Slashdot Mirror


Don't Fly During Ramadan

An anonymous reader sends in a harrowing story from Aditya Mukerjee about his recent attempt to fly from New York to Los Angeles. After being pulled aside in the security line, he faced hours of interrogation by uncommunicative officials from several different agencies. When he was finally cleared, his airline, Jet Blue, wouldn't let him on the plane anyway. When he got home, he found evidence that it had been searched. He writes, "It was 2:20PM by the time I was finally released from custody. My entire body was shaking uncontrollably, as if I were extremely cold, even though I wasn’t. I couldn’t identify the emotion I was feeling. Surprisingly, as far as I could tell, I was shaking out of neither fear nor anger - I felt neither of those emotions at the time. The shaking motion was entirely involuntary, and I couldn’t force my limbs to be still, no matter how hard I concentrated. In the end, JetBlue did refund my flight, but they cancelled my entire round-trip ticket. Because I had to rebook on another airline that same day, it ended up costing me about $700 more for the entire trip. .. But no matter how I’ve tried to rationalize this in the last week and a half, nothing can block out the memory of the chilling sensation I felt that first morning, lying on my air mattress, trying to forget the image of large, uniformed men invading the sanctuary of my home in my absence, wondering when they had done it, wondering why they had done it."

756 of 1,233 comments (clear)

  1. Don't fly period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't travel by plane.
    And don't travel at all.
    Built a bomb shelter basement
    With titanium walls.

    1. Re:Don't fly period. by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 5, Funny

      You said "bomb"! Arrest him!

    2. Re:Don't fly period. by somersault · · Score: 1

      Aha! A book of pressure cooker recipes! You're going to go away, for a long, loooong time, son.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Don't fly period. by Blitz22 · · Score: 1

      YOLO! (you oughtta look out....)

      --
      If I went around claiming I was an emperor...they'd put me away!
    4. Re:Don't fly period. by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're so cute.

      I get the feeling these so-called random searches are from an NSA-built profile. Someone with a similar name or nearby location made some references online, and this guy's getting gloveloved because some computer flagged him as a "possible".

      I got flagged once as a "possible" back when I was in school. Some guy robbed a bank and escaped by bike. I happened to be wearing a blue vest, same ass the suspect.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    5. Re:Don't fly period. by JTsyo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Didn't realize LE went from using face recognition to ass recognition. Makes sense since you usually will see criminals running away from you so it's helpful to be able to ID them from behind. Though from your experience it seems the technology still has a ways to go.

    6. Re:Don't fly period. by OakDragon · · Score: 5, Funny

      You blue-vesties never learn.

    7. Re:Don't fly period. by Phreakiture · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree about their randomness. I suspect that they mean random in the same sense as "random access memory". What the computer does with RAM is not random.

      I got "randomly selected" for five legs of a six-leg trip once. Then I stopped flying if I could avoid it.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    8. Re:Don't fly period. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have this image of a group of security specialists standing over a table with a crockpot, package of frozen chicken legs, carrots, onions and bullion cubes saying, "Put out a BOLO for an elderly lady with an apron. Approach with caution."

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Don't fly period. by nonicknameavailable · · Score: 1

      damn i have a pressure cooker

      --
      Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
    10. Re:Don't fly period. by Richy_T · · Score: 5, Funny

      Man, Paula Dean just can't get a break.

    11. Re:Don't fly period. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      He confessed! Put him in the comfy chair!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Don't fly period. by hendrikboom · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. They need those special cameras that can see through clothes.

    13. Re:Don't fly period. by chill · · Score: 2

      You've obviously never seen the movie Grease, or you'd know the FBI has been doing that sort of thing since the 50s.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  2. Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey, America,
    Are you proud of yourself yet? Proud of what you've become to yourself, your citizens and to the rest of the world? I can't imagine that this is what any of our founding fathers envisioned when they risked everything in order to found this country. And now look what you've made of it.

    Ashamed,
    A Disappointed Citizen

    1. Re:Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hey, America,
      Are you proud of yourself yet? Proud of what you've become to yourself, your citizens and to the rest of the world?

      no.

    2. Re:Proud? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, a huge percentage of Americans are actually quite proud of the version of the USA that exists in their heads. Just letting you know.

    3. Re:Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good appeal, but please tone down the idealistic stuff about the forefathers and such - it's a bit like quoting the bible. Gets attention, but is nowhere near infallible and therefore not suited for a proper argument. That's one of the other things that are wrong with America, too much hype about ideals that have long ceased to be relevant. You need to look forward, look to improvements, shape new ideals that are worth aiming for.

    4. Re:Proud? by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, a huge percentage of Americans are actually quite proud of the version of the USA that exists in their heads. Just letting you know.

      And elsewhere, people laugh hysterically when they hear an American blathering about the "freest country in the world".

    5. Re:Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good appeal, but please tone down the idealistic stuff about the forefathers and such - it's a bit like quoting the bible. Gets attention, but is nowhere near infallible and therefore not suited for a proper argument.

      Don't compare a document crafted by a number of real people who had been-there-seen-that to a religious work widely regarded as ancient history of even fiction. Principles are the foundation of all good and effective constructs - they should never be abandoned.

    6. Re:Proud? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's one of the other things that are wrong with America, too much hype about ideals that have long ceased to be relevant.

      This story shows just how relevant they still are and they are only going to get more and more relevant as our society descends into a police state in every way possible. This sort of thing is precisely why some of us dislike government in general and large governments in particular. Power corrupts. Always. And eventually you end up with a fascist tyranny like we currently have in the US. The ideals of people like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson have never been more relevant than they are today.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    7. Re:Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I mean. You dismiss one hype, but fail to see that you're conditioned to accept another one as flawless. You're limiting your own options right from the beginning. Now don't get me wrong - those ideas might really be the best there is, perfect in every way. But still, can't hurt to at least try to think of something to improve. Especially when all things considered, the words of your founding fathers are more and more becoming just that... words. With a reality that doesn't quite fit their description.

    8. Re:Proud? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you had actually read the article, you would have noticed that he's not Islamic, and not an Arab.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    9. Re:Proud? by gmuslera · · Score: 2

      They cry. Other people only monitor, opress, indiscriminately kills or violate human rights on their own population. US, in the other hand, does that as the invasion army of their banks and biggest corporations.

    10. Re:Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ok, I read the article. After opting out of the normal wand-waving security method, he was patted down. They found traces of explosives on his clothes. They did another pat-down, and again found explosives. The rest of the article is the what one would expect the yahoos to do; they are dicks to him, ask him questions that are slightly offensive to his religion, and keep him without telling him a lot about what was going on, step-by-step. I think they do this in order to see how frustrated he'd get, and all that - yeah it's crappy, I agree.

      But in no way does this shed light on "the US" being proud of itself, or trying to be dicks beyond reason. The people at the airport have to do their job, and then go home and go to sleep. I'd feel much pressure if I had to work for the DHS. Mostly because I don't agree with there even being a DHS. However, if I did have to work for the DHS (for whatever ungodly reason) I'd have more than likely taken the same measures with this guy as they did.

    11. Re:Proud? by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      What remains unaddressed is whether there was legal probable cause to detain and interrogate. Makes a huge difference.

    12. Re:Proud? by CMYKjunkie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But he's BROWN, which is close enough for most of the US' security apparatus, isn't it?

    13. Re:Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pfft, details. GP there probably couldn't identify Mexico on an unmarked map, let alone distinguish between "Arabia" and India.

    14. Re:Proud? by khallow · · Score: 2

      You say this as if there are not terrorists running around who would blow up an airliner.

      And he is saying this as if there were. One can't distinguish the number and quality of the terrorists blowing up stuff by his words. I think that is quite appropriate because while there's always excuses for tyranny, such as terrorists who blow up airliners, there isn't always this degree of tyranny. The US is in much greater danger now than if it had merely terrorists who killed people.

    15. Re:Proud? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Show me the terrorists. I want to see them. I want to see the evidence against them. Until they show themselves I will continue to assume that they don't exist. Even if planes were blown up every day, it wouldn't justify welcoming a police state. Also why should I care about what is motivating those thugs?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    16. Re:Proud? by interval1066 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would say less than 30 years ago this was true. Now, not so much.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    17. Re:Proud? by Askmum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So true. America is not the land of the free and the home of the brave anymore. It is the land of the opressors and the home of the frightened.

    18. Re: Proud? by imikem · · Score: 1

      Which one would that be?

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    19. Re:Proud? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

      What the heck are you one about?
      The bible is a collection of stories, what stories go in it is decided by each branch of christianity. They vary quite a bit. The constitution is one document written at one time and not a collection of oral traditions only written down centuries later.

    20. Re:Proud? by Timex · · Score: 5, Informative

      I would say less than 30 years ago this was true. Now, not so much.

      I was thinking the same thing. The country as it is today is, in my opinion, not much of something to be proud of. The government is blatantly corrupt, people that are woefully uninformed are electing the wrong people into government (or electing anyone at all for the wrong reasons), and one cannot travel quickly within the country without having basic rights violated.

      It's pretty sad when the American government makes likes of Vladimir Putin look like a "good guy".

      --
      When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
    21. Re:Proud? by canadian_right · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If your government is corrupt it is because the generally apathetic USA voters are quite happy with it that way. If they weren't happy they would stop voting in the same people.

      In Canada the voters completely wipe out political parties that existed for generations if the politicians piss us off. There is no Social Credit in BC now, there is no Conservative party federally (well the PC is sort of their bastard offspring with the Reform party).

      Stop voting for just the Republicans and Democrats. Put a stop to Gerrymandering. Put a stop to ear marks. Get better informed. Actually get off your butt and vote.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    22. Re:Proud? by zrelativity · · Score: 1

      Aditya Mukerjee is certainly not a Muslin or Arab name. Its a Hindu Bengali name, most probably from West Bengal, India.

    23. Re:Proud? by Andtalath · · Score: 1

      So, let's see, which country has been involved in the most number of deaths of other countries citizens the last 13 years?

    24. Re:Proud? by runeghost · · Score: 5, Informative

      The terrorists exist, and you've probably seen them already (on the news or in other media). They're a small fringe group whose members are, by and large, not particularly competent or capable. They got extremely lucky once, but even counting that, they're about as much of a threat to individuals, the United States, or civilization in general as home accidents and bad weather.

      One of the best descriptions I can recall reading of terrorists was along the lines of, "criminals who want to be warriors". Terror is probably best handled in a low-key manner by law enforcement. The "War on Terra" has given them exactly what they want, and was probably the worst possible response. America's over-reaction to 9/11 and the terrorism "threat" in general is doing far, far more damage than any terrorist could directly do in their wildest dreams.

    25. Re: Proud? by Wovel · · Score: 5, Funny

      I own a passport and have traveled to 38 countries on 5 continents. I can't think of any place that offers more freedom than the US. Is our government more invasive than in the past? Yes. Should we change that? Absolutely. Is there someplace with both the same level of security and a less invasive government? No. I am hard pressed to even identify a less invasive government.

      We have our problems, but it certainly can be worse. The only place I might consider less intrusive is Canada, but even then it is close and they make up for it with an absurd pile of regulations.

      Get rid of the TSA? Absolutely
      Reign in the NSA? Should be our top priority.
      There is someplace better? Get real.

    26. Re:Proud? by vajorie · · Score: 1

      Proud of what you've become to yourself, your citizens and to the rest of the world?

      I don't understand this. There is nothing different about what is going on in the US. This treatment, in much worse forms, was already standard for minorities as well as against foreigners during operations abroad.

      They are giving us an opportunity to question the past and the present in terms of the way interracial and international relationships have been carried out thus far, and all we are doing is "OMG OMG How did this happen!". It's sad.

    27. Re: Proud? by Wovel · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Your right, in a sense, there is nothing arbitrary about the bible. It was designed to control a population and keep them under the thumb of chosen men. There is no divine inspiration in the bible. Most of the bibles new testament fables are more than 10,000 years old.

    28. Re:Proud? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      They're blowing up OUR airplanes because WE'RE in THEIR countries.

      If we stop extending our police state beyond our borders, we'd be a lot safer.

      The motivations AND the actions are so far overboard as to be psychotic. We've paid trillions of dollars to blow up people IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY. GTFO of their country and they won't be so pissed.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    29. Re:Proud? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      We can be not happy about it AND apathetic.

      We're 'Mericans after all!

      But it would be nice if the alternate choices didn't always have a large dose of crazy with them.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    30. Re:Proud? by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 30 years ago is about right.

      I'm considering leaving the country.

    31. Re:Proud? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The ideals of people like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson have never been more relevant than they are today.

      One of Thomas Jefferson's ideas when he was President was to defend Americans from being killed, taken as slaves, or held for ransom by the Barbary Pirates that attacked and enslaved according to their religious principles - the Muslim threat of his day. I can't imagine you standing for Jefferson's actions even if it meant massive violations of the rights of Americans by being killed or made slaves. Some Americans are more equal than others, apparently.

      "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- The cry of a free people that grows fainter as time passes. First it will be tribute, then chains. May they rest lightly upon you.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    32. Re:Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      “I mentioned earlier that American culture is unique and must be included in all discussions of culture. It is America that has fed more and freed more people on earth than all the other countries put together. You know how I know this is a great country? Because everybody is trying to get in, and nobody is trying to get out.

      “I have heard complicated treatises on world affairs. I have listened to theories of foreign policy. I have listened to the criticism of the United States. I’ve watched even some Americans systematically try to dismantle the greatest country on earth and yet we are still strong. We’re strong, because of three words I believe, God, country, family.”

      I think Mr. Ailes summed it up well when he said this. A few people might laugh at America, like one poster suggested, but it's an ugly, hate fueled manic laughter. The kind of folly that fuels further ignorance and intolerance.

      Regards,
      An American Citizen

    33. Re:Proud? by Swampash · · Score: 1

      I read the story and my first reaction was "boo fucking hoo. You were inconvenienced while travelling by air with two computers in your backpack. You are, by any rational standards, one of the richest people on the face of the Earth. Either leave the USA or shut the f*ck up and stop complaining."

    34. Re: Proud? by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      Is there someplace with both the same level of security and a less invasive government?

      I was going to say the UK, but based on the last couple of months, now I'm not so sure.

      I think Germany may just be the answer to the question. Any Germans (or non-German residents of Germany) willing to confirm/deny?

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    35. Re: Proud? by Swampash · · Score: 3, Funny

      There are lots of places better. But, speaking on behalf of the rest of the world, we actually like you being this ignorant. Because then you don't leave the USA because you think there are no places better.

      Please, stay where you are. We like it that way.

    36. Re:Proud? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      probably china, with all the poisoning it does to the rest of the world.

      over time, I bet it kills more than the various militaries do.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    37. Re:Proud? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Explosives residue maybe?

    38. Re:Proud? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't you know all the terrorists are currently residing in Washington D.C. and regularly appear on TV

      All kidding aside I figure there must be very few actual terrorists of which 99.9999% don't reside within the US given how soft many targets are in the US. The few "real" ones out there seem to like to make videos and send them to foreign news outlets. These frequently feature the leader yammering about The Great Satan (tm) and have a couple of masked men behind him with AKs or rocket launchers. Given that these individuals are far off in some other country and couldn't get to the US the pose no real direct threat. They do however serve as great propaganda piece to allow the massive erosion of rights and expansion of government. So I guess they do pose a pretty good indirect threat to the citizenry of the US.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    39. Re:Proud? by gmclapp · · Score: 1

      The problem with the version of America that these people are proud of is exactly that. It only exists in their heads.

      --
      Common Sense (+1)
    40. Re: Proud? by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit, I did around 26 countries (started to lose track) across 4 continents last year alone and the most invasive country I visited was Bosnia, the second most invasive country was the USA, all the others were amazing.

      Sure America has freedoms to do some stuff you can't else where (like own an assault rifle) but if owning an assault rifle is actually the most important thing in the world to you, you're doing it wrong.

      Note. Australian drinking laws are pretty shit

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    41. Re:Proud? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Different sects within their own belief system blow each other up all the time.

      Blowing things up IS WHAT THEY DO. They are trained from birth that blowing something up and taking yourself with it is the way to heaven.

      All you have to do is have a SLIGHTLY different system of beliefs and they will blow you up.

      What places have the MOST bombings? Places like India and Pakistan.

      Look at this item - just came out on BBC 5 minutes ago:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23811328

      Lebanon, two muslim groups exchanging bombings.

    42. Re:Proud? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dissolution is the solution. Democracy, like Communism, works best at small to medium sized populations and regions. 50 staes must become 50 nations.

    43. Re:Proud? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      It wasn't really written at one time.

      The 11th amendment on came later and the supreme court has extensively "reinterpreted" the constitution. The changes to the commerce clause alone result in lot of abuse today and that was over a few dozen bushels of wheat.

      The bible is the collected wisdom of a tribe that did better than other tribes in the area at the time. Some of it is useful, some of it is obscure, and some of it is random madeup bullshit (kinda like most tribal folklore).

      The forefathers were a unique group of individuals. I don't think we have people like them in power today. They had a revolution- they didn't take permanent power- they didn't descend into barbarism- and they set up a reasonably good system of government.

      It's too bad about the indian guy who got investigated. Scary. Going to get worse as it gets easier to kill large groups of people and individual lunatics kill people.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    44. Re:Proud? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Read the article?
      I'm not Al-Qaeda! (this is the new You must be new here!)

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    45. Re:Proud? by phorm · · Score: 1

      I think you misspelled "shudder", though perhaps you meant to use "cry"

    46. Re:Proud? by gh0st1nth3mach1n3 · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, I think it's a nervous and fearful laughter that they hope will somehow make them feel a little safer. As for nobody trying to leave, people renouncing their US citizenship is up 800% since 2008.

    47. Re: Proud? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      The US founding fathers had many principles that were markedly different than those most people today think are important, just
      like the people who wrote the bible. The American founders also wrote things that have been reinterpreted many times until today they mean different things than they originally did. Just like the bible.

      For example, all those rights, enumerated, customary and natural that they talk about. Inherent to all men. Not women. And not men who aren't white. Those you can do what you like with.

    48. Re:Proud? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm considering leaving the country.

      Betcha won't though. Posting "I'm considering leaving" on Slashdot is the internet equivalent of a passive-aggressive note on an office fridge. You won't do anything and we all know it.

      Not to mention, being a pussy and fleeing doesn't fix anything. Look at how the US and NZ governments colluded to spy on and share information about Kim Dotcom, for allegedly violating copyright. If you think that running and hiding will somehow free you from the authoritarian grip of the terrorist organization known as the US government, you're a fucking imbecile.

      There's only one way to fix this, and that's to fight it, any and every way we can think of.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    49. Re: Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Depends on who you are and what you care about. Want to freely insult people? Germany's the wrong place. Want to have an abortion without being harassed? Germany is a good place. Want to harass, intimidate and lie to make people not have an abortion? Wrong place. Want to start a business and hire and fire people depending on your needs? Wrong place. Want to have children without being afraid of losing your job etc.? Slightly better place than the US but not comparable with e.g. Sweden. Want to have judges that care about justice and sanity, and a constitutional court with teeth that takes your freedoms seriously? Mostly a good place. Want courts that follow the letter of the law to the dot, no matter what was meant? Mostly wrong place. Want to have the freedom to own and use a gun? Really wrong place.
      A lot of "freedoms" are one person's right to do one thing vs. one person's right to either do another thing or have a chance at a good life. Which counts more in which cases differs a lot between Germany and the US.

    50. Re: Proud? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Informative

      Minor bitch:

      Reign in the NSA? Should be our top priority.

      Rein, not Reign (w/ the g it means "to rule over")

      That's all, have a great weekend - hope it doesn't rain.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    51. Re:Proud? by neonmonk · · Score: 2

      Might help if you didn't have to be a gazillionaire to run.

    52. Re:Proud? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but the didn't start attacking the US until we got our military fully involved in defending our oil supplies. Even though they weren't ours.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    53. Re:Proud? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that tends to help bring the crazy out.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    54. Re: Proud? by khallow · · Score: 1
      While some religion has been used to control people, that's never been the reason people join. They don't join religions because they need to install a bigger joystick on their head. Religion meets some human needs.

      There is no divine inspiration in the bible. Most of the bibles new testament fables are more than 10,000 years old.

      So what? There's a reason those stories have survived for so long.

    55. Re:Proud? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Or at least have the federal government power pushed back to the spirit of the constitution, defense, freetrade and bill or rights.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    56. Re:Proud? by Githaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is why states need to have a majority of the power. It essentially makes them 50 counties with unifying treaties. The closer the government is to the people, the more likely that those people are under a rule that they agree with.

    57. Re:Proud? by khallow · · Score: 1

      what stories go in it is decided by each branch of christianity

      So thought went into what stories to include, just like how thought went into what rules to include in the US Constitution.

    58. Re:Proud? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Yes, a huge percentage of Americans are actually quite proud of the version of the USA that exists in their heads. Just letting you know.

      As well they should be. All of the people I know are disappointed with where our country is and with where our country is going. However, they are also fiercely patriotic, knowing that the U.S. has been a really awesome country and can still be a really awesome country. It has not gone too far yet to turn back, but we are getting closer to the point of no return for sure.
      No, I see no problem with being disappointed in your country and yet highly patriotic.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    59. Re:Proud? by no-body · · Score: 2

      I would say less than 30 years ago this was true. Now, not so much.

      I was thinking the same thing. The country as it is today is, in my opinion, not much of something to be proud of.

      Take a poll and you'll see what the majority thinks. Flags are all up and high all over!

    60. Re:Proud? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, then we can have the southern 20 nations re-implement Jim Crow. Face facts: localized government has done even worse by most measures than the federal government.

    61. Re:Proud? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Totally complete list of totally amazing freedom enhancing things done in the name of states' rights:

    62. Re: Proud? by Uberbah · · Score: 5, Informative

      I own a passport and have traveled to 38 countries on 5 continents. I can't think of any place that offers more freedom than the US. Is our government more invasive than in the past? Yes. Should we change that? Absolutely. Is there someplace with both the same level of security and a less invasive government? No. I am hard pressed to even identify a less invasive government.

      How many of those countries have an NDAA and allow their citizens to be militarily imprisoned without a trial?

      How many of those countries have a "constitution free" zone that covers most of their population?

      How many of those countries have continue to hold innocent prisoners cleared for release a la Gitmo?

      How many of those countries have openly assassinated one of their citizens for engaging in protected speech?

      You're either snarking the shit out of us, have limited to your travels to places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, or have a terminal case of American Exceptionalism.

    63. Re:Proud? by Flammon · · Score: 1

      I'm canadian and used to think that way, that if everyone would vote, it would make a difference. Well, let me tell you my fellow countryman, my views have changed dramatically over the years.

      Talking about canadians, here's one that has a few things to say about voting.

      http://youtu.be/igbBItLemsM?t=37s

    64. Re:Proud? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Sure but rules are not the same thing as cherry picking written down versions of oral history. You do realize that, right? You might as well make them up on the spot if you are going to do that.

    65. Re:Proud? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 2

      I live in a civilized state, I am a bit tired of the those southern and midwestern senators holding us back from any real progress while they blow my money on overpriced defense projects and military bases. I could not care less about what happens to them if the US were to disband.

    66. Re: Proud? by cbeaudry · · Score: 1

      That reason is called ignorance.

    67. Re:Proud? by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      I'll try to explain where the the US being "dicks beyond reason" comes in: a human being was isolated and interrogated, his requests for water (having not eaten or drank since the previous day) refused, before finally being released in a state of dehydrated shock and nervous terror, and there was no apology.

      Yes, it sucks that there are fanatics out there who will joyfully plow airplanes into buildings. But the United States Government is the most powerful superpower on the whole damn planet, the least it could do is say "sorry" and mean it.

    68. Re:Proud? by dryeo · · Score: 1

      When we voted out Social Credit, they joined the Provincial Liberal party, when we voted out the Progressive Conservatives, they got replaced by even nuttier politicians who eventually teamed up with the remaining PCs and are now in charge with 38% of the vote. When we replaced the Federal Liberals with the NDP, the NDP first took out the Libertarian parts of their platform then the Socialist parts so they could be more like the Liberals.
      It's hard to get rid of politicians, vote them out and they come back under different colours.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    69. Re:Proud? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Hey, America,
      Are you proud of yourself yet? Proud of what you've become to yourself, your citizens and to the rest of the world? I can't imagine that this is what any of our founding fathers envisioned when they risked everything in order to found this country. And now look what you've made of it.

      Ashamed,
      A Disappointed Citizen

      Yes.

      Proud but still concerned,
      A citizen that hasn't been nuked or given ebola from iron age religious psychopaths... yet.

    70. Re:Proud? by Githaron · · Score: 1

      So going to a gun range is illegal now? While I realize this guy didn't go to one before flying, it shows this shoudn't be enough to detain him. It might justify running his bags through one more time but not detaining him. If I was him, I would have waited for the police to show up and then asked the officer to arrest the TSA agent for theft since the agent wouldn't reliquish the bag when he said he wanted to leave.

    71. Re:Proud? by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would say less than 30 years ago this was true. Now, not so much.

      I was thinking the same thing. The country as it is today is, in my opinion, not much of something to be proud of.

      Take a poll and you'll see what the majority thinks. Flags are all up and high all over!

      Depends on the poll. When you start seeing polls about how "the majority of Americans xyz" where xyz is something controversial, it's to manipulate us into thinking we stand alone in the minority. The questions are asked several different ways until they get the numbers they want, and those numbers are then used to isolate and discourage the outraged.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    72. Re:Proud? by gox · · Score: 1

      America's over-reaction to 9/11 and the terrorism "threat" in general is doing far, far more damage than any terrorist could directly do in their wildest dreams.

      10 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But looking back, I feel that you are being a bit naive.

      If you were a detective wanting to solve a crime, the first question you'd ask would be "Who benefited?".

      I agree that terror has been used plenty of times recently, that the elected governments never had a hand in it, and that there are organized groups around the world who have been hurt by the U.S. and want to take revenge at all cost. However, whenever I try to look from the perspective where "they got extremely lucky once", the picture begins to turn into a caricature of reality, like a badly written Hollywood movie.

      We will never know why things happened how they happened, but trying to make sense of it the way we are supposed to doesn't work anymore. How long would Saddam's nuclear weapons remain a plausible threat if the citizen had no way of knowing about the evidence?

    73. Re:Proud? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      I would say less than 30 years ago this was true.

      Really? The U.S. was a great beacon on liberty in the 1980s, when Regan and his buddies were propping up death squads in Latin America, and selling weapons to Iran, and used the NSA to spy on Congress-critters who opposed their policies? When the War on (Some) Drugs was getting ramped up and the great boom of the prison-industrial complex took off?

      There has never been a time when the U.S. came close to living up to its hype. It was founded on slavery and genocide and dedicated to the proposition that the purpose of government is to preserve privilege for the wealthy.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    74. Re:Proud? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Informative

      Democracy, like Communism, works best at small to medium sized populations and regions. 50 staes must become 50 nations.

      The historical ignorance, it burns, it burns...

      Yeah, let's go back to the days when states could decide that people with dark skin couldn't sit at the same table as people with light skin. Let's let women in shithole red states be subject to state legislatures that think the world portrayed in The Handmaid's Tale would be a mighty good idea. Let's zip on back to the corruption of the Gilded Age

      We can rationally argue about the current balance of federal and state power, sure. There are many areas where the feds have overstepped their bounds. But taking away anything to balance state power? I'm sorry, but that's just a damned stupid idea. The idea that state governments are more friendly to liberty than the federal government can only be entertained by someone ignorant of historical and political reality.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    75. Re:Proud? by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      What was your second reaction, after instinct subsided and you reflected on the characteristics and patterns exhibited by the authority figures as a group in such accounts?

    76. Re:Proud? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      ... 50 staes must become 50 nations.

      This could work very well for some of us. Like, say, Vermont, which could then apply for Provincehood with Canada. The United [somethings] of Maple Syrup!

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    77. Re:Proud? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Or at least have the federal government power pushed back to the spirit of the constitution, defense, freetrade and bill or rights.

      The spirit of the Constitution has nothing to do with free trade. Congress is deliberately given broad power to regulate trade. According to Madison, the Constitution was intended to take the power to regulate commerce away from the states and to grant Congress more power that the British Legislature ever had.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    78. Re:Proud? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Unless you have the fiber to wage war, I suggest you remain submissive.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    79. Re:Proud? by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      "one cannot travel quickly within the country without having basic rights violated."

      I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, but I am going to call you out on this bit.

      You can go damn near anywhere the hell you want in this country without the slightest threat to your rights.

      It's called driving. :)

      Truckers do it nearly every single day of their adult life...

    80. Re:Proud? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I read the story and my first reaction was "boo fucking hoo. You were inconvenienced while travelling by air with two computers in your backpack. You are, by any rational standards, one of the richest people on the face of the Earth. Either leave the USA or shut the f*ck up and stop complaining."

      So you don't like him complaining? Well, either leave the USA, or shut the f*ck up complaining about him.

      But actually, if something is wrong in a country, people shouldn't leave, they should do their best to improve things. Throw out the people who mess it up.

    81. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Compared to our current leaders, Vladimir Putin is a good guy. That should say something about our current leaders, especially Obama.

    82. Re:Proud? by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      One of the founding principles, and certainly the best of them, was that principles may be amended.

    83. Re: Proud? by sageres · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a person who grew up in Soviet Union and still keeping in touch with things that are happening in all of the Soviet republics, I can tell you that Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan easily qualify as an answer to all four of these questions. BTW, who in the United States have been militarily imprisoned without a trial? Are the constitutional rights REALLY including freedom of speech, religion, the right to own a weapon, the right against self incrimination, the right to own a property are really not protected in these zones? Does the government really suspended entire constitution in these zones? Or are the government with agreement of the courts (who are the constitution) expending the right of limited warrants for the cause for search and seizure? Are the prisoners in Gitmo really innocent? Can I put a big sticker on you that says, "JEW" and put you in the same room as Khaled Shekh Muhammad? (You know, he personally cut the throat of Daniel Pearl, for being Jewish.) Perhaps I don't need to label you as a Jew. I can just add you as another American in a Gitmo room full of "innocent" jihadists. Lets see how long you last. And where and when have we assassinated one of our own citizens for engaging in protected speech? The only assassinations of the American citizens are those of the Yemeni cleric from Detroid (I think). And he was running an Al Quada media wing. Was that only because of the so called "protected" speech on his part?

    84. Re: Proud? by khallow · · Score: 1

      That reason is called ignorance.

      You can label it whatever you want. But humans need socialization and support when things go wrong. A religion is one way to provide that.

    85. Re:Proud? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 2

      Should the UN be stepping in and enforcing civil rights issues on the US? Possibly to the point of sending armed peacekeepers to enforce it?

    86. Re: Proud? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Who threw that peanut?!

    87. Re:Proud? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Sure but rules are not the same thing as cherry picking written down versions of oral history.

      Cherry picking rules is not in any way the same as cherry picking versions of oral history? Sure.

    88. Re:Proud? by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but the didn't start attacking the US until we got our military fully involved in defending our oil supplies. Even though they weren't ours.

      Biggest user of said supply. It is an interest of the US. Yes, it's an interest of the companies that sell it, which is in turn an interest of the US govt for wealth and control.

      That being said, this isn't new stuff here. The US did not have the creation rights to defending it's interests. It's been done by every nation/culture past and present. This is how it goes, someone/people have control over a resource and will defend it until it's no longer needed. The Egyptians did it. The Norse did it, the Chinese did it, the Russians did it, the French did it, Native American Tribes did it, and so on, and so forth. (note: Different resources (water, trade routes, land, buffalo herds, etc, but waging war over resources is not new)

      I'm not justifying or defending it, however that has been the way of the world for thousands of years. And guess what, it will remain that way until someone figures out a better way.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    89. Re:Proud? by sinkasapa · · Score: 1

      I can't understand why anyone would ever be "proud" to accidentally be born anywhere. As far as the founding fathers go, this man would probably have looked like a potential slave to them.

    90. Re: Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hailing from Venezuela:

      * It's not unusual to spend 2-3 years in a civilian prison waiting for a trial.
      * We're mostly constitution-free. Cops shoot at your car with long guns if you don't stop at a checkpoint. The latest killing was perpetrated by the National Guard (which has been sent to the street to "aid" with law enforcement). Most "arrests" of known criminals end up with all the bad guys dead (somehow no one is non-lethally wounded or surrenders). Your vehicle and home can be searched without any kind of authorization. I can go on but want to keep it short.

      I'm honestly intrigued by "open assassination of own citizens" and "holding prisoners cleared for release"; care to share some specifics?

      -- arielCo (posting anon to preserve mods)

    91. Re:Proud? by aminorex · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The only thing the U.S. government does remarkably well is to enslave it's population to enrich it's owners. The federal government instituted slavery, committed the genocide of the American Indians, has continually waged wars of choice and aggression since the civil war, and is currently institutionalizing assassination, torture, and the grandest enslavement of the population since Mao. Worse than torture, death or robbery, it has subjected everyone on the planet to the inhuman degradation of submission to an evil tyrant. There is no possible rational balance between federal and state power in the U.S. Only the absolute annihilation of the federal power can salve humane conscience. Certain nation-states are just too evil to be allowed. North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel, China and the U.S. top the list of nations which come to mind when recalling Orwell's vision of man's future: A hobnailed boot endlessly stomping on a human face. It is morally respectable to argue whether it should be destroyed by Ghandian tactics, assassination politics, or nuclear war, but there can be no respect for apologism or appeasement.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    92. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm all for the breakup of the US, and have written about it many times here, but that's absolutely the wrong answer. The 50 states are mostly too small to exist on their own as viable nations (except for California and Texas) without being part of some kind of union, the way small European countries have banded together into a union to increase their trading and economic power and reduce the frictional losses of having separate currencies and economies and having trade barriers.

      The answer is to break the US up into a handful of smaller nations: maybe 5-10, not 50. The states need to all secede, and then band together into regional republics with nearby like-minded states. For instance, the southeast ("Southern") states should probably form their own country; they've been wanting to do that for 160 years now. Although these days I'm not sure they'll want Florida with them, though they might want to break it in half and keep the northern part, while giving the southern part to Cuba. The northeast states (including New England) should probably form a separate country; though if they can't all get along, surely NH, VT, and ME would want to join together, while MA, CT, and RI would want to also join together. The pacific northwest states of OR and WA should also join together, and maybe they could get northern CA (maybe including the Bay Area, maybe not) to join them; they might also want to join with part of ID and WY, and maybe they could get British Columbia to leave Canada and join them into a country called "Ecotopia". The Dakotas and parts of WY and MT could also form their own country of "Lakota" as they've been wanting to do for a while. Now of course, all these new countries can also have their own "states" or administrative regions within them, whether using today's boundaries or better yet, redrawing many of them since many of today's state boundaries were very badly chosen, frequently by just drawing an arbitrary straight line on a map (see the western states esp.) rather than taking into account regional/local cultures.

      But you're absolutely right: democracy simply does not work in large countries. There's too much internal friction, too much power, and too much corruption.

    93. Re:Proud? by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is why states need to have a majority of the power. It essentially makes them 50 counties with unifying treaties. The closer the government is to the people, the more likely that those people are under a rule that they agree with.

