Do you know someone who prefers to wear saris everywhere? One of my aunts wore a sari every day to work in downtown Los Angeles and post-retirement, I hear that she’s only been spotted in non-sari clothes while attending a local yoga class. When I heard about the new federal guidelines for screening air travel passengers, I wondered how she might fare and feel if she’s chosen for an enhanced pat-down at an airport the next time she travels to Georgia to visit her daughter and family.
Mississippi is not Georgia, but Indian Ambassador Meera Shankar’s recent pat-down experience at a Mississippi airport which had no body scanners may shed some light on what it’s like across the U.S. under the new federal guidelines for women who wear saris while traveling (WWWSWT). I suppose WWWSWT could include any of us who wear saris if you’re on a really tight schedule and flying to or from a wedding, for example. But I’m guessing they are more likely to be women like my aunt who simply prefer to wear saris all the time.
WWWSWT also includes India’s current ambassador to the U.S. She’s used to being treated differently in daily life due to her diplomat status. As India’s foreign minister S.M. Krishna stated, there are “certain well-established conventions, well-established practices, as to how members of the diplomatic corps are treated in a given country.”
But at Jackson-Evers International, the airport officers didn’t single out Shankar, 60, for being a diplomat. They singled her out for wearing a sari.
Shankar apparently was selected for enhanced screening, even though she did not set of the airport’s metal detectors. Witnesses tell the Clarion-Ledger security agents told Shankar she was singled out because she was wearing a sari, which the paper notes is as “a traditional Indian robe that is draped across the body.” (USA Today)
Though Shankar hasn’t officially said anything yet, her Mississippi
university hosts described her as humiliated and saying “I will never
come back here.” Perhaps like the mutineer who called this incident Draupadi-gate, you recalled the attempted stripping of Draupadi in the Mahabharata when you heard about the ambassador’s pat-down.
In the Mahabharata, the divine hero Krishna protected Draupadi from humiliation by continuously extending her sari so that she could not be completely disrobed. In this news story out of Mississippi, the ambassador was not made to disrobe or partially disrobe to facilitate an enhanced pat-down. She wasn’t given much privacy either, despite her request for a private screening.
The guidelines also allow searches to be conducted in private if a passenger requests. Witnesses said Shankar asked for a private screening, but she was led to a clear box where two officers searched her in clear view.
“She is a very strong woman, but you could see in her face that she was humiliated,” Tsai said. “The Indian culture is very modest.”(Clarion-Ledger)
Krishna, the Indian foreign minister, called the incident “unacceptable” and vowed to “take it up with the government of the United States so that such unpleasant incidents do not recur.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed “concern” over the search and Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano said the search was “by the book”–neither apologized. (BBC) Should they have apologized?
The airport involved did not have the new body scanners available so that option was out for the ambassador. But a clear box hardly sounds private enough for anyone uncomfortable enough to request a private search. And if simply wearing a sari is going to trigger a serious full-body pat-down, then an actual private option should be offered, as it should be to anyone requesting a private search.
TSA spokesman Nicholas Kimball says that less than 3 percent of passengers receive a pat-down, and he noted that “bulky clothing” among other factors could prompt a pat-down (Washington Post). Have you worn a sari through airport security recently? I haven’t, and I’m unlikely to do so. But I’ll admit that I drove instead of taking a flight two weeks ago when I visited my parents partly to avoid the blue-gloved pat-down possibility–time constraints won’t allow me to drive every time, though.
Previous pat-downs: Some reports mention that this is the second time in three months that Shankar has been singled out for a pat-down. Also, Kunjun reminded me of Continental Airlines’ frisking of former Indian President A P J Abdul Kalam last year before he boarded his flight to Newark. The airline did not find the president exempt from its policies, and it didn’t sound like Kalam minded much.
So not-surprised at her saying “I will never come back here.”
This would be considered as RAPE in Sweden.
The alternative to not being 100% thorough about security is fire ball hurtling towards towards earth at light speed. All of this is protect us not some one else, is it?
One item that didn’t make it into any of the news stories was that a TSA official, Anna Dushas, tried removing Shankar’s sari before her supervisor, Kris (we only know her first name), intervened.
I hope Hillary is frisked the same way in New Delhi. Though I pity the security person who has to do it. Even Bill doesn’t want touch her.
Exactly, they should frisk a US female diplomat – so that they can see what it’s like. Maybe then they might go so far as to extend an apology or at least take it a bit more seriously. Until India starts to stand up for itself on the international stage , noone is going to take them seriously. I struggle with why Indians don’t understand this simple concept.
I wonder if women wearing burquas are asked to “please remove your coat and hat.”
I can’t believe in this day & age discrimination is still happening. Like honestly first it was the turban and now its the sari. Ridiculous.
“One item that didn’t make it into any of the news stories was that a TSA official, Anna Dushas, tried removing Shankar’s sari before her supervisor, Kris (we only know her first name), intervened.”
^I found that a lot funnier than I should have.
