Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (9078)	11/5/2001 10:49:40 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I don't know what "uncooperative" means, to them. The implication is that she wouldn't stand still to let them scan her. Why wouldn't she, though? I don't know whether she was told, as she says, that her "name was flagged on the computer," because they deny that it was. Somehow the scenario as my imagination and life-experience sees it, is not that she was just seized with the desire to wiggle around and refused to be scanned for no reason at all, but that she was indeed told that her name was flagged on the computer, and the extra screening made her indignant, so she resisted it. She wouldn't let them "touch" her with the wand? Why the hell not, is she the Queen of England? She was clearly angry and making a scene about the security measures she was being subjected to. The National Guardsman grabbing her by the arm and asking her, given her attitude toward the security process (I don't think he knew a thing about her work) didn't she know what had happened on September 11 doesn't seem outrageous to me, it seems human. I would have felt like yelling it at her myself if i'd been an onlooker watching her make a fuss about the wand. It doesn't make sense for her to resist being scanned unless she was, indeed, getting unusual attention, and it also makes sense to me that she was making a big issue of it in a very tense situation. The important question, though, imo, isn't whether there was hand on her, or whether she resisted security. It is how and why and if she was profiled. I notice this in the article from the Bangor Daily News: bangornews.com While an FBI spokeswoman would neither confirm nor deny the presence of any name on the terrorist watch list — another trigger for added security response — one law enforcement source said it was “extremely unlikely” Oden was on the list of potential terrorists because her name is unknown to the FBI. BTW, it also says in that article, While industry officials were unwilling to release the criteria under which they would profile a passenger, they said the criteria did not include federally protected characteristics such as race, religion, age or sex. Does this mean that young middle eastern male passengers with a high relative probability of being Muslims are not profiled for extra scrutiny? That is, if true, insane. IMO.