      Tell that to black people, circa 60+ years ago. Our federal system has done much to blunt or prevent the worst of tyranny of the majority over its lifetime.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    94. Re:Proud? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Unless you have the fiber to wage war, I suggest you remain submissive.

      Who the fuck gave you permission to speak, worm? Did you hear me jiggle my zipper? No, so shut your worthless fucking mouth until I tell you to open it.

      See what I did there? So, are you pissed, or do you still want to remain submissive?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    95. Re: Proud? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'll reign in the NSA if elected.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    96. Re:Proud? by Immerman · · Score: 3

      Indeed. Until the World Wars the US federal government was much like what the EU was sold as - a central source for common currency and defense, and a relatively impartial authority to invoke when there was a disagreement between states, or when a state began behaving in an unconstitutional manner. As Washington D.C. began rapidly accumulating power - first military then domestic (gotta fight them communists in our midst!), it began to grossly overstep it's historical bounds, and has staunchly refused to even consider stepping back from the power it granted itself. And in the face of new "threats" like the War on Drugs and War on Terror it has once more begun massively expanding it's powers.

      What's the quote? Something like "if this democracy ever falls to tyranny it will be under the guise of defending against a foreign threat".

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    97. Re: Proud? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      paranoid persecution complex much?

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    98. Re:Proud? by belatucadros3918 · · Score: 1

      the key word was 'quickly' I think

    99. Re: Proud? by guises · · Score: 1

      Not to nitpick, most of your points are fine, but if this: "How many of those countries have openly assassinated one of their citizens for engaging in protected speech?" is referring to Anwar al-Awlaki, then you need to realize that not all speech is protected and that he was killed for non-protected speech. Specifically, "planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans."

    100. Re:Proud? by giampy · · Score: 1

      Power corrupts. Always.

      Yes. But real power nowadays lies elsewhere. Big corporations, quasi-monopolies, banks, lobbies, all the guys buying off the politicians. And IMO we need STRONG and effective governments to fight this sources of powers which almost always are interested in screwing everyone else.

      This sort of thing is precisely why some of us dislike government in general and large governments in particular.

      I don't see this as a rational position. The idea is that governments are "we the people" remember ? If you don't feel represented by your government then this calls for action to correct that specific problem (e.g. be careful who you vote, make your voice heard, and so on), not for shrinking the government. Without an organization representing "we the people" then we'll descend inevitably into middle ages, 21st century style, where only the strongest (financially) will rule. You don't want that, do you ?

      --
      We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
    101. Re: Proud? by pla · · Score: 1

      How many of those countries have an NDAA and allow their citizens to be militarily imprisoned without a trial?
      How many of them have a sixth amendment (or equivalent) in the first place?

      How many of those countries have a "constitution free" zone that covers most of their population?
      How many of them have first and fourth amendments in the first place?

      How many of those countries have continue to hold innocent prisoners cleared for release a la Gitmo?
      How many of them have an Article I, section 9 in the first place?

      How many of those countries have openly assassinated one of their citizens for engaging in protected speech?
      We already mentioned the sixth amendment. We could add in the fourth, fifth, and eighth though, if you really want.


      You're either snarking the shit out of us, have limited to your travels to places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, or have a terminal case of American Exceptionalism.

      I'll lead the charge to damn the US for its sins, make no mistake. But the GP has it right - We hear about similar atrocities from every nation on the fucking globe on a daily basis. This week it sucks to work as a reporter in the UK; last week, I'd hate to work as a president in Egypt. And god help anyone stupid enough to work a a scientist in Italy. And hey, for the past four years of "Change", the surgeon general has found whistle-blowing in the US hazardous to your health.

      The US government doesn't even come close to having a monopoly on human rights abuses. It just has the biggest stick, for now. Simple reality of the situation, all governments, everywhere, will abuse their power for the purpose of aggregating more of it over time.

      And speaking of "rights" - You wonder why Americans brag about the second amendment? Because,
      How many of those countries have the means to overthrow an oppressive government formally codified in their constitution?

    102. Re: Proud? by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      Sure America has freedoms to do some stuff you can't else where (like own an assault rifle)

      Assault rifles, being machine guns, are for all practical purposes outlawed by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

    103. Re:Proud? by Arker · · Score: 1

      They actually have significant portions of the population behind them in certain parts of the world now - something they could not claim in 2001. This is the result of AQ tactics yes, but they couldnt work without US cooperation. The way it works is that one provocateur out in the country somewhere can draw one or more salvos of hellfire missiles, which destroy property, livestock, and human lives, at least some of which were innocents. Then the relatives of those killed, who may have been neutral or even pro-US before this, become allies of AQ in order to seek revenge for the deaths.

      This is such an avoidable tragedy, and so predictable. The lesson that should be learned is to quit trying to solve law enforcement problems with military force. Instead of learning that lesson, though, we seem to be rapidly militarizing what remains of our law enforcement.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    104. Re: Proud? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Want courts that follow the letter of the law to the dot, no matter what was meant? Mostly wrong place.

      This is surprising to an outside observer familiar only with the usual stereotypes of Germans.

    105. Re:Proud? by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      Been on a plane recently?

      Quickly is subjective. You can get from Minneapolis to Green Bay faster by driving than flying in most cases. Same goes for Chicago if you follow guidelines (arrival times and such).

      I can get anywhere in the country legally from where I am in under 24 hours.

      Quickly is hardly how I would describe flight travel anywhere unless you own/operate your own (in which case, you can get around by your definition of "quickly" pretty easily. ...but even giving "quickly" any weight at all is disingenuous. Speed is a convenience. The point is that you are free to roam the country all you like.

    106. Re:Proud? by operagost · · Score: 1

      We need more cameras so we can be as free as the UK.

      We need more firearm legislation, so we can be as free as Australia.

      We need more limits on encryption and religion, so that we can be as free as France.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    107. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sounds good in theory, but didn't work in practice. See: The Articles of Confederation. They tried this before, and it was a disaster. Plus, 50 separate countries negotiating treaties among them is horrifically inefficient.

      What we need, instead, is to break the country up into about 5-10 regional republics, each mostly or completely autonomous, but with a Shengen-like (but not EU-like) free trade agreement among most or all of them (if one of the new countries turns into a fundie Christian version of Iran, then the others should probably kick it out and hit it with trade sanctions). There's no reason for Rhode Island, for instance, to be a separate country, however, if it combined with Connecticut and Massachusetts, that'd be a decent-size country. Or maybe the whole northeast should join into a single country (New England plus NY, NJ, eastern PA).

      Larger countries have more trading and economic power than small countries, however they also are more susceptible to corruption because of the corrupting influence of concentrated power. So we need to break things apart, but not too small.

    108. Re:Proud? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      But in no way does this shed light on "the US" being proud of itself, or trying to be dicks beyond reason. The people at the airport have to do their job, and then go home and go to sleep.

      And yet 90% of other countries' border guards manage that without being dicks beyond reason.

    109. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So what if they re-implement Jim Crow? Those states have been holding the rest of us back for many decades; it's time to cut them loose. We can't have any real progress as long as the people in those states have the same voting power as the rest of us. Sure, I feel sorry for the people who will become victims in those states, and to help remedy that, the more advanced states should have immigration programs set up to help get those people out of those states, so the Jim Crow lovers can all live there with each other and watch their economies implode. Note: this does not mean open immigration is a good idea. It is not. We have to be extremely selective of all applicants. If we just allow open immigration from the backwards regions, then what'll happen is all the oppressed groups (non-stupid women, minorities) will try to come here first (which is fine, we like most of them), but after the economy there starts imploding, the poorer Jim Crow voters will start abandoning the place too, coming to the more advanced states, and dragging them down with their stupid voting habits. Democracy doesn't work when you let a bunch of people who disagree with you on everything move in with you and vote against you, and make your country as bad as the country they left. Those people are to stupid to understand it's their own cultural ways and voting habits that made their homeland such a cesspool.

    110. Re: Proud? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      There are lots of places better. But, speaking on behalf of the rest of the world, we actually like you being this ignorant. Because then you don't leave the USA because you think there are no places better.

      Please, stay where you are. We like it that way.

      This goes to show that the reason that people from the rest of the world hate Americans is because Americans are ALSO arseholes.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    111. Re: Proud? by operagost · · Score: 2

      How many countries have cameras on every street corner?

      How many countries give their police full automatic weapons, but won't let the citizens have a pump-action shotgun in their house?

      How many countries outlaw religious garb because some terrorists wear it?

      How many countries kick you off your farm, tell you where to work and live, and execute you if you speak out about it?

      How many countries can stop and search you for no reason whatsoever?

      In how many countries can the police come into your house at any time and demand you list everyone who lives there, who they are related to, where they work, and what vehicles they drive?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    112. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let's go back to the days when states could decide that people with dark skin couldn't sit at the same table as people with light skin.

      This is a rather idiotic argument. Northern, liberal states are not going to go back to the days of segregation and all that crap when they're free of the Southerners and their voting habits. Now, the Southern states may very well do that, but that's not our problem. It's not our job to save everyone from themselves, and you can't when you give those people the power to vote, because then you're always fighting over whether progressive or regressive values should be instituted in government policy. If you really want to prevent the Southerners from doing that stuff, you'd advocate breaking the country into separate regions, with people in the backwards parts being denied the right to vote, and basically being a territory of the other regions but with no political power at all, and being forced to live under laws that the rest of us have decided are good for them. You can argue in favor of this, but it's certainly not democratic in any way, plus it breeds resentment and eventually separatist violence. The only peaceful way for the non-backwards states to be free of the voters in the backwards states is to set them free, and for us to go our own ways.

      The idea that state governments are more friendly to liberty than the federal government can only be entertained by someone ignorant of historical and political reality.

      No, you're the one who's entirely ignorant, of even current events. Has the Federal government made marijuana legal yet? No, but several states have: WA and CO for starters, plus lots of other states have decriminalized it or legalized medicinal uses. It took state governments to make real progress on this issue and work towards stopping Prohibition 2.0; but the Federal government is holding us back, largely because of backwards states that maintain power in Congress. State governments are much more friendly to liberty than the Federal government, and this proves it.

    113. Re:Proud? by operagost · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that's why Muslims blew up the underground some years back-- it's because those crazy imperialist in the UK won't get out of Northern Ireland or something.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    114. Re:Proud? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

      Hermann Göring said that, while he was tried at Nuremberg. Odd that truth comes from that corner of the political spectrum. Even odder that our leaders decided not only to learn politics from a fascist but also from a loser.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    115. Re:Proud? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I would say less than 30 years ago this was true.

      What exactly were you proud of? Because about the only thing I can think of that had a significant positive impact on the world was building the Internet.

      And before you say "But we defeated the Commies", I'd lay that one squarely at the feet of Mikhail Gorbachev, who took serious risks to undo what the USSR had been.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    116. Re:Proud? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obviously you don't live near or have experienced "roadside safety checks" where the local gestapo indiscriminately pulls over every vehicle in a fishing-expedition for anything from forgotten safety-belts (seat belts) to that roach that's been under your seat for 15 years, or perhaps some actual rare real violation such as drunk driving, etc.

      They pull vehicles over with no probable cause and subject them to searches if they twitch or sweat or the carefully trained "police dog" sits on command to please it's trainer and thus will hit on everyone, every time so they will always have cause to search you. Or they might ask you a few questions to see if you appear nervous. Well, of fucking course you're nervous, you are in severe danger of having your life fucked with, completely upset and turned upside down with a mere crook of their finger.

      Also, lately they have been talking about expanding the role of TSA to harass people at sporting events, and at train and bus terminals, so the erosion of our freedom/society is not only continuing, it's expanding, or trying to.

      This, all the suburban traffic cops are all dressing like SWAT-team members for either the intimidation factor, or that they think it looks "cool" and there was oodles of extra Homeland Security grant money to pay for all that neat stuff.

      [Godwin Alert] This is just shy of the good old Nazi checkpoints - "Papers, Please" and actual jackboots would be the only things missing. So, yeah - even travel within supposedly safe areas of this "free" country is getting fucked up and are becoming hazardous to your rights and so-called freedom. What little you (we) have left, anyway.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    117. Re:Proud? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Oh, then we can have the southern 20 nations re-implement Jim Crow.

      First, who cares if that's what they vote to do?

      Second, the south is not the same as it was when Jim Crow laws were in effect. The electorate is substantially different. But again, if that's the way that they want to rule themselves, who are you to tell them otherwise? If people don't want to live under those conditions then they can and should leave, and let those that made those laws deal with the consequences. That is a far better solution than forcing a particular version of morality on everyone.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    118. Re:Proud? by LowerTheBar · · Score: 1

      I grew up in what you call a "Civilized" state up until my mid 20s (New York)...I finally realized how terrible it was to live there, so I moved to one of those "Southern" States and I can tell you it is not the southern states that is holding up your "progress". It is the entire Federalized system of taking from one group and giving it to another. Entitlements have gotten completely out of hand and we as a nation cannot afford most of them. If the US were to disband, I would bet that the Southern states would actually fair better than the ones you like so much.

    119. Re: Proud? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Either that or he thinks that the invasiveness of government is directly proportional to the tax rate. This is obviously false: If you have country A who taxes at 50%, and spends all that money on great roads and rail and health care and national parks and aid for the poor, that's less invasive than country B who taxes at 20% and spends all that money on police, surveillance of citizens, jails, propaganda, and the military.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    120. Re:Proud? by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      If I was him, I would have waited for the police to show up and then asked the officer to arrest the TSA agent for theft since the agent wouldn't reliquish the bag when he said he wanted to leave.

      Do you honestly think that would end in your favor?

    121. Re: Proud? by cp5i6 · · Score: 1

      Really?

      I didn't realize you could be a citizen of 26 countries.

      Let me know when you actually live there and can give better account of your rather fluffy statement

    122. Re:Proud? by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      What exactly were you proud of?

      You say that like there is nothing Americans should be proud of. Clearly an uneducated, biased, poisoned response. I'll not honor it with a reply. Fuck off.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    123. Re:Proud? by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      Is china poisoning the world or countries that willingly send manufacturing over there or consumers who couldn't care less where their new shiny toy comes from?

      Grow up and accept responsability for complicitness.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    124. Re:Proud? by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

      I live in a Midwest state and it's plenty civilized. We have a few military bases (literally, a few) which is true of the coastal states as well. Minimal defense industry, relatively large tech industry and huge medical industry (again, both true of most coastal states). We also sit equal at federal aid vs. taxes paid.

      There are plenty of states that this does not hold true for, but the blanket "fly over states" bit is really rather droll at this point.

      --
      Just another ignorant American.
    125. Re:Proud? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Are you proud of yourself yet?

      well, i'm certainly not going to feel bad about myself because TSA hired some monkeys and didn't train them well. what's that got to do with me?

      anyone who has nationalistic sentiments about their govt is misguided. it's just where you live. the inner-workings of the US or any nation don't give two sh*ts about you or what you think (excluding the very few elite officials / power brokers). they don't give a crap about what you DO either, so long as it doesn't get in the way of them making money and being powerful.

    126. Re:Proud? by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Dear Uneducated Citizen:

      Our Founding Fathers were okay with slavery. Who really cares what they envisioned with regard to what's okay and what's not okay?

      Yours,
      An Educated Citizen

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    127. Re: Proud? by RoTNCoRE · · Score: 1

      So your point is that America is a free country because you can be killed for what you say? Please keep in mind that the US had several opportunities to take Anwar into custody and give him a trial, a right that used to be afforded to US citizens.

    128. Re:Proud? by Silvrmane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would venture to say that being put in an interrogation room for a few hours cuts into the flight-time advantage of flying.

      As it is, driving a long distance vs flying sort of works out this way. If I want to visit Denver Colorado from my home here in Canada, I have a choice of travelling by car or flying.

      If I drive, it's a good solid 10 - 11 hours of driving from where I live, with a moderate stop at the border to answer a couple of questions. I get to see the beauty of the country (Wyoming is particularly picturesque), and the cost in gas is pretty OK. I can stop wherever I want, eat whatever I want, make phone calls, etc. It's a very pleasant, if time consuming, way to travel. My trip back is generally just as pleasant. If I leave at a good early time in the morning, like say 4 am, I can be at my destination by 3 or 4pm that afternoon.

      If I fly, I have to get to the airport a good hour and a half before my flight leaves, so that I can get in the line for check-in, and then in the line for security clearance. In the security line I have to do silly things like take off my shoes, belt, have someone poke through my carry-on to make sure I don't have large liquid containers or too much tooth-paste. At least on the Canadian side of things this is a polite and generally stress-free process.

      Then for the flight itself I have to endure sitting for two and half to three hours in a big metal dong full of dead air and the sneezes and coughs of my fellow travellers. We eat some kind of awful snack thing and half of a beverage, and fsm help you if you need to use the washroom on the plane. Once you get to the other end of the journey, you have to walk at least 1-2 miles through the terminal to reach US customs, where you again have to stand in line to have someone very rude and surly check that you are good to be in the country. Then you hop the tram down to where your bags are, and negotiate the rental of a car, and then start the journey from the airport to the city proper. This adds at least another 2hours from getting off the plane to getting to where you were going to the journey. If the flight leaves at 10am, I can be at my destination by 2:30 or 3:00 pm.

      In total, I've spent 6 hours to fly uncomfortably by air, get treated like a criminal, eaten terrible food, have seen nothing of the coutry's beauty, and paid more for the privilege of doing so. And I ended up at my destination only slightly ahead of when I arrive by driving.

      Sure, driving took longer, but cost less, gave me more freedom, less hassle, and more of a sense of seeing new places. I'll take driving over the experience of flight anytime.

    129. Re:Proud? by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      And elsewhere, people laugh hysterically when they hear an American blathering about the "freest country in the world".

      And that's only if they can make it past the ridiculous Southern American accent.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    130. Re:Proud? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's only one way to fix this, and that's to fight it, any and every way we can think of.

      That's very noble and idealistic of you. Let's start a list of things that need to change.

      1. The takeover of the Commission on Presidential Debates by the Democratic and Republican parties in 1988 needs to be reversed. No political party should have a say in who is and is not allowed to debate. That control should be restored to a non-political entity such as the League Of Women Voters, who had that responsibility before refusing to sanction the 1988 elections on the basis that the 2 parties would commit a fraud on American voters. This will make sure that more voices are heard and that people have more options to choose from. I'm sick of this red state vs blue state shit, I want to see yellow states, green states, purple states, whatever. We need more choices and more opinions to be heard.

      2. The influence of money needs to be removed from government. I propose that all elected officials, political parties, or campaigns are barred from receiving anything of value from any lobbyist organization or any corporation. Individuals are allowed to donate whatever they want, and those donations should be made public so that the public can know who is influencing the elections. If an elected official receives anything of value from a lobbyist or corporation then they should be removed from office and the organization that donated should be fined proportionally to the value of the donation (e.g. 10 times the value). Lobbyists can still exist, but they need to lobby with words and not money or services or other gifts.

      3. The notion of corporations as people needs to be explicitly disallowed. Corporations are not people. If corporations were people then we would call them people instead of corporations. Corporations as a whole are not allowed to donate to any political group. Donations must be made by individuals.

      4. We need term limits for all members of congress. Members of congress are supposed to be private citizens that leave the private sector in order to serve the public, and once their service is over they return to the private sector. Congress should have a 4-term limit across both the House and Senate. You can serve 4 terms as a Representative, but then you are not eligible to be a Senator. You can serve 2 terms in each. Whatever the combination, once you serve 4 terms in congress you are done. The notion of a career politician needs to be eliminated. Politicians are there to serve the public, not themselves.

      5. Elected representatives should be prohibited from participating in any stock market or speculative trading, with the possible exception of physical assets such as real estate (but not commodity futures). Again, politicians are there to serve the public, not to enrich themselves. Serving the public is a position of sacrifice, not a position of prestige. You're there because you want to make a difference, not stay there until you retire.

      That's a pretty short list, maybe other people have more add. The problem starts with the legislative branch, real reform cannot happen unless the legislative branch is truly working for the people. So, how do you suggest that we fight in order to make these necessary reforms happen? It's pretty easy to post online about it, isn't it? But there's a problem when we have a federal government that asserts the right to kill anyone across the globe for reasons that are secret; that has the ability to spy on virtually anyone they want to spy on; and that can redefine the word "terrorist" at will to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. How are we going to overcome that when virtually the entire legislative branch wants things to stay more or less just as they are?

      Not to mention, being a pussy and fleeing doesn't fix anything.

      Well that's not entirely true. It fixes things for me, doesn't it? Does it help the rest of Americans? No, it doesn'

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    131. Re:Proud? by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      Cuz this happens *so* often...?

      Sorry that happened to you, man, but it's (still) thankfully a rarity. I've been travelling for business by car for decades and have yet to run into one of those.

    132. Re: Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      im an american in germany and i have been here 8 years. ican tell you that you have more freedom and better quality of life here than in the usa. and better working conditions. sorry but i have more personal freedom and security in the former nazi reich than y'all do back home. i'll probably never come back to live there again. not because I hate america but because i have better opportunities here.

    133. Re:Proud? by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      That's one of the other things that are wrong with America, too much hype about ideals that have long ceased to be relevant.

      Which ideals have long ceased to be relevant? Freedom of expression? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Freedom of religion? The right to be secure in our persons and papers? Inquiring minds want to know. Personally, I think they're still quite relevant.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    134. Re: Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are the prisoners in Gitmo really innocent? Can I put a big sticker on you that says, "JEW" and put you in the same room as Khaled Shekh Muhammad? (You know, he personally cut the throat of Daniel Pearl, for being Jewish.) Perhaps I don't need to label you as a Jew. I can just add you as another American in a Gitmo room full of "innocent" jihadists. Lets see how long you last.

      Neither you , nor I know that he cut off Daniel Pearls head, because his confession was gained by torture - cause a man enough pain and he will tell you he owns the moon and will sell it to you as well.

      Approximately 2 dozen inmates of Gitmo have been identified as terrorists by the US - there have been over 800 inmates since 9/11. That makes approx 776 innocent people being militarily imprisoned. 240 of them are still there despite their innocence being known.

      Can I put a big sticker on you that says "Muslim" and expect you to pass through the US unmolested? Doesn't need to be any famous US hate-monger - just your average TSA agent will do the worst they can.

      Kinda funny a guy from Russia et all, bleating about indiscriminate hate - the nations that currently have laws against homosexuality and have recently set-up prison camps for the crime of... being Vietnamese. Sort out your own shit before crowing about anybody else's pal.

    135. Re: Proud? by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      Oh get off your high horse. Patriotism like practiced in the US is opium for the people.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    136. Re: Proud? by lightBearer · · Score: 1

      In thinking about this, I believe that both should apply here, both rein and reign. Seriously, I'd rather the American people rule OVER the NSA than the other way around, wouldn't you?

      --
      - No Bounce, No Play -
    137. Re:Proud? by sglines · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm proud of my daughter who has the gumption to leave the US with no intention of returning. I'm proud of my sister and her kids who walked into the consulate in Alberta Canada and renounced their American Citizenship.

      Reminds me of a confused Brit who was asked when he applied for US Citizenship 50 years ago, "Do you advocate the overthrow of the US government by force or violence?" He thought for a moment then answered, "Violence I suppose."

      It's time for a second American Revolution.

    138. Re:Proud? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I agree we need more local autonomy, however, in the face of large empires like Russia and China, I would be highly against dissolution. We'd have a better country for the very small amount of time it took for one or more of them to deal with the resulting states piecemeal.

    139. Re:Proud? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      FWB - flying while brown.

    140. Re:Proud? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No because no one claims they came from on high.

      Everyone says the founding fathers wrote the constitution.

    141. Re: Proud? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Yeah then you are just lying. Every country in Europe is much, much , much more invasive than the United States. You are simply delusional.

      Lets take the UK as an example. The UK government is imprisoning journalists and destroying their records. They have cameras on every street corner.

      Glorifying terrorism is not protected speech in the EU. Why? Why is that an exception? THe european notion of freedom is completely based on what is convenient. Advocating the dissolution of the monarchy is officially not protected speech (they seem to ignore that in practice).

      We can go on all day, this is just the beginning.

    142. Re:Proud? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Who cares if that's what they do? Seriously? You mean aside from, say, ethnic minorities?

    143. Re:Proud? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Yeah, seriously. If a state wants to establish itself as a racist shithole, then they can reap everything that they sow. I don't see a reason for the federal government to bar them from passing laws like that. If Mississippi wants to bar minorities from certain things, then they get to deal with the 40% of their population that is not white, and the rest of the country judging them for it as well, with all the economic consequences that come from that. We can regulate ourselves, we don't need the government to hold our hands and wipe our asses. Take a little personal responsibility.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    144. Re:Proud? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      You think the kind of places that would allow Jim Crow will just let the oppressed leave? Suppressing peoples rights doesn't just stop at voting and water fountains, you know.

    145. Re: Proud? by Wovel · · Score: 1

      To start you go far beyond even the ACLU's absurd interpretation of the NDAA. Paranoid much?

      You are accepting ACLU propaganda as fact. How can anyone respond to that? Since you can't name a single other country that even offers the protection that the ACLU is claiming is not being afforded within the "constitution free zone" I guess I can say the entirety of the rest of the world is a constitution free zone. The US constitution provides the greatest protection of unreasonable search and seizure by far. Does the TSA violate the constitution? Absolutely. Does C&BT yes. Both are problem. But you are talking about some issues with a right that does not exist anywhere else in the world.

      I would say nearly every country in the world does something similar to your third point. It is apparently quite common for journalists in the UK now.

      I don't know who did we assassinate?

      I have been to: Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, The UK, Germany, France, India, Singapore, China, Japan,Italy, Norway, The Netherlands, South Korea, Ireland, Ecuador, Nevis, Bonaire, Turkey, Malaysia, Hong Kong (I Know), Puerto Rico, Chile, Taiwan, Austria, Greece. A few more islands.

      Can you name one of those countries where I would not be subject to random searches by government agents anywhere within their borders? Of course you can't. You just seem to have a pollyanna view of the rest of the world, but don't really understand what its like.

    146. Re:Proud? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they "reap what they sow" after numerous people suffer. All for your imagined non-specific improvement in your own governance?

    147. Re:Proud? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Another excellent quote, but I was thinking of something much older - I believe it was something one of the founders said.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    148. Re:Proud? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      It's pretty sad when Nixon starts looking good, if for no other reason than he resigned after his abuse of office became clear, rather than wait to be removed.

    149. Re: Proud? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That can go either way. As long as "justice" is non-controversial, it's probably a very good system, if the judged *do* adhere to it. But it's easily subject to corruption by popular movements, and by judges whose idea of justice doesn't match yours.

      OTOH, laws are difficult to change, and when a bunch of self-serving bastards control the legislature (common) extremely unjust laws get passed. Which means that judges that are willing to enforce them are a really bad idea.

      On the third hand (sorry, but this *isn't* the gripping hand) remember the way justice was shackeled in the US South for nearly a century after the Civil War. That involved judges either ignoring the laws or chosing which ones to notice in an unjust way. But *they* didn't think they were being unjust. They probably thought they were fostering a proper rule of and respect for the law. So neither way is an answer when humans are making the decisions.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    150. Re:Proud? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The US has also wiped out parties before. Unless you think that we're still voting for the Federalist, Anti-Masonic, Whig, or the Bull Moose Parties. Some of those were major, and some of them were short lived, mostly regional phenomenons like your Social Credit party was in Alberta.

      Parties are a problem, but they are not the whole problem. The problem is the incredible amount of responsibilities, powers and engagements the US Government has. Realistically, no one in the US is qualified to understand even half the issues that the government deals with. That's precisely why everything is illegal. You vote in a government because you don't like the financial sector, and you end up with it in the control of the entertainment sector. You vote in a fiscally responsible government and they go start wars, you vote in a government to stop the wars and clean up the rights abuses and they increase the abuses. And make health care more expensive to boot.

      The problem we have isn't parties, it's that there is no one who isn't objectionable unless they are some sort of cipher who just looks good on TV and no one is too upset with.

    151. Re:Proud? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      No, you're right. Let's hide racism and pretend it doesn't exist. Outlawing drugs worked to eliminate drugs, outlawing murder worked to eliminate murder, so obviously if all we do is outlaw racism, then no one will be racist. The best part: no one has to take any accountability for their actions, all they have to do is march in lock-step with what the government says. There will be absolutely no resentment that comes from that.

      I don't know if you've noticed, but people in this country have a tendency to dislike being forced to live a certain way because of federal laws. At this point we are not progressing, things are regressing. Racism still exists, it is still widespread, and outlawing it isn't going to do shit. It needs to be exposed and out in the open, even legal, so that society, not the government, can deal with it. If Mississippi or Alabama want to ostracize themselves by passing racist laws, they should not be federally prohibited from doing that. They should feel the full weight of society, not the government, on their shoulders.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    152. Re:Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tell that to black people, circa 60+ years ago. Our federal system has done much to blunt or prevent the worst of tyranny of the majority over its lifetime.

      haha...tell that to the mexicans and native americans

    153. Re:Proud? by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Would you prefer that we didn't have oil supplies?

      And we are not taking oil supplies, we are insuring access to oil supplies. We're paying for every drop of that oil.

      It has never made sense to me why people complain about fighting over resources. As far as I can tell, it's the only valid reason to even have a war. Sure, someone is getting rich off of it, because they are providing something we want. Maybe some day we won't need oil, but today we do. So it is worth fighting over to make sure that we have free access to it.

      Not saying I like it, just saying I don't understand why people are upset about that in principle. If you simply don't like wars, I get that, but don't tell me we're going to be peachy keen if we don't maintain access to resources.

    154. Re:Proud? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      They're blowing up OUR airplanes because WE'RE in THEIR countries

      First of all, what country? Terrorists in a group come from different countries and they have no country which they represent. Second of all, we entered Afghanistan as a response to the terrorists blowing up our airliners. If no airliners had been blown up, we wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan to find the guy responsible.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    155. Re: Proud? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I think you believe the government's self-serving propaganda. Very little of what the US has done beyond it's borders has been done with the intent, or effect, of benefiting anyone except the US (and, of course, political lobbyists). Much of it has been to the active detriment of those it was claiming to help. Much of the rest has been, at best, neutral.

      In particular we use our arms to support foreign dictators, to overthrow popularly elected governments, and to extract wealth by extortion. To cause treaties to be signed that favor politically connected corporations. Etc.

      The world would have been much safer if we had been willing to recognize Castro's cuba when he first overthrew our puppet dictator (Batista). The results of that refusal lead us to within around 30 seconds of WWIII. Vietnam would gladly have allied with the US rather than China, if we had followed our diplomatic commitments and yielded to the results of the popular election of Ho Chi Min rather than installing our own puppet dictator in the south. Etc.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    156. Re:Proud? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      If your government is corrupt it is because the generally apathetic USA voters are quite happy with it that way. If they weren't happy they would stop voting in the same people.

      Right now, we vote for the lesser of two evils. If we don't the more evil one might win. There is no option to vote out the evil. Even if the majority votes for neither evil, which has happened in every election as long as I have been alive, one of the evils still wins.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    157. Re:Proud? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Cuz this happens *so* often...?

      Again, you must not be from around here. :)

      Yep, every holiday, especially ones with long weekends like this one coming like clockwork there are huge statewide coordinated dragnets, so that's almost a state-wide one guaranteed nearly monthly, and just for shits and giggles, a lot of the smaller communities set up their own city version of the safety check just over a hill or on a blind offramp from an expressway so you can't see it until you're on it, and there's no turning around.

      I live in a suburb of one of the 3 largest cities in the U.S. It may not be as bad as that near you. Yet...

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    158. Re:Proud? by laejoh · · Score: 1

      In the words of gman003, I believe America should be an anarcho-syndicalist commune...!

    159. Re:Proud? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Pfft, details. GP there probably couldn't identify Mexico on an unmarked map, let alone distinguish between "Arabia" and India.

      Maybe if they colored it brown.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    160. Re:Proud? by u38cg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, Putin jails his political opponents and is attempting to outlaw gays. Please don't talk nonsense in your efforts to use hyperbole.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    161. Re:Proud? by c-A-d · · Score: 1

      I still maintain that I fully expect the US to have another civil war within my lifetime.

      At one time in my life, I thought it would be a great thing to move to the US and become a citizen. Today, I wouldn't touch that with a 100ft pole.

      --
      some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.
    162. Re:Proud? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Historically governments are the ones to murder and unjustly imprison people by the thousands or millions. And it wouldn't matter that our politicians are mostly owned by corporations if they had no power to pass laws that violated our rights. When was the last time you heard about a corporation abducting, interrogating, beating, torturing, or killing people? Governments are the ones who do that. I think corporations are evil, but governments are a lot more evil. Especially since they will do pretty much whatever the corporations tell them to do. Luckily the corporations don't generally have goals that rely on violence.

      The government certainly doesn't represent my interests. It only represents the interests of the majority. Well at least when those interests don't conflict with the congress critter's corporate sugar daddy. The best method of reducing the power of corporations is by not having them. The government could just pass a law (or an amendment if necessary) revoking corporate limited liability and corporate personhood. The individuals responsible for the bad decisions and for carrying them out will be held responsible for their actions. In addition take control of campaign contributions. No individual can donate more than $100 to a campaign and no group or company can donate anything at all. Make it a felony with mandatory minimum prison terms for anyone who is caught doing so. See how easy that was? We don't have to give up all of our human rights to a ginormous government just to keep the corporations in check. All concentrations of power are bad. I don't see why the government should get a pass just because they are funded by taxes.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    163. Re:Proud? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      As I said to another poster, I think you believe too much government propaganda. Despite the government telling us we are frightened, and using that as an excuse for oppressive and illegal programs, most people I know aren't frightened. They just don't see any practical way to get rid of the bastards in charge.

      FWIW, it does appear that we are headed in a direction that will leave us frightened and oppressed, but that's not the current state. There's just no obvious way to improve the direction things are moving.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    164. Re:Proud? by Guest316 · · Score: 1

      >police dog [...] hits on everyone
      Damn those slutty police dogs!

    165. Re:Proud? by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      "you must not be from around here."

      heh...something I apparently should be *very* thankful for...

      Out of curiosity, which city? I've heard the random tale of these checkpoints, but it's almost always due to a manhunt or some similar issue. I've never heard of it being a monthly occurrence, or "just for shits and giggles"...Who the heck is running that state and why do they still have a job??

    166. Re:Proud? by Parafilmus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Totally complete list of totally amazing freedom enhancing things done in the name of states' rights:

      Sure, I'll bite:

      In 1869, Wyoming granted voting rights to women. It would be 50 years before federal law caught up with them.

      In 1982, Wisconsin prohibited employment discrimination against gays. 30 years later, most of the nation still hasn't caught up with Wisconsin.

      In 1780, Pennsylvania voted to abolish slavery. Massachusetts followed suit in 1883. Federal law would continue to permit slavery until 1865; It was only state law which protected the freedom of black americans in the north.

      These are the ones that pop into my head, but I'm sure I could list of similar examples all day long. State law has been at the forefront of just about every major civil rights issue in our nation's history.

    167. Re: Proud? by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      I'm British BTW (check the username)

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    168. Re:Proud? by Parafilmus · · Score: 1

      err... that should be 1783 for Massachusetts. (apologies for typo)

    169. Re:Proud? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      The lovely fucked up state of Illinois.

      We are the WORST state on nearly every possible thing, with the possible exception of NY. We were the LAST to pass concealed carry, we just passed Medical MJ but YOU CAN'T GROW YOUR OWN, what kind of bullshit is that? An obvious cash grab, that's what. I could go on...

