Comic Artist Detained For Script Containing 9/11 Type Scenarios 441
Comics writer Mark Sable was detained by security at Los Angeles International Airport because he was carrying a script for a new issue of his comic miniseries, Unthinkable. Unthinkable follows members of a government think tank that was tasked with coming up with 9/11-type "unthinkable" terrorist scenarios that now are coming true. Sable wrote about his experience saying, "...I was flagged at the gate for 'extra screening.' I was subjected to not one, but two invasive searches of my person and belongings. TSA agents then 'discovered' the script for Unthinkable #3. They sat and read the script while I stood there, without any personal items, identification or ticket, which had all been confiscated. The minute I saw the faces of the agents, I knew I was in trouble. The first page of the Unthinkable script mentioned 9/11, terror plots, and the fact that the (fictional) world had become a police state. The TSA agents then proceeded to interrogate me, having a hard time understanding that a comic book could be about anything other than superheroes, let alone that anyone actually wrote scripts for comics. I cooperated politely and tried to explain to them the irony of the situation. While Unthinkable blurs the line between fiction and reality, the story is based on a real-life government think tank where a writer was tasked to design worst-case terror scenarios. The fictional story of Unthinkable unfolds when the writer's scenarios come true, and he becomes a suspect in the terrorist attacks." It's too bad that the TSA can't protect us from summer blockbuster movies and not just graphic novels.
Proof please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Any proof that he was detained and that this happened? Otherwise I'm tempted to believe that it is a stunt to advertise his comic.
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Funny)
Any proof that he was detained and that this happened?
Well, given TSA's paranoia level, his description of events certainly is thinkable ;)
Re:Proof please. (Score:4, Funny)
The TSA agent probably thought he'd found Isaac Mendez...
We finally figured out step 2 (Score:5, Funny)
Step 2) Get detained by TSA, spread story over
Step 3) Profit!
Re:We finally figured out step 2 (Score:5, Funny)
Airport Security Officer: Nine times out of ten it's an electric razor, but every once in a while...
Airport Security Officer: it's a dildo. Of course it's company policy never to, imply ownership in the event of a dildo... always use the indefinite article a dildo, never your dildo
Re:Proof please. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if false, what does that say about society today if this is even believable.
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Insightful)
That we have mob mentality? That isn't just today, that has been the case since we learned to use tools.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean all riots that occurred when London installed cameras everywhere? Oh wait...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
AWWWSNAP!
(Hello. I'm an American. I'm wound up like a steel spring, ready to snap and give away all my freedoms. Oh wait, no, no I'm not. God I hate generalizations)
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hi. I'm not a historian, but I studied to be one.
Things like Guantanamo Bay, the Iraq War, this TSA bullshit and countless others simply do not happen in other countries.
You are wrong, mind-numbingly, disturbingly, incomprehensibly wrong. It's as though you just commented in all seriousness that the sun and the moon are the same thing. Not only are you wrong now, but you are wrong in the past and almost certainly the future. You are wrong on so throughly, so completely, that whenever I try to write a cohesive rebuttal my mind falls dizzyingly lurches into a dark chasm where the word "What?" echoes endlessly into the void.
The fact that you have been modded +5 insightful is a thought too painful to bear. I think I need to go lie down.
Re:Proof please. (Score:4, Insightful)
The ironic thing is the anti-American flavor of liberals like the GP can be just as Americentric as the neo-conservatives they hate.
Everyone should study some history and periodically keep in touch with world news so they can keep things in perspective.
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Informative)
You are wrong, mind-numbingly, disturbingly, incomprehensibly wrong. It's as though you just commented in all seriousness that the sun and the moon are the same thing. Not only are you wrong now, but you are wrong in the past and almost certainly the future. You are wrong on so throughly, so completely, that whenever I try to write a cohesive rebuttal my mind falls dizzyingly lurches into a dark chasm where the word "What?" echoes endlessly into the void.
The fact that you have been modded +5 insightful is a thought too painful to bear. I think I need to go lie down.
This boils down to "You are wrong" (without the slightest attempt at justification or explanation). Since when did telling someone "you are wrong" very forcefully and repetitiously merit being modded up to "5 Insightful"? More specifically, where is the insight?
Ironically, the only explanation I can think of is "mob mentality" on the part of the moderators. They agreed with the poster, so modded his reply Insightful for no other reason.
