Citizenfour Director Sues To Find Out Why She Was Detained Every Time She Flew 334
An anonymous reader writes: Since the 2006 release of My Country, My Country, Laura Poitras has left and re-entered the U.S. roughly 40 times. Virtually every time during that six-year-period that she has returned to the U.S., her plane has been met by DHS agents who stand at the airplane door or tarmac and inspect the passports of every de-planing passenger until they find her (on the handful of occasions where they did not meet her at the plane, agents were called when she arrived at immigration). Each time, they detain her, and then interrogate her at length about where she went and with whom she met or spoke. They have exhibited a particular interest in finding out for whom she works.
The chances of a judge doing anything... (Score:3)
Remember, we're not like those other countries... (Score:2)
Oh...I would like to hear the other side. One that will defend this action. One that will say it's no where near those other nation states, that harass their citizens.
Waiting.
American Citizen (Score:5, Informative)
It's simple: She's an American citizen. Don't answer a goddamned question. They can't deny her entry into the country, since she's a US citizen.
If she's saying so much as "hello" to these chuckleheads at this point, she's an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a common topic in other forums. There's some very edge cases where it's permissible (dual-citizen, intoxication if you can believe that) but otherwise, your passport entitles you to entry.
Your *stuff* on the other hand is a whole different thing (importing of goods, etc., etc.), but you, yourself, have a near-absolute right to entry.
Re:American Citizen (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need a law to make that true - The constitution makes that the truth by default.
In the absence of a constitutional amendment giving them the power to deny a legal US citizen entry to the US, they can't deny a legal US citizen entry to the US. Simple as that, really.
That said, they can basically make her return with none of her possessions ("Sorry, you might have... uh... fruit fly eggs on your clothes, take 'em off"), and only after enjoying a nice deep cavity search, so...
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need a law to make that true - The constitution makes that the truth by default. In the absence of a constitutional amendment giving them the power to deny a legal US citizen entry to the US, they can't deny a legal US citizen entry to the US. Simple as that, really.
Sure, but there are a variety of vague clauses that could easily be extended to cover that situation.
Re: (Score:2)
In the absence of a constitutional amendment giving them the power to deny a legal US citizen entry to the US, they can't deny a legal US citizen entry to the US. Simple as that, really.
Hmm. I'm reading this [wikipedia.org] and... nope, nothing about not pooping on the neighbours' cars.
I'll be right back.
Re:American Citizen (Score:5, Informative)
Aha,... it's part of a UN Treaty.
Article 12, section 4 of the ICCPR (a treaty ratified by and binding on the US) provides that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.”
Re: (Score:3)
DHS Detentions. (Score:5, Informative)
Hell, I get detained every time I fly because I had the audacity to ask for a damage report form when one of their "professionals" broke my glasses while inspecting them.
It doesn't take much to get you on the "mess with this person" list.
Same thing happening to James O'Keefe (Score:5, Interesting)
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06... [dailycaller.com]
Another blatant case of government employees trying to get even with people they don't agree with.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be, but I'm suspecting the immigration workers aren't really that organized.
It find it far more likely that he behaves like the conspiratorial ass that he is, instantly either pissing them off or setting off their "this guy ain't normal" alarm, which then causes a deeper questioning. Lots of the conspiracy nuts are walking self-fulfilling prophecies.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be, but I'm suspecting the immigration workers aren't really that organized.
It find it far more likely that he behaves like the conspiratorial ass that he is, instantly either pissing them off or setting off their "this guy ain't normal" alarm, which then causes a deeper questioning. Lots of the conspiracy nuts are walking self-fulfilling prophecies.
I've yet to see anything from O'Keefe that would suggest he's a conspiracy nut. Unfortunately.
That guy (Score:3, Informative)
The guy who got famous by dressing up as a pimp to fabricate proof that a housing organization for the poor was involved in a conspiracy to promote underage prostitution?
The same guy who broke into a senators office, to wiretap her phones, to prove that she wasn't "listening" to her constituents?
And the same guy who recently lost a libel lawsuit against that same senator, claiming that she implied he committed a felony. (H
Re: (Score:2)
It probably doesn't help that O'Keefe has a known record of filming himself crossing the US border illegally, and then bragging about it publicly - the fact that he's done it while dressed up as Bin Ladin may be an additional factor.
If you have someone who publicly brags that they cross your border illegally, it may make sense to make sure they aren't trying to break any other border related laws, such as smuggling.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
James O'Keefe, a right-wing investigative journalist gets detained at every opportunity.
Their's, or his?
Willkommen (Score:2)
Willkommen auf er neuen nationalsozialistischen USA
Give them something to do! (Score:5, Funny)
1) Get a brand new hard disk.
2) Load OS and common software.
3) Apply full disk encryption if possible supported by hardware TPM.
4) Fill disk with pointless and uninteresting files (kitten videos, boring sales brochures for catering equipment, vast datasheets for common microprocessors etc etc).
5) Generate a little script which goes through and encrypts each file with a different randomly generated key (obviously run scipt from external media which you don't take with you).
6) For added fun, install a publicly available unencrypted movie (perhaps one you have made if you happen to be a film maker, otherwise something like Dumbo) and then use steganography to hide something inoccuous in it (e.g. the complete works of Shakespear).
7) Don't expect to ever get the laptop back.
Obviously this will take a fair bit of work, but that will be nothing compared with the huge effort expended by your tormentors in trying to work out what it all means!!
Re: (Score:3)
What if she is in fact suspicious? (Score:2)
It's well known that Putin funds both far-right and far-left extremists to increase social divisions in the West. Cuba has also funded or blackmailed American activists before. Anyone notice how Alex Jones hates the US military, for someone who calls himself a conservative patriot?
Terrible summary (text is 3 years old) (Score:3, Insightful)
Y'know, you could've sprinkled a few extra facts into the summary, such as the connection to Snowden.
But I guess that's what you get when you accept submissions wihch are just copy-pasted partial paragraphs from the article - and the paragraph itself is a quote, within the article, from 2012.
Keep up the shitty work, editors!
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
Or it could be this.
"Poitras has been subject to monitoring by the U.S. Government, which she speculates is because of a wire transfer she sent in 2006 to Iraqi doctor Riyadh al-Adhadh, a suspected Sunni insurgent"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Maybe... (Score:3, Insightful)
So... Don't question the state, or you will be harrassed? Everything is fine just as it is? Great country you have there!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It turns out that keeping the authorities under control is hard to do.
Re: (Score:2)
You gotta make an effort!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is easy to do, de-authorize the authorities. Without authority, they can't abuse it. ;)
Re: Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
Not, it's not easy. De-authorizing usually involves guns and a whole lot of people dying.
Re: (Score:3)
The retroactive immunity came much later.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty sure there's a freedom of association clause in the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Pretty sure there's a freedom of association clause in the Constitution.
It took me forever to find, but there it is, right next to the freedom of the press clause, in a whole section about this, right at the top of the Bill of Rights. Very easy to gloss right over that.
Re: (Score:2)
That does not make it right. I *hope* that is the contention here.
Re: Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So how is this person like a defense attorney exactly?
Scum has the right to be defended in a court of law by a lawyer. That's a bit different than making yourself look like you are participating in their crimes. Although even mob lawyers can run afoul of the law.
Re: Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
This person is actually a little more important than a defense attorney. It's her job to tell people what their government is doing. And by all accounts (except the government) she's doing an excellent job.
Re: Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
Additionally, judging by their reaction she must be doing an excellent job.
Re: Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
if you're not on a Government Watchlist, you're not doing it right.
Re: Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
The press in its various forms (blogs, newspapers and some filmmakers) are the defense attorneys of a free country. The Founding fathers wrote at length how the press and freedom of speech on its own was one of the major impediments to a government sinking into corruption & totalitarianism.
