:
“bomb,” “terrorist,” “explosion,” “attack,” “battle,” “kill,” “to target,” “to kidnap,” and “to wound.”
Doesn't sound like he handed the TSA agent 10 suspicious flashcards, which is the point you're making, but rather that these words are as relevant in a Middle-Eastern context as they are in an English context.
So, this guy is guilty of not censoring his flashcards pre-emptively. Yes, I see your PoV now.
Well, at least I think it's relevant to understand the full context of what happened. Remember, TSA's job is to spot outliers, oddities, and flag them for review. I have zero love for TSA, but I think they did their job here.
There were 80 cards total. At least 10 were bizarre words that would get you arrested if you handed to a bank teller.
Guilty of not censoring? No you missed my point entirely. I am suggesting that handing these cards directly to a TSA agent will get you red flagged. Does that really surprise you? Basically Nick did everything possible to be the absolutely weirdest guy TSA saw that month. If they don't flag this, what do they flag?
Even the alleged line of questioning by the TSA officer isn't even necessarily that bad depending on how you imagine it;
Agent: "You know who did 9/11?"
Nick: "Osama bin Laden."
Agent: "Do you know what language he spoke?"
Nick: "Arabic."
[Agent: rifling through flash cards saying "Bomb", "Terrorist", "To Kidnap",
incredulous look on her face... Shrugs looking a Nick]
Agent: "Do you see why these cards are suspicious?!"
Note the last sentence in the court documents does not start with "So". Anyway, no one in the entire case was arguing that TSA did anything wrong, just the police detention that followed.
Edit: Look, it's a really great headline, and just reading the ACLU post initially got my blood boiling. Then I read the first few pages of court documents and my opinion moderated quite a bit. So I thought the discussion would benefit from a more complete airing of the facts. Sorry if it doesn't fit the narrative!
> Remember, TSA's job is to spot outliers, oddities, and flag them for review. I have zero love for TSA, but I think they did their job here.
Society's job is to spot outliers and oddities and protect and support them from thoughtless bullying and cruelty; TSA's job is to support that by preventing violence in transportation.
> At least 10 were bizarre words that would get you arrested if you handed to a bank teller.
Come on. Half of these are basic vocabulary and the other half are contextually relevant. Grab a random newspaper; you'll likely find 90% of them somewhere.
"Contextually relevant!" That's a good one. :-) I took several years of [French] foreign language, never did I ever learn those vocab words. What a world we live in.
"Ou est les toilettes?"
"Un pain au chocolat et un cafe s'il vous plait."
...
"Est-ce une bombe dans votre sac à dos?"
It's a fantastic Onion-worthy title, but IMO Nick was inconvenienced for his lack of critical thinking skills on this one.
By comparison, a Brooklyn man gets $75k for being dragged out of his car and choked. [1]
It's true on a global scale, not just in the Arabic context. As you immerse yourself in a language, you're encouraged to follow newspapers/articles/tv/shows/etc. It is entirely unreasonable to censor your own learning process. Take this unfortunately common headline:
Death toll of Yemen anti-Houthi bomb blast rises to 49.[1]
Now censor your knowledge:
[? ?] of Yemen anti-Houthi [? ?] rises to 49.
Also, aren't we overlooking the fact that the TSA isn't the NSA/DHS? Did they guy have any things that could endanger the flight and his fellow passengers? Indisputably NOT. How is arresting him because of "suspicious literature" (a) acceptable and (b) within their jurisdiction? Report him to the NSA/DHS as an Arabic learner, if you like, and have them add it to his file, but arresting him? Isn't their job to make sure that he isn't sneaking [explodey things] onto airplanes?
To make a broader point: this is exactly what Schneier means by "security theater". If someone is a genuine threat, you can bet your ass he won't be carrying "suspicious" flashcards in airports. As they'd need to avoid suspicion/detention at all costs, every piece of their luggage/carryon would be scrutinized before they even got to the airport.
This hostility and pre-emptive guilt serves nothing except for ticking boxes in procedure reports and power trips.
In an era of relatively perfunctory airport security, Mohammed Atta's hand luggage (which was held up after being checked on a connecting flight) reportedly contained a letter outlining, in the abstract terms, what he was to do, his will, a flick knife and details on operating and navigating a Boeing 757...
The question is whether they'll make this mistake more frequently than innocent people will do this same thing. If it's not more frequent among criminals then it's not useful.
From the article: "Travelling by plane can be a long and grueling process under the best of circumstances. This makes it a good time for monotonous tasks, like trying to iron out some vocab for a language you're learning at college."
In other words: the flash cards are most useful to him in his carry-on so he can study while waiting for/during his flight. Putting them in his checked baggage (assuming he even checked a bag) would defeat the purpose.
Absurd. You could carry a language textbook in the carry-on baggage and use that. All these arguments depend on the (false) premise that one is helpless to do anything else in these circumstances, and that the inability to do this one particular thing on the flight is going to wreck your life. It's self-serving bullshit.
I don't care much for the TSA, but the fact is that an organization like that is always going to prioritize collective safety over the convenience of the individual. Thus, if you're a chemistry student, your might want to consider studying something other than explosive reactions on your next flight. If you're an engineering student you might want to consider studying something other than structural deficiencies in airframe design during your next flight. If you're a psychology student, you might want to consider studying something other than Stockholm syndrome and the interpersonal dynamics of hostage situations during your next flight.
The sad fact is that some people are inclined to jump to the worst possible conclusion and if the security screeners don't pick up on it, an overly imaginative/paranoid fellow passenger may do so and alert cabin staff to their suspicions, however ill-founded. People who are going to be crammed into a plane for hours on end, many of whom are nervous about flying to begin with, are simply not at their best, and if you're going to be sitting in close quarters with a bunch of strangers then maybe you should ask yourself 'would this weird people out?' in the interest of minimizing the potential hassle to yourself.
Case in point: I have a large reinforced equipment case that I often use on film shoots. It has huge bright yellow-and-block 'nuclear radiation' symbols on the main side panels. It's small enough to carry, large enough to carry my most important gear, and the striking graphics mean that a) it never gets lost/forgotten/mixed up with anything else when equipment is being moved around or loaded into trucks and b) anyone who doesn't know what it is leaves it the fuck alone, so I don't have to have eyes on it every second on the day on a busy film set where I have many other things to do. I've had it for years, I can pack and unpack it in the dark, and it's paid for itself many times over. I would go so far as to say it's part of my 'personal brand' - people remember from different jobs when they see the suitcase, it's a funny little icebreaker when I work with people the first time and so on.