I can’t take credit for this line, but isn’t “I will never come back here” the Mississippi state motto?
The complaints of ordinary people have often been left without any response but if a diplomat is humiliated by these new devices the government immediately starts to deal with the matter. Let’s hope the growing number of similar cases will force the authorities to reconsider the measures imposed at the airports.
Perhaps India should indulge in a not-too-gentle frisking of American visitors and diplomats, similar to the manner in which Brazil began fingerprinting and taking photographs of arriving American citizens in a tit-for-tat response.
Can someone please tell me what exactly should have been the protocol. Here are the options I see and all of them have problems in my opinion.
As much as Janet Napolitano defends this, this is the result of a bad policy.
While this is indeed an unfortunate incident, Ambassador Shankar, bears some of the blame (perhaps even most of it, which is why the indian government initially suppressed the story). Yes, the TSA staff should have been more sensitive–no question–but all Ms. Shankar had to do was make a call to the state department to confirm her clearance, but because she did not want to miss her flight, she proceeded with the pat down. An ambassador of any country cannot merely consider her interests (“omg i don’t want to miss the flight, how dreadful”), she must also consider national indignity (a sitting Indian ambassador to that country allowed herself to be patted down in spite of diplomatic protocol). This also isn’t the first time an Indian Ambassador elected the path of the epic fail (i promised myself i wouldn’t use this phrase last decade, but it just works here). The indian ambassador to china was summoned past midnight some time ago (a calculated chinese diplomatic snub as it was for no reason other than to express displeasure rather than contain a crisis), and instead of arriving the next morning during normal business hours (as protocol would dictate) she arrived at 2am–humiliating both herself and her country. Diplomacy is part PR, and it makes it look like a country is willing to be pushed around if its diplomats are so easily pushed around or willing to humiliate themselves. Then again, with manmohan singh and a dubious head of the extra-constitutional National Advisory Council in power, I suppose it’s nothing new for upa governed “new india.”
Additionally, going back to Amb. Shankar, in spite of the police escort she had, security has to anticipate the next move not the last one and be wary of impersonations. Yes, she obviously was well over the upper age threshold for the profile, but in pointing that out are we not tacitly encouraging the very profiling this site and its readers decry in general, or at least regarding the sari?
Obviously every desi male here has had his fair share of “random” checks, but the Indian government needs to start taking responsibility too. I think a good first step would be for the Indian ministry of external affairs to get its act together and ensure that ambassadors observe established protocol–even if that means minor inconvenience.
“Can someone please tell me what exactly should have been the protocol”
Everyone should be patted down. National Security is a compelling governmental interest so its not an unreasonable search and seizure.
Terrorists have been known to use babies so kidz are included. They’re always crying anyway so who cares? Patting down everyone is better than profiling since its safer…ie most terrorists are brown males but not all. More importantly, it stands to reason that the evildoers will recruit a white females like Lynn Stewert, so gotta stay ahead of the curve.
Plus, by restricting everyone’s movement the policy has no equal protection issues. Obama has managed to be more draconian then bush while simultaneously overlapping less with racism. Another brilliantly nuanced move by my man Bam.
Politically its a good move too. RWingers have took the bait and are pushing a libertarian purist agenda, which makes them look unserious. liberal dems generally don’t care enough about civil liberties to makes a stink, particularly when a dem is in charge, as tuskeegee, the internment, jim crow, aptly demonstrates. What gets them to rebel is not raising taxes on the rich, even though its a basic Keynesian rule since FDR’s tax hike blunder to not raise taxes during a recession or weak recovery. What a bunch they are.
Loser’s too. So this postion’s Obama in ’12 with Palin to the right of him and the loser autoritarian-on-all-the-wrong-issues progressives to the left.
“This would be considered as RAPE in Sweden.”
They patted her down while she was sleeping?
Utter BS. There is no special diplomatic protocol for the TSA. Diplomats, like everybody else, can be selected for any level of screening. The outrage is because Indian VIPs want the Indian salaam culture to be exported wherever they go, and I see no reason why it should be. Absolutely no reason she should not have been patted down. Well before the latest round of procedures, TSA had guidelines for diplomats which pretty much put them through the same paces as everybody else.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/88310.pdf
More BS that misstates both diplomatic protocol and the actual details of the situation.
http://books.google.com/books?id=YjEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=indian+ambassador+to+china+summoned+2+am&source=bl&ots=h_BK6lHiZr&sig=RtFl0sawyKxE2q5kxQYfjmH6Sus&hl=en&ei=HVcFTerrDYL78AbIwaXnAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=indian%20ambassador%20to%20china%20summoned%202%20am&f=false
Looks like more of Wry’s thread jacking for his usual Congress bashing hackery.
Umm. what’s utter BS, girish? Diplomatic protocol not= to screening policy. No one is denying that all diplomats should pass through basic screening, metal detectors, etc. The point was whether the Ambassador (an exceedingly high level diplomat and direct representative from one country to another) should have subjected herself to an exceedingly invasive pat down–something that can be rectified (pun so not intended) by a call to the state dept. The document you posted doesn’t account for that–and neither does the policy (which is being reviewed).
