Arabic Assassin

[neoee]

?Arabic Assassin? loses baggage screener job
TSA fires Houston rapper who sings of rape, murder, mass attacks
Reuters
Updated: 10:01 p.m. ET July 15, 2005

HOUSTON - Bassam Khalaf was paid to help keep U.S. air travel safe as a baggage screener. His alter ego, the ?Arabic Assassin,? rapped about flying a plane into a building.

The Transportation Security Administration could not reconcile the two and fired him last week, saying his free speech rights as an aspiring rap singer did not extend to a right to check luggage at Houston Intercontinental Airport.

?I was one of the ones screening the bags thoroughly,? Khalaf said Friday. ?I wouldn?t let a bomb get on a plane.?

He also was the self-proclaimed Arabic Assassin, who didn?t do songs about love but preferred to sing about killing, raping and blowing things up.

From one of his songs: ?My name is Bassam, a one-man band, I came from sand, affiliated with the Taliban.?

Rapper says he wanted attention
Khalaf, a Houston native of Palestinian descent, said the incendiary lyrics about rape, murder and mass attacks were meant only to get attention and help get his first album, ?Terror Alert,? a distribution deal.

Instead, the TSA fired Khalaf, 21, after six months on the job and gave his name to other federal agencies for investigation, spokeswoman Andrea McCauley said.

?There is a certain level of integrity employees are asked to maintain,? she said. ?He?s been tasked with protecting the very people he?s talking about harming.?

?We wonder what the public would think if we didn?t fire him,? she said.

No bites from record distributors
Khalaf believes his Arab-American ethnicity played a role in the firing, but McCauley said that was not true.

Khalaf said publicity about his controversial rapping had brought lots of phone calls from both admirers and detractors, but none from record distributors.

He also admitted to being a little worried about his future employment possibilities now that word is out about his music.

?I better make it (as a rapper) now because there ain?t no turning back,? he said.
Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

? 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8587969/

Thoughts? I'll wait to hear others thoughts before I chime in with my own (though I suspect some of you already know where I stand).

[thesightless]

Re: Arabic Assassin

no pity here. i would have fired him too. then called a skinhead or two and passed word around.

[MJDub]

What the fuck. I actually think that guy screened some of my bags here.

[FM]

too much coincidence to keep him on, "publicity" bit or not....not in this day and age...

pre 9/11, maybe.

[toasty]

Re: Arabic Assassin

They absolutely should have fired his ass. He's supposed to be part of the anti-terrorist force, for fuck's sake. If I had an alter-ego that rapped about being a shady lawyer or killing judges or something, I'd fully expect to get canned myself.

What a knucklehead.

[neoee]

I'm actually surprised at some of your comments.

1) The guy was screened by the TSA before getting hired.
2) His boss said he did his job very well.
3) If the govt. suspects him of being a terrorist they can investigate him the their hearts desire

BUT

where did he sign that states he would give up his 1st amendment rights? Let freedom ring. Yeah, whatever.

[Jibgolly]

he did not fit the "squeaky clean" image airport employees are supposed to keep.
with america's highted security measuers and orange alerts and so on, it's no wonder this person was fired.

[Yao]

Re: Arabic Assassin

Fire his ass.

What do you expect when even singing about flying planes into buildings and being affiliated with the Taliban? That is asking for problems. Freedom of speech, yes, but within the general norms of decency.

What that guy did equals those Muslim youngsters here cheering on the streets after 9/11 or the killing of Theo van Gogh.

[toasty]

I think people forget at times confuse constitutional rights, like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, with the privilege of having a job. There is no right to be employed, and if you're at at-will employee (i.e., not under contract), you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, provided it isn't on some invidious basis (e.g., race, sex, etc.).

Even if you accept the explanation that this was just for attention, he didn't really mean it, etc., do you really want someone working for you who romantacizes such things? Huge distraction, and not great for the work environment. I think he could be fired for cause on that basis alone.

That he happens to work in airport security just makes the story more interesting. Pretend he worked at a grocery store as a bagger or something -- he could absolutely be fired over this, and no one would even care....

[neoee]

I think people forget at times confuse constitutional rights, like freedom of speech and freedom of religion, with the privilege of having a job. There is no right to be employed, and if you're at at-will employee (i.e., not under contract), you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all, provided it isn't on some invidious basis (e.g., race, sex, etc.).

Even if you accept the explanation that this was just for attention, he didn't really mean it, etc., do you really want someone working for you who romantacizes such things? Huge distraction, and not great for the work environment. I think he could be fired for cause on that basis alone.

That he happens to work in airport security just makes the story more interesting. Pretend he worked at a grocery store as a bagger or something -- he could absolutely be fired over this, and no one would even care....

