This sort of treatment is difficult and unpleasant, but imagine how it would feel to be a young Muslim on the receiving end of such a grilling. Imagine what might have transpired if this chap had answered "Yes, I do believe in the words of the Prophet Muhammad". Imagine how this might affect someone who has grown up with the suspicion and abuse that Muslims living in the west have increasingly had to endure.
A considerable proportion of Islamist terrorists and terrorist would-bes are western-born Muslims who feel that they are defending Islam. They have been told that the West, America in particular, considers them to be the enemy simply by merit of their religion. Young men and women are tracing modern Islamophobia back to the crusades and perceiving themselves to be fighting for survival. These beliefs have been made quite clear, perhaps most explicitly in the "martyrdom" videos released by the 7/7 London bombers.
Here we have one of many incidents where a uniformed representative of the United States government is giving the clear impression that they perceive Islamic beliefs is inherently suspect. This man was not being interrogated to reveal what he had done or who he had consorted with, he was being asked what he thought and believed. Let that sink in for a minute.
During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the IRA pursued an explicit policy of "the worse, the better", knowing that by provoking the British army and the RUC into heavy-handed reaction, they could rally support for their cause and rouse antipathy towards the British government. The British army and the RUC were often referred to as "the IRA's recruiting sergeant".
"Here we have one of many incidents where a uniformed representative of the United States government is giving the clear impression that they perceive Islamic beliefs is inherently suspect."
As an outsider (neither Muslim nor American), I have to ask: how is that an impression and not a policy? The customs agents are government employees that, I assume, are ordered to act that way.
I'm not one to defend either the government of the United States or its toadies, but the argument that "this guy disrespected my beliefs so I should start killing innocent civilians" is, in my opinion, horseshit. Anyone who goes that way has deeply troubling issues that cannot be explained away by pointing to some uniformed dick on a power trip.
Meh... the whole thing didn't sound so unreasonable to me. The guy took a trip to two places well known for harboring and training terrorists. They found a bullet, a piece of terrorist propaganda, a burqa, and a note in his journal outlining some desire to renounce his citizenship.
I'd be pretty damn suspicious too. I may not like it, but there are folks trying to kill us (all of us). These agents have a job, and that's to try and ferret out as many of these people attempting entry to our country as possible. It may be inconvenient, and it may be pretty nasty...but it's necessary. That's the reality of the situation.
I'll also remind everyone to take any one-sided account like this with a certain grain of salt. It's a pretty emotional thing, and often certain points are quite exaggerated. Sometimes "yelling" is really "stern questioning". Other times "an hour and a half" is really "15 minutes".
None of these are red flags. Al-Qaeda might be fundamentalist arseholes, but they're not stupid. Imagine you've been to a terrorist training camp. You're packing your bags to fly home to the US. Are you going to pack a bullet, a box of Bin Laden crackers and a Burqa? It's like arresting a kid in a Hamburglar outfit because he's got a mask, a striped shirt and a swag bag.
The obvious red flags aren't red flags because they're obvious. If someone isn't smart enough to realise that, they're not smart enough to pose any real threat. We're dealing with focused people who know that huge resources are going into finding them. What we're looking for is people trying to conceal their actions and obfuscate their movements. By jumping on a chair and screaming "Aaaagh, terrorist!" every time we see a piece of Islamica, we're just reinforcing the idea that people are suspicious for 'looking Muslim'.
To start, I agree with your post. He was definitely suspicious, and one-sided accounts are not reliable. However, I do take issue with one of your incidental comments:
>> "...but there are folks trying to kill us (all of us)..."
Either this is not true, or it is true and our enemy is inept. If we had a competent enemy who was trying to kill us, then there would be a lot more of us dead.
Just this last Saturday presented and excellent opportunity to strike terror into the populace in our nation's capital. John Stewart's "Restoring Sanity and/or Fear" rally saw thousands of people densely packed in what had to have been--judging from the amount of alcohol consumption going on--a very loosely secured area. I've been to other events of similar scale that have been open season on comings and goings. There are opportunities for our enemies to hurt us, hurt us very badly, every day, and they do not take them.
I think this is an important issue to point out because fear of a bogeyman is still fear. Richard Nixon said, "People react to fear, not love--they don't teach that in Sunday School, but it's true." Rahm Emmanuel said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Bill Clinton identified the soccer-moms as the most important demographic in America, and he was right: they way to vast policy change is to connect it to a threat to a soccer-mom's babies.
There has been a resurgence in fascist and totalitarian ideology within Western government, all based around a hyped-up version of a nebulous, nefarious "them". We continue to play this security theater because it serves a purpose. The classic answer is that security theater instills confidence in the system. But I think it goes deeper. I think it gives the people a target, something to hate, something we can all agree sucks, and then see the futility of trying to change it. It's an indoctrination system to make "us" accept that the "right" way is a militaristic way.
I cannot believe that you actually think this was warranted. How does having a burqa indicate that you are a possible terrorist. Points of view like this one is what lets custom agents and TSA high school dropouts drive this security theatre every single day.
I travel all the time, and our security system does not protect anything but our peace of mind.
I'm disturbed that you aren't outraged both by the inappropriateness of the behavior described as well as the utter ineffectiveness of their methods at finding and stoping someone who truly did intend a terrorist act.
Frankly, I'm too stunned by the fact that this kind of paranoid and pseudo-fascist (yes I went there, fuck it, if you feel the state has the right to treat its innocent citizens that way, that's how I'm gonna call it) rambling gets 54 points and counting on HN to think of a decent reply.
There's no excuse for this kind of treatment in a free country. Absolutely none. This kind of attitude destroys freedom, not terrorists.
Really? Those two regions train individuals to terrorize Americans? How many such attacks have there been? What percentage of the population is even anti-American let alone involved in terrorism? The people there are trying to kill ALL Americans?
I don't think it reflects the reality of the situation there. Your comment is basically an admission of giving up personal rights and liberties because of a blind fear.
Having been through many secondary inspections at the US border (don't ask) I kind of agree with you. Essentially they're doing an interrogation, and they deliberately browbeat you in the hopes that you'll actually reveal something incriminating. Anything that will give them a shred of leverage they will use to try and intimidate you (none of the things in the article are actually incriminating, but they're "leverage").
EDIT (sober second thought): The phone tap (if true) does seem a little beyond the pale.
That's what we're told to believe, but given the propensities of those pushing this idea (who, by their own records, killed 60,000+ civilians in Iraq) I'd take the threat with a grain of salt. If terrorists want to target civilians rather than the military, my guess is they'd be going after the low hanging fruit (starting forest fires and the like).
Whether or not the author's behavior was 'suspicious' is irrelevant. The problem is with the actions of the officer. He handled it terribly wrong. The proper approach is NOT that Law & Order routine, but friendliness, and understanding. It garners far better results than that movie cop silliness. Whether the author was a terrorist or not doesn't make the officer's incompetence any better.
>Of course, the Customs Officer ignored the other four books and while holding up the book of quotes from the Prophet, proceeded to repeatedly scream “Do you believe in the words of the Prophet Mohammed?” over and over again while standing one foot away from my face.
No, certainly, that doesn't sound unreasonable at all.
He didn't express desire to renounce citizenship, and calling a book about Mohammed terrorist propaganda is exaggerating at best, and disrespectful at worst.
Excellent article. I think the best thing to take away from it is this little, innocent sounding line:
"No matter what the reason, don’t ever write..."
This says it all. If we must fear our government when engaging in innocent activity, then we have given our government too much power.
Schneier addressed this in one of his many posts on privacy:
"How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered." - http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_p...
I was part of a school exchange program to Moscow for the 1980 olympics - as part of the pre-trip briefing we were told not to write anything about our visit while we were there because anything we wrote would be checked by the Russians when we left and we could get our hosts into trouble.
Of course being from a free country we laughed at this ....
I don't find this credible. The lack of temporal context is one reason - you don't find out that the whole episode is meant to have taken place several years in the past until the end. 'and then it all went away' - just in case anyone who's traveled with Earl in recent years disputes the idea that he has difficulty clearing customs.
I mean, you're an experienced globetrotter returning from the world's hottest war zone with live ammunition in your pants, but are just astonished at the idea that such a thing should be considered suspicious? I call bullshit. This is just filler for marketing purposes.
I'm with you 100%. A lot of this just doesn't make sense.
When he mentions that he was 'invited' into the interrogation room he makes no reference to any aggression or hostility from his interrogator until this guy finds a book referencing the prophet mohammed amongst other religious icons and suddenly we have a complete psycho on our hands:
...holding up the book of quotes from the Prophet, proceeded to repeatedly scream 'Do you believe in the words of the Prophet Mohammed?' over and over again while standing one foot away from my face.
Whilst I appreciate there are probably a few unintelligent brutes defending the US as immigration officers, this particular guys approach appears to be lifted from a poor straight to TV movie.
I personally believe airport security and political correctness has gone completely over the top and I'm disgusted by the general level of ignorance towards the Muslim religion but this whole article reeks. I simply don't buy it.
The article doesn't imply he's astonished at all. It more paints the picture of a world-weary traveler recounting an interesting, harrowing tale about the time he got through a foreseeable but nasty experience.
If after a terrorist attack, it emerged that the attacker had recently returned from Afghanistan to have a friendly chat with security officers about his Osama Bin Laden candy box, his book on Mohammed, the live round in his pocket and the notes in his diary about how to renounce citizenship everyone would be appalled.
This is an interesting article but the fact that the author is in any way surprised by what happened to him is astonishing. Whilst it would be nice to live in a world where this wasn't necessary we don't and I'm reassured that the security response was what it was.
I don't think there's anything surprising about the author being detained. I don't think there's anything unreasonable about it. It's the manner in which the interrogation was conducted that was the problem. Yelling in his face? Asking him what his religious beliefs are? Are they detaining him while they conduct an investigation, or are they going to arrest him for being Muslim?
What you don't hear about after a terrorist attack is how the attacker's innocent mother/brother/sister/friend/cousin was interrogated in exactly this way by a customs agent, and that's what started that terrorist down the path of violence. No one ever has a chance to be appalled at the aftereffects of interrogations such as these.
I travel a lot and have made many border crossings. Like anyone who travels a lot, occasionally I get searched.
The first time this happened, I would stand there passively and take questions. This seems to be most people's default reaction.
Now, however, I take a bit more initiative - I help a customs officer unpack my things, and I intentionally point out things they'd want to question me about and explain their usage. For instance, I was stopped flying into London from Barcelona, and I had some Spanish anti-inflammatories, anti-biotics, and a freezable gell-pack for my knee for after working out.
I said, "Sir, I'm going to unpack this part of my bag. I've got medicine in here - the Spanish equivalent of tylenol and antibiotics that I bought at a pharmacy, and a gel pack. I have these because I have a knee injury, and I also work out, but I need to take care of my knee after workouts."
Then - no problem. I used to travel with some audio/visual equipment that would get searched like crazy, until I started saying, "I've got some A/V equipment with me, I make short little snippets when I travel. I'm not a formal journalist, it's just a hobby. I can explain what any of it does, if you need me to."
This kind of preemptively explaining medicine, electronics, etc. would've probably helped this guy. "Excuse me, officer, I collected some weird artifacts while traveling. This here was a gift I received from a child in XYZ city, I bought these books while traveling since I was trying to learn about the influencers of the culture and they came sold in a pack together, etc, etc..."
Take the initiative, be polite and friendly and explain well. It'll help, especially if you have things they'd typically question you about.
Fortunately, not all customs officers are this bad. About a year ago, I spent a couple months traveling around the Mediterranean, including Syria and Lebanon. Upon my return to the states, I got some moderately thorough questioning, but nothing that required a separate interrogation room, and the officer was polite the whole time.
On the other hand, I didn't have a bullet in my pants. TSA says: "You must securely pack any ammunition in fiber (such as cardboard), wood or metal boxes or other packaging that is specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition." (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1...)
Most countries allow you to have multiple passports - it's useful when you have lots of business trips that need visas to 3rd world countries that take 6weeks to process the visa.
I work in mining and in the bad-old-days we used to have to keep multiple passports, to keep SAfrican, Isreali, Chilean etc entry stamps separate.
Now I tend to keep one passports just for the USA - it's easier than explaining to the TSA that visiting a country that doesn't speak English (like Jesus did) doesn't make one a terrorist.
Ironically the only problem I have had is that after being forced to get a brand new passport because the USA demanded RFID - I was questioned for 30mins on my lack of travel history!
I don't fully understand how he made it to Customs without someone catching the ammunition earlier.
I can't recall a travel experience where I went through Customs before going through security first. As Customs occurs at port of entry, I assume he would have passed through security in Delhi. I suppose security could have been lax or complacent there, but it still seems an odd thing to have made it through a scanner first.
Not being a citizen of US and not being a follower of the religion of Islam (which I happen to respect like any other religion) I think this guy/ you did everything possible to freak out a customs officer. The reason I say this is you don't expect every custom official to have traveled the world and be aware of the actual culture. They only know what they have been told along with what they have heard, which is to say that they know nothing (unless each custom official has had a state department course on countries).
For a country that has been deeply scarred by a terrorist act all the officials know of is to look for some tell-tale sign of association. Those tell-tale signs as in your case may be completely bogus but they don't draw the distinction.
I agree the experience is bad and system doesn't see the difference.Let me point out that I don't support this behavior any more than you do but with the current situation I cannot blame them too.
Assuming we want customs officials doing anything terrorism related at all (which I'm not convinced of) this doesn't seem bad. Basically they made him socially uncomfortable for a while, and sent him on his way. They didn't take any of his stuff, they only detained him for an hour and a half. Overall it seems about as inconvenient as a flight delay.
The most troublesome part of this entire story is that the guy flew internationally with a live round in is pant pocket and the first person to notice was a customs agent in a secondary screening room.
Not really, my watch (A large automatic spring movement) has more metal in it than a 7.62mm cartridge, and I've made it through a metal detector a couple of times with forgetting to take it off. While you could kill someone with a single bullet by constructing a zip-gun, that is about the extent of the damage you can do.
So, on the one hand we don't like security theater. On the other hand when real security is implemented, we don't like that either.
So what should we do?
And please don't tell me that real security does not involve what was described in the article, because the reality is that until we invent mind reading machines, that's pretty much the only way to do it.
I think the objections are not to every aspect of this story. For instance, the bullet is definitely a problem that they needed to address. The OBL candy is perhaps... iffy. However, things like carrying a burqa and especially carrying books about various religions should not be---and a questioning that starts with screaming about Muslims is seriously not "real security". That's what we're complaining about.
I think he was unlucky (or was flying through an airport that sucks, or just met the wrong people, or failed an attitude check?).
I've done stuff which almost exactly matches this profile (flown from India after visiting Afghanistan, with Afghan clothing in my bag, with no US government connected paperwork beyond a passport, with lots of random electronics in my bag, etc.) -- I was there to help set up medical clinic equipment.
In IAD, SFO, and JFK, the Customs people were nothing but polite, speedy, and friendly.
Reminds me that time I brought a rifle bullet (only the case, not the projectile itself) onto an international flight in Europe. I bought it as a souvenir in Poland and figured I could bring it with my handluggage.
Before I knew it I was surrounded by these security types asking me all kinds of questions, and I said.. "what's the matter... it's not like you can KILL someone with an empty bullet!" - That didn't help, but they eventually let me go, bullet included.
> a shiny, unused bullet fell out of the front pocket.
I'm assuming here that the author is refering to what is more accurately known as a cartridge. A bullet is the projectile, a hunk of lead, possibly with a jacket of copper or steel covering it. A cartridge is a bullet, a case, a primer and propellent. It's very easy to leave a catridge in a pocket and not notice it.
Is there an english word for the practice of commonly refering to an entity by a subset of that entity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche is probably the term, although the context in which "synecdoche" is used is generally analysis of literature / "English class."
I cannot view the article. I'm getting "Error establishing a database connection". Is there a mirror somewhere?
Edit: oh I didn't see this[1] comment mostly down the page with a link to the google cache page[2]. Thanks.
US Customer, Homeland security and similar worry me for the primary reason that I don't think there are any 'checks' on their power that have any influence from citizens. When even the most famous of US Senators are even harassed by security personel (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug...) then we're in a tricky place. An average citizen has zero recourse and can't just call the President asking for Homeland Security to stop bothering them.
Could any of this questioning have occurred without aggression?
Why is the aggressive tone necessary? Would the conclusion have been any different if the questioners had been more civil?
EDIT:
Personally, I think the process of reviewing whether a person is a security threat, should be a much more sombre affair. Level headed pragmatism is necessary to make informed, sensible judgements. It sounds very much like the security staff were living up to the clichéd machismo of their TV or film-based counterparts .. and it leads me to think that intelligence is being supplanted by each staff member's personal desire to project authority.