      This state is fucked up in more ways politically, legally, and financially than I can count. Living here pretty much sucks out loud.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    170. Re:Proud? by RR · · Score: 1

      But it would be nice if the alternate choices didn't always have a large dose of crazy with them.

      Who says that the incumbents are not crazy?

      I say the politicians that the media people like are the crazy ones, but those same media people put themselves in charge of telling us what is normal. The solution is to ignore the mainstream media.

      --
      Have a nice time.
    171. Re:Proud? by Real1tyCzech · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest moving, but I am guessing you've already considered that option, which begs the question;

      What is this thing that is making you endure this?? What makes it "better" to stay than move?

      It must either be truly fantastic or horrifyingly diabolical...I almost don't want to know out of fear I might get lured in...

    172. Re: Proud? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sweden, Denmark, France, The Netherlands, Japan, Iceland. The UK is still slightly better I think, but we are trying really hard to catch up with the US.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    173. Re:Proud? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but if you how up for an airplane ride with and name that could be Middle Eastern and the security gear at the airport detects explosives residue I would think that being detained for questioning would be reasonable.

      So he missed his flight. It's not the worst thing that can happen, by a long shot.

      I think the outrage here is misplaced.

    174. Re:Proud? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      There's certainly no attraction, if you're not here, don't bother. If you have to come, be careful! :D

      I was raised and lived most of my life here, and now I'm retired, and disabled, so moving away would be a big hassle - If I could, I might, if the housing market didn't suck so badly.

      Also, things haven't always been that bad here, like everywhere in the country they are slowly boiling the frogs and eroding our freedoms, but they just turned up the heat a little bit more here, I guess. Most of my life it's been tolerable - not fantastic, but livable. Recently, things have been starting to suck much harder.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    175. Re: Proud? by sageres · · Score: 2

      Neither you , nor I know that he cut off Daniel Pearls head, because his confession was gained by torture - cause a man enough pain and he will tell you he owns the moon and will sell it to you as well.

      Guess what? Confession under torture is still a valid confession. Besides, even in a court-room, he once again confessed, requoting himself word-by-word from what he told in interrogation.

      "I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan

      Does it sound to anyone here as though this was taken by a confession?

      240 of them are still there despite their innocence being known.

      Not even going argue about numbers. They were foreign fighters in Afganistan fighting for Taliban. By the Taliban's very definition the foreign fighters were Al-Quada affiliated. In short -- they deserved it.

      Can I put a big sticker on you that says "Muslim" and expect you to pass through the US unmolested?

      Absolutely. I will not be molested even if I were to show up wearing Taqiyah with a Muslim wife dressed in a full hijab in a middle of New York city or at the airports. And no, you probably have not talked to enough of the average Muslims. While percentage of Muslims that are scrutinized by TSA is higher than any other religion, it is by far not unique, and very small minority of Muslims who pass through the airport gates get scrutinized.

      RTFA, the dude is Hindu. The red flag goes up for many reasons, and when enough flags go up -- the computer flags you for extra scrutiny. This is a price of living in a "safe" country.

      Kinda funny a guy from Russia et all... Sort out your own shit before crowing about anybody else's pal.

      Did you even read what I wrote? I grew up in Russia and I spit on that place. Russia is your worst offender of human rights, and while the domestic America-haters on the left love to hold Russia up on a pedestal -- this behavior is not unique, and been present among the socialist-liberal / academic circuses since 1930s. As Lenin called them -- "Useful Idiots". Seriously, Fuck Russia. But at least in Russia they won't cut your head off for being different nationality or religion, unlike among the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay.

    176. Re:Proud? by Zaurus · · Score: 1

      Parent should be upvoted. Spot on.

    177. Re: Proud? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Parents aren't free to home school? Seems tyrannical to me...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    178. Re:Proud? by multisync · · Score: 1

      The pacific northwest states of OR and WA should also join together, and maybe they could get northern CA (maybe including the Bay Area, maybe not) to join them ... maybe they could get British Columbia to leave Canada and join them into a country called "Ecotopia"

      That idea has actually been floated, going back to the 19th century, but the name usually suggested is Cascadia.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    179. Re: Proud? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      That's why it's been the best selling book every year since the printing press was invented by about 10 times at least: http://nowthinkaboutit.com/2012/06/why-the-bible-is-the-true-best-seller/

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    180. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you really think the Southern states are going to turn into East Germany and put up a wall, I think you're smoking something. Remember, all those people down there still think they're "true Americans", "freedom lovers", etc., they just think that women shouldn't be able to make decisions for themselves and that their version of Christianity should be the national religion.

    181. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Our dear leader jails whistleblowers (after promising more transparency and protection for whistleblowers), wants to keep cannabis illegal even though many states want to legalize it, and he defended the DOMA.

      And at least Putin is honest about his intentions, instead of saying one thing to get elected and doing the exact opposite afterwards.

    182. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, forgot about that one. Ecotopia sounds cool too, however. You guys need to step up your efforts to flee the sinking show however. You'll also need to do some extra work to get N-CA to break away from S-CA. Also, be careful with ID; there's a lot of nuts over there, so you might not want them in your country.

    183. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're willing to take on responsibility for Detroit? Chicago is a big mess too, I'm not sure you want that either.

    184. Re:Proud? by DarKnyht · · Score: 1

      Dear Not-quite-so Educated Citizen:

      From the Encyclopedia Britianica:

      "Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery. The considerable investment of Southern Founders in slave-based staple agriculture, combined with their deep-seated racial prejudice, posed additional obstacles to emancipation."

      "When the last remaining Founders died in the 1830s, they left behind an ambiguous legacy with regard to slavery. They had succeeded in gradually abolishing slavery in the Northern states and Northwestern territories but permitted its rapid expansion in the South and Southwest. Although they eventually enacted a federal ban on the importation of foreign slaves in 1808, the enslaved population continued to expand through natural reproduction, while the growing internal domestic slave trade led to an increase in the tragic breakup of enslaved families."

      The issue wasn't that they necessarily liked or supported slavery, it was they wildly disagreed how to solve it or if it was a federal issue to be solved. Some advocated releasing the slaves (like Washington), others colonization elsewhere in the belief the races couldn't co-exist (like Jefferson), and others saw no problem (those of South Carolina and Georgia). So the simple thing we can take from it was that it was just as complex an issue then as it was when the Civil War broke out.

      Yours,
      Someone with 5 minutes to consult an encyclopedia.

      --
      Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
    185. Re:Proud? by Parafilmus · · Score: 1

      You can go damn near anywhere the hell you want in this country without the slightest threat to your rights.

      It's called driving. :)

      Over the last decade, the federal government has created "interior border checkpoints" along major highways in the United States. Try driving from Texas to California without passing through one.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_Interior_Checkpoints

    186. Re:Proud? by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Informative

      None of those are examples in which the federal government heavily resisted state autonomy to make such a decision, with the exception of the Fugitive Slave Act. Thus, none of them are things done in the name of state's rights.

      These are the ones that pop into my head, but I'm sure I could list of similar examples all day long. State law has been at the forefront of just about every major civil rights issue in our nation's history.

      They've also been at the far other side. Many of the Southern states refused to ratify the 19th Amendment and led the charge against women's suffrage; several never even signed it until the late 20th century. Many states (also again in the South) have amended their own constitution to deny gays the right to marry.

      Do we even need to talk about slavery and race relations? Except maybe to acknowledge the nadir of American race relations post-Reconstruction? How about California's "Foreign Miner's Tax" of 1850 or the "Anti-Coolie Law" of 1862 to go after the Chinese? (19th century California's hate-on for the Chinese is frequently forgotten.) Or how about their "Greaser Act" against Mexicans from 1855?

      You also have wonders like Texas leading the way in 1883 on the convict-lease system to use prisoners as slave labor. You know, the chain-gangs of old.

      I'm from the South. I don't trust my state legislature not to attempt to put the screws to anyone that's likely to vote against them. Just look at the wave of laws North Carolina passed as soon as section 5 of the Voting Rights Act got knocked out.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    187. Re:Proud? by Livius · · Score: 1

      America's over-reaction to 9/11 and the terrorism "threat" in general is doing far, far more damage than any terrorist could directly do in their wildest dreams.

      It's even worse. This was what bin Laden wanted all along. He achieved complete strategic victory with the Americans doing almost all the work.

    188. Re:Proud? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Which only goes to show that elsewhere, people manage to be even bigger fools than Americans.

    189. Re: Proud? by Pretzalzz · · Score: 1

      How exactly are you judging countries? If you are judging by border control/customs, then I can believe that the US is the second worst. US customs is the biggest hassle even for US citizens, and they try to be nice and efficient for US citizens. But that hardly is a decent judge of a country as a whole.

    190. Re:Proud? by lecoupdejarnac · · Score: 1

      4. We need term limits for all members of congress. Members of congress are supposed to be private citizens that leave the private sector in order to serve the public, and once their service is over they return to the private sector. Congress should have a 4-term limit across both the House and Senate. You can serve 4 terms as a Representative, but then you are not eligible to be a Senator. You can serve 2 terms in each. Whatever the combination, once you serve 4 terms in congress you are done. The notion of a career politician needs to be eliminated. Politicians are there to serve the public, not themselves.

      I agree with most of your points a great deal; that was a very concise summary of the greatest problems facing democracy in the US. The 4th point though, I don't agree with. If your other points were implemented and restricted the income sources of our elected officials while they are in office, I don't think they would need term limits.

      Imagine if politicians could not keep any income that exceeds their government salary while in office, with some additional restrictions to prevent revolving-door type abuses. Then I would be OK with career politicians, because they would clearly be in the game for public service and not personal gain.

    191. Re:Proud? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Dissolution is the solution. Democracy, like Communism, works best at small to medium sized populations and regions. 50 staes must become 50 nations.

      We don't need to dissolve the union. The US was intended to be 50 separate states that happen to allow free trade, free movement, and a common defense. That's less integrated than the EU is today. That's also still the legal framework. Many of the powers that the federal government has these days are questionable at best under the Constitution, and a different Supreme Court could undo them quickly by choosing a more traditional interpretation of "interstate commerce" etc.

      Devolution of power from the federal government to the states is possible; it is happening in European nations, and it can happen here. Of course, it won't happen with power-mad leaders like Bush and Obama in charge, but a president friendly to these ideas, a shifting supreme court, and a bunch of aggressively independent-minded states making demands and bringing about lawsuits might make it happen.

    192. Re:Proud? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Oh, then we can have the southern 20 nations re-implement Jim Crow. Face facts: localized government has done even worse by most measures than the federal government.

      That's extremely unlikely at this point. Furthermore, just because the federal government can legitimately intervene in that case doesn't justify the millions of other pages of rules, regulations, and laws it imposes.

    193. Re:Proud? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      3. The notion of corporations as people needs to be explicitly disallowed. Corporations are not people. If corporations were people then we would call them people instead of corporations. Corporations as a whole are not allowed to donate to any political group. Donations must be made by individuals.

      Of course, corporations are people, in the same sense as a soccer teams are people. That's exactly what it means. Corporations are just one form in which a bunch of individuals get together to do something. It seems like if I want to make a movie badmouthing Hillary or Romney, I should be able to to so without risking my entire personal savings or property when we get sued, and that is exactly what the legal form of a corporation is for.

      2. The influence of money needs to be removed from government. I propose that all elected officials, political parties, or campaigns are barred from receiving anything of value from any lobbyist organization or any corporation. Individuals are allowed to donate whatever they want, and those donations should be made public so that the public can know who is influencing the elections.

      There is little evidence that corporate donations have much influence on election outcomes.

      5. Elected representatives should be prohibited from participating in any stock market or speculative trading, with the possible exception of physical assets such as real estate (but not commodity futures).

      I think there are already significant restrictions.

      Serving the public is a position of sacrifice, not a position of prestige. You're there because you want to make a difference, not stay there until you retire.

      No, I think wanting to make a difference is the problem. Neither Obama nor Bush have wreaked havoc because they were corrupt, they have wreaked havoc because they thought they were God and could to fix unfixable problems.

      The real solution is much simpler: devolve power (and money) back from the federal level to state and local institutions. Everything becomes much more manageable, cheaper, and more accountable at the state and local level. Furthermore, screwups have much more limited effects and consequences.

    194. Re:Proud? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      because they would clearly be in the game for public service and not personal gain.

      That would be a reasonable objective. If people truly desire to work for the public then they should be allowed to.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    195. Re: Proud? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Visiting a country isn't the same as living there. Many countries don't need to be particularly "invasive" to visitors because visitors neither want nor can stay there.

      And even your experiences as a visitor might reflect your own attitudes and background more than anything having to do with the US.

    196. Re: Proud? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      How many of those countries have an NDAA and allow their citizens to be militarily imprisoned without a trial?

      Many of them actually.

      How many of those countries have a "constitution free" zone [aclu.org] that covers most of their population?

      All of them.

      How many of those countries have continue to hold innocent prisoners cleared for release a la Gitmo?

      Many of them have stateless persons in custody that they don't know what to do with.

      How many of those countries have openly assassinated one of their citizens for engaging in protected speech?

      Don't be naive; most big nations have almost certainly committed political and military assassinations of citizens and others. The fact that they do it covertly doesn't make it any better.

    197. Re:Proud? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      What if Lincoln had let them secede though? By now they might've realized the error of their ways and be a lot more respecting of individual liberty. But we just don't know how it would've panned out.

    198. Re:Proud? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems like if I want to make a movie badmouthing Hillary or Romney, I should be able to to so without risking my entire personal savings or property when we get sued

      Why? Why should you be allowed to avoid that risk? Corporate officers should be personally responsible for the actions of the corporation as a whole, and they should make their decisions with that accountability in mind.

      There is little evidence that corporate donations have much influence on election outcomes.

      I have two things to say about that statement. First, the reason that there is little evidence is because of a lack of disclosure, not because there is actually no influence. A corporation can anonymously donate as much money as they want to various organizations, and those organizations can spend that money to specifically and directly benefit a particular candidate, all the way up until the actual election. And they don't need to tell you shit. And second, the presence or lack of evidence of corporations seeking to influence elections (and thus gain favorable legislation) is separate from the actual point of whether or not it should be allowed at all. I believe that it should not be allowed. It's fine if corporations want to donate to social welfare groups, but those groups cannot pass that money onto political candidates (right now political organizations can register themselves as social welfare groups, and they do not have to disclose their donors. Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS is one such group).

      I think there are already significant restrictions.

      The legislative branch tends to not enjoy passing laws that limit what they are able to do, and they tend to enjoy voting to repeal or amend existing laws. You realize that you are relying on the people who pass laws to pass laws that limit how they can make money, right? How much support do you think there is for those laws? If you would like to cite specific laws to limit how congress can make money that are currently in effect, then that would help your position.

      The real solution is much simpler: devolve power (and money) back from the federal level to state and local institutions. Everything becomes much more manageable, cheaper, and more accountable at the state and local level.

      I'm not sure that stripping the federal government of its powers is quite as easy as you think. In fact, promoting that might even make you start to look like a needle in the NSA's haystack. This is the problem, and this problem cannot be fixed without fixing the problems in the legislative branch first. You can't strip the federal government of its power if the legislative branch wants everything to stay the same. The legislative branch is the second piece of the solution, after taking our election process back from the people who are in power.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    199. Re:Proud? by jodido · · Score: 1

      You should get out more. There are millions of people who maybe thought this way a year ago, two years ago, who are starting to wonder very deeply about what they've been believing in, what they've been led to believe, and what to do about it.

    200. Re:Proud? by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      most people I know aren't frightened. They just don't see any practical way to get rid of the bastards in charge.

      Out of interest, do any of them ever vote Republican or Democrat? If so, do you tell them they should start by never voting for these parties?

    201. Re:Proud? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      It will never stay there. For the most part of US history, it's actually never been there.

    202. Re:Proud? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Like most things, this trend was started by States. Without the Civil War, the US would have had slaves for a number of years longer, but the eventual reconciliation (as happened in every other country on Earth) would have been far less traumatic.

    203. Re:Proud? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      With the majority of the black population in the US, this would not happen.

    204. Re:Proud? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Because we have zero fucking right to it?

      We can't stand on principles, then demand others goods at sword point and say we're still principled.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    205. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're telling me there's a big difference between CT culture and MA or RI culture? How about NY culture?

      I'm sorry, but compared to MS or FL or TX or CA or AK, you guys are all the same.

    206. Re:Proud? by kgskgs · · Score: 1

      In defense of founding fathers, the founding fathers may have been ok with things that are not accepted today. But what is more important is they set the country in the right direction. The direction where eventually as a society you figure out what's wrong and are empowered to take steps to correct it. Knowing what we know today, most likely the founding fathers would not have tolerated slavery.

      I am not born in USA. Transplant here. But I am well familiar with American history and I think the founding fathers did a great job. Having said that the whole National security paranoia today scares me. This country is freaking separated by thousands of miles of sea from rest of the troublesome world. Only two neighbors up and down. They are pretty laid back and pose no danger. Can't you guys relax a bit?

      I am a bit nervous as I am typing this as well. NSA, hello, if you are reading this, I am not your guy. I am rather interested in finding loose women on earth than virgins in heaven.

    207. Re:Proud? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Clearly, if minorities cared about their own rights they would chose to be born in other states.

    208. Re:Proud? by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      There are minority plights everywhere in the world. I am one of those minorities even, but I don't think that fear of Jim Crow laws returning is either a likely possibility or a reason to keep the US united. Our federal government has done far more to oppress and eliminate minorities in its history than it ever has to support them.

    209. Re:Proud? by umghhh · · Score: 1
      Not giving a shit in this case is quite rational actually. Because of mechanics of the game and size of the country (which influence the mechanics of the game significantly) you have system that alienates its citizens.

      It is really a hilarious situation when for instance: majority of the population had personal drugs experience and yet DEA exists happily putting people in jail for nothing and has more power than ever - I am sure if US of A were a person we could find some long Latin words in DMS describing its condition(s). Yet this mentally ill person has access to WMD and in times of hyperactivity tramples other nations with its army.

    210. Re:Proud? by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

      Explosives residue. Hum. Rings a bell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six . Terrorism, religion, false positive. Law enforcement people could use some history classes.

    211. Re:Proud? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Why? Why should you be allowed to avoid that risk?

      So you're saying if I make political statements, people should be able to sue the pants off me and ruin my life? That's what it comes down to.

      Corporate officers should be personally responsible for the actions of the corporation as a whole, and they should make their decisions with that accountability in mind.

      This has nothing to do with "corporate officers".

      First, the reason that there is little evidence is because of a lack of disclosure, not because there is actually no influence.

      It doesn't matter where the money comes from, it matters that it doesn't have a significant effect.

      I'm not sure that stripping the federal government of its powers is quite as easy as you think.

      It may not be easy, but unlike the stupid ideas you propose, it actually works.

    212. Re:Proud? by Incadenza · · Score: 1

      It's pretty sad when the American government makes likes of Vladimir Putin look like a "good guy".

      No matter how you dislike the American government, at least American lawyers do not die in Prison, and journalists do not get shot. If you complain about having your basics rights violated within the USA, you have evidently never travelled abroad.

    213. Re:Proud? by shrikel · · Score: 1

      The 50 states are mostly too small to exist on their own as viable nations (except for California and Texas) without being part of some kind of union, the way small European countries have banded together into a union to increase their trading and economic power and reduce the frictional losses of having separate currencies and economies and having trade barriers.

      The population of the US in 1790 was 3,929,214.

      --
      Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
    214. Re:Proud? by Incadenza · · Score: 1

      And at least Putin is honest about his intentions, instead of saying one thing to get elected and doing the exact opposite afterwards.

      Quotation needed!

    215. Re:Proud? by ravyne · · Score: 1

      I don't think that its simply the geographical size of the government's influence that is the problem, if anything, the problem is actually one of spanning cultural geographies (which happen to concentrate in physical geographies).

      But I think there's another way that doesn't necessitate full-on-disillusion. Its not just that government interests are spread so widely, its that they have *so many* (sometimes localized) interests spread far and wide. The government is like four bakers stretching a pizza dough overhead at arms length from each other, then insisting that the pizza *needs* 50lbs of toppings to make everyone happy. One could give up and have the four bakers each make their own pizza for a different demographic. Or, one might simply not put 50lbs of shit on one big-ass pizza.

      A federal government with a much lighter footprint than what we have today could serve the *actual* common interest of the 50 states well. That was the original idea, after all, and it did reasonably well for approaching 200 years. Then the feds started seizing more power from the states, and the states did nothing about it because they're dependent on big-daddy government's pocket-book. I agree wholeheartedly that a return of power to the states, with a corresponding shrink in the size of the federal government is needed. I think if that happens, it actually would solve the problems we see today, obviating the need to dissolve the federation, and leave the federation of states (Remember people, that's what "Federal Government" means: A federation of the states!) to perform the functions it was meant to.

    216. Re:Proud? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      So you're saying if I make political statements, people should be able to sue the pants off me and ruin my life? That's what it comes down to.

      No. I'm saying that if you do something illegal, you should not be allowed to hide behind your corporation. People make political statements all the time without committing crimes. There is nothing illegal per se about making a political statement. But if you do commit a crime, then you get to face the consequences of that personally rather than hiding behind your company and shirking responsibility for what you have done.

      It doesn't matter where the money comes from, it matters that it doesn't have a significant effect.

      There is plenty of evidence that contributions to various political groups do impact elections. They run ads and exert their influence directly where they want to. And no one knows who funds that behavior, because they don't have to tell us. But regardless of the actual impact, or the actual amount of money involved or where it comes from, that is not how an open political system should work and it should not be allowed if we expect to have an open political system. That's the point.

      It may not be easy, but unlike the stupid ideas you propose, it actually works.

      Oh, we're down to insults. OK, this will be my last reply to you then, I've tried to have a reasonable discourse with you and I see that your position is not tenable if that's what you're going to resort to. You go ahead and implement your vague grand plan of stripping the federal government of its powers, and I will continue to suggest specific steps that can be taken in order to actually accomplish the objective of reforming the government so that it works for the people instead of corporations and political parties. I noticed that you proposed a long-term goal of stripping the government of its powers, but you have neglected to suggest how that would actually be accomplished. You're certainly confident that "it works" though, so I'll be happy once you reach your goal. Good luck. Have a nice weekend.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    217. Re:Proud? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No, he really isn't. There's a lot of bad about Obama, but assassinating and jailing his political opponents (not just rank and file, but actual direct competition) and massive electoral fraud are not on his list.

    218. Re:Proud? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      At that point, we can always invade them and help them establish a real democracy. After all, what will it be in a couple decades? Drones vs rednecks with shotguns?

    219. Re:Proud? by chilvence · · Score: 1

      I find this quite poignant... cheer up Americans, much as we slag you off we know that you are good intentioned. Just that you know what they say about the road to hell...

    220. Re: Proud? by chilvence · · Score: 1

      You complete imbecile, have you heard of Japan?

    221. Re:Proud? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You will have to take out the garbage first.

    222. Re:Proud? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Russia is not really a stable empire. Caucasian republics are very much their own things, and there are strong separatist movements in some other regions (e.g. Tatarstan, Tuva).

    223. Re:Proud? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      No. I'm saying that if you do something illegal, you should not be allowed to hide behind your corporation. People make political statements all the time without committing crimes.

      You don't even understand what a corporation is: a corporation isn't set up to protect officers from criminal liability, it's set up to protect owners (i.e. shareholders) from personal liability. The owners of the corporation usually never actually do anything, let alone anything illegal.

      I will continue to suggest specific steps that can be taken in order to actually accomplish the objective of reforming the government

      You aren't suggesting anything; you're simply repeating tired old policies that have been tried over and over again and don't work. You have no evidence and don't even understand the issues. And, no, this isn't a discussion, I'm simply pointing that out.

    224. Re:Proud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The federal government was meant to enforce the Bill of Rights? On who? Itself? The Bill of Rights was meant only to restrict federal power not state power. The only reason any of those amendments applies to the states is the 14th amendment which was passed post Civil War. (see e.g. Gitlow v. New York) So I don't know where you got your JD, but saying the federal government, "in the spirit of the constitution", has the power to defend the Bill of Rights as the framers intended is wrong.

      And as a final note, what you want is the Articles of Confederation which lasted not even 10 years. The constitution grants broad powers to the federal government, because the AoC did not work. At all. No country nullifies its foundational documents in under 10 years because it worked too well. The constitution passed in 1789 did not limit the federal government to "defense, freetrade and bill or [sic] rights." That's not to imply that our current iteration is what they wanted, only that your interpretation is based off the wrong document. Under the AoC states taxed the shit out of one another and there were even military skirmishes among other things. So we got a federal parental model because they couldn't play nice.

    225. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      A federal government with a much lighter footprint than what we have today could serve the *actual* common interest of the 50 states well. That was the original idea, after all, and it did reasonably well for approaching 200 years. Then the feds started seizing more power from the states, and the states did nothing about it because they're dependent on big-daddy government's pocket-book.

      No, the original idea didn't work out at all. They tried the small-central-government thing and it fell apart in around 15 years, so they had to scrap that idea and write the Constitution. Then the federal government started seizing more power from the states right away, with one big milestone being the Civil War, where states were not allowed to leave the union peacefully and a bloody war ensued to keep them in line.

      Face it, you're never going to get the small federal government you dream of. It's been tried before and it never works.

    226. Re: Proud? by imikem · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, Japan is still around. Even Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The hand wringing about the atomic bombs obscures the fact that far more damage was done to Tokyo, Dresden and Hamburg by incendiary munitions.

      By the way, have you heard of the concept of manners, or do you use "imbecile" as a term of endearment? In which case, fuck off, you pathetic poser.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    227. Re: Proud? by guises · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you're responding to the right comment? My point had nothing to do with America. I was correcting the grandparent who had made the claim that the US had assassinated one of its citizens (who I assumed to be Anwar al-Awlaki) for engaging in protected speech. That was not why he was killed.

    228. Re:Proud? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      If you had actually read the article, you would have noticed that he's not Islamic, and not an Arab.

      So he's not an Arab, nor is he Islamic. That's easily a warning sign if you're supporting something you have no background in.

      Which he wasn't.

    229. Re:Proud? by Xicor · · Score: 1

      lets leave it at both, and then say that it doesnt really matter because the ppl arguing for gun control keep saying that theres no reason for ppl to be allowed to have and carry semi-automatic guns to protect themselves against muggers, when clearly the intent was not to protect against muggers

    230. Re:Proud? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

      Dear Not-quite-so Educated Citizen:

      From the Encyclopedia Britianica:

      "Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery.

      I sincerely hope they were not so delusional as to think peoples' slaves were "private property". A slave is stolen property - the slave's life has been stolen from him or her. And a government so limited as to be unable to prevent somebody from completely depriving somebody else of their freedom by owning them is a government that's too limited.

      "Insersectional harmony", OK, if that's purely pragmatism, maybe they couldn't, in practice, just get rid of slavery. (Treating "intersectional harmony" as more important than "giving people seized at weaponpoint and sold as property the rights stolen from them" is a major moral failure, just as giving "property rights" or "limited government" priority over that is.)

    231. Re: Proud? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Depends on who you are and what you care about. Want to freely insult people? Germany's the wrong place. Want to have an abortion without being harassed? Germany is a good place. Want to harass, intimidate and lie to make people not have an abortion? Wrong place. Want to start a business and hire and fire people depending on your needs? Wrong place. Want to have children without being afraid of losing your job etc.? Slightly better place than the US but not comparable with e.g. Sweden. Want to have judges that care about justice and sanity, and a constitutional court with teeth that takes your freedoms seriously? Mostly a good place. Want courts that follow the letter of the law to the dot, no matter what was meant? Mostly wrong place. Want to have the freedom to own and use a gun? Really wrong place.

      So, speaking of Sweden, how does it compare with Germany and the US on those issues?

    232. Re:Proud? by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      The people don't like gays. It's not about Putin, it's about collective mentality.

      Now if you gonna be hating on the people... well .. go ahead. But that's why we so f up in the first case. Too much hating.

    233. Re:Proud? by giampy · · Score: 1

      I think corporations don't kill or torture people because, luckily, they live in an environment of laws (which is created and enforced by the governments) which makes such violent action too risky and expensive for them :)

      But, yes, i agree with everything you suggested. I'd only add that whenever governments need to have some concentration of power (which i agree is dangerous), then they should absolutely positively pay for this concentration of power with transparency, so that they can actually be monitored and kept in check by their citizens.

      To me transparency is a key point, if we give power and money to the government to represent our interests, we really can't afford misguided secrecy and privacy laws that prevent us to know how those power and money are spent.

      --
      We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
    234. Re:Proud? by khallow · · Score: 1

      No because no one claims they came from on high.

      Thomas Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence when he called certain things "unalienable" rights "endowed by their Creator". I suppose I could google for "founding fathers" who attributed the US Constitution (or the accompanying Bill of Rights) to divine provenance or the like. It is worth noting for an interesting example, that the Mormon Church holds that the US Constitution is divinely inspired based on a scripture that states:

      According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

      This may be a bit vague, but it was supposedly was part of a revelation given to Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, who was a US citizen at the time in the state of Ohio.

    235. Re:Proud? by algoa456 · · Score: 1

      As an Indian I'd rather be searched than dead. I have no problems with them targeting people if it will stop a bombing. See it is a funny thing, but I don't want to die.

    236. Re:Proud? by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Can upstate NY, Michigan, PA, Ohio, and Ontario have their own country? Bonus: never having to wait in those long lines at the border.

    237. Re:Proud? by NewYork · · Score: 1

      "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else." --Churchill

    238. Re:Proud? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You don't think they want to sell us oil? Of course they want to sell us oil. US troops in Saudi are there to keep the Gulf open for business so that the countries in that area can actually sell us oil like they want to. Iran would love to shut us off, and they have no love for the Arabs either. They have every right to ask us for support and we have every right to respond and keep the Straits open.

      This isn't just about the US, you know. Most of our oil isn't actually from the Middle East.

      Sure, they don't like the US because this supports the monarchy when they want to create an area free from infidels. Let them take that up with their own government. If governments want us out, they just have to ask.

    239. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that "upstate" NY should separate from NYC; NYC should join with west CT and northern NJ (and maybe west MA and a small bit of PA) and form a new state called "Hudson".

      The old 38 States proposal seems like a good starting point for breaking things up along lines of regional culture (though things have changed in the 40 years since they came up with this, so it needs a bit of revision); after that, the new states can self-organize into a handful of larger nations.

      Breaking up Canada and adding that to the mix isn't a bad idea either. I'll bet the Quebecois would like to be independent, and as you point out, Ontario really has more in common with MI and OH than with QC and BC. BC could join up with OR and WA. And NB and NS could join with ME, NH and VT.

    240. Re:Proud? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Of course they don't want to be part of Cuba, but the other Southern states probably don't want them (since the whole south part of the state basically speaks Spanish), so they can't join the new country of "Dixie" (or whatever they end up calling it), so either they can be independent, or they can join Cuba. And if they're independent, they run the risk of being invaded by Cuba and being taken over, and I don't see their Dixie neighbors coming to their defense. And unlike all those rednecks in Dixie, the people aren't all armed to the teeth with rifles, so they won't be able to defend themselves against the invading Cuban forces.

      Of course, after a few decades of rising sea levels, south Florida will be underwater anyway, so all those people will either have to try to sneak into Dixie, or go back to Cuba.

    241. Re: Proud? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Many of them actually.

      Then you'll have no problems rattling off 10 of them, much less 38.

      Many of them have stateless persons in custody that they don't know what to do with.

      We know what states these people are from, because we kidnapped them. So, again, how many countries keep dozens of innocent people in prison when the government in question has cleared them for release years ago.

      Don't be naive; most big nations have almost certainly committed political and military assassinations of citizens and others. The fact that they do it covertly doesn't make it any better.

      Then you'll almost certainly have no problem rattling off a bunch of examples. When was the last time Canada assassinated one of their citizens? How about New Zealand? Poland?

    242. Re: Proud? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure "innocent" is the right adjective

      Look, fascist, these are people who have already been cleared for release by both the Bush and Obama administrations. You know, people willing to trump up petty bullshit into lengthy sentences in Federal Pound Me In the Ass penitentiaries, when they aren't torturing or killing people with bombs. And they've cleared these people for release because they have no reason to hold them.

      But other countries? Most wouldn't tell you that the prisoners exist.

      "Most" countries aren't assassinating people on the other side of the planet from their own country, or have the largest number of prisoners, both per capita and in raw numbers.

    243. Re:Proud? by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah. Don't blow so hard, you;re kicking up dust.

      I did my time in the military, did the shit jobs that no one else wanted, while pussies like you and your parents were home safe in bed. I've earned the right to say whatever comes to mind. Right now, it's that I'm probably going to the Canadian consulate on Monday to begin the process of invoking my right to a dual citizenship.

      I have had my fill of lying, scumbag politicians and the loud braggarts who support them, crying out their patriotism without regard for the foulness of their actions.

      So you feel free to spout whatever nonsense you wish. I've been here quite awhile. Unlike you who turned up here a million users after me.

    244. Re:Proud? by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

      Flee? LOL. If I was in mind to flee, I would have done it 40 years ago. I would have fled instead of heading to bootcamp the day after graduating from high school.

      I'd like to support you in your desire to fight, but why? You don't even know who to fight. Who are you going to attack? You don't know, do you?

      You give me a shout when you've managed to figure out that pressing question. You won't get anywhere until you have the active military on your side. Because they are the only ones who will be able to stop the police from shooting you down like a dog.

    245. Re:Proud? by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

      Don't bother talking sense to him. He's a only a troll.

    246. Re:Proud? by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I've been to Costa Rica. And I'm PNG there :-(

      Otherwise, it's a great place (if you can deal with the bugs). How do you feel about Ecuador?

    247. Re:Proud? by TrentTheThief · · Score: 1

      Nice one!

    248. Re:Proud? by Swampash · · Score: 1

      After instinct subsided my second reaction was "there's no way I would voluntarily remain in a country that treated its own citizens like that". Which, when you think about it, is just the first reaction put a different way.

    249. Re:Proud? by Swampash · · Score: 1

      I'm proud of my daughter who has the gumption to leave the US with no intention of returning. I'm proud of my sister and her kids who walked into the consulate in Alberta Canada and renounced their American Citizenship.

      Kudos to your family members. Your daughter and your sister have more balls between them than all the "I'm considering leaving" armchair warriors.

    250. Re:Proud? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If I want to visit Denver Colorado from my home here in Canada, I have a choice of travelling by car or flying.

      If I drive, it's a good solid 10 - 11 hours of driving from where I live, with a moderate stop at the border to answer a couple of questions. I get to see the beauty of the country (Wyoming is particularly picturesque), and the cost in gas is pretty OK. I can stop wherever I want, eat whatever I want, make phone calls, etc. It's a very pleasant, if time consuming, way to travel. My trip back is generally just as pleasant..

      THIS! Around 2003 I decided that I would never fly commercial again, unless it was impossible to drive to a place. It is more pleasant, and for some trips, such as trips I occasionally had to make from home to D.C. actually took less time to drive 2 hours at home airport, 1 hour flight if no delay, another hour to get the luggage, half hour at the rental car place, about 4-5 hours flying, versus 3 hour drive - disclaimer, don't get caught in D.C afternoon traffic in either case.