Do I use it to transport my gear when I have to fly somewhere? No, because I'm not an idiot. When I need to fly I repack my stuff into a boring and rather inferior black ABS Pelican case, because a bright yellow box with radioactivity symbols on it is liable to give people the wrong impression. I'm OK with taking it on a train or something - I've had police officers ask me about it a few times but I'm always happy to open it and explain what is is, and it's never separated from me the way checked airline baggage is, so there's little potential for confusion. Under the first amendment I certainly have a right to use the sort of luggage I wan, and I know that there's no nefarious purpose or intent to disturb anyone when I carry the thing around. But I also realize that there's a potential for people to get the wrong impression if they encounter it in a different context, and that having people form the wrong impression in an airport would result in significant inconvenience, not least to myself. Accommodating the slightly irrational anxieties of people by leaving my 'radioactive' gear case at home is such a trivially small (and voluntary) abridgement of my rights to self-expression as to not matter. Life is too short for me to waste it sitting around trying to win arguments with security guards over my right to engage in attention-seeking display.
Nobody's suggesting that it should be a crime to trigger a metal detector whilst trying to board a flight with a checklist of words related to terrorism in one pocket and a book apparently accusing the US of being a "Rogue Nation" as further light reading material. They are suggesting it might be a sufficiently unusual set of circumstances to warrant waiting for a competent investigator to give the all clear.
As entirely explicable as his actions might have been, this guy did an awful lot more to inadvertently provoke suspicion than the several people per day detained for questioning for being in a particular area at a particular time, and possibly even the same colour as the perpetrator. A few of them undoubtedly suffer the inconvenience of missed flights and public embarrassment too, and/or encounter more objectionable behaviour from law enforcement than a overuse of handcuffs and amateurish-sounding line of questioning.
The actions of the police bear explaining, however, regardless of how suspicious they though the actions of the traveler were. IANAL, but as I understand it, if police handcuff him, he was being arrested, which means the police failed to read him his Miranda Rights and to charge him with any crime. If this is so, isn't that either a crime on the part of the police themselves or at the very least a serious administrative violation? The alternative is that he was being detained for questioning, but is it really usual or accepted to detain someone for a long a period of time and handcuff them for questioning? (seems 20 minutes is considered already fairly long for this sort of detention: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/arrests_and_... , though I can't verify the source ). The question here is under which law or authority can someone be hand-cuffed and deprived of their freedom - however briefly - just for having a bunch of cards with words and a book.
I mean, I am not kidding myself, the "threat of terrorism" has been used to justify far worse abuses, up to and including torture and extra-judicial prisons. But expected or not, this should be morally and legally indefensible.
Also, at a personal level, it makes me think that, should I decide to travel any time soon, my reference papers for work in computer systems' security, the book I am reading on the NSA/Snowden material and my textbook on introductory Chinese should all stay back home. Because "that sure looks like some suspicious literature right there, doesn't it?"
There were 80 cards total. At least 10 were bizarre words that would get you arrested if you handed to a bank teller.
Lucky he hadn't handed them a dictionary then. That has all the bad words.
By the way, given you seem to agree with the TSA that it is suspicious for a traveler to be learning certain words, how would you plan on reading the news in a foreign language without learning words like bomb and kidnap?
What I actually think is that the blog post left out some key details and slightly altered the "money quote" to make the story appear much more ridiculous than it really was. In reality after considering the totality of the evidence, this was a bizarre case which is way above the pay grade of the average TSA agent. They perform the smell test and this one reasonably doesn't pass.
To the point of another poster re "security theater" terrorists don't come with name cards. TSA is not supposed to just check you're not carrying any liquids. The agents need to be able to question people who trigger that gut feeling. The questioning should be professional, respectful, but curt and effective.
A guy going through airport security, recently in the middle east, not familiar with key aspects airport protocol (take out electronics, empty pockets), carrying cards with those words. Yeah, talk to him for a few minutes. I'd rather that than spending their time patting down kids and grannies.
Ideally get him through the full eval without even missing the flight. Don't handcuff a non-violent suspect, etc. The process here was imperfect but simply not as insane as the blog post made it out to be.
I, for one, am glad you took the time and put some more context to this whole situation. And frankly, I can't understand how anyone could argue with you right now, as it seems there is no disagreement. You merely pointed out other variables that the blog post didn't cover.
As for myself, I'd much rather support someone who provides all facts than conveniently leaves out stuff that could damage his cause.
What happened to him was bad and this extra details would not have made much of a difference. By leaving them out he gave them far more importance than they would have been before…
If one's goal in learning Arabic were to become an intelligence agent at the NSA, CIA,... (which are probably the largest employers of Arabic translators in the US) wouldn't this be the natural choice of vocabulary to be studying?
You are blaming the victim for having his rights violated. Thinking, "of course he shouldn't have had a flash card with the word 'bomb' on it, if you do that you'll have your rights violated" is blaming the wrong party, while accepting an unjust status quo.
There are certain things which will flag you for enhanced screening at airport security. Not following directions, for example. Nick didn't remove electronics from his carry-on which is what initially got him singled out ("behind the glass partition"). This happens all the time, completely mundane. Then during that screening they found his pockets were stuffed with paper with indistinguishable Arabic writing and English words like bomb, kidnap, etc.
So now Nick has failed to follow all the basic instructions (empty pockets, electronics out) and he's got a pocket full of What The Fuck.
If Nick pays any attention in the security line that day and follows simple instructions none of this happens.
As usual, his rights were not violated until the police showed up. Only at that moment do I concede anything wrong happened.
If you think about it, either TSA is a glorified toiletry inspector, or they are trying to use their brains to deduce who should be screened more thoroughly. If we ask them to use their brains, and given as a society we don't want our Elon Musks of the world as TSA agents, you tell these agents to look for certain flags and then tell them they must call for help. That's exactly what Jane Doe TSA agent did. Kudos to her for actually trying to make it more than security theater.
Make no mistake, when the agent calls for help assessing a cooperative passenger, the $25k cringeworthy thing to do is handcuff them and drag them away to sit in a cell for a few hours until help arrives.
We've all heard the stories of the guy who says sarcastically to TSA "well its not like I have a BOMB or anything?!" I see this similar to that.
It's not even "put the cards in checked bags" it's simply follow instructions to get through security, empty your pockets and put the cards into you carry-on.
His rights were violated. Just as everyone else's is, the second TSA searched him. TSA continued to violate his rights by searching him further, then threatened him. They also claimed he was terrorist and asked the police to arrest him.
Nothing justifies the illegal detention. People aren't saying that it was right for him to be illegally held. What they are saying is that he was not arrested for "learning Arabic", but for handing cards with the English words "bomb", "terrorist" etc to security screeners, who called the police who then illegally arrested him.
That's a different story to the one presented. It's still an unjustifiable arrest; he still deserves his compensation and the police must learn the lesson.
But why did the ACLU not mention the content of the flashcards?
Edit: I supplied a corrective upvote. I don't know why your reasonable question was downvoted.
>But why did the ACLU not mention the content of the flashcards?
Because:
>Nothing justifies the illegal detention
So the content of the flash cards is not relevant, but instead an attempt to justify his detention, to make the reader think the TSA made an honest mistake when, in fact, what they did was not an honest mistake.
