Am 01.01.2014 07:40, schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> That being said, to use a better anology.. the US has become about as
> much of a police state, given the revelations of the NSA, and a lot of
> other crap going on, as.. say.. An Oreo is a kind of "soft cookie". Its
> both, at once, depressingly inaccurate, and a tad too close to
> plausible, given the right.. environmental conditions.

I do agree that the relationship between citizens and "officers" - be 
they law enforcement, TSA or whatever - in the US seems to be 
fundamentally different from that in Europe, or at least in Germany. 
(Nowadays, that is. It must have been more US-like over here some 
decades ago, probably until around 1970.)

Over here, it is commonly accepted by both citizens and "officers" that 
(1) orders from the latter may be questioned by the former, and (2) the 
former may address the latter like they would any other human being. It 
doesn't seem to be like that in the US.

One thing that would be impossible over here, for instance, would be the 
following dialogue I witnessed myself at an international airport 
between a TSA officer and an old man - the latter isn't quoted verbatim, 
but the former is, word for word:

"The belt has to go off."
"Not this one. It's all plastic."
"The belt has to go off."
"But I tell you it's all plastic."
"The belt has to go off."
"Really, it's all plastic. No metal at all."
"The belt has to go off."
"But I bought it specifically to keep it on when flying."
"The belt has to go off."
"But it's always been ok to keep it on each time I've flown before."
"The belt has to go off."

In the US, it felt natural for the officer to just assert her authority 
over the matter and expect the traveler to comply.

In Germany, it would have felt natural for the dialogue to take a slight 
but important turn:

"The belt has to go off."
"Not this one. It's all plastic."
"It doesn't matter what it's made of. The belt has to go off."

See how the officer would have relied not only on authority, but also on 
a pinch of reason: The order isn't given "just because" - it is given 
because the material of the belt doesn't matter. It also serves to let 
the traveler know that his objections have been heard.

Of course the traveler would probably have continued the dialogue:

"But I bought it specifically to keep it on when flying."
"I'm sorry, but the belt has to go off."

See how the officer would have acknowledged the procedure to be 
inconvenient to the traveler.

"But it's always been ok to keep it on all the time I've flown before."
"You've probably always gone through old-fashioned metal detectors. 
We're using different technology here, and for that the belt has to go off."

See how the officer would again rely on reason.

For the officer to just repeat her order over and over would be 
absolutely unthinkable in Germany. Here, people expect officers to 
acknowledge objections at /some/ level - if only in a "I've heard what 
you said" kind of way.

Post a reply to this message