TSA idiots cause diplomatic incident

[TimothyC]

Indian envoy Meera Shankar patted down in US
Chidanand Rajghatta & Indrani Bagchi, TNN, Dec 10, 2010, 01.00am IST

WASHINGTON/NEW DELHI: Security in the United States is never having to wear a sari? India's ambassador to Washington, Meera Shankar, who brings sartorial grace and poise to the largely grey-suited diplomatic world with her elegantly draped saris, found that hard-headed US airport security is not as easily wowed as State Department and the White House mandarins. Shankar was subjected to an enhanced security pat-down at the Jackson-Evers International Airport in Mississippi last weekend, ostensibly because she was dressed in India's national female attire and her stock-in-trade.

Shankar, 59, who is nearing the end of her posting in Washington DC, was on her way back to the Capital area after an address on international security at Mississippi State University and other engagements in the state, including meetings with state officials, in her first visit to the state, when she ran into the security flap.

According to accounts in the local media, Shankar was escorted to the airport by a host representative and city police officer and initially seated in the VIP lounge while the officer told the security of her diplomatic status.

But at the security screening, she was asked to step aside for a pat-down although she had presented her diplomatic credentials, and despite having not set off any alarms when she passed through the metal detector. The ostensible reason for the secondary screening was her attire.

Foreign minister S M Krishna called the incidents ''unacceptable'' and said, "We are going to take it up with the government of US."

While US Transport and Security Administration guidelines do not expressly exempt foreign diplomats from security checks, officials have discretionary powers, and diplomats are typically subjected to perfunctory screening after they present their diplomatic credentials, particularly when they are accompanied by other security escorts.

In this case, Shankar was not only asked to step aside for a secondary screening, but also put through a pat-down that was rather public, although TSA guidelines stipulate that the screening has to be conducted in private if the passenger so demands. Shankar did. Eyewitnesses said Shankar was singled out for secondary screening among at least 30 others and it was clear that her saree was the reason for the TSA alert. Also at issue was the matter of privacy while screening.

"She is a very strong woman, but you could see in her face that she was humiliated," Tan Tsai, a research associate at MSU's International Security Studies center who witnessed the screening told a local newspaper. Shankar's hosts acknowledged the goof-up, apologized, and blamed overzealous security personnel. ''Although I understand we need proper security measures to protect the passengers in U S airports, I regret the outrageous way Indian Ambassador Shankar was treated by the TSA,'' said the state's Lt.Governor Phil Bryant.

Ronen Sen, former ambassador, told TOI how he and his wife Kalpana were subjected to "enhanced security" search when he landed for the first time in 2004 to take up his job as ambassador. It was billed as a "ceremonial" arrival with a US State Department detail in tow. Notwithstanding, he and his wife were pulled aside and frisked, with officials emptying the contents of their bags and laying out personal effects. Sen said through his four years as ambassador he was subjected to intrusive searches several times, as was his wife. ''Everytime, we protested strongly to the US government,'' he said. They would apologize and things went on as ever.

I never liked the TSA policies, but now I actively hate them. The agents in question should be sent to the Thule detachment, in their skivvies.

[Alyeska]

The agents? No. They almost certainly did the inspection for fear of lossing their job. Management and upper echelon of TSA need to be punished. Not the poor line grunt who has zero choice.

[Siege]

They had zero choice despite the officers' discretionary powers? How is that supposed to work?

[ArmorPierce]

I've seen similar while going to the airport. obviously racial profiling and they ain't even getting that right.

[folti78]

They had zero choice despite the officers' discretionary powers? How is that supposed to work?

I guess it's more likely a combination of multiple causes, firstly your average grunt have to act under complicated regulations which you need a law degree(or halfway to that) to understand. If you don't understand the regs, you can call up your officer/boss/manager, but if you that too many times, your immediate superior will decide that you are simply too stupid to do the job/lack of initiative/<insert other PC descriptions of you being too stupid to work for us, for such a low wage>, which will affect negatively your next performance evaluation. If you are too lenient, a random covert inspection (even if no such thing exists, but you shouldn't underestimate the power of gossip) can fuck your job security.

<anecdotal>
Kinda like my guard duties back in the army. As a posted guard, it was your duty to defend your sector even if it costs you your life, but if you fired even one bullet, you'd better had a rock hard evidence to support your need use your weapon (even if you had been posted deep into the base's territory, but didn't count, because the fence were already missing many places due to lack of funding and negligence of the officers), or you were up to 3 weeks to 1 month barracks confinement(if nobody has been hurt) or a full investigation and possible manslaugther charges if you shoot someone and a.) your first bullet has been found in the target's body; or b.) they survived to make an damning confessions against you, when it degraded to "he said, she said" with the prosecution's favored to the "victims" confessions against the poor posted conscript's story.

At least that was the picture the officers and NCO's painted to everyone who had at least two braincells to rub together. It pretty much boiled down to the following:
if somebody came and made too much trouble, shoot the first bullet into the ground, if they are too stupid to get the message, kill them with the rest of your 30 round mag and make up a plausible cover story before the patrol arrives ...

The knowledge that the only guard post worth to assault were at least 15 minutes from relief (and the guard tower itself were well illuminated to shoot the blinded guard from the cover of darkness) made the whole guard duty more worthless to everyone with more than room temperature IQ was just an added insult to injury ...

The "funs" of conscript service in the Hungarian army ....
</anecdotal>

Aldo the usual spell that giving power to people too stupid to use it properly also applies.

EDIT: folti can't spell

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I wonder if the Indians will expel a diplomat in retaliation? The persons of ambassadors are supposed to be sacrosanct under international law.

[TimothyC]

The agents? No. They almost certainly did the inspection for fear of lossing their job. Management and upper echelon of TSA need to be punished. Not the poor line grunt who has zero choice.

They broke policy when they did the screening in public no private.

In this case, Shankar was not only asked to step aside for a secondary screening, but also put through a pat-down that was rather public, although TSA guidelines stipulate that the screening has to be conducted in private if the passenger so demands. Shankar did. Eyewitnesses said Shankar was singled out for secondary screening among at least 30 others and it was clear that her saree was the reason for the TSA alert. Also at issue was the matter of privacy while screening.

Yes I'd like to see harsh punishment from them because they acted in a stupid manner and in opposition to TSA policy.

[Kamakazie Sith]

They broke policy when they did the screening in public no private.

Did these eyewitnesses hear her request a private screening? I ask because what do you do if the TSA agents claim she never requested one?

[HankSolo]

I wonder if the Indians will expel a diplomat in retaliation? The persons of ambassadors are supposed to be sacrosanct under international law.

This is not the first time something like this has happened, though the last major infraction was by Continental Airlines, not the TSA directly. In that case it was a very popular former president, but it didn't lead to much more than a muted protest by the Indians (mostly for internal consumption).

U.S. airline irks India by frisking ex-president

[General Zod]

They broke policy when they did the screening in public no private.

Did these eyewitnesses hear her request a private screening? I ask because what do you do if the TSA agents claim she never requested one?

If you have enough clout, you file a lawsuit.

[Kamakazie Sith]

They broke policy when they did the screening in public no private.

Did these eyewitnesses hear her request a private screening? I ask because what do you do if the TSA agents claim she never requested one?

If you have enough clout, you file a lawsuit.

Indeed, but I was not asking what the victim would do. To clarify, I'm asking what should be done to the agents that conducted the search.

[Phantasee]

If the TSA agents say that it'll never be known because eventually the report will get high enough to reach someone who knows that accusing the Indian ambassador of being a liar, especially to cover a couple frontline schmucks, is probably a bad idea.

Hopefully.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If the TSA agents say that it'll never be known because eventually the report will get high enough to reach someone who knows that accusing the Indian ambassador of being a liar, especially to cover a couple frontline schmucks, is probably a bad idea.

Hopefully.

So, because the victim in this situation happens to be an ambassador that means we should conclude that the TSA agents are lying because implying that an ambassador is lying is worse than taking action against others without evidence and/or third party witnesses.

[TimothyC]

If the TSA agents say that it'll never be known because eventually the report will get high enough to reach someone who knows that accusing the Indian ambassador of being a liar, especially to cover a couple frontline schmucks, is probably a bad idea.

Hopefully.

So, because the victim in this situation happens to be an ambassador that means we should conclude that the TSA agents are lying because implying that an ambassador is lying is worse than taking action against others without evidence and/or third party witnesses.

Yes. Because the two stupid agents careers are worth making the Indians happy, and because I trust the Indian Ambassador more than I do the TSA goons. Because the security of person of an official Ambassador is more important than these idiots.

Because they screwed up and now they need to face the consequences of their actions.

[Phantasee]

I didn't say we should conclude that the TSA agents are lying. But in the interests of better relations between India and the US any claims by the agents that cast that kind of doubt on the character of the ambassador will be swept under the rug.

Unless WikiLeaks get their hands on them

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yes. Because the two stupid agents careers are worth making the Indians happy, and because I trust the Indian Ambassador more than I do the TSA goons. Because the security of person of an official Ambassador is more important than these idiots.

So, you feel that a persons title reflects their level of honesty and supercedes the word of person with a title from an organization that you find emotionally offensive. In conclusion, in this situation you feel that the TSA agents do not have a right to due process?

Also, what if the TSA agents have children that depend on their weekly income? Should they be made to suffer because you want to make the Indians happy by calling those agents liars without an investigation or supporting evidence?

Because they screwed up and now they need to face the consequences of their actions.

That's a possibility. It's only a fact if;
1 - The TSA agents admit that they did not abide by her request for a private room.
2 - Third party witnesses come forward on the Ambassadors side
3 - Evidence exists, like an audio recording.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I didn't say we should conclude that the TSA agents are lying. But in the interests of better relations between India and the US any claims by the agents that cast that kind of doubt on the character of the ambassador will be swept under the rug.

Unless WikiLeaks get their hands on them

Indeed.

My whole purpose here is to point out that just because you're a TSA agent, a bush administration employee, a former SS soldier...those people still have a right to a fair investigation.

[Norade]

I didn't say we should conclude that the TSA agents are lying. But in the interests of better relations between India and the US any claims by the agents that cast that kind of doubt on the character of the ambassador will be swept under the rug.

Unless WikiLeaks get their hands on them

Indeed.

My whole purpose here is to point out that just because you're a TSA agent, a bush administration employee, a former SS soldier...those people still have a right to a fair investigation.

The TSA Agents shouldn't have patted her down at all, no less in public. For the audacity of singling out a diplomat for this enhanced search they should be fired. Them doing it in public is just icing on the cake.

Besides, if they really had families to feed maybe they would have rubber their pair of working braincells together and not caused this stir.

[Edi]

I didn't say we should conclude that the TSA agents are lying. But in the interests of better relations between India and the US any claims by the agents that cast that kind of doubt on the character of the ambassador will be swept under the rug.

Unless WikiLeaks get their hands on them

Indeed.

My whole purpose here is to point out that just because you're a TSA agent, a bush administration employee, a former SS soldier...those people still have a right to a fair investigation.

Quoted for truth.

What the fuck has happened to the standards here? I have a very negative view of the TSA based on what I've heard of them from practically everywhere, but that still does not mean the TSA agents who fucked up here should be lynched. Suspended from their duties pending an investigation and then dealt with according to due process.

Funny thing how when Bush was in office there was all the screeching about violation of due process but now the same people are blithely ready to act as judge, jury and executioner at the drop of a hat.

I must say though that the singling out of a diplomat is the height of stupidity no matter how you look at it. On being presented a diplomatic passport and credentials, the proper thing to do is go "Sorry sir/ma'am! My mistake. Apologies and have a good trip!" and that's it. Hell, back in 1985 or 1986 when my uncle was part of the Finnish embassy staff in East Berlin and we went to visit him, on a day trip to West Berlin the DDR border guards took one look at my uncle's diplomatic passport and waved us through the Wall crossing. When my parents went by themselves another time, they went over the passports with a microscope.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The TSA Agents shouldn't have patted her down at all, no less in public. For the audacity of singling out a diplomat for this enhanced search they should be fired. Them doing it in public is just icing on the cake.

Wrong. They should only be fired if doing so violated TSA policy. If their actions did not violate policy then the issue is with the TSA administration. I do not understand the mentality of going after the low level employee for performing their jobs in a manner allowed under policy. They aren't the problem. The policy is the problem.

Besides, if they really had families to feed maybe they would have rubber their pair of working braincells together and not caused this stir.

So, you to are subscribing to the idea that the TSA agents should be fired for this incident even if their actions did not violate policy? In short. You are against due process and fairness when it comes to government employees and possibly people in positions that you hold contempt for?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wrong. They should only be fired if doing so violated TSA policy. If their actions did not violate policy then the issue is with the TSA administration. I do not understand the mentality of going after the low level employee for performing their jobs in a manner allowed under policy. They aren't the problem. The policy is the problem.

They racially profiled(which is against the law AND TSA Policy) they violated an ambassador... and yes, these screenings are themselves a violation irrespective of the diplomatic immunity.

[Kamakazie Sith]

They racially profiled(which is against the law AND TSA Policy) they violated an ambassador... and yes, these screenings are themselves a violation irrespective of the diplomatic immunity.

While your assumption regarding racial profiling is a reasonable one based off the information obtain from eye witnesses it is still an assumption because eye witnesses aren't able to see the process in which TSA conducts its "random" screenings. How do you know that it isn't just a coincidence that the ambassador didn't happen to be a multiple of the lucky number or whatever variable used to conduct the random pat down.

As for it being a violation of diplomatic immunity do you know what specific regulation was violated because as I understand it diplomatic immunity protects diplomats from criminal action, and not security screenings. In fact, in another article regarding this incident State Department spokesman P J Crowley said "They (diplomats) are subject to basic security. So everyone at the airport goes through a basic screening".

So, again. We're back to did these agents violate TSA policy? Basically, are these agents able to articulate why this pat down was conducted. Was it a random pat down or was there an observation that justified a pat down.

[Alyrium Denryle]

While your assumption regarding racial profiling is a reasonable one based off the information obtain from eye witnesses it is still an assumption because eye witnesses aren't able to see the process in which TSA conducts its "random" screenings. How do you know that it isn't just a coincidence that the ambassador didn't happen to be a multiple of the lucky number or whatever variable used to conduct the random pat down.

Because statistically that possibility is vanishingly low.

Also:

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post ... =obnetwork

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."

Unless walking while brown and in flowing gown is enough to warrant a pat down according to the TSA...

So, not only is she reporting that, but so are the witnesses.

Forgetting the fact that the pat downs are legalized sexual assault.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Because statistically that possibility is vanishingly low.

Also:

http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post ... =obnetwork

This is pretty conclusive for me actually; "The Clarion-Ledger writes "witnesses said Shankar asked for a private screening, but she was led to a clear box where two officers searched her in clear view." - So, we have witnesses that heard her ask for a private screening, but they failed to follow their own policy. I'm satisfied that the grounds for terminating these employees has been met.

Unless walking while brown and in flowing gown is enough to warrant a pat down according to the TSA...

I would love to hear the justification for that...

So, not only is she reporting that, but so are the witnesses.

Forgetting the fact that the pat downs are legalized sexual assault.

Actually, it is a form of implied consent. Basically, when you purchase your tickets and you sign your ticket you are agreeing that you will submit to a search. In a way it is like drivers license laws in a majority of states. When you sign that drivers license you are giving your consent to submit to a chemical test if you're suspected of being DUI.

[Zed]

That's not real consent - that's consent under the threat of being stripped of one's ability to travel around the world. Similarly, when you consent to being groped because you're being blackmailed, that's not genuine consent.