Don't Fly During Ramadan 1233
An anonymous reader sends in a harrowing story from Aditya Mukerjee about his recent attempt to fly from New York to Los Angeles. After being pulled aside in the security line, he faced hours of interrogation by uncommunicative officials from several different agencies. When he was finally cleared, his airline, Jet Blue, wouldn't let him on the plane anyway. When he got home, he found evidence that it had been searched. He writes,
"It was 2:20PM by the time I was finally released from custody. My entire body was shaking uncontrollably, as if I were extremely cold, even though I wasn’t. I couldn’t identify the emotion I was feeling. Surprisingly, as far as I could tell, I was shaking out of neither fear nor anger - I felt neither of those emotions at the time. The shaking motion was entirely involuntary, and I couldn’t force my limbs to be still, no matter how hard I concentrated. In the end, JetBlue did refund my flight, but they cancelled my entire round-trip ticket. Because I had to rebook on another airline that same day, it ended up costing me about $700 more for the entire trip. .. But no matter how I’ve tried to rationalize this in the last week and a half, nothing can block out the memory of the chilling sensation I felt that first morning, lying on my air mattress, trying to forget the image of large, uniformed men invading the sanctuary of my home in my absence, wondering when they had done it, wondering why they had done it."
Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, America,
Are you proud of yourself yet? Proud of what you've become to yourself, your citizens and to the rest of the world? I can't imagine that this is what any of our founding fathers envisioned when they risked everything in order to found this country. And now look what you've made of it.
Ashamed,
A Disappointed Citizen
Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
It's called jihad.
When an entire religion declares that non-members are subhuman kafirs who deserve death, and the "moderate" members of that religion tacitly allow that, it's bad enough.
But it's even worse when that religion places the "holy" duty of jihad on all its members to go out and literally wage war against kafirs.
You reap what you sow.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm... (Score:0, Insightful)
What the fuck does TFA have to do with flying during Ramadan?
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called imperialism.
When an entire country declares that non-members are subhuman johnny-foreigners who deserve death, and the "moderate" citizens of that country tacitly allow that, it's bad enough.
But it's even worse when that country places the "holy" duty of detection of terrorism on all its citizens to go out and literally wage war against johnny foreigners.
You reap what you sow.
Re:Why? (Score:1, Insightful)
Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.
This forces us to re-evaluate the entire phrase of "McCarthyism" as the current (wrong) meaning implies falsehood. Please stop using this phrase, it is deprecated.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom to travel (Score:5, Insightful)
In any case, while the argument can be made he could have driven or taken the bus instead of flown, and so travel is not infringed, there are cases when air travel is the only viable option. Therefore the security theater that has popped up over the past decade can only be construed as an attack on our right to travel, and, along with the job creation program called military action and surveillance, transform us into a citizenry whose ability to grow and become education is much less that the previous generation.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually the flaw is yours. Did the fact that not all members of the Nazi party were fully committed to "the cause" make that group any less dangerous? No, it did not.
The religion of Islam has as its cause the conversion of all people to its faith, either willingly or by force. Conversion from Islam to another religion is the "crime" of apostasy and punishible by death. This group, as a whole, is dangerous. Just look at what is happening to christians in Egypt.
Perhaps some innocent Nazis were detained and searched too. Boo hoo.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The feeling he describes, from lost security and violation of personal rights by security officers, police and flight company -- it's terror.
Just because of a false positive, and because people don't know the difference between a Hindu/Indian and a Muslim/Pakistani, and are "too smart" to ask directly.
I wonder how many more false positives like this happen, with similarly Kafkaesque stories and no satisfactory conclusion (compensation for raiding the wrong home, anyone?).
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the the entire religion is based on the koran and states that all non-muslims are infidels i think his statement is accurate to within round off error.
On a less accurate note I have been led to believe that the crazies are the ones running most of the show while the sane ones don't have the intestinal fortitude to stop them. Kinda like our congress, so much crazy crap is going on and so little being done about it by the sane ones.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Actually the flaw is yours. Did the fact that not all members of the Nazi party were fully committed to "the cause" make that group any less dangerous? No, it did not."
