Security Incident at JFK over T-shirt?

[T-Bird76]

btw do you think a real terrorist would be that obvious or try to hide it a bit by wearing a Nike t-shirt....

As obvious as Richard Reid??? That jackass tried blow up his shoe in the middle of the cabin. Some of these guys aren't the brightest bulbs on the porch.

[K9DEP]

I know what your saying but, It seems to me (at least the way I understood the story) that the guy wearing the shirt is the same person who translated it. The other B6 passengers were frightened of the font. I don't think many of the people at the terminal could translate that shirt.

Read the story again then....

I looked at my t-shirt: I was wearing my shirt which states in both Arabic and English "we will not be silent".

Thanks I must have overlooked that, but still no reason for people to get overworked about it.

[markg]

While I agree with you and this statement 100%, Now instead of it being an shirt written in Arabic....replace this incident with aviation photographers taking pictures of airplanes from the airport fence.....This is lots of people feel when the see us taking pictures by airports. Perception and law are two different things. But people do think the same about us....

Not sure where that came from but....hmmmm

Has anyone had an encounter yet with the cops or rent-a-cops while wearing the "airline photography is not a crime" shirts?

[Mellyrose]

No....like I mentioned before, Phil doesn't wear that shirt while spotting to avoid the repercussions of the provocative nature of the shirt (the moral of my side of the debate). As far as I know, no one else has worn it out either.

[PhilDernerJr]

Keep in mind that the older version of the shirt, not made by NYCA, has been around for some time. Not to say it hasn't, but I don't believe it has caused any drama in the past, nor has the current ones.

[FlyingColors]

(wish none of this EVER happened..It just makes me sad)

Anyhow..my 2 cents.


Silence is the opposite of speech.

To me that sounds like he has a voice, and perhaps something to say.
Now if anyone wants to listen to it may be a different story all together, outside the scope of this question.

If the shirt said "watch what I'm going to do" then that may be a prelude to possible physical action. I'm sure an attorney could dissect that in more ways then a Susi's chef with a puffer fish.

I can gather the man has been persecuted. Reminds me of a nice group of photographers. So misunderstood.

[PhilDernerJr]

I think he went in there with the intent to antagonize. That's socially destructive.

[FlyingColors]

Unfortunately we only have one side of the story.

And who knows how its been manipulated, altered and rearranged, for whatever benefit. Any of us could fill that one in with a different answer.

What we don't have here is an actual witness from the incident.

So who really knows the precise intent, actions and attitude that gives purpose to ones quest.

[moose135]

I think he went in there with the intent to antagonize. That's socially destructive.

I thought he went there with the intent to fly to California, but maybe I'm misreading the opening line of the story:

I went to JFK in the morning to catch my Jet Blue plane to California.

[Mellyrose]

I'm sure he had many other t-shirts that he could've chosen from to wear. He put thought into wearing that one to the airport, and therefore antagonistic and socially destructive.

[FlyingColors]

I think he went in there with the intent to antagonize. That's socially destructive.

I thought he went there with the intent to fly to California, but maybe I'm misreading the opening line of the story:

I went to JFK in the morning to catch my Jet Blue plane to California.

I'm with Moose on this one.

[FlyingColors]

I'm sure he had many other t-shirts that he could've chosen from to wear. He put thought into wearing that one to the airport, and therefore antagonistic and socially destructive.

Lets take this very same atmosphere and slap on yet another popular misconception, that so happens to fit very well:

"The photographer was taking pictures of airplanes and that's socially destructive and therefore was aiding terrorism. He could've chose to take good hearted pictures of flowers yet became an instrument of death for 9/11"

[PhilDernerJr]

Mike, I think you're missing the big difference here.

My perosnal belief, my gut feeling, my opinion, is that this guy put that shirt on with the intent to cause trouble. I feel he knew when he put that on in the morning that he'd get questioned. He got all the publicity that he wanted, and he was lucky enough to still make his flight.

When we go spotting, we go with the intention of enjoying our hobby, not with the intention of causing trouble.

Legal or not, constitutional or not, what he did was in poor taste and antagonistic. Him going through second screening and being asked questions does not violate his constitutional rights, and although free speech is a constitutional, he does not have a right to express himself on an airline, as it's not public property.

So I ask...what is the problem? I fail to see why this is such a big issue.

[Mellyrose]

Also, from what I read in the newspapers, he was an admitted ACTIVIST. There's no way he didn't put thought into wearing that to the airport, to "prove his rights."

[PhilDernerJr]

This guy did nothing wrong at all.

Good. Neither did the authories.