Still More on Murphy

Mark Graber

The Wall Street Journal apparently believes “what happened” to Professor Murphy “was out of the ordinary only inasmuch as the airline clerk . . . made a sensational and untrue claim.” They know so, because “as luck would have it” (be prepared--there are going to be a lot of remarkable coincidences in what follows) an administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, Kip Hawley, just happened to be visiting the Wall Street Journal Office yesterday. Given that such officials are nonpartisan and have never been known to exaggerate in any respect, unlike named chairs at Princeton University, we now have a totally accurate account of the no-fly affair.

Apparently Murphy was a “selectee,” chosen for reasons “most of which are not publicly disclosed,” but include such potentially innocent matters as “holding a one-way ticket and purchasing a ticket in cash.” Of course, the first was not true in the case of Professor Murphy and I doubt the second was either. But other undisclosed reasons might exist. Maybe the government routinely searches people who write books for Johns Hopkins University Press or, as I fervently hope, criticize my friend Gerald Rosenberg. But clearly, we are informed, the search of Murphy was just another coincidence. As the Wall Street Journal explains, “this has happened to us on numerous occasions.” Just not, apparently, to the numerous persons who had read the original post.

Besides, the Journal informs us, “federal terrorist watch lists are compiled . . . by career professionals at the FBI . . . who . . . would balk at any effort to list people for political reasons.” And as we all know, the FBI is absolutely impervious to political influence. For those who think maybe, just maybe, the FBI some of the time has investigated people for political reasons, consider that the Journal does not spell out which FBI is doing the watch list. Perhaps FBI in this case stands for “Friends of Bjorn Ipswich.” It’s just a coincidence that this group has the same initials as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. And presumably, there is every reason to believe the Transportation Security Administration is as nonpartisan as the FBI.

Another unfortunate coincidence took place when the clerk informed Murphy that participating in a peace rally might explain why he was a selectee. As the Journal points out “airline clerks have no way of knowing why a passenger is a selectee.” A social scientists might think that even if airline clerks have no official knowledge of the criteria, they regularly observe and chat with the people who are selectees and might make some inferences if they detect certain patterns. If a remarkable number of redheads are taken out of line, some reason exists for thinking that being a redhead is part of the criteria. But I think there is a better explanation, one that supports the Journal’s account. When I am subject to a random search at check-in, I am told this is a random search, that this is nothing special about me. I feel so insignificant. The Airline in question probably has a policy of making people feel special about random searches by telling people that they are politically important. Oh, and when my luggage is randomly searched, they usually let me watch. But the secrecy, no doubt, made Professor Murphy feel really important.

The last coincidence occurred when Professor Murphy’s luggage was lost. Of course, he was told that his luggage would be ransacked (and presumably a clerk would know whether in practice luggage is merely searched or ransacked). Indeed, the luggage would be ransacked or searched even though this seemed clearly a case of mistaken identity. Nevertheless, the government thought playing things safe best. There are, after all, many Walter Murphy’s in the world. And given his reputation, a great many of us, myself included, have been doing failed Walter Murphy impressions for years. Perhaps this was a fraud, someone cashing in on Professor Murphy’s academic reputation while the real Professor Murphy is tied up in a basement somewhere. And distinguishing one Walter Murphy from another is difficult. No doubt, the FBI (remember we may be talking about “Friends of Bjorn Ipswich” here) merely has “Walter Murphy” on somelist and not, "Walter Murphy, a twenty-two year old, six-foot-four, redhead."

I do not know James Taranto, who wrote the Wall Street Journal piece, or Kip Hawley, the administrator in question. I have every reason to believe that Mr. Hawley, in particular, is making a good faith effort to place the Transportation Security Agency in the best possible light. And there are a good many explanations as to what happened. But there are also a good many mysteries and they ought to trouble everyone, even as we do not yet know the answers. Professor Murphy appears to have made some list for some reason. Persons on the ground seemed to have observed that a fairly common characteristic of persons on that list is some opposition to Bush administration policies and being on this list appears to have some consequences. Most important, while I am not a student of Walter Murphy's or a member of the Princeton School of Constitutional Thought, Professor Murphy ought not be depicted as “so blinded by hatred” to be “gullible enough to believe anything.” Walter Murphy is not a political ideologue. The last message I recall him sending on the lawcourts listserv was a strong endorsement of Samuel Alito. Perhaps he has lost his mind or his judgment has gone horribly awry. But that would strike me as the least likely coincidence in the above account.

UPDATE: My sense of the Murphy debate on the blogosphere is that the dominant positions are one of two extremes. Either this was part of a systematic effort to harass opponents of the Bush administration or this was entirely random. Neither seems fully true to the facts for reasons persons on one side point out about the other. Let me suggest a third alternative, which seems to best fit the facts (although hardly any explanation is perfect). I think there is a fair degree of evidence that there was some targeting going on, given both the initial stop and the baggage lost on the return flight. On the other hand, one thing we know about secretive processes is that people can sometimes get on the wrong list simply because someone has a grudge against them. Needless to say, the FBI has hardly been immune to this problem. Consider how a false tip from Walter Winchell led to an extensive investigation of the entertainer Josephine Baker (see http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/jbaker.htm --thanks to MaryDudziak for this tip). So consider the possibility that someone, upset with Professor Murphy's talk at Princeton, either put him on the list or made a complaint to the FBI. Put differently, there is randomness going on, but a randomness that is enabling citizens to use and abuse government to harass persons whose politics or persona they do not like.
Posted 10:32 AM by Mark Graber [link]