But it did mean that we didn't prosecute all Nazis for war crimes just because they were Nazis.
Also, newsflash, many major religions support the cause of converting others or killing them. Including Christians and Jews. A clear majority of Muslims think that's an outdated concept just as much as Christians and Jews do too. It's just some relatively tiny sects that still support it (see Westboro Baptist Church).
Re:shaking (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the after-effects from a surge adrenalin was why he was shaking.
Admittedly, caused by the "fight or flight" reflex triggered by the fear engendered by the abusive of authority administered upon his person.
Its literally his body and muscles, all hyped up to run but having no escape, trembling as it releases all that energy and tension to return to normal functioning.
Remember when "fear of flying" used to be about the planes crashing?
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
You realize you're an idiot, right?
I can't stand the Westboro Baptist Church as much as anyone else. However, they are not strapping bombs to themselves and blowing things up. They have not sworn to destroy America. They simply have a warped mind and a big mouth. Muslim extremists do act violently on their extreme views.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
So he's guilty of the crime of "flying while Muslim"?
Oh wait... He's Hindu.
So he's guilty of the crime of "flying while having a name that someone thinks sounds Muslim."
Airport Security: Just when you think they've gone as low as they can go, they dig deep and go lower! Congrats TSA (and other agencies since home searching isn't something the TSA does) for continually coming in below our already lowered our expectations.
Re:Evidence? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think opening a newspaper recently, and following anything happening regarding the NSA, Snowden, Manning, Greenwald, etc. might provide you with some circumstantial evidence that would indicate that the scenario described is plausible. Hell, even if it isn't true, I'm angry that things have gotten to the point that I can believe it. Further, now that Clapper has gone in front Congress and been caught lying without repercussions, even a flat denial from officials doesn't cut it for me anymore. This is a problem for our now seemingly nominal democracy. I heard a great line from Ron Paul - I may misquote: "The truth becomes treason in an empire of lies". We're there.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:shaking (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism:
Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion.
Terrorist:
A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
So really, you, like Miranda last week, had a run in with terrorists and lived.
Re:Proud? (Score:2, Insightful)
Good appeal, but please tone down the idealistic stuff about the forefathers and such - it's a bit like quoting the bible. Gets attention, but is nowhere near infallible and therefore not suited for a proper argument. That's one of the other things that are wrong with America, too much hype about ideals that have long ceased to be relevant. You need to look forward, look to improvements, shape new ideals that are worth aiming for.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
I've Felt That Feeling (Score:5, Insightful)
I've felt that feeling to a much smaller degree when I found out that my identity was stolen and a credit card was opened in my name. We go about our lives confident that some things are safe. When we leave the house/apartment in the morning, we're confident that everything will be there when we get back. When we walk down the street, we're confident that our body won't be violated by some random stranger. When we go about our daily lives, we're confident that someone isn't - at that moment - opening lines of credit that will financially ruin us.
We're confident about all this because the alternative is living in terror of assaults from all angles at every second and there's no way a sane mind could deal with this.
So we convince ourselves that we (and our belongings, credit, loved ones, etc) are safe.
And then something like this happens which shatters our illusion of safety. Mine was a bit abstract (your credit score isn't exactly a physical entity) and was caught early so the impact wasn't as big. The author's impact was worse because his body safety illusion was shattered, his concept of having the freedom to move as he pleased was destroyed, and the safety of his personal effects was violated. Rape victims probably feel something similar. We don't really have a word that accurately describes it because it isn't a feeling we feel often enough.
Oh and if you think you don't have an illusion of safety because you've read stories like this and know it can happen - you're wrong. Even though you read the stories, part of your brain rationalizes away the terror of the situation as "things that happen to other people" and you maintain your internal safety illusion until something like this happens.
