WARNING:Previously common behavior may look suspicious
 

My nephew (28) flew from Ft.Lauderdale through Atlanta with ORD as the final destination. Upon boarding the plane, before take-off, he needed to go the bathroom. He went back to his seat. He was seated 3 across. The row on the other side was empty, so he moved over. They announced that everyone should be in their seats, so he moved back. After a few minutes 2 guards went on board and asked him to deplane. He was told that a passenger thought his behavior looked suspicious. It does not help that my nephew, an Israeli born offspring of an Israeli mother and American father (my brother) was given the name AMIR, which means prince in Hebrew. It is also an arabic name. He was not questioned extensively at that point, but given a plane ticket for a flight 2 hours later. He saw that there was a flight that left an hour sooner, and asked the ticket agent if he could get on this flight. Again, after being seated, he was asked to deplane. Again the behavior was considered suspiciou. At this point 7 police officers interrogated him, looked through his luggage extensively, and confronted him on his name - how would he have it. He explained. His parents live in Canada, and he also a Canadian citizen, but he travels on his American passport - an American by virtue of his father being American. They questioned why he had citizenship as a Canadian. They finally released him and allowed him to fly, with 2 marshalls on either side of him. His life was suspicious. So, a jew, grandchild of holocaust survivors, as American as you can get, became a suspicious character, I think because his name is AMIR. Profiling at it's best. He was glad that security is heightened, however he said, he was never patted down, and if, in fact, he was a hijacker could have had something in his shoe or back pocket. Perhaps they would have frisked him if after interrogating him they remained suspicious. They gave him no apology in the end. He was even wearing red, white and blue.
So be careful!

------------------
DtG

This story even made the news over here, it seems that the amount of tension is so big that even someone that want another seat is being seen as "a threat".

I find it deeply saddening that he was picked up because of his colour, his name or his race, I sincerely hope that the world will learn that not everyone who looks or acts different is to be considered dangerous...

Unfortunately this won't be the last time an
innocent person is "profiled" and what really bothers me is there is nothing we can do about it. I'd almost rather drive, when possible, or stay home than go through the hassle. I hope Amir doesn't think his experience is representative of all travelers.

my sister sent an email saying that she was in India, trying to get back home...was told that the U.S. embassy there was closed, and guarded with soldiers with machine guns (dunno this was true or not)

born in Indonesia, holding a U.S. passport,
her name is FATIMA, but she is Chinese!

should i start worrying? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

Could be the same scenario. Tell her to go to the bathroom before boarding the plane, and not to change seats. Except for my nephew's first name he is tall, blond and white. So, anyone with a name that doesn't sound American may be at risk. Yes, Fatima is an arabic name: we ALL have to be careful.

------------------
DtG

This is pretty much what is termed Type 1 and Type II errors in quality control.

On the one hand, if the inspection/test is not tight enough, you may allow bad units to go through.

On the other hand,if the inspection/test is tighter, you may allow actual good units to be rejected.

You cannot be 100% accurate and effective. Obviously the pendulum at this time is going to tighter inspections from a probably too loose situation previously.

I supposed in the short run that kind of over-reaction is excusable, but if it continues for your nephew, I would be very concerned. Somewhere there is an article about the U.S. government urging people to call in and report any discrimination against them. But who do you call when the government is the one doing it?

It is a shame that your nephew and others of Middle Eastern decent are "suspicious". They are not, they are just being discriminated against legally. This a shame and needs to come to a stop immediately. "Middle Eastern looking" people are now getting a lot of flack for some security agents not doing their jobs. How many "McVeighs" in America ever got stopped in an airport?

It also exists at least in European Catholic Christianity (which some fundementalists would deny is christianity) as a name associated with one of the Virgin's latest miraculous appearance.

The point is that other languages or cultures that use a name won't matter to them - what matters is that it is ALSO an arabic name, not exclusively an arabic name. That is how narrow the "profiling" is.

------------------
DtG

Indeed, we all expect a lot of people with names that appear to be Arabic to be profiled. What is vile and disturbing is the number of FTers who support it as an expeditious and efficient way of increasing security.

So if you use American name, and stay in your seat, you will not look suspicious, and therefore not be stopped.

Our non-security at it's best.

(It never ceased to amaze me that in the few times my pager or PC was hand inspected at an airport, I was asked to make the pager "beep" and turn the PC on and have a screen come on, both of which were "proof" to the security people that they were not a bomb. This of course assumes that a terrorist putting a bomb into the shape of a PC or beeper is too stupid to make them beep or have a screen come up.)

If security only catches the obvious, stupid criminals, it is no security. And in all the announcements, I haven't read where they fired the lot of them and hired smarter people for more money than minimum wage.

belle,

Given your sister's mix of passport, citizenship, place of birth, name, departure from India, etc. she probably will be questioned, especially by a US carrier.