No one is denying the ridiculous vvvvvvvip culture in India (wherein an assistant deputy secretary intern of rahul gandhi’s fitness regimen gets automatic clearance), which must be curtailed. But reasonable minds should be able to distinguish between that and a diplomatic faux pas. Perhaps you should learn to do the same.
Girish, dude. Given the current scandals plaguing your babysitter in chief’s administration, perhaps now might be an appropriate time to detach your lips from their posteriors:
http://twitter.com/Chellaney/status/12915260553961472
Since you have trouble distinguishing screening policy from diplomatic protocol, let me explain at your appropriate reading level:
brahma chellaney is a security affairs (he looks at power relationships) and international relations specialists (he comments on how countries interact with each other–even diplomatically). he was a scholar at the belfer center @ ksg and a candidate for India’s national security advisor (an important and well informed man)
he remarked that the summoning of India’s ambassador to china past midnight was a violation of diplomatic courtesy ( a snub, diss). she arrived past midnight (lame). chellaney stated 2am, and that’s exactly what i wrote here (you have no valid point).
Comment on the topic here, but by making it about me, you’ve only showed the hollowness of your remarks and reasoning.
Not only did I comment on the topic, I also did so by linking to the opinion of a former foreign secretary, a career diplomat with experience at the highest level, and one appointed as foreign secretary under the bjp administration. Instead, you cling to fig leafs, and the document specifically says that diplomats can be selected for special screening even under the earlier regimen.
Yet another instance of gratuitous Congress bashing trolling. Coz heaven knows that the BJP and their acolytes never ever ever used the power of their throne, and this is an exclusive Gandhi family phenomenon.
This comment reflects perfectly the quality of your intellect. The point is not whether they are “my” babysitter in chief, it is the wrong and gratuitous trollery that I was taking aim at.
And for the record, I have no sympathy for the corruption and sycophancy of the Congress. But I have even lesser sympathy for hackery.
It isn’t trollery to point out facts. Brahma Chellaney is no fig leaf, but an eminent scholar at an eminent think tank. He too is very well connected with the facts and current public figures, which is why I pointed out the relevance of the source I used. More than that, the fact that you completely miss the entire point of the incident–which is that it was a diplomatic humiliation–and were more focused on the trivial question of whether she arrived at 2am (which chellaney states) rather than was summoned at 2am–completely shows your inability to grasp the big issue here and that your main goal is pro-congress trollery rather than meaningful exchange.
“This comment reflects perfectly the quality of your intellect. The point is not whether they are “my” babysitter in chief, it is the wrong and gratuitous trollery that I was taking aim at.”
I made the comment because you were the one talking about my supposed “congress bashing hackery”. We are already aware that you cannot comprehend the difference between diplomatic protocol and tsa screening policy. The question is whether you can understand the relevance of facts:
the ambassador isn’t JUST any other diplomat. Diplomatic protocol between countries permits primary screening. But secondary screening of a sitting ambassador, particular one so invasive as the one here, is a violation of diplomatic norms–irrespective of current tsa policy. This was not even the basic patdown which was listed in the earlier TSA guideline, but well beyond that and not in a private room.
Article from indian express (link provided in initial post but awaiting moderator approval); “Under the diplomatic protocol, ambassador of countries are entitled to expeditious process that does entail primary screening. In this context, the Indian Embassy had already informed the concerned department,†Ashraf told Lu.
“The state (Mississippi State) protocol was also informed that day that the ambassador was travelling and she was escorted by the state protocol.â€
“The ambassador had presented her diplomatic papers but had to undergo the security checks because, as we have been informed, she was wearing a sari,” Ashraf told the American diplomat.
Shankar underwent primary screening but despite that she was subjected to secondary screening as none of the security officials present at the airport had seen someone wearing a saree.”
do you not comprehend any of these basic facts? if so, there is nothing more to be said. but the fact that you zeroed in on my remark about mms in the first post shows you are more dedicated to defending the upa gov than understanding the relevance of these points. The buck stops at the top, whether it’s the pm or even the extraconstitutional head of the nac. they have to take responsibility for how india’s diplomats conduct themselves on foreign soil. that was why i included it in my initial remarks–in case you have trouble understanding that too. and with respect to your remark about whom the vip culture was particular to, the fact that you feel you have to defend a mediocre family-owned party to begin with through jibes at the other national party is emblematic of what passes for intellect on your end. as such, you have amply demonstrated who is the troll and who is not.
” And for the record, I have no sympathy for the corruption and sycophancy of the Congress. But I have even lesser sympathy for hackery.”
methinks the lady doth protest too much…
I think it is interesting she made such a big deal about this, seeing as how people get patted down in India WAY more often than in the U.S. Though I suppose she could just avoid that by being who she is.
Satyajit Wry fail:
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/tsa-defends-screening-of-indian-ambassador/19755537
The TSA, however, said that after looking into what took place, it found that no policies were violated.