The court documents claim that TSA arrest / detention was reasonable and he got his payout for the police arrest / detention. The documents state clearly that the TSA action was reasonable because of the content of the cards.
This headline - "I was arrested for learning Arabic" is almost dishonest.
EDIT: as I have said elsewhere in this thread I think that he should not have been arrested. I'm not agreeing with the way he was treated. This post is just stating what the court documents say, as I understand them.
> Sorry for missing your flight but I do expect TSA to flag me if I literally hand the agent a stack of cards with "bomb" and "terrorist" written on them.
They are just words, it is not OK to "flag" anyone for carrying that around. Next thing you know we'll be "flagged" for reading Rousseau (whose works were a major influence on Robespierre, a renown "terrorist") or Karl Marx, a guy whose works were appropriated by a lot of bad guys who killed a lot of people in the 20th century.
There can be nothing redeeiming about a philosophy that does not treat individuals as ends in themselves.
Such a philosophy will always lead to people and their lives/property being sacrified for "the common good," which means: for everybody and nobody.
Sure, there are different permutations of Marxism. Stalin and Mao may not have done it the way Marx would advocate, but it's still a permutation of Marxism. We see a different permutation of it in Britain and gaining ground in the US. We also saw it on Pol Pot's killing fields. I am not talking about Marxism as a specific political position; I am talking about Marxism as an underlying philosophy.
Finally, some one with additional details I was waiting to hear. If they hauled everyone learning Arabic off the false positive rate should be sky high. I wonder, just wonder, if this person was an "activist". You know, someone who tries to go positive on sufficient features of the detector to pass the threshold.
> if this person was an "activist". You know, someone who tries to go positive on sufficient features of the detector to pass the threshold.
This is a perfectly reasonable smoke test for civil liberties and there's no shame, crime, or dishonor in running it.
For those wondering more about this type of action, I suggest a study of the works of Ben Masel of Madison, Wisconsin, who passed away a few years ago. He was arguably a master.
> I wonder, just wonder, if this person was an "activist".
It's highly unlikely, since he had already studied Arabic at university and studied in Jordan. He clearly has a genuine interest in the language, including wanting to learn to read newspapers (which unfortunately feature words like "terrorists" and "kidnapping" in addition to the more mundane cards in his possession).
The false-positive rate is already sky high because the probability of any given person being a terrorist is extremely low, and because of Bayes' theorem that makes profiling generate a lot of false positives.
The details were not part of the reporting and it seems like many HN readers were not aware of the details until the links to the court document were posted.
What happened to him is clearly not acceptable, but the story is not "Learning Arabic got me arrested" but "handing a list of words including 'bomb' and 'terrorist' to a security screener got me arrested".
I'm not sure the Arabic is relevant - I suspect the NSA screener could not read the Arabic and could only read the English portion of the flashcards, and that he would have had similar results if the cards were in English and French.
They screen Arabs every day. They screen people who speak Arabic every day. Why haven't we heard about the illegal arrest of any of those people? Because those people don't use the English words "bomb" or "terrorist" or "murder" in front of security screeners.
I'm sure you'll find many other examples. They mostly don't get arrested, but they certainly suffer unjustifiable abuse. And keep in mind that the TSA can't arrest people, only hand them over to the local police.
Thank God Nick didn't bring a dictionary. If he did, he would most likely not only be detained in a small jail for several hours, but probably sent to a secret underground torture chamber to be water-boarded. After all, he must obviously be planning a massive-scale nuclear / chemical attack on the United States as "after looking through the thick tome, dangerous words like 'chemical', 'nuclear', 'oil', 'president', and 'United States' were all found listed therein."
Speaking of which, Merriam Webster confirmed for top international terrorist propaganda organization
"Five years ago, the Philadelphia police thought that carrying Arabic-language flashcards was enough to warrant the arrest of an innocent traveler." From a norwegian standpoint, where police are not allowed to wear guns, it's fascinating to see how the answer to security problems is more police, harder prison sentences and more violence. What about increasing happiness? In northern Ireland they eventually got rid of terrorism after they started realising that happy people are much less likely to become terrorists.
As an American who lives in Norway, I understand just how confusing this may be to you. The difference, I have come to believe after living here for a few years, stems from a different perspective on long- and short-term interests.
Americans are, in general, I think (please note this is my opinion and do not down vote me for making this observation) more likely to support solutions that appear to resolve the given issue in the most intuitive and seemingly fastest way. While the intention may be good, this rather simplistic view contradicts the reality that subtler, research-based and longer-view solutions are often the wiser choice. Examples of this include things like research into prison sentences and conditions and their relation to recidivism rates; or ideas about parental leave being better for businesses in the long term, despite the short term loss of productivity.
In this particular case, it is an issue of very short-term thinking from the police who do not realize that their draconian tactics, which seemingly are for the best interest of security today, are in fact more likely to engender civil unrest (or emigration, in my case, since I have no appetite for that) in the long run.
You're right about the desire for short term goals. However, only focusing on long term solutions is not a luxury the US has. It has made many enemies who are trying to actively harm US citizens. It does need better long term strategies to prevent future enemies, but it also needs to deal with the people that already believe their path to a wonderful afterlife is achieved via blowing themselves up in populated places.
Keep in mind the US is always going to be on someone's bad side as long as they assume the role of world watch dog. It's convenient for Norway to wash their hands of any messy killings, but they don't seem to care for the spread of ISIS either.
Norway has way too many similar cases, for such small country of only 5 million people. Barnevernet also puts artificial obstructions for adoption by biological relatives, such as grandparents.
As someone said, accused parents in such cases have less rights than Breivik.
I recall a diplomatic incident with India when they tried to take away custody of Indian citizen children from their parents and put them in foster care or something.
> As someone said, accused parents in such cases have less rights than Breivik.
Hang on a minute. Here in the US, my tax dollars support your children. WIC and Food Stamps and school lunch programs which come from my tax dollars ensure your infants and children do not starve in case something happens to you or your income. As a parent, you get to claim tax deductions which means more money out of my pocket to cover for the loss of tax revenue. As I see it, your children are not your property. The children belong to the community at large. They are my investment. If you are damaging our collective investment, I very much expect you to be relieved of your duties to take care of my investment.
> As I see it, your children are not your property. The children belong to the community at large.
There has been no country stupid enough to ever make such an outrageous claim, no matter how communist they were.
For starters: Children are not property at all, not their parents, nor society at large. They belong to themselves, they're independent and they are people just like adults, not cattle or objects. Second, parents are the primary agents responsible for their children and if at all possible parents should be the ones to raise their kids. Only in extremely rare cases should children be removed from their parents care, the main reasons are that this is the natural order of things, that parents tend to have their childrens best insterests at heart and that parents are by and far the best placed to relate to their children.
Last but not least: the number of violations per capita of the physical integrity of children placed in 'care' vastly exceeds that of those children living with their parents.