"At one point, frustrated by the lack of training/knowledge of the people put in charge of protecting the US borders, I literally pulled out my guidebook and gave them a lesson in geography and in a sense, in reality as well. I showed them excerpts of the guidebook that spoke of friendly locals, must-see highlights and a generally safe environment for travelers."
I can only hope that this brief education opened the minds of his interrogators somewhat (and the thought that it might have gives me a warm and fuzzy, yet reservedly so, feeling inside).
Am I the only one here wondering "Why are you answering questions at all?" The Fifth Amendment still applies at the border and you aren't going to talk your way out of anything. When asked a question at the border -- IF you are a US citizen, shut up. Don't say anything. You are more likely to get in trouble for making a false statement to a federal office than to talk your way out of something. You can't be denied entry to the country for not answering questions. Just shut up. You have the right to remain silent. Use it.
[+] [-] jdietrich|15 years ago|reply
A considerable proportion of Islamist terrorists and terrorist would-bes are western-born Muslims who feel that they are defending Islam. They have been told that the West, America in particular, considers them to be the enemy simply by merit of their religion. Young men and women are tracing modern Islamophobia back to the crusades and perceiving themselves to be fighting for survival. These beliefs have been made quite clear, perhaps most explicitly in the "martyrdom" videos released by the 7/7 London bombers.
Here we have one of many incidents where a uniformed representative of the United States government is giving the clear impression that they perceive Islamic beliefs is inherently suspect. This man was not being interrogated to reveal what he had done or who he had consorted with, he was being asked what he thought and believed. Let that sink in for a minute.
During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the IRA pursued an explicit policy of "the worse, the better", knowing that by provoking the British army and the RUC into heavy-handed reaction, they could rally support for their cause and rouse antipathy towards the British government. The British army and the RUC were often referred to as "the IRA's recruiting sergeant".
[+] [-] petsos|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hvs|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enjo|15 years ago|reply
I'd be pretty damn suspicious too. I may not like it, but there are folks trying to kill us (all of us). These agents have a job, and that's to try and ferret out as many of these people attempting entry to our country as possible. It may be inconvenient, and it may be pretty nasty...but it's necessary. That's the reality of the situation.
I'll also remind everyone to take any one-sided account like this with a certain grain of salt. It's a pretty emotional thing, and often certain points are quite exaggerated. Sometimes "yelling" is really "stern questioning". Other times "an hour and a half" is really "15 minutes".
Ok.. let the down-voting commence :)
[+] [-] jdietrich|15 years ago|reply
The obvious red flags aren't red flags because they're obvious. If someone isn't smart enough to realise that, they're not smart enough to pose any real threat. We're dealing with focused people who know that huge resources are going into finding them. What we're looking for is people trying to conceal their actions and obfuscate their movements. By jumping on a chair and screaming "Aaaagh, terrorist!" every time we see a piece of Islamica, we're just reinforcing the idea that people are suspicious for 'looking Muslim'.
[+] [-] moron4hire|15 years ago|reply
>> "...but there are folks trying to kill us (all of us)..."
Either this is not true, or it is true and our enemy is inept. If we had a competent enemy who was trying to kill us, then there would be a lot more of us dead.
Just this last Saturday presented and excellent opportunity to strike terror into the populace in our nation's capital. John Stewart's "Restoring Sanity and/or Fear" rally saw thousands of people densely packed in what had to have been--judging from the amount of alcohol consumption going on--a very loosely secured area. I've been to other events of similar scale that have been open season on comings and goings. There are opportunities for our enemies to hurt us, hurt us very badly, every day, and they do not take them.
I think this is an important issue to point out because fear of a bogeyman is still fear. Richard Nixon said, "People react to fear, not love--they don't teach that in Sunday School, but it's true." Rahm Emmanuel said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Bill Clinton identified the soccer-moms as the most important demographic in America, and he was right: they way to vast policy change is to connect it to a threat to a soccer-mom's babies.
There has been a resurgence in fascist and totalitarian ideology within Western government, all based around a hyped-up version of a nebulous, nefarious "them". We continue to play this security theater because it serves a purpose. The classic answer is that security theater instills confidence in the system. But I think it goes deeper. I think it gives the people a target, something to hate, something we can all agree sucks, and then see the futility of trying to change it. It's an indoctrination system to make "us" accept that the "right" way is a militaristic way.
[+] [-] jemfinch|15 years ago|reply
It is not their job to berate American citizens returning from trips abroad.
