Don’t Even Think About Studying Arabic!

When Pomona College Student Nicholas George went through airport security in Philadelphia, he wasn’t expecting to end up handcuffed and interrogated by the FBI on suspicion of being a terrorist. Though he was eventually released, the incident brings up a wide variety of issues from free speech to civil rights. What was George’s suspicious activity? Arabic flashcards. Read the full article here.

A student of Arabic at Pomona, George was studying vocabulary. Unfortunately one of the flashcards listed the term “terrorist”, another listed “bomb.” While possibly jarring to the TSA agent who inspected them, as George indicated, the cards were for Media Arabic (newspapers) and these are common terms in both American and Arab media stories. The biggest part of this issue stems from one thought, the TSA agent would never have seen the offending terms if they hadn’t felt the need to search George’s cards, simply because they had Arabic letters on them. While certainly in this hyper sensitive security environment, the presence of Arabic flashcards might indeed trigger a “random search,” but assuming there were no bomb materials or other weapons on his person or in his luggage, George should have been bid a good day. The manner in which this situation escalated is the most legally troubling aspect of this entire incident.

During his FBI interrogation, George was asked if he was a Muslim or if he belonged to any pro-Islamic groups. Oddly the response to this should be, so what if he was? Within the context of this incident are the underlying beliefs that all Muslims are terrorists. What is even more intriguing, is the case this incident makes against the differentiation between religious belief and action. This distinction, as seen in Mormon polygamy decisions from the late 19^th century, is a common interpretation of the free exercise clause. Ultimately you can believe whatever you like, and that is protected by the Constitution, however it does not mean all actions, even those stemming from those beliefs, are likewise protected. You can believe that your religion tells you to go around smacking people with a stick, but you may still get prosecuted for assault if you actually do it. The belief/action relationship is what is at the heart of this case. The TSA and FBI might actually have a footing on free speech grounds if they could establish that the presence of an Arabic flashcard was highly likely to incite panic, but other than this, their real argument is that somehow the possession of Arabic flashcards is either a clear and present danger to the security of the airplane or that a desire to study Arabic presents a necessary and sufficient condition to assume terrorist activity is imminent. More broadly, this incident suggests that suspicion of being a Muslim or holding pro-Islamic or even pro-Arabic sentiment (without any action whatsoever) justifies detention and interrogation – likely without any representation.

From the security flag based solely on language to interrogation stemming from the presence of two words to incarnation based on potential religious or political affiliations, this entire incident is a violation of almost every aspect of the first amendment, purely in the name of fear. Some civil liberties might need to be stretched in the name of security, but when that stretching expands to include thoughts and beliefs without any action, we are in violation of both the law and the very spirit of the civilization that the added security measures are designed to protect.