Reichstag Fire Vs 9/11 (Score:3, Interesting)
The Reichstag fire occurred in a Germany that had seen years of continuous street battles, protests and political fracas between communist and fascist militias. Moreover, the Nazi's had preached for years about remaking Germany in a new fascist image. Top top it off, the crackdown following the fire was blunt and direct [wikipedia.org], and it would take the Nazi's years of gradual legislation to remould Germany completely.
By contrast, after September 11th, it took the US less than a month to invade another country. Within
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's people like you who make legitimate critics of the American government look like loonies. You are honestly going to say that the PATRIOT Act did more to damage to US freedoms than the Reichstag decree did to Germany? Seriously? The PATRIOT Act is bad, but when has it been used as justification to violently crackdown on peaceable assembly across the nation? When has it been used to arrest tens of thousands of American citizens and hold them indefinitely, or murder tens of thousands?
And comparing Gua
Re:Reichstag Fire Vs 9/11 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Reichstag Fire Vs 9/11 (Score:4, Insightful)
Again though, context is everything. I'll agree they were murdered in the sense that they shouldn't have been there and that the Nazis showed a horrifying lack of regard for the prisoners, but the greatest actual cause of death for prisoners at Dachau was disease, neglect and mistreatment, not bullets or poison.
I think the greater point is that Guantanamo, like Dachau, is a place where you put people whom you'd like to disappear, and who have little or no recourse or rights. If these people are guilty of a crime, put them on trial in the full light of day. Don't just say that they're in Guantanamo because they're guilty and the proof that they're guilty is that they're in Guantanamo. If we're going to hold prisoners, wherever we do it we should be living up to our own standards, not shopping around for a piece of ground that's outside our boarders so we can say that our rules don't apply. That's an end-run around the ideals that we fight for, and it cheapens those ideals when we disregard them as inconvenient.
I'd rather not have the best things that can be said about a U.S. operation is that at least it's smaller and more sanitary than a Nazi concentration camp. We're better than that.
Re:Proof please. (Score:4, Funny)
The Brits has to fight an uphill battle when they tried to curtail freedoms. In America, the population was crying out for more oppression.
That's 100% true. However, those clever Home Ministry people then said: "Silly proles, these cameras are so you can all be on the telly!" and the fearsome fight against curtailing freedoms and privacy was overcome.
In the US, however, we have more and dumber reality shows, so our not-as-clever populace was inclined to look favorably on the cameras, until their agents told them not to be seen on them without a solid contract and a percentage. Currently, our desired oppression is now in bitterly contested compensation arbitration proceedings.
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are completely and utterly wrong. Just about every other country has this sort of thing happening, some are better than the US but some are worse.
The Brits has to fight an uphill battle when they tried to curtail freedoms. In America, the population was crying out for more oppression.
That is so incorrect as to be offensive. The Brits are notorious for rolling over and taking the most ludicrous government interference in their daily lives. Look at the absurd surveillance they've built up over there, or the DNA database, or the ID cards. The British are far more likely collectively to let their elected officials do whatever the hell they want.
In America, the population was crying out for more oppression.
Wrong. From the beginning a huge chunk of Americans have been fighting against civil rights abuses. You are insulting the millions of people who demonstrated against the last government, the hundreds of lawyers who have fought against the Guantanamo detentions unpaid as well as the Patriot Act, the people who were willingly thrown in jail (even some elected officials) during protests. You're forgetting the fact that the current American president was elected on a platform of restoring civil liberties.
But typical British smug superiority; maybe you should look around your own culture before you start pontificating, shouldn't be too hard considering all the cameras.
Hell, the UK is the only place I ever heard of where those wrongfully imprisoned are then forced to reimburse the government for the cost of their imprisonment.
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the absurd surveillance they've built up over there,
I hope you're not still basing this on the debunked article in a right-wing tabloid that counted traffic cameras and private security cameras on a major london street, divided this number by the length of the street, multiplied it by the total road length in the UK and published this as the total number of government security cameras in the UK. Getting news about the UK from publications like the Daily Mail is like getting news about the USA from Fox News. It may contain some facts, but it's so distorted to push an agenda that it's far from representative.
For the record, there are no government-controlled cameras anywhere near where I live. There are a few private ones in local shops that get a small view of the road outside. If you go out of town a bit, you will find traffic monitoring cameras on the motorway. If you go in to town, you will find some security cameras in the centre areas. If you walk around a typical American city, you will see security cameras in similar places.
or the DNA database
The one that doesn't exist, and which is currently massively over-budget and looking like it won't be completed? The one which now has been subject of extensive campaigning from civil rights groups and now has very few supporters in government?
or the ID cards
You mean the planned ID cards? The ID cards which were subject to extensive campaigning from groups like No2ID and have since been dropped as too expensive and not actually useful?
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Insightful)
During both terms President Bush's ( a Republican ) Presidency, the Democrats loudly demanded that the PATRIOT Act be scaled back or repealed.
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. Most of the folks who were against the civil rights abuses by the Bush administration are just as much against the continuation of these abuses by the current one. Now, let's face it... You won't hear a lot of us in the MSM, who like to focus on the blue-dogs and other gutless Republican fellow travelers who rolled over for these abuses, but out here in the Interwebs and in certain parts of MSNBC (I'm looking at you Maddow!) the left is still screaming about it. You can check out this guy's columns [salon.com], for one. There are many more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hell, the UK is the only place I ever heard of where those wrongfully imprisoned are then forced to reimburse the government for the cost of their imprisonment.
In Norway, Per Liland, wrongfully convicted for murder and jailed for 14 years, had the cost of living he would have had if not jailed, deducted from his compensation. (Until there was an uproar and the deduction was cancelled.)
The logic was that the compensation was compensation for loss due to imprisionment. Without imprisionment he would have had living expenses. The compensation as granted by the Parliament was for lost income. Now they adjusted for lost expenses too. The logic is flawless: it had two part, the amount he would presumably have earned in a job, and a compensation for reduced quality of life. But they failed to compute a compensation for the insult of doing such calculations.
Re:Proof please. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting. Citation, please?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hahahahahaha -cough- hahahahahahaha!!!! Hee! ...
Oh, wait, you were serious?!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless, of course, we're talking about Paedophiles. Then, mob mentality is obviously the weapon of choice for any sane society, right? Twat.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, both Guantanamo and the Iraq War basically took place in other countries.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently pointing out poor word choice in trolls counts as insightful.
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It says that people will believe what they want to believe.
Re:That the guy's an idiot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless there's a way to blow up the aircraft with said papers their content shouldn't matter.
Now if you were packing C4 and detonators you should probably be checked out. But plain old information? Without acting on it, information is basically harmless.
Re:That the guy's an idiot? (Score:5, Funny)
You're missing the train of thought the TSA employee went through.
1) The was information.
2) Information is Knowledge.
3) Knowledge is Power.
4) Power Corrupts.
5) Power is dangerous to a Plane in operation (it could blow up the fuel tank).
6) Corruption is dangerous to a Plane in operation (it could cause a wing to fall off or the fuselage to break apart).
7) Information is therefore dangerous to a Plane in operation since it is both Power and Corrupting.
QED This so called "Writer" was attempting to smuggle a WMD onto a plane and should be treated accordingly.
~
Re:In fairness... (Score:5, Insightful)
With all due respect, but if a given piece of paper ALONE allows a person to blow up a plane, then you are way more screwed than you think.
There is NO document alone that could describe such a situation, and if you COULD find such a simple document that provided such a disproportionate ability (all by itself) of blowing up a plane.
Even if the document described how to build a bomb using items you're likely to find on-board the plane itself, I'd be very surprised if:
1) a would be terrorist couldn't simply memorize it (they aren't necessarily DUMB, just committed to a cause)
2) you couldn't just drop the document into a file on a netbook for ~$200 (it can even run linux, so he gets the most "bang for his buck").
Okay, now according to you, no one should be allowed to board a plane until the contents of every electronic device they carry is scrutinized to make sure it doesn't contain this mythical "How to blow up a plane in 5 easy steps" document.
If there is a piece of the plane THAT sensitive, it should be secured (see: Cockpit).
If there is an item that bringing onboard would be that dangerous, then the item should be banned/controlled (see: Explosives).
There is little that ANY document can do by itself.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Any proof that he was detained and that this happened?
You, sir, are begging for a goatse reply.
Re:Proof please. (Score:4, Insightful)
My experience as a foreign national living and working legally in the US and traveling across the Atlantic somewhat frequently, is that the TSA agents are high school dropouts at best and totally idiots. The level of intelligence is so low that they have problems grasping the most rudimentary issues ecplained to them.
This is exactly what you get when you have decided that the work they are doing is not worth more than minimum wage.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
because it's inconceivable that the TSA would treat someone this way...
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Interesting)
Do searches and seizures at airport security require warrants? Because if they did then there would be paperwork and if groups like the TSA wanted the benefit of the doubt they could say warrant or GTFO. But oh no wait travellers don't have any rights. Once you set up a rights free zone don't be surprised when everyone assumes you are abusing it. Until our freedoms are restored in an airport I'm inclined to believe every horror story I hear and assume that the jack booted morons are doing what ever they please. Because they have the power to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bear in mind that the Constitution ONLY applies to the US Government. The people running the security at airports are all contractors, outside corporations, and therefore not Government.
Wow, someone sure wasn't paying attention when the TSA was created by nationalizing the formerly private airport security screeners, and rapidly became far more of a pain in the ass than the old ones ever were.
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Funny)
Expressing a cynical perspective by default does not automatically make you sound any smarter (even if /. and the internet makes it seem that way).
I wasn't trying to sound smart, I was trying to draw attention to myself because I'm deprived of it. And I'm a karma whore too, a cheap one. That's why I pay Slashdot $5 for a subscription, so I can use my limited mental capacity that is the result of lack of interaction with others to think of something interesting to say and make sure I get the first comment on a story if I want to. Only then do I feel good about myself. Other people? Who cares about them.
Re:Proof please. (Score:5, Insightful)
Any proof that he was detained and that this happened? Otherwise I'm tempted to believe that it is a stunt to advertise his comic.
I'm tempted to believe that you believe that the President wasn't actually born in Hawaii.
Ok, I'll bite. The answer is no in the case of Obama's citizenship, because they presented reasonable evidence that they had looked into it and presented valid documents. If I wanted to be a conspiracy theorist I might start saying things like "But those documents might have been fake, false testimony" blah blah blah. But because I'm not willing to investigate the matter myself, I have to take what is presented at face value and its a waste of ones time to think about it any more if you're not going to look into it yourself.
This article however has no investigative journalism to it. No visible attempt was made to contact the TSA for their comment on the matter and it only appears that they listened to what Mark Sable had to say about it and wrote an article based on only that. This is why good journalism is important and why blogs can be bad at times. After reading the article Slashdot linked too, I did a search on news.google.com for Mark Sable and couldn't find much else about it other than the same story. This makes me skeptical about whether it actually happened and thus my initial inquiry.
And since things like this have happened many times before (PR stunts), proof needs to be asked for.
Re:Proof please. (Score:4, Funny)
Or "I was interrogated by the TSA, and they confiscated the other lousy T-shirt".
Bad move (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bad move (Score:4, Funny)
We at the FBI do not have any sense of humor that we are aware of.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the people that try to ban "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451"
Re: (Score:2)
Who tried to ban those novels? Was it notable, or some overzealous high school librarian?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Who tried to ban those novels? Was it notable, or some overzealous high school librarian?
It's usually not the librarians.. it's the school board and administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bad move (Score:4, Interesting)
Whether they are smart enough or not, TSA and airport security are essentially required by law to not understand irony, humor, jest, satire, sarcasm, or the like. Now surely the TSA officers in question, reading a script about terrorist attacks (as if such could be the topic of fiction in today's world!) and getting suspicious indicates they fall squarely in the "lack the intellect" bucket... But in either case, trying to explain the irony would just mean they'd say "I'm sorry sir, but according to DHS regulation 372(d) paragraph 2, I'm not allowed to understand what that word means."
Why thats... (Score:2)
Watch Closet Land (Score:4, Insightful)
The 1991 movie "Closet Land", starring Madeleine Stowe and Alan Rickman paints a horrifying picture of just how far a government might go in tracking literary "subversives". Sounds like mr. comic book writer is a lot more "at risk" than the childrens' book author in this movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tho I agree TFA sounds too much like Slashvertizement, the concept is all too real. If it could be applied to a bunch of storyboards, why not to a novel??
So... next time you fly with an espionage novel in your luggage -- could you be the courier for The Bad Guys' Secret Plans??
I Can See It... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see the grossly under-paid TSA Employees thinking: "Yay! We got one! We got a terrorist!" Too bad they don't go to school to learn the difference between Art and Terror Plans!
Re: (Score:2)
Slashvertisement (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slashvertisement (Score:5, Funny)
He forgot the most important part (Score:2)
One presumes they did - otherwise it would have been mentioned. In which case it's just a sorry tale of someone, one of many every day, who gets stopped. Nothing much to see here. Let's have another story please.
