Posts from Splinter in thread „US Customs - ignore risks at own peril“

I think that limbo he was in is an intentional loophole in the law that they would rather not have scrutinised.

The Intercept was founded in 2013 by Glenn Greenwald (of Snowden and Guardian fame) and Jeremy Scahill, just out of interest.

Quote from serafina

I don't feel comfortable to comment publicly on the article in question, given it could be used against me one day.

----

The other day I was reflecting on how we are vulnerable the most in our home country, as there is nobody else to call for help.

My reflections was on having acquired Argentine citizenship and the desaparecidos.

What if someone decides to hold something against me, now?

I did pursue citizenship to not be separated from my husband ever, and to have the right to stay here indefinitely (in case of war, in case of my husband's death etc.). and never pondered the downsides. They looked the same the residency ones.

Display More

I feel entirely comfortable expressing any opinion on this forum, otherwise we might as well pack up and go home. I would however stop short of inciting violence or extreme hatred, but that doesn't mean to say that we need to self-censor.

As for citizenship, I would day that permanent residency with a DNI serves practically the same purpose.

Quote from ben

A few follow-up points, in light of the subsequent remarks:

1) The US has evolved in the last decades into a society where if you can’t sue it out of me, I don’t have to do it.

There’s not much that can be sued out of CBP, so this is what happens.

And there’s not much of a constituency that can demand that CBP be made sue-able, for obvious reasons.

The outcry now taking place over the inhuman conditions to which children are being subjected, will serve to show if the US public is up to demanding basic human decency towards everyone from its government.

2) There’s little reason to assume that this particular guy was on their radar. Occam’s razor applies: the obvious reasons for his treatment was that he was a:

• journalist (strike 1)
• covering Mexico (very likely a strike 2)
• who challenged their authority. (this in of itself is already enough).
  As far as they’re concerned, he just about dared them into this. As someone who declines a full-body scan at US airports, I can attest to the “OK buddy, you asked for this” sentiment when you don’t follow the procedures they want you to follow.
• Not only did he dare them into it, he seemed to be ill-prepared for the result. If he would have projected an air of nonchalance about it, shown himself to be on top of the procedure and that he knows what they can or can’t do, I’m guessing it would have gone much smoother.
  He appeared to be the smart-aleck who didn’t even seem to know how this would work. From their point of view, they simply accepted his invitation for them to educate him about how the system works.

3) About the journalist thing, there is some evidence that there’s some guidance from on high that journalists are to be given “special” treatment.

As appalling as it is, if you’re a journalist just about anywhere, and as we now know crossing the US border, you need to be educated as to what you can and can’t get away with.

Display More

There's plenty of reason to assume that Seth Harp - the journalist in question - was on their radar, especially since he's a journalist and the current US administration believes that they are the enemy of the people. Ergo, he's a target and a smart-aleck before he's even opened his mouth.

Of course he challenged their authority; that's what journalists do, and I'd be surprised if he'd not been expecting this kind of treatment as he walked down the skyway from the plane at Austin, quite frankly. Some may see this as naive, but I would interpret his behaviour as cynical. After all, he did get to write a good story afterwards.

Showing nonchalance in this day and age can also be interpreted as belligerence, so he was screwed either way.

Now, grovelling is another matter. If he had doffed his cap and bowed and scraped in front of the official, he may have passed through without incident, but that would have been out of character. I believe he was ready for this and, his flowery report notwithstanding, he makes that pretty clear in the first paragraph or so. He was asked to divulge the story he had been investigating, which threw a switch in his head and he dug his heels in. That, in itself provoked the whole SS style interrogation.

Reference to Occam's Razor in this context is therefore not appropriate, since by definition it means the simplest answer is often the best one. Answer to what, anyway?

As an aside, it seems that Seth Harp, if indeed that is his real name, has a minuscule footprint on the Internet, using different photos on The Intercept and Rolling Stone. Neither does he appear to have a public Twitter or Facebook profile, which leads one to believe that he needs to hide behind a wall.

"As to what you can and can't get away with..."?

So, is refusing to divulge what you are reporting on, trying to get away with something? Yes it is, in a dictatorship.

When I think of all those crass things people say about the USA like, the land of the free, I cringe, especially when hearing stories like this.

I've been in and out of Argentina and the UK probably 50 times or more in a decade and nothing like this has happened to me.

I have however heard of similar happening to Argentine friends entering the USA and UK, but certainly not on this scale.

Was he already on their radar?