Re:Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, a huge percentage of Americans are actually quite proud of the version of the USA that exists in their heads. Just letting you know.
And elsewhere, people laugh hysterically when they hear an American blathering about the "freest country in the world".
Re:Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't compare a document crafted by a number of real people who had been-there-seen-that to a religious work widely regarded as ancient history of even fiction. Principles are the foundation of all good and effective constructs - they should never be abandoned.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think Al Qaida is bad, check out how many people Bush's wars have killed in the name of the American God...
Re:Proud To Be An American (Score:5, Insightful)
You're proud to be a bully? Go you!
Re: Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's an important point at all.
It doesn't matter if the guy was Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, Christian or Xenu him-fucking-self, this SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.
Re:Explosives Residue (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, just maybe some TSA bullie saw hindu clothes and some headgear and said let me fuck with this rag head, and pushed the little button that makes the machine light up regardless of whether residue is present.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Based on polling, between 10 and 20% of Muslims are "radicalized". That represents at least 200,000,000 people. They are following their scripture's teachings. Not surprisingly, there are Muslim terrorist attacks in the Middle East almost daily. Pakistan is particularly hard hit, and most victims of Muslim violence are other Muslims.
The "Christians" that you've mentioned there are not following the teachings in their scriptures, and they number in the hundreds total. They've killed a few people. On average, they've killed fewer people in the last 100 years than the Muslims kill in a day.
Which group should I be more worried about?
Re:Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one of the other things that are wrong with America, too much hype about ideals that have long ceased to be relevant.
This story shows just how relevant they still are and they are only going to get more and more relevant as our society descends into a police state in every way possible. This sort of thing is precisely why some of us dislike government in general and large governments in particular. Power corrupts. Always. And eventually you end up with a fascist tyranny like we currently have in the US. The ideals of people like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson have never been more relevant than they are today.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is useful as ever. McCarthy took the allegation "there are communist spies", expanded that to "all communists are spies" and finally conducted show trials to condemn more or less random people, all to boost his own career. This is, of course, entirely analogous to this story: "there are muslim terrorists" -> "all muslims are terrorists" -> "this guy might be a muslim! Break down his door!"
It's a tactic with a long and bloody pedigree. McCarthy was simply a less capable Hitler wannabe. And so are the current anti-muslim fearmongers.
Re: Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that the SUMMARY leaves out this very important point shows how bad the editors are.
I fail to see where the guy's religion comes into the picture. There is a difference between profiling and between hating Muslims. One is a security measure, the other is bigotry.
Oh, and I'm an Israeli jew. Half my good neighbours are Muslims. Of course, my country has an existential threat, not a power-hungry government, so our citizens are able to make this distinction.
Re:The sheer level of ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.
Wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. This is akin to creationism, Reagan winning the Cold War, and global warming as liberal myth.
Re:Just fuck the fucking Muzzies already (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a shame then, a case of mistaken identity. Unfortunately this sort of thing happens occasionally, but it is the Muzzes to blame not the authorities defending against them.
I generally don't presume to speak for others, but in this case I'll make an exception.
On behalf of everyone who isn't a bigoted moronic arsewipe, I'd just like to say to you: You are an oxygen thief.
Re:Don't fly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck you. Flying is a necessary part of a normal life. Just because you have decided you don't need it doesn't make it a luxury. People with family abroad, jobs that are in different cities, or maybe someone who wants to see parts of the world and expand their mind beyond their backyard.
The market-based solution of boycott isn't always the solution! Sometimes you need laws to protect minorities.