But I certainly wouldn't worry about her.

What scares me is that any passenger can identify another passenger as "looking suspicious" and have security come get them. Seems to me some pax who had a beef with another pax in the terminal (ie; line cutting or something) could make up a story just to retaliate. There needs to be some sort of line drawn here as to this sort of behavior

And if we were worried about Ireland attacking us, every Meagan and Sean would be interrogated too. And I agree terenz, that some FT's (or anyone) thinks this is OK. This is a false sense of security as the energy will be used up with lots of dead end leads. I thought the same thing. Mean spirited people could express "suspiciousness" over someone they just don't like - based on a "look" they don't like - colored hair, ring in nose, long hair or shaved head, or three piece suit. Since these hijackers used their real names - comparing all names to a "list" of criminals would be fine. They certainly had this list for draft evaders during the Viet Nam was. My brother was on that list.

------------------
DtG

I like the explanation that siliconengineer gave and I'm all for a few good units being rejected in the name of safety......and as for the inconvenience and irritation that you receive when you are profiled......I'm a clean cut, 6'tall white guy, and get tagged all the time because of my frequent trips to SA with just 2 small carry ons.....so live with it.....or you may not live at all. I feel sorry for all of our Arab/Muslim citizens of both our countries for what they may endure in the next few years as a result.

THE TIME FOR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS OVER !!!

It disturbs me how easy it is demand the sacrifice of OTHER PEOPLE's rights and civil liberties to preserve YOUR safety. Hasn't our country lost enough without calling for shredding of the Constitution?

I in no way want to tread on the rights of fellow Americans and am having trouble trying to sort this out. The main problem is very few Americans subsrcibe to the belief of commiting an act of suicide gurantees you a ticket to heaven. The people most prone to this are from the Middle East and they look Middle Eastern. US customs can legally profile people and since flying is not a "right", laws could be written to allow airport security officers to use profling as long as it is not the only means in keeping are people safe.

Everyone knows that in the past, if you buy one-way tickets with cash, you are flagged and at times questioned about your acts. What people are doing now is no different.

Perhaps everyone should be required to arrive 3 to 4 hours early and undergo a personal interview. Or maybe one time in order to get "clearance" to fly commercial airliners. If we want to fly we should be willing to be fingerprinted and check in that way. I am not complaining but "WARNING" because it is a waste of good resources if 7 police officers interrogate every person who goes to the bathroom before taking off, or changes seats or tries to go standy-by - things we all have done and thought were OK. I certainly would rather there be an error on the side of caution, I want to feel safe when I fly, but how is security really going to do this. I was in the Peace Corps in Tunisia for 2 years with really wonderful people who were very pro-American and would hate to think that they among all other arab looking, sounding, or country of origin are considered guilty before proven innocent. Japanese internment in WWII all over again. It is awful. Carioca, please don't take on an attitude "...just live with it..." It is unnecessary. Some people in your high profile situation would stop bringing carry-on's and check their luggage. It sounds like my nephew looks a lot like you (unless you are a brunette)

------------------
DtG

dgordon.....

I have no attitude....I just meant to make a point...no offence intended.

If only our airports had the security of a Strategic Air Command base or some of the Victor Alert sites in Europe things would be a lot better off and we might not have a need for such things.

robinhood.....

in asking for it I am also surrendering myself to the same treatment and suspension of my rights as well......after all....my rights are no good to me if I'm dead.

[This message has been edited by Carioca Canuck (edited 09-16-2001).]

Carioca Canuck -- I don't mean this to be offensive so please don't be offended -- but as a "clean cut, 6' tall white guy" you won't be the one facing the brunt of what you prescribe.

robinhood.....

The reason I won't be facing the brunt of it is because people of my race/color/politicial belief haven't been flying airplanes into skyscrapers.

Sorry to have to tell you this in case you hadn't noticed.

But I don't seem to recall there being such a rush to shred constitutional rights when people of your race/color/political belief were blowing up Federal buildings with truck bombs.

Which essentially reaffirms my initial point -- which is that it's pretty easy for you to demand the sacrifice of other people's rights and liberties to preserve your security.

I take offense at Robinhood's remarks. 100% of airline hijackings resulting in death in the past decade have been from a particular ethnic/religious group. 100% of airplanes flown into, AND attempted plots to do so in the past, have been attributed to a particular ethnic/religious group.

Not that ALL people of that profile present a problem, but it certainly justifies closer scrutiny. AND YES, Robinhood, white, young, militia-types as a group WERE profiled and subjected to heightened scrutiny after Oklahoma City. If anything, that idiot McVeigh's greatest accomplishment was the discrediting/dismantling of the militia movement in the US.


http://a1944.g.akamai.net/7/1944/140...56027.jpg[

[This message has been edited by se94583 (edited 09-16-2001).]

se94583 -- you say "white, young, MILITIA-TYPES as a group WERE profiled..." which is exactly the point. What about profiling people on the sole criterion of being white (regardless of militia affiliation), which is what you seem to advocate when you say we should harass people on the sole criterion of being Arab? That's the comparison that ought to be made.