“After a review of this passenger’s screening experience, we determined that the TSA officers in Jackson followed proper standard procedure,” agency spokesman Nicholas Kimball said in a statement to AOL News.
Kimball also pointed out that the State Department in 2007 published a special notice from TSA on special security screening procedures for diplomats. The notice says that if diplomats are selected for secondary screening, they should present their credentials and they will be subject to “special procedures.”
The notice doesn’t specify what those procedures are, however.
According to published reports, Shankar presented her diplomatic credentials to TSA officials, though it’s unclear if she was subject to special screening procedures, as stated in the memo. TSA did not respond to follow-up questions about the procedures used.
A spokesman for the Indian Embassy did not return a call from AOL News requesting comment.
The State Department has so far deferred to the TSA on the issue.
“The fact that you’re a diplomat does not necessarily mean that you are not subject to basic screening as is any other passenger on any particular flight,” spokesman P.J. Crowley said at a press briefing Thursday.
I zeroed in on that remark because of its patent hackishness.
The fact that you see everything as an attempt to engage in some hackishness does not mean that everybody else does, and this pathetic response to my comment only underlines your idiot world view. What the UPA’s corruption has to do with Meera Shankar’s patdown is beyond me.
Good god, Girish, you truly are a monumental moron:
“The State Department has so far deferred to the TSA on the issue.
“The fact that you’re a diplomat does not necessarily mean that you are not subject to basic screening as is any other passenger on any particular flight,” spokesman P.J. Crowley said at a press briefing Thursday. “
The primary screening I referred to is the basic screening the spokesman is speaking about. Shankar underwent it as everyone, EVEN the indian MEA, admits she has to undergo. Primary = Basic. Secondary screening is the invasive pat down–and near disrobing–she underwent–which some have even compared to groping. Irrespective of TSA policy, that was in contradiction to diplomatic norms, which is why the MEA is now communicating with the US Mission. Unless in your idiocy you think “basic screening” includes attempts at disrobing (as almost happened here) and full body cavity searches, what was conducted on the ambassador was a secondary search as india’s joint secretary later said.
Because you apparently have some cognitive difficulties, I will type in all caps:
DIPLOMATIC PROTOCOL IS NOT THE SAME AS TSA REGULATION. ONE IS INTERNATIONAL THE OTHER IS NATIONAL.
The US has every right to exert its sovereignty as it sees fit, on its soil, but the point here is about accepted international diplomatic norms. Regulations may have been followed, but that does not mean they do not contravene diplomatic practice. clearly you ignored it the first time, so I will repost in more detail:
“Ministry of External Affairs on Saturday summoned US Deputy Chief of Mission Donald Liu to protest against pat-down search of Indian Ambassador to US Meera Shankar at an airport in Mississippi… Lu was called in by Jawed Ashraf, Joint Secretary (Americas) in the MEA, to convey “strong concern” over screening of Shankar at Jackson airport on December 4…  “Under the diplomatic protocol, ambassador(sic) of countries are entitled to expeditious process that does entail primary screening. In this context, the Indian Embassy had already informed the concerned department,†Ashraf told Lu… The ambassador had presented her diplomatic papers but had to undergo the security checks because, as we have been informed, she was wearing a sari,” Ashraf told the American diplomat. Shankar underwent primary screening but despite that she was subjected to secondary screening as none of the security officials present at the airport had seen someone wearing a saree.”
Additionally, you are contradicted by your own source:
“Kimball also pointed out that the State Department in 2007 published a special notice from TSA on special security screening procedures for diplomats. The notice says that if diplomats are selected for secondary screening, they should present their credentials and they will be subject to “special procedures.”
The TSA was mum about special procedures according to your link, but to any one who reads that, it’s obvious that by presenting credentials they are eligible for special privileges. If “special procedures” was written to mean “full body cavity search” there is no incentive for a diplomat to present credentials. There’s no explanation why a high ranking diplomat here on a diplomatic mission should be subject to even more invasive searches than even the average passenger would during a secondary search. It’s also why the MEA joint secretary complained about secondary screening even after Shankar presented her credentials. And…it’s also why abc news noted this: Â “Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told reporters today that Ambassador Shankar had not followed proper procedure. “We do have protocols in place if there is forewarning before somebody gets to an airport that they have special credentials, that we can work with them on that,” Napolitano said. “But in this particular instance, that protocol had not been utilized.”
you, on the other hand, wrote this:
“Utter BS. There is no special diplomatic protocol for the TSA.” Checkmate
Girish Epic Fail….
“What the UPA’s corruption has to do with Meera Shankar’s patdown is beyond me.”