Re:Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is almost nobody questioning this account? (Score:5, Insightful)
An uncorroborated story, retold in amazing detail (he remembers almost everything said to him so clearly that he's comfortable using quotation marks for dialog), complete with a clever protagonist who's at the mercy of idiots (the Jet Blue agent who, despite working at one of the busiest airports in the US seems never to have encountered anyone who isn't a WASP, the TSA drones who think they're working in the Hotel California, the cops who can't read dates on an ID card and mistake venture capital with capitol one credit cards because, y'know, they're a bunch of blue-collar dummies. Luckily though, our protagonist is clever enough to be able to guess their source of confusion immediately). Then, the chilling conclusion, where he returns home to find almost everything exactly in place, except for the missing photograph. Why would whatever shadowy TLA actually take a photograph off the wall? If they were interested in what it showed, might it not just occur to them to, I dunno, take a picture of it themselves? Then there's the procedural inconsistencies...the NYPD officer can't even be present when he's patted down "because when we pat people down, it’s to lock them up." Really? NYC, the focus of the "Stop and Frisk" controversy actually has officers who believe they can't do a pat-down unless it's during an arrest? And going back to the uncorroborated nature of the story, he would have at least had some voicemails from himself during this ordeal, except once again the universe conspired against him and when he called his parents, "Unfortunately, my mom’s voicemail was full, and my dad had never even set his up".
I'm not going to go so far as to say that the blogger here is lying, but there's more than enough here to make me very skeptical.
Re:In the the land of he free (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Proud? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Proud? (Score:4, Insightful)
True Story (Score:5, Insightful)
A friend of mine set off the explosives detectors while trying to fly home for spring break. He hadn't been in contact with any cleaning products or fertilizers or anything like that, and he couldn't for the life of him figure out what the culprit could be.
In the end, it turned out it was his sweat-absorbing socks. I'm not a chemist, so I don't know precisely what it was in sweat that can set off their detectors (ammonia, maybe?), but for everyone's sake I hope TSA had some good hazmat disposal protocols for those things.
Of course, my friend is white, so no back-alley interrogation for him.
Re:just leave. (Score:2, Insightful)
"just leave" and your travel plans are destroyed.
There goes your entire vacation or even worse your job. Air Travel is not optional.
I'm sure he was hoping during this fiasco to get a later flight since TSA detained him, not late based on his actions. Once it is obvious you are getting on a flight At All it is too late to leave.
Re:Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
If your government is corrupt it is because the generally apathetic USA voters are quite happy with it that way. If they weren't happy they would stop voting in the same people.
In Canada the voters completely wipe out political parties that existed for generations if the politicians piss us off. There is no Social Credit in BC now, there is no Conservative party federally (well the PC is sort of their bastard offspring with the Reform party).
Stop voting for just the Republicans and Democrats. Put a stop to Gerrymandering. Put a stop to ear marks. Get better informed. Actually get off your butt and vote.
Re:completely crooked, biased summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Your contention is "He was just asking for it"? [wikipedia.org]
Make sure to mention that line of thinking if you get called to jury duty. I'm sure the victim doesn't want you on the jury any more than you want to be on the jury. Perhaps even more.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the penalty for apostasy in the Muslim religion?
The same one applied in the Christian and Jewish religions: death.
What? You thought either preached something different? No, they just don't put into practice. But that it's in the book all the same, it is.
How old was Muhammad's wife? How old must a person be to be wed under Islamic law? How old must that wife be to have sex?
Of legal age at the time. Of legal age under said law. :-)
What? You think our Western laws aren't arbitrary either? Try talking to someone from 3613 CE an see what he thinks of your morality and the laws you think of as just. Just as a matter of perspective I'll say this: a radical progressive of the 1920's would feel welcome among the extreme right wing of the GOP of today. Ditto for us all in 100 years, never mind in 1600.
We're all the cavemen of tomorrow.
Re:SPOILERS (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us have "garage" clothes and don't wear them out. You know, because we have some self-respect and class.
And so would any real terrorist, but they don't seem to consider that.
Re:In the the land of he free (Score:5, Insightful)
... and you cut off before the most important bit:
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in.”
Re:Don't fly period. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree about their randomness. I suspect that they mean random in the same sense as "random access memory". What the computer does with RAM is not random.
I got "randomly selected" for five legs of a six-leg trip once. Then I stopped flying if I could avoid it.
