OK, I’m not sure I’m entirely persuaded by Stewart Baker’s post — it’s not clear, for instance, why handcuffing was proper under the circumstances — but the title is very funny.
OK, I’m not sure I’m entirely persuaded by Stewart Baker’s post — it’s not clear, for instance, why handcuffing was proper under the circumstances — but the title is very funny.
orca says:
Isn’t asking passengers personal questions a big part of the “Israeli Style” security system the wingnuts are pleading for?
January 6, 2010, 1:31 amOff Kilter says:
Very funny title. Very sad reality.
January 6, 2010, 1:35 amThe Curmudgeonly-Ex-Clerk says:
Professor Volokh writes:
The TSA questioning that triggered this episode with Yon reportedly concerned how much money he made. Stewart Baker’s retort is to the effect that U.S. citizens should all be prepared and willing to answer any and all “questions whose relevance isn’t immediately obvious” and that an unwillingness to satisfy such facially irrelevant queries from low-level government functionaries amounts to “reliv[ing] one’s adolescence.” Exactly what part of Baker’s retort are you persuaded by?
January 6, 2010, 2:26 amGuy says:
Yeah but the TSA guy should have known he wasn’t Muslim with his magic religion-seeing eyeglasses. So he should have been allowed to be as ornery and difficult as he wanted.
January 6, 2010, 2:31 amGuy says:
What do you do for a living, how much money do you make, and how much money do you have on you were standard customs screening questions even before 9/11. It’s not a good sign that we’re only hearing his side of the events and he still comes off looking like an arrogant buffoon who decided to throw a temper tantrum.
January 6, 2010, 2:40 amOren says:
From a purely legal standpoint, it’s fairly clear that the DHS cannot indefinitely detain (or refuse entry) to a US citizen at the border. If that’s the case, it would seem that there is no incentive to answer anything since a false or misleading answer is a felony whereas silence is never liable to criminality.
In other words, stick to your guns and they gotta cut you lose …
January 6, 2010, 2:48 amMark N. says:
What you do for a living, and how much money you have on you, yes. But I’ve never been asked how much money I make; that’s a weird question to ask at a security checkpoint. It does seem like an unjustified intrusion into privacy; my salary isn’t really the TSA’s business.
January 6, 2010, 2:49 amrequired says:
I don’t understand, Yon was asked a screening question (“How much money do you make?”) and gave the appropriate answer to show that he is a US citizen (“None of your f***ing business.”). Actually answering the question would be cause for suspicion, but not answering should be the expected response unless the nature of American has changed recently. Heck, if my mother were to ask me how much money I make I’d be more polite and say “enough”, but the rule I was raised with is that you don’t talk about how much money you make.
January 6, 2010, 3:30 amwlpeak says:
TSA. Telling Salaries Aloud?
January 6, 2010, 3:37 amOff Kilter says:
Oren,
Please clarify for us non-lawyers: Is it now a felony to (if responding at all…) not respond truthfully when not under oath? I knew Martha Stewart got in trouble for doing so to an FBI agent, but I was unaware this applies to all government functionaries…Seems like it sort of makes the requirement of being under oath redundant…
January 6, 2010, 3:52 amRicardo says:
It does say TSA officials rather than CBP so I gather he was catching a connecting flight after returning to the U.S. when he was stopped by TSA security people. I do wonder what is up with the handcuffing: why don’t they just tell him he can either choose to answer their questions or take Amtrak or Greyhound to get to his destination?
But isn’t it rather inadvisable to not answer any questions at the border even if you are U.S. citizen? CBP uses an escalation procedure based on their suspicion of a person and his willingness to carry drugs or explosives into the country. Refusing to answer questions would seem to escalate the situation into a body-cavity search pretty quickly. This can go as far as detaining you in a hospital handcuffed to the hospital bed while you are repeatedly administered an enema over several hours until they are sure your bowels are cleared out. I’d say answering questions about income is the less invasive option.
January 6, 2010, 3:59 amCDU says:
The questioners in this case were TSA, not customs. As the incident with the Ron Paul staffer made clear, TSA’s job is to keep air travel safe, not enforce criminal laws.
January 6, 2010, 6:09 amEvilDave says:
The main issue is that it was TSA doing this, not Customs.
A large part of the problem is that many people don’t view the TSA as … well, legitimate. They view the TSA with about the same amount of respect as they view the DVM. In this view, the TSA is operated by a bunch of petty bureaucrats and high school drop outs, who now have significant power over you, without any real due process. This understandably irritates people.
They attribute the lack of successful terrorist bombings, not to these Keystone Kops, but to the terrorist’s ability to only recruit the Three Stooges to commit terrorist acts outside of their home territory.
Whereas, Customs is viewed as a legitimate law enforcement agency with properly trained employees (not as properly trained as other law enforcement agencies, eg FBI, DEA, Fed Marshals, Secret Service, etc.).
The TSA has an image problem and before they start asking questions Israeli-style they need a proper PR campaign to make people believe the TSA is competent enough to ask questions.
January 6, 2010, 6:26 amObviously, this view of the TSA is not universal.
Buddy Hinton says:
Question for Professor Volokh:
How much money do you make (including any secondary sources of income)?
January 6, 2010, 6:51 amecarreras says:
OK. So the crotch bomber has a right to an attorney, and does not have to answer any questions without his attorney being present. Michael Yon, an American citizen has to answer all questions posed by a TSA flunkie or else he is arrested. The system works!
January 6, 2010, 6:58 amAnatid says:
It’s not the answers to their questions, it’s how they give the answers. An anxious lie is usually accompanied by certain patterns of eye movement, nervous twitches, and hesitations in speech. If sufficiently anxious – say, because you’re carrying a bomb – then these patterns may emerge simply from the stress of concealing the presence of the bomb. A calm, confident, “I do not think that is relevant to air travel” doesn’t bear these hallmarks. The whole point of asking the questions is just to get the person talking.
January 6, 2010, 7:15 amSW says:
I think this illustrates why widespread traveler interviews is a bad idea in the US. We do not like being questioned.
January 6, 2010, 8:04 amSteve says:
Are you delusional? A temper tantrum? Did you even ready Yon’s Facebook post about the situation? It was brief and factual and nowhere near a temper tantrum. He also said he had been treated better in countries like China and Vietnam.