      One time I was detained at the Canadian border though - sort of. The border crossing into Canada had a young cop, it was late, a slow traffic night, and he noticed I had a Pittsburgh Penguins hat on. He was a Toronto Leafs fan. We gabbed for 15 minutes untill the next car came along, busting each others chops like old buddies. My wife got a little bored, but the cop and I had a great time.

      I know it isn't fashionable to tell not-unhappy stories on Slashdot, but you'll never have experiences like that in an airport with all the cranky people involved.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    251. Re: Proud? by bknack · · Score: 1

      You would not be subject to random searches in Canada:
      According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
      8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

      Cheers,
      Bruce.

      --
      Bruce A. Knack
      Silicon Surfers
    252. Re:Proud? by You're+All+Wrong · · Score: 1

      > states could decide that people with dark skin couldn't sit at the same table as people with light skin

      Are these dark-skinned fellows enfranchised now? Were they enfranchised at the time to which you are referring?

      > Let's let women in shithole red states be subject to ...

      Are these women enfranchised now? Were they enfranchised at the time to which you are referring?

      --
      Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
    253. Re:Proud? by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Hey, if I had wanted to hear from an asshole, I'd have farted.

      While you're at it, you can also thank Slashdot for providing you a forum to spew your worthless opinion, an absolutely useless off-topic troll. I believe it is you who is the moron, but it's more likely you're one of those almost-jackbooted thugs that call themselves police in this country and perpetrates these atrocities.

      These are real, they are happening, and it's the truth. If you don't like it, then that's just too fucking bad. This is the 'murrica fucks like you have produced and now you think I'm ranting because some of use don't like it? Again, too fucking bad. You gotta work on taking that pesky 1st Amendment out next, then I guess you can come and arrest me.

      I sincerely hope you get caught in one of these sometime and they let the dogs crawl up your ass and beat you until you bleed, then take your dazed, worthless dumbfuck ass to jail. If you're one of them then maybe one of the sheep you prey on will be your last when they get sick of getting picked off one at a time.

      Now if I was really juvenile, I would have said "Fuck You and anyone that looks like you!" and MEANT it.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    254. Re:Proud? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The government is blatantly corrupt

      When has it NOT been? History is full of shenanigans.

    255. Re: Proud? by Jimbob+The+Mighty · · Score: 1

      Note. Australian drinking laws are pretty shit

      Australian drinking laws are as they are because Australians know what Australians can be like when they've been drinking.

    256. Re:Proud? by Githaron · · Score: 1

      The fallback would be to sue afterwards.

    257. Re:Proud? by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

      I'm proud of my sister and her kids who walked into the consulate in Alberta Canada and renounced their American Citizenship.

      And you can actually do that?

      --
      No sig for you! Come back one year!
    258. Re:Proud? by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 1

      Well, living in Russia and seeing things from within - our governments are almost equal in the eyes of local populace. These so-called "political opponents" are almost as bad as our current ruling class, they're just younger and hungrier, plus we still have fewer people in prisons per capita, if I recall correctly. So - we are almost at match here.

      At least I do not know about anyone who wants to emigrate in the USA. Thailand or India, or even Europe, OTOH, are really popular - there are many people who actively working on settling there permanently. Still, this is not a choice between "good" and "bad", but between "bad" and "even worse". And both Russia and USA are considered "worse" in this case.

      --
      Absence of proof != proof of absence.
    259. Re:Proud? by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 1

      Well, give your constitution at least a thousand years more and you won't be able to tell the difference (and not only because you'll probably be dead at this point). Of course it'll happen only if both the Bible and Constitution will be still relevant or even remembered then.

      --
      Absence of proof != proof of absence.
    260. Re:Proud? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      On number 2., I disagree with the idea that individuals can donate whatever they want. Because of the vast income and wealth inequality in this country, a single individual can (and has) swung elections.

      We need a cap on individual donations that reflects the average individual's wealth in this country. The rest can be made up with public funding of campaigns. Just who receive free air time, free ad time, and public funds could be determined by something simple like, "get X citizen signatures, congrats, you are officially a candidate".

       

    261. Re:Proud? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      However, like the Bible, the Constitution is open to interpretation over time. Sometimes very large differences in the conclusions reached generation to generation.

    262. Re:Proud? by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      I find this quite poignant... cheer up Americans, much as we slag you off we know that you are good intentioned. Just that you know what they say about the road to hell...

      Hear hear. Churchill said once that we (the world) could always rely on America to do the right thing. After they'd tried everything else.

      (p.s. no offence intended...please don't invade my country)

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    263. Re: Proud? by sageres · · Score: 1

      Based on your various spellings I would assume you are a German, and not just any German -- but a piece of Soviet-left GDR-garbadge. Wallow in your shame for not just your Nazi past, but your communist past as well. And wallow in the shame of your inferiority complex against those Germans who grew up in the West side of the country.

    264. Re:Proud? by zyzzyxx · · Score: 1

      So do we! We have jailed whistleblowers, killed innocent people in the name of liberation.Putin never said that he is a good guy. Everybody knows he is an old school Kremlin guy. But we are supposed to be the good guy. Goodness and badness cannot be selective. if you are selectively good to a group of people, then you are not a good guy and if you are selectively bad to a group of people, then you are neither a bad guy.

  3. In the the land of he free by Henriok · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In the the land of he free and the home of the brave.

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
    1. Re:In the the land of he free by intermodal · · Score: 5, Funny

      In the the land of he free and the home of the brave.*

      *some restrictions may apply.

      Prosser: But the plans were on display.
      Arthur Dent: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar.
      Prosser: That's the display department.
      Arthur Dent: With a torch.
      Prosser: The lights had probably gone.
      Arthur Dent: So had the stairs.
      Prosser: But you did see the notice, didn't you?
      Arthur Dent: Oh, yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign outside the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." Ever thought of going into advertising?

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    2. Re:In the the land of he free by Are+You+Kidding · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You got the wrong Arthur Dent quote - should have been this: “It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..." "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?" "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy." "I did," said Ford. "It is." "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?" "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

    3. Re:In the the land of he free by ray-auch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... and you cut off before the most important bit:

      "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
      "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
      "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
      “Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in.”

    4. Re:In the the land of he free by camperdave · · Score: 1

      They should run that segment as a full page ad in every paper right before election day. Of course the Reptilees will have a field day.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    5. Re:In the the land of he free by chilvence · · Score: 1

      Douglas Adams. How dare you leave us :(

    6. Re:In the the land of he free by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in."

      This is one thing that makes me mad at election times. SO many people say "I would have voted for the third party candidate, but I didn't want to throw away my vote. So I voted for one of the evil guys instead." Just vote for the guy you want. Otherwise you ARE throwing away your vote. If EVERYONE did that, the third party guy might actually have a chance.

    7. Re:In the the land of he free by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      Oh yes. I guess "other" people would be better then the people right now.
      The only hope I' having in life is that you people will understand this sarcastic sentence above... at least when you reach 60 years age.

  4. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's called jihad.

    When an entire religion declares that non-members are subhuman kafirs who deserve death, and the "moderate" members of that religion tacitly allow that, it's bad enough.

    But it's even worse when that religion places the "holy" duty of jihad on all its members to go out and literally wage war against kafirs.

    You reap what you sow.

    1. Re:Why? by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's called jihad.

      When an entire religion declares that non-members are subhuman kafirs who deserve death, and the "moderate" members of that religion tacitly allow that, it's bad enough.

      But it's even worse when that religion places the "holy" duty of jihad on all its members to go out and literally wage war against kafirs.

      You reap what you sow.

      TL;DR: Old School McCarthyism

    2. Re:Why? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      ...entire religion....

      I think I found the flaw in your argument. It takes just ONE case for this not to be true.

    3. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why you ask? Because despite your bigotry, if you had read the article you would have noticed the guy is Hindu.

    4. Re:Why? by scubamage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You realize, that Muslim extremists are to Islam what the Westboro Baptist Church, Tripura, Assam, Odisha, anti-abortion bombers, and Hutaree are for Christianity, right? Sickening examples that leave the majority just as disgusted as you, the outside observer.

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's called imperialism.

      When an entire country declares that non-members are subhuman johnny-foreigners who deserve death, and the "moderate" citizens of that country tacitly allow that, it's bad enough.

      But it's even worse when that country places the "holy" duty of detection of terrorism on all its citizens to go out and literally wage war against johnny foreigners.

      You reap what you sow.

    6. Re:Why? by jcr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Didn't read the article, did you?

      The author's not a muslim, and even if he had been, his treatment was asinine.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Why? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's not an entire religion. It's pig fucking bastards that twist their religion to make it look as if they are heroes if they fuck pigs or whatever other thing they want to do, even if their religion specificly tells them not to fuck pigs. We just blame it on their religion because it's not ours and we conveniently forget that there are evil bastards that use our religion as an excuse for their acts of evil.

    8. Re:Why? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.

      This forces us to re-evaluate the entire phrase of "McCarthyism" as the current (wrong) meaning implies falsehood. Please stop using this phrase, it is deprecated.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:Why? by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... when they came for the hindus, I said nothing.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually the flaw is yours. Did the fact that not all members of the Nazi party were fully committed to "the cause" make that group any less dangerous? No, it did not.

      The religion of Islam has as its cause the conversion of all people to its faith, either willingly or by force. Conversion from Islam to another religion is the "crime" of apostasy and punishible by death. This group, as a whole, is dangerous. Just look at what is happening to christians in Egypt.

      Perhaps some innocent Nazis were detained and searched too. Boo hoo.

    11. Re:Why? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The feeling he describes, from lost security and violation of personal rights by security officers, police and flight company -- it's terror.

      Just because of a false positive, and because people don't know the difference between a Hindu/Indian and a Muslim/Pakistani, and are "too smart" to ask directly.

      I wonder how many more false positives like this happen, with similarly Kafkaesque stories and no satisfactory conclusion (compensation for raiding the wrong home, anyone?).

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    12. Re:Why? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 5, Informative

      Um, no. The Talmud doesn't say that. You should probably stop reading Neo-Nazi and Jihadist websites.

    13. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The fact that the SUMMARY leaves out this very important point shows how bad the editors are.

    14. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since the the entire religion is based on the koran and states that all non-muslims are infidels i think his statement is accurate to within round off error.

      On a less accurate note I have been led to believe that the crazies are the ones running most of the show while the sane ones don't have the intestinal fortitude to stop them. Kinda like our congress, so much crazy crap is going on and so little being done about it by the sane ones.

    15. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      How did he know the men in his house were "large?"

      They tried on his sweaters and stretched the head-holes.

    16. Re:Why? by SJHillman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Actually the flaw is yours. Did the fact that not all members of the Nazi party were fully committed to "the cause" make that group any less dangerous? No, it did not."

      But it did mean that we didn't prosecute all Nazis for war crimes just because they were Nazis.

      Also, newsflash, many major religions support the cause of converting others or killing them. Including Christians and Jews. A clear majority of Muslims think that's an outdated concept just as much as Christians and Jews do too. It's just some relatively tiny sects that still support it (see Westboro Baptist Church).

    17. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You realize you're an idiot, right?

      I can't stand the Westboro Baptist Church as much as anyone else. However, they are not strapping bombs to themselves and blowing things up. They have not sworn to destroy America. They simply have a warped mind and a big mouth. Muslim extremists do act violently on their extreme views.

    18. Re:Why? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So he's guilty of the crime of "flying while Muslim"?

      Oh wait... He's Hindu.

      So he's guilty of the crime of "flying while having a name that someone thinks sounds Muslim."

      Airport Security: Just when you think they've gone as low as they can go, they dig deep and go lower! Congrats TSA (and other agencies since home searching isn't something the TSA does) for continually coming in below our already lowered our expectations.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    19. Re:Why? by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Prove me wrong on the other fronts. And so far as I know, most Muslims don't want to be associated with extremists, or those advocating for extremism (you know, like WBC advocates for violence against people). Likewise Christians don't want to be associated with those groups. Now piss off.

    20. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And abortion bombers have killed all of six people in the entire history of their violence. The WBC hasn't killed anybody. Let me know when they fly planes into buildings, or put bombs in their underwear or shoes. Let me know when they shoot up a military base or try to blow up time square. Let me know when they shoot up a school in Nigeria, executing those who refuse to convert. I'm an atheist but at least I can acknowledge that not all religion is equally harmful. When you have 10% 1.5 billion people saying violence against the kuffar is perfectly acceptable, you have a much bigger problem.

    21. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There really were witches in Salem, too. Prove that there weren't!

    22. Re:Why? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There were communist spies in the state department. And there was almost zero intersection between the communist spies and the lives destroyed by McCarthism. So your point is...?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    23. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The big difference is that the Quran says to be violent, while the New Testament says to be peaceful. It's obvious that the typical Muslim, like the typical Christian, is not a murderous loon, but a to-the-letter Quran follower would be violent, while a to-the-letter Bible follower would be peaceful. To put it another way, a peaceful Muslim is as hypocritical as a hateful or violent Christian.

    24. Re:Why? by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Funny

      There really were witches in Salem, too. Prove that there weren't!

      Sure, just look into my crystal ball ... Oh wait!

    25. Re:Why? by TCQuad · · Score: 1

      It's called jihad.

      When an entire religion blah blah blah

      Among the major flaws in your argument:

      He then asked, “What is your religion?”

      "I’m Hindu."

      He's not Muslim. He just looked like he conceivably might be due to his skin color and his decision to skip breakfast before going to the airport.

    26. Re:Why? by Bongo · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is about numbers. You can read books by Muslim women talking about what they see as dominant trends in their culture, in places like Egypt, Gaza, and where Islamic culture spreads to Europe and America. It isn't as simple as "extremists are a tiny minority". I also see it personally with friends who come from Muslim families -- despite being born in the West, they cannot extricate themselves from the old culture without being completely ostracised from their family. Many would rather conform than leave. And to do it they'll live a double life. Anyway like I say, read what Moslem women like Nonie Darwish, Ghazal Omid, Qanta Ahmed.

      A sample from Darwish: "We often hear that “moderate” Muslims are the majority and that terrorist supporters are a minority fringe group. However, when genuine Islamic moderate leaders stand firm against terrorism, we do not see majority Muslim support for their views. To the contrary, such “moderates” shout the speakers down, condemn, and threaten them."

      Anyway this is a separate point to racial profiling by security services.

    27. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The religion of Islam has as its cause the conversion of all people to its faith, either willingly or by force. Conversion from Islam to another religion is the "crime" of apostasy and punishible by death. This group, as a whole, is dangerous. Just look at what is happening to christians in Egypt.

      Fuck... All religions are dangereous!

      Just stop being fucking sheep and think for yourselves instead of letting random chance (or "god" as you say) control your lives...

      All religions have been used over and over to control people to follow their leaders and commit terrible things..

      If you want to believe in something then do it for your self, don't follow any religion!

    28. Re:Why? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If you think Al Qaida is bad, check out how many people Bush's wars have killed in the name of the American God...

    29. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So a witch hunt negatively affecting a of majority innocent people is perfectly justified if you catch a small handful of people who are the real deal... BTW being a communist is not a crime.

    30. Re:Why? by alexgieg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since the the entire religion is based on the koran and [it] states that all non-muslims are infidels

      No, it doesn't. The Koran distinguishes believers on one extreme, infidels on the other, and "people of the book" in the middle, who must be protected by believers even though they're (thought of as being) in error. Christians and Jews are explicitly cited as "people of the book". Afterwards Buddhists, Hinduists and others were added to the list.

      By the way: traditional Muslims in Egypt have been helping protect Christian churches from the fundamentalist Christian-hating ones. In particular, they've been protecting Coptic Christian churches, the same Coptics that both Catholics and Orthodox Christians were persecuting several centuries ago and who had to flee from Europe and find refuge there, in Islamic Egypt, back in the day fundamentalist Islam hadn't been invented yet (this one's an English Puritanism-inspired 18th-century innovation).

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    31. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think it's an important point at all.

      It doesn't matter if the guy was Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, Christian or Xenu him-fucking-self, this SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

    32. Re:Why? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Muslim extremists do act violently on their extreme views.

      I've actually seen a group of Phelpsies. I've interacted with them. A friend of mine had a bogus police report filed against him by them.

      You, on the other hand, have never met a Muslim extremist. In fact, although I don't know you from Adam's off ox, I feel confident that you don't actually know any Muslims personally at all -- or if you do, you're unaware of their religion because there was no reason for the subject to come up, particularly when talking with a guy like you. Would you want to talk to you about religion? I'm feeling dirty right now.

      And BTW, anti-abortion bombers actually are, by definition, "blowing things up". In know, I know, no true Scotsman.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    33. Re:Why? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Based on polling, between 10 and 20% of Muslims are "radicalized". That represents at least 200,000,000 people. They are following their scripture's teachings. Not surprisingly, there are Muslim terrorist attacks in the Middle East almost daily. Pakistan is particularly hard hit, and most victims of Muslim violence are other Muslims.

      The "Christians" that you've mentioned there are not following the teachings in their scriptures, and they number in the hundreds total. They've killed a few people. On average, they've killed fewer people in the last 100 years than the Muslims kill in a day.

      Which group should I be more worried about?

    34. Re:Why? by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.

      This forces us to re-evaluate the entire phrase of "McCarthyism" as the current (wrong) meaning implies falsehood. Please stop using this phrase, it is deprecated.

      It is useful as ever. McCarthy took the allegation "there are communist spies", expanded that to "all communists are spies" and finally conducted show trials to condemn more or less random people, all to boost his own career. This is, of course, entirely analogous to this story: "there are muslim terrorists" -> "all muslims are terrorists" -> "this guy might be a muslim! Break down his door!"

      It's a tactic with a long and bloody pedigree. McCarthy was simply a less capable Hitler wannabe. And so are the current anti-muslim fearmongers.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    35. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Let's see.... Foreign sounding name. Check. Brown skin... Check. Comes from a country where the dominate religious is not Judeo/Christian... Check. Yup. The NSA, DHS, and FBI now have probable cause to consider him a terrorist.

    36. Re:Why? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

      When an entire religion declares that non-members are subhuman kafirs who deserve death

      Why are we talking about Afrikaner Calvinism?

    37. Re: Why? by dotancohen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that the SUMMARY leaves out this very important point shows how bad the editors are.

      I fail to see where the guy's religion comes into the picture. There is a difference between profiling and between hating Muslims. One is a security measure, the other is bigotry.

      Oh, and I'm an Israeli jew. Half my good neighbours are Muslims. Of course, my country has an existential threat, not a power-hungry government, so our citizens are able to make this distinction.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    38. Re:Why? by catfood · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, you idiot. The passage you quote is Rabbi Yochanan being slapped down for saying something stupid and wrong.

    39. Re:Why? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      being a communist is not a crime

      At the time it was.

    40. Re:Why? by bgarcia · · Score: 1

      You are correct. The only difference is that the Westboro Baptist Church isn't governing an entire country, spending nine billion per year on a military force and attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    41. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There were communist spies

      Perhaps it would be better to separate these two words. "Spies for the Soviet Union" would be better. The fact that they spied for the Soviet Union has little to do with whether they were communist or not.

      That said, I just now realized that I really want to meet a libertarian librarian.

    42. Re:Why? by jollyreaper · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.

      Wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. This is akin to creationism, Reagan winning the Cold War, and global warming as liberal myth.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    43. Re:Why? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      TL;DR: Old School McCarthyism

      You don't know how right you are.

      "Why do so many countries want to attack us?" the person asked.

      The general replied that America stands in the way of them reaching their objective, which is to force everybody to comply with sharia law.

      That general is Keith Alexander, head of the NSA
      Yes, the head of the NSA is a fox news nutbag.
      McCarthy is alive and well.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    44. Re:Why? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think I can safely say that's an unfair representation of the text you quoted? I mean, people who say that the Koran says to kill non-believers are off base(it does say to kill ex-believers, which isn't much better), Shariah law(the "accepted" interpretation of the Koran's rules) suggests a tax on non-believers is the most that can be demanded.

    45. Re:Why? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Let us remember that radical Islam was a big contributor to the body count in "Bush's wars".

    46. Re:Why? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Stalin was also right: there really were people sabotaging the nation's 5 year plans and/or plotting to overthrow him. It's not really a consolation to those who were falsely accused. And in that case we're talking actual traitors and saboteurs; one has to wonder to which of the McCarthy commies that label could be applied. It seems more of a case of "disagree with me = treason".

      The dictionary defines McCarthyism thus:
      1. the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, especially of pro-Communist activity, in many instances unsupported by proof or based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence.
      2. the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.


      The current definition seems pretty accurate to me, even if there really were a couple of communists.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    47. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would like to see your evidences for the (despicable) WBC advocating a convert or be killed by us stance. They have many evil points of view but they don't have that one.

    48. Re:Why? by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Fair enough - I am not a Talmud scholar, and I honestly don't care to be. It is a shame that most searches for the Talmud automatically bring up some pretty nasty things. Either way, all of the religious texts have horrible things. The bible talks about rape and murder in the name of God, incest to carry on the family name, murdering children for talking back to you, etc. I'm sure there is gruesome stuff in the Torah, Talmud, Zohar, and other texts. Likewise there is bad stuff in the Quran. All of them are guilty, probably due to having common Abrahamic roots. My real point is that despite the nasty things that are in them, most people realize that it's either dated or misquoted or injected due to racism and personal bias and not indicative of the religion as a whole. Christians in the west seem to be especially blind to this - some going so far as trumpeting how homosexuals should be killed, while talking about how Islam is an overtly evil religion that celebrates murder.

    49. Re:Why? by mariox19 · · Score: 2

      It was not "being a communist"; it was being a member of the Communist Party, a secret political organization swearing allegiance to a foreign government that was nominally our foe and having as its expressed purpose the overthrow of the United States Constitution and government.

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    50. Re:Why? by IANAAC · · Score: 1

      The author's not a muslim, and even if he had been, his treatment was asinine.

      -jcr

      I agree wholeheartedly, his treatment was horrible.

      I can't help but think there's a lot more to the story though that he's probably not even aware of.

      A lot of different agencies/people were involved in trying to stop him from something. What that was, who knows? Even if any of those agencies had no concept of a budget, that's still a lot of individual people and time thrown at a suspected problem. Someone went so far as to search his apartment while he was away. For what?

      It'd be nice if all these agencies had to be accountable for their actions, documenting everything they did along the way. But they're not, and until they are, stuff like this is going to continue.

    51. Re:Why? by mariox19 · · Score: 2

      Two words: Alger Hiss. Two more words: You're wrong. Two final words: (I'll leave this as an exercise for the reader.)

      --

      quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

    52. Re:Why? by Desler · · Score: 1

      Prove me wrong

      Onus of proof is on the one making the claims (a.k.a You).

      And so far as I know, most Muslims don't want to be associated with extremists,

      Unless you know every Muslim on Earth this is a meaningless statement. Anecdotes != evidence.

      r those advocating for extremism (you know, like WBC advocates for violence against people).

      They advocate violence against people? Since when? They make troll statements about how their God kills people because of gays, but they themselves don't advocate anyone do violence in their name.

    53. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The converse that all terrorists are Muslim is a common sense generalization, however.

      Sure, until your willful tunnel vision causes you to get blindsided by the next Bruce Ivins or Eric Rudolph or Ted Kazinski or whoever.

    54. Re:Why? by scubamage · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You mean a country that had a democratically elected leader until the US and UK organized a coup and then spent several years training secret police to murder and torture any secularists who didn't support the friendly puppet that they put in place? What do you have left when you have paid for all of the secularists to be killed? Let's be entirely honest about the history there. I admit that that country does have a grudge against us, but they have a really, REALLY good reason for it.

    55. Re: Why? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      The converse that all terrorists are Muslim is a common sense generalization, however.

      All Terrorists are Muslims... Except the 94% that Aren't

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    56. Re:Why? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.

      "After reviewing evidence from Venona and other sources, historian John Earl Haynes concluded that, of 159 people identified on lists used or referenced by McCarthy, evidence was substantial that nine had aided Soviet espionage efforts." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy

      Any moron can predict that one government has spies in the employ of a rival government. Here, I'll do it: "The United States has spies in the Chinese government!" There, in fifty years you can talk about how history proved me right.

      9 out of 159 does not make a person "right". McCarthy led a witch-hunt and ruined lives.

      "It is difficult to estimate the number of victims of McCarthyism. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs. In many cases simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired. Many of those who were imprisoned, lost their jobs or were questioned by committees did in fact have a past or present connection of some kind with the Communist Party. But for the vast majority, both the potential for them to do harm to the nation and the nature of their communist affiliation were tenuous. Suspected homosexuality was also a common cause for being targeted by McCarthyism. The hunt for "sexual perverts", who were presumed to be subversive by nature, resulted in thousands being harassed and denied employment." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

      And of course, being a Communist, or believing in or speaking about communism, is not and cannot be a crime in the United States. It may be a silly, naive, and dangerous thing to be -- but the same is true about being a capitalist.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    57. Re:Why? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Um, no. The Talmud doesn't say that.

      Some Jews say that it does. Yitzhak Shapira and Yitzchak Ginsburg, both Israeli rabbis, have argued that killing innocent non-Jews for the benefit of Jews is a-ok under Jewish religious law.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    58. Re:Why? by alexgieg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is the penalty for apostasy in the Muslim religion?

      The same one applied in the Christian and Jewish religions: death.

      What? You thought either preached something different? No, they just don't put into practice. But that it's in the book all the same, it is.

      How old was Muhammad's wife? How old must a person be to be wed under Islamic law? How old must that wife be to have sex?

      Of legal age at the time. Of legal age under said law. :-)

      What? You think our Western laws aren't arbitrary either? Try talking to someone from 3613 CE an see what he thinks of your morality and the laws you think of as just. Just as a matter of perspective I'll say this: a radical progressive of the 1920's would feel welcome among the extreme right wing of the GOP of today. Ditto for us all in 100 years, never mind in 1600.

      We're all the cavemen of tomorrow.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    59. Re:Why? by scubamage · · Score: 1

      What say I? I say spend 2 months in the UAE, Qatar, or Bahrain. Not every place is what your caricature of the Middle East describes.

    60. Re:Why? by AC-x · · Score: 1

      "flying while brown".

    61. Re: Why? by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      And the title talks about not flying during Ramadan

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    62. Re:Why? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Hey now pigs are unclean to them, they do donkeys (search for video on Liveleak at your own peril).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    63. Re:Why? by zrelativity · · Score: 2
      But even then their action does not make sense, because the subject in this case is not a muslim. His name would suggest that he is a Hindu Bengali from west Bengal, India. So the logic being employed is

      brown skinned -> some muslim are brown skinned -> "there are muslim terrorists" -> "all muslims are terrorists" -> "this guy might be a muslim! Break down his door!"

      there would appear to be some major flow in their passenger profiling

    64. Re:Why? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Why do you digg.com newbs get so bent out of shape about four characters?

      Try to work it out in therapy, kid.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    65. Re:Why? by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      But so what? I'm not American and don't know much about that era, so please excuse my ignorance.

      However, it always confused me how it was legal to hold hearings to see if someone was a communist or not, and punish those who were.

      In a democratic country like the US was supposed to be at that time, people should be free to hold whatever view or opinions they want. If that included communism, so be it. Indeed, there should be no reason a communist party couldn't exist to have a chance at being voted in.

      Surely everything McCarthy did was unconstitutional?

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    66. Re:Why? by jovius · · Score: 1

      Fundamentalist Christian (and also ignorant, to be fair) views on LGBT individuals kill children and young adults every day in the US (and globally). Social isolation because of the sexuality is one of the major factors contributing to adolescent suicides. Words can and do hurt.

      In the case of unnaturally enforced sexual dogmas the fundamentalist religious groups have a lot in common.

    67. Re: Why? by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      No, but when the article title explicitly connects it to Ramadan, it would be useful to know he's Hindu.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    68. Re:Why? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      its expressed purpose the overthrow of the United States Constitution and government.

      So...the same as the United States' Government's unexpressed purpose then?

      You'd think they'd have seen the Communist Party as allies in that case...

    69. Re:Why? by scubamage · · Score: 1

      That was something that always fascinated me. It seems like nearly all religions are organized against it. Even the normally super-tolerant Jains and Buddhists are anti-homosexual. Almost all cite it as "unnatural," and yet it's incredibly common in the natural world which completely guts that argument. So far as I know, the only older religions I've read about which were accepting of homosexuality were held by the Greeks and Romans, and some Native American tribes. Now, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of religions I'm unaware of, so there could be more. It just always seemed weird.

    70. Re:Why? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      One side failing doesn't mean the other side won.

      Reagan tripled the national debt via military spending and left us that lasting treat. Which will probably bring us down too.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    71. Re:Why? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      "Why do so many countries want to attack us?" the person asked.

      Because we're forcing our police state in their country is the real reason.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    72. Re:Why? by fnj · · Score: 1

      At the time it was.

      No it wasn't. Sheesh.

    73. Re:Why? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Then why are we the ones killing all the Islamists?

      We're the ones who are actually *being* dangerous.

      GTFO of their country and they won't be so pissed off.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    74. Re: Why? by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Can't we just agree that all people who believe in invisible sky fairies are fucking insane and could do anything at any time?

    75. Re:Why? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Well, centuries of Christian oppression around the world have shown the same thing.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    76. Re:Why? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Not illegal any more than being atheist

      Were you too busy smoking crack during history class in high school, or something?

      http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Communist+Control+Act+of+1954&l=1

    77. Re:Why? by gargletheape · · Score: 1

      You realize, that Muslim extremists are to Islam what the Westboro Baptist Church, Tripura, Assam, Odisha, anti-abortion bombers, and Hutaree are for Christianity, right? Sickening examples that leave the majority just as disgusted as you, the outside observer.

      I know about Westboro Baptist, and I remember hearing about the Hutaree in the news, but why did you name three states in India?

    78. Re:Why? by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      McCarthyism is similar to a witch-hunt, but it's not the exact same thing. A witch-hunt is the hysterical search for something that does not actually exist. McCarthyism refers to the making of unfair allegations without due process or legitimate investigative techniques. The fact that an unfair or random allegation may turn out to be true does not legitimize the justify the technique or removal of due process. Both techniques involve terrorizing innocent citizens.

      Were someone to go into a ghetto and slay all the black males between the ages of 14 and 21, they would certainly kill a few criminals along the way. That doesn't make it any less unfair to all the innocent people who are not committing crimes.

      Also, the First Amendment clearly makes it perfectly acceptable to hold and express alternative politcal and economic opinions from the ruling class. McCarthy not only (randomly) targeted government employees, he also went after film makers, writers, teachers, and other American citizens.

      A small number of the hundreds arrested or tens of thousands who lost their jobs may have actually had Communist sympathies, the vast majority of those terrorized by McCarthy had done nothing wrong. Simply being accused was usually all it took to lose your job and be added to a no-fly^H^H^H^H^H^Hblacklist.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    79. Re: Why? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Um, so?

      Someone who believes in a different ideology you say? In the state department of a democracy? Heaven forbid!

      McCarthy and the other rabid communist haters is an excellent example of demonising people with different beliefs. Just as the OP said.

    80. Re: Why? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      There are those who would argue that your country has an existential threat and a power-hungry government.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    81. Re:Why? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      There were communist spies in the state department. And there was almost zero intersection between the communist spies and the lives destroyed by McCarthism. So your point is...?

      Whose lives were destroyed by McCarthyism? Without such a list there is no way to test your assertion. I had come across one or two people who were subject to the animus of what is called McCarthyism who were actually Soviet spies. Alger Hiss used to be listed as a victim of McCarthyism (although his trial actually predates what is usually termed the period of McCarthyism) until the fall of the Soviet Union when KGB records surfaced that showed he actually was a spy.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    82. Re:Why? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Actually that is not true. The vast majority of Christians are willing to condemn the Westboro Baptist Church without qualification. The number of Muslims willing to give an unqualified condemnation of Muslim extremist terrorists is a much smaller percentage.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    83. Re:Why? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2

      Or perhaps he just made the whole thing up? Since there is nothing in the story which would allow anyone else to corroborate his story.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    84. Re: Why? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Given that there are about 5 billion people in the world who believe in invisible sky fairies of some kind, the idea that "believes in invisible sky fairies" == "a risk to anyone around them" is a little flawed. Even if you include all the people who support the idea of bombing another group because of some insult to their invisible sky fairies or that other people should be forced to worship their invisible sky fairies (but wouldn't do a thing to advance "the cause"), you're probably lucky to get to more than a few percent, which admittedly gives a large number.

      And of course, that group wouldn't include such upstanding individuals as Joseph Stalin and Ted Kaczynski. But please, let's not let anything like facts interfere with your irrational beliefs.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    85. Re:Why? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.

      GOOD. There should be communists in the state department. US civil servants have a right to their political beliefs. Discriminating based on those beliefs is wrong.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    86. Re:Why? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Someone's been sitting in his chair and they've broken it all to pieces

    87. Re: Why? by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to his accusers, Mr. Xenu is guilty of extreme war crimes including mass murder by the use of nuclear weapons. There is no statute of limitations on such crimes and if his accusers are saying anything that might be corroborated enough to trigger a police or even customs investigation, that's grounds for adding him to the no fly lists. We also seem to have allegations that Mr. Xenu touched somebody's thetans, and I'm shocked, shocked I say, that apparently nobody has called Chris Hansen with these claims. I fully support adding Mr. Xenu to the no fly lists. (Particularly if the airplane in question resembles a gold plated DC-10).
                  In addition, Mr. Xenu is alleged to be a space alien, and in the case where I have seen him hanging out outside the Scientology campus in Clearwater Fla. he certainly looked like one. and I have a degree in recognizing space aliens from the University of thousands of hours of Stargate-SG1, Farscape, and Trek. Body cavity searches thus constitute data of priceless scientific value. We ignore people's rights for everything else, why not for science?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    88. Re:Why? by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Jews would fall under the "killing others" part of that statement more than the "converting" part, especially if you look at all of history and not just the last few hundred years. Not sure if that makes them better or worse.

    89. Re:Why? by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      And the Crusades never happened? The Inquisition? etc, etc. Christians as a whole, and many sects in particular, follow more than just the Bible as part of their religion.

    90. Re:Why? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I think the logic actually started with him setting off the explosives detector, most likely because of the cleaning chemicals and pesticides he'd been using in his new apartment the previous day. Choosing the molestation and explosives swab route rather than the pervy scan route was his own decision, so prior to the explosives detector triggering, he had not been profiled. Probably his skin color and foreign sounding name, led to some false associations in the minds of the government agents. Perhaps also they were ignorant enough to associate his statement that he hadn't eaten anything that morning with Ramadan fasting, while in reality a Muslim would have eaten a substantial meal before dawn in order to make it through the day. But all that was after he'd set off the explosives detector, so I don't think it follows that their logic went as far as "all Muslims are terrorists".

      The main problems with the event seem to be:

      1. If the TSA believes that certain religious beliefs are a risk factor, then they should be educating their agents better on the subject. If they don't think religious beliefs are worth educating their agents about, then they shouldn't be asking questions about it or making judgements involving it.
      2. The failure to at least get him a glass of water during the 9 hours.
      3. The break-in to his apartment in his absence, which obviously wasn't a criminal break-in that happened to be coincidence, since the only thing stolen was a religious picture.