I brought up corruption after because it’s apparent you’re nothing but a congress toady masquerading as some high minded public editor. But it’s obvious to everyone here that what set you off were my remarks about how accepting national humiliation is part and parcel of the upa government (i didn’t mention corruption in my opening remarks, only in my response to your asinine statements that followed). God you really are dense…clearly, there are many things beyond toadies like you…
Another Indian diplomat gets “randomly checked”: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11980728
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/1607/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=87923
I see no problem with her making a big deal of it, if she’s objecting to the public nature of the search and not the pat down itself. They could have afforded her the courtesy of a private screening, as requested. U.S. diplomats and their security act like spoilt brats abroad if they’re subjected to even the smallest of inconveniences (noticed this in the Caribbean). Obama’s aide Robert something or the other acted in a petulant manner recently in India.
“I think it is interesting she made such a big deal about this, seeing as how people get patted down in India WAY more often than in the U.S.”
Well, planes are different from buses.
what about cinema halls and the Delhi Metro…
I think it’s interesting how people use the strangest justifications for things. It is fairly obvious to any observer that this is not just another passenger. Relations and dealings with diplomats are a key indicator of respect and cordiality between nations. To trivialize this incident by saying “He he well people get patted down in Delhi all the the time he he” is the mark of someone who doesn’t grasp the wider issue.
The US has an almost built in paranoid security policy and mentality, which is obnoxious, and leads to repellent incidents like the one with the ambassador. But it seems to “work”, in that there hasn’t been a major attack on US soil since Sept/2001. India has experienced multiple attacks, and is incongruously less paranoid and less diligent, and less obnoxious and ignorant.
Apart from the wider issue of India being respected as a country, there’s also a wider issue of American ignorance, stupidity and insensitivity. Not distinguishing one people from another, one religion from another, one country from another. Just lumping them all under a vague category of ‘possible suspected security threat’. Ridiculous,but it seems to ‘work’!
What is particularly stupefying is that these Airport/Customs security officials don’t even conceive of a certain thought. They just do their tasks thoughtlessly and diligently. You would think at least a few of them would think “Wait a second, that brown person over there could be from India, the world’s most populous, pluralist, democratic free state, and a major multiple victim of Islamist terrorism” It’s not that you expect every official to think in this manner; what’s dismaying is that none of them even conceive the thought. The ignorance and mindlessness runs that extensively. And sadly, the problem isn’t just with airport security, but with other types of security, and with huge sections of the American public. It’s almost as if they’ve been trained from an early age to be parochial, insular, inarticulate and paranoid all at once. Awful.
So what you’re essentially saying is: one country has a thorough security system that actually works, and the other one doesn’t and so they suffer from attacks. And yet you repeatedly call the former one stupid – interesting.
I can understand the Ambassador’s anger and humiliation in the public pat down, which should have obviously been conducted in private, but the fact is Diplomats are subject to airport security like any other passenger. If they object to it they are free to take private jets, which I’m assuming many diplomats do. If a US Ambassador was to visit India, it would only be fair to subject he or she to a full public search too. Diplomats on airplanes are still passengers and subject to the same rules and regulations as any other passenger.
As I’m sure you know, India has the 2nd largest global Muslim population and political correctness aside, most airline terrorists these days seem to be fans of that religion. Now I don’t think racial profiling is the way to go either, because terrorists aren’t limited to brown guys age 20 – 50 obviously (GI Jane, white American woman a few years ago is a good example of someone who typically wouldn’t get pulled aside for a “random” check). But I still believe in strict airport security, and I think the new scanners are a good idea. Is pulling aside a random Indian diplomat in a sari a tad ridiculous? Well yeah, but I don’t think it should cause this much outrage. Maybe it’s because I live 10 minutes from the former WTC, but I guess I would rather have a paranoid security system than a lax one.
Well if that actually happened I might agree it was inappropriate. But where does it say she receive a full body cavity search? As far as I know she just got a (public) pat-down. I wouldn’t compare that to groping. Well, I did get a pat down once and it lasted all of 20 seconds and wasn’t invasive, so that is what I’m picturing her to have received. I guess depending on the airport, it could vary a lot.
So what you’re essentially saying is: one country has a thorough security system that actually works, and the other one doesn’t and so they suffer from attacks. And yet you repeatedly call the former one stupid – interesting.
ZING!
Alina-M,
The Ambassador did not undergo a full body cavity search (she was merely behind the glass after all). I purposefully included it though to point out how ridiculous girish’s attempts were to pass off the whole thing as “basic screening” with the quote from the TSA spokesperson. A full body cavity search would not have been basic, and neither was the invasive patdown she received. She underwent both primary and secondary screening.
The new patdown procedures have indeed been compared to groping. I’d post links, but the moderators keeps holding mine up, in addition to the multiple existing and unexplained bans of various IP addresses. Hope that answers your question.
“So what you’re essentially saying is: one country has a thorough security system that actually works, and the other one doesn’t and so they suffer from attacks. And yet you repeatedly call the former one stupid – interesting.”
If ignorance, stupidity and insensitivity is to be praised because the end result is fewer or no terrorist attacks, then perhaps we should praise it. But it’s dismaying and distressing that it has to come to that. India should find some middle ground between a complacent/lackadaisical mentality, that it often displays, and the other extreme of American style arrogance and insensitivity, even if the latter does “work”.
