He went through security and set off an explosives detector. The cops showed up and asked some questions. Then he left.
"We gave him free room and board for 17 years, then laid him on a comfortable bed and gave him some medicine to make him fall asleep for a while".
vs.
"We kept him caged in a tiny, windowless cell and gave him just enough stale bread and dirty water to keep him alive for 17 years, then we executed him."
In this case, the pertinent detail is the fact the man set of explosive detectors.
The other details, far from suggesting oppressive state apparatus, suggested an assortment of rent-a-cops and airline staff that really weren't particularly well-prepared for the guy that couldn't account for the explosives and flagged other profiling alarms without actually giving any indication of being an actual threat. If you want to oppress someone you do a lot more than keep them waiting whilst you try and figure out who's best positioned to ask less silly questions.
The most objectionable behaviour was arguably JetBlue's decision to refuse to honour the return ticket, and you'd struggle to argue that was part of the crushing state apparatus.
In this case, the pertinent detail is the fact the man set of explosive detectors.
I'd argue that the pertinent detail is that he wasn't actually carrying any explosives.
The other details, far from suggesting oppressive state apparatus, suggested an assortment of rent-a-cops and airline staff that really weren't particularly well-prepared for the guy that couldn't account for the explosives and flagged other profiling alarms without actually giving any indication of being an actual threat.
A State doesn't have to be a finely-tuned, well-oiled, smoothly functioning machine to be oppressive. It just has to institutionalize (or just tolerate) the kind of treatment we saw here. If some of the individuals involved are simply bungling incompetents who more or less mean well, does that make the overall process less oppressive? I argue that it doesn't.
And because he turned out not to be carrying any explosives, he was let go. As above, what would you do if someone set off an explosives detector? Investigations should certainly be conducted politely and respectfully, but at the same time they need to be persistent enough to deal with the attempts of guilty parties to conceal the truth.
As above, what would you do if someone set off an explosives detector?
I pat them down, and search their luggage. If I don't find a bomb, I let them go. It should take 3-5 minutes, tops. What I don't do is detain them for hours, grille them over and over again, and deny them food and water during the detainment.
but at the same time they need to be persistent enough to deal with the attempts of guilty parties to conceal the truth.
It doesn't even matter what they say, they either are or aren't carrying a bomb. That can be determined through physical inspection. Persistence doesn't enter into it.
Don't checked luggage go through bomb detection and the like? Actually I'd be inclined to believe they go through even more rigorous checks than people and their carry-on luggage. iirc, they're stored in bomb-resistant containers inside of aircraft, too, ever since a bombing with a bomb in checked luggage some time ago (80's, I think)
Do you think the authorities behaved in a polite and respectful manner? I don't actually care if they do, I don't think that's a requirement; what I do care about is that they follow the law first, then use common sense. Detaining him for more than 30 minutes is very close to actionable in a sane legal world. Just because the TSA, FBI, and the local PD are full of bungling, ignorant idiots doesn't make what happened to the author less of a crappy thing.
I will argue that politeness and respect are actually essential, because otherwise that's where racism, etc., creep in. Impoliteness and disrespect set up a hostile atmosphere in which matters escalate and the cops/TSA/gov people feel threatened and thus justified in using more authority, while the "suspect" feels threatened and thus justified in pushing back or trying to get out by more dramatic means. This is where bad stuff starts happening despite everyone's "best intentions" and this is the place that white people who set off chemical detectors simply don't get to. (It's the same dynamic that can lead to bad police-minority relations -- the difference between leading with "I'm sorry sir, but we'll have to frisk you" or "You causing trouble? What are you doing here?")
> Investigations should certainly be conducted politely and respectfully, but at the same time they need to be persistent enough to deal with the attempts of guilty parties to conceal the truth.
Do they really? How often do planes blow up because of a bomb a passenger brought on? Once a decade? Less than that? I'm frankly willing to live with those odds if it means I don't have to take my shoes off and submit to molestation every time I get on a flight.