Yes having a job is a privilege, but he wasn't fired for anything but rapping about something contraversal. His employer pays him to do his job AT WORK, which he did. As a matter of fact he excelled at his job when compared to his peers, as stated by his superiors. There was no clause in his terms of employment that indicated that he couldn't rap or speak about what he did. He was not doing anything illegal. He was only excercising his birth given right, on his own time, on his own dime.

BTW what your saying here is that by accepting a job you sign away your rights- but wait a minute, I though that was illegal. In this case his rapping determined whether or not he remained employeed. Keep in mind this was not in violation of a non-disclosure agreement or proprietary information.

Again he was screened before he was hired and the govt. would have had every right to investigate him further but he violated *none* of his terms of employment and therefore should continued to be employed.

As far as your question as to whether I would want him working for me? As long as he does his job and does it well (which he did) and he was not thought to take such actions of which he spoke of (which was verified with the screening, right?) than I would have no problem with it at all. As a matter of fact I might *prefer* someone like him checking bags, since he would know all eyes were already on him.

If he was a grocery bagger than I suspect he would have been investigated by the authorities but would have been able to keep his job- unless it directly affected the companies (think boycott - revenue than in turn affected).

I'm sorry I just think its plain silly that we can now be told what we can and can't do on our own time. We now risk losing our jobs because our hobby or aspirations on our own time? And before someone says "well you can't smoke pot, etc", let me point out that I'm referring to *legal* activities.

Fire his ass.

What do you expect when even singing about flying planes into buildings and being affiliated with the Taliban? That is asking for problems. Freedom of speech, yes, but within the general norms of decency.

What that guy did equals those Muslim youngsters here cheering on the streets after 9/11 or the killing of Theo van Gogh.

"norms of decency" is a relative term. Personally I think farting, burping, clipping nails in public and generally being obese is indecent, but thats just me. Whether or not you agree when people cheer at someones death doesen't really matter. In the US we have freedom or expression/speech. As long as the person didn't participate in those activities or cause harm to others or potential harm its within their rights. Hell our president has done more harm with his "weapons of mass destruction" speeches. BTW, on the flipside, I'm sure there was some cheers at Ted Bundy's execution too.

And Jibs- we pay these people like 15 bucks an hour, your hardly going to get "squeaky clean" people. I have a buddy who works for the port authority , and is located at the airport here. He comes in contact with these people daily. Trust me when I say these people aren't squeak clean. Fast food workers and high school dropouts have a promising career in the TSA.

[FM]

BTW what your saying here is that by accepting a job you sign away your rights- but wait a minute, I though that was illegal.

Maybe so, but it IS considered at-will; one can be let go at any time, with or without reason, as the boss can simply cover by saying, "we don't need you anymore."

Unfortunately that's becoming more and more of "the norm" if under employment for certain 'large' corporations/entities...a Miller Lite truck driver was fired for having a Bud Light. A Coke driver was fired for chugging Pepsi...both of these were off the clocks too mind you.

Companies are worried about protecting their image; bad images = loss of consumers = loss of revenue. Of course I find it kind of ironic that after these employees get fired, the media picks it up and the company will STILL get bad publicity out of it, but probably tries to shrug it off in the short term vs. the long term.

Until the economy and the job market can shift back over to where employers are desperate to hire workers (if it even does so anymore), then the companies will continue to have this type of power. At best, one could file a wrongful termination suit, try to argue it for court, then more then likely reach a settlement out of court and be told to shut up. Otherwise, the employee is pretty powerless in that situation.

Hence my reply above

[toasty]

Yes having a job is a privilege, but he wasn't fired for anything but rapping about something contraversal. His employer pays him to do his job AT WORK, which he did. As a matter of fact he excelled at his job when compared to his peers, as stated by his superiors. There was no clause in his terms of employment that indicated that he couldn't rap or speak about what he did. He was not doing anything illegal. He was only excercising his birth given right, on his own time, on his own dime.

BTW what your saying here is that by accepting a job you sign away your rights- but wait a minute, I though that was illegal. In this case his rapping determined whether or not he remained employeed. Keep in mind this was not in violation of a non-disclosure agreement or proprietary information.

Particularly when you're an at-will employee, you do give up certain rights when you take a job, in a sense, at least to the extent that you want to keep your job. When you can be dismissed for any reason or no reason at all, you have to make a decision -- would I rather continue to do things that my boss finds unsavory, or would I rather keep my job?

Take Disney, for example. I don't know if it is still the case, but I know at least for a while, employees of Disneyworld could not have facial hair. If you want to work at Disney, you've got to lose the goatee, period. It doesn't mean you've lost your God-given right to wear a goatee, but if you're going to work for Disney, you've got to abide by their rules and the image they're trying to project.

