<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"In an early Tom Stoppard play called After Magritte, a family returns home after visiting an exhibit of paintings by the famous Belgian surrealist Ren\u00E9 Magritte. (You know: The guy who has it raining little men with bowler hats, or who gave us a pipe with the caption, \u201CCeci n\u2019est pas une pipe,\u201D and so on.) In the play, a policeman peering in the window watches as the family assembles into a bizarre tableau, reminiscent of a Magritte painting. The policeman understandably finds this suspicious. It turns out, though, that there is a perfectly logical explanation for everything. Moral (I suppose): Don\u2019t jump to conclusions.\nI\u2019m reminded of this play every time I\u2019m in an airport and hear that announcement about how you should report any \u201Csuspicious activity\u201D to the police. You look around and, my god, from the pre-9/11 perspective, it all looks suspicious. Businessmen taking off their shoes and placing them in plastic bins, elderly ladies and people in wheelchairs being frisked, long lines of people waiting for the opportunity to give up all their possessions and forms of identification and walk into a large plastic cylinder that looks as if it might just as easily beam you up to Saturn as find where you\u2019ve hidden an illicit tube of toothpaste.\nIn my experience, the Transportation Security Administration people who work the security checkpoints at airports are invariably polite, helpful, and patient to a fault. I wouldn\u2019t want to be their cat when they get home. What are they so happy about, after hours of smelling strangers\u2019 shoes? Isn\u2019t that a little suspicious?\nSo what exactly is \u201Csuspicious activity\u201D? It turns out that government at all levels has given this a lot of thought\u2014there are leaflets and posters to download all over the web. But the conclusions tend to be circular. For example, a notice distributed by the Terrorism Early Warning Unit of the Homeland Security Section of the Columbus, Ohio, Division of Police asks, \u201CWhat Should I Consider Suspicious?\u201D and answers in part, \u201Cpeople acting suspiciously.\u201D\nIn fact, there is agreement at all levels of government that suspicious activity is suspicious. Or, to put it another way, that you should be suspicious of suspicious activity. Keep your eyes open for suspicious activity, because when you find it, that\u2019s just where suspicious activity is most likely to be found.\nOn the other hand (says a leaflet from the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the FBI), \u201CJust because someone\u2019s speech, actions, beliefs, appearance or customs are different does not mean that he or she is suspicious.\u201D If someone seems like she might qualify as suspicious because of anything she says, does, or thinks, and so on, etc., that is not a proper suspicion. Put it out of your mind.\nAccording to a website that promulgates guidelines widely used by local law enforcement, \u201CWe must train ourselves to be on the lookout for things that are out of the ordinary and arouse suspicions.\u201D So activity is suspicious if it arouses suspicion. This is not helpful. Especially when the same site goes on to warn that terrorists \u201Cusually live among us without appearing suspicious.\u201D\nIf you do spot some suspicious activity, \u201CTake note of the details,\u201D such as how many people, what they are doing, and what they are wearing, \u201Cincluding shoes.\u201D So there you are, in the middle of the terminal, taking notes about people\u2019s shoes. Guess who looks suspicious now?\nIndeed \u201Cnote taking\u201D is specifically mentioned as something that \u201Cshould cause a heightened sense of suspicion,\u201D along with \u201Csuspicious or unusual interest\u201D in something. You should \u201Cbe aware of the following suspicious behaviors,\u201D the document continues. First item: \u201CIndividuals acting furtively and suspiciously.\u201D\nHere\u2019s an interesting insight: \u201CTerrorists, when not acting alone, need to meet with their conspirators.\u201D (And if they don\u2019t meet with their co-conspirators, Watson, that is a sign that they just could be working alone.) Therefore, it\u2019s OK to be suspicious of people who \u201Cact in a suspicious manner\u201D by demanding privacy, although, \u201CNot all people who maintain privacy are terrorists,\u201D you and Greta Garbo will be glad to hear.\nWatch for \u201CSomeone bragging or talking about plans to harm citizens in violent attacks or who claims membership in a terrorist organization that espouses killing innocent people.\u201D This person, bragging to strangers about plans to kill innocent people, may be intending to kill innocent people. It\u2019s OK to be suspicious.\nA whole series of documents put out by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the FBI asks, \u201CWhat should I consider suspicious?\u201D\u2014in a variety of situations. In a hobby shop, for example, it is considered suspicious if a customer is \u201CDemonstrating unusual interest in remote-controlled aircraft\u201D or is \u201CDemonstrating interest that does not seem genuine.\u201D (What would be the point of faking an interest in remote-controlled aircraft? Beats me.) And what should you do if you think you have a terrorist in your hobby shop? You should (among other things) \u201CTalk to customers, ask questions, and listen to and observe their responses.\u201D And\u2014oh no\u2014here we go again: \u201CMake note of suspicious statements, people and/or vehicles.\u201D\nThis is all well and good, but you\u2019re probably wondering at this point, \u201CHow do I spot a terrorist in a tattoo shop?\u201D Not so fast, buddy. \u201CIt is important to remember the application of body art, including symbols commonly associated with extremist ideology, may be an exercise of the right of free speech or expression.\u201D Therefore, wanting \u201Ca specific tattoo\u201D or even \u201Can unusual placement\u201D should not in and of itself be considered suspicious. Among things that are OK to be considered suspicious in a tattoo shop are \u201Cmissing hands/fingers\u201D and \u201Csuspicious comments regarding anti-US radical theology.\u201D Presumably, in order to qualify as \u201Csuspicious,\u201D these would have to be favorable comments.\nIn a farm-supply store, you should \u201Cconsider suspicious\u201D any \u201Cnew customer who is not from local area,\u201D especially if he or she is \u201Cappearing to be interested only in ammonium nitrate, displaying no interest in alternative fertilizers.\u201D So now we have a plan. Next time a stranger walks in, we ask him a few questions, give him a few minutes to bring up alternative fertilizers, and if he\u2019s still yapping about ammonium nitrate, tie him up, toss him into the storeroom, and of course \u201Cmake note of suspicious statements\u201D he may make while you summon the Bureau of Justice Assistance to come pick him up and fly him to some country where they know what to do with suspicious people.\nOne more. Just one more, I promise. What should you consider \u201Csuspicious\u201D in relation to \u201CMartial Arts and Paintball Activities\u201D? Well, \u201CInterest in learning kill and restraint techniques with no occupational need.\u201D The leaflet urges you to \u201Cmake note of suspicious statements,\u201D natch, and \u201CWatch for people and actions that are out of place.\u201D Would \u201Cplease teach me kill techniques although I have no occupational need for them\u201D count as a suspicious statement? Would it mark me as \u201Cout of place\u201D? Or would the real out-of-place person in a martial arts and paintball emporium be someone who entered with nothing but peaceful intent?\nIn short, your government wants you to walk around the airport or the paintball center in a haze of suspicion, with special attention paid to other people\u2019s shoes. Some will say this is a recipe for trampling on individual freedom and civil rights. But if the shoe fits, you have nothing to fear.\nMichael Kinsley is editor-at-large at The New Republic.\n\nPhoto via iStockphoto, MHJ"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2013/06/09/see-something-say-nothing/>