|
|
|
Letter To the editor Published:
Monday, August 09, 2004 - 10:49:28 AM EST
www.sentinelandenterprise.com
Fitchburg woman says she was targeted because of Muslim headscarf
To the editor:
Up until recently I was confident riding the MBTA,
despite my wearing the "hijab," a traditional Muslim
headscarf. However, during a trip to Tufts University
for my first college midterm, I was confronted another
first: racial profiling.
I was on the train looking over notes for an exam when
the train stopped at the North Leominster Station.
Walking down the middle aisle were a couple of
Leominster police officers who asked me to step off the
train, hand over my backpack, and show identification.
This was no random check. I had been pinpointed
specifically because of the way I appeared. My hijab
supposedly made me a threat to someone.
I was told by the very respectful police officers that
a concerned passenger had reported "suspicious
behavior" (me), and that even though they saw nothing
suspicious themselves the officers still had to take
necessary precautions, which was perfectly
understandable.
After the check was over, the policeman who sensed I
was upset attempted to comfort me by explaining that
most people do not know any better. Although it was an
honest effort on the part of the policeman, it didn't
comfort me at all.
The good samaritan who called in "scared" was so afraid
for his/her life that (s)he remained on the train and
called in, instead of refusing to board the train in
Fitchburg until I was checked.
Can any person cry wolf and have the police immediately
come? Do people realize that even without a headscarf,
I still am just as Muslim?
These questions are just some of the things the public
overlooks when it comes to acts of security. I
overlooked these issues also, until it happened to me.
I ask readers to seriously think about my story and ask
yourself, "Do I want to be next?"
Hala Saadeh
Fitchburg, MA
1999-2004 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Mid-States
Newspapers, Inc.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
|
| |
| |
As much as I regret the experience of the person writing the story, I feel
better knowing that she is not packing a bomb in her backpack.
She belongs to a group that has declared war on America, and while it is
certainly true that everybody that is part of that group is not at war with
us, we can't tell which ones are at war and which ones are not.
Unfortunately, sometimes a few good apples get mixed up in the basket full
of bad ones. We have to check the good ones to be sure they are good, or the
entire basket gets tossed out on the assumption it is entirely bad. Would
she rather be tossed out, or checked to be sure she is one of the good
apples?
Letter To the editor Published:
Monday, August 09, 2004 - 10:49:28 AM EST
www.sentinelandenterprise.com
Fitchburg woman says she was targeted because of Muslim headscarf
To the editor:
Up until recently I was confident riding the MBTA,
despite my wearing the "hijab," a traditional Muslim
headscarf. However, during a trip to Tufts University
for my first college midterm, I was confronted another
first: racial profiling.
I was on the train looking over notes for an exam when
the train stopped at the North Leominster Station.
Walking down the middle aisle were a couple of
Leominster police officers who asked me to step off the
train, hand over my backpack, and show identification.
This was no random check. I had been pinpointed
specifically because of the way I appeared. My hijab
supposedly made me a threat to someone.
I was told by the very respectful police officers that
a concerned passenger had reported "suspicious
behavior" (me), and that even though they saw nothing
suspicious themselves the officers still had to take
necessary precautions, which was perfectly
understandable.
After the check was over, the policeman who sensed I
was upset attempted to comfort me by explaining that
most people do not know any better. Although it was an
honest effort on the part of the policeman, it didn't
comfort me at all.
The good samaritan who called in "scared" was so afraid
for his/her life that (s)he remained on the train and
called in, instead of refusing to board the train in
Fitchburg until I was checked.
Can any person cry wolf and have the police immediately
come? Do people realize that even without a headscarf,
I still am just as Muslim?
These questions are just some of the things the public
overlooks when it comes to acts of security. I
overlooked these issues also, until it happened to me.
I ask readers to seriously think about my story and ask
yourself, "Do I want to be next?"
Hala Saadeh
Fitchburg, MA
1999-2004 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Mid-States
Newspapers, Inc.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
|
| |
| |
As much as I regret the experience of the person writing the story, I feel
better knowing that she is not packing a bomb in her backpack.
She belongs to a group that has declared war on America, and while it is
certainly true that everybody that is part of that group is not at war
with
us, we can't tell which ones are at war and which ones are not.