Same deal here. No one is saying this guy can't continue to rap about flying planes into buildings and hanging with the Taliban. If that is the sort of thing that his boss finds unappealing, though, he needs to either cut it out or find a new line of employment -- perhaps he could be, oh I don't know, a rapper.

Keep in mind, this guy is most likely an at-will employee. They effectively don't need a reason to fire him. Why give them one?

[Jenks]

Re: Arabic Assassin

Public stoning imo.

[neoee]

Particularly when you're an at-will employee, you do give up certain rights when you take a job, in a sense, at least to the extent that you want to keep your job. When you can be dismissed for any reason or no reason at all, you have to make a decision -- would I rather continue to do things that my boss finds unsavory, or would I rather keep my job?

Ok however, you are *not* allowed to enter into an illegal contract - you can't sell yourself into slavery, for example. So if your contract with the employer is illegal/unconstitutional (for example, violation of privacy rights, discriminatory, etc) then it's not a valid contract.

Take Disney, for example. I don't know if it is still the case, but I know at least for a while, employees of Disneyworld could not have facial hair. If you want to work at Disney, you've got to lose the goatee, period. It doesn't mean you've lost your God-given right to wear a goatee, but if you're going to work for Disney, you've got to abide by their rules and the image they're trying to project.

Understandable, but again your talking about on the job vs. off the job. Disney wants a certian appearance on_the_clock which is also stated as a term of employment and happens to carry over to you personal time (unless you can grow a beard in 8 hours). Here we are talking about an employer controling you life outside of the workplace.

Same deal here. No one is saying this guy can't continue to rap about flying planes into buildings and hanging with the Taliban. If that is the sort of thing that his boss finds unappealing, though, he needs to either cut it out or find a new line of employment -- perhaps he could be, oh I don't know, a rapper.

Tasteless, sure. Cause for termination, not. There's many people on this board that DJ but maintain real jobs during the day. With this we pave the path for companies to fire their employees for not maintaining a certain image off the clock. Next a company will say that electronic music is for druggies, let's fire that DJ guy because he associates with it.

Keep in mind, this guy is most likely an at-will employee. They effectively don't need a reason to fire him. Why give them one?

You may be right maybe they didn't need to have a reason, but they did provide one- for his rapping, which to me seems wrong. Especially when you consider the employer being a govt. entity..

FM- good examples, but I would maintain that both employees should also not have lost their jobs, although in both those cases were not dealing with free speech issues (at least not directly).

[toasty]

Ok however, you are *not* allowed to enter into an illegal contract - you can't sell yourself into slavery, for example. So if your contract with the employer is illegal/unconstitutional (for example, violation of privacy rights, discriminatory, etc) then it's not a valid contract.

There is a difference between contracts that are illegal -- which refers to the criminal nature of the service for which you've contracted -- and contracts that are unconstitutional. For the constitutionality of anything to even be an issue, you generally have to have state action, i.e., it is the government that is behaving in a manner that is inconsistent with the constitution. As it turns out, TSA is a government organization, but they're in the role of employer in this situation, so the "state action" inquiry is different than it would be if the feds were knocking down his door over this.

Most of our constitutional rights are waivable. I view this as essentially asking that, as a condition of employment as part of the Department of Homeland Security, you waive your right to speak freely on the topic of flying planes into buildings and your terrorist leanings. Sorta like, "Hey, if you want to do rap about this, go for it, but if you want to work here, you've got to project the same basic values, like not wanting to kill thousands of people."

Suppose you work at a widget factory making widgets. In your free time, you openly and publicly profess a disdain for widgets and a desire that the whole widget industry fail. Your boss calls you into his office and says, "Look, we're obviously not on the same page here. We've got to let you go." Would you really be that surprised?

There's many people on this board that DJ but maintain real jobs during the day. With this we pave the path for companies to fire their employees for not maintaining a certain image off the clock. Next a company will say that electronic music is for druggies, let's fire that DJ guy because he associates with it.

I think this is a little different because with the TSA, as in the widget example above, there is actually a direct conflict between the actual job and the off the job behavior that undermines the job itself. What you're suggesting seems like too much of a slippery slope-type argument to me. I don't see them as equivalent. My opinion.

I just don't see this as a huge injustice. Even taking him at his word that he didn't really mean it, you've got to be a special kind of remedial to select "terrorist rapper" as your off-work persona when you work at the TSA. His firing is, as far as I'm concerned, the price of idiocy.

I hear what you're saying, but the simple fact of the matter is that neither TSA nor any employer has a responsibility to keep this guy employed. I hear he's looking for work, though -- perhaps you could bring him on board? :wink: