India diplomat gets 'humiliating' pat-down at Mississippi airport (Meera shankar)

[DESERT FIGHTER]

---

---

@trisonic : Only indian sources are talkin about apology while others tell a different storry???

WASHINGTON | Thu Dec 9, 2010 6:47pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An airport pat-down of the Indian ambassador to the United States in Mississippi angered her government but the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday said it was appropriate under the circumstances.
U.S. and Indian media reported that Ambassador Meera Shankar received a pat-down as she was leaving Jackson, Mississippi, where she had been invited by Mississippi State University.

Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna was quoted by Indian media groups calling the incident "unacceptable" and saying he planned to raise the issue with the U.S. government.

"This is unacceptable to India and we are going to take it up with the U.S. government and I hope things could be resolved so that such unpleasant incidents do not recur," Krishna told journalists, according to the Hindu newspaper.

The U.S. State Department said diplomats are subject to the same basic screening as other passengers at U.S. airports.

Following attempted attacks, including last year's attempt to blow up a flight to Detroit by a passenger with a bomb hidden in his clothes, U.S. authorities have deployed hundreds of full-body scanners and two months ago began doing more physical pat-downs that many travelers find invasive.

Asked about the incident involving Shankar, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she had looked into the matter and concluded that "it was by the book."

"It was a pat-down that followed our procedures, and I think it was appropriate under the circumstances," Napolitano told reporters.

She said there are protocols in which if U.S. authorities are notified before a passenger with special credentials gets to an airport, they can try to expedite their security check.

"In this particular instance, that protocol had not been utilized," she said. "I think what was done by the ... officer was done appropriately and by the book."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that she was "concerned" by the incident and would look into it "to determine both what happened and what we could do to prevent such incidents in the future."

http://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&so...6ip-RnLml97qeA
NewsDaily: Airport pat-down of India envoy appropriate: U.S.
Airport pat-down of India envoy appropriate: U.S. - Yahoo! News

[Chogy]

Do you know if there ever was any study to measure the effects of radiation from the scanners ?

My understanding of these new devices is that the radiation does not penetrate the skin, and the dose is trivial.

Still, I consider them invasive, and will not go through one. I'll take the pat-down instead.

I was going to post links showing these dehumanizing images that the machines generate, but it's probably not appropriate. If you want to, google:

backscatter images

and scroll down. I'll absolutely not let female relatives go through. It comes down to a personal choice... others may not care.

[RPK]

Watch DUE DATE!

[unicorn]

TSA X-Ray Machines Easily Fooled, Researchers Find

Scanner Image
http://a57.foxnews.com/static/manage...ackscatter.JPG

Any would-be terrorist can easily outsmart the ubiquitous backscatter scanners found in major airports around the world, two scientists say.
The Transportation Security Administration's X-ray backscatter scanners have been the center of a widespread controversy, following concerns from privacy advocates that they take nearly naked photos of people. The trade-off is improved security, of course. Yet Leon Kaufman and Joseph W. Carlson, two physics professors at the University of California, San Francisco offer a stark conclusion: They can be easily duped, according to a recent paper published in the Journal of Transportation Security.

"It is very likely that a large (15–20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology -- ironically because of its large volume, since it is easily confused with normal anatomy," the researchers said in the paper. Kaufman and Carlson conclude that some types of foreign objects can be reliable detected only if they are packed outside the sides of the body, and some well hidden items would be impossible to see even with the scanner.

"It is also easy to see that an object such as a wire or a box-cutter blade, taped to the side of the body, or even a small gun in the same location, will be invisible," the paper notes.

Experts have already highlighted that such machines are unable to detect hidden plastic explosives. The authors of the new paper expand on these limitations -- and it couldn’t come at a worse time, as families prepare for holiday travel plans.

Because of the inherent detection methods, raising the level of X-ray exposure and thus the picture clarity wouldn’t help. “Even if exposure were to be increased significantly, normal anatomy would make a dangerous amount of plastic explosive with tapered edges difficult if not impossible to detect.”

The TSA maintains that the machines remain an integral part of their security arsenal,that it trusts the controversial machines. “Advanced imaging technology is a proven, highly-effective tool that safely detects both metallic and non-metallic items concealed on the body that could be used to threaten the security of airplanes,” a TSA spokesman told.

The report will nevertheless leave many critics wondering if the machines are worth the hassle with many already opposed to their use because of privacy and safety concerns. The ACLU has dubbed the scan a “virtual strip search” as it gives clear view of the person’s genitalia.

These privacy considerations came to the forefront of the conversation last month when online tech site Gizmodo published 100 scans from a similar type of scanner at a federal courthouse in Florida, images that are also not supposed to be saved.

The TSA stresses that backscatter scanners are merely one tool in the arsenal, however, and just one front in the war on terror.
“TSA employs many layers of security that work collaboratively to form a system that gives us the best chance to detect and disrupt the evolving threats we face,” the spokesman said

[ajtr]

---

---

Why we are the world’s worst bunch of kowtowers

The incident in Mississippi was startling: the Indian ambassador to the US, Meera Shankar, clad in a sari, was pulled out of the security line at an airport and subjected to a humiliating pat-down, apparently because of Transportation Safety Administration guidelines about ‘voluminous clothes’.

This, despite the fact that the ambassador produced her diplomatic papers. I suppose one could argue that the Mississippi officers were just doing their job, although it is possible that a little xenophobia, if not a little racism, was thrown in. Somehow I can’t imagine them patting down a white woman in a voluminous bridal dress.

But worse, the Indian embassy tried to hush this incident up. It turns out this is not the first time it has happened to Meera Shankar. The embassy would have done nothing this time too if a local paper hadn’t carried shocked observations by the ambassador’s hosts, who felt she had been humiliated by the pat-down in full public view.

It appears, sadly, that the first instinct of Indian officialdom is to swallow insults and to, if possible, insist on not having any semblance of a backbone.
Consider that other countries do not ‘go gentle into that good night’, but they ‘rage, rage’.

When China felt that the Nobel Peace Prize was an affront to them, they simply instituted a competing Confucius Peace Prize, laughable though it may be. When the US introduced intrusive fingerprinting rules for visitors, Brazil retaliated in kind. When the US creates non-tariff barriers, others retaliate.

But India, oh, that’s a different matter. There seems to be a built-in level of obsequiousness. Are Indian diplomats eyeing post-retirement sinecures in the World Bank? But why are diplomats from other countries willing to stand up for their national interests?

Perhaps it is because India has never explicitly stated what those national interests are. The late CK Prahalad once wrote an essay on ‘strategic intent’ — that is, a long-range plan with a stretch goal: difficult at the moment, but not impossible if one worked assiduously at it. It is now accepted in business circles that firms that do not have a ‘strategic intent’ are more likely to fail, because there’s nothing like a worthy goal to rally the troops.

The Americans have strategic intent: it was paraphrased some years ago as something to the effect of “having 8% of the world’s population, and enjoying 50% of its resources”.

China similarly has a strategic intent: they want to be Numero Uno in everything: wealth, military power, soft power. And what is India’s strategic intent? To be a toady to some great power? Can’t India see that it can be more than a banana republic, it can be a great power itself? It can be the bride, not just the bridesmaid.

On the contrary, I find a supreme lack of self-confidence. I understand that when the Chinese once sent a démarche to the Indian embassy past midnight — in diplomatic terms a gross insult — instead of waiting till the next day, the ambassador showed up at the Chinese foreign office at 2am! The Chinese would have considered that to be kowtowing.

But when a rude Chinese diplomat claimed in Mumbai that India had no business in Arunachal Pradesh, India did not immediately declare him persona non grata and give him 24 hours to clear out of the country. Instead, he was allowed to hang around and make more offensive statements!

A Chinese strongman is due to visit India shortly — and some suggested that India should refrain from the Nobel ceremony in case it would jeopardise the Wen Jiabao visit! Why this walking on eggshells?

The gent is not visiting for India’s benefit. If he doesn’t come, it will make no difference — they will continue the dam on the Brahmaputra, their army’s incursions over the LAC, and proliferation to Pakistan.

There is no consequence to them for misbehaving with India. We should ensure there is some pain to China, and others, for insulting India. That gains respect.

Is there a genetic problem among Indians? Are we so used to obsequiousness that it has become the way we think? Perhaps. Going back to the airport security issue, maybe you have seen the lists in Indian airports of those exempt from security checks: the president, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the speaker of the Lok Sabha, and so on… and Robert Vadra!

Yes, this person who holds no public office is the only one specified by name as being exempt from frisking. In all fairness to this gent, I am told he didn’t ask for it, and it was the work of overzealous flunkeys. If that grovelling is the prevailing pattern in India, then perhaps it is only fair that Meera Shankar was patted down.