It is not their job to engage in emotionally charged interrogation regarding a person's religious views.
It is not their job to intimidate, harass, or jump to unsupported conclusions.
[+] [-] rickharrison|15 years ago|reply
I travel all the time, and our security system does not protect anything but our peace of mind.
[+] [-] jasonwatkinspdx|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rickmb|15 years ago|reply
There's no excuse for this kind of treatment in a free country. Absolutely none. This kind of attitude destroys freedom, not terrorists.
[+] [-] mrtron|15 years ago|reply
I don't think it reflects the reality of the situation there. Your comment is basically an admission of giving up personal rights and liberties because of a blind fear.
[+] [-] ojbyrne|15 years ago|reply
EDIT (sober second thought): The phone tap (if true) does seem a little beyond the pale.
[+] [-] mcantelon|15 years ago|reply
That's what we're told to believe, but given the propensities of those pushing this idea (who, by their own records, killed 60,000+ civilians in Iraq) I'd take the threat with a grain of salt. If terrorists want to target civilians rather than the military, my guess is they'd be going after the low hanging fruit (starting forest fires and the like).
[+] [-] CapitalistCartr|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jbrennan|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scrod|15 years ago|reply
No, certainly, that doesn't sound unreasonable at all.
[+] [-] lhnn|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielStraight|15 years ago|reply
"No matter what the reason, don’t ever write..."
This says it all. If we must fear our government when engaging in innocent activity, then we have given our government too much power.
Schneier addressed this in one of his many posts on privacy:
"How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered." - http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_p...
[+] [-] oiuyhgthyjuki|15 years ago|reply
Of course being from a free country we laughed at this ....
[+] [-] swolchok|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|15 years ago|reply
I mean, you're an experienced globetrotter returning from the world's hottest war zone with live ammunition in your pants, but are just astonished at the idea that such a thing should be considered suspicious? I call bullshit. This is just filler for marketing purposes.
[+] [-] KoZeN|15 years ago|reply
I'm with you 100%. A lot of this just doesn't make sense.
When he mentions that he was 'invited' into the interrogation room he makes no reference to any aggression or hostility from his interrogator until this guy finds a book referencing the prophet mohammed amongst other religious icons and suddenly we have a complete psycho on our hands:
...holding up the book of quotes from the Prophet, proceeded to repeatedly scream 'Do you believe in the words of the Prophet Mohammed?' over and over again while standing one foot away from my face.
Whilst I appreciate there are probably a few unintelligent brutes defending the US as immigration officers, this particular guys approach appears to be lifted from a poor straight to TV movie.
I personally believe airport security and political correctness has gone completely over the top and I'm disgusted by the general level of ignorance towards the Muslim religion but this whole article reeks. I simply don't buy it.
[+] [-] gbhn|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] petenixey|15 years ago|reply
This is an interesting article but the fact that the author is in any way surprised by what happened to him is astonishing. Whilst it would be nice to live in a world where this wasn't necessary we don't and I'm reassured that the security response was what it was.
[+] [-] jemfinch|15 years ago|reply
What you don't hear about after a terrorist attack is how the attacker's innocent mother/brother/sister/friend/cousin was interrogated in exactly this way by a customs agent, and that's what started that terrorist down the path of violence. No one ever has a chance to be appalled at the aftereffects of interrogations such as these.
[+] [-] djacobs|15 years ago|reply
The raw emotion controlling the interrogating 'official' is not reassuring to me at all.
Also, "live round"? Really?
[+] [-] lionhearted|15 years ago|reply
The first time this happened, I would stand there passively and take questions. This seems to be most people's default reaction.
Now, however, I take a bit more initiative - I help a customs officer unpack my things, and I intentionally point out things they'd want to question me about and explain their usage. For instance, I was stopped flying into London from Barcelona, and I had some Spanish anti-inflammatories, anti-biotics, and a freezable gell-pack for my knee for after working out.
I said, "Sir, I'm going to unpack this part of my bag. I've got medicine in here - the Spanish equivalent of tylenol and antibiotics that I bought at a pharmacy, and a gel pack. I have these because I have a knee injury, and I also work out, but I need to take care of my knee after workouts."
Then - no problem. I used to travel with some audio/visual equipment that would get searched like crazy, until I started saying, "I've got some A/V equipment with me, I make short little snippets when I travel. I'm not a formal journalist, it's just a hobby. I can explain what any of it does, if you need me to."