"The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs."
Continental Congress, 1774
This woman isn't some random person hanging out with "scum", she's an award winning documentary filmmaker. She also helped create the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Unfortunately the press has to hang out with various groups of morally/legally questionable people in order to get to what is important, most of those people reside in our various halls of government.
Re: Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
Mainstream media are dripfed propaganda by the Government with explicit instructions that define their conditions of operation in the jurisdiction: that they print what is given them and nothing more.
Examples: GMP leaked emails to Channel 5 and the BBC to change their stories regarding the Barton Moss anti-fracking protests. The same Police Authority emailing Channel Four News and the Dispatches programme instructing them not to show raw footage of police activity (including footage of assaults on the public by police officers) at the site. the privately owned quango calling itself ATVOD (the Authority for Television On Demand, formerly the Association~) threatening action against independent journalists including the UKColumn and others for being "unauthorised news media organisations(!)" and "Too television-like", and even going to such lengths as threatening to prosecute under copyright legislation for using common word combinations in broadcasts and in print.
These examples all follow close on the heels of the complete farce that was the Leveson Inquiry.
But, don't take my word for it. Take a look at what other (nonlocal mainstream and/or independent sites like RT, the New York Community Media Alliance, Namac, IFP, the UKColumn, and PieNMash Films) outlets have to say on the subject of soft censorship. They've all had to deal with attempted Government influence on their output, to which their unanimous retort: "I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram [nasw.org]."
Re: Maybe... (Score:4, Interesting)
No doubt government is always attempting to co-opt the press to portray only what makes them look good and they have been successful to a degree. But the various leaks, corruption/waste stories and abuse of power pieces over the last decade or so have show that there are some holdouts that scoff at the government line. Also to a degree the internet has taken over for some of the "shaming" of "oppressive officers" that was once predominantly taken care of the press, with blog stories, Debt clocks & internet video/audio.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have suspicion that someone is breaking the Law, have your evidence ready before publicly airing it, and be absolutely prepared to defend your statement when you do.
yeah we'd have to disqualify every republican presidential candidate who has accused obama of breaking the law
Guilt by association! (Score:2)
Works for me. How many criminals are you associated with, through family relationships, work, sports/hobbies, education, church, etc?
Please step through the red door, Comrade, where my freinds and I can get acquainted with you.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet another reason NOT to be on Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
How many criminals are you associated with, through family relationships, work, sports/hobbies, education, church, etc?
And please break that down into before/after you worked in/for/with (circle all that apply):
(a) Congress, [city, state, federal]:
(b) A large corporation [domestic, international, multi-national]:
(c) Reddit:
(d) "The Mob":
(e) Other: ___________________
Re: (Score:2)
None of the criminals among my circle of family or acquaintences were active or under investigation when I interacted with them.
Avoiding the active criminals is a good way to avoid being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Never mind being hassled by customs.
Re:Guilt by association! (Score:5, Insightful)
Laura Poitras was detained by the US every time she flew. How is a journalist, traveling by herself, in the "wrong place at the wrong time"?
Remember, every time she was detained, she was just detained and then eventually let go after being hassled. If the government has evidence that she's committed a crime, they would have charged her. Instead, they're just harassing a journalist who has embarrassed them.
If you want to say that embarrassing the government should be a crime, then that's a whole different discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you know the evidence against her better than the authorities? You think if there was enough to charge her they'd let her go every single fucking time?
And thank god that they do, otherwise we wouldn't know what kind of sleazy bullshit our country's doing.
You might be OK living in a country with ubiquitous surveillance and no Fourth Ame
Re: (Score:3)
None of the criminals among my circle of family or acquaintences were active or under investigation when I interacted with them.
how do you know this?
Re: Maybe... (Score:4, Interesting)
So all former and current members of Congress who served with any of the people on this list [wikipedia.org] should be subject to the same level of scrutiny every single time they travel?