Ignorant? Yeah, definitely a little ignorant when a sari is enough reason to get singled out. Insensitive? Yep, but I don’t think they mind ruffling a few feathers. But stupid? If it works, I don’t think we can say it’s stupid. And normally I have a fairly libertarian attitude toward government and would like them as least involved as possible in my personal life, but airport security’s the one place where I’m willing to deal with it. That doesn’t give them an excuse to unfairly grope someone or harass them. But hopefully the type of problem the Ambassador encountered will be less common with the new scanners, which I imagine will be in every airport in the country soon enough.
What’s stupid is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy you’re pulling.
The terrorist attacks that have been thwarted by the US were thwarted because of advance intelligence and the vigilance of the FBI and knowing who to look out for before the terrorists ever got to the airport. If you spend your money and resources training profilers and intelligence personnel to sift data and be on the lookout for actual suspicious persons we might actually be safe. But we don’t do that. Instead, we decide it’s worth our time to make people throw away water bottles even though it’s literally impossible to assemble a bomb that way. They do this because folks like yourself need to “feel” safe by seeing people in uniforms scurrying around in front of you engaged in pointless theatrics even if those theatrics are actually making us less safe by diverting resources from things that actually work.
Israel has a much much bigger target on its back than the US does and they manage to have airtight airport security without having to fondle everyone who passes through.
I didn’t say we should fondle everyone who passes through. I said groping is inappropriate, and that I think the scanners are a good idea. Then again, there’s a significant percent of American public who think the scanners are inappropriate and a violation of privacy – from what I hear, they literally reveal everything, and can see through undergarments even. I can imagine how that would make people uncomfortable.
I mean, not that I work for the FBI or something, but I imagine that’s what they’ve been doing for the past decade or so….surely our security isn’t confined to tossing out water bottles and groping aunties in sari’s.
My grandma wears a hijab (head scarf worn by muslim women) and she has yet to be randomly searched (flies about once a year between NY and Afghanistan). I guess it’s kind of surprising now that I think about it.
Having a choice of the pat down or scanner are options in lots of US airports – but obviously not all. Both of the options aren’t exactly great, but that is the way the system is now. I think if someone is wearing a sari in the security line, they might prefer the scanner. (Although some experts say that the scanner is safe, but some equally smart experts say the scanner radiation/long term effects/etc is uncertain. Who knows.)
Alina, if it hasn’t to your grandma it doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist. I am a typical South Asian looking male, I travel a lot at least 3 times in a month and have never been singled out but have I seen other people who look like me go through horrible exepriences, most definitely yes. I definitely think US policy is on the paranoid side. I live in the UK now and most people I speak to are willing to got to the extent of cancelling their travel plans to the US to avoid this inconvenience.
I lived right behind the trade center as you do for 5 years but I really don’t think what happened in 2001 is an excuse to go overboard.
By “stupid”, I suppose I really mean ignorant. Ignorant of different ethnicities, religions, languages etc. The American traditional tendency, and this is heightened when it comes to airport security, is to lump people together. To repeat, an airport official isn’t going to think, “That person could be from India, a country that has more than 3 times the population of the US living under a democratic, free, pluralistic system and ideology, and moreover, one that has suffered from Islamist terrorism more than we have” Instead, the mentality is like “Them thar people from da Middle East and India kinda like all look the same to us, y’know”. Not exactly the most articulate, eloquent, empathetic approach to the issue. But again, it seems to ‘work’.
so wait, a terrorist couldn’t be an Indian then Varun?
You’re missing the message, Lindsey, which is the ignorant mentality of so many Americans, including the airport security officials. The fact that certain thoughts don’t even occur to them, is distressing. Which makes one wonder about the extent of the ignorance and insularity.
Yes, an Indian could be a terrorist. So could a Scandanavian, a Korean or an Argentinian. Why bring up Indians? Because they look like, in the eyes of American security officials, Middle Easterners? There’s where the dumbness and ignorance really kicks in.
A question no one in this forum has even bothered to ask is, would the US try to pat down an Arab oil sheikh? Really, if any region in the world is associated with terrorism in the American mind, it is the Middle East and Arab countries.
The very posing of this question makes one almost certain that the pat down of the Indian ambassador was deliberate and with malice aforethought.
You make it sound as if people are ONLY patted down for the way they look.
I am a generic-boring-looking-white-chick and I have been patted down many times. I have been wanded. I have had my bags chosen for an extra thorough search. I have even had my electronics tested for bomb residue (or whatever they do). And not all of it in America but also in Europe and in India. I have been selected for the extra-thorough bag searches in Indian customs as well.
I don’t think it is really a huge deal to get patted down, though they should respect cultural beliefs and should pat someone down in private if asked. I don’t really understand why Ambassadors are supposed to be exempt anyways. I also (as mentioned earlier) get patted down EVERY time I go see a movie in Delhi. And those ladies… they really do PAT you down.. it’s like “whoa there!”
A lot of the time people get pulled aside for additional wanding/pat down when they set off the metal detector. And that usually happens when people don’t take off their watches/jewelry/belts when they go through. Most of the time, when I see people get wanded/patted down it is little old ladies and men who don’t speak English very well, so they got confused and didn’t take off their watch or whatever.
Security in airports is very annoying and inconvenient. and sometimes embarrassing. But I don’t think it is so ineffective as some claim. It doesn’t just make passengers “feel better”. It prevents people looking for ways to harm from having easy ways to just waltz on a flight and stab/shoot/bomb. Terrorists and criminals now have to have extra smart plans and access to weird and hard to find items to try and do things now. My dad is a retired airline pilot, and was able to fly for 25 years without incidences more than a medical emergency or a drunk belligerent passenger. So something must be working.
Somehow numerous airline pilots prior to 2001 had been able to fly for 25 years without serious incidence even back when the most intensive security screening we did involved the woman at the counter confirming that you packed your bags yourself and a quick walk through the metal detector.
An absence of useless security theater does not equate to no security. It just means security should be employed based on a rational cost/benefit evaluation rather than having some guy at TSA having a panicked half-cocked response every time something hits the news because the press keeps demanding SOMETHING be done.
I have been flying since I was a baby, and I don’t ever recall security simply being the gate agent asking what’s in your bag. I ALWAYS remember going through metal detectors and having your carry-on bags going through x-ray machines. What’s the difference now? You have to take off your shoes. And put your jacket through the machine. And take out your laptops (which we didn’t have back then anyways). And not carry some liquids (which I believe is being relaxed now anyways). I just put my liquid stuff in my checked bag. If you get stuck some where hotels have shampoo and soap.
Let’s be serious here, IF you didn’t take your shoes off, there is a higher chance you will set off the metal detector anyways (seeing as how a lot of shoes have metal in them somewhere) so then you will be pulled aside and wanded anyways. If you didn’t put your jacket through the machine, then maybe you would be pulled aside anyways, since they can’t see what’s in there to pat you down.
I mean, seriously. Taking off your shoes and jacket takes maybe 30 extra seconds. Putting your shoes back on might take longer, depending on what shoes you chose to wear. But really, I would prefer taking off my shoes and putting them in a little bin, walking through, and putting them back on to having a gazillion more people set off the metal detector because of their shoes and then have them all have to be wanded or patted down.
Your logic seems to be along the lines of: – Airport security singles out Indians a lot – They must be doing so because they mixed up Indians with Middle Eastern people – Therefore they’re a bunch of ignorant morons who can’t think properly and know nothing of the world
That makes no sense. FIrst, clearly they have the person’s passport in front of them and can tell what nation they’re from. Second, what does India being a democracy that has suffered from terrorism have to do with anything? Let’s be blunt here, reality is more along the lines of: – Airport security singles out Muslims a lot – India has a massive Muslim popluation, more than any Middle Eastern country – Therefore Indians (most non-Muslim and obviously non-terrorist) are going to get singled out more
You don’t seem to be upset about religious or racial profiling. You seem to be upset because you feel India is being insulted here specifically, which I don’t think it is.
I’m surprised you’re being so PC because you seem like a blunt person. If Scandinavia, Korea or Argentina had massive Muslim populations like India, they would be singled out too. Acknowledging India has the 2nd largest Muslim population ever doesn’t make them dumb and ignorant. They’re not picking on India because whoops, they accidentally mixed you up with Iraq, and gee, they both start with “I” so no one in America can tell the difference, tee hee.
@Anony: I agree our policy is on the paranoid side. Again, I’m not an advocate of racial profiling. Terrorists aren’t retarded enough to only recruit middle aged brown guys, which incidences like GI Jane make clear. Personally I’d like to see a more efficient system here that doesn’t violate people by groping them. And like someone a few posts before said, the more important part is stopping the terrorists before they get to the airport. Airport security is a last-minute resort to thwart the bad guys at the 11th hour, not where the focus should be obviously.
I would take issue with a couple of your arguments.
You said “Second, what does India being a democracy that has suffered from terrorism have to do with anything? “. Are you serious? In comparison, to say, a country like Pakistan or an Arab country suspected to be heavily involved in terrorism, who would you pick? Clearly, a terrorist can be from anywhere but using your logical steps – Pakistan is strongly suspected of being a terrorist haven, most terrorists these days are muslim, let’s search all the Pakistanis and Arabs since they are all Muslim. What is partly being commented on here is that does not seem to be happening. Again, by your logic, all muslims should be instantly singled out and searched.
You said “That makes no sense. FIrst, clearly they have the person’s passport in front of them and can tell what nation they’re from. Second, what does India being a democracy that has suffered from terrorism have to do with anything? Let’s be blunt here, reality is more along the lines of: – Airport security singles out Muslims a lot – India has a massive Muslim popluation, more than any Middle Eastern country – Therefore Indians (most non-Muslim and obviously non-terrorist) are going to get singled out more” Actually, what makes no sense is your logic here. If the immigration guys are smart enough to know someone is from India, then couldn’t they also tell that they were muslim from their name? Assuming of course, they are travelling under their real name. The point being made is that immigration guys may not be aware of the differences between brown people. And the real point here is that the ambassador should have been shown a little more respect – not too much to ask for cordial diplomatic relations with a supposed ally, right?
Wouldn’t happen often enough to make a difference, as evidenced by the fact that lines are substantially longer now than they used to be. Making every single person strip down to get on a plane takes up substantially more time than having even 20% of people have to step aside for a moment. They aren’t relaxing the water restrictions, and the notion that you can hijack a plane with a swiss army knife is laughably absurd now that people know the consequences of a hijacking and the cockpits are armored up and locked-down while in flight.
We also didn’t have to remove our laptops until 2001 even though we had them well before that. Also, the notion of somebody disguising a bomb as a functioning laptop is laughably farcical as well. Unless a terrorist has access to the kinds of microfabs they would need to cram an appreciable amount of plastique into an already skinny macbook pro, it ain’t happening. This is neither a summer blockbuster nor an episode of 24. Terrorists do not have Lex Luthor on their side and there are no Tony Starks being forced to create weapons in the caves of Durkadurkistan. These guys are essentially hicks from third world backwaters. People need to stop acting like they’re some fiendishly clever, unstoppable force. Sometimes they get lucky, that doesn’t make them elite ninjas.
This is the problem with the TSA. None of these regulations are being done based on a rational analysis of what is and isn’t a realistic security threat. It’s purely theatrics to make people feel like the government is doing something in the face of whatever trumped up fearmongering hit the press. You can make as many arguments as you want about how it’s not that inconvenient, but they ring hollow because there is no amount of inconvenience and affronts to our basic dignity that we should be expected to put up with if we’re getting absolutely no payoff in terms of security for it. I shouldn’t have to make sure I checked in a bag just so I can have my multi-tool with me at my destination. I shouldn’t have to buy specialized mini-sized toiletries simply for having the temerity to want to travel light or save myself a baggage check-in fee. I shouldn’t have to wait for an hour just so TSA can ensure that Snookie’s spray-on tanning lotion isn’t a threat to national security. WHY must we do these things if they don’t make us any safer? WHY is our security system so much more intrusive than Israel’s whilst being less effective in spite of Israel’s larger profile as a target? These are the questions you should be asking yourself. Not “how long does it take to put my shoes back on?â€
Actually good leather shoes will be worn out faster if you repeatedly put them on without a shoehorn. It damages the backing of the shoe and ruins the fit over time. These tend to be the kinds of shoes that businessmen wear, they also happen to be the guys who fly the most. I suppose if TSA stood for “The Shoemaker’s Association†that sort of outcome might be sensible. Sadly, it’s not.
It’s pretty certain that the serious frisking at least of non-Indians in Indian airports( that Lindsey refers to) is a kind of retaliation to the treatment many Indians receive in Europe and the US. Very, very unlikely that India initiated this nonsense out of the blue. The other stuff about frisking outside movie theatres is a relatively recent ( in relation to 60+ years of Indian independence) practice having to do with the increased incidence of terrorism, including bombing of at least 2 movie theatres, in the last 10-15 years or so. It could also have been present in the Delhi-Punjab area even before then, during that whole awful Khalistan terror movement in the 80’s.
To repeat the question, if as Alina claims that Indians may be patted/frisked because India has a large Moslem population( though ambassador Shankar is positively not Moslem) what about actual Moslems like Arab sheiks, who come from countries that are all Moslem majority? Something doesn’t feel right here, no pun intended.
Varun– Actually I don’t see “serious frisking” at Indian airports– but at Indian airports I DO see slightly different security measures than in the U.S.– In India you have to send every checked bag through a metal detector, and it is then wrapped in this sort of security tape stuff with a stamped tag to show it has been scanned before you can check them. All carry-on luggage also goes through the metal detectors and gets a tag that is stamped. Additionally, stand-by passengers (at least in Mumbai) are not allowed to go through customs or security until AFTER a seat card has been issued (always makes for an exciting journey running through the airport).
In Europe, ALL the passengers must go through security again (even if they just got off a flight from the U.S.) ALL their bags are re-checked, and everyone goes through the metal detectors again (btw, the security in Europe is almost exactly the same as the U.S.) This means they have to get their checked bags, go through security, re-check their bags. (at least the luggage carts are free, ugh).
Additionally, though I can’t remember if it is Europe or India (I think India? anyone else remember?) but in one airport in addition to the above, in some cases people were randomly selected to have all their carry-on bags thoroughly searched just before boarding the plane, in other cases ALL passengers were required to do the same.
I remember this Indian-American woman having a complete melt down (in Paris, I think?) because she didn’t have the receipt for her duty-free stuff and they wouldn’t let her board with it.
hey, mad props to alina-m 🙂 don’t always agree with her, but i like the style a lot.