This kind of preemptively explaining medicine, electronics, etc. would've probably helped this guy. "Excuse me, officer, I collected some weird artifacts while traveling. This here was a gift I received from a child in XYZ city, I bought these books while traveling since I was trying to learn about the influencers of the culture and they came sold in a pack together, etc, etc..."
Take the initiative, be polite and friendly and explain well. It'll help, especially if you have things they'd typically question you about.
[+] [-] rflrob|15 years ago|reply
On the other hand, I didn't have a bullet in my pants. TSA says: "You must securely pack any ammunition in fiber (such as cardboard), wood or metal boxes or other packaging that is specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition." (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1...)
[+] [-] oiuyhgthyjuki|15 years ago|reply
I work in mining and in the bad-old-days we used to have to keep multiple passports, to keep SAfrican, Isreali, Chilean etc entry stamps separate.
Now I tend to keep one passports just for the USA - it's easier than explaining to the TSA that visiting a country that doesn't speak English (like Jesus did) doesn't make one a terrorist.
Ironically the only problem I have had is that after being forced to get a brand new passport because the USA demanded RFID - I was questioned for 30mins on my lack of travel history!
[+] [-] jat850|15 years ago|reply
I can't recall a travel experience where I went through Customs before going through security first. As Customs occurs at port of entry, I assume he would have passed through security in Delhi. I suppose security could have been lax or complacent there, but it still seems an odd thing to have made it through a scanner first.
[+] [-] rohi81|15 years ago|reply
For a country that has been deeply scarred by a terrorist act all the officials know of is to look for some tell-tale sign of association. Those tell-tale signs as in your case may be completely bogus but they don't draw the distinction.
I agree the experience is bad and system doesn't see the difference.Let me point out that I don't support this behavior any more than you do but with the current situation I cannot blame them too.
[+] [-] moultano|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] run4yourlives|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aidenn0|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|15 years ago|reply
So what should we do?
And please don't tell me that real security does not involve what was described in the article, because the reality is that until we invent mind reading machines, that's pretty much the only way to do it.
[+] [-] blahedo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdl|15 years ago|reply
I've done stuff which almost exactly matches this profile (flown from India after visiting Afghanistan, with Afghan clothing in my bag, with no US government connected paperwork beyond a passport, with lots of random electronics in my bag, etc.) -- I was there to help set up medical clinic equipment.
In IAD, SFO, and JFK, the Customs people were nothing but polite, speedy, and friendly.
[+] [-] mtogo|15 years ago|reply
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SECcYsQ...
[+] [-] sgt|15 years ago|reply
Before I knew it I was surrounded by these security types asking me all kinds of questions, and I said.. "what's the matter... it's not like you can KILL someone with an empty bullet!" - That didn't help, but they eventually let me go, bullet included.
This was in 2002.
[+] [-] dmm|15 years ago|reply
I'm assuming here that the author is refering to what is more accurately known as a cartridge. A bullet is the projectile, a hunk of lead, possibly with a jacket of copper or steel covering it. A cartridge is a bullet, a case, a primer and propellent. It's very easy to leave a catridge in a pocket and not notice it.
Is there an english word for the practice of commonly refering to an entity by a subset of that entity?
[+] [-] swolchok|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ned|15 years ago|reply
A metonymy.
[edit: swolchok is right, it's a synecdoche]
[+] [-] anigbrowl|15 years ago|reply
Must be contagious.
[+] [-] vl|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Tyr42|15 years ago|reply
[1][http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1857943]
[2][http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SECcYsQ...]
[+] [-] tibbon|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lwhi|15 years ago|reply
Why is the aggressive tone necessary? Would the conclusion have been any different if the questioners had been more civil?
EDIT:
Personally, I think the process of reviewing whether a person is a security threat, should be a much more sombre affair. Level headed pragmatism is necessary to make informed, sensible judgements. It sounds very much like the security staff were living up to the clichéd machismo of their TV or film-based counterparts .. and it leads me to think that intelligence is being supplanted by each staff member's personal desire to project authority.
[+] [-] leif|15 years ago|reply
I can only hope that this brief education opened the minds of his interrogators somewhat (and the thought that it might have gives me a warm and fuzzy, yet reservedly so, feeling inside).
[+] [-] rsingel|15 years ago|reply