    91. Re:Why? by Ian+A.+Shill · · Score: 1

      Inquiring minds need to know:

      What is your point?

      What is to be done?

      What is your final solution?

      The big difference is that the Quran says to be violent, while the New Testament says to be peaceful. It's obvious that the typical Muslim, like the typical Christian, is not a murderous loon, but a to-the-letter Quran follower would be violent, while a to-the-letter Bible follower would be peaceful. To put it another way, a peaceful Muslim is as hypocritical as a hateful or violent Christian.

      --
      For hire.
    92. Re:Why? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      That's not the correct quote. At least, that's not quite what he said at the keynote I went to, and that's what the article's about. So I'll call it a misquote.

      The nutbag theory is that Muslims want convert countries like the US to Sharia law.

      What "those guys" want, as Gen. Alexander explained, is to create a caliphate in the Middle East that is based on strict Sharia law. Our actions in the Middle East stymie that.

      Note that this is actually the stated goal of Al-Qaeda.

    93. Re:Why? by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      1) non-Muslems "people of the book" (Christians and Jews): a) convert to Islam b) pay a -stay alive- "tax" c) die!

      It depends on the perspective. From Muslim's one it works like this:

      a) convert to Islam, become automatically eligible for the draft (and free of the military tax), become subject to the Sharia;
      b) don't convert to Islam, become automatically ineligible for the draft (and subjected to the military tax), become allowed to live in a protected autonomous region under your own religion's laws;
      c) don't convert to Islam, don't pay the military draft, go live somewhere else.

      2) the rest of non-Muslems (e.g., Buddist, Hindu, atheists): a) convert to Islam b) die!

      Buddhists and Hindus are people of the book, so no. As for actual infidels (effective enemies of Islam), yes, that's basically it.

      By the way: those that kill the Christians in Egypt are Muslims.

      No, they're fundamentalist Muslims, members of one of the several sects invented in the end of the 18th-century under the influence of Western ideas (Puritanism back then) which nowadays branched into other sects influenced by more Western ideas (Nietzscheanism, Marxism, Nazism, Heideggerianism etc.). By the way, these guy are so crazy that they work like this:

      3) non-fundamentalist everyone else (actual Muslim believers, people of the book, infidels):

      a) convert to batshit-crazy fundamentalist branch of pseudo-Islam;
      b) die.

      * i am a Greek from Greece (never lived in Egypt as many Greeks did in the past few mileniums (Alexandria and other stuff...!) until they forced to leave few decades ago), and i am Orthodox - i mention this because i don't like it how you portray Muslims as defenders of the Christians,

      I'm sorry you don't like it, but it's a fact. Islam has very specific rules determining that Christians must be protected. It's a duty of actual Muslims, affirmed and reaffirmed for centuries by the four Sharia schools. The exception to this are the fundamentalists who disregard the four schools of jurisprudence preferring to do their own stuff.

      By the way: Muslims Protecting a Christian Church in Egypt. The white clothe is a symbol of Sufism, the traditional esoteric path within Islam where the Islamic equivalent to Orthodox Christians' Theosis is practiced. And note: Sufis are themselves prime assassination targets of fundamentalist pseudo-Muslims.

      or the Orthodox Christians as persecuting the Coptic Christians (Coptics actually are native to Egypt, never "fleed" from Europe to save themselves from Orthodox or Catholics)

      True, I misremembered the details, they didn't flee from Europe. But you're incorrect in that the Orthodox (or, to be more precise, the still undivided Catholic-Orthodox Church) did indeed persecute the Coptics. From Wikipedia's article:

      "Copts suffered under the rule of the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire. The Melkite Patriarchs, appointed by the emperors as both spiritual leaders and civil governors, massacred the Egyptian population whom they considered heretics. Many Egyptians were tortured and martyred to accept the terms of Chalcedon, but Egyptians remained loyal to the faith of their fathers and to the Cyrillian view of Christology. One of the most renowned Egyptian saints of that period is Saint Samuel the Confessor."

      So, yeah.

      And then came the Muslims and stopped this particular nonsense, although starting the tax stuff.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    94. Re:Why? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope! It turns out, Senator McCarthy was right. There really were Communists in the State Department.

      This forces us to re-evaluate the entire phrase of "McCarthyism" as the current (wrong) meaning implies falsehood. Please stop using this phrase, it is deprecated.

      As I've pointed out before, if you think McCarthyism is wrong because he was accusing people who weren't communists of being communists, you don't get it. The problem with McCarthyism is that he was trying to hurt people for their political views. In this country, you have the right to be communist.

    95. Re:Why? by MikeLip · · Score: 1

      You're saying that "the current anti-muslim fearmongers" are "simply a less capable Hitler wannabe?" Really? Then why, exactly, are they having such a successful run? Looks to me like they are succeeding in ways Adolph never dreamed of.

    96. Re:Why? by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Well, that's one way to solve the H1B issue....

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    97. Re:Why? by McFly777 · · Score: 1

      The Muslim Brotherhood made things even more unstable in Egypt.
      Fatah is so weak they've effectively ceded all control over the Gaza Strip to Hamas.
      Hezbollah sparked a devastating conflict with Israel which effectively kicked the country's development 20 years backwards.

      If THATS "offering to build and staff schools, give them food, add some stability, and provide some sense of a security force", then the Taliban is the greatest government in the world.

      Replace the groups above with "The Democrat Party" and the change the country to the US and, unfortunately, it still applies. (Ok, you can't literally do the subsitiution and have it work, but the thought is the same. Promises, promises--> election -> things go downhill. )

      The worse part is that Republicans in the last 20 years or so haven't been much better (only slightly). Thus the problems that we are in domestically.

      --

      McFly777
      - - -
      "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
    98. Re:Why? by romiz · · Score: 2

      You're hopelessly wrong about the origin of Copts. The term itself comes from the 'gpt' consonants in Egypt.

      They were living in Egypt before Muslims ever existed, and they still live there because even int the 9th century, Muslim invaders understood that expelling the vast majority of its population is not the right way to do a conquest. They resisted islamic assimilation for 14 centuries, including periods when they were violently reprimed for this. Except for a short period during the Crusades, there has been no direct conflict between Western Christians and Copts, and there was never any significant movement of population from Europe to Egypt.

    99. Re:Why? by MechEMark · · Score: 1

      Also, newsflash, many major religions support the cause of converting others or killing them. Including Christians and Jews. A clear majority of Muslims think that's an outdated concept just as much as Christians and Jews do too. It's just some relatively tiny sects that still support it (see Westboro Baptist Church).

      Jews do not proselytize, much less support killing those of other faiths. This is distinctly different from Christianity and Islam in which proselytization is normal and routine. For example, in my local newspaper this week, there was an ad from the local catholic church offering introductions to Catholicism and the opportunity to be baptised and join the church. Jews do nothing of the sort. Traditionally, those desiring to convert to Judaism are turned away three times to prove that they are genuine in their desires. The only Jews who do anything even remotely resembling proselytization is Chabad and they specifically reach out to less observant Jews with the intention of helping them become more observant - there's no interest in converting non-Jews.

    100. Re:Why? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      "Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child."

      Heinlein

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    101. Re:Why? by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that there is a State Department in the first place. Whether you call them communist or not, they are tyrants.

    102. Re:Why? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Whose lives were destroyed by McCarthyism? Without such a list there is no way to test your assertion.

      Start with all the blacklisted people in Hollywood and we'll go from there.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    103. Re:Why? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Westboro Baptist Church is a false flag operation.

      For exactly whom? The church of Scientology? Area 51?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    104. Re:Why? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Durr, killing is almost never justified, and the exceptions should be self-evident, but it's not what the G^nP accused them of. And it's a crime that is similarly unambiguous in the bible.

      In the Bible

      The first recorded reference to apostasy from Judaism is in Deuteronomy 13:6-11, which states:

              "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again."

    105. Re:Why? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Whose lives were destroyed by McCarthyism?

      A lot of college professors, for starters. Most of those who were blacklisted had some interest in communism as a political philosophy at some point (particularly the 1930's, when the commies were more-or-less on our side against the fascists), and many had rejected it after Stalin took over in Russia.

      This one is personal for me: my grandfather, who had worked his way up from nothing through sheer talent and hard work, went from being near the top of his field (music theory and classical composition) to being a part-time piano teacher out of his living room solely because of his political leanings. Once you were considered a communist in the eyes of HUAC or McCarthy, the only way to extract yourself was to confess your former guilt, repent, and turn in some friends (all of which my grandfather refused to do).

      There's a reason why the anti-communism of McCarthy et al gave Arthur Miller the idea to write a play ostensibly about the Salem Witch Trials.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    106. Re:Why? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      And it's worth noting, that people did, do that "evil" thing again, even when faced with torture and death. Not a very good prediction there bible. Though, they do say that if an entire town changes its mind, you should kill everyone and burn it to the ground in the next verse, so maybe there just hasn't been enough enforcement.

    107. Re:Why? by tibman · · Score: 1

      But it did mean that we didn't prosecute all Nazis for war crimes just because they were Nazis.
      We sort of did. They could no longer hold any public office. You did not want to be a member of the Nazi party. We recently saw this happen with the Ba'ath party and Suddam Hussein during the Iraq campaign. A Ba'ath member could hold no position of power.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    108. Re:Why? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      So a witch hunt negatively affecting a of majority innocent people is perfectly justified if you catch a small handful of people who are the real deal.

      Yes. It is. (at least in some people's minds). Here's the problem: You cannot go about finding a needle in a haystack without disturbing the hay.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    109. Re:Why? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      being a communist is not a crime

      At the time it was.

      Actually, it was not. The Communist Party of the United States of America was founded in 1919 and has continued to exist to the present. You could look it up.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    110. Re:Why? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Also, newsflash, many major religions support the cause of converting others or killing them. Including Christians and Jews.

      Citation needed (bible chapter and verse).

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    111. Re:Why? by tibman · · Score: 1

      There are leaders in a religious organization but they are usually dead or inanimate (or just their God(s)). There are also hierarchies used for organization and distributing communications. If a religion's holy book has instructions for a way of living or lays out a set of steps that need to be completed, that could be seen as having a cause. Conversion seems to be the most common cause.

      You are certainly right that most religions don't have a living leader that commands all of its members though. But i'd argue that not having a single living leader doesn't prevent a religion (Islam in this case) from having a cause. There is probably some cause directed at all Islam members, though it is probably an extremely basic part of the religion. But again, you are right that this prevents a new cause from driving the whole of a religion in a new direction (like planning to invade the Vatican). In that way most religions are just not comparable to an organization like the Nazi party. Catholicism and Buddhism are the only two exceptions i can think of?

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    112. Re:Why? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      A famous case was Qian Xuesen. He was one of the fathers of the American rocket and space programs and one of the founders of JPL. McCarthyism was responsible for deporting him and enabling Mainland China to develop a nuclear and space program.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    113. Re:Why? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      You mean we are replacing the good and democratic Arab governments with our police state? I think you need to read more. We don't have anything on the Arabs for police states.

      Don't mind me, I'll just be in the other room reading about the Syrian Government gassing its own population.

    114. Re: Why? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Only if you agree that people who make wild generalizations are even more dangerous.

    115. Re:Why? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You *hope* the current anti-muslim fearmongers are less capable. That has yet to be proven. Ask me again after the TSA has been abolished.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    116. Re:Why? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yes, it may bring us down too. Particularly since every president who has reduced that debt has been subjected to virulent attacks. But Reagan *did* end the Cold War. We may lose also, but it's essentially over.

      Now whether he did it on purpose, that's a different question. I doubt that he was sane enough to have done it on purpose. He was clearly in the latter stages of Altzheimers while he was president. Perhaps we should really give credit either to Nancy Reagan, or to someone unknown.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    117. Re:Why? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, nothing McCarthy did was illegal in terms of actually holding meetings. There are some things he did that could get him censured, but the hearings were not illegal themselves. Of course you have to consider that the effect of the hearings was not governmental action, for the most part. It caused people to be entered on blacklists. Those lists were entirely optional, but there were plenty of people who hated communists enough so that being on a blacklist didn't need to have government force, you still wouldn't work.

      Congress does have the power to hold hearings and subpoena people, and it doesn't have to be for some sort of probable cause like the police. The reason that is not usually a problem is because Congress needs that power to usually get information it needs, and because Congress is full of people who are too busy or important to act as a police tribunal for every Tom, Dick and Harry who annoys them.

      Now, if Congress had determined that Alger Hiss or some of the others were actually spies, they could have taken some governmental action, although the actual prosecutions and arrests would go through the Executive Branch. But that's because people like Hiss would have been both spies and government employees. Congress did absolutely nothing with substance to Hollywood people, but they suffered because the committee singled them out as pariahs and that signaled many people of that time to shun them.

    118. Re:Why? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The Senate is a privileged group. But note that McCarthy didn't directly destroy people's lives. He did things that in other contexts would have been libel and slander, and he did it in the public media. But because he was a Senator, that wasn't technically illegal (IIUC).

      OTOH, his smear campaign was used by many other people, some who just didn't want to be smeared themselves, to get people fired, etc. He didn't run into any real opposition until he tackled the Army. Then he lost, because he never had any substantial evidence against anyone.

      So people that McCarthy attacked were fired, not because there was some legal requirement that they be fired, but because their employers or supervisors didn't want to find themselves smeared. (And, admittedly, sometimes because of internal politics, and this made an excellent excuse that their enemies took advantage of.) Also, if any company took any federal money, either directly or indirectly, and didn't fire someone McCarthy accused, they faced the strong likelihood of losing those grants. Etc.

      Please note that the McCarthy inspired HUAC (House Unamerican Activities Committee) continued up into the 1960's. McCarthy's disgrace didn't mark the end of McCarthyism, merely its weakening. (I've always read HUAC as being a Committee of Representatives that gathered to engage in Unamerican Activities.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    119. Re: Why? by 21mhz · · Score: 1

      Then those 94% should have a word with the Muslim terrorists.

      I'm a white guy. Should I "have a word" with the white supremacists, even though I have nothing in common with them except the skin color?

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    120. Re:Why? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The UAE, Qatar and Bahrain are certainly not as regressive as other places, but that element is always there lurking under the surface. You recall the woman who was being held because she got raped? That was in the UAE. They let her go, but that's pretty much because the Emir himself let her out. Otherwise it was 16 month prison sentence for "unlawful sex".

      They still have Sharia law there, it's just that they don't push it on the outsiders like they do in Saudi.

    121. Re:Why? by RR · · Score: 1

      Also, newsflash, many major religions support the cause of converting others or killing them. Including Christians and Jews. A clear majority of Muslims think that's an outdated concept just as much as Christians and Jews do too. It's just some relatively tiny sects that still support it (see Westboro Baptist Church).

      You're wrong.

      Jews do not support the cause of converting or killing non-Jews. As a religion, we don't believe in proselytizing.

      I think SJHillman was referring to the Biblical account of how the Israelites came to be in control of Canaan. From a modern, multiculturalist perspective, it does sound an awful lot like genocide, complete with prophets blaming all their problems on their lack of complete devastation.

      Not to mention that the modern state of Israel has their own small number of massacres, though the Palestinians have done the most massacres in the last couple decades.

      --
      Have a nice time.
    122. Re: Why? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      I take it you're a terrorist? If not, why'd you feel addressed?

    123. Re:Why? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      McCarthyism wasn't about finding spies, it was about finding communists. The problem is that too many Americans could not tell the difference between the two, they assumed that communists were identical to traitors. So there was little push back against McCarthyism as the start. When people's lives were ruined most Americans didn't care because they assumed those people were spies and deserved what they got.

      Similarly, today we have people very strongly trying to push the idea that there is no difference between terrorists and muslims. There are preachers who will give sermons about how Islam is inherently violent. So instead of trying to root out terrorists it's easier to just find muslims and assume that they're terrorists or sympathizers.

      These are modern day inquisitions. The population is given a mental purity test and anyone who doesn't think properly is assumed to be the enemy.

    124. Re:Why? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      You could be a communist without being a member of the party. You could also be accused of being a communist even if you were only a socialist or leftist.

    125. Re:Why? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      That's their problem.

      Tell me why we're there in the first place?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    126. Re:Why? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      There are Christians or Christian sects or those who claim to be Christian who have violently acted on their extreme views. Bombings in Northern Ireland, and the Orange Volunteers on the other side. Yes, partly political but very definitely a strong religious component as well. Similar with extremist Islamists, partly political and partly religious. Anders Breivik who did the mass shootings in Norway claimed to have been acting to protect Christian values. We've had abortion clinic bombings. The God's Army guerrilla group in Burma (though they were a mix of Christian and animist theology).

      Of course people will immediately point out that those aren't proper Christian ideals and a misrepresentation of Christian beliefs. However why can't the same argument be made that the extremist islamists are also just a misrepresentation of beliefs or that they're following an radical theology not representing the mainstream?

    127. Re:Why? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      At one time Christianity was exactly the same thing.

    128. Re:Why? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      So a witch hunt negatively affecting a of majority innocent people is perfectly justified if you catch a small handful of people who are the real deal.

      Yes. It is. (at least in some people's minds). Here's the problem: You cannot go about finding a needle in a haystack without disturbing the hay.

      Stupid metaphor is stupid. Magnets.

      Magnets don't work on bone needles, or don't you watch Mythbusters?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    129. Re: Why? by kgskgs · · Score: 1

      Yet there is something different about Islam and other religions.

      I would say it's not the existence of fanaticals, but the lack of liberals that separates Islam from rest of the religions.

      In every other religion there is a strong liberal, self-critical voice. That voice always projects a different perspective, takes down the edge of extremist propoganda.

      I log on regularly to Muslim forums and I see that there is no liberal voice there. They continuously post links that show how Muslims are targeted in non Muslim world. But they never hear about how non Muslims are targeted in Muslim world. If you try to make such argument, your credibility is already destroyed in their eyes. Many over there actually believe that 9/11 was orchestrated by US government.

      The treatment of Muslims in non-Muslim world is distrusted and occasional discriminated. The treatment of non Muslims in Muslim world is horrible. It just never makes it to press.

    130. Re:Why? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Give me a name or two.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    131. Re:Why? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Most of those who were blacklisted had some interest in communism as a political philosophy at some point (particularly the 1930's, when the commies were more-or-less on our side against the fascists), and many had rejected it after Stalin took over in Russia.

      That sentence contradicts itself. Stalin took over in Russia in 1924. So, if they supported communism in the 1930's, it was while Stalin was in charge in the Soviet Union. It would also have been while Stalin was purging the Soviet Union of those not sufficiently supportive of him and starving millions of his people. And, oh yeah, Stalin signed the non-aggression pact with Hitler in 1939.
      While Hitler had positioned himself as the opponent of Communism, Stalin recognized that there was nothing in Nazi ideology that was inherently hostile to Communism. The only point of difference was Nazism emphasis on ethnic purity and the superiority of the ethnically German.
      The fact of the matter is that the Communist Party USA was a puppet organization of the KGB whose dual purpose was to gather useful intelligence for the Soviet Union and to work for the overthrow of the US government. While a very few members were unaware of this, the majority of those who joined it in the 30's, 40's and 50's supported at least the latter of those two agendas (and of those most approved the former as a path to the latter).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    132. Re:Why? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well, I have no idea if he was truly a communist spy or not. The case can certainly be made that McCarthyism drove him into the arms of the Chinese Communists and assisted them in developing their rocket program. Of course, it could be argued that he would have helped them anyway (which would have been the claim of those who went after him). I will not reject him as a victim, but his later work for the Chinese government leaves doubt in my mind as to whether he was a victim of false accusations (if someone can show me a significant number of victims of false accusations, I will be willing to consider him one of them. Without that, he remains a question mark). Although, this is a start towards what I was asking for.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    133. Re:Why? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Once more, give me an example of someone who's life was ruined by McCarthyism who was not working to bring about the destruction of the U.S. government.
      You made some very strong statements there, but without specifics there is no way to know if what you said accurately reflects the situation.
      When I was in school, there were several people who were used as examples of how McCarthyism destroyed people's lives. All of the examples which I was taught in school turned out to be active spies for the Soviet Union. So, I am asking people to give me some examples, by name, of people who's lives were ruined by McCarthyism.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    134. Re: Why? by Maelwryth · · Score: 1
      "my country has an existential threat"

      I believe you mean is.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    135. Re:Why? by chilvence · · Score: 1

      So was being gay, black or female or jewish, for all intents and purposes. Want to wind back the clock?

    136. Re:Why? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1
    137. Re:Why? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Yes. That is obviously why I pointed out that it was actually illegal. Because I want it to be. OBVIOUSLY. /sarcasm

      Any more stupid questions?

    138. Re: Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It doesn't hurt to explicitly condemn them and distance yourself from them, though. Specifically as a white guy.

    139. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The "Christians" that you've mentioned there are not following the teachings in their scriptures

      They claim they are, and having read them, I have to conclude that their argument is at least as strong as that of the "live and let live" kind.

    140. Re:Why? by chilvence · · Score: 1

      I would still contest whether this has anything to do with religion, or just plain old fashioned fucked in the head-ness...

    141. Re:Why? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Look here.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    142. Re:Why? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Victims_of_McCarthyism

      Are those all spies?

      Trouble is "ruined" means totally destroyed. Most of those people's lives were severely impacted by the blacklisting even though they managed to survive it or overcome it. So as long as they weren't totally "ruined" and merely denied the opportunity to work in their field for a decade, or forced to leave the country, then that's fine?

    143. Re: Why? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Except Muslims don't believe in invisible sky fairies - and if you approximated sufficiently for that description to cover Islam it would also cover just about everyone else, including yourself, likely as not.

    144. Re:Why? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Hey now pigs are unclean to them

      That is the point of my post. Killing children can be twisted to look noble depending on who their parents are but a pig is always a pig.

    145. Re:Why? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Being a Communist isn't a crime, but attempting to overthrow the US government sure is. Communists were pledged to overthrow the government, it was sort of the whole point of world revolution.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    146. Re: Why? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      It doesn't hurt to explicitly condemn them and distance yourself from them, though. Specifically as a white guy.

      Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

      Muslims for Life

      Muslims for Peace

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    147. Re: Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yup. I wasn't objecting to that, just saying that there is some universal notion of group responsibility there - not from the law perspective, but for the sake of propriety and politeness. Simply put, even if you have nothing to do with it, it never hurts to reassert that fact when there is a connection, even a very strenuous one.

    148. Re: Why? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      On the flip-side lack of such condemnation is too frequently used as an attack when more often than not it is simply the members of the group don't see themselves as members of the same group. I shouldn't have to apologize for the actions of somebody I don't even agree with because a 3rd party considers me and the other guy to be part of some group. Its kind of like expecting born-again christians to take responsibility for catholic pedo-priests because they are all christians.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    149. Re:Why? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      There were communist spies in the state department.

      Wait, so there were guys who were spying for a political theory? Were there monarchy spies and republican spies as well? Maybe an anarchist spy or two?

    150. Re: Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's not really taking responsibility; it's more of an explicit note that you are not taking responsibility because you're not one of those guys. Hence why it's not an apology, but rather a moral condemnation and an explanation as to why this is not the type of conduct that is normal in the group that you do actually represent.

    151. Re:Why? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      there would appear to be some major flow in their passenger profiling

      And hence the problem with profiling. One of the articles in a previous comment was about a guy who "act bizarrely" but a "terrorist" won't act bizarrely. Only bizarre people act that way. A terrorist will try to act as normal as possible and draw as little attention to himself as possible.

    152. Re:Why? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      The police were involved. So there should be a police report.

    153. Re:Why? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      Right you are. I had forgotten that.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    154. Re:Why? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      So, people who had perjured themselves paid a price for committing perjury. Sorry, I don't see a problem here. If they had not lied under oath, they would not have been in the position they were in.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    155. Re:Why? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but I am not sure that you would be able to obtain a police report based on the sketchy information contained in the article (possibly based on his name).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    156. Re:Why? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      One of those listed as a "victim of McCarthyism" was Albert Einstein, would you care to explain in what way he was a victim of McCarthyism? The linked article merely asserts that he was, but I am unaware of anything which would qualify him as a victim. Another one on that list was Dashiell Hammett who was jailed for contempt of court for failing to provide information regarding fugitives from justice who's bail had been supplied by an organization of which he was the trustee. This "persecution" was not a product of his being a suspected communist. This occurred because the government believed that he had information which might lead to the whereabouts of a fugitive from justice.
      I am sorry, but neither of these men were as far as I can tell "victims of McCarthyism". I am not going to bother going through the rest of the list to see if maybe some of the rest were.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    157. Re:Why? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Because everyone knows terrorists being interrogated never lie.

      Yeah. He's really half human, half alien lizard.

    158. Re:Why? by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      What I mean is, why was it allowed to hold meetings to determine if someone is a communist? How is that different from holding hearings to see if someone is a libertarian? Why would either be permitted?

      I understand the time they took place in, I still don't understand why it was permitted given that the US was a democracy.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    159. Re:Why? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Actually that is not true. The vast majority of Christians are willing to condemn the Westboro Baptist Church without qualification. The number of Muslims willing to give an unqualified condemnation of Muslim extremist terrorists is a much smaller percentage.

      You sure the number of Christians who have condemned George W. Obama on the Global War Of Terror exceeds the number of Muslims who have condemned terror attacks? Cuz it's not the like the latter have anything on the former when it comes to body count.

    160. Re:Why? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with the comparison of Muslim extremists to Westboro Baptist Church?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    161. Re:Why? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      You could also be accused of murder even if you were innocent. I'm sorry, did you have a point?

    162. Re:Why? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Because being accused of being a communist did not require any proof and the accusation left you unable to find work in your career in the US. Being accused of murder at least you're allowed a trial.

    163. Re:Why? by Lotana · · Score: 1

      I am not an American, so can't talk with authority. My personal thery why USA is so anti-isolationist in its actions is due to what happened during World War 2.

      If I remember correctly, before attack on the Pearl Harbour, USA was content to just let the war play out. After the japanese attack all that sentiment vanished and never really returned. The theory is that you need to intervene before things develop further in order not to face a greater threat at a later time. Look at how allie's appeasement treatment of Germany work out during the beginning stages of the war.

    164. Re:Why? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      So he's guilty of the crime of "flying while having a name that someone thinks sounds Muslim."

      More like flying while brown and setting off the explosives detector. Granted, TSA went overboard here, in hindsight, but I would expect them to give a little extra scrutiny to someone who sets off the bomb detector.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    165. Re:Why? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      It was not illegal to do that because was nothing that said that it was illegal to do it. As long as no one got thrown in jail for it, the legislature can do what it wants for investigations. The control, of course, is the votes of the members, and then the votes of the people. So let's be clear, if most of the country was upset by those meetings, they would not have gone on. Certainly not in the open the way that they did.

      Mind you, being a member of the Communist Party organization was, in fact, illegal, but that was because it was a foreign sponsored agency with a goal of undermining the US. So there would be some interest in that.

      Yes, there are Constitutional protections, but that will really come into play if the Congress is compelling someone to do something. Congress has the power of investigation in the Constitution itself, so calling people in would be possible. Once there, the people being called could cite the Fifth Amendment for not implicating themselves. However, if the Congress grants them immunity from prosecution, then there is no longer anything that would incriminate the witness and they then must answer questions put to them by Congress or be in contempt. And if those questions happened to be "are you a communist"? then the question could be asked. Because the government can't throw them in jail (due to immunity), it is not illegal, but if it is broadcast on TV, the public can get that information and shun them. Perfectly legal.

      Democracy only guarantees justice or diversity if the majority is committed to that. Otherwise it is a dictatorship with many heads. Most people at the time were afraid of the Soviet threat and went along with it... at least for a time.

  5. This better not become common... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have you or your significant other sent any communications that didn't support the NSA mass surveillance state? Because that happened to David Miranda recently.

    1. Re:This better not become common... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'd say there's at least a 50/50 chance I'll be questioned next time I enter the USA, from the things I've said online at the very least (they stopped that Pakistani politician for way less). I thought about wiping my electronics and sending the encrypted data to go back on, but now I'm thinking that sending another phone of the same model to my destination and restoring the data to it may be the only safe way.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:This better not become common... by chilvence · · Score: 1

      I am in awe of you noting the same ironic pun as I did.

  6. Re:I have a simple fix by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

    He could also talk about how bad the pinkos and commies are while he's standing in line.

    That's the level of our average American at the moment. It'll get worse as we phase out education.

  7. Freedom to travel by fermion · · Score: 5, Insightful
    On hallmark of a civilized democratic society is the freedom to travel. One way to insure that a populous remains subservient and ignorant is to limit travel. This is because it limits experiences. For instance, if kids stay in the square couple miles that define their neighborhood, they may never learn there are other options, and that people do live in luxury. I recall attending a summer retreat with a guy from the Texas valley and how surprised he was at how big the houses were in around the the retreat. This is why many high school will encourage students to go away for college, which I agree with unless it imposes huge debts.

    In any case, while the argument can be made he could have driven or taken the bus instead of flown, and so travel is not infringed, there are cases when air travel is the only viable option. Therefore the security theater that has popped up over the past decade can only be construed as an attack on our right to travel, and, along with the job creation program called military action and surveillance, transform us into a citizenry whose ability to grow and become education is much less that the previous generation.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:Freedom to travel by Eivind · · Score: 2

      Absolutely. By going away from home, you do not only learn new stuff about the place you're going, you also learn new stuff about your home. A lot of things just aren't VISIBLE if they've been that way every day of your life, you just don't notice, and tend not to consider that alternatives exist.

      I learnt a whole lot about my home-country (Norway) while living abroad for 4 years. Things that are hard to notice, when one country is all you *really* know. And no, watching movies or reading books or whatever is not at all the same as actually changing your location.

    2. Re:Freedom to travel by dtmos · · Score: 1

      populous != polulace

      Or, even,
      populous != populace

    3. Re:Freedom to travel by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      So, you suggesting this is all a conscious plan for control of the population? I wish I had the same degree of respect for the government's intelligence that you do.

      I just think they're fucking up by trying to swat a fly with an ICBM and it's having the predictable result of collateral damage.

  8. Re:Evidence? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    Aside from anything else, he was flying to go on vacation, so you're not really wasting very much time with "Facts" yourself, are you?

  9. Don't fly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is what I don't get about people these days.

    None of you are willing to sacrifice ANYTHING or inflict ANY kind of inconvenience upon yourself to deal with the issues that need to be dealt with. You just sit there and whine and complain about everything, you make up excuses from thin air and say you've got no choice. Well, news flash, you do.

    You want to get rid of the TSA?

    Don't fly.

    It's that simple. No, don't tell me you have to. You don't. You get enough people together and you all refuse to fly until the TSA is dismantled, and you know what'll happen? The airlines will get things changed in a hurry and the TSA will evaporate in a puff of invalid logic. It's that simple!

    "Oh but it isn't and I have no choice and I need to fly and-"...

    Yeah, that right there, that's the reason why the TSA still exists. You're unwilling to inconvenience yourself. None of you are. So the TSA will continue to inconvenience you instead, because they've got you by the balls (sometimes literally) and they know it. They'll continue to squeeze and squeeze, they'll expand out into the rest of the world like a cancerous tumor and then, when you find yourself in a police state and the TSA controls all major forms of travel- you'll wonder why you didn't do something sooner.

    The fact that you think you have no choice is precisely what they want you to think, because that is what gives them control over you.

    Cue the endless stream of "I have to fly, you're wrong, if I wish really hard I'm sure the TSA will go away all the same" replies.

    1. Re:Don't fly. by jareth-0205 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fuck you. Flying is a necessary part of a normal life. Just because you have decided you don't need it doesn't make it a luxury. People with family abroad, jobs that are in different cities, or maybe someone who wants to see parts of the world and expand their mind beyond their backyard.

      The market-based solution of boycott isn't always the solution! Sometimes you need laws to protect minorities.

    2. Re:Don't fly. by _anomaly_ · · Score: 2

      You have a point about flying abroad, to see family or for important (like religious, not sporting) events.

      But the GP does have a point... there is a LOT of flying being done by a big portion of those who are up in arms over how the TSA is treating people. A lot of flying that doesn't have to happen. You're right that in a "free" country, we should be able to fly for our vacations, but if principles important to you contradict that, then don't fly. You can drive anywhere in the continental US for a vacation. Some may say it even enhances the experience, being able to see more. You can drive to work if you work in a different city. Just leave earlier.

      The point being that if those who are so vehemently opposed to how the TSA operates would act upon those principles, then the airlines would begin to feel it. And we all know that the government wouldn't allow the airlines to start collapsing.

      Even eliminating flying for vacation and unnecessary business travel (I regularly drive for work when it's only 4-6 hours, when I know others would fly for that kind of business trip) would make a huge impact.

      --
      "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Don't fly. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The market-based solution of boycott isn't always the solution! Sometimes you need laws to protect minorities.

      THIS

      This demonstrates the problem with boycotts. If it's something that's important enough, you either have to be complicit or take "the unabomber option," where you can't hold a job or otherwise participate normally in society. What kind of choice is that?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Don't fly. by Beorytis · · Score: 1

      I don't fly... for personal trips. I haven't visited my siblings (4,400 mile roundtrip) in 8 years; I see my parents (2,000 mile roundtrip) every couple years, when I have the time to make a driving trip.

      But refusing to fly for work when required would be equivalent to quitting. Fortunately I have not had too many trips required though others in my group fly several times a month.

      This is what others mean by "no choice". It's choose to fly or choose to work in a different field, if such work can be found.

    5. Re:Don't fly. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Even in the case of traveling abroad, so long as it isn't an emergency you can always take a boat or something instead.

    6. Re:Don't fly. by CyberKnet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, that right there, that's the reason why the TSA still exists. You're unwilling to inconvenience yourself. None of you are.

      I haven't flown in 11 years, and I routinely encourage others not to. Not for personal, not for business. Not at all.

      I routinely drive 200-500 mile round trips because I won't advocate a pat down or a naked picture. Not of my wife, my children, or even myself. It is an unacceptable term of flying.

      Don't tell me that I'm not willing to inconvenience myself sir, I find it repugnant, and offensive - and I have put my money where my mouth is.

      --
      Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
    7. Re:Don't fly. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Over in the US you'd really have to get your railways back in order. Preferably high-speed (think 300 km/hr, that's 186 mph for you guys). Can save a lot on flying, those trains are usually faster than planes on short to medium distances. However I'm afraid TSA will move in quickly as it's a new market for them.

      On the other hand yes planes are quite a necessity nowadays. I've just returned from a long summer break in my home country, a 11-12 hour flight if done directly (for me it was more like 17-18 hours with change - better airline and cheaper fare). Happy it doesn't involve the TSA but I'm still affected by US-style security as the US demands foreign airports to follow their ways, such as using full body scanners. At least this time no need to take off my shoes, that's an improvement over previous trips.

      Flying is the only reasonable option for me. The only alternative is the train - takes about 10-12 days, costs a lot more, and requires (transit) visa for at least China, Mongolia, Russia and Belarus...

    8. Re:Don't fly. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Even eliminating flying for vacation and unnecessary business travel (I regularly drive for work when it's only 4-6 hours, when I know others would fly for that kind of business trip) would make a huge impact.