Re:Maybe... (Score:4, Insightful)
So you not only didn't RTFA or even TFS, you couldn't even bother to read the FIRST SENTENCE of the summary. And yet you think you're competent to have an opinion on the matter. That takes a special kind of stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about not being able to make an educated guess she'd bet on, but getting the official reason. At that point, it's possible to make a case that the reason is unconstitutional.
That's really what all of this is about: Government action without oversight, and it's hard to sue to change that without proof of harm. She has proof of harm right there: All she needs now is a target to use that hammer against.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not about not being able to make an educated guess she'd bet on, but getting the official reason. At that point, it's possible to make a case that the reason is unconstitutional.
Wow, what a laugh, as if this is a reason to get those in authority to respond with answers, or even respond at all.
In other words, take a number and get in fucking line. Most of the police-state actions our government takes these days is blatantly unconstitutional.
And there's not a fucking thing you can do about it. Those days are long gone.
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The social policies are not a core component of fascism. They're a blend of fascism ans socialism. The Fascists were Italian, not German. The Germans were Nazis.
But you are right in that in Fascism the government is the dominant party even though working hand-in-glove with the corporations. Also that as time went on the Fascists adopted many of the policies of the Nazis (and, to a lesser extent, conversely).
That said, Mussolini didn't really like violence, he just considered his ends important enough to
Re: Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
> Notably, not a single one mentions corporations or businesses, nor any mention of socialist programs
You must have not searched very far.
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.” - Musolini, who was himself quoting Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile.
There is some doubt about the exact wording (which libertarians have stretched to "he never said that" in their usual spurious approach to dealing with inconvenient facts) but the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced it's even "the administration" doing these things to Ms Poitras. More likely, it's our Military/Intelligence apparatus that has existed outside of civilian government oversight.
When President Trump takes over, we'll see if journalists stop getting hassled. What do you think?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Replace US with USSR and DHS with FSB and I wouldn't have blinked twice at it - par for the course. And increasingly so for the USA, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, USA is starting to be redefined as "Unswervingly Socialist America".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With a still amazingly unequal (and inaccessible) health care system, large wealth differences and general lack of social security, I wouldn't call USA "socialist" by any means. Leaning towards totalitarian, certainly. But without the socialist things like equality (seems like the super-rich are more catered for). Note that I mostly compare with the "socialist" North European countries. The USSR sure called themselves "socialist" too, and was a very non-agreeable place to live in ...
(not a socialist myself)
Re: (Score:3)
Liberal weenies love to crow about Obamacare but all it really did was to provide corporate welfare for the insurance industry. It didn't actually provide care. It didn't even make health insurance terribly affordable. It certainly didn't improve deductibles and other out of pocket expenses.
Insurance is not "health care". I cheap or free clinic is health care.
Re:In Soviet Russia (Score:4, Insightful)
It DID ! When it was still called Romneycare !
It only became evil when a democrat implemented this republican plan, thought up by the Heartland Institute and first instituted by a republican governor (who would run for president against Obama a few years later) and even then it pretty much only became evil because the democrat who did it turned out to be a black guy.
It's also exactly why all the REAL liberals are hoping against hope for Sanders to be the surprize swing-vote.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And how is your Democrat President working out?
* Guantanamo (Still open).
* Afghan (Still going).
* Iraq (Complete disaster with the war "ended" when all the military leaders said don't).
* Prisoner swap (One Deserter for multiple enemy Leaders).
* Racism (Fires stoked daily to keep the miscreants mad at each other instead of facing the real issues... but #BlacklivesMatter(Unless killed by other blacks) and #RacistFlagsMustGo(except for Black Power flags)).
* Econo
Re:Because Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
#RacistFlagsMustGo(except for Black Power flags)
For the record, there actually was never a civil war where one side fought for the right to own white people under the banner of a "black power" flag. Also, there is not to this day (nor was there ever) a state that still flies that flag of white oppression.