Unfortunately, sometimes a few good apples get mixed up in the basket full
of bad ones. We have to check the good ones to be sure they are good, or
the
entire basket gets tossed out on the assumption it is entirely bad. Would
she rather be tossed out, or checked to be sure she is one of the good
apples?
You belong to the group that imprisoned Japanese Americans and took all of
their property.
|
| |
| |
with
the
You belong to the group that imprisoned Japanese Americans and took all of
their property.
As regretable as that episode was in our history, do you have any other idea
on how a country might protect itself from active invaders?
I am not saying it is right, I am only saying it can be justifiable given
certain other events. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight does nothing to calm
the nerves of today, it only sooths the feathers tomorrow.
And, taking a woman aside to ask her some questions is a far cry from
throwing her into a camp and confiscating her belongings and keeping her
from ever talking to her family again. Surely there is a middle ground
between being invaded and throwing everybody that looks like an invader into
jail, and that middle ground might very well look like asking an otherwise
innocent person just how innocent they are.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:25:04 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
As regretable as that episode was in our history, do you have any other idea
on how a country might protect itself from active invaders?
I am not saying it is right, I am only saying it can be justifiable given
certain other events. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight does nothing to calm
the nerves of today, it only sooths the feathers tomorrow.
And, taking a woman aside to ask her some questions is a far cry from
throwing her into a camp and confiscating her belongings and keeping her
from ever talking to her family again. Surely there is a middle ground
between being invaded and throwing everybody that looks like an invader into
jail, and that middle ground might very well look like asking an otherwise
innocent person just how innocent they are.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemller
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits
|
| |
| |
As regretable as that episode was in our history, do you have any other
idea
on how a country might protect itself from active invaders?
Do what it's done for CENTURIES.
911 did NOT change our country. It did NOT remove any civil rights.
3000 people died. This threat is NOT NEW and DOES NOT justify destroying our
countries ideals.
I am not saying it is right, I am only saying it can be justifiable given
certain other events. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight does nothing to
calm
the nerves of today, it only sooths the feathers tomorrow.
And, taking a woman aside to ask her some questions is a far cry from
throwing her into a camp and confiscating her belongings and keeping her
from ever talking to her family again. Surely there is a middle ground
between being invaded and throwing everybody that looks like an invader
into
jail, and that middle ground might very well look like asking an otherwise
innocent person just how innocent they are.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:25:04 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemller
Very good.
Too many people have trouble seeing themselves in others.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:25:04 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
As regretable as that episode was in our history, do you have any other
idea on how a country might protect itself from active invaders?
I am not saying it is right, I am only saying it can be justifiable given
certain other events. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight does nothing to
calm the nerves of today, it only sooths the feathers tomorrow.
Not a single Japanese American was ever charged let alone convicted of
espionage or treason. Not one of the many thousands. Nor did the U.S.
ever reimburse them for the theft of their property.
No government can ever justify violating the legal rights of its citizens
for perceived safety. All manner of horrors soon ensues.
And, taking a woman aside to ask her some questions is a far cry from
throwing her into a camp and confiscating her belongings and keeping her
from ever talking to her family again. Surely there is a middle ground
between being invaded and throwing everybody that looks like an invader
into jail, and that middle ground might very well look like asking an
otherwise innocent person just how innocent they are.
That is true however there is a legal requirement of "Probable Cause"
before any citizen can be searched. It's in the Constitution, look under
4th Amendment.
-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:01:22 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<beerman@yahoo.com> in misc.legal, wrote the following:
She belongs to a group that has declared war on America, and while it is
certainly true that everybody that is part of that group is not at war with
us, we can't tell which ones are at war and which ones are not.
Last I checked, Islam itself had not declared war on the United States,
just al-Qaeda, an organisation which, as almost any practicing Muslim
will tell you, does not uphold the actual tenets of Islam or the Q'uran.
As the 9/11 Commission succinctly put it:
"The enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of
Islam. The enemy goes beyond al Qaeda to include the radical ideological
movement, inspired in part by al Qaeda, that has spawned other terrorist
groups and violence. Thus our strategy must match our means to two ends:
dismantling the al Qaeda network and, in the long term, prevailing over
the ideology that contributes to Islamist terrorism."
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-07222004-335667.html
September 11 Executive Summary - Recommendations
B2000
|
| |
| |
Not a single Japanese American was ever charged let alone convicted of
espionage or treason. Not one of the many thousands. Nor did the U.S.
ever reimburse them for the theft of their property.
