Balkinization  

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

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.

Comments:

Something that has been missing in the moderate blogosphere discussion of this issue ("selectees" being searched before boarding airplanes) is the well-known, in fact almost commonplace occurrence of WTO protesters, peace marchers, environmental activists, and all-around "lefties" being routinely and regularly searched at airports. Amongst activist circles it's common knowledge. It's routine now. Quotidian. You're a progressive activist? You will be delayed and searched before boarding a plane. Your luggage will be ransacked and/or lost. You will be treated with disrespect, to say the least. The TSA personnel who perform the searches regularly explain that it's because of the "selectee's" peace-march/anti-WTO/Greenpeace/ACLU etc. affiliation. Nothing new here, move along.

Now, how much of this is an urban myth, how much is exaggerated self-reporting, and how much is unvarnished truth is anything but clear. But my personal experiences, and the encounters of my close friends (pacifists all, by the way), seem to indicate (to me, anyway), that there is something rotten at the core at the TSA.
 

JT Davis:

I don't fly. I know I'm on a watch list. There are no "progressive activists". There is "us" and "them" and to "them," we are "terrorists" and "terrorist sympathizers"....

In all fairness, I don't get stopped (but I haven't been physically present in peace marches, etc.; albeit there's other reasons to single me out). My partner's been given the dreaded letter "S" while flying with me though ... guess her 1-way ticket (or her relationship with me) might have triggered this.

And as I said in another thread, I've gotten chuckles and "nice T-shirt" comments from TSA and INS/DHS before for wearing my political T-shirts to the airport. Maybe you need to piss the wrong person off, but hasn't happened yet. There are some good guys working there.

Cheers,
 

Arne,

I've gotten the SSSSSSSSSS's 4-5 times in the past two years. Since I have stool-pidgeon status, why have I been selected so many times? Can't the Bushies cut their minions some slack?
 

Of course, I should add that nothing is as fun as the extra scrutiny I get for my visits to Jordan and Iraq. When I have to show my passport, the darn Euros really grill me on that.
 

It would surprise me if TSA does anything beyond load other agencies databases when creating the selectee/no-fly lists.

Would anyone be really that surprised to find out that anti-war/anti-bush activists are getting flagged somewhere?
 

i may be cursing myself, or maybe i'm just not as important as i think i am, but i have not been "selected" for quite some time. perhaps i should be insulted that i am not considered important enough, or maybe i should stop wearing my groucho glasses to hide my true identity at the airport....
 

phq,

Perhaps I might suggest picking up your cell phone and calling someone (because cells are the NSA's favorite). If you use the words terrorist, bomb, and Bush at least 3 times per minute, Woooolah! You're on the list within a day thanks to wonderful compentency of the beaucracy.

Also, remember, only C-list critics get on the list, unless you are Teddy K. So, that is another big point in your favor.
 

This is terrible. I am a solid supporter of the war, ran for office as a Republican, have two brothers in Iraq, daily reader of James Taranto and think President Bush is a great war president. I, even I, have been selected for random searching 33% of the flights I have flown since Sept. 11. Is it a coincidence? I think not. Clearly the "Bush" administration (I'm sure it's Karl Rove) is sending signals to their cronies in the TSA to harass supporters of Iraqi Freedom. This masks their efforts to make life miserable for critics of the administration. Thanks for the hard evidence to support my theory.
 

someone:

Of course, I should add that nothing is as fun as the extra scrutiny I get for my visits to Jordan and Iraq. When I have to show my passport, the darn Euros really grill me on that.

I've been to Egypt too. And Indonesia and Tchad. Maybe I get a pass for being one of the "snoops". ;-)

Cheers,
 

Arne,

Where/when did you visit in Egypt? I'm considering making a backpacking trip there. What were your impressions?
 

Professor Graber,

I find yours (and his) claim that his baggage was intentionally lost (though it was returned delivered to him later on that night) to be quite incredible. So, somehow there is a system that tells the baggage handlers whose luggage "to lose"?

Let's tease out the implications of your assertion.

There is some broad system for temporarily delaying the luggage of certain individuals? Out of all the baggage handlers, don't you think SOMEONE would cry foul? I hardly doubt that the thousands of baggage handlers and TSA peeps are all minions in the vast, (and I do mean vast) right wing conspiracy.

If your assertion was true, it should be something that an intreprid reporter should be able to uncover rather easily.

Also, he wasn't subjected to the same scrutiny on the way back. So, somehow in a breathtaking display of competence on the government's part, he was able to get off of the list (or out from scrutiny) much more quickly than almost anyone else? And this is before he broke his story (so the government didn't have a particular motivation to suddenly play nice).

I mean seriously, professor. You can't really believe this stuff.

I know the rest of you apply all sorts of evil motivations to the Bush administration and the beaucracy. But, doesn't this suggest a level of competence that you so often say it does not have?
 

Even conservative columnist Cal Thomas (a former spokesman for the Moral Majority) was on the no-fly list.

His account is entertaining reading but, alas, he does not seem to draw any larger lessons from the experience.
 

Someone,

Strawman. Did anyone say it was intentionally lost? What was said was that Dr. Murphy was warned that his bag would be ransacked, then the bag was lost.

What are the possible explanations? One, that it was simply coincidence. Two, that the bag was ransacked, and then accidentally lost; we all know how badly bags are handled at airports, and adding an additionally stage in it's handling is quite likely to increase the possibility of it being lost. Three, it was ransacked and damaged in the process; reasonable behavior by the security personnel would then be to simply toss the bag, rather than write out any associated paperwork or deal with any ensuing complaints. Fourth, someone really, really hates him and is trying to punish him.

The fourth one is obviously the least likely, and the least like real world bureaucratic behavior. But that in no way negates cases 2 & 3.

Are you really a law student? Don't they require finer level analysis at your school, or are you a student at Regent?
 

Random,

If you want a response, make your argument without the personal insults.
 

These lists are more about domination than passenger safety. Fisk's article in the Independent - carving Baghdad up into little segments and requiring everyone to have papers is more the line. Checkpoint society for internal control - that's what's being built.

Airline security does not depend on knowing who is on the plane or who they hang out with. It depends on whether they have weapons and on physical items like locked doors.
 

Someone:

Where/when did you visit in Egypt? I'm considering making a backpacking trip there. What were your impressions?

I'd tell ya but then I'd have to ki... -- uh, sorry, that was Indonesia.

Seriously, we went to Egypt last New Years (15 months ago). I'll post pictures on my blog when I get a chance to cull the good ones; the new U/W camera rig was dicey, so not too many good shots down under ... but some great ones of the archaeological sites (which I don't post). We did Cairo to Abu Simbel, and then by local bus and ferry to Hurghada (near where that ferry sank last year). Took the good ferry [Norwegian-built, ;-)] to Sharm al-Sheikh. Great place to visit, but bring traveller's cheques (your ATM likely won't work there; Billmon [whose Whiskey Bar blog is sadly defunct] had a similar experience). Bargain for everything ... including hotels and train fares.

Cheers,
 

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.

I still don't understand what these consequences are. The guy got on his scheduled flight. He got home on his scheduled flight. His baggage all went with him. If don't come back with him, but it came back.

Some consequences! Flying is no fun, but it's no fun for all of us. This is a very hysterical man this Walter, like Mitty I think.
 

BangkokAl:

I still don't understand what these consequences are. The guy got on his scheduled flight. He got home on his scheduled flight. His baggage all went with him. If don't come back with him, but it came back.

Some consequences! Flying is no fun, but it's no fun for all of us. This is a very hysterical man this Walter, like Mitty I think.


I'd suggest that the "hysteria" is with a different group (and for a different group).

I'm not particularly worked up about the security checks (I'm a pretty patient person), but to pretend that it does a lot of good is delusional. We're "fighting the last war" way too many times for us to be thought competent, much less smart, as I said previously.

And if the procedures are being used for harassment and/or intimidation, I do have a problem with it. My brother recounted a friend of his (a person of colour) whose take on it was: "This is nothing new to me. They're just doing it to see what your reaction will be." So are we sheep? How's the 'test run' going?

Cheers,
 

Good job, Thomas. Nothing but ad hominems and the same anecdote you all repeat.

Pot, meet the kettle.
 

Someone: "If you want a response, make your argument without the personal insults."

Someone, I'd care about your responses if they actually contained information. But since I can predict, so far with 100% accuracy what your opinion will be on any issue, the informational content therein is exactly 0.

When you surprise me, then I'll treat you with respect.

Until then, debunking is all you'll receive and deserve.
 

In defence of airport security, I have never heard a casual, flip or derrogatory explanation for my delays at airports. I am a 65 year old caucasion grandmother who has been delayed and subjected to additional search and security measures several times now. I routinely am selected for a wand check, nobody has an explanation and they are uniformely polite (almost appologetic). The security people have variously and professionally explained the security checks - it might be something to do with changes to my flight schedule (twice), one way travel (twice), separation of my baggage from the flight posting (mis-sent, skipped by the computer), name confusion, and/or a randon occurance, etc.
 

Will provide working definition of fool on request, maybe.

You (or Ambrose) would score victory points if you could find some way to include the word "Chicago" in it.
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home