Just JetBlue (Score:2, Insightful)
Aside from the deprivation of water for an extended period of time (which was probably due to fear of him washing off residue, but still, it perhaps shouldn't have been for that long), I, anti-TSA and 9-11 truther, support these TSA and FBI actions for the most part (though I would have preferred they had been done by private businesses, such as the airlines and airport). Non-invasive chemical testing is precisely the sort of testing that should be done, rather than sexual molestation and virtual strip searching.
The only problem here is JetBlue a) denying him passage and b) compounding the problem by not rebooking him for the same fare. I support such actions in theory, under the First Amendment freedom of association, but if the guy's account is accurate, the public should know about JetBlue's policies.
Note: My personal support of First Amendment freedom of association is at odds with the Civil Rights Act, which I think should be abolished, except in the South. The guy may have a case of racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, but of course JetBlue would use the defense that they had the results of the objective chemical test.
Re:Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
All kidding aside I figure there must be very few actual terrorists of which 99.9999% don't reside within the US given how soft many targets are in the US. The few "real" ones out there seem to like to make videos and send them to foreign news outlets. These frequently feature the leader yammering about The Great Satan (tm) and have a couple of masked men behind him with AKs or rocket launchers. Given that these individuals are far off in some other country and couldn't get to the US the pose no real direct threat. They do however serve as great propaganda piece to allow the massive erosion of rights and expansion of government. So I guess they do pose a pretty good indirect threat to the citizenry of the US.
Re: Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit, I did around 26 countries (started to lose track) across 4 continents last year alone and the most invasive country I visited was Bosnia, the second most invasive country was the USA, all the others were amazing.
Sure America has freedoms to do some stuff you can't else where (like own an assault rifle) but if owning an assault rifle is actually the most important thing in the world to you, you're doing it wrong.
Note. Australian drinking laws are pretty shit
Re:Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have a very good point. Someone posts a scary story. Story is posted and people go ape shit about loss of freedoms, discrimination, etc. But how do we know its true? I am not dismissing it but look at the frenzy of replies where everyone read a story and did not stop to think "is this true"? Same thing happens on facebook where people share scary or touching stories with little proof of their truth.
Goes to show you the power the Internet can have to sway public opinion. We live in an age where people have mostly abandoned critical thinking and take things for face value. And the internet allows such false stories to spread like wildfire across the globe. In the old days such stories were old wives tales and were local to villages or towns. Reminds me of a story someone shared on facebook about a secret meeting between record execs and prison execs to make gangsta rap more popular so blacks would emulate the music and fill the prisons up to make the prison companies more money. The kicker was the storyteller was a supposed attendee of the meeting but was so afraid for his life that he refused to name any names (including his own) or locations. No proof whatsoever and hundreds of comments were posted from people who believed the story and expressed outrage and anger. Its really sad.
Re:Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't fly. (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't flown in 11 years, and I routinely encourage others not to. Not for personal, not for business. Not at all.
I routinely drive 200-500 mile round trips because I won't advocate a pat down or a naked picture. Not of my wife, my children, or even myself. It is an unacceptable term of flying.
Don't tell me that I'm not willing to inconvenience myself sir, I find it repugnant, and offensive - and I have put my money where my mouth is.
Re:SPOILERS (Score:2, Insightful)
The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger." They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.
This led to him getting an enhanced pat-down with an explosive swab test
Last time I flew to the US I had the privilege of being tested for explosives too. The test came back negative, which is why I didn't go through several hours of interrogation.
Sadly your paranoid prejudiced stupid theory falls apart: I'm not Indian.
Now this raises the question, is this how they treat anyone who they think is a Muslim? Explosive swab test and then run them through the wringer if it tests positive, complete with searching their home?
Explosive test comes up positive in an airport and you wonder why they react strongly? You truly are a fuckwit.
Re:completely crooked, biased summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit, he tested positive for chemicals which are also used in explosives. That doesn't warrant holding someone for longer than it takes to determine they don't have explosives on them or in their luggage. On top of that they then apparently went and searched his appartment, because he had chemical residues on his person.
I've worked in close proximity to military working dogs that did bomb sniffing. Their training is such that when in doubt they sit and indicate a chemical. I can't tell you how many times I saw the base I was at go into a temporary lockdown which they searched a truck more thoroughly because a dog sat down. It doesn't mean that it isn't a valid form of detection but that false positives are far more likely than you might think and should be handled in a professional manner.
Re:SPOILERS (Score:2, Insightful)
They surely get many false positives or positives for innocent reasons, yet they treated this guy like Bin Laden reincarnated for hours on end. If you RTFA'd you'd see that one of the agents even admitted the treatment was because of his "background." Is that clear-cut enough?
Re:Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say less than 30 years ago this was true. Now, not so much.
I was thinking the same thing. The country as it is today is, in my opinion, not much of something to be proud of.
Take a poll and you'll see what the majority thinks. Flags are all up and high all over!
Depends on the poll. When you start seeing polls about how "the majority of Americans xyz" where xyz is something controversial, it's to manipulate us into thinking we stand alone in the minority. The questions are asked several different ways until they get the numbers they want, and those numbers are then used to isolate and discourage the outraged.
Re:Proud? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, but the didn't start attacking the US until we got our military fully involved in defending our oil supplies. Even though they weren't ours.
Biggest user of said supply. It is an interest of the US. Yes, it's an interest of the companies that sell it, which is in turn an interest of the US govt for wealth and control.
That being said, this isn't new stuff here. The US did not have the creation rights to defending it's interests. It's been done by every nation/culture past and present. This is how it goes, someone/people have control over a resource and will defend it until it's no longer needed. The Egyptians did it. The Norse did it, the Chinese did it, the Russians did it, the French did it, Native American Tribes did it, and so on, and so forth. (note: Different resources (water, trade routes, land, buffalo herds, etc, but waging war over resources is not new)
I'm not justifying or defending it, however that has been the way of the world for thousands of years. And guess what, it will remain that way until someone figures out a better way.
Re:Proud? (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing the U.S. government does remarkably well is to enslave it's population to enrich it's owners. The federal government instituted slavery, committed the genocide of the American Indians, has continually waged wars of choice and aggression since the civil war, and is currently institutionalizing assassination, torture, and the grandest enslavement of the population since Mao. Worse than torture, death or robbery, it has subjected everyone on the planet to the inhuman degradation of submission to an evil tyrant. There is no possible rational balance between federal and state power in the U.S. Only the absolute annihilation of the federal power can salve humane conscience. Certain nation-states are just too evil to be allowed. North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, China and the U.S. top the list of nations which come to mind when recalling Orwell's vision of man's future: A hobnailed boot endlessly stomping on a human face. It is morally respectable to argue whether it should be destroyed by Ghandian tactics, assassination politics, or nuclear war, but there can be no respect for apologism or appeasement.
Re:Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is why states need to have a majority of the power. It essentially makes them 50 counties with unifying treaties. The closer the government is to the people, the more likely that those people are under a rule that they agree with.
Tell that to black people, circa 60+ years ago. Our federal system has done much to blunt or prevent the worst of tyranny of the majority over its lifetime.
Re:SPOILERS (Score:2, Insightful)
> and everything snowballed from there like some kind of comedy skit, where everything he did and said was
> interpreted as matching the profile of a terrorist.
They call it security THEATER for a reason. These people's jobs are best understood as acting jobs as part of a demented straight faced comedy troupe whose schtik is acting like they have no sense of humor at all.
Re:completely crooked, biased summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Under-trained and under-educated interrogators were not capable of either asking relevant questions or understanding his answers.
Interrogators resorted to low-level torture (not providing water after multiple hours).
Unconstitutional search of his apartment was conducted.
FTFY
Re:Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would venture to say that being put in an interrogation room for a few hours cuts into the flight-time advantage of flying.