He called them bullies before, and I think they are. My guess is Yon will let this pass without making any sort of big deal about it. If this happened to a young Muslim male on the other hand, the ACLU and CAIR lawyers would already be involved threatening to sue and complaining about profiling.
January 6, 2010, 8:17 amSun Tzu's Nephew says:
Perhaps but he had already entered the US, and was being screened by TSA (not ICE) after presumably moving to another terminal in the airport. Further, just how does a TSA (Too Slow for Arby’s) goon know that any number a US Citizen tosses out is true (other than ‘more than you do, chump’)? Does the TSA have some magic database link to IRS?
And just what was the threat to the TSA goon that Yon required being handcuffed for? He had just cleared US Customs, he was in an airport, and the TSA goons were armed…
You’re partially right – but the arrogant buffoon throwing a tantrum was wearing a TSA uniform.
January 6, 2010, 8:31 amSecond Amendment Sister says:
Absolutely untrue. A high school diploma is the only requirement, so you can’t be a drop out.
I feel much safer, don’t you?
January 6, 2010, 8:41 amAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
A half truth. The questions are only asked by those who are trained to evaluate the responses, not merely the curious new hire completely untrained in interrogation.
BTW, it is near certain that any numerical answer will be not accurate to the penny. Therefore why risk giving a false official answer that may be a felony?
January 6, 2010, 8:43 amAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
Not quite true, as a G.E.D will suffice.
January 6, 2010, 8:45 amMichael P says:
The personal questions are usually along the lines of what the person is carrying, where they are going, and why they are traveling (in general or on that particular flight). These are the aspects that a terrorist is likely to be most insecure about revealing. A person’s annual income and employer, which is what the TSA asked Yon about, are not so helpful in uncovering malicious intent.
January 6, 2010, 8:47 amShelbyC says:
What do you do for a living, sure. How much money do you have on you? Standard before you could go to a foreign ATM and get whatever money you needed. How much money do you make? Never.
January 6, 2010, 8:47 amSteve says:
Yon’s story is so bizarre that I am surprised everyone seems to be taking it at face value. I find it difficult to credit.
January 6, 2010, 9:00 amTamerlane says:
Hiring mall cop wannabees with (1) intelligence and training so insufficient that they think they have a right to demand any information they want from their temporary victims; and (2) such a sense of inferiority/entitlement that they would even contemplate cuffing someone for failing to accede to their slightest whim is a unique feature of the USA’s current airline security system. — The system for which Napolitano is responsible. — Only the looney tune left would confuse this with the Israeli system.
January 6, 2010, 9:06 amwuzzagrunt says:
Answer the questions, do what you’re told, and don’t give Officers Georgie and Dim any backtalk. It’s for your own safety, and your duty as an American.
January 6, 2010, 9:15 amShelbyC says:
What’s so bizarre about it? Maybe my expectations of TSA are bizarre, but nothing about it strikes me as terribly suprising, unfortunately. Now the linked story about the friend being forced to give up her email password is a different matter…
January 6, 2010, 9:19 amShelbyC says:
What’s so bizarre about it? Maybe my expectations of TSA are bizarre, but nothing about it strikes me as terribly suprising, unfortunately. Now the linked story about the friend being forced to give up her email password is a different matter…
January 6, 2010, 9:19 ampc says:
I can see him being apprehensive about the first question, but not saying who he worked for? After all of the genuflecting about Israeli security, I’m surprised people are giving Yon so much leeway.
What exactly do you think Israeli security would have done? Waved him on for being a good American?
January 6, 2010, 9:21 amtom says:
I remember coming home from a trip to Israel many years ago when I was 18. I had never traveled outside of the US before, and I had only been on a plane 2-3 times. This was in 1981 when anyone could roam at will around a US airport. I was with a group staying at Weizmann Institute (think teen-nerds on a camping trip in Israel and you won’t be far wrong)
The security lady at Ben Gurion started with the questions, eventually asking why my bag was locked. This flustered me and she picked up on it. The truth was the bag was falling apart and full of dirty laundry and I was afraid it would burst open on the way home. But telling a lady with an Uzi that I didn’t want anyone to see my dirty BVDs was too mortifying an admission for an 18-yo. I then had to unlock the bag and she began to pick through my dirty clothes one by one. This got me more upset. Which she picked up on as well. It took nearly 15 minutes to complete the interview.
I just don’t see US fliers working well with Israeli style security. The first time someone touches drawers of an under-aged boy or girl or the wrong celebrity we are going to have fist fights and claims of perversion being tossed about on CNN and Fox.
January 6, 2010, 9:36 amrosignol says:
That’s one of the things that makes me wonder if Yon didn’t mix up who he was talking to.
January 6, 2010, 9:49 amPintler says:
Consider what happens if you just delete the word ‘air’. Given the relative fatality rates of auto and air travel, why don’t we give state troopers the exact powers the TSA has at airports – to ask whatever they want and search whatever they want at any time, without making them jump through those reasonable suspicion and probable cause hoops. Right now, any terrorist in America can just use the driving loophole to avoid scrutiny by driving between target cities instead of flying.
OK, that’s tongue in the cheek, but what if (as seams at least reasonable to me) giving these powers to the police at large would save more lives at lower cost than airport security? Why is it only bad to die in an airplane?
January 6, 2010, 9:50 ampc says:
btw, Customs arrested Yon, not the TSA.
January 6, 2010, 9:55 amDaveW says:
Among the names Yon calls the TSA agents are “rude”, “arrogant”, “smart alec”, “bullies” and “senseless”. Those are all from a post a year ago about a Thai friend of his that had trouble on arrival.
I enjoy Yon’s writing but I suspect he had an attitude and TSA picked up on that.
Is that a good thing for TSA to be doing? Well no of course not. But do you want to make your point or make your flight?
I’ve told my daughter to be polite to police if she gets pulled over. As far as I know there’s no law that says you should say “yes sir” and “no maam” to law enforcement, but again do you want to demonstrate your rights or get back on the road? You have a right to remain silent and call an attorney too, do you want to go down to the station and assert those rights?
None of this is “right” but it is normal every day life.
January 6, 2010, 9:55 amJay says:
I suspect US customs officials ask people how much money they have on them because carrying more than $10,000 cash into or out of the country requires filing a report. I’m not sure I’ve ever actually been asked that, but it’s a question on the form you fill out before landing.
