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.

59 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. Proof please. by suso · · 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.

    1. Re:Proof please. by Anonymous Coward · · 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 ;)

    2. Re:Proof please. by tiananmen+tank+man · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if false, what does that say about society today if this is even believable.

    3. Re:Proof please. by suso · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That we have mob mentality? That isn't just today, that has been the case since we learned to use tools.

    4. Re:Proof please. by suso · · 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.

    5. Re:Proof please. by IdleTime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This was not very insightful. I'm sure he can provide you with evidence if you really want it.

      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.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    6. Re:Proof please. by suso · · 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.

    7. Re:Proof please. by Gulthek · · 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.

    8. Re:Proof please. by tnk1 · · Score: 3, 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.

    9. Re:Proof please. by professionalfurryele · · Score: 4, 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.

    10. Re:Proof please. by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't think of any other country where reactions and measures taken are so extreme, and so disproportionate and above all so quick to occur.

      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.

    11. Re:Proof please. by Mike+Buddha · · 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.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    12. Re:Proof please. by sampas · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well there is proof that the TSA did something just as inane in a different case, because the person being questioned recorded his interrogation. The ACLU is using the tape for the lawsuit against the TSA. Listen to it here: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/39922res20090618.html Unless you have a tape of your encounters, the judge will assume the cops/TSA/whatever never lie.

    13. Re:Proof please. by vishbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This happens all over the world. When it happens in the USA, however, people stand up and make noise. Part of the reason the USA may seem so oppressive is the massive voices of opposition from the other 49%. Contrast the US with a society like Russia, where the ruling de facto president (Medvedev is a Putin puppet) enjoys a 70% approval rating.

      --
      Ride the skies
    14. Re:Proof please. by rm999 · · Score: 3, 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.

    15. Re:Proof please. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, 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?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    16. Re:Proof please. by Duradin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or "I was interrogated by the TSA, and they confiscated the other lousy T-shirt".

    17. Re:Proof please. by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Has anyone else noticed that there has not been a peep from the Democratic party about the PATRIOT Act since the Democratic party took control of both the executive and legislative branches of our government in the recent election?
      During both terms President Bush's ( a Republican ) Presidency, the Democrats loudly demanded that the PATRIOT Act be scaled back or repealed.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    18. Re:Proof please. by Cacadril · · 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.

      --
      There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
    19. Re:Proof please. by legirons · · Score: 3, Funny

      The TSA agent probably thought he'd found Isaac Mendez...

    20. Re:Proof please. by hozozco · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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." For some years now, if you enter Australia as an asylum-seeker - which is not illegal - you are put in detention camps - sometimes for years. When/if you are deported you are given a bill for your detention. My nephew-in-law received such a bill for around $AUS250,000. Fortunately it looks like the newish Rudd Government (with support from some of the opposition) is going to reverse this. But I think my point stands - people are locked up in Australia for years having committed no crime and are given a bill for their 'accommodation' when they leave. ...oh and Australian's can can detained for ages without trial with no one knowing why or being able to report on it... ...only in America? I wish!

    21. Re:Proof please. by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, 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, for one. There are many more.

      --
      That is all.
    22. Re:Proof please. by Archtech · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  2. Bad move by oneirophrenos · · Score: 5, Informative

    Never try to explain an authority the "irony of the situation". Chances are they will lack the intellect to understand.

    1. Re:Bad move by demonbug · · Score: 3, Funny

      We at the FBI do not have any sense of humor that we are aware of.

    2. Re:Bad move by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, 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."

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  3. Watch Closet Land by flatulus · · Score: 3, 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.

  4. We finally figured out step 2 by oneTheory · · Score: 4, Funny

    Step 1) Make graphic novel mentioning 9/11
    Step 2) Get detained by TSA, spread story over /.
    Step 3) Profit!

    1. Re:We finally figured out step 2 by cyphercell · · 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

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  5. I Can See It... by S810 · · 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!

    --
    "I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
  6. Re:it is sad.. by czarangelus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Submitting to authority does not protect you from them.

    --
    When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
  7. Re:it is sad.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is bullshit. Why shouldn't he be allowed to carry his script with him into the airplane? Maybe he was going to a meeting about it or something. The TSA are nothing more than airport bullies, all part of the security theatre. They won't actually make you safer, they'll just make your lives a living hell, and worst of all, we let them. Your response is typical and just shows how passive the American people have become. We let these people take away our liberties, and we keep giving them more power, and eventually the USA will be a Police State. You're well on your way to helping make that happen.

  8. Slashvertisement by Kuj0317 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is just insulting how thinly veiled it is.

    1. Re:Slashvertisement by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, it's not working. I've read it twice, and I still don't want to buy the TSA.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  9. Re:it is sad.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When doing something you have a perfect right to do is "asking for it" something is very wrong.

    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.

  10. Bay Splosions! by eldavojohn · · 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.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  11. The Lone Gunmen episode 1 by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From wikipedia:

    Foreshadowing a number of conspiracy theories which would arise in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the plot of the March 4, 2001 pilot episode of the series depicts a secret faction within the US government plotting to hijack a Boeing 727 and fly it into the World Trade Center by remote control. The stated motive was to increase the military defense budget by blaming the attack on foreign "tin-pot dictators" who are "begging to be smart-bombed."[3][4] In the episode, the plot is eventually foiled by the protagonists who board the doomed plane and deactivate the malicious autopilot system just seconds before the plane would have reached the World Trade Center.

  12. Welcome to by kenp2002 · · Score: 4, 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."

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  13. Re:That the guy's an idiot? by Duradin · · 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.

  14. ignorance of your own rights by aber · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:ignorance of your own rights by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:ignorance of your own rights by Dryth · · 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.

  15. Re:it is sad.. by liquidsin · · Score: 3, 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?

    --
    do not read this line twice.
  16. Re:He forgot the most important part by pluther · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  17. Maybe, Maybe not... by painehope · · Score: 4, 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...

    --
    PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
    1. Re:Maybe, Maybe not... by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 3, 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

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    2. Re:Maybe, Maybe not... by kneemoe · · Score: 5, Informative
      "But you know what - it's not resisting arrest or assault if there's nothing to arrest you for!"

      Actually (IANAL) - http://www.lawinfo.com/fuseaction/Client.lawarea/categoryid/144

      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.

      --
      My Sig Sucks
  18. Re:He forgot the most important part by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    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.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  19. Economist Steven Levitt almost got arrested too by BurningTyger · · Score: 5, Informative

    Economist Steven Levitt also had an interesting story of how he almost got arrested because he bought a last min one-way flight, and that he carried research paper on terrorist activities:

    I almost got sent to Guantanamo
    By Steven D. Levitt
    http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/i-almost-got-sent-to-guantanamo/

  20. Re:That the guy's an idiot? by powerlord · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    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.

    ~

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  21. Re:it is sad.. by SydShamino · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  22. keep in mind... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 4, 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...

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
  23. It's a damned good thing ... by Skapare · · 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.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  24. Re:So what's the story here? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  25. Re:it is sad.. by Artifakt · · 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.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  26. Re:In fairness... by powerlord · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
  27. Reichstag Fire Vs 9/11 by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · 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, 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!
    1. Re:Reichstag Fire Vs 9/11 by soccerisgod · · Score: 4, Informative

      You seriously compare Guantanamo Bay with Dachau? From this I must deduct that you have no idea what you're talking about. Guantanamo Bay is comparable to the detainment camps the US opened for Japanese nationals during WWII, not with an institution with the sole purpose of murdering as many people as possible. Seriously, just making that comparission proves that you do not understand what you are going on about.

      --
      If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
    2. Re:Reichstag Fire Vs 9/11 by NiteShaed · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.