>Since there's no proof of this "positive", this claim sits in doubt.
...and since there's no proof of his story, his story sits in doubt. Right?
Is that the modus operandi?
I was commenting under the assumption that his experiences were conveyed truthfully and that the explosive alert actually happened and wasn't bogus.
Is there reason for me to automatically doubt the sincerity of those who tested him?
Is there reason to believe that they didn't want to tell him what exactly the machine told them because they were lying to him? Or is it a more reasonable explanation that they're not allowed to?
Racial profiling is bad. They acted differently towards him than they'd do to other people, but that doesn't mean we have to ignore everything and assume that every single person there was out to get him and put an innocent person through hell.
> since there's no proof of his story, his story sits in doubt. Right?
Not for me. The author has more credibility in my eyes than any employee of the TSA.
> Is there reason for me to automatically doubt the sincerity of those who tested him?
Since they lied to him through the entire ordeal ("We’ll just be a few minutes, and then you’ll be able to go."), the rest of their declarations are equally suspect.
Since there's no proof of this "positive", this claim sits in doubt. If he was already targeted, they'd claim the machine would say anything.