Re:That's not what the Civil War was about, either (Score:5, Informative)
>For the record. the Civil War was not about one side fighting for the right to own black people under the banner of a "white power" flag, either.
That's complete bullshit, that's been spread way too widely but utterly fails to match the facts.
1) The confederates were NOT fighting for states' rights, exactly the opposite in fact, they wanted to get RID of states' rights. 3 of the declarations of secession state that a fundamental reason for their secession was their anger at states like Maine for refusing to return runaway slaves or allow slave transit. In other words - they opposed the right of Maine and New York to NOT support the slave trade.
2) The confederacy was formed by a declaration which all the confederate states had to sign - much like the US was originally formed by the declaration of independence. The very FIRST article in that declaration bound all the member states to a promise to never, under any circumstances, now or in the future, ban slavery or inhibit it in any way.
3) The various declarations of secession ALL discussed slavery at length and repeatedly stated that the single most important reason for the secession was that the abolitionists in northern states threatened what they saw as the proper and natural state of the world: one where whites could own blacks as slaves.
4) Non-slave owning whites in the South did NOT in fact support the war or the secessions - that vast majority very vocally and visibly opposed it. So severe was the opposition that on multiple occasions General Lee had to threaten to burn towns to the ground before they would allow him to feed his horses or buy food for his soldiers there ! In Tennessee this happened twice !
The real heroes of the South are those citizens, who supported abolition - who despised the slave owning minority (a ruling class that tended to mistreat poorer whites pretty badly as well) and actively opposed the war to the extent that the confederate army had to threaten their lives just to buy supplies !
In fact, there isn't a single official contemporary document by any of the Southern states governments, the confederate government or any of their leaders or generals that does not repeatedly say that the war is about preserving the right to own slaves.
EVERY claim to the contrary appeared AFTER the war, in a desperate attempt to white-wash the history of why that war happened.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Because Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>1. I am an American citizen, and I have the right to enter my country.
citation required
Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... (Score:4, Informative)
It's called the "Privileges and Immunities Clause". All citizens have the RIGHT to travel in and through all of the US states, the District, territories and possessions. If you are a citizen of the United States, no one has the authority to bar you from entry into any one of the United States, etc.
It's just wikipedia - but any intelligent person can read the content, then search out arguments, both pro and con.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Gubbermint says the same thing on this page: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/... [about.com]
"Citizens are also allowed to re-enter the U.S. repeatedly without being required to re-establish proof of admissibility."
If a US citizen IS denied entry into the United States, he has this to fall back on:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us... [findlaw.com]
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Long story short, the gubbermint recognizes that fucking with a citizens rights is serious business, potentially punishable by death.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't bar Ms Poitras from entering the country. They just detained her, harassed her for hours, and then let her go because clearly they have no evidence that she ever broke a law.
Re: (Score:2)
1. I am an American citizen, and I have the right to enter my country.
You do. Just as I, a Canadian citizen, have the right to enter Canada. I do not have the legal right to enter the United States, but can do so with official permission. Which usually amounts to the Customs agent at the border or airport telling me to have a nice day.
If the government want to be difficult, your citizenship must be verified. Then Customs can give you the once over: yes, you can enter the country, but they want to know what you're bringing with you.
...laura
Re: (Score:2)
...does she have the right answers? IE:
1. I am an American citizen, and I have the right to enter my country.
2. I plead the fifth.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Its on the border. The only people who have any rights are the authorities (DHS et al)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you have the right to enter your country, and the authorities these days have the right to imprison you indefinitely once you are there... Careful how you play that card.
Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we get someone to explain how its OK for the IRS to harass people hoping to change policy but it's bad for DHS to harass people hoping to change policy?
I'm not sure what you mean. It is not legal for the IRS to "harass people hoping to change policy."
It is, however, legal for the IRS to ask organizations claiming tax exemption as charities to show that they are not engaging in political lobbying (because political organizations are not tax exempt). If that's what you call "harassing," then, no, not only is it not illegal, it is in fact part of IRS's job.