January 6, 2010, 9:58 amTSA asking that question seems a little fishy to me, though–what exactly is the “terrorist” answer? If you admit to having a lot of cash, are they going to seize it and claim it’s drug money?
Chem_geek says:
Sure, ’cause there’s no right to counsel before arrest.
And, BTW, rights apply to people. The set of people is more inclusive than the set of citizens. If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution.
January 6, 2010, 10:00 amSW says:
Yon, In pc’s link above says Israel is worse than the US
January 6, 2010, 10:04 amRichard Gould-Saltman says:
Interesting. Per pc’s link to Yon’s Facebook, Yon now says that Customs, NOT TSA, “detained” him. What does that do to the credibility of the original story:
“Award winning war correspondent Michael Yon was detained and handcuffed at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport yesterday by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) personnel.
. . . .
Yon was escorted to a room elsewhere in the airport where he said he remained silent during much of the questioning. According to Yon, “they handcuffed me for failing to cooperate. They said I was impeding their ability to do their job.”
Yon described the TSA officials as noticeably frustrated by his refusal to answer their questions : “I always assume everything is being recorded. I was trying to be professional.”?
Also, Ricardo, EvilDave, CDU, Sun Tzu: Oh, well….
January 6, 2010, 10:37 amJavert says:
So would anything be considered an inappropriate question? How often do you beat your wife? When’s the last time you saw your therapist? Do you use Viagra or Cialis?
I’m with Yon. “Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Be a man not a mouse.
January 6, 2010, 10:51 amjccamp says:
I think orca had it right in the very first post, although I don’t generally agree with much else that he/she has said in the past – and vice versa, I’m sure. If you want an intensive (and effective) screening process, ala El Al, then be prepared to answer any number of seemingly inappropriate questions. Under such a system, the person being screened – screenee? – does not get to pick and choose which questions to answer.
For instance, has the BVD-bomber been asked this question (annual income), presumably the answer would have been “I am unemployed and make zero dollars per annum”, leading to “How and why are you flying about the world and paying cash for your tickets?” (anticipating the responses, the BVD-bomber lies and claims he works for the famous Volokh.com for several hundred thousand a year. Follow up questions are about (lack of) paycheck stubs and/or regular bank deposits consistent with pay periods. Etc. Use common sense as available on an individual basis to form more follow-up questions.)
So the question that the blogger found so offensive was really situational, and could have been valuable to a trained investigator/profiler, which apparently the blogger was not, since he saw no purpose in it, and in fact, reveled in his refusal to cooperate.
At some point, someone in the Customs chain of command considered whether the blogger was a threat or criminal, or just a smart ass interested only in making life hard for the working stiffs at TSA/CBP. That supervisory person(s) apparently decided on the latter and kicked the juvenile delinquent loose – without the spanking he so richly deserved and probably never received as a child.
This is one of life’s small indignities. Get over it. Or take the bus next time.
Or create a system which forgoes any attempts at screening, since apparently the point is that those being screened get to decide which questions are appropriate. A novel approach: do-it-yourself psychological self-screening for the potential terrorist.
January 6, 2010, 11:09 amjccamp says:
BTW, I wasn’t suggesting that orca would agree with my thoughts, only that I agree with orca’s take, i.e. if you want the rigorous screening, be prepared for the inevitable consequences.
January 6, 2010, 11:18 amYankev says:
Because to those war correspondents, every uniform looks like every other uniform.
January 6, 2010, 11:18 amThorley Winston says:
If it’s true that he was actually talking to Customs officials and not the TSA as he originally reported, that might explain why the “relevance” of the questions he was asked about money might not have been “immediately obvious” to him at the time.
Either way, I agree with DaveW. As unfair as it may be you can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride.
January 6, 2010, 11:19 amYankev says:
Absolutely true, as a certain harvard professor recently learned. Maybe President Obama will criticize the officers who arrested Michael Yon. Then they can all have a beer together.
January 6, 2010, 11:20 amRichard Gould-Saltman says:
Pinler sez:
“Consider what happens if you just delete the word ‘air’. Given the relative fatality rates of auto and air travel, why don’t we give state troopers the exact powers the TSA has at airports — to ask whatever they want and search whatever they want at any time, without making them jump through those reasonable suspicion and probable cause hoops. Right now, any terrorist in America can just use the driving loophole to avoid scrutiny by driving between target cities instead of flying.”
A. In fact, police have just those powers, and as folks who do criminal defense work will tell you, use them somewhat routinely; it’s just that if they catch a suspect and the State has to go to trial, the information the police extract with these methods isn’t admissible. Every single exclusionary rule case, and successful motion to exclude begins with the police having done something that they arguably weren’t supposed to…
B. A little cost-benefit analysis explains a lot. Someone doing the McVeigh thing could kill a lot of folks with a truck or car bomb, BUT it’s harder to do than it was twenty years ago, (see all those barriers?) and even then, would require several orders of magnitude more stuff than either Mr. Pantsbomber’s undies, or the shoe-bomber’s shoes would hold, to damage anything other than the bomber himself.
Now, balance the relative risk of harm with the cost of
January 6, 2010, 11:23 amimplementing and staffing motor vehicle checkpoints around every building or other public place in which more than a couple of hundred people are gathered in close quarters…
ShelbyC says:
Relax and enjoy it, eh?
January 6, 2010, 11:29 amjccamp says:
Shelby -
Actually, I had this image of someone at Customs looking at a passport stamped with every world hotspot of terrorist activity, militant Islam, drug smuggling, arms dealing – I mean, that’s the guy’s job, right? He writes about people behaving badly.
So the Customs officer asks “What do you do for a living?”
Response: “I’m a self-employed blogger.”
I think some follow-up is appropriate at this point, like “Exactly how much do you make blogging every year that allows this kind of travel?”
Response: “I don’t think I feel like answering your questions.” (sticks tongue out)
Who knows how the conversation really went. But the question was well within reason to someone trained to elicit information from such screening. Maybe the interviewer didn’t really care about the exact answer; he/she was instead looking for signs of evasion, deception, nervousness.
Anyway, the blogger acted like a moron. We don’t have to enjoy it. But we do have to endure it if we choose to have a screening process at all.