In 1988, the U.S. Congress passed legislation which awarded formal payments
of $20,000 each to the surviving internees-60,000 in all. This same year,
formal apologies were also issued by the government of Canada to Japanese
Canadian survivors, who were each repaid the sum of $21,000 Canadian
dollars.
--
John Goulden
|
| |
| |
Not a single Japanese American was ever charged let alone convicted of
espionage or treason. Not one of the many thousands. Nor did the U.S.
ever reimburse them for the theft of their property.
In 1988, the U.S. Congress passed legislation which awarded formal
payments
of $20,000 each to the surviving internees-60,000 in all. This same year,
formal apologies were also issued by the government of Canada to Japanese
Canadian survivors, who were each repaid the sum of $21,000 Canadian
dollars.
I doubt $20,000 covered the property taken from all internees. Some lost
businesses, homes, and property.
|
| |
| |
I can't recall ever hearing either the Japanese people or the Japanese
government apologising for attacking America. Perhaps I missed it. I was
pretty young at the time.
Des
Not a single Japanese American was ever charged let alone convicted of
espionage or treason. Not one of the many thousands. Nor did the U.S.
ever reimburse them for the theft of their property.
In 1988, the U.S. Congress passed legislation which awarded formal
payments
of $20,000 each to the surviving internees-60,000 in all. This same year,
formal apologies were also issued by the government of Canada to Japanese
Canadian survivors, who were each repaid the sum of $21,000 Canadian
dollars.
--
John Goulden
|
| |
| |
As much as I regret the experience of the person writing the story, I feel
better knowing that she is not packing a bomb in her backpack.
She belongs to a group that has declared war on America,
Keep in mind that 'group' considers itself to have been
under attack by America for more than half a century.
Helps keep things in perspective.
and while it is
certainly true that everybody that is part of that group is not at war
with
us, we can't tell which ones are at war and which ones are not.
Unfortunately, sometimes a few good apples get mixed up in the basket full
of bad ones. We have to check the good ones to be sure they are good, or
the
entire basket gets tossed out on the assumption it is entirely bad. Would
she rather be tossed out, or checked to be sure she is one of the good
apples?
|
| |
| |
Keep in mind that 'group' considers itself to have been
under attack by America for more than half a century.
Helps keep things in perspective.
Howard,
What if there had been a bomb? Perspective arises in the situation one is
in. If everyone feels attacked then we all need to be very careful. The
day may come when we, in America, may have to do much the same thing. Have
you gone to Canada lately? It's probably arriving. Norma
|
| |
| |
idea
Do what it's done for CENTURIES.
That IS what has been done for centuries. People that are of the same
background as the enemy have been rounded up and held until it could be
ascertained that they in fact were not an enemy.
911 did NOT change our country. It did NOT remove any civil rights.
3000 people died. This threat is NOT NEW and DOES NOT justify destroying
our
countries ideals.
But it did rasie questions on who among us is a friend or foe. It is fair to
ask a person if they are friend or foe. It is not fair to round people up
that look like foe and throw them in jail, as what happened for centuries
before Americans rounded up the Japanese.
And you meant "country's ideals."
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 18:25:04 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Not a single Japanese American was ever charged let alone convicted of
espionage or treason. Not one of the many thousands. Nor did the U.S.
ever reimburse them for the theft of their property.
That is a serious problem, they suffered a loss of property and possessions
without compensation. There is no argument there.
The only position I am forwarding here is that there is an enemy, and there
are people that are known to be of the same citizenship as that enemy, but
it is not clear that they share the hate of the enemy. It is reasonable to
find out if they share that hate or not.
No government can ever justify violating the legal rights of its citizens
for perceived safety. All manner of horrors soon ensues.
That is true however there is a legal requirement of "Probable Cause"
before any citizen can be searched. It's in the Constitution, look under
4th Amendment.
But, doesn't that probable cause exist when people (private citizens) are
concerned for their safety because the garb of a "suspicious" person
provides a place to hide things that can kill those citizens? If I called
the cops and said that a person was acting odd, even if I was paranoid and
the person was not actually acting odd, then those cops have a duty to
question that person to ascertain what real threat they present to paranoid
jerks like me. What if I called the cops, and the cops did nothing, and it
turns out those robes were packed with explosives? In this case, the cops
would have failed their duty to protect me and you, and what would you be
screaming about them in that case?