As it is, driving a long distance vs flying sort of works out this way. If I want to visit Denver Colorado from my home here in Canada, I have a choice of travelling by car or flying.
If I drive, it's a good solid 10 - 11 hours of driving from where I live, with a moderate stop at the border to answer a couple of questions. I get to see the beauty of the country (Wyoming is particularly picturesque), and the cost in gas is pretty OK. I can stop wherever I want, eat whatever I want, make phone calls, etc. It's a very pleasant, if time consuming, way to travel. My trip back is generally just as pleasant. If I leave at a good early time in the morning, like say 4 am, I can be at my destination by 3 or 4pm that afternoon.
If I fly, I have to get to the airport a good hour and a half before my flight leaves, so that I can get in the line for check-in, and then in the line for security clearance. In the security line I have to do silly things like take off my shoes, belt, have someone poke through my carry-on to make sure I don't have large liquid containers or too much tooth-paste. At least on the Canadian side of things this is a polite and generally stress-free process.
Then for the flight itself I have to endure sitting for two and half to three hours in a big metal dong full of dead air and the sneezes and coughs of my fellow travellers. We eat some kind of awful snack thing and half of a beverage, and fsm help you if you need to use the washroom on the plane. Once you get to the other end of the journey, you have to walk at least 1-2 miles through the terminal to reach US customs, where you again have to stand in line to have someone very rude and surly check that you are good to be in the country. Then you hop the tram down to where your bags are, and negotiate the rental of a car, and then start the journey from the airport to the city proper. This adds at least another 2hours from getting off the plane to getting to where you were going to the journey. If the flight leaves at 10am, I can be at my destination by 2:30 or 3:00 pm.
In total, I've spent 6 hours to fly uncomfortably by air, get treated like a criminal, eaten terrible food, have seen nothing of the coutry's beauty, and paid more for the privilege of doing so. And I ended up at my destination only slightly ahead of when I arrive by driving.
Sure, driving took longer, but cost less, gave me more freedom, less hassle, and more of a sense of seeing new places. I'll take driving over the experience of flight anytime.
Re:Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's only one way to fix this, and that's to fight it, any and every way we can think of.
That's very noble and idealistic of you. Let's start a list of things that need to change.
1. The takeover of the Commission on Presidential Debates by the Democratic and Republican parties in 1988 needs to be reversed. No political party should have a say in who is and is not allowed to debate. That control should be restored to a non-political entity such as the League Of Women Voters, who had that responsibility before refusing to sanction the 1988 elections on the basis that the 2 parties would commit a fraud on American voters. This will make sure that more voices are heard and that people have more options to choose from. I'm sick of this red state vs blue state shit, I want to see yellow states, green states, purple states, whatever. We need more choices and more opinions to be heard.
2. The influence of money needs to be removed from government. I propose that all elected officials, political parties, or campaigns are barred from receiving anything of value from any lobbyist organization or any corporation. Individuals are allowed to donate whatever they want, and those donations should be made public so that the public can know who is influencing the elections. If an elected official receives anything of value from a lobbyist or corporation then they should be removed from office and the organization that donated should be fined proportionally to the value of the donation (e.g. 10 times the value). Lobbyists can still exist, but they need to lobby with words and not money or services or other gifts.
3. The notion of corporations as people needs to be explicitly disallowed. Corporations are not people. If corporations were people then we would call them people instead of corporations. Corporations as a whole are not allowed to donate to any political group. Donations must be made by individuals.
4. We need term limits for all members of congress. Members of congress are supposed to be private citizens that leave the private sector in order to serve the public, and once their service is over they return to the private sector. Congress should have a 4-term limit across both the House and Senate. You can serve 4 terms as a Representative, but then you are not eligible to be a Senator. You can serve 2 terms in each. Whatever the combination, once you serve 4 terms in congress you are done. The notion of a career politician needs to be eliminated. Politicians are there to serve the public, not themselves.