Well children certainly aren't independent in the US. They can't choose to smoke and drink. They also can't choose to stop attending school without pretty harsh punishments. They are effectively prisoners of society until they turn 18 (even though they still can't drink).
Children are primarily their parent's responsibility, however if their parents are not present or able, then the responsibility is that of all other capable adults. But they are not yours or anyone else's investment and they do not belong to anyone.
Wow, this is incredibly disgusting. To claim that children belong to the community is full-blown communalism, and the end of individual rights. This is one fine distinction away from claiming that we are all property of the State.
Parents have an obligation to protect their children, and you are attacking that.
Taxation is not an "investment" and does not confer rights. It is non-contractual; it is merely force; it is not entered into voluntarily. You cannot start any valid argument with "Taxation, therefore..." If you don't like paying for WIC and Food Stamps, advocate against those taxes.
I absolutely don't mind safety nets. I don't want people to starve and die. What I detest are tax breaks for having kids or deductions. It is disgusting.
Parents have right for due process, right to raise their own children and so on. Children also have some rights, those might colide wiuth rights of parents in some cases.
Problem is that in Norway parents have ZERO rights. Norway have not signed relevant EU treaties for Child Protection. Once children is taken by social servies, there is were little chance for return. SS than bullies parents, forces them to divorce, not even allowed to seek help.
To put it in US context: Imagine Alabama would start abducting children of people who just moved in, because their parenting is not religous enough. All perfectly legal with zero chance to get children back (or sometimes even see them ever again).
> Problem is that in Norway parents have ZERO rights.
This is obviously not true. Norway has laws that safeguard both parents and children, and is in the process of ratifying the relevant Hague convention.
Bear in mind that when you read or hear about these seemingly horrifying stories, you only hear one side of the story. This is due to very strict privacy laws protecting all parties.
Well everything. Barnevernet cannot comment due to privacy laws.
So you get the stories about the "unfortunate parents" that do not understand why their child(ren) were taken away. The reality is that you never hear about the abuse or neglect in these cases... and that is the truly horrifying part.
Says who? Why, precisely? Where is this right enumerated and what is its basis?
> Imagine Alabama would start abducting children of people who just moved in, because their parenting is not religous enough.
But the issue with this is religious discrimination and a lack of separation between church and state. The wrongness of this has nothing to do with parental rights.
> Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,
> Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,
And Article 5
> States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.
There are reasons why states can intervene in family life. But those interventions need to be in the child's best interest; and they need to be proportionate.
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Yeah, none of that reads to me as "parents have the right to raise their own children". It can certainly be construed that way when convenient for people who want to keep a leash on their kids, but if you actually read all of those qualifiers, it's actually saying the exact opposite.
Who determines the "appropriate direction and guidance"? What is a "family environment"? When is "interference" arbitrary? As an example, if local custom dictates beating a child mercilessly every other month for absolutely no reason but tradition, that's a good reason for intervention, to me. I don't care about local custom in such a case.
(Also, holy shit, you think honor and reputation are sacrosanct according to the UDHR? I just lost a ton of respect for that document if your reading is correct. Goodbye, journalism.)
Among many other things, reform of the police with firm commitment to even-handed policing. De-escalating the police and military response to fears of terrorism. Involving the Catholic/republican community in the political process.
It wasn't specific to just the north. Ireland slashed the corporate tax rate, set up a global tax evasion hub, and lured thousands of very large companies to their shores, drastically boosting employment and skill development, which took their per capita income from half of Britain's to greater than Britain's in ~20 years. That significantly reduced the number of disgruntled persons, reducing the supply of terrorist-willing types and reducing the native support for such behavior.
Don't forget the buckets of money "from the EU" (i.e. The UK). And the British jobs lured there by the artificially low taxes. Like Scotland, Ireland plays the victim card very well to extort money from the English.
Oh what's that, some country has lower taxes and out-competes your country in the marketplace? How dare they lure businesses by making their country more business-friendly!
> Britain has given a back-door bailout worth around £10 billion to the Republic of Ireland in an arrangement that was never explicitly approved by Parliament, it can be revealed.
How alarming! Aaand in the very next sentence:
> The money has been pumped into Ulster Bank, a subsidiary of the state-owned Royal Bank of Scotland which was rescued by a public cash injection of £45 billion five years ago.
Somehow your glorious Times seems to have confused the Republic of Ireland with RBS's subsidiary Ulster Bank.
An analogy should not be necessary. The difference between a country and a subsidiary of one our own country's banks should be quite obvious to you.
I've been accused of many thing in my time, but never of favouring government intervention...
However you slice it, Ireland was enjoying a quality of life that could not be sustained, paying for it with EU subsidies, which enabled them to charge less tax than running their state really cost, which they used to lure jobs from the UK. Then when the money ran out, those jobs went to Poland or other lower-cost locations, and they went cap in hand begging to England for more money.
I think it's fair to say that in recent times "Ireland was enjoying a quality of life that could not be sustained" but the explanation you offered is incorrect. In reality it was based on a property bubble and cheap investment capital due to artificially low interest rates engineered by the chief eurocrats. Go back a little further and the explanation for increasing employment in the 90s is based on having a young, well educated and underemployed population just as globalization was really kicking off.
Ireland joined the EU in 1973. If "subsidies" and "job luring" are the explanation, I'd have expected to see more progress way back then.
I'm not sure where you're going with your arguments that it was all based on "EU subsidies" and "luring jobs", but since others may read this I wanted to correct the record.
edit: it is true that the UKlent money to the Republic of Ireland in order to bail out UK banks with massive exposure to the property bubble - a bubble created in large part by the reckless practices of those very same banks. That loan has to be paid back by Irish tax payers.
This is America (and specifically Philadelphia where the police is especially corrupt). The goal of police is not to stop terrorism or crime but simply to fill up the jails and create profit for themselves and others by reaching or passing their quotas and making high-profile arrests. And sometimes, ad demonstrated by recent NYPD events, they don't even do their jobs and still get paid.
Crime prevention and offender rehabilitation are not the goals of modern American policing and the modern American prison system respectively. Profit is.
This is a bit of the stretch. Philadelphia is a complex city with complex problems and its police department reflects this. It has plenty of problems but it also has a lot of cops who care.
Growing up in Philly, that was not the perception of the kids who got thrown into dumpsters during a police raid on a prom. This is anecdotal, but in one of the hotbeds of police/citizen conflict, I don't think it serves a purpose to try and pull the "there are always good ones" card. Yes, there are, but until the systemic problems are dealt with they aren't the ones having an impact.
This is absolutely a complete and utter tangent but you touched on something I've really been wondering about: Watching a lot of ken burns lately, heard him tell quite a few stories of German regular army officers going out of their way to protect enemy combatants/POWs from being killed/taken to death camps to the extent that there seemed to be quite the little power struggle from among the nazi ranks; naturally (but unfortunately) since it was an American documentary it wasn't the primary focus, but I'd love to hear of any german made documentaries that do justice to the "people" side of things from the non-american point of view. (maybe this is assumptive and rude but I figured a German on HN would be the best person to ask; hope it wasn't too out of place!)