All we are debating here is the ability of police to question somebody that
gives rise to concern among other people. The police did not detain the
woman we are talking about. She was not jailed. She was not deported. She
was only asked to step aside and answer a few questions. Perhaps we are
paranoid now more than before 9/11, but if so it is because of her own
countrymen. Sorry for her inconvenience, but at this point that is all it
is, inconvenience.
Americans in her native country are beheaded for the same thing she did -
nothing. Let's get a little bit of focus here, people.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 16:01:22 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<beerman@yahoo.com> in misc.legal, wrote the following:
Last I checked, Islam itself had not declared war on the United States,
just al-Qaeda, an organisation which, as almost any practicing Muslim
will tell you, does not uphold the actual tenets of Islam or the Q'uran.
You are absolutely correct. The question I have for yous is, can you tell a
radical muslim extremist that is out to destroy your way of life from an
"ordinary" muslim that wants to share your way of life?
I can't tell them apart, except by their actions. If I thought there was a
threat, for whatever rerason, I would demand that threat be investigated
fully. If that meant taking a woman aside for questioning, then so be it.
You must remember, the police did not simply detain this woman for no good
reason, there were passengers on the train that were alarmed by something
she was doing. Perhaps those passengers werer paranoid and she was dong
nothing, it is the passengers that alerted the police to her. In this case
the police have no choice but to talk to the woman. That is their job.
As the 9/11 Commission succinctly put it:
"The enemy is not Islam, the great world faith, but a perversion of
Islam. The enemy goes beyond al Qaeda to include the radical ideological
movement, inspired in part by al Qaeda, that has spawned other terrorist
groups and violence. Thus our strategy must match our means to two ends:
dismantling the al Qaeda network and, in the long term, prevailing over
the ideology that contributes to Islamist terrorism."
Correct, the enemy is not Islam. But the enemy is Islamic, and it is not
possible to ascertain which Islamists are the enemy, and which are not, just
by looking. Sometimes it requires an interview to make that determination.
You can talk of the long term solutions, but police interviews are to be
expected in the short term if for no other reason than to prevent another
attack on innocent civilians in our own country that are only trying to get
to work and home again.
|
| |
| |
Keep in mind that 'group' considers itself to have been
under attack by America for more than half a century.
They do not claim to be under atttack by America, they claim to be under
attack by MTV, that's different. I too am under attack by MTV, but I change
the channel I do not hijack planes and fly them into symbolic buildings.
It isn't the American political system, hense the government, that has them
up in arms. It is the western culture that is invading them, and polluting
their young. It is the freedoms we have that they do not have and do not
want their society to have, but which their society looks to with longing.
In a universe of haves and have nots, the have nots want what the haves
have. Islam attempts to keep the have nots not having, America is symbolic
of the ideal that the have nots can have. This is the attack that they have
endured for 50 years.
Yes, it helps to keep things in perspective.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 00:05:06 -0700, Curly Surmudgeon
<curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
I am not saying it is right, I am only saying it can be justifiable given
certain other events. Looking back with 20/20 hindsight does nothing to
calm the nerves of today, it only sooths the feathers tomorrow.
Not a single Japanese American was ever charged let alone convicted of
espionage or treason. Not one of the many thousands. Nor did the U.S.
ever reimburse them for the theft of their property.
I have to correct you on this point, though I agree with you in
general
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_Internment
In 1980, under Jimmy Carter, a commission was established
by Congress to study their matter. The ideological biases of
this commission has been questioned by some, with 40% of
the commission staff being of Japanese descent, some with
vested financial interests. The commission's refusal to address
non-Japanese internment/relocation also weighed on their
impartiality. On February 24, 1983, they issued a report
entitled Personal Justice Denied condeming the internment.
These conclusions largely having become accepted, President
Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which
provided redress of $20,000 for each surviving detainee,
totalling $1.2 billion dollars. Despite congressional cries to
individually determine worth, this was a straight dole, and
included about 3,500 Japanese who had renounced their
citizenship during the war and asked to be returned to Japan,
and hundreds who live in Japan today and have virtually no
connection to the United States.
On September 27 1992: PL 102-371 (H.R. 4551) the
Amendment of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, and an
additional $400 million in benefits was signed into law by
President George H. W. Bush, who also issued another formal
apology from the U.S. government.
