Slashdot Mirror
Comic Artist Detained For Script Containing 9/11 Type Scenarios
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.
From wikipedia:
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."
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
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."
The enemies of Democracy are
"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.
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.
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.
Two words..
Poll Tax.
Introduced 1377, Peasants revolt 1381 - revoked
Introduced 1989/1990, Poll Tax riots 1990, government folded 1990.
Granted we might put up with more sh*t than some, but sooner or later the British public stand up to be counted.
maybe you should look around your own culture before you start pontificating
And at least we have some culture to look around.
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.
Who is John Cabal?
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.
There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
Interesting. Citation, please?
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, 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 two months, the sweeping PATRIOT Act did more and lasting damage to US freedoms than any Reichstag decree. It took the Nazi's two months to open the Dachau concentration camp, but it only took the US 27 days to open Guantanamo.
The Reichstag fire took place in a time of political upheaval, economic depression, civil anarchy and with Germany utterly downtrodden after defeat in the first World War. September 11th took place in a climate of stable government, favorable economic climate, domestic calm and with the US in a historically unprecendented position of unipolar, worldwide supremacy. Yet the reaction of the US was faster, harsher and wider in scope than any of the early day Nazi crackdowns.
I stand by my point. Americans are tightly wound, and have and will embrace a mob mentality with a swiftness and zeal that is rarely, if ever, seen in other nations. Americans will of course be the first to deny this, but the irony is that their fervent belief in innate American freedom is exactly what has lead to their great complacency in the face of encroaching tyranny.
May the Maths Be with you!