Re:He forgot the most important part (Score:5, Insightful)
But he wasn't just stopped.
I get stopped all the time, it's annoying, but not a big deal.
They not only stopped him, but then read his personal papers, and held him while they questioned him about them.
Papers are not bombs, or weapons. You cannot hijack an airplane with a script, whether it's for a comic book or a movie, or just a pure fantasy scenario you wrote for yourself to pass the time.
As such, TSA has absolutely no business, no right, and no authority to read them.
The fact that their employees are so badly trained that they actually believe they have this authority, and the fact that the average citizen is so badly informed that they believe it also, is just scary.
The irony that the papers they were reading were a fictional account of a government agency grabbing more authority than they should have is just the funny part of it all.
Re:He forgot the most important part (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the irony is that the steps the author took to make sure he got one of the more close inspections of his gear so that he could have this anecdote to publish while getting dupes like you to believe that this is something other than a publicity stunt... the irony is that despite the sophomoric transparency of the whole thing, you fell for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the irony is that the steps the author took to make sure he got one of the more close inspections of his gear so that he could have this anecdote to publish while getting dupes like you to believe that this is something other than a publicity stunt... the irony is that despite the sophomoric transparency of the whole thing, you fell for it.
To an extent, I agree with you. However, the problem remains that we live in a society where this kind of thing could happen. The bottom line is that TSA should not have had to read through his papers to ascertain that he was not a threat (nor should they have a right to). They very fact that there was a stunt to pull off is indicative of a problem with our society's acceptance of what rights authority has in our personal lives.
Bay Splosions! (Score:5, Funny)
It's too bad that the TSA can't protect us from summer blockbuster movies and not just graphic novels.
Personally I think they should stop Michael Bay from boarding any plane after seeing how disturbingly obsessed the man is with explosions [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
http://my.spill.com/profiles/blog/show?id=947994%3ABlogPost%3A355506 [spill.com]
The Lone Gunmen episode 1 (Score:5, Interesting)
From wikipedia:
Welcome to (Score:5, Interesting)
Welcome to the era of Thought Crime.
Thinking about it is a crime.
Writing about it is a crime.
Drawing about it is a crime.
Last I check wasn't DOING a crime... well.. a crime?
Next thing you know Jessica Lansbury and company will be held and charged for all those terroristic threats and murder plans called "Murder She Wrote". They were so detailed! Lets not forget the Matlock, Columbo, Perry Mason, CSI, etc... All those murder plans!!! GET EM!!
"When is a man damned? When he is oblivious to it."
Jessica Fletcher (Score:3, Informative)
Jessica Fletcher was played by Angela Lansbury.
They're just bored (Score:2)
ignorance of your own rights (Score:5, Interesting)
"I cooperated politely and tried to explain to them the irony of the situation." Mr. Sable's ignorance or willful abdication of his 5th amendment rights caused him to perhaps waste a great opportunity to challenge TSA policies on search of personal belongings. Next time, maybe a better approach would be (disclaimer, IANAL): "Am I being detained?" followed by "I'd like you to tell me what laws you are accusing me of breaking," or "I won't make any statements until I have spoken to a lawyer," as the case may be. If Mr. Sable had actually been prosecuted simply for having exercised his 1st amendment rights, his case would have had a much more significant impact in our fear-prone society, causing perhaps some much needed "clarification" of what the federal government can/cannot do "for our own good" to "protect us from the evil terrorists." Perhaps even a re-evaluation of TSA policies, or at least application of punishment to over-zealous agents.
"The minute I saw the faces of the agents, I knew I was in trouble." You're not in trouble just because a government employee says so (or looks at you funny). We do have a bill of rights, you know.
From TFA: "In the end, I feel my privacy is a small price to pay for educating the government about the medium." No one of any importance was "educated." No policy is likely to be changed as a result of this incident; law-abiding citizens are still going to be stopped in airports for carrying 'strange' books, scripts, magazines, etc. All this shows is that TSA agents can act in an arbitrary manner with repercussions.
Re:ignorance of your own rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me flesh out that scenario for you.
Next time, maybe a better approach would be (disclaimer, IANAL): "Am I being detained?"
TSA: Yes. Duh.
followed by "I'd like you to tell me what laws you are accusing me of breaking"
Conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to destroy buildings and property, conspiracy to commit jaywalking, conspiracy to....
"I won't make any statements until I have spoken to a lawyer"
TSA: Cool with us.
(long wait)
(optional: arrest on above charges, booking, transfer to jail)
(Lawyer arrives)
TSA: Okay, having conferred with your lawyer, we're dropping the charges. Have a nice day.
Lawyer (to dude): Okay, where do I send my bill?
----
Seriously, what would that have accomplished? Not that he accomplished anything anyway. The point is, justice and due process of law are slow and inconvenient.
No policy is likely to be changed as a result of this incident; law-abiding citizens are still going to be stopped in airports for carrying 'strange' books, scripts, magazines, etc. All this shows is that TSA agents can act in an arbitrary manner with repercussions.
Yup. We knew that already.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and frankly, suspicion of the crimes you listed simply because you're carrying some sort of manuscript is unlikely to be recognized reasonable
And that is where I think you are being naive.
You would have to prove that the TSA agent was deliberately trying to set you up, and not merely an idiotic bureaucrat. And that is an insanely difficult thing to prove (unless you happen to have a recording of him in the airport lounge joking about how he likes to screw with people for the fun of it. )
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>Mr. Sable's ignorance or willful abdication of his 5th amendment rights
Are TSA agents technically law enforcement officers? Are they trained in due process, reasonable force, constitutional rights? What power do they actually wield? As a free citizen, I expect to be able to walk out of any room without physical altercation unless I'm under the custody of a police officer or other law enforcement agent.
What would stop a person from standing up and walking out of one of these little TSA Q&A sessio
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The TSA are, I believe, considered law enforcement. Mercenary law enforcers, the same way that King John hired mercenary law enforcers, the same way Blackwater/Xe were mercenary law enforcers, and - for that matter - how the Taliban is also largely made up of mercenary law enforcers.
Hands up all those who think mercenaries make bad enforcers? No, stubs don't count. The rest of you, form a line. The guy with the axe will be round shortly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Those are good questions, and I really don't have the answers. From TSA's website (http://www.tsa.gov/who_we_are/what_is_tsa.shtm):
"We are the Transportation Security Administration, formed immediately following the tragedies of Sept. 11. Our agency is a component of the Department of Homeland Security and is responsible for security of the nation's transportation systems.
"With our state, local and regional partners, we oversee security for the highways, railroads, buses, mass transit systems, ports and th
Re:ignorance of your own rights (Score:5, Insightful)
He was detained by the TSA, not the police.
The worst the TSA will ever do to you is call the actual police. The second worst is attempt to confiscate your belongings. The third - and the one most innocent travelers are most wary of - is they'll prevent you from boarding your flight.
For people falling into that third scenario you aren't arguing just against being detained. You don't want to wait for a lawyer, and you don't want to escalate the issue to them calling the police over. You're trying to get through TSA screening as quickly as possible so you can make your flight.
I've flown on average once a month for the past six years, and have been detained in a back room half a dozen times myself. The first time it happened I treated it like a police encounter ("No sir, I'm not aware," "am I being detained, or am I free to go?" "I don't have anything to say without my lawyer present."). I ended up missing my flight, missing a job interview, wasting a few hours in a security checkpoint waiting room, and getting nothing back in return - even with my lawyer's involvement.
Since then I've just played nice. I'm more interested in getting to my destination than being a martyr. It's one of those "You'd be right, but you'd still lose" scenarios.
Paging Ron Paul... (Score:2)
There was a recent news item (can't recall if it was /. or FreeRepublic) noting that one of Ron Paul's people was detained by TSA for carrying $4700 cash (sales of T-shirts, stickers, etc. from a convention) and managed to record the whole incident. Sounds like Comic Book Guy needs to contact him and work on filing a joint suit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That guy's name is Steve Bierfeldt, and he is suing TSA with the help of the ACLU. A synopsis from CNN (posted by Steve himself) can be found here [campaignforliberty.com].
Steve is in a much better position because he has the recording of the incident. This guy probably won't be able to get very far, if indeed this is more than a publicity stunt.
Maybe, Maybe not... (Score:5, Insightful)
So far, the larger part of the comments here have dealt with the fact that this might be a scam.
IMHO, it's probably not. If you've heard some of the stupid shit from cops and other government bureaus that I have, this is right up their alley. Remember - these guys by and large aren't really trying to do the job they say they're out to do. And they're nowhere near as competent and knowledgeable as they imagine they are. I've been told before that the fact that the devil chicks I have tattooed on my forearms have some meaning in these exact words : "Don't think we don't know what those horns mean! We're not stupid!". Uh, yes, you are. They're devil chicks. What, you expect them to be wearing garland wreaths on their heads? Get real. There is no hidden meaning behind that, and I know what most gang and prison-related tattoos in Texas mean.
If you're a chickenhawk bureaucrat on a power trip, who are you likely to pick out as a target? A comic book artist? Or someone who does have actual ties to known and dangerous terrorist organizations? Let me repeat that, just in case you missed it : known and dangerous. Despite all the spoon-fed drivel that gets funnelled straight into your living room, courtesy of your brand-new digital TV, these guys are bureaucrats. They don't want to break a sweat, let alone get their asses shot off or some other form of retaliation. They're not heroes, except the extremely rare exception (think about it - you hear ten times as many stories about cops shooting unarmed civilians as you do an armed civilian shooting a cop...yet the cop is always painted as the "hero who died in the line of duty"; generally through their own stupidity, like not searching someone they just antagonized and arrested...now if the supposedly unbiased news puts those figures forth, what do you think the real numbers are?). They don't go out of their way or risk their lives to protect citizens. They don't do anything other than collect their check, do as little as possible, and then go home to fuck their middle-class fat-arsed wives and scream at their subnormal children. If they can skip out on doing their "duty" for a few hours by harassing some artist whom they had to have known has no affiliation or even a tenuous connection within an hour, you bet your bottom dollar they will be doing just that for as long as they can.
And a cavity search? Oh, I'd love to see those fuckers try that one of me. You ain't getting my clothes off unless you've already arrested me and have me full restraints (which makes it pretty hard to get someone's clothes off without cutting them off). Because I can and will fight, and there's only so many people that can gang up on one man, and that is not enough to get my clothes off me without beating me unconscious, which is pretty hard to do. Oh, sure, I'll get some kind of charge slapped on me. But you know what - it's not resisting arrest or assault if there's nothing to arrest you for!
You, as a society, have become sheep. And you have chosen wolves to protect you. Is it any wonder that the herd gets culled by their so-called guardians quite often? Here's Tom with the weather...
Re:Maybe, Maybe not... (Score:4, Insightful)
>>it's not resisting arrest or assault if there's nothing to arrest you for!
Oh ho ho, Get back to us when you try that trick! Every level of our judicial system has upheld nearly every "unreasonable" search. To most of our judges, there is no such thing as 'unreasonable search'. If someone wants to search you, that's their reason right there.
I don't like it, I don't agree with it, but I'd prefer a lawyer fight my legal battles for me rather than getting into a physical fight with taser-and-mace-armed thugs.
If you've ever been tazed or maced, raise your hand. OK, now keep them up if you want to try it again.
-b
Re:Maybe, Maybe not... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually (IANAL) - http://www.lawinfo.com/fuseaction/Client.lawarea/categoryid/144 [lawinfo.com]
What do I do if I am arrested?
If you are arrested, submit to the law enforcement officer. Do not resist, even if you are innocent. Your innocence does not make the arrest illegal as long as the officer has conformed to the requirements of a legal arrest. If you resist, even if you are innocent of the charges for which you are arrested, you could be charged with resisting arrest. If the officer does not conform to the requirements of a legal arrest, you should still allow yourself to be taken into custody without resistance. If this happens, you may be entitled to bring an action against the law enforcement officer for false arrest.
Economist Steven Levitt almost got arrested too (Score:5, Informative)
I almost got sent to Guantanamo
By Steven D. Levitt
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/i-almost-got-sent-to-guantanamo/
keep in mind... (Score:5, Funny)
Keep in mind that these are the same folks that tried to take away a Congressional Medal of Honor 'cause its sharp and pointy...
It's a damned good thing ... (Score:5, Funny)
... he had not started to write (and therefore would have been carrying around) his new comic story about a trio of bumbling TSA agents that are always screwing up everything.
This actually IS something of a police state... (Score:3, Insightful)
... when employees of the TSA are allowed to be so completely full of themselves and their imagined importance that abuses like this routinely happen. There's nothing more malicious and mean-spirited than the BOTTOM RUNG of an authoritarian regime (like the TSA): the people on that lowest rung act out that authoritarian schtick in the worst possible way with people who are, if not completely innocent, certainly not deserving of the abuse of power.
What exactly will be the consequences of this abuse of power for the TSA employees involved? You already know the answer, don't you? NOTHING. No consequences at all... unless it becomes a huge public scandal and scapegoats must be habeas-corpused. That's a key tenet of a police state: the authorities and enforcers are not held to the same standards of behavior as those they are tasked to judge. We see the same thing in the corporate world as well in many cases.
So yeah, this really is the early stages of a police state. What are we gonna DO about it? Hint: electing a smooth talker like Obama isn't doing something about it.
Re:it is sad.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it is sad.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it is sad.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Describing something that somebody has a perfect right to do as "asking for it" makes you a sniveling authoritarian bootlicker and a complicit bystander to abuse of authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Who in their right mind should have to worry about that at all?
We aren't in our right minds at all if we're concerned at all about a comic book. He wasn't begging for it, we (the collective we) were begging for it to be done to him.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who in their right mind would assume that securing an airplane would require reading a passenger's private documents?
He was asking for it. No.. he was begging.
The only people begging for it are the submissive right-wingers who worship authority.
Freedom of expression (Score:2)
Either everything is ok to say/write down or nothing is. You'll always find things people consider "objectionable" or "unsafe" whether they be objects, thought, or actions (such as speech). Unless you're actually trying to incite a riot or cause violence with your words (which would have to be pro
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say I'm a screenwriter and I'm working on a terrorist-based film that's filming in the Philippines. The script has all sorts of stuff about bombs in airplanes and airports, guys with boxcutters seizing planes and flying them into bridges and military bases and so on and so forth. You're saying if I hop on a plane with the script, I'm asking for trouble?
I wonder how many real bad guys slip through the cracks will moronic airport employees harass people that they know aren't a threat to anyone. I sup
Re:it is sad.. (Score:4, Informative)
well yeah, because it's perfectly reasonable that a search for drugs, weapons, and explosives would include reading through business papers. seriously, did they think this guys journal pages were laced with ricin? just what would be the justification for needing to read through my notebook before letting me on a plane?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:it is sad.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I was once one of those people who had exceptionally broad rights to conduct searches. As a military officer, I could, in theory, have searched a whole barracks full of the personal effects of a whole company of enlisted soldiers for a single stolen item. But before they would have turned me loose to do that, even as a raw Lieutenant, the government made it very clear that there was paperwork that had to be kept on record, documenting the steps of the search AND what other steps were taken to solve the crime before command decided a search was necessary. They made it clear that I had to deliver a Miranda warning (and the military form of the Miranda actually explains more rights than the Civil form.). They made it clear that the decision to authorize a search was limited to command personnel and not staff officers/staff NCOs, and why.
If I was supposed to be searching for a stolen boom-box, I had to have a good description, and not search inside anything too small to hold that boom-box. Even if I thought I smelled dope (and I've been to a controlled burn and can claim legally to know what Pot smells like), I couldn't act on it (beyond mentioning the scent to the owner of that gear, as in "Smells like pot - I hope you wouldn't mess with that stuff. - You know it's illegal and they can throw you out of the Army if you do - oh well, I'm just here to look for a boom-box.).
If I could be held to that standard 20 years ago, when dealing with people who had agreed to give up some of their rights as a condition of enlistment, and to be bound by a special set of laws (The Uniform Code of Military Justice), I have to wonder why on Earth the US citizenry allows the present situation.
Re:it is sad.. (Score:4, Insightful)
While it is sad that he'd have been forced to go through the humiliation and embarassment of being questioned/searched/etc.. but honestly.. who in their right mind would carry something like a terror script through airport screening? Comic book, hell.. it could've been a movie script and he would've received the same response.
In short: He was asking for it. No.. he was begging.
While it is sad that she'd have been forced to go through the humiliation and embarassment of being raped/beaten/etc.. but honestly.. who in their right mind would wear something like a mini skirt to a frat party? Skirt, hell.. it could've been a tight blouse and she would've received the same response.
In short: She was asking for it. No.. she was begging.
Re:So what's the story here? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is with : They found a script. They read it.
As far as I know, no airplane has ever been destroyed by a script. Whatever was written on those pages falls under the "IT'S NONE OF YOUR% FUCKING BUSINESS" category. If you don't believe that, then you need to relearn what a "free society" is all about.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's called the Constitution. Maybe you should read it some time.
Start with the 4th Amendment [wikipedia.org]
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The book was 'Debt of Honor' by Tom Clancy, in case anyone is interested. The event also factors heavily into the sequel, 'Executive Orders'.