Moose-Lamb*
There's always a rest of the story, no matter how minor. But in this case, the logic of going from A to E, in relation to the printed story, makes little sense, operationally speaking. If what is reported from one side is factually correct, then something had to bridge the gap of Ali showing up to the desk, then to the leap to then being asked a religious question. That's nowhere in any SOPs that I know of, unless its somehow material to the situation at hand. But alot of things would have had to happen for the situation to go to that direction. It's not something that happens right out the gate. Unless this was the worst of the worst trained OFO personnel that were involved here, and no higher ranking people were around to supervise the situation.
Maximilian_Jenius
Super User
LEO on a power trip, (the likes of what @Derg described in his JFK story). Or maybe just a Trump true believer, thinking that he's single-handedly doing what he feels he needs to do to protect the U.S. of A.
Shrugs shoulders.
JFK was full of agents on power trips. I'm not so sure now because I haven't gone through there for a while.
The TSA is hilarious. I like when they walk down the jetway without an ID, access the ramp, and then come to the cockpit and say, "I entered the SIDA without a badge and no one stopped me".
"Talk to the GSC. I'm busy. Good day"
The TSA is hilarious. I like when they walk down the jetway without an ID, access the ramp, and then come to the cockpit and say, "I entered the SIDA without a badge and no one stopped me".
"Talk to the GSC. I'm busy. Good day"
HRDiva
Well-Known Member
It doesn't say whether or not they actually found the alleged person.
RDoug
Well-Known Member
A non-denial denial from the spokesman for Customs:
Customs: Ali’s son wasn't detained because he's Muslim
And why are holders of valid U.S. passports being questioned about their religious affiliations? Would someone named Joshua Schwartz be asked about his?
I think we all know the answer to that last question.
Customs: Ali’s son wasn't detained because he's Muslim
Reached by phone, Hetlage said it's not uncommon for customs and border protection officers to pull travelers aside after initial passport inspection for a secondary screening, which can consist of additional questions and verification of a traveler's identity. What is asked in these interviews varies depending on the situation, he said, but "we have no interest in questioning anyone for two hours about their religion."
Questions about religion can and do sometimes come up, he said, but it isn't something officers — who process more than 1.2 million international travelers daily — routinely ask about.
Questions about religion can and do sometimes come up, he said, but it isn't something officers — who process more than 1.2 million international travelers daily — routinely ask about.
And why are holders of valid U.S. passports being questioned about their religious affiliations? Would someone named Joshua Schwartz be asked about his?
I think we all know the answer to that last question.
Kingairer
'Tiger Team' Member
I have a common name and it was not uncommon for me to get pulled aside for secondary screening before I got global entry. I think everyone is on edge right now that some things that people wouldn't think twice about our now fearful that it's the begin of some sort of iron curtain. I've never been treated poorly by a customs agent.
RDoug
Well-Known Member
For two hours? With questions about your religious affiliations?
Kingairer
'Tiger Team' Member
Sometimes longer than others, but I don't think I waited two hours. Longest was probably about 45 min. But it wasn't 45 min in front of an officer it was 40 min waiting and 5 min with an officer asking we all sorts of questions that pertained to the other (same named) person. "Do you have any tattoos, have you ever lived in Arizona" etc. all of which did not pertain to me.
Skåning
Well-Known Member
Mohammed?
Possible, But that's the thing, it would have to be a whole group of them including the first-line supervision of that port. As a single officer wouldn't be acting on his own here in this case. Supervisor staff would have become involved, especially at the point it allegedly got to. Would be big news if there is that kind of collusion going on there. I suppose anything is possible, but I can't see how any officer would think to be able to articulate that "Mr Ali showed up to the Customs desk, and I then decided to immediately ask him his religion", and think that be considered reasonable in any way, without something having led to that path. That's why more info and more specifics about this would be nice to see. As it stands now, it just has the appearance that one side or both, are leaving out some facts.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
So was the supervisor 'inexperienced' here as well? 10 hours? Really?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...h-historian/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.17cd374770bf
Good question. Would love to know the specifics of what the gentleman was detained for initially.
Cptnchia
Dissatisfied Customer
Because he knows the truth and he's educating us.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Not really.
I was having an open mind, looking for more information, trying to see something I may have missed.
The answer didn't provide for that.
D
Deleted member 27505
Guest
How would a person's religion, per se, be material to a case? Are there any examples of this that have been or could be constitutionally defensible?
If linking someone, for example, to affiliation with a particular criminal group or organization that may have a tie or link to a certain religion. Often, terrorist organizations. Normally, this would be a part of a developed case of some kind, not necessarily a first encounter sort of thing, but that's not a guarantee.
D
Deleted member 27505
Guest
But how would the religion, per se, be of benefit in linking someone to a criminal organization that may have a link to a religion? What kind of link would that be unless it could be proved that the particular religion was itself criminal? Asking about membership in a particular church, mosque, synagogue, perhaps could make sense in certain investigations, but the religion itself?? I mean we didn't identify Mafia Dons by their Catholicism even though most of them at least pretended to adhere to the Catholic faith. Lots of bankers are Jews, but when investigating bank fraud, people of interest and suspects are not asked if they are Jewish. Further, the sheer scope of religious affiliation would seem to make any connection to religion extremely tenuous from a legal perspective or a practical one. About 85% of the world's ~7BB people claim religious affiliation. That's almost 6B people. Makes for a big haystack with almost as many needles as bits of hay.
It's likely just one more bit of information, along with the other information, that makes up a case potentially linking someone to an organization with X affiliation, or a church, or mosque, etc, as you mention. It's not an analysis of the particular religion itself, its only the establishment of whether the person is part of said religion or not, that would be material to a case in a situation where it would ever be established as part of the case. At best, its supporting information, not primary case information.