I don't mind the question at all. But I'm not sure there are many German documentaries portraying German soldiers in WW2 in a positive light. There's a strong cultural fear of making Germans in the Third Reich appear too sympathetic, although I think this hinders properly understanding what got us into that situation in the first place (other than the "obvious" answer that Hitler and his nazi troupe mind controlled us and everybody suddenly became evil overnight) and how we can prevent similar things from happening in the future (aside from the "obvious" answer of censorship and knee-jerk overcompensation).
A lot of the stories I'm aware of are hearsay, but it's not exactly easy to get reliable accounts about this kind of thing. One example is that in Eastern Europe in the early stages of WW2 the Wehrmacht soldiers would allegedly often not care much for the orders regarding the jews (they were just regular soldiers after all, often ones that had been soldiers before the nazis came to power) and would initially often be greeted with sympathy because the locals thought they came to kick the Soviets out. But then the Wehrmacht would often soon be followed by the SS who would of course be far less friendly to the civilians.
As far as I can tell, things generally got progressively worse throughout WW2 as the older soldiers died out and were replaced by younger soldiers who had been raised under the nazi rule and were thus far more likely to just follow the orders and believe the ideology.
An extreme example of this is the last ditch attempt at the end of the war where they tried to raise a militia of what were essentially still children to protect the mostly defeated fatherland against the "invaders".
I think it helps to remember events like the Christmas truce in 1914 when thinking about WW2: yes, the nazis were far worse than any of the powers in the Great War before that, but initially a lot of the soldiers were simply German soldiers, not "nazi" soldiers. And even those that would eventually "earn" that label would often do so for far more complex reasons than just being "evil demon soldiers".
For example, the idea of racial supremacy (which was popular in many other places than Germany at that time, btw) coupled with the economic changes caused by the seizure of Jewish properties, horrible as it was, meshed well with the less educated and less well-off segments of the population. If your life is in the gutter, it can be very uplifting to be told you're special because you're part of the master race. Especially if that is combined with a clear enemy (the treacherous Jews sabotaged the wealth you deserve) and what at that moment superficially seemed like a change for the better (look up the opinions of other European leaders about Hitler in the years before WW2 if you find the time -- it's pretty disconcerting).
Basically, Hollywood tropes aside, I doubt that there were as many hardcore nazis as you'd think. There were a lot of war crimes and a lot of crimes against humanity, of course, and the Holocaust is one of the worst things that happened in the last century, but I don't think you need to be a truly evil person to do unspeakable things -- and IMO that's the real lesson here.
As a German I'm anxious about the direction the US (in particular) is heading, not because I worry they could become Hollywood-style "evil" but because it's so easy to end up in a situation where you don't even realise what you're contributing to until sufficient time has passed. I'm certain most people who ended up contributing to the horrors of the Third Reich had no idea what they were doing even if from the perspective of today you'd think it must have been crystal clear to them at the time.
Thank you for such a complete and well written answer.
Your last two paragraphs really touched on the heart of my curiosity, since the aformentioned documentaries I saw did convey what you described about "normal soldiers", their experiences and the changes their society underwent is as you say a critical piece of understanding how to avoid it, one which we're taught very little about (at least in my American education.)
Either they are outnumbered enough to not be able to make a difference, or they're in the majority and thus complicit in those immoral acts because they allow the minority (of "bad" cops) to go by unpunished.
Which one is it? Is there something else at play that's preventing the majority (of "good" cops) from fixing the problem?
I start with the assumption that "All Cops Are Bastards." It may be prejudicial, but it makes me think before I do anything that anyone could mistake for criminal activity.
If this makes the "cops who care" uncomfortable, they should put the blame squarely on the "cops who don't care" not on me.
This sort of assumption is prejudicial, but it's the sort of cynicism that leads to erring on the side of caution and making sure your rights are respected. You can't trust most people, cops are no exception. In that regard, it might be viewed as pragmatic.
I am sorry you're getting downvoted but this is absolutely right. Remember to never talk to the police. This sounds a little sarcastic but I promise you that it is not. Never, ever "help" the police, even if you are not a suspect.
What you describe is doing everything you can in order to try to avoid a situation in which you might be required to flex your rights. How can you describe it as a strategy for "making sure your rights are respected"? It is on its face an attempt to make the question of whether you have rights or not a no-impact detail.
> What you describe is doing everything you can in order to try to avoid a situation in which you might be required to flex your rights.
I like to think of it as maintaining a preemptive strategy. I don't like this, but the world we live in is unfair and full of assholes who don't play by their own rules.
> How can you describe it as a strategy for "making sure your rights are respected"?
A man who faces no wars carries no battle scars.
> It is on its face an attempt to make the question of whether you have rights or not a no-impact detail.
It's a sad day when advice to be pragmatic is downvoted. Sure, I shouldn't have to be extra careful when talking to police officers because they should have a duty to protect innocent citizens. But I only get one life, so I'm going to to, just as I'm going to watch for people running red lights when crossing the street and staying in safe, lit areas when walking home alone at night.
I don't know that it's worthwhile to compare small countries with ethnically homogenous populations, homogenous communities, different social values, and citizens with reduced access to weaponry to a large, ethnically diverse nation, with diverse and segregated communities, with different social values and history, and citizens with greater access to firearms.
> I don't know that it's worthwhile to compare small countries with ethnically homogenous populations, homogenous communities, different social values, and citizens with reduced access to weaponry to a large, ethnically diverse nation, with diverse and segregated communities, with different social values and history, and citizens with greater access to firearms.
Your total lack of knowledge about Northern Ireland is showing. Try walking down the Falls Road or Shankill in Belfast, and see if you see a homogenous community (for bonus points, go into any bar in the area flying either a Irish or UK flag proudly, and see if you find much agreement about segregation or firearms). I had a friend in school in Ireland whose family moved from Belfast (in late 1990s!) because he and his brothers were badly beaten for being Catholic. But I'm sure that was a mistake, as they were an ethnically homogenous population.
thomasfl's comment did point out Northern Ireland, whose communities were so segregated there's a mini Berlin wall in part of the city ("Peace Line"), and where there's plenty of firearms and also high explosives.
Disarmament was a critical and controversial part of the peace process.
Actually there are several peace walls in Belfast; and also there are more now than there were during the '70s / '80s.
Also, there are parties on both sides of the divide who are still armed; it's just the largest and most politically engaged groups who are no longer armed.
After reading your comment and it's parent I had this thought:
Whereas the case for firearm ownership in the US is ostensibly to call to arms a militia to overthrow a tyrannical government, what has actually happened is the populace are too busy shooting each other to realise tyranny.