January 6, 2010, 12:00 pmEconGrad says:
If I’m a U.S. citizen returning home and presently standing on U.S. soil, then the Federales can kiss my ass if they don’t like which questions I decide to answer and not. If you want to search me, my luggage, etc. before admitting me — fine — but you don’t get to search my brain and/or possibly trick me into felony “lying to a federal agent”. Honestly I can’t think of a single question I (a natural born U.S. citizen) should be forced to answer other than “is this your passport and is this your true identity” and “are you carrying any contraband”. After all, what are they going to do if you don’t answer? Deport you? To where? Keep you in jail forever? On what charge?
More and more I’m of the mind that if I can’t get there anonymously by private conveyance – I’m not going.
January 6, 2010, 12:01 pmjccamp says:
Shelby –
BTW, it’s one of the reasons I seldom fly anymore. I’d rather drive and enjoy the scenery than endure the long lines and rude TSA screeners who don’t strike me as particularly efficient anyway. That is my choice. This blogger has the same choice.
January 6, 2010, 12:04 pmA. Zarkov says:
Steve Bierfeldt was interrogated by TSA for mere possession of $4,700 in cash while going through airport security. They threatened to arrest him but didn’t. He didn’t actually refuse to answer, but he demanded to know if they had a legal right to ask the question. TSA refused to answer. With the help of the ACLU, he sued Janet Napolitano and TSA has backed down admitting their agents have no authority to interrogate passengers on matters not related to security and that includes what you do for a living and how much you make. In other words TSA agents are not LEOs. Bierfeldt recorded his interrogation, you can download it here. Details of the case are here.
It seems to me that TSA could have refused to let him through security, but on what basis could he be detained– or arrested? How is having $4,700 probable cause?
Going through customs could be an entirely different matter. But surely there is some limit on what you can get asked. And surely you should not be arrested for not answering questions without any probable cause.
How does the Michael Yon matter differ from Steve Bierfeldt?
January 6, 2010, 12:10 pmjccamp says:
“If I’m a U.S. citizen returning home…then the Federales can kiss my ass…”
Just remember that last bunch of disparate terror suspects (Ft. Hood, 5 in custody in Pakistan, BVD bomber as examples) have all been U S citizens. But certainly, it’s far more important that you retain the innate right to tell all and sundry TSA/CBP/DHS to kiss your ass when you don’t like their attitude.
“More and more I’m of the mind that if I can’t get there anonymously by private conveyance — I’m not going.”
But I agree completely with this thought. It’s a far better idea than arguing with some screener in an airport, and a way to demonstrate your feelings via your wallet.
January 6, 2010, 12:13 pmjukeboxgrad says:
richard:
Indeed. What we see here is that 10 hours ago Yon said this:
On the other hand, EV is citing Stewart Baker who is citing Andrew Breitbart’s site saying this: “EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Military Blogger Michael Yon Detained, Handcuffed by TSA in Seattle Airport.”
And “TSA” appears in the article at least 10 times. And the “exclusive interview” includes Yon saying things like this: “I did not answer the question which clearly was upsetting to the TSA officers.”
And Yon’s voice can be heard on tape here, describing the incident. He mentions TSA at least twice, pointing his finger at them as the responsible party.
Breitbart has not posted a correction, and a bunch of other conservative bloggers are still running with the false claim about TSA (link, link, link).
Business as usual. Next up, we will find out that it’s really ACORN’s fault. The important thing is to manipulate the narrative so it targets the proper scapegoat du jour.
==================
yankev:
You are trying to be funny, but it seems that Yon was indeed quite careless with regard to recognizing who he was dealing with. And the passive voice in his correction (“there is some confusion about who arrested me”) is a poor substitute for taking responsibility for his false accusation. The reason “there is some confusion” is because he made false statements.
And since he was obviously wrong and careless in accusing TSA, someone should explain why his other statements should be taken at face value.
January 6, 2010, 12:18 pmjccamp says:
A Zarkov –
Maybe the single most determinative difference is the ability of the individual agent to articulate a grounds for the questions. One actually had some idea of where he was going. The other had seen this before and was trying to follow some purpose that in actuality eluded him. So the second was fishing, fumbling around, not really sure of where to go, while another had a clear line of answer and reaction in mind.
We should not eliminate (or underestimate) the potential for any individual agent/screener being an even larger moron than the blogger cited in the OP. Kind of Battle of the Brainless Egos. That certainly remains a very real possibility, that is, while we are discussing rights, constitutional issues, and the like, what really happened was an argument between two guys, both just like that obnoxious brother-in-law we all seem to have.
January 6, 2010, 12:22 pmA. Zarkov says:
Just replace Yon with Bierfeldt. Same issue except Bierfeldt did not get arrested although he got threatened with that. Now you won’t have to take the word of those evil, deceptive conservatives– you can listen to the interrogation. You can read the ACLU complaint against Napolitino. You can read how TSA backed down.
January 6, 2010, 12:28 pmShelbyC says:
I dunno. Personally I think it’s important that folks push back if they think the government is overreaching (even if they’re wrong). It helps keep the equilibrium where it should be.
January 6, 2010, 12:36 pmlosantiville says:
It’s only illegal to lie to federal employees asking you questions in the course of their employment:
Title 18 USC Sec 1001.
The Supremes said that the law even covers “exculpatory no” answers.
“Did you rob the bank”? (asked by an FBI agent of the bank robber)?
“No.”
Sec 1001 liability.
January 6, 2010, 12:39 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “Actually, a Chip That Big Will Have to Come Off Your Shoulder and Go Through the X-Ray.” -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by PostRank – Law, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: “Actually, a Chip That Big Will Have to Come Off Your Shoulder and Go Through the X-Ray.”: OK, I’m not sure I’m.. http://bit.ly/750OlS [...]
January 6, 2010, 12:40 pmA. Zarkov says:
I think you are too hung up about personalities. That’s not the issue. TSA and customs act under the color of authority, and we should hold them to a higher standard than a mere passenger. They are paid to act in a professional manner. TSA has agreed that their people are not LEOs and they can’t ask anything they want. As I said, the worst that should happen is the passenger gets denied the right to board absent possession of contraband.
I once worked with customs for a very short time, and I found them and the associated INS personnel to be completely professional. Sane and intelligent people. I stood next to customs and listened to the bullshit stories that foreigners told them. They were obviously intending to overstay their visa. But there was nothing they could do. Illegal aliens get better treatment in some circumstances than Americans.