No one disputes that we ought to take every reasonable step to combat terrorism. All I'm saying is that we should exercise caution because it's easy to trade liberty for security when it's other people's liberty you're trading away (witness Japanese internment camps).

As for your taking offense, I apologize if that was your reaction to my comments. It was a response to Carioca Canuck's comments and not intended to offend you, him, or anyone else for that matter.

The problem with combatting terrorism is that you must take unreasonable steps in order to be successful.

The group doing these actions is identifiable at this point....whether they be white, black, green or brown is irrelevant.....they are identifiable and until this group stops its actions, those who are similiar must be subject to scrutiny above and beyond what civil liberties allow for.

Don't blame us....we gave you the rights and liberties....now they have to be suspended for a while.

I have Arab friends and they are in agreement with this position.

Can't you understand that ?


[This message has been edited by Carioca Canuck (edited 09-16-2001).]

true. I would suspect that any legitimate Arab-Americans have the sense not to travel by air in the near future unless its vital. Sad reality, but if you resemble the suspect group, you must accept the risks.

As an American of Japanese Ancestry, I'm sensitive--perhaps overly so, I admit--to the entire notion of profiling on the basis of race or national origin. Nevertheless, I'm appalled at the cavalier attitude expressed in many posts in this thread...which, after all, began with a warning about behavior that might be misinterpreted.

I understand the reality that the majority in this country, never a tolerant bunch to begin with, will more readily than ever be prepared to point suspicious fingers at a "suspect group." But finger-pointing absent reasonable cause undermines the foundation upon which this nation is built, as history clearly shows.

I've stayed out of the political discussions of the aftermath of the week's tragic events, but I can't be silent any longer given what's been said both in this thread, and in one FlyerTalker's personal tale, which is in the Trip Reports board at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum81/HTML/002144.html

I'd suggest reading that post and thinking what it might be like to walk in that FlyerTalker's shoes today.

It's interesting to read the "two sides" on this thread. As a white male it is easy for me to be on one side. In fact, sometimes only my being gay keeps me on the other side.

I have the tendency to agree with profiling--after all, as some have said, it has been a certain group which has caused recent events. But then as I came from the US into Canada (something I have done many times), I was singled out and my 2 carry-ons were gone through thoroughly and I was interrogated by customs, not immigration.

Why?

Well, I have a beard and dark hair. I have both a German and a US passport. I flew to Canada to start my RTW which was going to take me back into the US the next day. Mileage runs make little sense to poorly paid gov't employees. I had some Turkish Lira since pre-Tuesday I thought Istanbul may be fun to visit. Bad choice post-Tuesday--at least in some people's eyes.

I felt totally harrassed. MY country had been attacked.

I can only think that other Americans who are Moslem, have the WRONG names, look WRONG, etc. would/will feel similarly.

Maybe not skyscrapers, but next time you rent a Ryder truck they should interogate you so you don't go blow up another federal building, maybe next time you go into a grocery store, bank, or gas station they pull you down to the station, or maybe next time you get married or have girlfriend they haul you down to the psychiatrists office just so you don't have domestic abuse, there is a much deeper history of tall white blonde headed guys committing those crimes than of middle eastern descent crashing planes into skyscrapers

Remember when they do that, its for the safety of all of us

We are in a different world now. Indeed, we are in a different country. I don't think that anyone is being forced to "sacrifice" his "rights" to preserve safety. And I think that saying the Constitution is being shredded is a little dramatic. EVERYONE is giving up some rights and liberties because of what happened. And I'll take the sacrifice of political correctness for a while over the sacrifice of more lives.

As a gay man, I have been "profiled" by the American Red Cross as a danger to the blood supply, despite 15 years of negative HIV tests. Does it bother me? Yes. Is it personal? No. Do I still support the Red Cross? You bet.
It, like the ultimate profiling that will be done on many Americans, is the long-term price to be paid for safety. And I hate to apologize for my very human feelings that my safety does come before someone's feelings. It's VERY painful to admit that sometimes, but it's true.

Shinbal - it is a good example - having just given blood and been asked lots of questions. They ask the questions respectively - not antagnoistically, and ultimately depend on the honesty of the person responding. - so with all the screening, we all are at risk when we receive blood. It is not "profiling" that I object to - except if the added scrutiny involves antagonism, and "harrassment" - that is unnecessary. Do we ALL need extra scrutiny. Absolutely. And thanks again for pointing out what this thread was about. Previously common behaviors in ANYONE may now be considered suspicious. My nephew is returning today to Ft. Lauderdale and his original direct flight has been changed to one through Atlanta. Will they view going through Atlanta as suspicious behavior as they did coming in. I hope not.