Although, I think, to believe what I just wrote requires a bunch of biases and leaps of faith with regard to rates of violence governmental tyranny. I'm reading Steven Pinker's 'The Better Angels of Our Nature', which is doing a good job of highlighting that, even in the US, violence has decreased over time.
What I think you mean to say is "populations that are treated with equal discretion and respect by police, and, when they are very young, by school discipline."
I grew up in Oman, and my Indian passport is issued from there. It's mentioned as a place of issue, but most TSA offices have never heard of "Oman." However, I have a few entry/exit stamps from Oman (where my parents live), which obviously involves some Arabic. When traveling in the US, if these pages get seen, I'm pulled for special screening and emptying out my baggage.
Back in college I sometimes rushed to the airport straight after finals week and packing my dorm room, so I may not have shaved a couple days, and I was almost guaranteed to have to deal with an extra hour of special checking (which I would probably have to have dealt with anyway, so it was more important to reach the airport early than to shave). They'd make me go get my checked luggage and empty every suitcase and identify every item there and I'd have to pack it all back again. At least the random stuff they'd confiscate like pickled lemons from my mom would create extra space in my bag making it a bit easier to pack in a hurry.
I've never actually been detained or questioned or made to miss a flight because of this, but I think that's just dumb luck and not because the process is just or reasonable. It's one thing I do not miss at all since leaving the states, airport security in America.
> "Do you know who did 9/11?" Taken totally aback, I answered: "Osama Bin Laden." Then she asked me if I knew what language Osama Bin Laden spoke. "Arabic," I replied. "So do you see why these cards are suspicious?" she finished.
As horrific as the situation, I think we can all enjoy the humorous nature of the conversation above. Lack of shame and intelligence is surreal.
That could make some sense if that exchange happened in Karachi, for example, and his flash cards had the words fertilizer, kerosene, explosion, supremacy, etc. It could, not that it does.
"Do you know who did 9/11? Osama Bin Laden! And did you know that Osama Bin Laden had shoes? So you see why your shoes are suspicious and we have to arrest you?"
"It is cheap, basic and widely available around the world. Yet the Casio F-91W digital watch was declared to be "the sign of al-Qaida" and a contributing factor to continued detention of prisoners by the analysts stationed at Guantánamo Bay.
Briefing documents used to train staff in assessing the threat level of new detainees advise that possession of the F-91W – available online for as little as £4 – suggests the wearer has been trained in bomb making by al-Qaida in Afghanistan."
Heh, I had the same watch as a child and many of my friends did too. I don't think it's a sign of al-Qaida or any other particular group. These watches just were (probably still are) very popular in developing nations because they are cheap and trustworthy (unlike Chinese counterparts of the same price range).
The lack of intelligence displayed here is a big reason why I don't place much of the blame on the TSA agent or police officer. There is something deeper that is the actual root cause of this behavior.
Between this glaring infringement of First Amendment, and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the push to lock up the borders preventing easy egress from the US[1], it's really starting to feel like the United States is the world's largest prison. Sure, we (mostly) have freedom of movement and rights within the borders, but try to leave or come in and you end up harassed and detained for no reason.
I majored in Arabic. I have a chip on my shoulder. I live in the Arab world, and have stickers from many countries in the Arab world, and Iran, AND China (lived there teaching with a family for a year).
Beyond being asked what I do for work in my country residence. I have never been harassed. I expected the opposite and joke about it often. I carry novels in Arabic, and used to carry learning materials for Persian/Farsi.
I have not been stopped once. Whether or not you helped, thanks to this guy for making this effort.
Great of the ACLU to post the actual court orders and opinions that would otherwise locked behind a rent-seeking government contractors "portal".
Here is why we can't have nice things:
We caution, however, that the detention at the hands of
these TSA Officials is at the outer boundary of the Fourth
Amendment. Once TSA Officials were satisfied that George
was not armed or carrying explosives, much of the concern
that justified his detention dissipated. However, it did not
totally vanish or suggest that further inquiry was not
warranted. Suspicion remained, and that suspicion was
objectively reasonable given the realities and perils of air
passenger safety. The TSA Officials still were confronted
with an individual who was carrying Arabic-English
flashcards bearing such words as: “bomb,” “terrorist,” “to
kill,” etc. In a world where air passenger safety must contend
with such nuanced threats as attempts to convert underwear
into bombs and shoes into incendiary devices, we think that
the brief detention that followed the initial administrative
search of George was reasonable.
It's basically pages upon pages of personal opinions and value judgements. At the end of the day, the law does nothing to protect you when the judge dealing with the government appeal is a right-wing nutjob that attaches no significance to constitutional freedoms.
I'm a bit worried about my trip to the US in the spring. I'm going to make a point of having a hair cut, not carrying any suspicious books, cultivate a super submissive nature against authority figures (of which I carry a well-deserved suspicion) and practive my TSA-smile.
Shouldn't have to be that way, but I really don't want to give any indication I am anything but White Bread.
Relax. Trust me, you'll do a lot better to not be Mr. Guy Smiley- that would be much more suspicious. Just put on your bored face and do as Romans do.
On the other hand, it would be humorous if you wore a shirt, pants, and underwear with the American Flag on them. It'd make the TSA look extra ridiculous during a strip search, so make that Option B.
- I told the border guy I got paid via 'PayPal' and he had no idea what that was, they had to spend 20min Googling it
- My friends friend paid for our plane tickets, so they grilled us why we didnt buy our own
- I made a mistake on the customs claims sheet where I crossed something out and replaced it. Apparently they think this means you are trying to hide something and need to look through every piece of luggage, including possible hiding places in the luggage (that didnt turn out to exist).
There are countless reasons to get harassed. Hardly has to do with obvious security issues.
My solution is simple (if a bit of a cop out): I've decided not to visit the USA again until they retire the madness. If that means I'll never visit again then so be it. I used to go there several times per year and at some point the frustration over yet another confrontation with the 'first line of defense' boiled over into 'I don't actually have to be here' and I have spent my holiday money elsewhere ever since. It's got to add up over time, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person that made that decision.
Same, my clients always want me to travel to SF (entirely paid for and everything) but now I rarely do unless it is really important.
The biggest reason is the frequent harassment I have went through going there on numerous occasions, not just by US but also coming back into Canada. But this is very much a quiet protest, same with you I presume, I'm not an activist. The true cost of their security theater is largely unreported IMO. I'd expect there are countless people like us not contributing to the US business world or tourism thx to overly-aggressive security.
You don't need to do anything of the sort for customs and immigration officials in America to panic. They're a fidgety bunch, and your greatest mistake may be to have a 'Muslim' name.
This happened to my parents, surgeons in their late 50s who travelled together visiting family in the UK and Canada having no trouble. My dad (having a name that is pretty Christian) passed immigration at the Canada/US border just fine. My mum (having a name that is pretty Muslim) had her immigration official's computer stop working and she was detained for hours. They did let my dad join her, so I guess we should be thankful for that. They had exactly the same itinerary and were eventually released with no explanation.
So excuse me if I don't buy the idea that you have to antagonize people.
Like that woman who wanted to use the TSA's approved screening process for her pumped breast milk; who had a letter from the TSA explaining what that screening process was and that it was okay to screen breast milk using this process?
For a moment I thought the title was a Clojure joke.
Anyway, this must be the 10th article I read about the paranoid surveilance system at USA airports. So many bad experiences, it actually makes me fearful of coming to USA, but I'm sure that's the point they want to make.
What happens to your flight tickets in this situation? Do the airline give you a ticket to the next flight or do they just think you are too late for the current one and bad luck?
Regardless of what you think here, TSA is theater and is not effective, and not only does it not protect us, it actually threatens our dignity and rights. The problem is that the lower level employees don't realize their part in the theatre play ongoing.
The most baffling thing about this whole situation is that one would think that learning a language would be a very futile pursuit for a suicide bomber.
Don't talk about bombs in an airport. While the reaction from security staff is stupid you have to be a fucking idiot to think that hand-written flashcards with words like...
Must be a setup right? I've taken several years of French in college, never had a vocab set quite like that!
Another odd detail, TSA didn't randomly read a stack of paper in his carry-on. TFA says "handed cards to the agent" after being asked to empty pockets. How is a TSA lacky supposed to NOT alert a supervisor in that situation?
The only thing more ridiculous would be after handing the deck of flash cards directly to the agent is if the top cards were in the order "Bomb", "Touting", "Terrorist".
> I've taken several years of French in college, never had
> a vocab set quite like that!
I also did several years of French, and learned the phrases: "maladie de la vache folle" and "fièvre aphteuse". This allows you to place when I was learning French, because you could see when those were in the newspaper. If I was learning French now, I suspect I'd have a similar vocab set.
Don't you think it's more likely to want to have a conversation about terrorism with people that speak arabic, especially in the US where it must be a constant burden for the Arabs after 9/11? On a 80 words deck having 10 words related to a very relevant news and discussion topic strikes you as weird? You didn't learn how to say bomb, kill, kidnap etc after years of learning french?
I know a few people who speak Arabic as a first language.
Perhaps weirdly we don't chitchat about bombs and death and murder. We talk about the soccer and about the roadworks and about what they watched on telly and how their allotment-garden is doing.
Why, when you hear "Arabic", do you think a natural topic of concersation is "terrorism"?
Wow, what a disappointing response. Talking about bombs at the airport is not the same as having literature in your carry-on with the word "bomb" on it. The last novel I brought on a flight talked extensively about bombs, should I have tossed it in the garbage before going through security?
When people like you rationalize every individual curtailment on civil liberties without considering the bigger implications and precedents being set, that's how you wake up to discover you've completely lost freedoms that your parents took for granted.
And you go even further, talking about how citizens should have to consider how their actions are going to be perceived by low-paid, under-educated TSA agents, rather than giving a moment's pause to wonder why low-paid, under-educated TSA agents are handling security for our nation's airports.
Question nothing, blame the victim. Superb critical thinking.
Can you honestly not see the difference between having a book that has the word bomb in it and having a set of 80 hand-written cards with the words "bomb", “terrorist,” “explosion,” “attack,” “battle,” “kill,” “to target,” “to kidnap,” and “to wound" (among others) on them, and handing those cards to security agents?
Any reasonable person knows that those words will cause alarm in security agents. Why chose to handwrite those cards and then hand them over to those agents?
The ACLU articles all make it sound like Arabic language is the problem. But if he had French language flashcards with those words on he'd have got a similar result.
The ACLU does not mention the content of the flashcards in their articles. The ACLU has an illustration with words like "sun" and "dog". This is borderline deceptive. Arabic flashcards without words like "bomb" would have been fine. Any language flashcards with words like "bomb" would not have been fine.
> Question nothing, blame the victim. Superb critical thinking.
Interesting that you accept the ACLU story without question -it obviously appeals to your biases- and are affronted when someone presents the court case. Critical thinking indeed.
Not in carry-on. Passed a stack of cards directly to an agent. Almost comically stupid. TSA's job is to alert on oddities. A stack of cards with Arabic on one side and English words like "bomb" and "terrorist"... This takes the cake.
TSA alerts as they should, they are not qualified to do any more. The police should have called this guy an idiot and told him to get lost but it doesn't surprise me that it was beyond their pay grade and it took a few hours to call in a unit that could actual evaluate this guy.
Read Section I of the court doc and this is actually a reasonable edge-case [1]. Not to mention the recent travel to the middle east!
Is it your critical thinking that equates having a novel about a bomb in your carry-on with handing a stack of Arabic flash cards with "bomb", "to kidnap", and "kill" directly to a security agent? Because I'm not sure how you could possibly think those two are equivalent. Your actions do not happen in a vacuum, and it should be obvious why his actions would raise a red flag for TSA officers. The illegal arrest by the Philadelphia officers certainly wasn't justified, but the TSA officers' actions most definitely were.
It is fairly interesting that the rest of the people replying to you find it suspicious that somebody is carrying flash cards with the words "terrorist" and "bomb". They make no mention that there was no specific threat, and no bomb or other actually illegal possessions. There is no way you cannot criticize their faculties for judgement.
Technically I think he was never arrested. He was detained until the unit arrived to evaluate him. After that it took 30 minutes to release him with no charges. Part of the time he was handcuffed. The handcuffing was absolutely unnecessary but not sure if it's mandatory protocol when making the detention? $25k and a good story later I think Nick made out.
Edit: $25k went straight to the ACLU. I apologize, Nick did not "make out". @goodcanadian is right, he was arrested, but not charged.
As I just commented elsewhere, from a legal stand point, if they detain you for even a moment where you are not free to go, you have been arrested. For example, technically, a traffic stop is an arrest.
I wouldn't chalk it all off to "low-pay" and "little-training". Those things wouldn't necessarily be a problem, even if they were the cause, if adequate repercussions were in place for such behavior.
Everything else aside, how are we to expect them to behave accordingly and justly if we do not punish/reprimand them for doing the opposite?
I don't think that those two words
had anything to do with the situation! Sorry 'bout that!
And, in an important sense, the training was
right on target! Again, sorry 'bout that!
It's called CYA or cover your ass. Or, what would,
could it look like to a higher up who worried what
it could, would look like to a reporter and what
it would, could look like to someone who wanted to
make a big stink, create a gotcha that later
they might be able to use, etc.
Or, the poor, lowly TSA agent
had to think:
"My supervisor is under a lot of
pressure and has me under a lot of pressure.
If he hears that I didn't regard that
passenger as suspicious, then it could be
my job. Letting the passenger board the plane
had no good
upside for me and possibly a big downside.
Calling the cops had a big upside for me,
took the hot potato out of my hands, and
had no downside for me. So, dirt simple
decision: Call the cops, get rid of the
issue and threat to my job, and get back to
inspecting swag some 4 year old girl
got from her trip to Disneyland."