January 6, 2010, 12:44 pmA. Zarkov says:
Correction. On a careful reading it seems that Yon was not arrested, only handcuffed. Since we don’t have a recording of the confrontation, we don’t know all the facts. But we do have a recording of TSA interrogating Bierfeldt, so listen and judge for yourself.
January 6, 2010, 12:48 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Which you’ve done very nicely, thanks. It’s all the victim’s fault.
It’s pretty sad when the freest people on earth are reduced to “be vert nice to the policeman no matter what he does or he’ll make you very sorry.”
My experience with Israeli security is that when you tell them you don’t think an snswer to a particular question is relevant, they slide the conversation around. They’re looking for nonverbal cues, not information. And I’ve never been asked how much money I made, even by Customs.
I know this was said sarcastically, but it’s true. The right to tell a government official to kiss your ass is one of the things that makes us America. I’m happy to trade the .001% chance my flight will have a bomb on it for that, just as I’m willing to trade the increased chance of being mugged for the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
You have to wonder why terrorists are so fixated on airplanes, though. You’d think it would be much easier to get a bomb or a gun on a subway train. You’d kill just as many people and you’d have even more economic impact.
January 6, 2010, 12:49 pmDavid Schwartz says:
Of course. But his story does not end with them asking him a question he considered inappropriate. If his story ended there, your response would be a complete response.
The point of asking such questions is to get a response. If that response is “go to hell you TSA robot”, then the question has served its purpose.
January 6, 2010, 1:05 pmpc says:
Given that Yon travels to places like Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think it might be relevant information to know how he pays for those trips? Last week conservatives were screaming bloody murder that US airport screening was a joke because a guy slipped through screening in Nigeria and Amsterdam. The consensus seemed to be that the US should adopt Israeli style security. This week a blogger that travels to some of the seediest parts of the world gets questioned about what he does and how he pays for it. Conservative reaction? Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!
January 6, 2010, 1:06 pmjukeboxgrad says:
zarkov:
I think you answered your own question:
Questions that make sense from a TSA perspective are not necessarily the same questions that make sense from a CBP perspective.
Except that Yon isn’t Bierfeldt, and CBP isn’t TSA. If a bunch of conservative bloggers want to run posts complaining about the Bierfeldt incident, they should. But for the most part, they haven’t. Why haven’t they? I can only guess. Maybe they’re not willing to take the same position as the ACLU. On the other hand, Bierfeldt’s story has been told by Huffington Post, NPR, NYT and New Yorker. I guess if one wants to keep up with events of interest to libertarians, those are the sources one should be reading.
On the other hand, Glenn Reynolds (prominent pseudo-libertarian) has run at least two posts about the Yon incident and zero about Bierfeldt. Michelle Malkin has likewise said nothing about Bierfeldt. Likewise for VC. I wonder why.
Anyway, I think the conservative position on TSA boils down to this: ‘I want them to be more intrusive, but not with people who look like me.’ Guy hit the nail on the head when he said this: “the TSA guy should have known he wasn’t Muslim with his magic religion-seeing eyeglasses.”
Except that Yon wasn’t trying to board. He had just unboarded. He was trying to get through Customs.
Good point (although I’m not sure I understand the difference). On the other hand, a bunch of conservatives bloggers are using the word “arrested.” And Yon said this: “They said I wasn’t under arrest, but I’m handcuffed. In any other country, that qualifies as an arrest.”
===================
machoots:
But of course that right doesn’t extend to Henry Louis Gates Jr.
I think this is actually a good question. I think the answer has to do with the profile of a typical passenger. As a general rule, people flying on airplanes have a lot more money than people taking mass transit. The political impact of terrorizing rich people is much greater than the political impact of terrorizing poor people.
Feel free to demonstrate where I’ve done anything to “manipulate the narrative.” As usual (example), you’re making claims that are pure wind.
January 6, 2010, 1:15 pmA. Zarkov says:
Here from the Jerusalem Post is an article by Richard Pipes on how an intelligent El Al agent discovered Ann-Marie Murphy was (unknown to her) carrying plastic explosive in her suitcase. You can read the questions the agent asked her, and see how the agent figured out what was going on.
January 6, 2010, 1:21 pmGuest12345 says:
I’m having a hard time understanding the points in your post. First, customs interviews are exceptionally brief. The agents have zero ability to verify the answers they receive. They aren’t going to be detaining everyone traveling from or in the vicinity of a political hotspot while FBI agents dig into bank records. All of the responses in this thread that reply with the suggestion that knowing the quantity of Yon’s annual earnings will somehow allow the agents to determine what security risk he represents are way off base.
Second, other than the people who had that pants wetting moment of “Oh shit, I’m going to lose my job!”, was there anyone who was suggesting that security was a complete and total success? You make it sound like nothing happened and your favorite conservative whipping boys are out of line for questioning Napolitano.
January 6, 2010, 1:24 pmorca says:
Perhaps the follow on question would have been, “How do you make X dollars as a blogger?”
The whole point in asking q
January 6, 2010, 1:36 pmA. Zarkov says:
How come I brought it up? Don’t you guys think of me as conservative?
Bullshit.
Customs questions should be a subset of TSA questions. Someone going through customs can’t blow up the plane he just got off of.
January 6, 2010, 1:39 pmCato The Elder says:
It occurs to me that the battle-lines that have been drawn in this thread are rather opposed to what I would have expected given each commenter’s ideological proclivities — witness the rarely-seen hard-line liberal and ACLU conservative — and simply because of the identity of the aggrieved party, who IIRC was fairly instrumental to communicating the efficacy of the Republican’s “surge” strategy. A Twilight Zone moment explained by politics.
January 6, 2010, 1:41 pmorca says:
Maybe not, but they can blow up the train that runs from the airport into town.
January 6, 2010, 1:46 pmpc says:
Really? I’ve been pulled aside twice for extended interviews by customs and each time the interview was at least 15 minutes long (the time it took the agent to go through my luggage). Both times the customs agent asked me what I did for a living.
I’m not going to defend Napolitano, DHS or the TSA. TSA seems to be interested in security theater, and how DHS/FBI/CIA failed to flag a Nigerian that had recently traveled to Yemen, bought a one way ticket in cash to the US and carried no luggage is inexcusable. I just think it’s hilarious that last week’s bed wetters are this week’s model of righteous indignation over a customs agent doing his job.