      And I'd expect you to be the one spending less time on travel... door to door... the time to get to and from airports, the hours spent just getting through security (without being flagged)... that easily takes four hours already. Actual time spent on the plane has to be added to that.

    9. Re:Don't fly. by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Even in the case of traveling abroad, so long as it isn't an emergency you can always take a boat or something instead.

      Hah! Is that so? How many passenger ferries to Europe from the States do you think there are? And how much holiday do you get from your job?

    10. Re:Don't fly. by _anomaly_ · · Score: 1
      No kidding.

      On a recent trip to Texas, from Kentucky, we had a cancellation and a couple of delays along the way. It ended up that we could have driven there and either arrived at the same time, or a little earlier. I was wishing we had driven by the end of the day, too.

      --
      "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
    11. Re:Don't fly. by k31bang · · Score: 1

      You want to get rid of the TSA?

      Don't fly.

      Make sure you don't take a train or drive a car either. Of course the TSA says this is all a myth.

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    12. Re:Don't fly. by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Except the TSA is now opening up stations in train stations, the subway, and even Highway stops. (google them). So what's left? Sit in your hole and never leave your house without your papers. Why are you traveling to Seattle? Who are you visiting? Where can we contact you? I don't understand, please repeat all of your answers, and write them down. Comrade, come talk to this man. Why are you traveling to Bellevue? I thought you said Seattle? Who are you visiting? You listed 4 people before, now there are 3. Prove that I made that change. Let's take you over here and talk to you some more.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    13. Re:Don't fly. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Flying is a necessary part of a normal life.

      What do you mean by "necessary" and "normal life"?

      Because what I think you mean is one of these:
      - "My job requires me to fly all over the place, and I don't want to change jobs."
      - "My family scattered all over the place, but I feel I need to visit them frequently."
      - "I really like traveling abroad."

      Because there are jobs that don't require traveling, families that aren't scattered, and lots of interesting places to travel to domestically. And if you declare "normal life" to be something an average person does, it's highly relevant that 2/3 of Americans don't fly at all. And if you travel to see your family, say, 3 times a year, it's often quite viable to do that by train, bus, or driving.

      I agree that boycotts are probably insufficient, but they definitely can create consequences for airlines, which are the one thing that will probably budge the TSA.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    14. Re:Don't fly. by Wovel · · Score: 2

      The market solution of boycott is absurd. This is not a Market problem. The TSA is not a Market driven organization. The TSA is a government entity. People need to stop believing their congressman is Ok. Fly all you want. Not flying will not change the TSA, not even a little. It is Naive and childish to believe boycotting a commercial enterprise will somehow affect government behavior.

      If you voted for a republican or democrat in the last election, if you didn't vote in the last election, you are the problem. Boycotting the airlines does not help. Change your congress person. Whoever they are, they have contributed to this problem.

    15. Re:Don't fly. by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      Boycott isn't a market-based solution in this case, because there is no free market in airline travel. Yes you can charter a private airline - but nobody can create a competing service on the scale of the existing airlines that is not subject to TSA regulation.

    16. Re:Don't fly. by Microlith · · Score: 1

      You can drive anywhere in the continental US for a vacation.

      You can. That it will take the better part of a week to get from one end of the country to the other (and that again back) is a show stopper.

      (I regularly drive for work when it's only 4-6 hours, when I know others would fly for that kind of business trip)

      Does your employer reimburse you for the trip, both for gas and mileage? Mine does not for trips over a certain number of miles, so I have to fly anyway, let alone trips across country or internationally.

      The TSA needs to be destroyed in-situ.

    17. Re:Don't fly. by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1

      Flying is a necessary part of a normal life.

      I've always wondered how pre-medieval people managed to live a normal life without flying around. Or even Colonial America when England/France were sending people there for the unexploited natural resources.

    18. Re:Don't fly. by _anomaly_ · · Score: 1

      You can. That it will take the better part of a week to get from one end of the country to the other (and that again back) is a show stopper.

      Yeah, but if you're that opposed to how the TSA operates, there'll be sacrifices in applying your principles. Either shorter vacationing time (between travel to and from) or fewer vacations (since they would take longer).

      Does your employer reimburse you for the trip, both for gas and mileage?

      Yes. Usually I'll use a rental car and we pass that cost and the cost of gas onto our customers (we're a small software shop, and when we travel it's at the request of our customers) as long as we keep it within "reasonable" travel expenses. The cost of a rental + gas is almost always way cheaper than flying.

      --
      "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
    19. Re:Don't fly. by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      The market-based solution of boycott isn't always the solution! Sometimes you need laws to protect minorities.

      Or in this case, you need to repeal a law to protect a minority. I suggest starting with the one that funds the TSA.

    20. Re:Don't fly. by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Fuck you. Flying is a necessary part of a normal life.

      No it isn't. It's an optional part of a life that you consider to be normal, but other methods of transportation predate flight and are still viable.

      That said, I'd like to see Congress spend as much time an effort to defund the TSA as they do to defund the Affordable Care Act. But where are the political points to be scored by doing something that's so commonsense?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    21. Re:Don't fly. by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Flying is a necessary part of a normal life.

      I've always wondered how pre-medieval people managed to live a normal life without flying around. Or even Colonial America when England/France were sending people there for the unexploited natural resources.

      We expect lots of things now that weren't a certainty 200 years ago. Like medical facilities, a professional policeforce, an education. Some people call that 'progress'. Or are you comparing modern life with that of colonial times?

    22. Re:Don't fly. by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Fuck you right back. I haven't flown at all since 2002 and I live a normal life. Want to see the world? Go to Wikipedia. Want to talk to different people? Go to IRC. Want to visit family? Don't move to the other edge of the world.

      Pampered idiot.

      If you really think that other perspectives and cultures can be properly understood by Wikipedia then you're more ignorant than I can conceive. Maybe you should consider travelling a bit to broaden the mind?

      Why is a modern technology that is widely used and long-established considered 'pampering'?

    23. Re:Don't fly. by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      You can drive anywhere in the continental US for a vacation.

      Yeah, there's no point in going outside of the US ever...

    24. Re:Don't fly. by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Sure, no problem. Cunard will get you from New York to Southampton in only seven days for as little as $1300. If you're on a budget or you just don't feel like spending a week with old folks you can take a 13 day Carnival cruise for only $700 each way.

      Again: how much holiday do you get? Living in the UK I get 24 days, which as I understand it is generous compared with the states, and I still would consider spending more half of that (twice 7 for both ways) on a *boat*.

      This idea that there's an alternative is a *fantasy*.

    25. Re:Don't fly. by rijrunner · · Score: 1

      500 miles one-way from Denver still puts you 500-1000 miles from major destinations. A 200 mile round trip is a day trip for the guys in my office to go between the Denver and Cheyenne offices.

      You just happen to live and have a job that does not require significant travel.. Don't mistake that for being representative of much beyond that, or as to the feasibility of your solution.

    26. Re:Don't fly. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Oh I'm not arguing that it's a good alternative but it does none the less exist. Personally I get just over 20 days of vacation a year, and a 7 day transit won't actually use up seven days of vacation, provided that I live near to the departing port.

      Another more palatable option is to drive out of the country to Canada or Mexico and fly from there. Again not a great option but if you have to get across an ocean and don't want to endorse the TSA thuggery you could do it.

    27. Re:Don't fly. by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      You want to get rid of the TSA?

      Don't fly.

      It's that simple.

      I'm not sure what not flying has to do with getting rid of the TSA. TSA's mission is

      Protect the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.

      Notice how is says "transportation systems" and not airports? They are authorized to

      augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States.

      ANY MODE... not just flying. So stop flying all you want, but it won't stop the TSA. This is not a case of "vote with your pocketbook"

    28. Re:Don't fly. by antdude · · Score: 1

      Same here, but I haven't flown since summer of 1993.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    29. Re:Don't fly. by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Now that we're a facist state, at least the trains run on time.

      Neither necessary nor sufficient.

    30. Re:Don't fly. by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Sometimes our rights, that we all simply assume are there, need to be fought for. Of course it would be better if this was not necessary. The way humanity is, it is necessary however in irregular intervals. The more or less peaceful people get sucked into a situation where they have to postpone their holidays in a warm place, skip the evening in front of the telly and maybe even risk their lives and those of their loved ones so that these rights and freedoms that we all enjoy are kept.

      I think Jefferson was right on that when he said something about the tree of liberty and what it needs from time to time. I surely hope we are not there yet when it needs watering with blood but secret courts and secret laws surely are a sign we are no far away.

  10. Re:Evidence? by Ardyvee · · Score: 2

    The issue here is that unless somebody is willing to talk to the airline, check phone records, ask family and somehow get lucky in obtaining all that information (good luck trying to verify this story with any of the three letter agencies), there is just no evidence whatsoever anybody could ever present about this. And this is a more important issue than whether or not it indeed happened.

    --
    I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
  11. Re:Evidence? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    He missed a flight, got in trouble at work, and made up an elaborate story about Americans hating Brown People so he missed his flight. What happened to any kind of evidence?

    Since when is the testimony of a witness not evidence?

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  12. Re:Just fuck the fucking Muzzies already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    He's a Hindu. Not a "Muzzie".

    Moron

  13. Re:Umm... by Dins · · Score: 1

    Umm, he was flying during the last week of ramadan? It's mentioned a couple times in TFA, which, contrary to the great /. tradition I did in fact read. And it was a good read, actually, but scary. This government is out of control.

  14. That odd emotion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That strange emotion he felt is actually the natural reaction of a free person to the hand of tyranny. Don't worry, before long we will all get the chance to feel it, as have the owners of Lavabit and Groklaw have in recent days.

    "You never let a serious crisis go to waste". Yes, the jihadists are out there. The terrorists are out there. But how this society and this government chooses to react to it, tells you all you need to know about who we as a people really are, and what we have become. If the true purpose of terrorism it to cause the victim to live in fear and change their behavior, it sure seems that, by any reasonable standard, the terrorists have won a stunning victory.

  15. Re:shaking by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, the after-effects from a surge adrenalin was why he was shaking.

    Admittedly, caused by the "fight or flight" reflex triggered by the fear engendered by the abusive of authority administered upon his person.

    Its literally his body and muscles, all hyped up to run but having no escape, trembling as it releases all that energy and tension to return to normal functioning.

    Remember when "fear of flying" used to be about the planes crashing?

  16. Explosives Residue by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If somebody tested positive for explosives residue going through airport security I'd be suspicious too.

    The problem here is the level of expertise of the people responding to this situation. It's like these people are DMV rejects. They do not have the training or even basic knowledge needed to deal with this situation AT ALL.

    1. Re:Explosives Residue by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The TSA is an employment program for low income, low education punks. That said, do you know how many false positives the explosives residue detector generates? I do not. I could google it, but I am fairly certain that most of the testing is done by the makers of the machines, and hence untrustable by me. Maybe the guy ate one to many airport bean burritos and had a methan riddled fart trapped in his pants that set off the detector.

      Maybe, just maybe some TSA bullie saw hindu clothes and some headgear and said let me fuck with this rag head, and pushed the little button that makes the machine light up regardless of whether residue is present.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    2. Re:Explosives Residue by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      That may be true in some places, but I have to stand up for agents at LAX in terminal 7 in the past year. There are a few who are a waste of space and who turn tiny things into major issues, but by far the majority of people I have dealt with are professional and courteous.

      This is not true at all airports, and I seem to have less luck at Terminal 1 (but I fly from it much less often).

      At this point, the people on the ground doing screening seem to be pretty well balanced. The goons are really the ones in Washington.

    3. Re:Explosives Residue by kaiser423 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This guy got a raw deal. Hell, at LAX I was running late for my plane with my family and had some luggage that had tested positively for bomb residue just a week earlier (I was working at an explosives facility...). I, of course, got stopped for more luggage swiping because I had recently tested positive. While in the plexiglass cube surrounded by TSA agents I yell at my wife to take all of my luggage, everything except my shoes and wallet because they're going to test positive for bomb residue. A TSA agent was literally standing next to me as I'm telling my wife to take my stuff because it has bomb residue on it, and no one cared.

      Then they didn't even test me because it appeared that all I was travelling with was a wallet and flip flops. Shouldn't that also be some kind of warning sign?

      The advantages of being a white male I guess.

    4. Re:Explosives Residue by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Since in the grand scheme of things real terrorist events are quite rare I'd think that the percentage of these warnings that are false positives must be very high.

      It doesn't matter if you trust the maker of the machine or not. The maker can't do anything about the fact that nitroglycerine is both a widely used medication and a component of many explosives.

      The only thing you can do in a case like this is to have a careful process for handling the test result. It's very tricky, especially if the people you have to implement the process are not very bright. It just isn't going to work all that well.

      In this case I feel badly for Mr. Mukerjee. But is it a dire warning of America becoming a police state? I just don't see it IN THIS CASE. I'm much more upset about journalists and people like Moxie Marlinspike being singled out for their beliefs when travelling than this person getting handled in an insensitive manner because of his name, appearance and a false positive from a chemical sniffer.

      Is it a problem with the TSA? Yes, but we have known that the airport security people we have can be overzealous and insensitive. That's a bit different from the worries about a general erosion of civil liberties and we should not conflate the two. Even if it does make a story that will outrage many.

    5. Re:Explosives Residue by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      So you're saying these four TSA agents at LAX are not representative of the others?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    6. Re:Explosives Residue by jma05 · · Score: 1

      > Maybe the guy ate one to many airport bean burritos and had a methan riddled fart trapped in his pants that set off the detector.

      You clearly did not RTFA. The guy did not have breakfast and had not eaten for over 18 hours by the time he was done. It was also indicated that it might have been the bed bug spray he used.

    7. Re:Explosives Residue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That said, do you know how many false positives the explosives residue detector generates?

      Not many, if by "false positive" you mean "detected a substance incorrectly". The problem is that many substances which are present in explosives and residue... are also common in household cleaners and industrial chemicals. So if you mean "detected a substance which wasn't actually residue from explosives specifically" then... a whole lot, all the time.

      The TSA is an employment program for low income, low education punks

      Well, ya. Their hiring pool is pretty much the same as a private security company- they get all the people who couldn't make it into an actual LE or military agency, usually because they're failing the personality/mental evaluations.

      Maybe, just maybe some TSA bullie saw hindu clothes and some headgear and said

      Well if you read his article, you'd know that wasn't the case. He opted out of the millimeter-wave scanner which means you get the quick frisk/pat-down. When they did the pat-down, he set off the detector for explosives residue.

      I personally find the TSA and the whole thing vile and disgusting, but this was most certainly NOT a case of profiling, racial or otherwise. And this guy really DID set off a ton of "red flag" warnings in addition to the explosives detector. He had ALL the signs of some religious nut who had just cleaned out his life and was on his way to meet his maker during a major religious period.

      As for that feeling he "can't describe", it's called a Panic Attack. And it's understandable given the circumstances. As for why they searched his house, they wanted to see if he'd been building bombs there.

    8. Re:Explosives Residue by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      RTFA???? This is fucking slashdot. Unless it is an astronomy article I glean my skewed facts from the replies on the page!

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    9. Re:Explosives Residue by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      No, simply saying that in the balance they seem to be doing a pretty good job. I expect 20% to be exceptional and 20% to be idiots, but the median is much less "thug" than two or three years ago, and the low end is merely as incompetent as the low end was 15 years ago.

      But, to your story, the TSA's role is not drug or customs enforcement. They shouldn't be looking for contraband in the first place, so taking a bribe for ignoring it isn't that far from reasonable.

    10. Re:Explosives Residue by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to hear that. Here at EWR, unfortunately, it still looks like the rejects from the McDonalds drive-thru are running the show. Here's to hoping that TSA rolls out non-gangsta employees on the East coast also in the near future (although I'll really miss the irony of getting an enhanced pat-down from someone that looks like he's smuggled his share of contraband).

      Regarding the role of the TSA, I agree that their job is to ensure security (in theory, at least), not enforce drug policy. However, unless they're personally checking that there isn't a package of high explosives hidden in the bushel of pot that they're waving through, they're not exactly doing a great job.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    11. Re:Explosives Residue by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      God how I hate those low education punks! They always think they're so smart but can't even tell the difference between hindus, sikhs, and muslims. Everybody knows hindus don't wear headdress!

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    12. Re:Explosives Residue by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      IN the America i grew up in, shooting guns before going to the airport would not be cause enough to even question someone.

      --
      Good-bye
    13. Re:Explosives Residue by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      You make fun of my mistake in knowing about garment customs, as if it breaks my argument. If anything, it only strengthens it, as if I can't (and I am fairly educated). What does that say for the guy that barely passed the GED and a training class?

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    14. Re:Explosives Residue by jma05 · · Score: 1

      Also, Hindu men rarely wear traditional attires in the west. Even in India, the hindus (not to be confused with Sikhs, who do more commmonly wear traditional garments, especially headgear) who still wear turbans are mostly rural types.

      You are entitled to your posts. But the people who modded your flippant, entirely insight-free post as +5 insightful should be hit repeatedly with a clue bat.

    15. Re:Explosives Residue by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      If somebody tested positive for explosives residue going through airport security I'd be suspicious too.

      He didn't test positive for explosive residue (well maybe he did, we don't know, more likely he tested positive for a chemical on the watch list.)
      But what are you suspicious of? Why be suspicious, and why do you even need to test for it? Are you automatically assuming the "terrorist" is too stupid to take preventive measures? Or you automatically assume YOUR plane is a target, but NOTHING else in your life (the workplace, the mall, the school, the theatre) are targets?

  17. Re:Just fuck the fucking Muzzies already by tibit · · Score: 1

    1. He's not muslim, you blathering idiot.
    2. He's not taking bombs on planes, nor murdering anyone, nor flying anything into buildings. He'd be dead by now.
    3. If things were up to you, taken to their logical conclusion, Your Holiness would be the last person standing on this planet.

    I mean, come on, how fucking stupid can you get? You win the stupid for today.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  18. Re:Evidence? by RoTNCoRE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think opening a newspaper recently, and following anything happening regarding the NSA, Snowden, Manning, Greenwald, etc. might provide you with some circumstantial evidence that would indicate that the scenario described is plausible. Hell, even if it isn't true, I'm angry that things have gotten to the point that I can believe it. Further, now that Clapper has gone in front Congress and been caught lying without repercussions, even a flat denial from officials doesn't cut it for me anymore. This is a problem for our now seemingly nominal democracy. I heard a great line from Ron Paul - I may misquote: "The truth becomes treason in an empire of lies". We're there.

  19. Re:shaking by stewsters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or more terminologically correct, "Terror".

    Terrorism:
    Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, often violent, especially as a means of coercion.

    Terrorist:
    A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

    So really, you, like Miranda last week, had a run in with terrorists and lived.

  20. just leave. by nimbius · · Score: 1, Insightful

    the only crime here is the gentleman indulged these assholes for more than three hours in a groundless invasion of his privacy and freedom of religion in the pursuit of domestic travel. shit like 'how many times do you pray' and 'did you eat breakfast' are pointless.
    and that cold feeling? thats called physical exhaustion. low blood sugar , blood pressure and high stress.
    unless chimeracoder feels like pressing charges or hiring an attorney though, which im sure the TSA would clearly apreciate if he didnt, its just another story of a government agency that glad-hands people into submitting to pointless unlawful detention based on skin color. Use your instincts. refuse full body scans and opt for public pat-down. if thats not an offer, refuse private pat-down and leave. Sure, you may be detained or arrested by police as a matter of policy, but its seriously unlikely you'll face or be convicted of any misdemeanor or criminal charge.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:just leave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fuck that. That is what the racist assholes in power want people to do.

    2. Re:just leave. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "just leave" and your travel plans are destroyed.

      There goes your entire vacation or even worse your job. Air Travel is not optional.

      I'm sure he was hoping during this fiasco to get a later flight since TSA detained him, not late based on his actions. Once it is obvious you are getting on a flight At All it is too late to leave.

    3. Re:just leave. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Sure, you may be detained or arrested by police as a matter of policy, but its seriously unlikely you'll face or be convicted of any misdemeanor or criminal charge.

      You might be the rap, but you won't beat the ride.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:just leave. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Just leave.

      And forego whatever reason you have to make that trip?

      The fact that plane tickets still cost significant amounts of money (unless you're not part of the 99%) means that the traveller thinks they have a very good reason to make that trip. Flying is a way to get from A to B. It's merely a means to an end. And that's why so many people still do it.

  21. The sheer level of ignorance by barlevg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This reminded me of last year's massacre at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, where the gunman thought he was attacking a mosque. Not that Muslims deserve to be targeted for hate crimes and unconstitutional detention any more than non-Muslims, but detaining a Hindu on suspicion of being a radical Muslim? It would be like detaining an Episcopalian on suspicion of being an IRA terrorist. After all, Whitey all looks the same...

    1. Re:The sheer level of ignorance by Archwyrm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually it would be like detaining an Irish pagan on suspicion of being an IRA terrorist. Hinduism and Islam are entirely unrelated to each other. Episcopalians and Catholics on the other hand might as well belong to the same religion.. Oh wait, they do. Ironic how the kernel of your post was about ignorance.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
    2. Re:The sheer level of ignorance by barlevg · · Score: 1

      I acknowledge that the metaphor wasn't perfect, but (1) are there any Irish pagans left? (discounting the relatively modern phenomenon of Wicca, and, related, (2) pagans vs. Catholics doesn't have the same (recent) history of violence as Hindus vs. Muslims and Catholics vs. Protestants (for the record, I actually meant to say Anglican not Episcopalian--would that have made you happier?).

    3. Re:The sheer level of ignorance by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Episcopalians and Catholics on the other hand might as well belong to the same religion.. Oh wait, they do. Ironic how the kernel of your post was about ignorance.

      Since the Episcopal Church is essentially the US version of the Anglican Church, I think may Irish people would take strong objection to the notion that they are the same religion. Like practitioners of Hindu and Islam on the Indian subcontinent, many Irish Protestants and Catholics have fresh, living memory of whole communities doing violence to their neighbors over it. You still don't wear the wrong colors in the wrong pub there.

      This unlike Irish pagans who have been mostly ignored and merely scoffed at, with rare exceptions. Frankly being assumed to be a pagan would basically to have been assumed to be largely harmless, unlike 3 of the 4 other faiths discussed above (not that Hindu nationalists haven't committed horrible violence either, but they don't usually make terrorism watchlists in the West).

      So, I wouldn't be so quick to accuse of ignorance, if you lump all Christian faiths together and assume they see each other as all the same. The metaphor may have not been perfect, but it was far better than your alternative.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    4. Re:The sheer level of ignorance by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Anglican church is far closer than any other protestant denomination to be merging back to the Roman Catholic church in common communion. The theological differences are extremely minor and the whole split was basically about Henry VIII getting a divorce, and the animosity over the years was political.

    5. Re:The sheer level of ignorance by rhalstead · · Score: 1

      The practitioners of those religions/sects would likely argue that point.

  22. Some interesting bits in TFA by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Informative

    Another agent came over and handed me a paper slip

    Notice that he's already receiving different treatment, despite absolutely zero evidence that he's any kind of threat to anyone.

    “You can leave, but I’m keeping your bag.”

    Something that would have been interesting to try at this point: "Ok, then. I presume there's a procedure for handling bags you've collected in this fashion, let's fill out the necessary paperwork and do everything by the book, and I'll need to be kept informed about which office to contact for retrieving such evidence once you've discovered that there's nothing criminal about it."

    “What is your religion?”

    This whole line of questioning is so obviously in violation of the Free Exercise clause it's not even funny.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Some interesting bits in TFA by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Except that the next major terror attack in the US will likely not involve airplanes at all. At which point we'll be subject to search when using the roads, before crossing bridges, before entering schools, before entering national parks, etc.

    2. Re:Some interesting bits in TFA by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If he will sue, I suspect that being grilled about religion will be the thing that will give any semi-decent lawyer enough rope to hang the bastards involved. From all the five agencies that partook in that farce. I really hope he does sue.

  23. I've Felt That Feeling by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've felt that feeling to a much smaller degree when I found out that my identity was stolen and a credit card was opened in my name. We go about our lives confident that some things are safe. When we leave the house/apartment in the morning, we're confident that everything will be there when we get back. When we walk down the street, we're confident that our body won't be violated by some random stranger. When we go about our daily lives, we're confident that someone isn't - at that moment - opening lines of credit that will financially ruin us.

    We're confident about all this because the alternative is living in terror of assaults from all angles at every second and there's no way a sane mind could deal with this.

    So we convince ourselves that we (and our belongings, credit, loved ones, etc) are safe.

    And then something like this happens which shatters our illusion of safety. Mine was a bit abstract (your credit score isn't exactly a physical entity) and was caught early so the impact wasn't as big. The author's impact was worse because his body safety illusion was shattered, his concept of having the freedom to move as he pleased was destroyed, and the safety of his personal effects was violated. Rape victims probably feel something similar. We don't really have a word that accurately describes it because it isn't a feeling we feel often enough.

    Oh and if you think you don't have an illusion of safety because you've read stories like this and know it can happen - you're wrong. Even though you read the stories, part of your brain rationalizes away the terror of the situation as "things that happen to other people" and you maintain your internal safety illusion until something like this happens.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:I've Felt That Feeling by tibit · · Score: 1

      The obvious solution: wreck your credit so badly that no one will let you, or anyone else, open a credit card ;)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  24. Re:Proud To Be An American by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 3

    There's a song for that. (and, no, it's not that shitty South Park thing, but some fine Denis Leary)

  25. What if he was white? Need evidence then? by grimJester · · Score: 1

    There are heaps of news stories daily that are just first hand accounts. Only when the person telling the story is non-white do we see demands for evidence.

    1. Re:What if he was white? Need evidence then? by ElementOfDestruction · · Score: 1

      Completely wrong. Remember that white household that was "ransacked" by the Boston PD - no wait, the FBI - no wait, the State Police- no, wait, turns out they did it for the lulz. The wife was at work, but poor husband let these agents in even though he didn't have to? And they were scary? Social media picked it up, the blogosphorores exploded, slapped some public domain artwork of SWAT teams raiding a house, and the story flew. The subsequent retraction after the call for clarification? Not so much. Stop buying these stories. And this argument about "Even if the story WAS true, it's a crime because it COULD Be true!!!!!one!!" Live in the real fucking world.

  26. Re:Proud To Be An American by jareth-0205 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're proud to be a bully? Go you!

  27. Um... by mitcheli · · Score: 1

    Ramadan ended almost two weeks ago.

    --
    Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
    1. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ramadan ended almost two weeks ago.

      And you missed the first line of the article which states this happened a couple of weeks ago?

    2. Re:Um... by mitcheli · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      --
      Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
  28. Religion is just dumb by erroneus · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    There are lots of brands and symbols people identify themselves with. Schools, sports, Apple iThings, politics, religion and lots, lots more. And if you dislike any of these things, you just made an enemy of someone because that is 'their identity.'

    It's ridiculous to me... all these "symbol minded people." Perhaps it's my autistic tendencies or something else, but I just can't get behind the things other people get behind. What I see is a bunch of people getting behind a symbol with which they mutually identify and then they all start acting and thinking the same ways.

    Whatever the source, most of these things are choices people make. This includes religion. I once had a discussion about religious discrimination with a muslim female who defended her religion and the practices of blending religion and government... and how she thought it was perfectly okay to have religious government.... until, that is, she is not free to do her religious things. She acted as if religion was not a choice. I ended the conversation quickly with "if religion isn't a choice, then it's not faith is it?" She agreed and shut up.

  29. Re:Just fuck the fucking Muzzies already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have the sneaking suspicion that you're sort of an idiot.

  30. completely crooked, biased summary by slashmydots · · Score: 2, Informative

    Let me post my version of the summary:
    He had explosives residue all over him according to multiple tests
    - The End

    You can all put your race cards away now

    1. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your contention is "He was just asking for it"?

      Make sure to mention that line of thinking if you get called to jury duty. I'm sure the victim doesn't want you on the jury any more than you want to be on the jury. Perhaps even more.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      I read the fine article, and I came to a different conclusion than you. Just curious: in what was he behaving like a wise-ass punk in front of the scanner and again in front of the pat-down? I thought his behavior was surprisingly calm, and I'd find it challenging to handle myself as well as he did were I to find myself in a similar situation. Thankfully enough, I'm white, so that's unlikely to happen.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    3. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by Whorhay · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit, he tested positive for chemicals which are also used in explosives. That doesn't warrant holding someone for longer than it takes to determine they don't have explosives on them or in their luggage. On top of that they then apparently went and searched his appartment, because he had chemical residues on his person.

      I've worked in close proximity to military working dogs that did bomb sniffing. Their training is such that when in doubt they sit and indicate a chemical. I can't tell you how many times I saw the base I was at go into a temporary lockdown which they searched a truck more thoroughly because a dog sat down. It doesn't mean that it isn't a valid form of detection but that false positives are far more likely than you might think and should be handled in a professional manner.

    4. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by slashmydots · · Score: 1

      Ugh, so much to add to even that. First, this article has basically nothing to do with Ramadan and absolutely has nothing to do with not flying during it. It actually technically never came up in the discussion. The author himself isn't calling for some sort of boycott. I'm actually fairly certain terrorists don't blow stuff up during Ramadan.

      So he's complaining that he tested positive for explosives multiple times and couldn't give a straight answer or proof about anything he was saying. He claimed they can't call his employers to prove he works there because they don't have phones and he doesn't have any of their cell numbers. He had no documents showing he recently moved but told them that anyway.

      If an arabic-looking person cancels their current renting arrangement and immediately after that goes into an airport, refuses to go through the security scanners, then tests positive for explosives, what the fuck do they think is going to happen? Besides the TSA agents and police and FBI clearly being idiots in that whole ordeal, I don't see anything wrong here. Plus, they let him go and let him fly out of the same airport the next day!

    5. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Let me post my version of the summary:

      He had explosives residue all over him according to multiple tests

        - The End

      You can all put your race cards away now

      Honestly, I think that justifies his questioning. It doesn't justify searching his home without informing him about it, if that part of the story really happened. A warrant needs to be issued and presented to him.

    6. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Black box gave false positive result.

      Under-trained and under-educated interrogators were not capable of either asking relevant questions or understanding his answers.

      Interrogators resorted to low-level torture (not providing water after multiple hours).

      Unconstitutional search of his apartment was conducted.

      FTFY

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    7. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      If an arabic-looking person cancels their current renting arrangement and immediately after that goes into an airport, refuses to go through the security scanners, then tests positive for explosives, what the fuck do they think is going to happen?

      Because suicide bombers bother to cancel their apartment rentals? Yeah, right!

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    8. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by sjames · · Score: 1

      I would test positive for 'explosives' as well. That's because I fertilized the flower bed. Those tests cannot distinguish between actual explosives and similar but harmless and fairly common chemicals. The explosives tests will naturally be mostly false positives.

      Even among the cases where the 'explosives' are actual explosives, there are plenty of innocent reasons people might have explosives residue. For example, working in demolition or pyrotechnics, spending time at the firing range, changing out large fuses, etc.

    9. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      I'm actually fairly certain terrorists don't blow stuff up during Ramadan.

      Actually, they do. It often causes more moderate Muslims a lot of outrage, but militants often think that attacking during a holy day mean's that their actions will be more blessed.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    10. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by snsh · · Score: 1

      Excellent point. A detectable amount of explosive residue is perfectly legal. A visible quantify of explosives is not.

    11. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Again he did not test positive for explosives, merely chemicals that are used in a million products including explosives. You might as well say that he tested positive for cleaning supplies. He should have had a friendly questioning that lasted 30 minutes or less and been sent on his way. The TSA's job is to make sure the aircraft and passengers are safe, whatever is happening outisde of the terminal is not their business unless there is a clear threat.

    12. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Did it require searching his house without presenting him with a warrant first?

    13. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      He was demanded to state his religion by a federal law enforcement agent on active duty, and you have no qualms with that? Really?

    14. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by chrismcb · · Score: 2

      but he knew how it worked, and he got what he had coming.

      Really? What he had coming was to get on a plane on going on his vacation. I'm not sure where you are from, but here in America we have a right to be "wise ass punks" (not agreeing with you in saying he was)
      Lets suppose you, a fine upstanding citizen, than does nothing wrong, not even speed, gets pulled aside and told they are taking you to the back room for a further patdown and screening... What would you do? "oh yes sir, right away sir, whatever you say sir." You KNOW you've done nothing wrong, and your family is waiting for you to catch the flight, which leaves in 20 minutes. And you will just go silently? If you don't say something, anything, then YOU get what is coming to you...

    15. Re:completely crooked, biased summary by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I think you can expect DEA agents visiting you shortly.

  31. Re:Just fuck the fucking Muzzies already by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

    You should be fucking ashamed of yourself. What a dick... I mean... I can't be bothered to point out how idiotic you sound, apart from perhaps that you have just lumped together 1.5 billion people.

  32. Re:Boo fucking hoo by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

    And go talk to all your muslim brothers.

    RTFA - He's Hindu.

    --
    These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
  33. Re:Just fuck the fucking Muzzies already by Des+Herriott · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's a shame then, a case of mistaken identity. Unfortunately this sort of thing happens occasionally, but it is the Muzzes to blame not the authorities defending against them.

    I generally don't presume to speak for others, but in this case I'll make an exception.

    On behalf of everyone who isn't a bigoted moronic arsewipe, I'd just like to say to you: You are an oxygen thief.

  34. How about a National No Fly Month by Gim+Tom · · Score: 1

    Perhaps if we could organize a nation wide NO FLY MONTH to disband the TSA, then the Airlines would pull the strings on their congresscritters to get some of this crap to stop.

    1. Re:How about a National No Fly Month by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Corporations would never go along with simply "not doing business involving travel" for a whole month.

    2. Re:How about a National No Fly Month by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      And then TSA would move on to subways, trains, bridges, and "augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States."

    3. Re:How about a National No Fly Month by Gim+Tom · · Score: 1

      It seems that they are already doing that.

  35. SPOILERS by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why did this happen?

    The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger." They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.

    This led to him getting an enhanced pat-down with an explosive swab test on his pants which came back positive for some unknown reason, and everything snowballed from there like some kind of comedy skit, where everything he did and said was interpreted as matching the profile of a terrorist.

    Now this raises the question, is this how they treat anyone who they think is a Muslim? Explosive swab test and then run them through the wringer if it tests positive, complete with searching their home?

    This is why I don't fly in clothes that I've handled gasoline or worked on cars in, you never know what might have been absorbed into the fibers.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:SPOILERS by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You put on your garage clothes every time you put gas in your car?

    2. Re:SPOILERS by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      People do other things with gasoline besides put it in cars. Some of those things tend to be messier than an ordinary car refuel with a standard pump hose.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:SPOILERS by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      This led to him getting an enhanced pat-down with an explosive swab test on his pants which came back positive for some unknown reason, and everything snowballed from there like some kind of comedy skit, where everything he did and said was interpreted as matching the profile of a terrorist.

      I was thinking it is something more like a Kafka novel.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    4. Re:SPOILERS by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Says someone who never got soaked by a defective pump.

      Even if I do grant you that, should I change into garage clothes to apply fertilizer sticks to house plants? When I go to the range? When I go to the golf course, since the sprinklers also fertilize?

    5. Re:SPOILERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      India has the third largest muslim population in the world.
      YOU are the dumb one.

