SS dismisses muslim worker

K

kajolishot

Registered Senior Member
The Secret Service took responsibility yesterday for sending an Arab American waiter home from his job at a Baltimore hotel before a presidential fundraiser last week. But it said the decision resulted from confusion over his work schedule, rather than from ethnic or religious discrimination.

He had expected to help serve lunch to 550 people at a banquet at which President Bush raised $1 million for his reelection campaign. Instead, he says, he was given a few minutes to change clothes and was escorted off the premises after a manager asked him one question: "Is your name Mohamad?"
source
Click to expand...

The Service denies it was ethnic/religious related but it smells of racism from top to bottom. His identity was submitted to the service for clearance and his work schedule was not classified as national security - yet the Service has the audacity to dismiss this as racial profiling. Pudding on the cake: no apology from anyone to the American.
 
Um, if the SS thinks you were not scheduled to work, but you show up anyhow then I'd expect them to send you home.

Everyone who works there would get submitted for clearance, because they could leave something. Showing up when they didn't expect you is a trigger.
 
Originally posted by kajolishot
Please read the article, Persol.
Click to expand...
Um, I did. The SS is saying it's because they didn't expect him to show up.

The worker is saying that's not the reason, but I could care less what he says.
 
It's not my nature to spoon feed, but here you go

Pharoan said in a telephone interview from his home in Dundalk, Md., that he does not accept the Secret Service's explanation. He said the hotel's work schedule was printed and distributed a week in advance. He still has a copy on his refrigerator, he said, and it clearly shows him working last Friday.

...

The Hyatt Regency's general manager, Robert L. Steele III, did not return calls seeking comment. Pharoan said Steele apologized, promised to pay him for Friday and assured 100 employees at a staff meeting Monday that the hotel had merely followed the Secret Service's orders.
Click to expand...
 
SS can change any arrangement at any time as they find suitable and least threatening. They least bother about niceties and proprieties when it comes to ordinary citizens. The work schedule given in advance is prone to any change by the SS at any moment. The hotel management is helpless even if they vouch for the muslim employee. The press would criticize the SS, if anything happens, for the 'conspicuous' presence of a muslim employee even if he is in no way connected to such incident. Conspiracy theories could cause the SS to loose their job and land them in trouble.

All that Mr.Mohammad can say to the SS is 'f@#k off' and go home. SS should not mind such genuine frustrations for their over-cautiousness. ;)
 
Understand your point, everneo. But the bigger issue here is of racial profiling and discrimination. The facts are public domain: the Muslim American had been cleared by the Service weeks in advance and it very well could be the case the 1st level SS agents did not have a list of cleared employees. Though this is possible but it is likely not the case – given the high level of security at home.

I am not sure how you derived some of the things you said in your above post:

The work schedule given in advance is prone to any change by the SS at any moment.

Why would the SS change someone’s schedule? That decision is up to the management and based on business needs.

Conspiracy theories could cause the SS to loose their job and land them in trouble.

But blatant racial profiling and discrimination would not? I guess not because 9/11 has taught us anyone Middle Eastern looking person or someone named “Mohammad” must be out to kill us. It’s sad really – when discrimination is considered legal (proper) under the guise of national security. It should be discouraged at every facet of our society and government.
 
Racism?

That's a crock.

I'm sure you know what racism is, so why would you think it applicable?

This is nationalism. The dude was born in Syria. He's probably fine, but you gonna risk a Syrian national (born) with access to the presidents food? Have you seen proud syrian's posts?

Not to say this guy is necessarily that way, but still, especially in a "time of war" (so to speak) minimization of risk is the SS's freakin task. I think they did the smart thing.
 
Originally posted by kajolishot
It’s sad really – when discrimination is considered legal (proper) under the guise of national security. It should be discouraged at every facet of our society and government.
Click to expand...
I agree it is really a sad thing. But presidential security is a thankless job. If SS are successful it is their job. If they miss once then they are doomed. In such a situation SS's priority of normal human rights and equality would take a back-seat. As Wesmorris said thats SS's freakin task. There are some presidents who violate security protocols to mingle with folks, giving fits to security personnel. But Mr.Bush is not one such pres, i presume.
 
My dad's first name is Mohamed...He's a PHD in mechanical engineering and used to be head of research department in general motors. He's brilliant in everyway and terribly trusted...I told him about this guy and asked him what would he do if he was asked to go home...

My dad without hesitation said, I would most definetely go home..I asked him, but dad, it's racism..He said...not all...It's a matter of national security, and while I'm an expert in cars, I know nothing of the rules governing national security, and so in those areas, I listen and obey the rules regardless on how absurd they may sound.

Later on I was able to get a more geniune answer out of him..He told me that he expects to pay out of his freedom for the errors of other muslims who commited stupid actions....It is sort of like one bad person who start bouncing checks and all of a sudden the store is not accepting any more checks..
 
Originally posted by wesmorris
Racism?
That's a crock.
I'm sure you know what racism is, so why would you think it applicable?

I am not sure you do, though.

This is nationalism. The dude was born in Syria. He's probably fine, but you gonna risk a Syrian national (born) with access to the presidents food? Have you seen proud syrian's posts?

The dude's an American citizen. The point of SS pre-screening is to determine the risk of individuals. The pre-screening passed for this American. Discriminate and generalization, because all Syrians are like Proud_Syrian. All whites must be like Timmy McVeigh. Further, all Michigan residents must be evil because he was from Michigan.

Not to say this guy is necessarily that way, but still, especially in a "time of war" (so to speak) minimization of risk is the SS's freakin task. I think they did the smart thing.

Again, trampling on civil liberties is not protecting the country and the law of the land.
 
Originally posted by kajolishot
[BAgain, trampling on civil liberties is not protecting the country and the law of the land. [/B]
Click to expand...

When you come back from LaLa land of dreams of civil liberties, could you please answer me this.

If you are a member of SS and you just found out that the president will be in such and such location at X hour to do a fund raising for the America Jews. You only have two hours to get the place ready...What would you do?

a- Invite the whole damn world including Yasser Arafat to raise money for the jews and cause possible world war III?
b- prescreen and limit the number of individuals available to the American jews and those that support Israel?

It's called special interest groups Mr. Kajolishot....Mr. President need to have selective audience for each gathering that he have to get things done...Or he'll end up debating himself to death and never getting anything done....He doesn't invite jews to arabic fund raisers and awareness and vice versa...He doesn't invite the pope to the Southern Baptist convention, just an example....He wouldn't invite green earth association to oil day.
 
Originally posted by kajolishot
Again, trampling on civil liberties is not protecting the country and the law of the land.
Click to expand...

WHAT?

So now you think that giving a guy a paid night off is trampling civil liberties?
 
I change my mind!

Or perhaps clarify my mind on the issue.

Normally, the SS job is to contact the places that the president will visit two weeks prior to investigate.

If the SS received a list from the employer and returned back another compressed list for the employees who are allowed to be around during the president visit, then the SS has all the right to include or not include anyone on their list for any reason. Meeting the president is like the lottery...It's not a right, but a previledge.

If Mohamed was not on the SS list, then he have to go home and he doesn't have a case.

If there was no list, yet Mohamed was asked to go home based on the spot check of the name and no other employees recieved the same treatment, then it's racism and he will win his law suit.

The key is "Was SS procedures followed in this case or not???"....Pure and simple.
 
If the SS received a list from the employer and returned back another compressed list for the employees who are allowed to be around during the president visit, then the SS has all the right to include or not include anyone on their list for any reason. Meeting the president is like the lottery...It's not a right, but a previledge.
If Mohamed was not on the SS list, then he have to go home and he doesn't have a case.

Flores - the article was preety clear on what took place. This guy's information was submitted to SS for clearance and therefore he recieved his schedule. He was turned away on the day of his shift. It could very well be a human error that his name did not appear on the sheet the agent had on hand - but therein lies the problem.

Oh well - it does no good beating a dead horse.

WHAT?
So now you think that giving a guy a paid night off is trampling civil liberties?
That's a stupid question. Ask a less stupid question.
 
kajolishot said:
That's a stupid question. Ask a less stupid question.
Click to expand...


Sure doesn't seem stupid to me.

The guy was percieved as a security risk.

He got paid to stay home.

Most Americans spend their entired lives trying to work that scam and this dude does it by chance. Good for him.

I think making the case of "tramping his civil liberties" is pretty goddamn stupid. When it comes to the security of the president, how can you complain about a paid night off for security reasons? I think you're whining.
 
Sure doesn't seem stupid to me.
The guy was percieved as a security risk.
He got paid to stay home.
Most Americans spend their entired lives trying to work that scam and this dude does it by chance. Good for him.
I think making the case of "tramping his civil liberties" is pretty goddamn stupid. When it comes to the security of the president, how can you complain about a paid night off for security reasons? I think you're whining

ha ha! Just like Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus!! I mean who ever heard such a thing!!!


Wes, if the guy was "security risk" he would not have been cleared by the SS and given a work schedule.
 
/ha ha! Just like Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus!! I mean who ever heard such a thing!!!

that's insane man.

you don't see any difference between social policy and the security of the president?

/Wes, if the guy was "security risk" he would not have been cleared by the SS and given a work schedule.

Maybe I'm confused - it's been a couple of weeks and I've spaced the details maybe. I thought he was NOT cleared by them and was given a paid night off. Or are you saying he was originally but they changed it at the last minute? I don't see any difference. If they changed it at the last minute then they must have re-assessed and determined that he was enough of a security risk to exclude from the deal eh?
 
you don't see any difference between social policy and the security of the president?

I should have made it clear to what I was saying that. Let me try again.
wes:
WHAT?
So now you think that giving a guy a paid night off is trampling civil liberties?

kajol:
Just like Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus!! I mean who ever heard such a thing!!!

I thought your above comment a little insensitive, that's all.

But anyway, you cannot establish the case that this person was a threat to the president. Not when he was A-Ok'd by SS screening.


Maybe I'm confused - it's been a couple of weeks and I've spaced the details maybe. I thought he was NOT cleared by them and was given a paid night off.

Yea :) I'm bored of this thread too. I did not mean to push the racial discrimination card as much as I have. I would concede this could have been a human error and that the guy's name was erroneously omitted from the sheet the SS field agents had.

SS explanation does not cite security reason for the incident. So stop playing that card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top