Don’t screen me, bro!
January 6, 2010, 1:46 pmjukeboxgrad says:
zarkov:
I think you brought him up (at the time and place that you did) because you would like to direct attention away from Yon’s bad behavior. That is, his bad behavior in stonewalling CBP, and his bad behavior in making an accusation against the wrong party, and his bad behavior in failing to take responsibility for making an accusation against the wrong party.
Could you be more specific? What was said that was bullshit, and where’s your proof that it’s bullshit? That word is a poor substitute for actual argumentation.
On the other hand, a proven example of someone posting bullshit, and then failing to take responsibility for doing so, can be found via here.
Why? Says who? The things I want to know about you in order to believe that you’re not a drug smuggler are not the same as the things I want to know about you in order to believe that you’re not planning to blow up airplanes.
Good point. Which makes it even harder to understand why Yon failed to understand that he was dealing with CBP, not TSA.
==================
cato:
Yon’s credibility regarding the surge is roughly comparable to his skill in differentiating between CBP and TSA.
January 6, 2010, 2:57 pmLib says:
Unfortunately, it’s been reported that the TSA even accepts diplomas from California public high schools. Although, I admit, this sounds absurd.
January 6, 2010, 3:09 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Sigh. Misstating things doesn’t help the argument. Even a liberal ought to be bright enough able to tell the difference between “who’s paying for your trip to [designated terrorist destination]?” and “How much money do you make?”
Assuming I’m included in this swipe, I’ll deny it. I had no idea who Michael Yon was until I looked him up just now. I’d make exactly the same point if it had happened to Susan Sarandon or the Dixie Chicks, although I’d think it was funnier.
January 6, 2010, 3:55 pmruralcounsel says:
One wonders if there wasn’t a more clever way for Yon to make his point, without being quite so confrontational. Such as replying, “You tell me how much you make, and I’ll answer in terms of multiples.” Or outright lying about his income, presuming how much he makes isn’t a material fact (always keeping in mind 18 USC 1001)!
After reading the various comments, I have mixed feelings. Neither party was probably at their best, and I do feel a question about personal income should not be answered, at least not honestly, to anyone except the IRS. But those who choose to travel about in public, particularly air travel, have to expect a certain level of intrusiveness and inconvenience. TSA or Customs, they should expect a smartass answer to a question like that, and they shouldn’t have a right to make life difficult because of it. Not every government employee or contractor is entitled to every piece of information under any circumstance. It should be appropriate for the time and place. This wasn’t.
January 6, 2010, 4:15 pmwfjag says:
Obviously you know nothing about the “Isreali Style” security system and made no effort to find out the facts:
http://online.wsj.com/video/how-israel-screens-for-terrorists/987D025A-145D-42F5-9756-7B43CC7613CE.html
January 6, 2010, 4:24 pmYankev says:
The impressive part is how their failure occurred AFTER they were tipped off by his father, a pro-Western banker, that the guy had gotten mixed up with Islamic militants and may have been planning an act of terrorism.
January 6, 2010, 4:44 pmMark Jones says:
The more I hear about interactions with the federal government (in just about any law enforcement or “security” setting), the more I think the only words any American should say are, “I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself.”
If pressed, you can explain about USC 18 Sec. 1001. And about the fact that you are responsible for obeying millions of words of federal law, as well as millions more words of administrative rules, to say nothing of all the court decisions interpreting what they mean. And, of course, since “ignorance of the law is no excuse” any answer you give could potentially involve confessing to a crime. Not to mention that a poor memory could lead you say something that isn’t 100% accurate and open you up to charges of lying. Best not to say anything, ever.
January 6, 2010, 4:51 pmpoul says:
reading a few of yon’s articles left me with impression that he is insufferable and obnoxious individual. what most likely happened was that he was deliberately rude to admittedly under-gifted TSA types in order to create controversy and get more clicks.
January 6, 2010, 5:21 pmGuest12345 says:
Were you pulled aside for luggage inspection or for an interview. The way you stated it makes it sound like it was for a luggage inspection. Regardless, 15 minutes is still too short a time for them to get some investigators on the ground to run down the answers to each question you were asked.(*) The point I made was that they don’t verify your answers. Nor is every individual customs agent going to be familiar enough with every aspect of life on the planet. Meaning that even if you say your occupation is blogger, they have no way of knowing if you’re a crazy famous blogger who makes $50,000/mo in ad revenue or if your just a crazy blogger who pays $50/mo in hosting fees.
Context matters and in the context of walking off a plane back into your home country, some questions & answers just aren’t going to provide useful information. There is no good reason to answer such questions.
* – Someone suggested that a followup question would be an inquiry into bank deposits or check stubs. Seriously, wtf?
January 6, 2010, 5:58 pmGuest12345 says:
I was slightly inspired to read 18 usc 1001 and can found this. Does (b) really say you can lie to a judge in court, but otherwise you cannot do so? And section (c) says that you are only required to be honest in certain circumstances to the legislative branch?
January 6, 2010, 6:06 pmBeth says:
Michael Yon has posted on his facebook page that he was questioned and arrested by Customs, not TSA.
http://www.facebook.com/MichaelYonFanPage
8:50 am “Got arrested at the Seattle airport for refusing to say how much money I make. (The uniformed ones say I was not “arrested”, but they definitely handcuffed me.) Their videos and audios should show that I was polite, but simply refused questions that had nothing to do with national security. Port authority police eventually came — they were professionals — and rescued me from the border bullies.”
10:27 pm “There is some confusion about who arrested me. TSA was not involved. The Customs people (CBP) were the actors who handcuffed me.”
Can one of the knowledgable attorneys here address the arrest question? (The customs agent handcuffed Michael Yon but told him he was not under arrest. What is the definition of an arrest in these circumstances?)
January 6, 2010, 7:31 pmRicardo says:
Was he detained? Detention is generally defined as a situation where a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. At airport security, I think a reasonable person would feel free to say “you know what, I’m not really interested in catching this flight anymore, am I free to leave the airport?” If you insist on trying to catch the flight, then you are voluntarily staying there at the security checkpoint. Israel does not let anyone on board a plane until they are convinced that person does not pose a threat. Some reasonable people might wonder why in the age of credit cards and universal ATMs someone is carrying over $4,000 in cash. It is a red flag.