------------------
DtG

Agreed. However, it's times like this when we have to be most vigilant about that happening. It's all too easy for legislators and their constituents to get swept up in the moment, passing "new" laws and regulations because no one would dare disagree with them today, this week, or this month. But in a year or two...

As just one example, did anyone hear Ashcroft (or was it Cheney?) yesterday? He called for new wiretapping laws designed to make it easier to surveil suspected terrorists. If a bill so doing was sent to Capitol Hill today, do you think any member of congress would disagree with him? New FAA security measures. or other laws that can be (note: I said "can be," not "are") interpreted as restrictions on civil liberties are no different, at least in the process of their proposal and/or adoption during times like this.

Now, implementation of those laws and regulations is debatable, but that's the point--we must debate them, not simply pass them in light of recent events. There's a reason the laws and regulations some are now seeking to overturn were implemented in the first place, and we shouldn't lose sight of that.

[This message has been edited by SuperSlug (edited 09-17-2001).]

Another poster has suggested that we join the ACLU. I have paid the membership from time and time, and I don't always agree with everything they espouse. But, I feel that the conservative policy makers are the beneficiary of the "mood" right now and we do have to be diligent in preventing further erosion of our liberties and rights, which are what set the U.S.A. apart from other countries in the world. So I am going to dig up my ACLU contribution form and join again.

dgordan- Maybe you can get a trip report from your blond blue-eyed nephew on the latest.

I fear the US public will willing sacrifice the Constitutional rights of others and even of themselves for a glimmer of hope of security. Profiling leads no where because everyone fits a profile. White, ex-military, like guns-domestic terrorist; dark skin, hair, with a Semetic name-Mideast terrorist; Celtic name-IRA terrorist. Single male traveling alone-suspect. Like to travel to foreign countries? It never ends.

I guess with dark skin, hair, and facial hair and been mistaken for Mexican by Mexicans, Asian by Customs; Native American, Inuit, and all sorts of other ethnicities, I guess I will expect to be looked at suspiciously. I go to DC all the time and interact with DOJ, DOD, DOT. I fit a profile since I am always at airports, don't check luggage, have to change plans at the last second, sit in FC, etc.

BTW, I am an American.

The attack occured only a few days ago.

Because the ennemies are difficult to identify, not wearing an uniform, the security people have a difficult job at this time.

It's currently better to deplane an innocent, as to let fly another terrorist.

Nobody would accept to take the risk of a new attack, nobody would excuse a security guy if he detects a suspicious passenger and let him board the plane.

Who are "we" and who do you suggest are "you"? I am disgusted by what you are implying.

In the US we have a document dealing with who gave rights to whom:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

There are presumptions in this assertion that do not really hold up under logical examination. They are really questions in terms of numbers.

Certainly, there have been examples of other ethnic groups, including Caucasian, who have participated in suicidal rituals as a part of some (what most of us would call misguided) religious or political conviction. In the U.S., one could point to occurrences such as Heaven's Gate, Waco and Ruby Ridge, among others in recent history. In Europe, too, predominantly Caucasian extremist groups have also engaged in suicidal strategies to advance political (and religious, though I would argue VERY loosely religious) agendas.

Tango says "very few Americans," though. So these groups do not represent a majority of Americans, Europeans or Caucasians. Fair enough.

But the implication is that Middle Eastern extremism that engages in such behaviors DOES represent a majority of Middle Easterners. This is the main logical fallacy in the argument. I have not seen the numbers to demonstrate that the majority of peoples of Middle Eastern descent or nationality buy into this philosophy at all.

One thing that always strikes me is that, particularly in periods of crisis, we regular janes and joes seem to forget what makes news. It's not the ordinary and typical; it is the unsual! The exception! If the majority of terrorist suicide bombers that have been shown in the American news media have been of Middle Eastern descent, it does not necessarily follow that the majority of people with that ethnicity are terrorist bombers. The news is not going to show people going about their daily lives -- having meals with their families; going to work; even sitting on the computer posting messages to bulletin boards (though this is still something of an exception in the world population as a whole).

There are no easy answers to this situation, including the marginalization of any particular ethnicity in this country. We should, perhaps, have learned that in WWII. I know that Tango is NOT intending that the U.S. repeat its mistakes during that time of presuming guilt or even suspicion based on ethnicity alone. So please do not take this as an attack on Tango, but rather a challenge to his argument.

robinhood....

Good Morning....

By "we" I was referring to the US government and the constitution. I am a Canadian BTW so I am talking out of context here.

By "you" I am referring to all those of every race/color/political belief who object to what will be required to establish security and order in "our" free world.

I hope this clears it up for you.