I'm not sure whether you're arguing the state was "oppressive" because it had the temerity to put in place a policy of investigating people that set off explosive detectors, or because they weren't competent enough to establish his innocence within minutes, but I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on both counts
Minimal security theatre isn't oppression, and neither is bungling for five hours.
Let's put things into perspective here. The Syrian government gasses its people largely indiscriminately. The Egyptian government shoots those guilty of the crime of public protest. This guy was, based on reasonable suspicion... asked more questions than competent interrogators would have bothered with and left rather thirsty and ticketless at the end.
Minimal security theatre isn't oppression, and neither is bungling for five hours.
Yep, we'll have to agree to disagree. As far as I'm concerned, being detained against your will for five minutes is oppressive.
But, I'm a radical individualist who believes in the primacy and sovereignty of the individual and who barely tolerates the idea of the modern nation-state at all. So I'm fairly biased.
Just because things are not as bad as they are in Syria or Egypt, doesn't mean we should not be seriously troubled by the conduct of our government. We should not have to wait until citizens are getting murdered in the streets by our government before we get concerned.
True, but I'd put "temporarily detains person who argues with security after setting off explosive detectors in airport" near the bottom of the list of reasons to be concerned, a long way below issues like "has death sentence" or even "has schoolchildren pledge their allegiance to the flag every day"
It's not even like there isn't a reason for increased security at US airports in the last 15 years.
The idea that authoritarianism requires competent enforcers is false. The Gestapo, the NKVD, the Stasi, the SD were all full of losers who were the mall cops and malcontents of their day. What they did have in common were a lust for power.
You miss the point. The most obvious explanation for the author's experience is that it was unpleasant because, rather than in spite of the various parties' inability to handle the situation. They were fumbling over what to do rather than lusting for power, and if anything half the problem was down to nobody having enough authority to insist that no further questions were necessary.
Of course, that's only an interpretation, and it's possible the individuals involved gain visceral thrills from asking questions about being "somewhat religious" or "very religious" and laughing as their fellow henchmen misunderstand the concept of venture capital, and only the last vestiges of American law prevented them from responding to his request for a drink by waterboarding him. It's possible they asked ignorant questions about Hinduism and then called their crack Hindi-speaking agent as part of a cunning plan to deter non-Christians from ever flying again. It's just.... I'm sure the concept of Hanlon's razor has come up on HN a few times before?
And you missed my point. I'm saying that it doesn't matter whether his experience is due to incompetence or malice. The fact is that his experience is not a black swan event. It's one that many, many people traveling to and from the US have to deal with. And yes, CYA is the norm in most three letter organizations, after all, no one gets fired for abusing someone.
If it's caused by malice, it's wrong and needs to be addressed. If it's caused by incompetence, it's wrong and needs to be addressed. If it happened to you, would you feel more comforted by the idea that hey, these are well-meaning but untrained and ignorant buffoons who couldn't use the common sense possessed by a housecat? Would it really matter?
> In this case, the pertinent detail is the fact the man set of explosive detectors.
Actually no, the pertinent detail is the fact that he wasn't carrying any explosives or planning anything nefarious.
> The most objectionable behaviour was arguably JetBlue's decision to refuse to honour the return ticket
You can't be serious. An innocent man was held against his will, questioned,with no water, for 18 hours, while in the mean some some secret police broke into his house, and the worst thing you can see about this is that he didn't get his money back??
> > I don't think this is that oppressive.
>
> Yeah, well, it didn't happen to you, did it?
Correct, and that's exactly what makes it not oppressive: the fact that it doesn't happen to random people pulled on the street. When this starts happening, then you are justified in claiming that your country is turning into a police state.
Yeah, well, it didn't happen to you, did it?
He went through security and set off an explosives detector. The cops showed up and asked some questions. Then he left.
"We gave him free room and board for 17 years, then laid him on a comfortable bed and gave him some medicine to make him fall asleep for a while".
vs.
"We kept him caged in a tiny, windowless cell and gave him just enough stale bread and dirty water to keep him alive for 17 years, then we executed him."
Details matter, dude.