Son of boxer Muhammad Ali ... born and brought up in the USA ... harassed by Border Security folks:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... er-control

This is insane!

I have to travel to the UK to present the keynote speech at a conference (attended by a few thousand people) in May ... have been a US citizen for decades, with GOES clearance, but now believe that I will receive completely similar BS when I return from my trip.

Z

Yep, this is trumps america, or should I say, it's #presidentbannon america. It wouldn't surprise me if few years from now they won't let nonwhites in the country all together

So far, only the attorney has made that claim. While it may be true, it's not something I'd put past anyone who's politically motivated to make a point.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /98419924/

You know how I feel about this whole thing - but I think at this point, everyone's concerns are justified.

I just don't know how we can logically "serve two masters" (screen arrivals and respect cultural differences). One or the other will ultimately suffer.

Those who complain (on both sides) don't have a practical plan, so their complaints fall on deaf ears.

With that said, I hope your trip goes smoothly, Z.

AZ - Ali has now talked about it too.

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/muhamma ... 41382.html

Again, mixed feelings.

I suppose if I were, for example, Z... and Mr. Ali and I were both passing through a checkpoint, I'd be a little miffed if Mr. Ali got waved through due to his "famous late father."

Again, it's a tough situation for all involved. If another "Mr. Atta" gets through and, say, wipes out a train station, everyone's going to be calling for the NSA and TSE Director's head. If we "profile," then the Middle Eastern community is going to be angered.

I don't know what the solution is. Obviously, if all is exactly as Mr. Ali alleges, that's a problem. That's not America.

szh wrote:Son of boxer Muhammad Ali ... born and brought up in the USA ... harassed by Border Security folks:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... er-control

This is insane!

I have to travel to the UK to present the keynote speech at a conference (attended by a few thousand people) in May ... have been a US citizen for decades, with GOES clearance, but now believe that I will receive completely similar BS when I return from my trip.

Z

OK so the father intentionally picked a name to be as foreign sounding as possible and the son who carries the same name is surprised it attracts pointed questions at immigration/customs? Huh am I missing something?

Sounds like someone spun a nothing burger to get the masses riled up and sadly it works on most consumers of mass media.. I guess that is why they do it..
There will be many many such articles peddled in the next few years no matter what actually transpires on the ground....

Yes, I think you might be missing a couple of things: 1. his father named his son after himself, very common in many religions, including yours, I'm sure. Yet, you seem to suggest there was more of a sinister political motive in his naming his son after himself? why? Because he's muslim?

2. Yes, the incident sounds more like an inconvenience than anything else, but as a white American male, I presume you've never been profiled and detained at an airport based solely on your name or religion. Another way to view it: if Mr. Trump's ban had included anyone named Fred, because some big crimes had been committed by people named Fred, you'd be annoyed too if you were detained/interrogated solely because you happen to share that first name, despite having a spotless record.

3. Since Mr. Ali is not the only muslim US citizen to get detained like that since that executive order was stopped, to suggest that other muslim US citizens have no reason to be concerned about being similarly inconvenienced/detained at airports seems naiive.

4. And most importantly, this incident involved the son of a late global celebrity. So of course it's gonna make it on one or more major news cycles. will liberal factions of the press exploit it and make it seem bigger than it probably is? Absolutely. But at the same time, conservative factions of the press will exploit it just as much claiming the opposite. I suspect you subscribe to the latter. But at the end of the day, the press should report just the story without bias. But it's still very much a news story. The bigger problem is that too many news media sources add political spin which tends to distort the truth and people tend to seek out news outlets with similar political leanings as their own. welcome to 2017.

^ Well-said.

PalmerWMD wrote:

szh wrote:Son of boxer Muhammad Ali ... born and brought up in the USA ... harassed by Border Security folks:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... er-control

This is insane!

I have to travel to the UK to present the keynote speech at a conference (attended by a few thousand people) in May ... have been a US citizen for decades, with GOES clearance, but now believe that I will receive completely similar BS when I return from my trip.

Z

OK so the father intentionally picked a name to be as foreign sounding as possible and the son who carries the same name is surprised it attracts pointed questions at immigration/customs? Huh am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing things, including some that are vital to our countries core proposition and purpose.

The name was not "picked to be foreign-sounding". When the boxer Cassius Clay converted to Islam decades ago, he picked two of the most important names from the religion: Muhammad (founder of Islam) and Ali (his son-in-law and critical to the Shia sect). Hence, the name Muhammad Ali.

For exactly the same reason that many people are named "Jesus" in hispanic culture and elsewhere - particularly after they convert to Christianity, or name their child after conversion.

We are talking about an American citizen, who was born and brought up here in the USA, and has ALL the credentials to provide it. His passport shows his place of birth, he is a "natural born US citizen", and has the same rights as every other citizen - regardless of his name and religion. That is a fundamental tenet of our constitution and this countries core beliefs and freedoms.

My point is not that he should have been given special privileges by being Muhammad Ali's son - not at all. It is to say that if an obvious situation where a clearly well-known American citizen can be harassed for hours, what chance do we regular folk have going in and out of the country? Regardless of whether he was the son of a famous celebrity, he should not have been harassed ... PERIOD! Or his name and religion queried over again in an assinine attempt to find something wrong.

Yet we regular ordinary folk are not going to get the media attention necessary to show up how badly people are being treated by the CBP at our ports of entry.

Because I will be travelling overseas - just like I have done for many, MANY business trips - to present at a conference where I am clearly and visibly on the agenda (can provide the link if you want to see it), I am completely expecting that I will be harassed just as badly. If not worse.

Many people have been forced to give access to their laptops and phones on entry (see the recent case of the Indian-origin, US-born NASA engineer: http://ktla.com/2017/02/13/nasa-scienti ... n-houston/).

In my role as Founder and Chief Technical Office of my company, I have lots of confidential information on my laptop. Due to my legal obligations alone (for example, to keep information confidential under NDA terms), I cannot provide unwarranted access to that information.

So, I will be carrying a legal letter to that effect when I travel. But, I expect that my returns (on three overseas trips that I need to make this year) will not be smooth. My company lawyer and CEO will be "on call" just in case I have to deal with the same issue.

PalmerWMD wrote:There will be many many such articles peddled in the next few years no matter what actually transpires on the ground....

Fred, you are living in a fantasy world if you don't realize that this is occurring DAILY and repeatedly at our ports of entry.

It is hitting very close to home and not random "stories" picked up by media.

Our employees from our overseas offices have been hassled when entering the US. One of them is a VP of Sales living in the UK - he manages our UK office. He is a former Irani citizen at one time, but has been a UK citizen for more than 40 years and has been in and out of the USA many, many, MANY times. For business meetings and the like.

During the last Muslim-ban attempt, he was not allowed to board a flight in London ... happened to be flying a few days after the "Executive Order" farce. It took intervention from the UK Foreign Office to get him onto a flight soon afterwards.

This is simply unacceptable. It is causing more problems than it is solving. In the name of mythical security and safety outcomes.

Z

AZhitman wrote:I suppose if I were, for example, Z... and Mr. Ali and I were both passing through a checkpoint, I'd be a little miffed if Mr. Ali got waved through due to his "famous late father."

Actually, a celebrity status waiver would not bother me per se. My concern is that neither of us should be arbitrarily profiled. Since we are both American citizens - his is far more easily provable since he was born here. I was not.

I have to go in and out of the US so much for work that I have a "extra-pages" US passport ... not 24 pages but 48, because it has to be stamped so much! I have Global Entry privileges as a result, yet I no longer trust that I will have a smooth entry back anymore.

In spite of being a citizen of the US for decades now!

AZhitman wrote:Again, it's a tough situation for all involved. If another "Mr. Atta" gets through and, say, wipes out a train station, everyone's going to be calling for the NSA and TSE Director's head. If we "profile," then the Middle Eastern community is going to be angered.

Highly unlikely.

Almost all REAL security experts (and I know a bunch that I work with ... for other reasons and have discussed this with) agree that this kind of questioning (regardless of a Muslim ban on travel from some countries) is not sufficient anyway.

Two weeks ago, I presented at a conference at a Security Summit. My co-panelist (a former US Air Force expert and consultant in the field) and I agreed on one important fact: It is impossible to prevent a breach through simplistic approaches. And asking asinine questions, attempting to screen at the ports of entry, is simplistic. It does not prevent potential problems at all.

Angering a community is not important - doing meaningful security actions is.

AZhitman wrote:That's not America.

Exactly my point (my bolding of your words).

Thanks!

Z

I don't disagree that the "simplistic approaches" are meaningless.

I would contend, however, that applying the full leverage of what we know (LEOs, prosecutors, international security experts, and even some 'insiders') would be an order of magnitude more effective than the $12/hour Jimmy Milkshake nonsense that the TSA engages in.

However, three things have to happen:

1) It can't be done by stooges. Unfortunately, stooges are all we're willing to spend money on.

2) It must be above reproach (no ignorant questions like we saw in this case). With that said, however, it's not up to the general public to "approve or disapprove." Effective LE and investigative work is sometimes not pretty, and the uninitiated simply don't need to know everything. The hand-wringing and blithering is simply distracting.

3) It must be expanded to encompass domestic and external threats, as well as those in a progeny stage, and must be accompanied by aggressive pursuit of the connections and leads that are generated. That's simply good fieldwork - but see #1 above.

Oh, wait. There's a 4th thing: We need to GTFO of conflicts and regions that we have no business meddling in. People hate us for good reason, and it's not always about religion. Let's deal with the ones that hate us because we're the greatest country on earth, NOT because we leveled a community in an impoverished foreign country.

AZhitman wrote:Oh, wait. There's a 4th thing: We need to GTFO of conflicts and regions that we have no business meddling in. People hate us for good reason, and it's not always about religion. Let's deal with the ones that hate us because we're the greatest country on earth, NOT because we leveled a community in an impoverished foreign country.

I'll answer the other points later, but this one is interesting to respond to - given the news of the moment.

Literally early this morning, this occurred:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-inva ... ia/5578671
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/0 ... side-syria
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archive ... des-syria/

Congress was not asked to authorize (only they have the authority to authorize war), the UN was not consulted, and the Syria (of course!) was not involved in the decision.

Delightful. Just what the f do we think we will achieve?

Unless ... of course!!! ... this is a classic way to evade the questions at home. Start a war somewhere. Then people and the media will overlook the bs going on in the administration right under their noses in Washington.

Wasn't there a movie about this?

Z

Well, sort of. Officially, it appears the mission is to keep the peace in a village that was just cleared by local forces. Hardly an "invasion," and we've been in Syria for years.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/0 ... syria.html

AZhitman wrote:Officially, it appears the mission is to keep the peace in a village that was just cleared by local forces.

Like the "training missions" in Vietnam before we got embroiled into it deeply?

You know where those ended up ...

Z

I don't deploy the troops, brother. You know I'm more of an isolationist. I don;t necessarily believe in poking our nose into other countries' business... although sometimes that means standing idly by while a despot runs rampant.

These are tough decisions, and those who critique are often unwilling to contend with the opposite side of the discussion. Should we intervene when a Hussein gasses the locals? Maybe, maybe not.

I guess the point is, it's easy to "armchair QB," but we're rarely given the full story - and as you saw above, the truth is rarely reported in full (or without slant).