Or, it's
all a stage play, commonly called security
theater. The passengers have to play along,
look like middle America tourists to Disneyland,
a salesman going to a sales convention where
he will eat and drink too much, or other
cases of a common man in the streets. Or,
first rule of such a sick, paranoid social
situation -- don't stick out. Instead, fit in,
conform, go along with the crowd. Else will
need someone with a lot of authority, power,
rationality, integrity, etc. to bail out your
poor, suffering back side, and that can take
a long time.
Did the SCOTUS ever pass out such advice?
Likely not.
Is that what the US Constitution says? Nope.
Is there a gap between reality and formality?
Yup, wider than the Grand Canyon.
Or, to paraphrase a common statement:
"It's not good enough to be innocent.
You also have to look innocent."
Have to understand that TSA, police, etc.
can get away with total nonsense behavior
at least occasionally and can say
"My long experience has taught me that
he was suspicious" and get away with that.
Is such nonsense TSA, police behavior
fair, just, reasonable, constitutional,
objective,
etc.? Nope. Real? Yup. Do I like it?
Nope. Can I do anything about it? Not much.
What can someone do? Try to stay
out of airports. Try to stay out of neighborhoods
where the police like to beat up on people.
Fit in.
The training? The TSA agents and police
likely do understand such things. One of the
little social secrets in the US, call it
social intelligence or understanding of
Organizational Behavior 101,
is that the citizens
have to understand such things also.
Yup, my blood boils, too. But I haven't been
to an airport since 9/11, and I'm not
eager to go again.
I've been getting a kick out of watching the parent post go to -1 to +1 over and over again. seems like lots of people disagree whether or not the above comment was worth it.
I see some are saying that holding someone handcuffed in a cell for 5 hours is not an arrest but is only a brief detention, aka Terry Stop. This is unequivocally false. The situation described was an arrest.
> What, then, is a correct definition of arrest, for purposes of federal Constitutional law? An arrest is a seizure of a person in which the subject is 1) required to go elsewhere with police, or 2) deprived of his freedom of movement for more than a brief period of time, or 3) subjected to more force than is reasonably part of an investigative detention.
> So, if an officer has said or done things that would cause a reasonable person to believe that he was not free to leave or to decline the contact with the police and either the subject is required to leave and go elsewhere with police or a detention persists for more than a short while, or more force is used than is reasonable to simply restrain someone, then that person has been arrested.
A common misconception. Police try to make that distinction to avoid complaints, but the fact is that if they stop you for even a moment on the street to talk to you, from a legal point or view, you have been arrested. If you ask if you are free to go, and the answer is not an immediate, "yes," you have been arrested. There are clear rules about when they can do that and how long they can hold you without charge. He was definitely arrested. I'm a bit surprised that he did not win an unlawful confinement suit, but then I don't know all of the details.
The issue is whether you are free to leave. If a cop stops you on the street and asks you some questions, you are detained. If a cop puts hand cuffs on you, or puts you in the back of his car, or in a jail cell, you are arrested.
Of all the countries in the world, this is the one I am the most terrified of ever setting foot in. At least if I went to a place like Mogadishu, I may be at risk, but I know they don't have the resources to waste on finding out unknown knowns.
This is horrible, and the abuses of police and security personal in the US are egregious. In addition, US foreign policy as of late (late being the the last 150 years or so) is also pretty lame.
That said, I often suspect there is more to stories like this than is being told. More than the book and flashcards. A suspicious look. Furtive eye movement in the TSA line. A "look" that might be interpreted as capable of violence. And lastly, pissing someone with a gun and a badge off with an insolent attitude.
None of which makes what happened right of course. But maybe there is more to the story.
"He did not know how long she had been looking at him, but perhaps for as much as five minutes, and it was possible
that his features had not been perfectly under control. It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself--anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example)
was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: FACECRIME, it was called."
Yep. I think that's exactly the kind of thing they look for.
What I didn't realize was better stated above. 80 cards handed to TSA agent 10 of which contained "alarming" words in Arabic. I thought there was more to the story. Not justifying this arrest but really.... what does a reasonable person expect from cops and security agencies? Almost seems like deliberate antagonism rather than being innocently caught up.... but who knows.
Yet another story from american airport. It kind of reminds me soviet countries, where people would get prosecuted for speaking English.
On other side author was detained for 5 hours. That is practically rounding error in __ANY__ country. I would argue there are other causes, more worthy money and effort.
> On other side author was detained for 5 hours. That is practically rounding error in __ANY__ country.
As someone who was detained for about the same amount of time, under circumstances about as ridiculous as OP's, I take serious issue with this characterization of five hours' illegal detention as "practically a rounding error".
> I would argue there are other causes, more worthy money and effort.
Serious question: How many hours does a person have to be detained illegally in the United States for it to warrant money and effort from the ACLU? You appear to have a specific metric for when injustice warrants response and I'm afraid I'm going to have to take you to task about it.
Serious cases starts somewhere around 2 months. Around that time permanent damage starts to pile up.
I am not sure what exact laws are in US. But in most countries police has right to detain people up to 24 hours without a warrant. I think in that case it was 'illegal' because police officer forgot some paperwork or said something explicit on record. Easy shot for ACLU.
Are you serious? You can just be absent from your job for 2 months with no consequences? What country is this?
Here, being absent from 99.9% of jobs here for 2 months because you're in jail would result in getting fired, which is without doubt "permanent damage".
And once you've been incarcerated here in the US, your chances of getting a job become substantially harder. So this kind of event routinely cause permanent unemployment.
Even worse, 2 months in a US jail and you have a decent chance of getting raped. Is that serious enough for you?
The issue is that when you give the police an inch, they beat you to within that inch of your life. The system in place in most countries sounds horrifying when put into the context of the American policing system.
I understand where are you getting. But this is wrong battleground. Even most peace-full country, will have airport security with some sort of right to detain people. For example they could claim his passport is fake, and detain him until he proves his identity otherwise.
This case does not really solve anything. With more similar cases, parliament just passes new law: Airport has special security rule, is not US soil until you pass some checkpoint whatever.
Real solution is to go after causes where it really hurts. This guy got $5.000/hour. Now imagine someone who spend 7 months in jail at this rate.
Per hour in jail. Not including the time in the airport detention, the missed flight, the missed journey, and all the hours spent preparing and dealing with the legal case.
1. Plaintiff received $25K (directed to ACLU legal and subject to tax)
2. Philadelphia PD must communicate the following for a period of months:
"Investigative detentions may be made only on reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct and any arrest must be based on probable cause. A referral by TSA agents is not grounds for arrest unless an officer makes a judgment ofprobable cause; similarly, referral by TSA agents is not grounds for detention unless an officer makes a judgment that there is reasonable suspicion ofcriminal conduct. Any detentions or arrests should be documented on appropriate police paperwork consistent with PPD Directives."
3. No admission of wrong doing or error on anyone's behalf