Re: (Score:2)
Asked. Received. Was not disappointed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not possible for an honest person to make this claim.
Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? (Score:5, Insightful)
it's not possible for an honest person to have need of the 5th amendment
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
Remember that next time you talk to a cop and they don't feel you were "concerned" enough about the situation and use that fact against you in a court of law: http://reason.com/blog/2014/08... [reason.com]
Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? (Score:4, Insightful)
In all seriousness, If I'm a civil servant (Note not an politically appointed one, just a white collar worker) and the Speaker of the House starts grandstanding about people going to jail, I'm certainly not offering my neck out. If I'm in her position I tell them to go pound sand too. She literally has nothing to gain by testifying even presuming she is innocent and honest people can get tripped up in testimony very easy. If they wanted her testimony that bad they could have easily had it by giving her immunity.
Brings to mind the the quote "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
"Since they weren't charged..." (Score:3)
Sorry for not answering your question, but your statement, "Since they weren't charged, it wasn't really a problem" actually gets to the heart of what's happening here and was worth commenting on.
There is a legal gray area here, though one of a different sort. Cops cannot legally stop and detain "suspicious people" just because they look suspicious. But they do it all the time, because no one will take the time to sue for an unlawful Terry Stop. It's unpractical; the unlawful action may be a demoralizing
Re: (Score:2)
"We're not at liberty to say"
AKA, "fuck your liberty."
Re: (Score:2)
Until one passes through customs, he/she is not legally on U.S. soil and U.S. law does not apply. The DHS is technically welcome to detain her, you, and any other U.S. Citizen for as long as they want.
In practice, of course, they can do whatever they want any time or place they want, since they're the ones with the big guns.
They may also be granted special powers to control the borders, over and above the usual powers granted to them as law enforcement agents within the borders.
But Constitutional restrictions on US government agents apply to US government agents everywhere in the universe, not just within US borders. Those restrictions also protect all people, not just US citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
The gray area here is that the individual is being detained in an international zone
That is the claim, but note, the Constitution is a document that says what the government may or may not do. It says nothing about where. None of the Bill of Rights have the phrase "unless in an international zone".
Re:"Since they weren't charged..." (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no legal grey area, you have been sucked in by a lie. A countries law only ceases to fully apply within a country at foreign diplomatic sites, no where else does it occur. It is a policy lie, a purposeful abuse of the law, enforced by criminal application of the law, using high cost and the courts to prevent the end of the abuse of law. Show where in the constitution laws and citizens rights are abridged at particular locations, outside of having been prosecuted for a crime.
The mistake as a citizen was answering questions in the first place. Do it once and they will demand it every time, refuse to talk and eventually they give up, does not stop them from trying again but again they eventually give up. Keep falling for the lie, that you are a slave and must obey whenever they tell you that you are a slave and must obey and you become that slave.
Likely the best response is the funny Star Trek one, "That's a stupid question" and stick with it, I am certain you will find it and their reaction a whole lot more humorous than they will.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. I am sure he would feel the same way about Democrat tax dodgers too. I do.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what hypothetical threat are the DHS agents protecting America from? I would note that, in all 40 instances, she was eventually allowed into the country, and in none of those instances did she commit a crime before leaving again. Perhaps the first time, her associations overseas might raise questions. But hopefully, somewhere in those multiple hours, they worked out that she is a journalist, and that communicating with people is part of her professional work.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know since the Patriot Act makes that largely a black hole. I don't agree with the DHS or government policy but I'm sure she clicks quite a few of the check marks. Also remember law enforcement does and can harass you, this also includes Customs agents and unfortunately for all of us the Supreme Court has upheld this premise multiple times. It doesn't make it right but I still stand by the fact that regardless of your profession, your associations may make your activities suspicious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I make sure I fart every time a TSA agent has to hand check me. It's my little way of protesting. It's a stupid system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Naw Customs will just confiscate it anyway.