No government can ever justify violating the legal rights of its citizens
for perceived safety. All manner of horrors soon ensues.
I agree about that.
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits
|
| |
| |
As good a reason as any...
Letter To the editor Published:
Monday, August 09, 2004 - 10:49:28 AM EST
www.sentinelandenterprise.com
Fitchburg woman says she was targeted because of Muslim headscarf
To the editor:
Up until recently I was confident riding the MBTA,
despite my wearing the "hijab," a traditional Muslim
headscarf. However, during a trip to Tufts University
for my first college midterm, I was confronted another
first: racial profiling.
I was on the train looking over notes for an exam when
the train stopped at the North Leominster Station.
Walking down the middle aisle were a couple of
Leominster police officers who asked me to step off the
train, hand over my backpack, and show identification.
This was no random check. I had been pinpointed
specifically because of the way I appeared. My hijab
supposedly made me a threat to someone.
I was told by the very respectful police officers that
a concerned passenger had reported "suspicious
behavior" (me), and that even though they saw nothing
suspicious themselves the officers still had to take
necessary precautions, which was perfectly
understandable.
After the check was over, the policeman who sensed I
was upset attempted to comfort me by explaining that
most people do not know any better. Although it was an
honest effort on the part of the policeman, it didn't
comfort me at all.
The good samaritan who called in "scared" was so afraid
for his/her life that (s)he remained on the train and
called in, instead of refusing to board the train in
Fitchburg until I was checked.
Can any person cry wolf and have the police immediately
come? Do people realize that even without a headscarf,
I still am just as Muslim?
These questions are just some of the things the public
overlooks when it comes to acts of security. I
overlooked these issues also, until it happened to me.
I ask readers to seriously think about my story and ask
yourself, "Do I want to be next?"
Hala Saadeh
Fitchburg, MA
1999-2004 MediaNews Group, Inc. and Mid-States
Newspapers, Inc.
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
|
| |
| |
That, also, was a good plan...
with
the
You belong to the group that imprisoned Japanese Americans and took all of
their property.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Jeff Strickland wrote:
You must remember, the police did not simply detain this woman for no
good reason, there were passengers on the train that were alarmed by
something she was doing.
Yeah...being brown of skin and covered of head.
|
| |
| |
In article <10i7e8ro4sdma19@corp.supernews.com>, "Jeff Strickland"
<beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Curly Surmudgeon" <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message
That is true however there is a legal requirement of "Probable Cause"
before any citizen can be searched. It's in the Constitution, look
under 4th Amendment.
But, doesn't that probable cause exist when people (private citizens) are
concerned for their safety because the garb of a "suspicious" person
provides a place to hide things that can kill those citizens?
Nope.
If I pulled a cop aside in a bus terminal and said your suitcase was
making me nervous because you could have a weapon in it, he would need
more than your nervousness to subject me to a search.
If I called
the cops and said that a person was acting odd, even if I was paranoid
and the person was not actually acting odd, then those cops have a duty to
question that person to ascertain what real threat they present to
paranoid jerks like me.
Questioning is different than searching.
|
| |
| |
In article <10i7e8ro4sdma19@corp.supernews.com>, "Jeff Strickland"
<beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
That is true however there is a legal requirement of "Probable Cause"
before any citizen can be searched. It's in the Constitution, look
under 4th Amendment.
Nope.
If I pulled a cop aside in a bus terminal and said your suitcase was
making me nervous because you could have a weapon in it, he would need
more than your nervousness to subject me to a search.
We can only hope that because you alerted the cops of me, they would search
me and not you ...
If I called
the cops and said that a person was acting odd, even if I was paranoid
and the person was not actually acting odd, then those cops have a duty
to
question that person to ascertain what real threat they present to
paranoid jerks like me.
Questioning is different than searching.
Did you bother to read the original complaint, the woman was questioned? She
said she was questioned because she is Muslim and wearing traditional
clothing of female Muslims, long dress, head dress, and so on.
Given the account of the Muslim woman, I think what happened is reasonable.
It is certainly not alarming, and doesn't even begin to approach anything
that could be construed as a violation of her rights. It is sad that people
on a train would feel threatened for any reason, but they apparently felt
some discomfort from this woman. The reaction of the police was not
unreasonable, although perhaps the reaction of the train passengers was.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Yeah...being brown of skin and covered of head.