5. Elected representatives should be prohibited from participating in any stock market or speculative trading, with the possible exception of physical assets such as real estate (but not commodity futures). Again, politicians are there to serve the public, not to enrich themselves. Serving the public is a position of sacrifice, not a position of prestige. You're there because you want to make a difference, not stay there until you retire.
That's a pretty short list, maybe other people have more add. The problem starts with the legislative branch, real reform cannot happen unless the legislative branch is truly working for the people. So, how do you suggest that we fight in order to make these necessary reforms happen? It's pretty easy to post online about it, isn't it? But there's a problem when we have a federal government that asserts the right to kill anyone across the globe for reasons that are secret; that has the ability to spy on virtually anyone they want to spy on; and that can redefine the word "terrorist" at will to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. How are we going to overcome that when virtually the entire legislative branch wants things to stay more or less just as they are?
Not to mention, being a pussy and fleeing doesn't fix anything.
Well that's not entirely true. It fixes things for me, doesn't it? Does it help the rest of Americans? No, it doesn'
Re:Proud? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:SPOILERS (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying that someone "tested positive" is far too strong for such a test.
This is true especially for cases where the 'true positives' are a very small percentage of the total population. For example, if the test has a 5% false positive rate, and 1% of the population is actually positive, then for every true positive there will .05*.99 = 4.95 false positives. IOW, if you test positive you are still just slightly more than 20% likely to be true positive.
This is a well know problem in medical testing and drug testing (though it's often forgotten in the drug testing business). There is a name for this rule but I forget what it is. Here's [hmc.edu] a better explanation (Bayes' FTW).
Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease. You decide to get tested, and suppose that the testing methods for this disease are accurate 99 percent of the time (regardless of whether the results come back positive or negative). Suppose this disease is actually quite rare, occurring randomly in the general population in only one of every 10,000 people.
If your test results come back positive, what are your chances that you actually have the disease?
Do you think it is approximately: (a) .99, (b) .90, (c) .10, or (d) .01?
Surprisingly, the answer is (d), less than 1 percent chance that you have the disease!
Re:Proud? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like if I want to make a movie badmouthing Hillary or Romney, I should be able to to so without risking my entire personal savings or property when we get sued
Why? Why should you be allowed to avoid that risk? Corporate officers should be personally responsible for the actions of the corporation as a whole, and they should make their decisions with that accountability in mind.
There is little evidence that corporate donations have much influence on election outcomes.
I have two things to say about that statement. First, the reason that there is little evidence is because of a lack of disclosure, not because there is actually no influence. A corporation can anonymously donate as much money as they want to various organizations, and those organizations can spend that money to specifically and directly benefit a particular candidate, all the way up until the actual election. And they don't need to tell you shit. And second, the presence or lack of evidence of corporations seeking to influence elections (and thus gain favorable legislation) is separate from the actual point of whether or not it should be allowed at all. I believe that it should not be allowed. It's fine if corporations want to donate to social welfare groups, but those groups cannot pass that money onto political candidates (right now political organizations can register themselves as social welfare groups, and they do not have to disclose their donors. Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS is one such group).
I think there are already significant restrictions.
The legislative branch tends to not enjoy passing laws that limit what they are able to do, and they tend to enjoy voting to repeal or amend existing laws. You realize that you are relying on the people who pass laws to pass laws that limit how they can make money, right? How much support do you think there is for those laws? If you would like to cite specific laws to limit how congress can make money that are currently in effect, then that would help your position.
The real solution is much simpler: devolve power (and money) back from the federal level to state and local institutions. Everything becomes much more manageable, cheaper, and more accountable at the state and local level.
I'm not sure that stripping the federal government of its powers is quite as easy as you think. In fact, promoting that might even make you start to look like a needle in the NSA's haystack. This is the problem, and this problem cannot be fixed without fixing the problems in the legislative branch first. You can't strip the federal government of its power if the legislative branch wants everything to stay the same. The legislative branch is the second piece of the solution, after taking our election process back from the people who are in power.