But I am mystified by this attitude. First, we hear all this talk of how the U.S. needs Israeli-style profiling. Note that you can find many examples of white men, even Jewish white men, being subjected to pretty intense questioning by Israeli security — profiling is not based solely on whether someone looks Arab or Muslim in Israel. People who are really good at interrogating don’t ask things like “are you carrying a bomb.” Instead, they try to get your “story” and not only look for non-verbal cues or signs of nervousness but also see just how consistent your answers are. If someone refuses to answer questions, agents will be hurt in their ability to assess whether someone is telling the truth or not. This is why so many conservatives protested and still protest Miranda. It has cut down on the number of cases where police can ask probing questions to suspects until the inconsistencies and flaws in the story become obvious.
From what I can tell, people here simultaneously want Israeli-style security but also the right to micromanage and Monday-night-quarterback the questioning process at least when those being questioned are Caucasian, native-born Americans. This isn’t going to end well. You have to choose one or the other.
January 6, 2010, 9:09 pmRicardo says:
If it was in fact Customs who questioned him, both questions are completely relevant. Customs is tasked with identifying potential drug mules who get paid several thousand dollars to smuggle drugs into the U.S. How much money you earn is very relevant. If the answer is $20,000 and you are returning from a three-day trip to Cambodia or Colombia, be prepared to be searched pretty thoroughly. If you lie and say $70,000 then the natural follow-up is “what’s your occupation? where do you work? how long have you worked there?” If you slip up and say you are a manager at McDonald’s or hesitate on these questions, then the Customs agent knows you are lying. That’s how questioning works.
It makes no sense to declare beforehand that certain questions are off limits and then communicate which questions those are to the public. That makes it much easier for traffickers or terrorists to construct false stories which all of them do beforehand. Do you want border security or not?
January 6, 2010, 9:23 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Only for colored people. Good white Christians need not be insulted with personal questions.
January 6, 2010, 10:51 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Ah, the race card. The last resort of those with no other argument.
Nope. Customs officers aren’t charged with investigating crimes. If I’m an American citizen who is not carrying contraband or dutiable items, how much I make are entirely irrelevant. Which is probably why they’ve never asked me, either here or in Israel.
He was handcuffed. That would lead a reasonable individual to conclude that he/she was not free to leave.
January 6, 2010, 11:35 pmSandy MacHoots says:
Honestly, you can’t tell the difference between (1) explaining to a police officer why you’re on the front porch of a house at night apparently trying to jimmy the lock, and (2) telling a customs or TSA officer how much money you make? Really? I’ve never credited the stories of how liberal political beliefs lead to long-term brain damage, but I’ll have to reconsider. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Nice evocation of the race card in an irrelevant situation, though. You bucking for a job in the Administration?
Apparently you’re still pissed off that I pointed out that Palin was in fact cleared of all charges. Sorry, but (as somebody once said) facts are stubborn things. Except perhaps to liberals. :}
January 6, 2010, 11:43 pmRicardo says:
To customs, you are a person carrying an American passport who is entering the U.S. They are not in any position to know whether or not you are carrying contraband or dutiable items. They aren’t even in a position to know whether or not your passport is forged. That’s why they question passengers (sometimes randomly, sometimes not) to determine whether there is a need for a more thorough questioning or search that may turn up any contraband or undeclared items or evidence of fraudulent travel documents. As I pointed out, your income is indeed relevant to assessing whether you fit the “profile” of someone who may be smuggling weapons or drugs into the country. If you don’t like that fact, then I expect you to come out against the idea of profiling.
Plus, the mandates of both CBP and ICE have been widened to include uncovering evidence of any person’s possible involvement in terrorism.
When I was a graduate student returning from a trip to Southeast Asia, I was pulled aside and first asked what I did for a living. I said I was a graduate student and was then asked “How do you pay for school?” That’s not quite asking what my salary was but it gets at the same kind of information.
January 7, 2010, 12:04 amA. Zarkov says:
You need to listen to the recording. He asked if he were free to go and he was not. He was being detained against his will for asking the TSA officers if they had a legal right to ask the questions they were asking.
I know one. A WASP physicist on his way to Israel was subjected to intensive questioning for a long time before he could board an El Al flight to Israel from San Francisco. Nothing suspicious in his background. As a matter of fact he had top secret security clearance at the time.
January 7, 2010, 12:04 amRicardo says:
I should answer this. The “he” refers to Bierfeldt not Yon as I cannot find any reference to Bierfeldt having been handcuffed by TSA at any point. As for Yon, again assuming it was CBP and not TSA that was questioning him, it seems within their legal right. As you well know, there is the border exception to the 4th Amendment which allows CBP and ICE very broad discretion to search, question and detain any person entering the U.S.
If you want to do away with the border exception then you ought to say so explicitly. Otherwise, I don’t see what your grounds for second-guessing and Monday-night-quarterbacking when government agents exercise the considerable discretion that has been granted to them under the law unless you have expertise in the area of security or interrogation or can cite experts to back up your position.
January 7, 2010, 12:17 amjccamp says:
I think Ricardo is correct with his last two posts. Jukebox makes the same point in a funnier way. I really just don’t get all the excitement, especially considering the terrorism events of the recent past.
The security apparatus is in hot water now, and justifiably so, for (a screening failure) allowing the BVD bomb guy on an airplane after missing some pretty obvious signs (no luggage, cash for tickets, travel origins) aside from other intelligence not available to the people at the airport. I’m trying to imagine the reaction to this kind of a conversation:
Security screener; What kind of underwear you got on there, Bud? They look a little weird on the machine.”
BVD explosive guy: “Why are you asking about my underwear, you pervert? You trying to suggest I’m gay or something? My personal life is none of your business. You Federales can kiss my PETN ass!”
Security screener: “I guess the question is objectionable to him. He doesn’t have to answer. Let him through.”
Guest –
You, a Customs officer, have someone with classic flags – a passport stamped with all kinds of interesting destinations, short stays, repeat trips. You ask for his occupation, and you get some kind of odd (and ill-suited to verification) answer (professional blogger, freelance journalist) which could easily cover a multitude of sins. You ask something like “Exactly how much does a professional blogger make these days, considering your travel habits and all.” You’re looking for a reaction, and also any attempt at deception. If he says, as in my example, “Those Volokh guys pay me a small fortune every month.” then you ask him for some way to verify that, like by monthly or weekly (whatever) deposits of his paychecks into his checking account – you know, the one right there in his pocket, valise, man-bag. “You got those paycheck stubs shoved in the back, maybe the amounts of the direct deposits written in so you don’t lose track?” Maybe you don’t really expect him to have them, but you want to see what he says or does. It’s a process. And there is a methodology to it. The Customs agent couldn’t care less about your income, and probably will have forgotten it by day’s end. He just wants to see if you are cooperating, or being evasive. He’s testing your reactions against what he expects from an honest person, someone who wants to be helpful and also just wants to be on his way. Did you read Zarkov’s interesting post with the story about the unwitting Irish woman who had a bomb hidden in her luggage without her knowledge?
“some questions & answers just aren’t going to provide useful information.”
Sure they are. Just maybe not to you. But then, like a few others here, you’re assuming you know as much as any professional in this particular field, don’t you? You’re confusing the lowest common denominator that you’ve ever encountered or heard about with all of the CBP et al. That’s a mistake.
January 7, 2010, 12:19 amjccamp says:
Well, I meant Ricardo’s posts at 9:09 and 9:23. More action while I was composing…
January 7, 2010, 12:20 amRicardo says:
Fair enough. I read much faster than I can listen or watch. In that case, I suppose we need to hear from a 4th Amendment expert like Orin Kerr to find out where they get this authority to detain and interrogate from.
In the case of Customs and Immigration, though, they have long had very broad discretion to detain, question and search somebody at the border. It is not unlimited but they face a lower bar than probable cause. There have been cases of American citizens detained for several hours because immigration agents incorrectly thought their passports were forged, for instance. That’s the trade-off we make by insisting on border security.
January 7, 2010, 12:26 amjccamp says:
Although I also don’t get the problem with Yon being handcuffed for a time, a person can be detained for a short interval while an investigation is conducted. Also, if an arrest is intended, and then a subsequent decision is made not to arrest (say, because new info is discovered), then again, no harm, no foul. The person was handcuffed once a decision was made to arrest, and then when that decision was reversed, the handcuffs removed and the person kicked loose. There are always civil remedies available.
Generally, if a person is of the opinion that he/she is not free to leave, then that person is in custody. Arrest typically means the process of custody and booking (leading to arraignment). So the talk of arrest is perhaps misleading in this context. Clearly, Yon was never booked, so he was never arrested. Pretty clearly, he was in custody.
In this case, a lower level Customs employee may have decided to arrest, since refusing to answer may have subjected Yon to arrest (I didn’t say conviction, only arrest). A supervisory person then reviewed things, and decided Yon wasn’t really a criminal or terrorism threat, but merely an obnoxious journalist looking to make some hay on CBP’s back. That’s one possibility.
January 7, 2010, 12:34 amjukeboxgrad says:
machoots:
These threads are full of people claiming that we should pay close attention to colored people (example). Now we suddenly hear lots of whining, from essentially the same group, because the government paid close attention to a white guy. How is pointing that out “the race card?”
According to Stewart Baker, “Customs and Border Protection officers have been asking people about their money for, oh, a century or two.”
The Gates incident happened in broad daylight, at roughly noon. Getting your facts straight would be a good start.
She was cleared by Petumenos but not by Branchflower. Palin lied about this, and you have been repeatedly echoing her lie. And if you have any basis for defending the lie, you should have presented it at the right place and time. Instead you crawled away. You also disappeared when I addressed you here. What a surprise.
====================
zarkov:
His encounter was not with “TSA officers.” This fact has already been mentioned several times in this thread. You are apparently not paying attention.
====================
jccamp:
Thank you for this helpful clarification. Yon needs help understanding the difference between CBP and TSA, and he also needs help understanding the difference between “arrested” and “in custody.”
January 7, 2010, 12:52 amBeth says:
Yon never claimed to have been stopped by TSA. That mistake was made by others who were relating his story. And Yon posted a clarification when he saw the errors being made. [see my earlier comment]
I’m not surprised that Yon would not distinguish between an arrest and custody. I was unaware of the distinction until I read jccamp’s definition. [Thank you, jccamp!]
January 7, 2010, 7:25 amjukeboxgrad says:
beth:
Above (here) I already cited Yon’s interview (here) where he can be heard on tape claiming that he was stopped by TSA. And this is aside from the article (here) where he is quoted verbatim blaming TSA.
January 7, 2010, 8:30 ampc says:
I don’t know that there’s a difference, but maybe there is. In both cases the agent was making “small talk,” but we both knew it wasn’t small talk.
And much like the oft cited El Al security, the agents aren’t looking for correct answers. They are looking for reactions. If a customs agent asked me what I did for a living and I told him to go “die in a fire,” I would probably get stopped for extra, extra screening. If you want to argue that border agents have too much authority to harass US citizens, I’m right there with you. I’m merely pointing out the silliness of the people that were complaining about poor security last week and are now Outraged! about invasive security this week.
January 7, 2010, 8:49 amjukeboxgrad says:
And just to be really clear. This article is purportedly an “EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW” with Yon, and the article mentions TSA roughly 10 times. Three of those mentions are within quote marks, that is, part of what are purportedly direct quotes from Yon. So either the Breitbart site fabricated multiple quotes from Yon, or Yon repeatedly blamed TSA in his interview with the Breitbart people.
But we already know that Yon blamed TSA, because we can hear him doing that in his own voice. The telephone interview (here) is painfully long, boring and amateurish, so I think most people would not want to listen to the whole thing, but you can hear Yon blame the incident on TSA if you scroll to 2:15 and 7:25.
I wonder where Beth got the specious idea that “Yon never claimed to have been stopped by TSA.” Is there some ignorant righty blogger now making that claim? I wouldn’t be surprised.
=================
orca:
Indeed.
Yon mentions that in all his travels, Israel is the only other place where he was asked lots of questions. How ironic.
The wingnuts do want “Israeli Style” security, but they want good white Christians to be exempt. Even though the Israelis themselves don’t exempt good white Christians.
January 7, 2010, 8:59 amOren_ says:
Here’s the Federal one, most States have some equivalent
January 7, 2010, 3:25 pm