Perhaps it was that silly, we do not know. Perhaps there was something more
sinister that the woman was doing that she thinks is entirely normal. All we
really know is that the cops didn't pick on her for no reason, somebody felt
concern that they forwarded to the authorities. Had there been no concern
from another passenger, even the Muslim woman says the police would not have
bothered her.
The fault, if that is the right word, lies with the passenger(s) that called
the police. The police appear to have acted properly given the account of
the Muslim woman.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Jeff Strickland wrote:
You must remember, the police did not simply detain this woman for no
good reason, there were passengers on the train that were alarmed by
something she was doing.
Yeah...being brown of skin and covered of head.
Perhaps it was that silly, we do not know.
Riiight. This college student en route to take a midterm exam was engaging
in suspicious cramming with a suspicious textbook.
Sure.
The fault, if that is the right word, lies with the passenger(s) that called
the police.
No debate here.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Jeff Strickland wrote:
You must remember, the police did not simply detain this woman for
no
good reason, there were passengers on the train that were alarmed by
something she was doing.
Yeah...being brown of skin and covered of head.
Riiight. This college student en route to take a midterm exam was engaging
in suspicious cramming with a suspicious textbook.
Sure.
We simply don't know. 19 Muslim men boarding 4 different airplanes carrying
box cutters seemed perfectly normal on the morning of September 11, 2001.
Who would have thought that by noon on that day, the entire world would be a
different place, all for a dozen and a half box cutters. Now you and I can't
get on a plane with fingernail clippers in our pocket.
The fault, if that is the right word, lies with the passenger(s) that
called
the police.
No debate here.
|
| |
| |
Troll
That, also, was a good plan...
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Riiight. This college student en route to take a midterm exam was
engaging in suspicious cramming with a suspicious textbook. Sure.
We simply don't know.
The only people who "don't know" are those willfully cultivating and
maintaining blind spots.
|
| |
| |
In article <10i7kkufgsi642@corp.supernews.com>, "Jeff Strickland"
<beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
We can only hope that because you alerted the cops of me, they would
search me and not you ...
I was talking on the phone when I wrote that so it got a bit confused
but I trust you get the general point.
Merely being in possession of something that can conceal a weapon
doesn't give rise to probable cause for the police to search it.
Questioning is different than searching.
Did you bother to read the original complaint, the woman was questioned?
She said she was questioned because she is Muslim and wearing traditional
clothing of female Muslims, long dress, head dress, and so on.
Given the account of the Muslim woman, I think what happened is
reasonable.
I don't. Merely dressing like a Muslim, absent any other evidence,
shouldn't be a reasonable trigger to make someone nervous. If it does,
then that person has psychological problems and law abiding citizens
shouldn't be required to subject themselves to the fanciful paranoia of
those around them.
It is certainly not alarming, and doesn't even begin to approach anything
that could be construed as a violation of her rights. It is sad that
people on a train would feel threatened for any reason, but they apparently felt
some discomfort from this woman.
I work in federal law enforcement and we take dozens of calls every day
from people who are worked up merely because they saw someone walk down
the street "looking Muslim".
It doesn't rise to level of probable cause and subjecting these people
to constant questioning and/or searches merely because some paranoid
idiot feels "nervous" is unwarranted.
Let me ask you this-- if someone called the FBI and said the family that
lives next door to them is Muslim and they make him "nervous", should
that family be required to let the FBI search their home based on only
that nervous neighbor's "feeling"?
The reaction of the police was not unreasonable, although
perhaps the reaction of the train passengers was.
The police should have questioned the passenger further and determined
the reason for his "nervousness". If he can't provide any other more
tangible reason (like furtive behavior, wires glimpsed under the
clothing, etc.), then it's not enough to bother people over.
|
| |
| |
In article <10i7kslag7u6nb3@corp.supernews.com>, "Jeff Strickland"
<beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps it was that silly, we do not know. Perhaps there was something
more sinister that the woman was doing that she thinks is entirely normal.
If it's entirely normal, then it can't be sinister, now can it?
The fault, if that is the right word, lies with the passenger(s) that
called the police. The police appear to have acted properly given
the account of the Muslim woman.
No, not really. Cops don't search other non-Muslims based on nothing
more than a report of nervousness from other passengers. They question
the passenger more thoroughly first to determine if there's any
concrete, rational reason for the passenger's nervousness.
|
| |