    6. Re:SPOILERS by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of us have "garage" clothes and don't wear them out. You know, because we have some self-respect and class.

      And so would any real terrorist, but they don't seem to consider that.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    7. Re:SPOILERS by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      They... swim in it? Breathe it to wow people at garden parties? Err... wash their hair in it? Load water pistols with it for a bit of extra pizzazz? I think you should enlighten us!

      Of course they swim in it. I mean, it's not like there are petrol-powered RC cars/copters/planes for sale in all good hobby/modelling stores.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    8. Re:SPOILERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I doubt anything actually came back positive the TSA is nothing but a bunch of fucking racist morons. They get paid to stand around, harass people, and most of them are so fucking incompetent they would not even spot a tank in their airport.

    9. Re:SPOILERS by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger." They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.

      You, sirrah, have made my morning, and I thank you for it!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:SPOILERS by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Maybe with your knowledge and/or experience, you could enlighten someone on what one would have to do to get the so-called enhanced pat-down summer fantasy trip.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    11. Re:SPOILERS by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Oh it's not hard, you just have to opt-out of the millimeter wave scanners while acting belligerent or even just wearing a T-shirt that quotes part of the US constitution about searches, then they'll start to caress you EVERYWHERE. You can get as big of a hardon as you want and they can't do anything...and in front of all those people! If you make even more of a fuss during the search, they might even take you into the back room where the really naughty stuff happens! ;-)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    12. Re:SPOILERS by halexists · · Score: 1

      They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.

      Winner: Insult of the day!

    13. Re:SPOILERS by tompaulco · · Score: 1, Troll

      Well, of course this happens to people of all races, but if it doesn't happen to a minority, then it is not controversial, and nobody would click on the links. So you only get it reported when it happens to a minority. We can't just throw out a random searchee just because they happen to be of the race/ethnicity/religion that is responsible for most of the terrorist acts in our country.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    14. Re:SPOILERS by Cederic · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger." They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.

      This led to him getting an enhanced pat-down with an explosive swab test

      Last time I flew to the US I had the privilege of being tested for explosives too. The test came back negative, which is why I didn't go through several hours of interrogation.

      Sadly your paranoid prejudiced stupid theory falls apart: I'm not Indian.

      Now this raises the question, is this how they treat anyone who they think is a Muslim? Explosive swab test and then run them through the wringer if it tests positive, complete with searching their home?

      Explosive test comes up positive in an airport and you wonder why they react strongly? You truly are a fuckwit.

    15. Re:SPOILERS by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They surely get many false positives or positives for innocent reasons, yet they treated this guy like Bin Laden reincarnated for hours on end. If you RTFA'd you'd see that one of the agents even admitted the treatment was because of his "background." Is that clear-cut enough?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    16. Re:SPOILERS by tipo159 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Explosive test comes up positive in an airport and you wonder why they react strongly? You truly are a fuckwit.

      A few years ago, I got a new computer bag. I flew with it a couple of times, but the first time that the bag was randomly selected for a swab test, it came up positive. I got lots of questions (in the public area). Eventually I had to provide some contact and other information and was allowed on my way. A few flights later, the bag was selected again and came up positive again. Got the same kind of questions and had to complete the same form again. After that I stopped flying with that bag.

      I was not interrogated in a private room and I wasn't kept off of the plane by the airline. Then again, I am pasty white and I don't fly Jet Blue.

    17. Re:SPOILERS by Ian+A.+Shill · · Score: 1

      I can empathize with this poor, tired soul. This happens to me all the time.

      ...an explosive swab test on his pants which came back positive for some unknown reason, and everything snowballed from there...

      --
      For hire.
    18. Re:SPOILERS by Minwee · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this instructional video may help answer that question.

    19. Re:SPOILERS by aminorex · · Score: 1

      So your theory is that a few nitrate molecules on your pants make you a serious danger to aviation?

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    20. Re:SPOILERS by aminorex · · Score: 1

      That only works in a place where rule of law is a thing.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    21. Re:SPOILERS by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 4, Funny

      The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger." They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.

      Yeah, that's basically the level of dumbness I've expected from people blinded by terrorism-induced paranoia. I mean, I guess I can kinda sympathize; the world is getting pretty fucking scary, but a large chunk of that is precisely because everyone's walking around so crazy and paranoid!

      Funny story: Back in like 2002, I was living in an apartment over an Indian restaurant, and we had an earthquake— now this was in Vermont, mind you, and I'm from New Jersey so like, earthquake, what? —and I swear to god, my first thought was "Oh shit, some fucking rednecks couldn't tell Indians from Arabs and bombed the restaurant!" (Not one of my finest moments; sprawled out prone on the living room floor, looking like Garfield in a car window.)

      That's a good tip about the clothes, by the way.

      --

      Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
    22. Re:SPOILERS by Arker · · Score: 1

      "They're not even smart enough to be racist properly."

      Sadly that describes the majority of the population perfectly.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    23. Re:SPOILERS by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Almost all of those model cars run on "Glow Plug Fuel" which is like diesel fuel/oil or Nitromethane. If you tried to use gasoline or petrol you would probably blow up the model engine. Not that this distinction would make any difference to the TSA thugs, most likely, but there you are.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    24. Re:SPOILERS by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      No, don't you know, terrorists are stupid and we're smart. Don't you watch movies?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    25. Re:SPOILERS by TheCarp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > and everything snowballed from there like some kind of comedy skit, where everything he did and said was
      > interpreted as matching the profile of a terrorist.

      They call it security THEATER for a reason. These people's jobs are best understood as acting jobs as part of a demented straight faced comedy troupe whose schtik is acting like they have no sense of humor at all.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    26. Re:SPOILERS by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Sure, a person from a mostly Muslim country with explosive residue on their clothes is barely any more likely to be a terrorist than a person from any other country with explosive residue on their clothes. And there are all kinds of ways to get explosive residue on your clothes without building bombs.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    27. Re:SPOILERS by Sollord · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure he wasn't taken out back and shot so they didn't treat him like Bin Laden reincarnated.

    28. Re:SPOILERS by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Informative
      Silver nitrate in the film will set off the detectors they use - as will a wide variety of hand lotions and even perfumes.
      Other things that will set off the detector/test if you handle your lugage at any time while contaminated with them include:
      • potting soil, grass patch, plant food, and of course straight fertilizer.
      • Cleaning products - anything with amonia in it.
      • attending a show with pyrotechnics
      • gun powder residue - black or smokeless.
      • nitrate based medicines for heart conditions
      • insecticides

      The list goes on, but the point is, even transporting your lugage in the same trunk as you carried potting soil in 2 months ago is going to get you flagged as a positive. After that, it's going down hill for you.

    29. Re:SPOILERS by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Funny thing about "testing positive for explosive residue", is more loaded than accurate.

      The test is not for "explosive residue" it is for redidues of categories of substances which include both explosives and various known and possibly unknown substances which it can't distinguish from them. The problem is you are only looking at specificity, that it can detect explosives.

      The population of people who are not blowing up planes is much larger than the people who are. In fact, the population of people who handle some form of explosives occasionally, or come into contact with them (possibly through contact with someone who does) is itself a much larger population than people looking to do anything maliscious, and to such a degree that even a miniscule false positive rate is far too much.

      Saying that someone "tested positive" is far too strong for such a test. If you see a guy in the vicinity of a shed, and that shed has an explosives lab in it, and he tests positive on a test like this, then yes he is testing positive for explosives.

      J Random public just testing positive on this test is NOT credibly a positive result for explosives or evil intent with them.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    30. Re:SPOILERS by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2

      Admitting that you have read Kafka, or using a Kafka reference, will get you tagged as some sort of intellectual subversive.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    31. Re:SPOILERS by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      I was thinking it is something more like a Kafka novel.

      The Penal Colony?

    32. Re:SPOILERS by sjames · · Score: 1

      And you are apparently not bright enough to realize that many common and innocent things will trigger a false positive on an explosives test. Beyond that, there are plenty of innocent reasons to have actual explosive residue on you including a recent trip to the firing range, being near a fireworks display, etc.

    33. Re:SPOILERS by garyebickford · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Saying that someone "tested positive" is far too strong for such a test.

      This is true especially for cases where the 'true positives' are a very small percentage of the total population. For example, if the test has a 5% false positive rate, and 1% of the population is actually positive, then for every true positive there will .05*.99 = 4.95 false positives. IOW, if you test positive you are still just slightly more than 20% likely to be true positive.

      This is a well know problem in medical testing and drug testing (though it's often forgotten in the drug testing business). There is a name for this rule but I forget what it is. Here's a better explanation (Bayes' FTW).

      Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease. You decide to get tested, and suppose that the testing methods for this disease are accurate 99 percent of the time (regardless of whether the results come back positive or negative). Suppose this disease is actually quite rare, occurring randomly in the general population in only one of every 10,000 people.

      If your test results come back positive, what are your chances that you actually have the disease?

      Do you think it is approximately: (a) .99, (b) .90, (c) .10, or (d) .01?
        Surprisingly, the answer is (d), less than 1 percent chance that you have the disease!

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    34. Re:SPOILERS by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes, I would. I'm paranoid about many things, but even I would find fear in such a situation exceedingly stupid.

    35. Re:SPOILERS by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Why did this happen?

      The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger." They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.

      This led to him getting an enhanced pat-down with an explosive swab test on his pants which came back positive for some unknown reason,

      This happened because he opted out of the stupid whole body imaging machine. THEN he tested positive for something that may or may not have been explosives. It snowballed from there (and yes by the sound of it, there was a bit of racism going on, AFTER he was pulled aside)
      This was NOT random, or profiling.

    36. Re:SPOILERS by slamb · · Score: 1

      Explosive test comes up positive in an airport and you wonder why they react strongly? You truly are a fuckwit.

      They have false positives. My Ortlieb roller bags tested positive after a month-long bicycling trip. Could have been the construction of the bag, could have been the Tanzanian dirt throughly embedded in everything by then, who knows. It didn't come directly into contact with anything combustible, much less explosive. Apparently soap/lotions can cause false positives. And of course, ammonium nitrate (the explosive used in the Oklahoma City bombings) is more commonly called "fertilizer". So, no, they shouldn't be reacting so strongly. They should know that it's likely a false positive.

    37. Re:SPOILERS by JakeBurn · · Score: 1

      I'm curious why you feel it necessary to say "terr'ist sand-nigger." without any evidence of having ever heard that come from a TSA worker's mouth? Without that evidence you are racist yourself for typing it. Sorry, but fuck racists, you included.
      That said, unless this guy can prove that the swab test was rigged, failed or somehow didn't work he can't really complain too much if a test indicated that he was exposed to explosive substances. Anyone running an airline would be stupid to allow someone on their airplanes who had evidence of explosives on them. And I can very easily see a person being pissed off enough to make a bunch more shit up in order to make their story more likely to make the news.
      I'm white and was also pulled out of line for 'extra' screening on half of the flights I've ever flown on. I guess those racist TSA agents must have thought I was a "terr'ist sand-cracker"?

    38. Re:SPOILERS by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Without that evidence you are racist yourself for typing it. Sorry, but fuck racists, you included.

      Really, just for typing it? Well in that case:

      "terr'ist sand-cracker"?

      We're even, RACIST! Fuck you. Let's move on.

      It's not hard to innocently get evidence of explosives on you. If they run this test regularly, this would have been far from their first false/innocent positive. And if you RTFA'd, you'd see that an FBI agent admitted that he was singled out because of his "background." Unless you think he just made that up to make the news.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    39. Re: SPOILERS by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      The GP is correct; the claim wasn't that India is majority Muslim, merely that it has the third largest Muslim population on the planet. India does indeed have the third largest Muslim population in the world. As of 2010, there were 177,286,000 followers of Islam in India, which equated to approximately 10% of the planet's Muslim population.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    40. Re: SPOILERS by Phuqit · · Score: 1

      Insufficient trivialization requiring an adjectivally nominative noun upgrade, to wit:: fuckwit TWIT--you twat!

    41. Re: SPOILERS by Phuqit · · Score: 1

      Look, the guy just had a surgically implanted explosive penis...saw them for sale on QVC one insomniac night, I think, but no Easy Pay Option--so I couldn't afford one. Mine's just the regular kind hat goes off occasionally.

    42. Re:SPOILERS by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Hmmm, original site is unresponsive - probably slashdotted. Or NSA'd

      with an explosive swab test on his pants which came back positive for some unknown reason,

      This is why I don't fly in clothes that I've handled gasoline or worked on cars in, you never know what might have been absorbed into the fibers

      I don't see the relationship between these two comments. when I've had friends fail the swab test when trying to board flights, it's been because the machines picked up traces of organic nitrates on the clothes of the people in the party ... which was adequately explained by them having spent then previous night sleeping in the garage of one member of the party ... who happened to be carrying his explosives user licence with him, as well as receipts for him having recently been buying and using high explosives.

      Gasoline compositions don't normally contain organic nitrates - at least not ones I've heard of. So ... what are you doing with gasoline that gets ... nitrate ... in ... it ... oh, you're not processing your coca leaf with nitric acid are you? That's going to drop your yield by 20% or so!

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    43. Re:SPOILERS by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I assumed gasoline would give a positive result on the test, you mean it doesn't? So I guess a gasoline fuel-air bomb would be easier to smuggle on board?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    44. Re:SPOILERS by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Err... wash their hair in it?

      It kills nits. The insect kind, not the ones like you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    45. Re:SPOILERS by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      he guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger." They're not even smart enough to be racist properly.

      Could have been worse, he could have been a Czech Republican.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    46. Re:SPOILERS by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I assumed gasoline would give a positive result on the test, you mean it doesn't?

      The number of false positives from a detector that picked up plain old hydrocarbon vapours would be gigantic, particularly considering that airports and airplanes literally run on kerosene. Jet-A1 is essentially a low octane, slightly higher-boiling-than-gasoline mixture of hydrocarbons. Even without perfectly innocent fuel spills, as you describe, there are going to be non-trivial traces in the atmosphere all the time.

      Then there's the nearly 2ppm of methane present in the normal atmosphere. That's going to complicate any simplistic hydrocarbon detection system.

      I don't know what the detection technology inside these systems is, but I'd bet in IR spectroscopy. Gas chromatography is credible, but they'd need analytical-grade bottles of carrier gas or some major advances in gas generators since .... nah, GC isn't credible. Mass spectrometry ... certainly got the sensitivity and range of detection capabilities (the same systems do drug analyses too), but they're delicate lumps. And not terribly compact. IR's your lead contender by far.

      Nitrate groups have an absorbtion pattern in the IR (see Table 1 in http://www.umsl.edu/~orglab/documents/IR/IR2.html for an example); see that and you have a positive. Organic nitrates aren't terribly common in the general public. Got a prescription to go with this claim of nitroglycerine for your dodgy heart, Sir? Been sniffing the old poppers, Sir ? ; I've got a lovely long rubber glove for you! Been playing cards, have we, Sir? ; well that was good enough to jail the Birmingham Six.

      So I guess a gasoline fuel-air bomb would be easier to smuggle on board?

      Hmmm, that would be how many litres of gasoline - when you're not allowed to board with liquids - and a compressed gas supply (also not allowed - look for the IATA "Do Not Carry these ..." posters all over the airport. think of a small SCUBA tank.). And the control and ignition circuitry (you want a bomb, not just a fire on board).

      Fuel-air bombs ; what is the smallest you've test-detonated sucessfully, and how reliable is your implementatin?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    47. Re:SPOILERS by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Suppose that you are worried that you might have a rare disease.

      Presumably if you are worried there is a reason. Genetic predisposition, experiencing symptoms, contact with someone who has had it, etc. That makes the odds much, much more in favor of you having it than .01%.

    48. Re:SPOILERS by Zeromous · · Score: 1

      Walt, we know damn well that story isn't true.

      --
      ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
  36. Re:Just fuck the fucking Muzzies already by Sabriel · · Score: 1

    So when your lords and masters make a mistake, it's not their fault, because they've got the power of life and death over you?

    Stockholm syndrome, much?

  37. Re:Boo fucking hoo by barlevg · · Score: 1

    And go talk to all your muslim brothers

    He's Hindu. Stereotypically, he's about as likely to commiserate with Muslim extremists as a KKK member would be to try to team up with Jewish groups. Oh wait.

  38. Re:shaking by asylumx · · Score: 2

    Commonly known as "Shock" -- similar to what you feel after a car accident or any other traumatic experience. In my opinion, this is the kind of thing a citizen should have rights to sue over for damages.

  39. Re:Just fuck the fucking Muzzies already by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    So no complaints when they come and shoot you and your family in a case of mistaken identity then?

    You are seriously stupid, and this is slashdot where being stupider than the norm is quite an achievement.

  40. Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by NiteShaed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An uncorroborated story, retold in amazing detail (he remembers almost everything said to him so clearly that he's comfortable using quotation marks for dialog), complete with a clever protagonist who's at the mercy of idiots (the Jet Blue agent who, despite working at one of the busiest airports in the US seems never to have encountered anyone who isn't a WASP, the TSA drones who think they're working in the Hotel California, the cops who can't read dates on an ID card and mistake venture capital with capitol one credit cards because, y'know, they're a bunch of blue-collar dummies. Luckily though, our protagonist is clever enough to be able to guess their source of confusion immediately). Then, the chilling conclusion, where he returns home to find almost everything exactly in place, except for the missing photograph. Why would whatever shadowy TLA actually take a photograph off the wall? If they were interested in what it showed, might it not just occur to them to, I dunno, take a picture of it themselves? Then there's the procedural inconsistencies...the NYPD officer can't even be present when he's patted down "because when we pat people down, it’s to lock them up." Really? NYC, the focus of the "Stop and Frisk" controversy actually has officers who believe they can't do a pat-down unless it's during an arrest? And going back to the uncorroborated nature of the story, he would have at least had some voicemails from himself during this ordeal, except once again the universe conspired against him and when he called his parents, "Unfortunately, my mom’s voicemail was full, and my dad had never even set his up".

    I'm not going to go so far as to say that the blogger here is lying, but there's more than enough here to make me very skeptical.

    --
    Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    1. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Yes. Start filing complaints anywhere and everywhere possible. Start legal action against Jet Blue for their obviously discriminitory behaviour, naming the ticket agent as well. File a police report of the "break-in" (he assumes that his apartment was searched by the government, but has no proof of that, it might have been his landlord or a thief who has an affinity for religious pictures). Announce what time/day/flight number this took place before, maybe someone else will remember seeing him being led away. If his memory is so staggeringly good that he can recall all of these conversations verbatim, perhaps he also remembers a badge number, file a complaint with the CRB against the officer that trampled on his rights.

      So, yes, there's probably at least a couple of things he could try to do to verify his story.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    2. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have a very good point. Someone posts a scary story. Story is posted and people go ape shit about loss of freedoms, discrimination, etc. But how do we know its true? I am not dismissing it but look at the frenzy of replies where everyone read a story and did not stop to think "is this true"? Same thing happens on facebook where people share scary or touching stories with little proof of their truth.

      Goes to show you the power the Internet can have to sway public opinion. We live in an age where people have mostly abandoned critical thinking and take things for face value. And the internet allows such false stories to spread like wildfire across the globe. In the old days such stories were old wives tales and were local to villages or towns. Reminds me of a story someone shared on facebook about a secret meeting between record execs and prison execs to make gangsta rap more popular so blacks would emulate the music and fill the prisons up to make the prison companies more money. The kicker was the storyteller was a supposed attendee of the meeting but was so afraid for his life that he refused to name any names (including his own) or locations. No proof whatsoever and hundreds of comments were posted from people who believed the story and expressed outrage and anger. Its really sad.

    3. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The thing is, he provides no information that would allow someone else to even attempt to corroborate his story. This story contains most of the hallmarks which snopes.com lists as classic indicators that a story is an urban legend.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      Thank you, again someone today voiced my thoughts. I think it was when he mentions the wink that I confirmed my own suspicions. After all the time, this is a detail he remembers, but he cannot recall to state the names of even one of the figures who questioned him? It was an somewhat entertaining story and an editor at /. turned it into a huge troll.

      No fan of what is happening to this country, certainly no fan to agencies like the TSA, but it galls me that someone would play upon our emotions to try and get attention using a false story. Given that there are enough true ones floating around that can be corroborated, it would be great for this one to fade away. Now, if our protagonist wishes to post his text messages to his friends? If he wishes to publicly name names? If he wishes to fight this in court (for it seems obvious his rights were violated when the TSA agent "took" his bag and would not let him leave) then its a story that should be on page one.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    5. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by crashcy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hate the TSA as much as anyone, and have not flown in at least 6 years because of it, but I'm having trouble believing this account as 100% accurate. If it were, why can't he link to any credible news report about it? There is not a single journalist out there interested in exposing government abuse? He doesn't even have any communication with JetBlue over the matter posted. Surely he discussed this while trying to get a refund? No e-mails or anything? I don't doubt he dealt with some overzealous TSA agents, and that he felt singled out because of his appearance, but I think he has really tried to sensationalize the story.

    6. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      In most parts of the world it'd have been discarded as "ridiculous, over the top, just can't be true".

      So nobody is questioning the account which purportedly happened in the US is just illustrative of the image of the TSA, and US-style security in general.

    7. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This is similar to the story a few weeks ago where someone on Long Island said they got a visit from the FBI because one person searched 'pressure cookers' while someone else used a different computer to seach for something else. Of course the /. crowd was all over this, claiming that this was proof that the NSA was doing deep packet inspection of every transaction, Google was forwarding all queries to the NSA, etc, etc. Then when the real story came out it was that the guys ex-boss called the local police when he noticed that the guy had done some searches for pressure cookers on his work computer.

      Many times the people on here remind me of the old Gilda Radner sketches where Emily Litella would go on a rant about something, only to find out she misunderstood what was actually happening, then say 'Oh, that's very different. Never mind'.

    8. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Protip: there are no names. Nobody will ever identify themselves to you, other than with a numerical badge id.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    9. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      So if I told you that I was kidnapped by the NSA last night, tortured in a secret location in a way that left no visible injuries, and returned home before sunrise while my neighbors were sleeping, you'd just take my word for it?

      but he did manage to sneak in some text messages when given the opportunity.

      So he says. Claiming to have sent three messages to anonymous friends tells me nothing. While the NSA was torturing me last night, I sent texts to my friends Fred, Janine and Ernesto. Does make my story more plausable to you?

      The government apparently/allegedly took him to a private location. They hold the burden of proving what happened by providing us with their own uncut footage recording everything.

      You have only his word for this. If it never happened, how do you propose they provide the footage you require? And if you just want footage of the area, have you tried asking for it? If you get it and it shows nothing, what then? Will you be satisfied, or will you just say it's faked because it doesn't show what you think it would show?

      If your burden of proof is so low that you'll simply take anyone's word for it that an event happened as long as it fits your expectation of reality, then what stops you from believing my NSA story above, or for that matter believing every ghost story, bigfoot sighting and alien abduction account that comes along without proof?

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    10. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by houghi · · Score: 2

      FUD does not only work on Internet. It works well in the real world too. That is how we got in this mess in the first place.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    11. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by RoTNCoRE · · Score: 1

      Because there is corroborating evidence daily in the news that is leading us to the very rational yet difficult conclusion that we should not believe a damn word our government tells us (especially the NSA). That doesn't exist for your bigfoot, alien abduction, or ghost story examples.

      It IS bad that it has gotten this far. Democracies are founded on trust, and the NSA and recent administrations are shredding that by treating the citizenry as threats.

    12. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      There is ZERO corroborating evidence that this story is true. None (at least none that has been presented yet).

      There are lots of people who look at 'corroborating evidence' and come to the conclusion that there must be a creator. Does all of that 'corroborating evidence' mean that their creation stories are true?

    13. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Good point. Standing up for yourself and proving your accusations is hard, so let's just take everyone's word for anything they say, regardless of whether they can support it or not. Great idea.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    14. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Maybe for "evidence"?

      Evidence of what? According to the account, they questioned him, they found nothing, they acted like jerks, they let him go. Why would they keep looking, for fun?

      But let's say that they did. They went to all the bother of sneaking in, putting everything back exactly as it had been, but took the single most obvious thing in the room with them? And if they found their incriminating prints or residue or whatever, what then? If they didn't have a warrant, it's useless in court. If they did have a warrant, they could have simply kicked in his door torn the place to pieces as he watched. And this is all because he has dark skin and tried to fly to L.A.? Why would they go to that level of bother for this guy? If they were concerned about what he was up to, they could have made him vanish for as long as they wanted, there's really no need for some kind of elaborate black-ops spy game. Hell, if we want to go all out evil-empire, they *could* have just shot him in the head at the airport and said he was resisting arrest. For some reason though, everyone is happy to accept that we went from "You're brown and can't fly" to a shadowy conspiracy by secret police agencies that are both nearly magical in their abilities but absurdly incompetant at the same time.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    15. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by sjames · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't all too believable, it might well be questioned more. I have had the experience of a police officer who reads the effective date as the expiration date. It's the sort of thing that happens when someone is more interested in catching you at something than in figuring out if there is something to catch.

      Pretty much every story of an unpleasant encounter with the TSA shows them thinking it's Hotel California. It's seems to be getting popular with police as well.

      I don't know if TFA is accurate and complete or not, but there was nothing in it of an extraordinary nature (unfortunately), so it doesn't really call for extraordinary proof.

    16. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by azcoyote · · Score: 1

      Very true. When you analyze the narrative structure of his account it fits a particular kind of mythos that will elicit an emotive response from a particular group of people. This is not to say that the story can be proven false, but it should at least caution people against assuming without any proof that it is true. Part of the appeal of the story is its lack of explanation: no clear reason is given for the intrusive questions about his religion, and his initial reluctance to be scanned does not explain the onslaught of dimwitted and inconsiderate security officials. Open questions allow the story to vary from a too-commonplace story of "my name happened to be on the terrorist watch list," in order to imply that the problems of TSA profiling stretch much farther than simple cases of mistaken identity. In short, one should be skeptical of the story because even while explaining nothing, it accomplishes everything that the audience wants it to. It provides a (groundless, unevidenced) reason for outrage.

      The weakest part of the story, in fact, comes at the very end, when the reader (and the author) are already so engaged that the demand for proof is mitigated. His supposed evidence that his apartment was illegally searched is that his photograph went astray. Seriously? What if he simply misplaced it? What if someone else took it? What if his apartment was broken into? We could just as likely believe that Robin Williams broke into his house and stole his photo.

      To be fair, I don't like the situation of the TSA either. I have frequently been selected for extra screening because I look Middle Eastern (I'm Mexican) and because, especially when traveling alone, I'm frequently anxious about making it to the plane on time.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    17. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by gooman · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. Shenanigans.

      I have a feeling that the 'oh so smart' slashdot crowd has been taken in.

      Probably have their tinfoil hats on a little too tight today.

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    18. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Because this same level of idiocy was demonstrated in a number of other well-publicized stories about TSA, which have been recognized as factual.

      In other words, this kind of treatment is exactly what we'd expect from them, so the story is believable on its own merits. The only brow raising moment in the whole article is that they failed to figure out that Hindu is not the same as Muslim, but based on their track record, I can believe that, too.

    19. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      So why was the search a secret? They didn't have to go to the bother, they could have kicked in the door and just said "National Security" afterward, and possibly "oops". In your own story they just did what they wanted. So, why the almost perfect secret search, with the glaring exception of taking the only picture he had on the walls? What would be the point?

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    20. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      The only brow raising moment in the whole article is that they failed to figure out that Hindu is not the same as Muslim, but based on their track record, I can believe that, too.

      One TSA agent, sure. Maybe even two. But the agents, their supervisors, the NYPD (the officers on the scene, plus the ones who authorized searching his apartment- TSA didn't do that, they're glorified security guards not field agents), the Jet Blue ticket agent, probably her supervisor...this isn't some tiny rural airport in the middle of nowhere, it's NYC. I have a hard time believing that out of the entire cast of characters presented, none of them know the difference between a Hindu and a Muslim.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    21. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      From the story, it sounds like only TSA actually dug that deep. Everyone else was panicking mainly on the basis that TSA guys were "concerned".

    22. Re:Why is almost nobody questioning this account? by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if only he had some outlet where he could get that kind of a request out...like, a blog maybe, perhaps one that 's getting thousands of hits from Slashdot alone right now. But no, you're right, there's no way he could do something like that. I guess if we were in crazy-fantasy land he could talk to someone who's job it was to write stories about this kind of thing, who had resources to verify information, some kind of person who reports on things of interest, but no, no such thing as that either I suppose. Yep, you've got me, the only alternative is to take him at his word without any verification and start pissing ourselves with impotent rage against the machine.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
  41. Re:Proud To Be An American by interval1066 · · Score: 2

    I don't think getting snuffed 10 years after you mastermind an attack that kills 3000 people is getting fucked over 1000 times worse, but what do I know?

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  42. Re:Are you muslim? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Are you American? If you are, go talk to some of the individuals in your community who advocate Imperialism and plot to murder people. Tell those people to start treating others with respect. Tell them to live and let live. Maybe if they get the message you'll start getting more respect.

  43. Why is jet blue not paying the extra $700? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    If jet blue failed to find him another flight they should be paying that extra $700.

    1. Re:Why is jet blue not paying the extra $700? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Because they said they wanted his business when they took his money. If they did not want to deal with him they should never have taken his money.

      He paid $X for transport from Y to Z, they should be obligated to provide that one way or another. Just as you cannot normally cancel a flight once you purchase it, they should not be able to do so once they take the money.

    2. Re:Why is jet blue not paying the extra $700? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Well, I believe the contract is "best effort" but this sounds like it went against that.

  44. Re:Real reason for war on terror: by c0lo · · Score: 1

    Terrorizing people is what governments do; can't let private organizations go and grab a piece of the action.

    gubmints are inefficient and wasteful... they should have let the free market godly hand to apply terror.

    (ducks)

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  45. True Story by barlevg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A friend of mine set off the explosives detectors while trying to fly home for spring break. He hadn't been in contact with any cleaning products or fertilizers or anything like that, and he couldn't for the life of him figure out what the culprit could be.

    In the end, it turned out it was his sweat-absorbing socks. I'm not a chemist, so I don't know precisely what it was in sweat that can set off their detectors (ammonia, maybe?), but for everyone's sake I hope TSA had some good hazmat disposal protocols for those things.

    Of course, my friend is white, so no back-alley interrogation for him.

    1. Re:True Story by Prlwytkovsky · · Score: 1

      At my place of work they started swiping everybody for explosives a few years after 911. They were training the security people in using the equipment. I tested positive one day. The instructor didn't even blink but asked me simply if I had been working in the garden. I had been pulling weeds at my place the day before. Apparently that was enough to pick up fertilizer traces on my clothing even though I had never used fertilizer in the garden and had lived there for a few years already.

    2. Re:True Story by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't surprise me if it was ammonia it seem perfectly reasonable. Then again I am surprised they managed to find explosive residue since I gone though screening with a coat pocket full of 12 gauge shotgun shells (about a dozen of the 3 1/2 inch magnum waterfowl loads) and another time an almost full box of 7.62x54r rifle rounds. Both times I put the coat on the x-ray scanner and picked it up on the other end and they never stopped me. But every time I take my old SLR film camera it gets additional screening, wiped it down, send it through the x-ray again, disassemble it, check out every accessory and question why I would own it, etc. I am almost tempted to take my old folding camera through just to really confuse them, especially since mine still has the stylus.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    3. Re:True Story by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      I'm not a chemist, so I don't know precisely what it was in sweat that can set off their detectors (ammonia, maybe?), but for everyone's sake I hope TSA had some good hazmat disposal protocols for those things.

      Wouldn't necessarily be the sweat itself, could have been something involved in the sock's material. Most explosive detectors look for a number of things, but nitrates is the big one. As the wiki page mentions, they can be detected in solution(don't need much) via an electrode, thus making a test for it quick&easy.

      One option is that maybe he ran through a freshly fertilized field and picked up enough to set the detector off.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:True Story by TheSync · · Score: 1

      I am curious if any TSA explosive sensor has ever detected an actual explosive...

  46. Re:orly? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

    Recently I was transiting through Frankfrut en-route to Los Angeles and I was pulled aside for supplemental screening. It took about 15 minutes and while quite thorough was really a joke. Pat-down, millimeter wave, luggage search, explosive sniffing (twice), etc. I can laugh it off easily enough, although I am quite against everything it stands for. I also know if I had stepped in the lawn which had been fertilized recently I likely would have set off the bomb detector, all of which would have made things much worse.

    It really all comes down to statistics. While I might think that myself as a 40 year old white male with gold status and a business class ticket poses minimal risk, there is some reason why it is the third time it has happened to me, and it is quite likely not related to security. For the poster, he realizes all the flags he set off from the article, except possibly the first flag. Opting out of the millimeter wave was likely the clincher. While that shouldn't get your apartment searched, it is behavior uncommon to 99% of the passengers and it does raise extra flags.

    The fact that the millimeter wave scans are an unreasonable search is another story altogether. And the fact that smuggling something around security isn't rocket science for a committed group... well, let's chalk that up to security theater.

  47. TSA and Jet Blue got it right. by Jiggy · · Score: 1
    Having read the article I think security and Jet Blue got this right. It is more about Aditya testing positive for explosives than Ramadan.

    The explosives specialist walked back into the room and asked me why my clothes were testing positive for explosives.

    If I was a security official I would run through the documented procedures and, if in doubt, escalate up the chain too - TSA Supervisor, NYPD, FBI, Homeland Security. If I was in charge of an airline and was informed that a passenger had tested positive for explosives, even if accidentally, I would not want them on my plane that day either.

  48. Done nothing wrong by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear right?

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  49. Re:Umm... by idontgno · · Score: 1

    And let's face it... this particular shitstorm was "flying during Ramadan, while looking like a brown-skinned Godless fur'ner".

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  50. don't fly during ramadan....? by AxemRed · · Score: 1

    If this man's story is accurate, it's a shameful scenario indeed. But I've read a lot of these well-documented horrible TSA encounter accounts, and most don't involve Ramadan. However, most DO have one thing in common: the person opted-out of the scan and/or argued about the pat-down.

    I'm in no way saying that a person deserves this kind of treatment for opting-out of a scan, and I think that the current security procedures border on reprehensible. But people need to understand that they are part of air travel nowadays. Consider them to be a travel risk. If you want to fight them in safety, quit flying and write your rep. And if you decide to fight them in person, prepare to be a martyr. And if you want to get from point A to point B with as small of risk of problems as possible, prepare to consent to being scanned, groped, or whatever else they want to do.

    1. Re:don't fly during ramadan....? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      I'm in no way saying that a person deserves this kind of treatment for opting-out of a scan, and I think that the current security procedures border on reprehensible. But people need to understand that they are part of air travel nowadays.

      This is just sad. I understand it's part of travel, yet I don't accept it as normal. And that's what we have to continue to tell one another: it is NOT normal!

    2. Re:don't fly during ramadan....? by AxemRed · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it IS normal. (Not this guys particularly bad experience, but walking through scanners, getting felt on, etc.) I don't like that it's a part of air travel, and I don't think that it's acceptable. But it is what it is. I avoid flying if at all possible, and I've written my reps to let them know my opinion. But when I have to (or choose to) fly, my only real options are to jump through the TSA hoops or run the risk of having a really unpleasant time at the airport.

