check your mirror

[kater]

I have been trained to listen.

I had the distinct displeasure of having a supervisor give me a link to a Fox network show "Freedom Watch" video entitled "Man detained and harassed at airport for carrying cash."  Forgive me for not knowing the names of any of the gentlemen in suits.  I don't watch tv and they aren't wearing name tags.  Fox network spliced up the 25-minute audio into a little over 1-minute sound byte to make it sound like just TSA personnel are "interrogating," but if you listen to the whole audio cut, as I have, you will hear that TSA (which actually means Transportation Security Administration, not safety) stops their questioning and calls in the Missouri police.  Ninety percent of this takes place between a single police officer and the passenger....not with the TSO (that is, Transportation Security Officer).

I can hear the sound of metal detectors in the background, as well as the sound made by luggage on the rollers exiting the x-ray machines.  This conversation took place in a private screening room, located on or adjacent to the checkpoint, specifically designed for passenger privacy.
I can hear that there is one passenger in the room.
I can hear that there are two voices belonging to Transportation Security Officers, of unknown rank.
I can hear that there is one Missouri police officer in the room, who communicates to dispatch via radio.

A man comes through the security checkpoint in St. Louis with a metal box in his carry-on.  The metal box is removed from the carry-on for additional inspection and the TSO sees a large amount of money inside.  For the safety of the passenger and his belongings, the TSO is required to ask if the passenger would like to continue in a private screening room.  The private screening room is indeed "windowless," thus also rendering it "private," which is out of the public eye.  The TSO is required to take a supervisor into the private screening room.  Once in the private screening room, the passenger refuses to answer questions about the amount and origin of the cash.  Although it is not illegal to carry cash on an airplane, large amounts are considered suspicious and worthy of a second look.  Since the passenger refused to divulge how much cash was there, that made him look more suspicious.  The passenger refused to answer questions about his business in St. Louis, or why he was traveling with the cash to Virginia.  He would not answer whether the cash was his or not.  That is also suspicious.  Why do they want to know?  Well, they bring up the DEA.  That is a big fat clue.  I determined that they think he was selling or smuggling drugs....which is an illegal activity.

The Missouri police officer contacted dispatch to determine if the passenger had a criminal record.  While waiting on the report, a further investigation of his belongings ensued.  Once they discovered checks, pamphlets, and other merchandise from the political organization "Campaign for Liberty," it was determined that he did not present a threat to the aircraft.  Only AFTER the TSOs and Missouri police found all of this other stuff, did the passenger finally decide to answer some questions.  Ultimately, a three-minute discussion would have stopped this whole 30-minute escapade.  Dispatch reported a negative outcome on his criminal record check and the passenger was told he was free to go.  The TSO then followed proper procedure in contacting his Screening Manager - the man that the Fox network dubbed the "plainclothes agent."  

The passenger repeatedly refused to answer questions....stating, "Am I legally required to answer the question?"  It is not my place to interpret Missouri law from here, but I can safely say that it would have been a lot easier on him to just answer about the campaign contributions...or sales, whatever he wants to call it.  He had no problem announcing his activities to the nation at large, but he couldn't do it in private.  Hm.  That makes it more suspicious after the fact.  As a matter of fact, the last words recorded by the passenger, spoken to an unknown companion as he left the private screening room, were, "That, sir, is damn good recording right there."  Sounds to me like it was planned.  

After playing this doctored clip for the masses, without distinguishing who was doing the bulk of the interrogating...and placing all blame squarely on the shoulders of the TSA, the Fox network show's host goes on to state that the passenger was arrested, and ultimately "a plainclothes agent" appeared and magically made all the problems go away.  False.  The passenger was never placed under arrest.  He was never threatened with arrest.  He was told that due to his uncooperative attitude, he could be detained at the police station for further questioning if necessary.  Because of the passenger's continued feigned ignorance, he was also threatened with a pair of handcuffs, should he decide not to walk to the station of his own will.  The passenger was free to go mere minutes after the criminal record check was completed.  The host of this Fox network show then went on to say, "Put his [the passenger's] picture back up there."  A rich old white guy in a suit puts up a picture of a young white guy in a suit and has the audacity to ask, "Does he look like a terrorist to you?  I mean, does he look dangerous?  Come on!" 

There is a messy legal term for looking at someone and determining if that person is a threat: "profiling."  The Transportation Security Administration has specific training regarding its anti-profiling policies.  It does not appear that the Fox network has such anti-profiling policies, as demonstrated by the words and actions blatantly displayed on this show.  The Fox network clearly panders to an audience that wants to think it is being persecuted by some unneeded bureaucratic agency.  So, to the people of Fox network and the writers and staff of "Freedom Watch": show me the face of a terrorist.  Can you recognize a terrorist?  You have to be able to show this terrorist face without incriminating any race, any religion, any sex, any age, any income level....can you do it?  I bet not.  Because there is no "face of terrorism," TSOs every day face unknown and unknowable threats, from basically harmless, yet spiteful passengers looking for a fight to the very real and continued threats that go unsung and unseen by the public.  

I am secure in my training and my beliefs.  You want to see the face of a terrorist?  Check your mirror.  I don't trust anyone.

[genxmomma]

Apr. 7, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Great journal entry and thanks for all of your hard work!  Fox News sucks. 

[sophie_sue24]

Apr. 8, 2009 at 11:17 AM

What a absolutey superb journal!   I don't trust anyone either,  anyone could be dangerous.  

I was watching a TV show (I think it was the homeland security show) where a middle eastern couple was detained after finding close to 60 thousand dollars on thier person and in their belongings.   They were heavily questioned.  I'm sorry I don't remember the outcome. 

In anycase,  its not just fox news.  After this past election and all the crap that was misportrayed by ALL news agencies,  I don't trust any of them.  

I would rather be uninformed than misinformed.   I still read some news online,  but i take each article with a grain of salt....and I never believe all of anything i read.