    3. Re:don't fly during ramadan....? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      The problem is people (you included) now consider it normal. It's not normal, nor is it supposed to be normal to jump through such hoops just to get on a plane. It should simply be turned back to more reasonable measures.

    4. Re:don't fly during ramadan....? by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      I'm in no way saying that a person deserves this kind of treatment for opting-out of a scan, and I think that the current security procedures border on reprehensible. But people need to understand that they are part of air travel nowadays.

      You do know why most of us opt out, and then post these stories? It is to get people to understand that it does NOT have to be a part of air travel. That we ARE fighting the system. Just not doing it quietly.
      Opt out. The more people that opt out, the sooner this nonsense will stop.

  51. Lawsuit by dskoll · · Score: 1

    Mukerjee should sue. I hope he is an American citizen; otherwise, he has no chance of getting justice rather than simply a minuscule chance.

  52. Happened to me on American by whitedsepdivine · · Score: 1

    I passed the second private screening, but American wouldn't let me fly. I bought a ticket on United, they actually helped me through security without purchasing a ticket as it was pending from my travel agency. I got to my destination, and told an American Manager they wouldn't let me fly from the previous city. The report said that it was because TSA denied me, I explained to her that if TSA denied me how am I here. They gave me a full refund for a non-refundable ticket.

  53. Re:Proud To Be An American by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Are you proud to be trolled?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  54. Re:shaking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nope. Shock* is when the blood supply to the brain drops (which can be due to extreme psychological stress).

    * I assume you mean in the medical sense since you talk about car accidents and lawsuits.

  55. like being a jew in WWII Germany by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Living in the US with dark skin is like being a jew in NAZI Germany. Between "if you see something say something" white trash morons fingering every person that looks like a stereotypical Muslim to them and the typical dumb-as-a-rock law enforcement thugs who see every dark skinned person as a terrorist this is a country I would want to flee from.

    I wonder what would have happened if he had clammed up and refused to answer any of their questions. What he should have done is tried to leave the airport and fight to get back his possessions if necessary. Once an explosive detector is set off leaving the airport is really the best course of action for anyone. You won't be permitted to fly without being thoroughly violated at that point anyway. May as well come back and try your luck another day. TSA agents have no power to detain you. You are within your rights to take your stuff and walk away. If they try to physically stop you you have the right to defend yourself. The only power they have is the power to prevent you from flying that day out of that airport.

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    1. Re:like being a jew in WWII Germany by Cederic · · Score: 1

      white trash morons

      Racist fuck. It's cunts like you causing the racial tensions.

    2. Re:like being a jew in WWII Germany by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Living in the US with dark skin is like being a jew in NAZI Germany.

      Not quite. The guy is alive and able to post on the internet.

    3. Re:like being a jew in WWII Germany by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Well, don't forget, Nazi Germany begun in 1933, but the exterminations started about a decade later. First there was "just" a Nazi boycott of Jewish shops and banning the Jews from certain professions, then gradually went to ghettos, concentration camps and extermination camps.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re:like being a jew in WWII Germany by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, *exactly* like NAZI Germany, if you're talking about NAZI Germany in another universe.

      What part of concentration camps and industrial gassings are you dealing with right now? Just curious. If the Jews in the camps only had to worry about an airport screener, I'd hazard to say they would have might well have braved it, considering the options.

      No one is saying that what is happening is fair or right, but let's not get stupid here.

    5. Re:like being a jew in WWII Germany by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Dachau was opened in March 1933, less than a month after Nazis took over for good.

    6. Re:like being a jew in WWII Germany by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The post to which I replied said "then gradually went to ghettos, concentration camps and extermination camps". But Dachau was a concentration camp from the get go.

      Yes, it took some more time to get the wheels rolling on extermination, but Nazis asserted themselves as very authoritarian from the get go.

    7. Re:like being a jew in WWII Germany by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      If I remember correctly, Dachau was specialising in imprisoning communists and social democrats at first and moved to Jews in 1938 or so.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    8. Re:like being a jew in WWII Germany by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Living in the US with dark skin is like being a jew in NAZI Germany.

      I agree. We are rounding up dark-skinned people into cattle trains, tattooing numbers on them and then gassing them to death.

      Oh, wait. We're not. Never mind. You're just a hyperbolical clown.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  56. What would happen by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    if during th einterrigation you shit and pissed your pants? Would they let you go? Sesious questons.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  57. Just JetBlue by michaelmalak · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Aside from the deprivation of water for an extended period of time (which was probably due to fear of him washing off residue, but still, it perhaps shouldn't have been for that long), I, anti-TSA and 9-11 truther, support these TSA and FBI actions for the most part (though I would have preferred they had been done by private businesses, such as the airlines and airport). Non-invasive chemical testing is precisely the sort of testing that should be done, rather than sexual molestation and virtual strip searching.

    The only problem here is JetBlue a) denying him passage and b) compounding the problem by not rebooking him for the same fare. I support such actions in theory, under the First Amendment freedom of association, but if the guy's account is accurate, the public should know about JetBlue's policies.

    Note: My personal support of First Amendment freedom of association is at odds with the Civil Rights Act, which I think should be abolished, except in the South. The guy may have a case of racial discrimination under the Civil Rights Act, but of course JetBlue would use the defense that they had the results of the objective chemical test.

  58. Re:Just fuck the fucking Muzzies already by Swampash · · Score: 1

    So we have a sob story from a Muzzie who is upset about being delayed.

    You misspelled "nigger".

  59. Re:Boo fucking hoo by Swampash · · Score: 1

    OK then, talk to all your "crazy brothers who believe in invisible superheroes who live in the sky". The label doesn't matter, religious = crazy.

  60. Gee, I'm sorry but... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    If you don't like this kind of thing happening, then I suggest you not fly. Take a bus or drive perhaps?

    Where I don't condone how the TSA handled the situation after the machine indicated explosive residue, that they detained and questioned him is NOT an issue. What do we EXPECT TSA to do? They cannot do anything that might be construed as profiling some protected class and have zero investigative authority. So we get cavity searches of wheelchair bound granny and full body pat downs of children and other stupid things. What else can they do but have hard and fast process that their agents MUST follow, no deviations allowed. This is all that happened in this case.

    The TSA is tame compared to what happens in some countries. Go Fly El Al and call me about being mistreated. If you have explosive traces on your person or baggage, "well now sir, please step this way" will be just the beginning of your experience. And when you get done, they WON'T be saying "sorry" for anything. Not to mention they background check EVERYBODY before boarding the plane.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Gee, I'm sorry but... by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      There is another way, the tsa is not needed and not providing any actual security.

    2. Re:Gee, I'm sorry but... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      You mean just let the flying public arm themselves? Or are you suggesting that the airline be responsible for security?

      Either way, I'm OK with giving the TSA the boot. The issue though is that folks are going to have to accept that nobody is now responsible to stop the bad guys from doing bad things on airplanes. With the TSA, we at least have the illusion that somebody is responsible for security.

      So do you think the flying public is *ready* to admit the truth and just do away with the TSA?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Gee, I'm sorry but... by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      If you don't like this kind of thing happening, then I suggest you not fly. Take a bus or drive perhaps?

      If you don't like this kind of thing happening, find the name of one TSA employee, get him in a dark night and beat him to a pulp. If only 10,000 people do that, the problem would be solved.

    4. Re:Gee, I'm sorry but... by MikeLip · · Score: 1

      How about go back to pre-9/11 security levels? If TSA isn't doing any good, then that's where we are already. I mean except for the payrolls now padded with thugs, I mean TSA agents...

    5. Re:Gee, I'm sorry but... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Telling me I cant fly because the government is WILDLY overstepping its bounds violates the freedom of movement clause.

      --
      Good-bye
    6. Re:Gee, I'm sorry but... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Who's saying you can't fly? I'm just saying that IF you choose to fly commercial then you are subject to TSA's rules. If you don't like the rules, you can walk, take a bike, drive, take a train, or even fly (Just not on a commercial aircraft). It's the same as when you drive, you are subject to traffic laws. If you don't like traffic laws, you can choose not to drive.

      How's that prevent your free movement?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:Gee, I'm sorry but... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The government should not be in the business of deciding who can and cannot use various modes of transport, period. The fact that they do so is a pretty clear violation of freedom of movement.

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:Gee, I'm sorry but... by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      If you don't like this kind of thing happening, then I suggest you not fly.

      You realize that the TSA isn't limited to just airports, right? You do know they to "augment the security of any mode of transportation at any location within the United States."
      What do I expect TSA to do? I expect them to not exist.

    9. Re:Gee, I'm sorry but... by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      The issue though is that folks are going to have to accept that nobody is now responsible to stop the bad guys from doing bad things on airplanes.

      Who stops the bad guys on subways and on buses? Before TSA how many bad guys did bad things on airplanes? What exactly is it we are trying to stop?
      Underwhere bombers? TSA failed there, show bombers? ditto (well the TSA equivalent in England) Perhaps stop people from putting explosives in printers? Ohh right, TSA failed to do that as well. So what is it they are supposed to do? Other than stick their hands down my pants?

    10. Re:Gee, I'm sorry but... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Um.. All That is the TSA's job too.

      Like I said.. Are we ready to admit that the TSA simply cannot provide security for us, even on airplanes, and accept the responsibility for our own safety? OR Do we want to continue with the TSA's illusion of safety?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    11. Re:Gee, I'm sorry but... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I'm not advocating that the TSA continue to exist. I'm simply giving you the current situation.

      You are still free to move around using any means you can afford and the TSA cannot reasonably stop you. They CAN, however, search your person and baggage when you use specific modes of transportation "for safety and security reasons". While it could be argued this is a violation of the 4th amendment, This is not violating your freedom to move.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:Gee, I'm sorry but... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Sooo where is the line drawn? As long as any place can be reached by walking it doesnt violate freedom of movement?

      --
      Good-bye
    13. Re:Gee, I'm sorry but... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      When the Government says: "You are not allowed to travel from here to there no matter how" is when you draw the line. The method of conveyance makes no difference.

      You can travel from New York City to Atlanta any number of ways. If the government says "you may not travel from New York to Atlanta" they are restricting movement. If they say "you may not fly commercial from New York to Atlanta" they have not restricted movement, only the method of conveyance. In this case, unless your name is on the "No Fly" list they just have an additional set of rules for you to follow. If you follow the rules, they may inadvertently delay you, but they will not prevent you from flying anyplace you want. If you choose to break the rules, then figure on getting arrested (Which will restrict your freedoms, but that's legally allowed when you get yourself arrested.)

      Call me when they start making folks produce "papers" to cross state lines. Then, they will be restricting your movement. AS of now, the TSA isn't violating your right to move as you please by making you produce ID, search you and your baggage, or choosing to detain and question you should something show up in the search.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  61. Errr... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    The federal Conservative Party is who is in power right now in Canada...

    The Progressive Conservative Party went away, but only because it joined with the Alliance Party, which replaced the Reform Party, which is basically how the right won over a split left vote between the Liberals and NDP. Which means they do not have an actual voting majority, nor do the votes cast for others count for anything.

    This is why voters are apathetic in Canada. Your vote doesn't matter. In fact MOST votes do not matter in our current system.

    A better example of political payment would be the Liberal Party last election. Where they went from one of the two major power parties, to one of marginal significance over night, being destroyed by the NDP (which likely won't happen again now that the previous leader is gone).

  62. Re:Not an Isolated Incidient by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Look- I get we live in "unsafe" times, but this is just security theater.

    Actually, we don't. Not any less safe than other times, anyway. It's those in power, with an agenda, that want us to think otherwise.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  63. White American persecution complex ENGAGE! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know! That's why we never heard of Constitution on Chest Guy, Little White Boy with Terrorist's Name & Friends, Veteran with Too Much Implanted Metal or TSA Pen. Tester Guy. The media just isn't interested in the plight of the white man.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  64. uncommunicative officials by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

    he faced hours of interrogation by uncommunicative officials from several different agencies

    How do you get interrogated by someone refusing to communicate with you? Interrogation is to try to get information, which means asking questions, otherwise known as communication. Otherwise, it's just torture.

  65. Re:haha!! by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Odd. Me..

    Number of Islamic friends: no idea
    Number of Christian friends: Many, but no idea how many
    Number of Jewish friends: Several, but no idea how many. It'll change if you're talking race or religion anyway.
    Number of Atheist friends: Many, but no idea how many
    Number of friends with other religions: no idea

    Does it actually fucking matter? Why are you so certain about the Muslim count, and how are you planning to keep it at 0?

  66. Pure racism by Damouze · · Score: 1

    That's what it is. And it's time somebody stood up to these assholes and told them so.

    --
    And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
  67. TSA and Jet Blue misused the test by realxmp · · Score: 1

    Assuming that any explosives test is 100% specific is the kind of error I'd expect an untrained fool to make, not a supposed expert. There are lot of substances which are chemically similar enough to explosives and are also household chemical which many people come into contact with and thus trigger a false positive. A test like that is supposed to be to help you decide which people need further scrutiny, not as a definitive stop this person from flying tool. Even then if you assume that someone has come into contact with explosives if they don't have any on them then they are not going to explode through magic pixie dust. Hell if I walk through one of my wet labs on the wrong day or perform a magic trick I'm likely to end up with nitrocellulose dust all over my clothing and hair. Once they had determined he had no explosives on him he should have been free to go (whilst filing a report with Homeland Security to follow up); further detention served absolutely no justifiable purpose. If he were a terrorist for example doing a dummy run, as long as he had no explosives it would be more useful to observe him than spend hours questioning people.

    As for Jet Blue they have absolutely no excuse, if someone allegedly has explosive residue on them today but no explosives then there is no rational reason to prevent them from flying today or tomorrow or any other day. If he doesn't have any explosives on him, the results of the test are irrelevant because it's far more likely that the test gave a false positive than not.

  68. Re:Evidence? by gsslay · · Score: 1

    He was going on holiday.

    Apologies for jumping on the bandwagon, but this one's first stop was RTFA.

    Idiot.

  69. Finland by adrenaline_junky · · Score: 1

    My most enjoyable security check was in Finland, where they had a greeter passing out candy to make the wait in line more pleasant.

    1. Re:Finland by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Well, I used to fly to Finland every year, so I've got a lot of experience with Finnish security checks. It ranged from a complete search of my hand luggage to just an unfriendly "pÃivÃÃ". I love that country anyway.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  70. Your definition of reason is an unusual one by realxmp · · Score: 1

    We deal with the result of a explosives test by searching for explosives, and if the person has no explosives on them it is not reasonable that the person has explosives on them. Every test has the potential for a false positive and a rational person recognises that and adjusts their beliefs accordingly. If you continue to believe someone you've searched has explosives after you'd searched them then you're more irrational than they are. You're denying the evidence of your own eyes because of a pre-existing belief. What are they going to do? Pray the explosives into existence?

    Irrational thought is not just confined to the religious.

    1. Re:Your definition of reason is an unusual one by Maudib · · Score: 1

      Did jetblue have the full details of the investigation? If not then refusing service until they got it was probably the responsible thing to do.

  71. I call BS by mightypenguin · · Score: 1

    This reads way to cleanly with all the right drama, clean dialog. This is excellent trolling on so many levels. Well done my friend.

    1. Re:I call BS by umghhh · · Score: 1
      you mean that TSA and other BHA (black helicopter agencies) did this to divert attention from their actions and discredit the opposition movement on /. ?

      These days I may even believe in that too.

  72. "How religious are you?" by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    He claims that one of the cops asked him, "How religious are you?" What kind of a question is that? It implies that you can be religious, but not TOO religious. Apparently, you have freedom of religion, so long as you aren't too religious. It's okay if you go to a church or temple on Sunday, or whatever, once in a while, but you better not be praying or fasting any other time. That's just weird, subversive and dangerous.

    And what is meant by the statement, "...a person with your kind of background"? What, you mean Hindu? Like Ghandi? I realize there have been Hindu terrorists (the Tamil Tigers come to mind), but really the 700 million or so Hindus in the world are not particularly known for being violent -- especially those that are "too religious". The only possible thing that could be meant by that statement is that he was brown-skinned.

    I think he might have a good civil rights violation case here.

    Maybe next time he should carry a rosary and pack a Bible. He should tell them he is Catholic (lots of brown-skinned, weird-named people are Catholic) and that he is going to see his family for day (in this case, Assumption). Leaning Spanish would probably help too. Just drop a few "senors" in the conversation and they'll probably waive him on through.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:"How religious are you?" by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      He should tell them he is Catholic (lots of brown-skinned, weird-named people are Catholic) and that he is going to see his family for day (in this case, Assumption). Leaning Spanish would probably help too. Just drop a few "senors" in the conversation and they'll probably waive him on through.

      Not necessary in theory, although the sort of folks interrogating him would probably be more likely to believe he's Catholic if he spoke Spanish than if he spoke Konkani.

  73. Re:Evidence? by ElementOfDestruction · · Score: 1

    It's hardly testimony without any cross-examination.

  74. Re:Evidence? by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

    I think he would be classified as a victim, not a witness and there is no corroboration to the story. Another post talked about collecting information on this story, but it is hard to do since there are no "facts" to back this up. If this had happened to me, as a victim I would put in there things like the date it happened, the flight number, a name or two. Things that could be checked out if someone choose to do so. That is why I see this is a story and one that is getting the wrong attention for it is being treated as real when it seems more fiction.

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  75. Re:Evidence? by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

    Exactly, which is why I am surprised the parent got marked as troll. It is a reasonable question and statement. There was one thing that bothered me (and I did RTFA), at one point is states he was held for 18 hours and never got a chance to drink water (or eat). What I did not hear him say was that he needed to go to the bathroom

    I sat back down and waited some more. Another time, I looked up and noticed that a different officer was guarding the door. By this time, I hadn’t had any food or water in almost eighteen hours.

    now 18 hours is a long time to go without food and water, but I would also think a very long time to go without taking a bathroom break. Had he gone to the bathroom he could at least then been able to get some water. No mention of being denied the chance to relieve himself, no comment about how hard it was to "hold it in" till he was done. To be denied that basic right could be construed as torture and I think any good lawyer would be all over that bit of information. Newspapers would be headlining "Hindu Held and Tortured by TSA". Instead was can only assume he can really hold his water and shit for a very long time.

    Someone just got their 15 minutes of fame in a very sad way.

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  76. Sounds like a by Phibz · · Score: 1

    That sounds like a panic attack to me.

  77. I Know Your Adrenalene is Pumped Way Up by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    But makes you think the zombies keeping chaos from happening have stopped watching you?

  78. Re:Proud To Be An American by aminorex · · Score: 1

    Dude died in Baluchistan in December of 2001 of kidney failure.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  79. This isn't about politics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Look all, there have been a lot of comments of a political nature thus far. It's got to stop. As long as the citizens of this country are polarized against one and other, they're NOT concerned with the real source of this problem. This isn't about republicans or democrats. It's not a liberal or conservative agenda. This is about a federal government as a whole (R, D, etc.) that is putting a system of control in place against the general populous. They can't get away with doing it using the military (posse comitaus and such) so their creating a militarized law enforcement community to do it instead. At the same time, they do all they can to keep us, the unwashed in their eyes, in conflict with one another by sowing discord regarding race, religion, political leanings, sex, etc. If everyone in the country would at one moment stop the infighting, turn and cast their gaze directly at the political machine, they would swallow their tongues. This stuff has got to stop. People bled and died to see to it that the sort of thing that happened to Mr. Mukerjee would not happen in this country. Now it's happening. So, you can sit back and bitch about how stupid the US is and how deluded her people are, or (assuming you are a US person) you can shut the hell up, get the hell up and start working to change things.

  80. Awful if true, well-written regardless by NoahsMyBro · · Score: 1

    I've just read the article (heresy, I know) and while there was nothing at all there to cause me any doubt, after getting over how awful the story is, and how bad things have gotten in our country when it comes to things involving personal freedoms, I immediately recalled the story posted on Slashdot many years ago about the woman who motorcycled through the remains outside of Chernobyl and documented the full experience. I think it was over a year later when it came to light that *that* whole article was a hoax.

    This story demonstrates vividly just how rotten our security apparatus in the United States has become, with personal protections & liberties (& laws) completely ignored anytime a person with a badge decrees. But there's still that nagging though that this whole thing might just be a work of art engineered to get us thinking about these topics.

  81. Nowhere near blatantly corrupt by rjh · · Score: 1

    I suggest an experiment. Run a red light and get pulled over. When it comes time to hand over your license and registration, wrap a $50 bill around it before handing it over to the cop.

    If the cop returns your license and registration but not the fifty, and apologizes to you for his error... then you live in a blatantly corrupt country.

    Otherwise, you live in a country that does not live up to the ethical standards you wish it would, but it is not a blatantly corrupt country.

    Good grief, man. If you seriously think the United States is a blatantly corrupt country, what the hell do you call Afghanistan or Libya?

    1. Re:Nowhere near blatantly corrupt by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      There is more than one type of corruption. The kind of corruption in the US is one of the government itself accepting large bribes from corporations and our police will beat you or kill you instead of accepting monetary bribes.

      Also offering $50 to someone who makes $6000/month is an insult, not a bribe. Try doing it with $5000 instead and see what happens. Probably he'd just keep the money and give you the ticket anyway, but at least you'd have a chance of success.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  82. He was showing too many warning signs by Sethra · · Score: 2

    Here is a guy who declined the scan and then tested positive for explosives during the routine pat down.
    He has no identification showing a fixed residence.
    He has no identification showing his work place.
    He can't provide a phone number they can call to verify his work.
    The two people he says he's meeting can't be reached by phone either.

    These are all legitimate red flags for security to follow up on.

    I don't see what the problem is here. This is actually the TSA doing what they should be doing.

    1. Re:He was showing too many warning signs by chrismcb · · Score: 2

      The ONLY thing that should be a warning sign is the positive test. Everything else is just hogwash. Are you saying you HAVE to have a workplace? You can't be travelling alone? He has to have papers?
      As far as TSA doing what they should be doing, why are they doing anything? Why do they exist.

  83. Terrorist until proven...eh, screw it. by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    The problem with the paranoia-fueled destruction of 'innocent until proven guilty' isn't just that it's wrong, and it isn't just that it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, it's that it's completely counterproductive!

    If they ever pulled an actual terrorist out of a line and subjected them to this sort of questioning, (Something that to my knowledge has never happened even ONCE, correct me if I'm wrong.) chances are they either wouldn't comply at all, or their demeanor or body language would very quickly give away that something was wrong.

    His willingness to comply and the fact that nothing in his background fit any real profile other than, I guess, being too not-white— either one alone —really should have shifted the tone of the encounter directly to them trying to figure out why they were getting a false positive on the detector.

    This whole mess is a disgrace top to bottom, and I have no doubt the police or (more likely) the FBI searched his apartment, probably while he was being questioned, and that disgusts me, frankly. And this is where we get to how counterproductive this whole fiasco is... If incidents like this are disgusting and angering to the average red-blooded American, imagine the propaganda coup for the people who hate us. For every thousand people who read a story like this and grimace, there's someone with the means to do us harm who reads it and says "Fuck America." and eventually their cup fills up with that shit.

    Anyway, I got nothin', except to say, maybe stop being so goddamn paranoid all the time, so we stop doing shit like this. It'll be a good first step. A small one, but a good start. (Maybe then we can work on teaching the Police when it's appropriate to shoot a suspect.)

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
    1. Re:Terrorist until proven...eh, screw it. by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      If they ever pulled an actual terrorist out of a line and subjected them to this sort of questioning, (Something that to my knowledge has never happened even ONCE, correct me if I'm wrong.) chances are they either wouldn't comply at all, or their demeanor or body language would very quickly give away that something was wrong.

      If I was going to try to bring a bomb on a plane. I wouldn't opt out of the scan. OR if I was going to opt out of the scan, I would do everything in my power to make sure I wouldn't trigger the explosives test. I also wouldn't make a big stink, and would fully comply with everything they asked me to do. I would be as meek as possible. I would do everything I could do, to not draw attention to myself.
      Or maybe I would be loud and obnoxious and draw attention to myself (cause what terrorist would actually do that) BUT I still would do everything possible to NOT set off the explosive machine.

    2. Re:Terrorist until proven...eh, screw it. by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

      I... I think you just got added to the 'Do Not Fly' list.

      --

      Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  84. What a waste by XMark3 · · Score: 1

    Aside from the issues of racial profiling, invasion of privacy, etc... this seems like a huge waste of time, resources, and money. Imagine the hourly rates of everyone from all the agencies involved, and how their hours-long interrogation of a harmless, innocent man diverted all of those resources AWAY from actually preventing terrorism.

  85. On subtle but critical point by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    " Or are the government with agreement of the courts (who are the constitution) ..."

    No. The courts are not the Constitution. Unfortunately they think they are, and behave as though they are, enough so that you can readily be excused for believing that they are. It is the courts job to uphold (i.e. enforce) the content of the Constitution. They make no attempt to do that. They are the reason why the Constitution is slightly less valuable than the same square footage of toilet paper in 2013. The Constitution was never meant to be loosely interpreted.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:On subtle but critical point by sageres · · Score: 1

      Go back to high-school civics class. It is the Judicial branch's job to interpret the Constitution. Hence -- they are the law. It is a job of the Executive Branch to uphold and enforce the Constitution.

    2. Re:On subtle but critical point by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Go back to civics class yourself. The Legislative Branch creates laws, which must abide by the Constitution. The Executive Branch enforces the Law, without regard to the constitutionality or lack thereof. They do this by going to the Judicial Branch; we call that "going to court." The Judicial Branch applies the law, but more importantly it decides if the law created by the Legislative Branch went outside the bounds of the Constitution when creating the law, thereby upholding (i.e. enforcing) the Constitution. If you are going to get snarky, at least have a clue what you are talking about.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  86. Bosnia? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    the most invasive country I visited was Bosnia

    You sure about that?
    Corrupt - yes. Invasive?
    Unless you're counting neighbors minding your business looking for gossip fodder, nobody here pretty much gives a fuck.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  87. Re:the plural of anecdote is not data by gx5000 · · Score: 1

    Just get rid of all the useless security that's been added since you know when and carry on. Ben Franklin will be proud and the ghost of F@scism that now envelopps you will be dissipated.

    --
    End of Line.
  88. Re:The TSA's "Explosive Material Detectors" are ju by richard.cs · · Score: 1

    This is clearly an agent who has never been to a beach. You don't even have to sit down and it'll be everywhere.

  89. Re:Evidence? by bmk67 · · Score: 1

    I would think that if you haven't had anything to eat or drink for 18 hours that your need to releive yourself would be minimal. When I'm mildly dehydrated, the last thing on my mind is taking a piss.

  90. Re:Evidence? by camperdave · · Score: 1

    We only have the testimony of the victim. We must admit the possibility of a biassed account.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  91. Was never a Boy Scout, but... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the TSA would think if someone had prepared a list of substances they've come in contact with, in advance? In this insane-ass world, I bet that'd be more likely to be seen as suspicious than helpful...

    I have absolutely no doubt I would set off the detectors, with all the chemicals and materials I come in contact with. I mean, I chemically etch my own circuit boards using either photo-resist or direct screen-printed resist... I machine stuff from aluminium, brass, oil-bronze, steel, etc. and that involves cutting lubricants, as well as the various lubricants involved in keeping the machines working. There's probably little bits of swarf in my shoe soles... Moldmaking and resin-casting materials... Paints and model supplies... And of course all manner of solvents from the mundane to the industrial.

    And this is stuff I do at HOME, so there will be traces of something if any of that is enough for a positive.

    THREAT LEVEL: *Rubber glove snapping sound*

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  92. Re:Just fuck the fucking Muzzies already by bmk67 · · Score: 1

    I have a sneaking suspicion that you have a penchant for understatement.

  93. Re:Evidence? by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

    But it is possible that he ate and drank before going to the airport. He may have had a nice meal, he might have drank some water at some point along the way. So sure, after relieving himself he may have been able to wait, but the 18 hours was in addition to the initial time spent waiting. In fact we don't have a clear idea how long the really took for we don't know when it started. Also, 18 hours and he did not sleep? He never mentioned sleep, even in passing like "At some point I slept for a few hours in those 18" See, to much detail in one sense, way to little in another. Also, if he was kept awake for 18 hours then that is even more close to torture. Let's do some critical thinking before blind acceptance.

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  94. Re:Evidence? by ElementOfDestruction · · Score: 1

    Fuck yourself! So he was going on holiday and that means we should take his word at face value? You're such a gullible fuck. No wonder people hate fucks like you.

  95. Re:haha!! by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

    Most of the Muslims I've met have been observant enough that it is obvious to people who know them. They pray and eat halal and so forth. Not all Muslims are this observant, but if you spend much time with an observant Muslim you will know it.

    Lots of people talk about religion all the time. My mom knows what religion everyone is because that is her favorite topic. I'm guessing the AC is like that, and would call the cops if someone admitted to being Muslim.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  96. Re:Evidence? by Ardyvee · · Score: 1

    He said he was released by 2PM. 2PM - 18h gives me 8PM of the previous day. He said he was going to meet his family for dinner. I'd believe that he would relieve himself before departing to the airport. Thus, yeah, he would have to eventually sleep or at least feel sleepy. He said he didn't eat breakfast, and we can deduce he didn't eat dinner. Though, I guess by the end if he was indeed shaking and as perturbed as he seemed to be by his descriptions, it could be possible that he would forget he would need to use a bathroom for a while.

    Though this is pure speculation based on what I could read from TFA, and my memory may be failing. Also, it seems strange that he didn't think of calling a lawyer. He should have, imo.

    --
    I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
  97. Germany - Rape Suspect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I was once suspected of rape by Police in Germany. They were a bit rude when they grabbed me on the railway station. They demanded and got my DNA and fingerprints. I had to drop my trousers "to look for scratches". Not the underpants, though. They probably still have my DNA and fingerprints. They locked me for two hours in their police cell, with a blanket and all my clothes. I got something to drink.

    They wanted to talk me into confession and wrote a lengthy report. They demanded to look into my flat, which I granted. Then a waterproof alibi showed up. They drove me home and they retained my coat. I got that back weeks later.

    I was a bit upset, but they did not behave like thugs ("wait for a few more minutes, no water for you"). I think they gave me water to drink. No lights into the eyes or similar shit.

    All in all much more civil than this story, if it is entirely true. Considering the story of Bradley Manning, I do think this story is 100% accurate. America, you have your Gestapo Light. The Opportunity Cost Of Oil, I assume.

    But hey, there is justice in this. American Clandestine cloak-and-dagger shit brought misery over Persia and Chile and quite a few more countries. You still support the nasty Wahabist tyranny of Saudi-Arabia. IF there is justice in this world, why should Americans not feel a tiny bit of their own medicine. A bit of those Shah secret police thuggery now exists in America. Because THERE IS some justice in this world. Many a tiny bit, but there is.

  98. TSA "Terrorist" Was A Homeward-Bound Marine by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1621459/posts

    Posted on Tue 25 Apr 2006 07:28:51 PM EDT by Malsua

    Big Brother Is Watching WHO??

    TSA "Terrorist" Turns Out To Be A Homeward-Bound Marine by ANN Senior Correspondent Kevin R.C. "Hognose" O'Brien

    The Transportation Security Administration bagged a terrorist in Los Angeles International Airport Tuesday, or so they thought. Daniel Brown's name came up on their no-fly watchlist, so they dragged him into interrogation and grilled him, despite the protestations of Brown and his fellow travelers, who swore they could vouch for him.

    The others in Brown's party went on their Northwest Airlines flight to Minneapolis-St. Paul, where they waited on a bus at the airport. You see, the detained man was Staff Sergeant Daniel Brown, USMC Reserve, and he was traveling with the other members of his Marine Reserve Military Police unit, which was heading home to Minnesota from eight months of combat in Iraq. The Marines were in full uniform and all, including Brown, had travel orders and military identification cards.

    After attempts to stonewall under claims of "security," TSA spokesmen finally admitted that Staff Sergeant Daniel Brown was placed on the no-fly list, and ultimately detained, because they had detected gunpowder on his footgear -- not on this flight, but on a prior flight, which earned Brown a permanent place on the TSA's mysterious terrorist lists.

    The footgear that had been exposed to gunpowder? Brown's combat boots, and the occasion of that flight was after his return from his first combat tour in Iraq. Gee... a combat Marine in Al-Anbar Province being exposed to gunpowder.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  99. Re:Simple by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

    Gosh, then convince your co-religionists to act like civilized people and stop blowing themselves up. Simple as that.

    I.e., convince his co-religionists not to do things such as this?

    (Of course you weren't just assuming what his religion was, right, given that he stated what it was in TFA, right?)

    (Oh, and speaking of uncivilized people blowing things up for religious reasons....)

  100. Re:Ramadan? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

    The headline is "Don't fly during Ramadan" yet there's no mention of it in the summary. Perhaps in the article.

    Yeah, God forbid you actually RTFA.

  101. Re:Hrmm.. Anonymous post from Generic Muslim by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

    Anonymous story from generic muslim

    Wrong.

  102. Re:Just fuck the fucing Muzzies already by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    So no complaints when they come and shoot you and your family in a case of mistaken identity then?

    Of course not, but if I travelled in Ramadan with residues that detected as explosives on my clothes, had no landline contact for my employer, no proof of my current address, a driving licence showing my next to last address, and so on I would accept being held when they verified that I was OK. After all for all they would know I could be a Muzzie

  103. Re:The "Rationale" by umghhh · · Score: 1

    but but but maybe they did not have clean water anywhere near?

  104. Re:The TSA's "Explosive Material Detectors" are ju by umghhh · · Score: 1

    If you read Dilbert you would have known that these seriously looking machines to detect explosives etc are just boxes with a lamp blinking more or less randomly.

  105. Re:Proud To Be An American by furbyhater · · Score: 1

    Well I hope you enjoy getting fucked in the ass by your "protectors" everyday you step inside an airport.

  106. Did JetBlue engage in illegal discrimination? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

    The guy's Indian, and to your average dimwitted, racist TSA goon that's just another variety of "terr'ist sand-nigger."

    What has me curious is whether or not JetBlue acted lawfully by denying Mukerjee boarding after he was cleared by TSA, the FBI, and airport police to fly. As providers of public accommodation, they cannot discriminate based on religion, race, etc.

    After he was cleared to fly by the aviation security professionals, what lawful reason did JetBlue have to deny boarding?

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    1. Re:Did JetBlue engage in illegal discrimination? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Good point. Unless it's a written company policy to deny people boarding who have tested positive for explosive residue, there could be room to argue that in court.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  107. Time to Move by djhaskin987 · · Score: 1

    If something like this happened to me, I would seriously consider moving to a different nation which takes privacy laws more seriously. Or one which is less racist.

  108. Re:Evidence? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    Since statements by a single individual, absent other evidence, are unlikely to even get you into a courtroom. And, since the value of eyewitness testimony has been proven to be shaky at best... google: value of eyewitness testimony.

    I have not read TFA, but if all we have is this person's statement, no other witnesses, physical evidence, or even a basic attempt to obtain a comment from the TSA, then we have nothing.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  109. Commercial flights by wakely · · Score: 1

    Nowdays, commercial flights are less and less safe and this is becoming quite annoying. I think many passengers will stop to fly due to this.

  110. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion