Edward Snowden's Lawyer Claims Harassment From Heathrow Border Agent

concertina226 writes "Jesselyn Radack, a human rights lawyer representing Edward Snowden, has claimed that she was detained and questioned in a 'very hostile' manner on Saturday by London Heathrow Airport's Customs staff. Radack freely disclosed to the border agent that she was going to see members of the Sam Adams Associates group, and when he realized that the meeting would be happening at the Ecuadorian Embassy, he went on to ask her if Julian Assange would be in attendance and to ask her about why she had traveled to Russia twice in three months."

Comments

Thugs.

[lasermike026]

Thugs have no authority. The are responsible for the crimes they commit and should be jailed immediately.

Re:Thugs.

[i kan reed]

I think you're mistaken. Thugs frequently tend to have quite a bit of authority. It makes them very good at being thugs.

Re:Thugs.

[Penguinisto]

Thugs have no authority. The are responsible for the crimes they commit and should be jailed immediately.

...unless they have guns and governmental backing. In this case, they're more properly classified as goons. :(

Usually, the best way to deal with a goon is by one of two methods, depending on governmental status:

1) publicity and shaming of their superiors. You do it hard and heavy enough to generate outrage, and force change to a positive direction (change in policies, fire the SOBs who performed the violations, etc.) When appropriate, a loud and messy lawsuit can provide the same results, and simultaneously enrich you a bit for your time and trouble.

2) subterfuge and quiet resistance. In the case when a government has begun its descent into fascism, your best bet is hide what you must hide, find workarounds to the obstacles, and quietly help remove the fascist elements of the government. As an addendum, carefully probe the possibility of bribery and other methods.

Sadly, we're fast becoming forced to go with #2 - in most of the EU and in the US. In the above case, I suggest that the lady in this story continue to scream bloody murder, and perhaps launch a lawsuit for any credible reason (she's a lawyer, it wouldn't be hard for her to figure out some reason) but meanwhile use the Chunnel next time, and then leave/arrive from a French (or possibly Spanish or German) airport.

*sigh*... if only the population at large would get their eyeballs off the TV and celebrity gossip for long enough to realize just how far down the shitter we're all heading...

Re:Thugs.

[i kan reed]

Hmm, I'm not sure the troll mod is appropriate. There's some superficial similarity there. Using a standing authority to push people around is a bit what beta seems like.

I could see a "flamebait" mod for being, you know, inflammatory, but it's at least relevant and interesting to me.

Re:Thugs.

[ThatsNotPudding]

Thugs frequently tend to have quite a bit of authority.

I also suspect the Venn circles of former High School bullies and Small Town Cops damn near overlap.

Re:Thugs.

[Grishnakh]

Who cares about this stuff? Let's watch the news about the Kardashians and Honey Boo Boo!!!

Re:Thugs.

[sosume]

The best way to combat such government behavior is a real life DDOS. Everyone should report at Heathrow claiming to know Snowden, Assange and de Miranda. Carry encrypted thumb drives with you (chockfull with vile porn ofcourse). Refuse to decrypt without a court order. This will overload the system within 24 hours.
It would be even funnier if millions of ordinary citizens would end up on the no fly list. Report all government personnel and officials for spying! After all, they are part of a government with a broad illegal spying program targeted against their own population. So report them at home and overseas so they end up on no fly lists. Once a critical mass of people disallowed to fly has been reached, especially public servants, these programs will quickly get a review.

Re:Thugs.

[dreamchaser]

What authority exactly do they have in this case though? Nobody is forced to use Slashdot.

Re:Thugs.

[i kan reed]

I don't know. What kind of authority do owners have over those present? Not nearly as much as a government, but I can't buy into your "none" theory.

Re:Thugs.

[HiThere]

If you're going to be pedantic, then to call someone a thug you would need to be asserting that they are devoted to the worship of Kali. And that they abstained from attacking women, holy men, or mad men.

Words don't retain their original meaning, and goon no longer means a hired bully. Either a dolt or a unemployed bully would also qualify under modern usage.

Re:Thugs.

[anagama]

It might be better to go with cat pictures than vile porn -- a clever prosecutor might figure out a way to harass you with some legal BS over porn. Cat pics though -- as long as they are public domain or ones you took, no issues.

Re:Thugs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can confirm; grew up in small town where high school football star douchebags are now much loathed local cops.

Re:Thugs.

[MrBigInThePants]

You are so right.

My definition for "Thugs" are people who have authority gained through illegitimate means and use said authority to harass and/or extort and/or intimidate (etc) others.

By that definition thugs is the perfect word for them.

And this article should be a surprise to no one. The UK has quietly been transforming into a police state, just voted in a tory govt to make that transition faster but has escaped much international attention because of all the focus on the US.

Re:Thugs.

[i kan reed]

Well, when you're as crazy as us Americans, you tend to draw everyone's attention.

Re:Thugs.

[MrBigInThePants]

That is very unfair.

You should have said "when you are as crazy as American politicians and large organisations".

"Americans" are no longer in control of their country. Yes one could argue its their own fault, but there is little they can do about it now.

You will find that the "average American" is quite personable and decent as you will in almost any country.

You will also find a bunch of rabid, sociopathic assholes just chafing at the bit to take over everything and fuck everyone in the ass for their own benefit. And woe be to you if you let them gain the reins of power.

Unfortunately...

Re:Thugs.

[Anonymous Coward]

But what's a goon to a goblin?

Re:Thugs.

[Aighearach]

Well, when you're as crazy as us Americans, you tend to draw everyone's attention.

Wawooowa woooowawawura wadwraraboowa!

Oh, wait, sorry, that was Tasmanian crazy.

Oooo get me a a mouth piece I wanna a hapus corpeas! Now drink yer juice before I blows the fur off’n yer hide.
Now get that flea-bitten carcass off’n my real estate! Start walkin’ ya doggone long eared galoot!

Re:Thugs.

[Aighearach]

"Americans" are no longer in control of their country.

"Derp derp derp," I'll give you hint, bucko. When you type on the internet... my ballot still arrives in time for election day.

Very few people voted for the exact sausage that Congress produces. But that doesn't mean we aren't in control of what gets made.

Re:Thugs.

[Aighearach]

Even kitten jar pics?

Re:Thugs.

[Aighearach]

But what's a goon to a goblin?

Lunch.

Re:Thugs.

[Luckyo]

The main reason we call people "thugs" is because they have authority granted to them by force that also gets them that name.

Re:Thugs.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had heavier questioning going from Brussels to London on the Chunnel than I have at London Heathrow. Same government agencies running the border. UK is not EU for cross-border purposes (or currency of course).

Re:Thugs.

[MrBigInThePants]

Ok, I see from your two later posts that you are in fact a complete moron. My bad.

Discussion ended.

Re:Thugs.

[blind monkey 3]

So who did you vote for - the turd sandwich or the giant douche?

Re:Thugs.

[Anonymous Coward]

You win an internets, good sir.

Re:Thugs.

[gnupun]

Well, they're severely abusing their authority. Product design should be based on consumer needs/desires. Owners should mainly care about profits.

Nobody is forced to use Slashdot.

There are many products/services that are not required, but are convenient. As an analogy, cars are not required. Everyone could walk, bike, take a bus or train.

Re:Thugs.

[sociocapitalist]

Thugs have no authority. The are responsible for the crimes they commit and should be jailed immediately.

...unless they have guns and governmental backing. In this case, they're more properly classified as goons. :(

Usually, the best way to deal with a goon is by one of two methods, depending on governmental status:

1) publicity and shaming of their superiors. You do it hard and heavy enough to generate outrage, and force change to a positive direction (change in policies, fire the SOBs who performed the violations, etc.) When appropriate, a loud and messy lawsuit can provide the same results, and simultaneously enrich you a bit for your time and trouble.

2) subterfuge and quiet resistance. In the case when a government has begun its descent into fascism, your best bet is hide what you must hide, find workarounds to the obstacles, and quietly help remove the fascist elements of the government. As an addendum, carefully probe the possibility of bribery and other methods.

Sadly, we're fast becoming forced to go with #2 - in most of the EU and in the US. In the above case, I suggest that the lady in this story continue to scream bloody murder, and perhaps launch a lawsuit for any credible reason (she's a lawyer, it wouldn't be hard for her to figure out some reason) but meanwhile use the Chunnel next time, and then leave/arrive from a French (or possibly Spanish or German) airport.

*sigh*... if only the population at large would get their eyeballs off the TV and celebrity gossip for long enough to realize just how far down the shitter we're all heading...

"but meanwhile use the Chunnel next time, and then leave/arrive from a French (or possibly Spanish or German) airport."

The UK still does border controls on those arriving from European locations.

Re:Thugs.

[sociocapitalist]

The best way to combat such government behavior is a real life DDOS. Everyone should report at Heathrow claiming to know Snowden, Assange and de Miranda. Carry encrypted thumb drives with you (chockfull with vile porn ofcourse). Refuse to decrypt without a court order. This will overload the system within 24 hours.
It would be even funnier if millions of ordinary citizens would end up on the no fly list. Report all government personnel and officials for spying! After all, they are part of a government with a broad illegal spying program targeted against their own population. So report them at home and overseas so they end up on no fly lists. Once a critical mass of people disallowed to fly has been reached, especially public servants, these programs will quickly get a review.

And just like a DDOS they would start filtering and dropping packets (ie refusing people entry).

Re:Thugs.

[chiefmojorising]

Copyright infringement at the very least in all likelihood -- make sure that you use *homemade* vile porn.

Re:Thugs.

[RockDoctor]

And just like a DDOS they would start filtering and dropping packets (ie refusing people entry).

... at which point, the person refused entry has to buy a ticket out of there as soon as reasonably possible. Which would typically mean buying a business class ticket. You'd also have to demonstrate to the airline you're buying from that you've got the right to enter the country at the far end of the new flight. Since you've just been refused entry to a country, you'll have to re-apply for any pre-existing visas or entry permits that you have, since almost every country in the world is likely to take "refusal of entry" as being information that may materially change their decision to allow you a visa / ewntry permit, or what ever.

Generally, your only option after being refused entry is a business-class seat back to your home country. Not going to be cheap.

Re:Thugs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not simply a USB stick full of random numbers? Decryption won't even be possible; however, if they want they can keep looking for something that isn't there.

Re:Thugs.

[findoutmoretoday]

The Venn circle of small town cops and lawyers

Realpolitik

[i kan reed]

Use whatever petty powers might end up being called constitutional in a court of law, even if it's clearly against the spirit, because, hey, how else are you going to exert your authority over someone who's generally considered to have done a good thing?

Re:Realpolitik

[erroneus]

I would like to direct you here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

1. We're talking about England.
2. They don't really have a Constitution in a single document form as it is known in other countries.
3. It's not a dead parrot.

Re:Realpolitik

[Anonymous Coward]

She was detained on advise of the US's TSA, so the England point is irrelevant.

Re:Realpolitik

[K. S. Kyosuke]

2. They don't really have a Constitution in a single document form as it is known in other countries.

So what, if a bill is in three parts in another country, it's suddenly less respectable or something? UK signed the ECHR, therefore, they're responsible for upholding its articles.

Re:Realpolitik

[Anonymous Coward]

Question:

What does the US Constitution have to do with what happens at Heathrow Airport? That would be the airport in London. London is a city in England.

Re:Realpolitik

[0123456]

And Airstrip One is pretty much the 51st state these days.

Re:Realpolitik

[i kan reed]

Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to expect that US and UK law enforcement aren't in cahoots. It's completely pragmatic that they would be.

Re:Realpolitik

[Penguinisto]

She was detained on advise of the US's TSA, so the England point is irrelevant.

Doesn't matter - the actions were performed by a UK authority, so the UK authority is still answerable to it.

Re:Realpolitik

[erroneus]

Oh, they signed something. Well then, that's different. I can't speak too much for England, but I can say the US picked up a lot of bad habits from England... and 1940s Germany too. So if England is anything like the US, then the constitution and local policies and practices trump international agreements. Additionally, "terrorism" defense trumps any and all aspects related to human rights, due process or any of that stuff.

The only thing surprising to me is that a border agent cares enough to harass anyone. But then again, we're talking about border agents, not TSA.

Re:Realpolitik

[Grishnakh]

The UK government doesn't have any authority; it's just a lapdog for the US government.

Re:Realpolitik

[2sheds]

The ECHR to which the parent refers is not simply an international treaty obligation. The articles and protocols it creates are explicitly enshrined in British law via the 1998 Human Rights Act, an instrument which while hated by our far right parties is IMHO one of the shining achievements of recent times (though not without flaws). The draconian environment you'll undoubtedly find at UK border control is quite a different issue, but it's one that you'll find familiar the world over.

Re:Realpolitik

[Immerman]

Advice, not authority. Believe it or not government officials are beholden first and foremost to the laws of their own government, and don't get *any* legal authority from foreign institutions unless they're operating within the borders of that institution's jurisdiction. Not even if the foreign institution is routinely flouting the laws that should be regulating its own behavior both at home and abroad.

Re:Realpolitik

[Immerman]

Certainly. But the officials on each side of the cahoosion are still supposed to operate in compliance with the laws of their respective governments.

Re:Realpolitik

[i kan reed]

Except that it's more complicated than that, of course. Findings can occur in one system, be prosecuted in another, and enforced in a third.

Re:Realpolitik

[Anonymous Coward]

The draconian environment you'll undoubtedly find at UK border control is quite a different issue, but it's one that you'll find familiar the world over.

Have you seen *my* border control? Bah.

Re:Realpolitik

[anagama]

Maybe, or maybe Five Eyes is just a way to reunite with its colonies. In America, British people get a lot of attention socially, I'm guessing that is true in other former colonies. There's an entire genre of literature loosely based on feudal England (fantasy) and it even breaks into the mainstream every now and then (game of thrones) to sort of soften up attitudes toward the recombination. Anyway, that's enough conspiracy BS, but it is something that could eventually occur if interests aligned sufficiently, and with American apathy toward our political rulers shredding the Constitution as fast as possible, it isn't exactly impossible.

Re:Realpolitik

[MrBigInThePants]

Please don't hold up your constitution as the great example of how rights must be implemented.

I would go into a diatribe about it but George Carlin said it well enough:
ref: http://mindofv.blogspot.co.nz/2008/04/excerpt-from-george-carlin-on-rights.html

"Now, if you think you do have rights, I have one last assignment for ya. Next time you're at the computer get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, i want to type in, "Japanese-Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious fucking rights. Alright. You know about it.

In 1942 there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had was...right this way! Into the internment camps.

Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most...their government took them away. and rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of TEMPORARY privileges; and if you read the news, even badly, you know the list get's shorter, and shorter, and shorter.

Yeup, sooner or later the people in this country are going to realize the government doesn't give a fuck about them. the government doesn't care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. it simply doesn't give a fuck about you. It's interested in it's own power. That's the only thing...keeping it, and expanding wherever possible.

Personally when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true: either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all."

Re:Realpolitik

[Grishnakh]

Huh? You're pointing to Game of Thrones as some sort of way to generate interest in reuniting Britain and the US? You've got to be kidding. GoT isn't even filmed in Britain, it's filmed in Ireland (and Iceland, and Malta). Moreover, the whole society of Westeros is portrayed is horribly flawed, as all the humans are busy destroying themselves while the undead from the North invade. (Esteros isn't much better; one city is built on slavery (now destroyed), another is built on unrestrained capitalism (now looted), and the Dothraki are just a bunch of savages.) Honestly, I don't see any real parallels between GoT and real life, unless maybe the White Walkers are a metaphor for global climate change. Personally, I'm rooting for the White Walkers. The humans are just too stupid.

As for the feudal England fantasy, that Jane Austen crap is just that; only a small subset of women like that garbage.

Re:Realpolitik

[Anonymous Coward]

And Airstrip One is pretty much the 51st state these days.

Hey now! Canada was promised 51st State status decades ago in exchange for the Government of Canada killing the Avro Arrow.

Re: Realpolitik

[Anonymous Coward]

County Antrim is in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, dumbass.

Re:Realpolitik

[Aighearach]

They rarely actually use the terrorism defense in specific cases. They use it to defend the laws that permit excessive discretion, and then in the individual cases, they claim they have to exercise this discretion and that they can't play favorites and citizens caught up in their policies just need to cooperate and defer to the discretion of the overworked security agents protecting[sic] them.

So you get a bait-and-switch at both ends of the problem.

Re:Realpolitik

[Aighearach]

Actually, I agree that you should go to wikipedia and research it. He got that part right. And as a comedian, raising awareness is the goal there. So even though he is actually wrong in his claims and attacks, he succeeds in raising awareness. Comedians never raise awareness by just telling how things are. That wouldn't work, and it wouldn't be comedy.

The rights of Japanese-Americans interned during WWII were violated. That is an officially know and acknowledged fact. Having rights is not a promise that nobody will ever violate those rights. That is not even a possible standard. What actually happened is that their rights were clearly violated as a matter of expediency, and then we through a long process of inflection, analysis, discussion, education, and law, which ended up with a clear, broadly-taught understanding that those actions violated those people's rights.

So do like Carlin suggested. Read up about it. Think about what it means to have "rights," and if they are a magical force-field that never gets violated, or if they are something else entirely.

Re:Realpolitik

[Aighearach]

Nor is there any reason to expect that they ARE in cahoots. You have to prove the positive, not the negative. It could be simply have a "special relationship" based on shared values, and that our security drones naturally react in the same way. They may very well look the same on people they see as being "against" either of our countries as being equally dangerous, and respond accordingly. No "cahoots" are needed to explain this behavior.

If only that WAS the problem... then we could wait for somebody to leak the documents, and try to dismantle the part of the connection that was abused. If they just naturally react in the same obnoxious way, it is a lot harder to stop.

Re:Realpolitik

[Anonymous Coward]

GoT isn't even filmed in Britain, it's filmed in Ireland

GoT isn't filmed in Great Britain. Ireland is just as much a British Isle as the rest of them.

Re: Realpolitik

[Grishnakh]

And that's on the island of Ireland, dumbass. Britain is not a country, it's an island, which happens to be a different island. I never said it was filmed in the UK, I said it wasn't filmed in Britain. Moron.

Re:Realpolitik

[MrBigInThePants]

You are bordering on being an apologist. I would argue that you are in fact this since the same sort of shit is happening right now with rights being abused and the definitions corrupted.

Just because you can go back decades later and say "tut tut" does not make it any less so. The fact remains that the US government can at any time decide to ignore rights (as it just did recently) and there is little to anything you can do about it at the time or even in time to make any sort of difference.
The engine does not have the safeguards to prevent it. The fox is watching the hen house so to speak.

Maybe you can argue and protest and have a long drawn out expensive legal battle for decades afterwards and maybe we can all tut tut and waggle our finger. (Much like the ACLU does.)

But who cares about that?

So you are telling me that rights are things we have to slog through the courts to defend before we are allowed to have them back after they are taken away arbitrarily? A right is anything that will cause enough of a political backlash to cause vote loss?

That is not a "right". They are certainly not inalienable rights.

I would even argue that your current form of govt. simply does not allow "rights" to exist. The reason? Because the people don't run the country any more.

Rights require an entire socio-political framework in which to exist. That ceased some time ago if it ever existed.

The morbidly obese fox now lounges slothfully over the hen house gorging itself whenever it chooses. The farmer is too busy getting drunk and watching sport to care and the toothless, deaf old dog is just about dead anyway.

Sucks to be a chicken...

Re:Realpolitik

[Anonymous Coward]

So if England is anything like the US, then the constitution and local policies and practices trump international agreements

... That's the same USA whose Constitution states that treaties with other nations are the supreme law of the land on the same level as the Constitution itself, yes?

Re: Realpolitik

[Anonymous Coward]

The nationalit of the people in Northern Ireland is British, not Irish. Can't really claim it doesn't serve Brirish interests.

Re: Realpolitik

[Anonymous Coward]

Further more Ireland is the second largest land mass in the British Isles. Not the the Irish will admit to it.

Norn Irish and proud.

Re:Realpolitik

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right. There is no such thing as rights (we don't have any at all). It is also not possible to own land. These are made up things, written down by humans. All that writing means is that humans have agreed to allow each other the room to pretend to exercise those rights. Same goes for law. Law is not a real thing, it's made up by humans. All of it only works if everyone agrees to agree.

Re:Realpolitik

[Sciath]

In large part I'd have to agree, with perhaps one caveat. That being the government does care about it's citizens insofar as it can utilize them to its advantage. In other words, people are tools to be used for any project government authorizes. The USA can no longer honestly claim government "of, by and for the people" unless one wants to confuse government with "the people". As the power of government has increased over the past century, it has waged a very effective propaganda campaign that the US is "the greatest country in the world" and the ambassador of free societies. But that is merely a diversion for government's usurpation of control under the ruse of safety and national security. It's important to recognize that all totalitarian governments in history have utilized the same ideals and processes and Nazi Germany was one good example. The Nazi party used the "fer us or agin us" argument as part of Hitler's ascension to power. The more powerful governments become the more protective they become of their influence and capabilities. Unfortunately, most Americans today are more than willing to sacrifice their privacy and liberties for a mere promise of (personal) security of which no government can guarantee at any given time or place. But it's a comforting delusion nonetheless. Kind of reminds me of theistic belief of which there are promises made but evidence strongly suggests there is no such thing (as life after death or intercessory prayer for two examples). It's also interesting to note how large numbers of Americans often draw correlations between their god and their government ("for god and government"). So, is government supplanting god? It also becomes all too apparent that Americans are getting "soft" from a character perspective as the evidence suggests for the very reason they expect government to protect as opposed to Americans assuming the responsibility for their own protection especially on a local scale. And finally, the US appears to be moving in the direction of western Europe (in particular Gr. Britain) which as no "constitution" or guarantee of civil liberties.

Re:Realpolitik

[Aighearach]

Yes, rights are legal tools, not magical force fields. Note however that they do exist. You seem to think admitting they are not a magical force field means you're against rights, or support violations of rights. That is literally insane, because if rights were a magical force field they wouldn't need anybody to agree that they are thus; they would be obviously so by their function.

I have a right to walk down the street unmolested. The existence of muggers does not mean I do not have that right. It means that I have to defend my rights successfully, which may not always be possible. But afterwards, I can seek redress, and society can agree formally what was right and wrong.

I spend time every week at the local internment camp memorial. It has large plaques explaining the acknowledgment by the US Government that the camps violated the rights of those interned. To twist that history is especially disgusting when contrasted against the solid patriotism of those interned. Their belief in American principles is what led their long struggle, using formal legal and legislative systems of the United States, to have the record set straight regarding the violations of their rights. Claiming rights are magical denies this whole process, and the strengthening effect it had on the nation. Such a thing could not happen now; we have precedent to cover it.

Re:Realpolitik

[MrBigInThePants]

I agree in principle.

I guess at the heart of my argument is the bit about "everyone".

"Everyone" is not making the decisions any more. Therefore it is not working.

Re:Realpolitik

[MrBigInThePants]

I AM denying that process.

In fact I am saying you are living in denial.

The problem is the system and until that changes those rights don't exist. Your mugger metaphor is simply not relevant - a mugger is an external force. When its the government that is suppose to be upholding those rights it is a completely different beast.

You say all this with a straight face while Guantanamo bay is still running.

You say this when the "open government" president just shat all over open government and is about to refactor the law and the process to make the NSA's activities "legal" and hidden from view again. (and god help you if the other side gets in)

The US is trying to and has persecuted whistle blowers for exposing their illegal and morally reprehensible actions.

Words and memorials are meaningless symbols we attach so much importance to - sometimes as a replacement for reality.

And I have not even begun to address the "what ifs" of those rights. Currently there is not reason for many rights to be abused, the political cost would outweigh the benefits.

What if that changes? I think the question has already been answered during the occupy movements, iraq/afgan war and other specific scenarios personally.
Some of the tea party are calling for revolution. What if the citizens start to agree and organise mass protests and strikes etc etc.
How long do you think your rights will last then? Rights are not rights if they only exist due to convenience.

The strength and existence of your rights are ONLY tested when they are hard to swallow such as a child abuse case, a unpopular protest or movement, terrorists who still deserve a fair trial, etc. Or perhaps whistle blowers who exposes the evil of tax payer funder organisations.

And on that count your rights fail miserably.

Re:Realpolitik

[MrBigInThePants]

You were always there.

The power of your constitution is only as good as those of western europe - it is a political/PR tool to make the plebs feel safe.

See my other post for my thoughts on this.

Is Snowden being tried?

[jkrise]

So why does he need any lawyers at this stage?

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mensch said that she is"proud" that Heathrow Border Force were "doing "their lawful job" by interrogating Radack. She has also insisted that Radack is not actually Snowden's lawyer but merely just a "legal advisor" trying to claim attorney-client privilege.

Precisely as I had suspected.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[PPH]

Negotiating book and movie deals?

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[i kan reed]

Are you serious? Every single thing he does from here on could be another charge added by capricious prosecutors trying to prove a point. It's not like you or I where a small, harmless crime or misstatement is going to be overlooked. Someone somewhere in the bureaucracy of the FBI is building a gigantic case-file with everything Snowden does(and yeah, there's probably been a warrant issued too, so let's not pretend this isn't stuff they can bring to trial).

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Marillion]

Perhaps there are deals being worked out. These deals could be between Snowden and the US. Perhaps a deal with some other country. Perhaps a deal with a book publisher. Until a deal is reached, these deals should be private. Lastly, we should be very worried if no one is trying to make a deal because it signals that everyone has an entrenched and unyielding position.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[rjhubs]

It is unlikely that a "human rights lawyer" would be handling a book deal. That is if I can trust the summary, I did not read the article.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Crimes are not harmless.
2. We know what you did last summer (winter ?).\
3. Please stop packing. We know that too.
4. We will ask you for the password to your encrypted drive (we know that one also but we would like to add another charge to you song sheet.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[cpt kangarooski]

Everyone needs many lawyers at all stages.

More seriously, a child -- even a stupid child -- could tell that Snowden faces legal threats, among other threats. It's not foolish of him to consult with lawyers. Besides, you think there are no lawyers out to get him?

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[i kan reed]

I contest #1, because people make things crimes for all sorts of reasons, and not all of those are about minimizing harm(though I believe they should be). And even then sometimes things that meet the letter of the law(i.e. revealing classified documents) don't always match the spirit(preventing spying for another country).

2,3, and 4 don't apply.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Penguinisto]

1. Crimes are not harmless.

Depends on what is being called a crime. In this case, they use the term "crime" as one would expect from some two-bit fascist commissar in a half-assed Junta. That is, the term "crime" is more easily translatable to "something that embarrassed the shit out of me, uncovered some bad doings, probably hampered my plans, and will require a lot of work on my part to get the sheep to ignore it."

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[mspohr]

I believe that he only has temporary asylum in Russia now so he needs lawyers to try to arrange something more permanent somewhere. (Preferably not a permanent cell at Gitmo.)

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Penguinisto]

Dude, are you kidding? Win or lose, whatever lawyer represents him at any potential trial will stand to make a metric fuck-ton of money.

See also the lawyer (Jose Baez, I think?) that represented Casey Anthony in her little baby-killing trial. Hell, he probably did that one for free, because he knows full well that his name and number is now on the Rolodex of any defendant (potential or actual) in the region that happens to have an obscene amount of money in the bank.

As another more technical example, that dude David Boies made a shitload of dosh off of representing SCO, in spite of his crappy track record (ex: he represented Al Gore in that little election dust-up back in 2000), and in spite of losing all the SCO v. (//insert linux vendor) cases rather spectacularly.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Immerman]

And what exactly is the difference between a legal advisor and a lawyer? It's not like you go out and buy a lawyer and they become your property. Do they need to represent you at trial? Then nobody can have a lawyer until the case has actually advanced to that point, and corporate lawyers may be in trouble.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Immerman]

Who said anything about minimizing harm in any general sense? You annoy me, I buy a law banning doing the things that annoy me, and your actions now become a crime with myself as the victim and I can have you punished any time I choose to report you. Harm to *me* is minimized, that's all that's really important. /psychopathic power monger mode off

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is Jesselyn Raddack is more interested in her own book and self-promotion than she is concerned about Snowden.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Cederic]

Louise Mensch is a publicity seeking fuckwit.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[SternisheFan]

And that seems to be Snowden's "crime", embarrassing the U.S.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[nitehawk214]

1. Crimes are not harmless.

Depends on what is being called a crime. In this case, they use the term "crime" as one would expect from some two-bit fascist commissar in a half-assed Junta. That is, the term "crime" is more easily translatable to "something that embarrassed the shit out of me, uncovered some bad doings, probably hampered my plans, and will require a lot of work on my part to get the sheep to ignore it."

This is what happens when politics and religion ride in the same cart. The dictator gets to set what is morally "right and wrong", and declare every violation of the law as a "sin".

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[TubeSteak]

there's probably been a warrant issued too,

No probably about it.
This was the first hit on google
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-charges-snowden-with-espionage/2013/06/21/507497d8-dab1-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html
2013/06/21

Federal prosecutors have filed a criminal complaint against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked a trove of documents about top-secret surveillance programs, and the United States has asked Hong Kong to detain him on a provisional arrest warrant, according to U.S. officials.

Snowden was charged with theft, âoeunauthorized communication of national defense informationâ and âoewillful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,â according to the complaint. The last two charges were brought under the 1917 Espionage Act.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"And that seems to be Snowden's "crime", embarrassing the U.S."

No. The US embarassed the US. Snowden brought that embarrasment to everyone's attention. It isn't going to stop either. I remember a specific quote that the administration is aware of the harm Snowden's disclosure has caused. They are simply too arrogant or stupid to figure out that it was the actions of the US that are a complete embarresment, not those of Assange. If they didn't commit the crime, there would be nothing for Snowden to bring to light.

* The US Government is committing a crime. There is no way around this. No law trumps the constitution. Period. And, no, it is not a "living document" to be "interpreted".

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Penguinisto]

This is what happens when politics and religion ride in the same cart. The dictator gets to set what is morally "right and wrong", and declare every violation of the law as a "sin".

I suspect it would be more properly said that this is what happens when politics and ideology ride in the same cart. While religion can qualify as an ideology, it does not and cannot encompass such things as fascism or the writings of Karl Marx.

After all, the governments of China, Nazi Germany, North Korea, and what used to be the USSR recognized no god, but that never stopped them from setting "moral" standards, then enforcing them by way of law and police.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Anonymous Coward]

Attorney-client confidentiality privilege, apparently.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[UnknownSoldier]

Please mod parents +Insightful.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Aighearach]

So why does he need any lawyers at this stage?

If you have to wait until you're on trial to have access to lawyers... wow. That would be an exceptionally low bar for Freedom. You have a basic common-law right to legal representation (under English Common Law, and under US Common Law originating from the adoption of English Common Law that existed at the Founding of our Nation) and that doesn't start when you get accused of a crime. In the US we construe the right to mean that if the government is charging you for a crime and you can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided; but if you can afford one, you have a right to retain them at any time.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Aighearach]

The difference is that a legal advisor hasn't agreed to represent you in a (potentially theoretical) case. It is an idiotic distinction, because if a lawyer agrees to take the case if it arises, then they are in fact your lawyer regarding that issue. This is obvious and necessary when you consider that in civil cases, you're required to attempt to resolve the case before going to court.

They would have to be claiming that Snowden doesn't have an actual potential legal case that she would represent him in, and that she was advising him about matters entirely outside the scope of any potential case. That seems fairly flimsy in an obvious way.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Aighearach]

Book deals are absolutely serious legal business involving contracts and would be 100% covered under normal rules of privilege.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Aighearach]

He clearly stole* documents he had taken a solemn oath to protect. He clearly violated the security of his work-place in a whole bunch of different and illegal ways. And he was primarily not releasing evidence of crimes or misdeeds, which is the normal standard for a "whistle-blower." Clearly, he committed crimes to educate the world about the unpopular ways the Patriot Act and other laws were being used by the government.

Many people consider him a hero for this. That does not in any way change the legality of his actions. The only reason Daniel Ellsberg escaped prison was prosecutorial misconduct, and he is widely regarded as a national hero for leaking the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War. Everybody agrees that his actions were illegal, and most people also agree that they were good, moral actions because the government was lying.

Lots of people do and say things that embarrass the government. They generally only get charged with crimes when those things are also illegal; and the embarrassment of the government doesn't come up in their trials.

* unlike movies and such things, removing unauthorized copies of government documents is considered theft of those documents, especially where they are acquired at work and are the government's property even when coming out of a copy machine.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Aighearach]

You should look up the Patriot Act. It turns out, most of it is shocking, but legal. There are certainly details that appear to be illegal, but the vast majority of the classified information he leaked does NOT imply any crime or legal misdeed, simply awful and scary government actions.

Just saying "no law trumps the Constitution" isn't enough. We have a Supreme Court for a reason. The Bill of Rights is not well-written so as to remove ambiguity or define the edge cases. There is solid SCOTUS precedent for the Patriot Act not violating the 4th amendment. I happen to agree that those are flawed decisions, but you can't both be a nation of laws with a strong Constitution, and also deny the role of the Court in applying those (unfortunately abstract) rules to modern situations. There is real and true disagreement about what exactly makes up a "search." Both sides can equally well say, "Constitution" over and over.

As for interpretation, if you can't interpret it, then you'd have to simply throw out and not apply any parts where there is any disagreement over the meaning. If we don't agree what it means, only through interpretation can we apply the historical language to a specific modern case.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Aighearach]

David Boies is still a well known, respected, high-priced lawyer, regardless of his case record. They just say, well, he had the courage to take more difficult cases.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[rtb61]

Oh No, not another desperate narcissist frothing at the mouth and keyboard to gain publicity and the money they are after. A political switcher from way back, conservative, liberal and back to conservative where ever she thought she could gain the greatest advantage and sell more of her apparently "you are not good enough" books to impressionable teenage girls. Another political quitter that dumped an elected position when it wasn't making her enough money. Talk about a lame attempt at attention in a grab for the cash.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[cpt kangarooski]

I never even said a word about the lawyers making money. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else?

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[nitehawk214]

Yes, you are more correct. I was just paraphrasing Frank Herbert.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Jahta]

Mensch said that she is"proud" that Heathrow Border Force were "doing "their lawful job" by interrogating Radack. She has also insisted that Radack is not actually Snowden's lawyer but merely just a "legal advisor" trying to claim attorney-client privilege.

Louise Mensch was previously known as Louise Bagshawe (chic-lit author) before briefly dabbling in politics when she was elected as a Conservative MP in 2010. She resigned in 2012. Her term in office was marked by (a) her general clueless-ness about the big political/social issues and (b) a rabidly right-wing "law & order" stance; for example, in 2011 she publicly supported the idea of the UK police being able to turn off Facebook and Twitter at will to maintain public order.

So her comments here are not surprising and should be taken with the usual large pinch of NaCl.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Just saying "no law trumps the Constitution" isn't enough. We have a Supreme Court for a reason. "

Agreed, but you are missing the point: The Supreme Court has failed willfully and has over-stepped their bounds time and again. By definition they are criminals, and as such hold no legal authority. Every law they pass is illegal.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Aighearach]

I advise you look up some of the words you used. For example, "criminal" and "authority." You might find you are substantially mistaken about their meaning in English.

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"I advise you look up some of the words you used."

I guarantee you I have a stronger mastery of the English language than you do. In other words: "The condescenscion is flowing in the wrong direction, my friend".

Re:Is Snowden being tried?

[Anonymous Coward]

Morals exist independently of any religion.

Get over it

[StripedCow]

Passenger treated like dirt by airport staff. News at 11!

Re:Get over it

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

They're trained to be assholes -- it's an attempt to fluster you so you make a mistake.

Their error is in applying it to normal citzens or as a tool of harassment for other reasons.

Re:Get over it

[CanHasDIY]

Passenger treated like dirt by airport staff. News at 11!

It's news because she was being treated like dirt due to her association with a particular client. Dur.

Re:Get over it

[Immerman]

Except how are you supposed to know the difference between a normal citizen and a "suspect" before they make a mistake? Such tactics *have* to be applied to *everyone* if they're to have any chance of being worth half a damn. Hell, Tom Cruise fell for that Scientology BS, who's to say he didn't get recently suckered into being a terrorist?

The only error here is that they applied the techniques to a human rights lawyer who may be able to raise a big enough stink to cause them some annoyance.

Re:Get over it

[Wookact]

Except applying those tactics to everyone would result in a large number of false positives. Find a different way.

Re:Get over it

[Immerman]

All right. How about we go back to the perfectly reasonable pre 9/11 security procedures, minus the lax "it could never happen here" mentality, and otherwise just trust folks not to be complete assholes? And accept that every now and then someone will do something terrible and people will die. It's life, shit happens. Most of it doesn't happen on airplanes. How many planes would have to blow up just to compete with the number of deaths due to drunk driving*? And yet we don't jump all over ourselves to throw away human dignity and vital liberties to stamp that out.

*Estimated 10,000+ U.S. drunk driving deaths in 2010. Most commercial airliners seat 200-500, let's call it 350 average. So, we need to average about three fully-loaded planes being destroyed every month just to be competitive with drunk driving, which itself doesn't actually rank all that high as a cause of death. Provided they keep the cabin door locked there's not much worse that a terrorist can do, and if we're getting three successful suicide bombings a month that's probably a symptom of far worse problems than lax airport security.

Re:Get over it

[Aighearach]

Except how are you supposed to know the difference between a normal citizen and a "suspect" before they make a mistake?

No. In airports, not being a suspect doesn't help much.

But they certainly are supposed to know the difference between a regular person and/or suspect and a lawyer .

Re:Get over it

[sociocapitalist]

All right. How about we go back to the perfectly reasonable pre 9/11 security procedures, minus the lax "it could never happen here" mentality, and otherwise just trust folks not to be complete assholes? And accept that every now and then someone will do something terrible and people will die. It's life, shit happens. Most of it doesn't happen on airplanes. How many planes would have to blow up just to compete with the number of deaths due to drunk driving*? And yet we don't jump all over ourselves to throw away human dignity and vital liberties to stamp that out.

*Estimated 10,000+ U.S. drunk driving deaths in 2010. Most commercial airliners seat 200-500, let's call it 350 average. So, we need to average about three fully-loaded planes being destroyed every month just to be competitive with drunk driving, which itself doesn't actually rank all that high as a cause of death. Provided they keep the cabin door locked there's not much worse that a terrorist can do, and if we're getting three successful suicide bombings a month that's probably a symptom of far worse problems than lax airport security.

The crap put in place since 911 isn't to protect the people in the airliners but was put in place by and for the protection of the politicians and wealthy business people who are the would be high value targets.

That it's inconvenient for the rest of us doesn't matter to them a whit.

Re:Get over it

[Immerman]

Nope, sorry, not gonna buy that one. If congress-critters were doing it to protect their own ass they'd have put in place actual effective measures, not the multi-tiered security theater we got. As it is I can only assume that it's a matter of either the usual incompetent political "Being seen to be doing *something* is better than doing *nothing*, even if we know it's the wrong thing.", or something more nefarious. Probably both depending on which representative you're discussing. You don't usually get that kind of impressive overreach from people trying to do the right thing.

not surprising

[joe545]

Foreign citizen turns up at the border and mentions that she will visit a fugitive from the law and is surprised when that results in an border interrogation?

Re:not surprising

[rubycodez]

fugitive from whose laws? she is lawyer of someone who hasn't gone to trial

Re:not surprising

[joe545]

RTFS she will visit Assange who is skipped bail.

Re:not surprising

[rubycodez]

he skipped bail in Los Angeles USA, which last I checked hasn't joined the British Empire

Re:not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a fugitive from the UK's laws. Which he has undoubtedly broken.

He was arrested by the UK police, which they were allowed to do because a European Arrest Warrant was issued.

In the UK, we don't like to lock up people who haven't been convicted of a crime, so after a few days he was released on bail. The UK laws say that if you're on bail then the court can set reasonable conditions to stop you running away. You have to stick to those conditions, or you can be punished under UK law. His bail conditions were to check in with the police daily, and report to the police at a specified date.

He had a chance to have legal counsel and to fight the European Arrest Warrant in court. And he did. First at the Magistrate's Court, and then he appealed to the High Court and then the Supreme Court. He lost all in 3 courts. He then had the option of appealing to the European Court of Human Rights and he decided not to.

When it became obvious he'd lost, he went and hid in the embassy. That was a breach of his bail conditions.

Re:not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, what? He skipped bail in England. Go read his Wikipedia page.

Re:not surprising

[timeOday]

USA, which last I checked hasn't joined the British Empire

More like vice-versa.

Re:not surprising

[JonahsDad]

and is surprised when that results in an border interrogation?

Nowhere in TFA did it state that she was surprised. I fully expect that at least half the point of mentioning it was to see how she'd be treated.

Re:not surprising

[ahabswhale]

It's all about publicity. This way she can make it seem like everyone's rights are being oppressed by the evil empire.

Re:not surprising

[AK Marc]

I haven't found any references to skipping bail in LA. What did he do there? He skipped bail in England, where he was being held awaiting extradition when he broke bail and fled to Ecuador.

Re:not surprising

[Tom]

Lawyers visiting people in trouble with the law is basically them doing their job, you know?

Re:not surprising

[phantomfive]

It's not even that, as others have mentioned, Heathrow airport just has this style of interrogation to enter the country.

Having read the article, nothing happened to her that didn't happen to me when I visited England. They just ask deep, 'piercing' questions, I suppose to curb the tide of illegal immigrants trying to sneak in from the US. Probably to steal their free healthcare or something?

Re:not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all about publicity. This way she can make it seem like everyone's rights are being oppressed by the evil empire.

Which is true...

Re:not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Even then, so what? He's trying to save his ass from being sent by the country in-which he bail jumped to another country to be tried on bullshit charges. I'd skip bail too.

Re:not surprising

[Wookact]

If the shoe fits.

Re:not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

while I don't agree with what they are doing to him, he isn't just someone in trouble with the law, he is a fugitive from the law that has skipped on his U.K. bail conditions. I would expect anyone crossing into the U.K. to meet a wanted fugitive would be interrogated regardless of who they are.

Re:not surprising

[Zero__Kelvin]

"It's all about publicity. This way she can make it seem like everyone's rights are being oppressed by the evil empire."

Yes ... and for her next two tricks she'll make it seem like water is wet, and then cause it to seem like ice is cold to the touch!

Re:not surprising

[ahabswhale]

So it's rush to judgement time? You don't like that when it's done to you I'm guessing. It's must nice that justice can be turned off and on like a lightswitch in your head.

Re:not surprising

[Aighearach]

Skipping bail waives many rights, but the right to a lawyer is not one of them.

Re:not surprising

[Aighearach]

Careful now, we've already fought that war... twice.

Re:not surprising

[Tom]

Again, there are conditions with special rules. If someone is injured, doctors have special priviledges (cutting someone open without his consent would be considered assault in every other situation). If someone has broken the law, lawyers have special priviledges. It doesn't matter if he has broken the law on theft or on bail, he still has the right to talk to a lawyer. It's one of the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

Re:not surprising

[superwiz]

Right. But she is not a British lawyer. Nor is Snowden a British subject. So, in Britain, she is just a foreigner visiting someone who Britain may consider a spy. Since she does not act as a lawyer, in any capacity, while in Britain, she does not enjoy an attorney client privilege. And unless she can defend him against any charges brought against him in Britain (if any), she cannot have any attorney client privilege in Britain. So not questioning her would be fundamentally irresponsible of the airport staff and probably of the British security services. American law simply does not carry weight in Britain. They have their own laws. And you know... you do have to comply with the laws of the country in which you are physically present... or you are not in compliance with the law... these are pretty trivial concepts.

Re:not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

And the British government won't report back to their masters in Fort Meade.

The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[serviscope_minor]

I'm British.

The border staff are a national embarrassment, and are wildly, wildly incompetent.

I think they'd happily wave through a man going by the name of "Osama Bin Laden" (OK, he's dead who do we use now for the purpose hyperbole?) carrying a radioactive suitcase and declaring "Allah Akbar" and then hassle some poor American on a work visa for an hour or three.

Actually in my limited experience, the border guards seem to give Americans a really hard time if they've got work visas.

I've been stopped at the border and hassled by a dim border gard. He was clearly trying to catch me in a lie and asked a question about somewhere I was living. He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly. What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[0123456]

Actually in my limited experience, the border guards seem to give Americans a really hard time if they've got work visas.

Here's the thing: British voters don't like the mass immigration from the EU over the last couple of decades. So, every once in a while, the British government set out to win votes by 'cracking down on immigration'. But the EU says they're not allowed to restrict immigration from the EU, so they, instead, crack down on the skilled workers coming into the country from outside the EU on work permits... which are the kind of immigrants most British voters are quite happy to see coming to their country.

It's not just the border guards that are incompetent, it's the entire British government. As the current floods so glaringly demonstrate ('hey, lets flood thousands of houses to SAVE THE BURDS!').

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

"Are the six hours up yet?"
Or whatever the maximum length the brits at the border staff are allowed to torture people is these days.

BTW, how does a US citizen:
A) end up on a no fly list
B) and then get to Heathrow

Did she swim? Derptastic gestapo crap.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Ash-Fox]

I'm British.

I weekly travel between countries due to my current consultancy work. In my limited experience, the border guards really aren't there waiting for you in arrivals for European or common-wealth countries.

I've been stopped at the border and hassled by a dim border gard. He was clearly trying to catch me in a lie and asked a question about somewhere I was living. He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly.

I've never had personal details questioned by UK border control.

What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

I wouldn't know, I have yet to encounter it.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, sir."

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Bacon Bits]

Clearly one of you is English, and the other Scottish/Welsh.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[serviscope_minor]

I weekly travel between countries due to my current consultancy work. In my limited experience, the border guards really aren't there waiting for you in arrivals for European or common-wealth countries.

It was the eurotunnel. Kind of by definiton they're there waiting for arrivals from a European country (France).

I've never had personal details questioned by UK border control.

He wasn't questioning my details.

Border guards often have a little chat. Normally they see nothing suspicious and you go on thinking what a nice chap the border guard was and etc etc.

Of course this time he heard something he didn't like then gave me a hard time. What he didn't like is that I didn't seem to know key fact abut where I lived that he casually enquired about. The trouble is I did, but he'd got the fact wrong.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Anonymous Coward]

But the EU says they're not allowed to restrict immigration from the EU

In exchange, other EU countries can't restrict immigration from the UK.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[jxander]

What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

I'm really not sure about Britanland, but here in the US, the proper response would be "Am I under arrest? And if I'm not under arrest, for what reason am I being detained?" The more you know, the better you can respond to charges or accusations.

Or, there's the ever popular "Can I speak with your manager/supervisor?"

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Rigel47]

I'm British.

The border staff are a national embarrassment, and are wildly, wildly incompetent.

Have you been exposed to the US TSA yet? THEY define hostile incompetence.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[jittles]

I'm British.

The border staff are a national embarrassment, and are wildly, wildly incompetent.

I think they'd happily wave through a man going by the name of "Osama Bin Laden" (OK, he's dead who do we use now for the purpose hyperbole?) carrying a radioactive suitcase and declaring "Allah Akbar" and then hassle some poor American on a work visa for an hour or three.

Actually in my limited experience, the border guards seem to give Americans a really hard time if they've got work visas.

I've been stopped at the border and hassled by a dim border gard. He was clearly trying to catch me in a lie and asked a question about somewhere I was living. He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly. What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

Gah. The last time I went through LHR was with my aging parents. My mom is diabetic and brought a nutritional supplement with her (Glucerna) to help keep her blood sugar stable on a long flight. We had a layover in LHR and were switching planes. The LHR security people were such dicks to her. They said that there was "no medicinal value" to her dietary supplement and held her at security for over 30 minutes. I was so pissed. And the previous time I went through LHR a baggage handler stole my USED gillete fusion razor blades out of my checked bag. I despise flying through LHR almost as much as I despise TSA in the USA.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[CanHasDIY]

What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

I'm really not sure about Britanland, but here in the US, the proper response would be "Am I under arrest? And if I'm not under arrest, for what reason am I being detained?" The more you know, the better you can respond to charges or accusations.

Or, there's the ever popular "Can I speak with your manager/supervisor?"

Also: "I refuse to answer any questions without my attorney present."

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[jittles]

I'm British.

I weekly travel between countries due to my current consultancy work. In my limited experience, the border guards really aren't there waiting for you in arrivals for European or common-wealth countries.

I've been stopped at the border and hassled by a dim border gard. He was clearly trying to catch me in a lie and asked a question about somewhere I was living. He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly.

I've never had personal details questioned by UK border control.

What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

I wouldn't know, I have yet to encounter it.

Can't tell you how it is from a EU resident perspective, but I definitely get asked about where I am coming from, going to, and sometimes where I am staying when going to the EU from the US and returning to the US from the EU. The US people don't always ask many questions, but sometimes they ask me more as a citizen than the EU guards ask. I probably was hassled the least coming from a certain South American country shortly after 9/11, which is surprising.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Cederic]

Or whatever the maximum length the brits at the border staff are allowed to torture people is these days.

There is no maximum.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't sound like you are exposed to US immigration (or any border police) very often. The default option if you refuse to answer any questions is not to enter the country.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[radish]

Believe me, the US CBP would not take kindly to that. Remember, different laws apply at the border (see: searching laptops) and they don't have to detain you, they can just throw you back on a plane to wherever you came from. It's generally wise to be pleasant and courteous if you don't what them to really ruin your day.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really not sure about Britanland, but here in the US, the proper response would be "Am I under arrest? And if I'm not under arrest, for what reason am I being detained?" The more you know, the better you can respond to charges or accusations.

Try that at the border some time and you'll see how blindingly stupid that advice is. You have almost no rights while crossing the border. You can be questioned and detained without cause. If your a smart ass jerk, they'll consider that more than cause.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[ganesh.rao]

Every now and then the right wing British media start hating on immigrants.

Through out last year there was the big hype of Bulgarian and Romanian immigration wave from Jan 1, 2014. It is 2014 now, where has all the hype gone? Barely an article or two a month now compared to the twice weekly in 2013.

This sort of thing cultivates racism. IMO.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[wiredlogic]

He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly.

That's part of their training. They try to catch people who are lying by asking the same question multiple times and challenging responses to see if the interviewee breaks down. It's most entertaining when you get a noob who stumbles while struggling to come up with what trick question to ask next. Just be polite and give truthful responses with minimal explanation unless prompted.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[lgw]

Do you have a right to an attorney in a constitution-free zone? Do you have any rights at all?

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[nitehawk214]

I'm British.

The border staff are a national embarrassment, and are wildly, wildly incompetent.

Welcome to the rest of the world. I suspect this is true everywhere.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[CanHasDIY]

Do you have a right to an attorney in a constitution-free zone? Do you have any rights at all?

You know, the only reason "constutition-free zones" exist is because the people living there allow them.

So, to answer your question, I'd say "yes, so long as the other citizens around you are intelligent and brave enough to know and stand up for your/their own rights."

So... no.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[SleazyRidr]

But why would you want to migrate from the UK to some shitty country?

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[rmstar]

Do you have a right to an attorney in a constitution-free zone? Do you have any rights at all?

It might be tangentially interesting in this regard that, technically, all of britain is a constituion free zone.

Also, you do not have many rights even outside of those buildings. The UK has been steadily degenerating into a police state out of a SciFi movie.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[imatter]

No true Scotsman...

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Anonymous Coward]

well, I'm not sure if you're aware, but life of people trying to get work visa to US (in countries that still need that) is also pile of crap.
In some countries you'd pay just for visa application, not for visa issued (definitely not a standard).

In my country the embassy personnel would humiliate people by treating everyone as a cheats, who would really want to go to work under travel visas. Investors, start-upers, or regular business people (who would definitely not steal your precious work posts at water treatment station or and McD) were treated the same as unemployed with no local perspectives and no family. Embassy personnel would call locals as dumb, idiots etc. And when one finally gets the damn visa, there are still procedures with immigration.

So I would say, you get the taste of your own medicine, although that medicine wasn't administered in UK...

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[ne0n]

"Allah Admiral Akbar! It's a trap!"

FTFY. Dunno why that sad little border guard believes he's owned by the US, but otoh the US certainly believes they own Britain. And they clearly own Louise Douche-Mensch who seems to be borderline terrorist herself, scared to let human rights exist or be acknowledged. In other news, beta inhales balls and chokes.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Anonymous Coward]

That 'shitty' country has more freedom than Britain.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[ChunderDownunder]

To escape your 'shitty' weather?

My ancestors emigrated from your Dickensian squalor 150 years ago and never looked back.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[serviscope_minor]

They try to catch people who are lying by asking the same question multiple times and challenging responses to see if the interviewee breaks down.

Nope, he asked the question once and then flat out refused to accept the answer.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Aighearach]

So British voters don't hate Americans, they just hate Europeans, and birds. Got it.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Aighearach]

Because Bulgaria has warmer summers, warmer women, cheap land, and fast internet. And higher literacy.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Aighearach]

You're allowed to be detained at the border for any "reasonable" length of time, without any probable cause needed.
It is against the law not to cooperate with border security staff.
Your advice works fine here IN the US, when dealing with a police officer or federal agent. It does NOT work with border security. Generally, your rights don't re-start until you've cleared the border; not when you approach it. Regardless of where you are standing or who owns the dirt under your feet.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Aighearach]

Yes, you have your common-law rights even before clearing the border checks. :)

So if they kill you, your children can sue the government to pay for their education, citing the early form of Right-to-Life enshrined in the Magna Carta.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Aighearach]

Nobody "lives" in the transit zone that is outside of most law. Even people who spend years stuck there are just there on an extended layover.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Aighearach]

You should read that link, instead of just searching for it and pasting the link without reviewing it. The first line says, "The Constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of laws and principles under which the United Kingdom is governed." Notice that it does NOT say, "There is none."

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Aighearach]

You're just using different words, but that is what is being said. "Challenging responses" is the part where they are "refusing" to accept the answer, often even telling you that you are lying.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Aighearach]

Canadian border staff are polite and reasonable.

When I was just a wee lad, my family was crossing the border from Washington State to British Columbia, and since my parents were longhairs, we were flagged for a search. They searched until they found a month's supply of brown rice in a paper bag in the back seat, and then they realized my parents were health-food-hippies not drug-hippies, and they stopped the search and waved us through.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because any government will give the keys to a brand new country in the lovely and warm south Pacific, to a bunch of criminals, is obviously one that does not have its priorities straight, and should be moved away from. Preferably to the aforementioned sunny country with lovely beaches.

CAPTCHA: Superior

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Anonymous Coward]

a month's supply of brown rice in a paper bag in the back seat, and then they realized my parents were health-food-hippies

Back when it was believed brown rice was really healthy, instead of just not quite as bad a white rice. And so too many times I ate that awful stuff thinking it was a good idea and worth the unpleasantness of actually consuming it.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm British.

The border staff are a national embarrassment, and are wildly, wildly incompetent.

[...] What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

Thank you. I'm glad to hear a clear statement that the British border staff are a national embarrassment. I thought it might be just me. My first visit to the UK was as part of a Eurail ticket on an American passport. I took a ferry over. Most of the border guards were smoothly processing and waving the ferry passengers into the country with minimal hassle, but there was one elderly agent with a permanently disgruntled expression who was giving all the passengers in his lane a hard time. I saw the girl in front of me was forced to undergo a luggage search and extended interrogation, and she was clearly exasperated. As I was waiting in line, I silently hoped I would not be assigned to that border agent, but unfortunately when my turn came, he signaled to me. It should have been blindingly obvious that someone with a Eurail ticket was a tourist, but instead he asked what was the address I was going to visit (how should I know, I'm a tourist!), where I was going to work in the UK (I am not going to work, you dimwit), how much cash I had on hand (demanding to see it), and so forth. Then, utterly unprovoked, he had the gall to call me a liar, saying "since I can't get you to tell me the truth, I'm going to have to question you further and search your luggage." Give me a break! He hauled me off into a separate area where badge-flashing agents dug through my dirty laundry and interrogated me over old luggage claim tickets that happened to be left over in my bag from a previous airline journey several years earlier.

After finding nothing of interest, and having had his quarter-hour of entertainment at my expense, he grudgingly waved me into the country, at which point I turned around and immediately left on the same ferry I came on.

Years later, when I visited the UK again, I noticed at a train station's ticketing office a large poster on the wall saying something to the effect of "don't disrespect the staff; you can be arrested if you do." It was strange to me to see the such an overt demand for respect by the rail authorities, while at the same time the border authorities didn't extend similar respect to incoming tourists.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Anonymous Coward]

To get away from the floods, incompetent border agents, constant surveillance, and all the associated moronism that is the UK?

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[AmiMoJo]

It's actually worse than that. They want skilled workers, it's people like me who want to marry their foreign partners who get screwed. I'm a highly skilled worker and it took my company a long time to get someone who could do my job competently (embedded software engineer / electronics engineer) but now I'm trying to arrange a job overseas just so I can be with her.

Fuck the UK. I lived here all my life, I'm a natural citizen, but clearly I'm not wanted any more because I fell in love with the wrong person. Daily Mail reading retards are ruining it for everyone.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a EU passport and I've never had trouble getting into the UK.
I used to give my passport to the security guy and was usually just about waved through. Nowadays I just use the machines and it's even less hassle.

Travelling to the US gets me a lot more questions asked, though nothing special.

The only time I felt mistreated at a border in the US was when I refused to go through the naked machine and opted for the pat-down instead. They made me wait for 10 minutes even though they were just standing around.
The guy was also kind of an asshole during the pat down (belching orders). I guess it's intentional and part of a campaign to get people to use the damn machines.

Disclaimer: I'm about as white as a healthy human can be, so there's that.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

I would politely ask if they or one of their colleagues could actually go and look up the answer online.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[sociocapitalist]

I'm British.

I weekly travel between countries due to my current consultancy work. In my limited experience, the border guards really aren't there waiting for you in arrivals for European or common-wealth countries.

I've been stopped at the border and hassled by a dim border gard. He was clearly trying to catch me in a lie and asked a question about somewhere I was living. He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly.

I've never had personal details questioned by UK border control.

What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

I wouldn't know, I have yet to encounter it.

Can't tell you how it is from a EU resident perspective, but I definitely get asked about where I am coming from, going to, and sometimes where I am staying when going to the EU from the US and returning to the US from the EU. The US people don't always ask many questions, but sometimes they ask me more as a citizen than the EU guards ask. I probably was hassled the least coming from a certain South American country shortly after 9/11, which is surprising.

I'm American.

My own personal favorite border fun time was coming from France, where I live after having married a French woman, back to the US to visit my family. It was during the 'Freedom Fries' idiotic times (which I won't get into for fear of being called a troll) and I was questioned for more than an hour by the border guards who wanted to find something to use against me for having become a traitor, evidently, by residing outside of the the US of motherfucking A.

It was really a wakeup call realizing that being a US citizen doesn't actually guarantee entry into the US.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[AmiMoJo]

Be careful when going through the x-ray gates too. They have a maze of rope barriers to form queues in from of each. Some have nude scanners, some don't. If you take your time you can pick one without a nude scanner and avoid being violated.

It's strange how no matter how hard I try to rid myself of metal those metal detectors always go off when I pass through, and I have to have further checks. I'm pretty sure I don't have any metal parts in my body so I assume they are somewhat sensitive to foreign sounding names as well.

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[severn2j]

This right here is the problem we in the UK have with attitudes to EU immigration, the belief that the UK is somehow a glorious land of opportunity that the unwashed masses of the EU are clamouring to get into. As a Brit, I can tell you it isn't, and if it wasn't for the ties of my family here, I would be long gone..

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[CanHasDIY]

"Transit zone" != "Constitution-Free Zone"

See here for map and details.

FYI, ~80% of Americans live in the Constitution-Free Zone.

Re: The UK border staff are wildly incompetent.

[porksauce]

I'm American and I lived in London for 2 years on a work visa, and travelled quite a bit. Never had any issues whatsoever at Heathrow or Gatwick. I found the border guard polite and professional. And going through security leaving from Heathrow was also much better than in the US, the main difference being the attitude and professionalism of the staff rather than policy differences (though it's nice not to have to take off your shoes). Maybe I've been lucky in the UK and unlucky in the US.

Basic.

[MRe_nl]

Question:"I would like to ask you some questions".
Answer:"Feel free to ask me anything you like".
Question one: "....".
Answer: "You can speak to my lawyer about that".
Question two:".....".
Answer:"You can speak to my lawyer about that".
Statement: "We can do this the easy way or the hard way, Mr. E/ Mrs.X".
Answer: "Yes".

Goto 10.

Re:Basic.

[serviscope_minor]

You know that doesn't work when you're at the border, right?

Re:Basic.

[Anonymous Coward]

It does in the States if you're a legal citizen.

A U.S. Citizen cannot be denied entry to the country. They *can* confiscate your bags... but they can't deny you entry.

Re:Basic.

[sumdumass]

Sure it does. They just detain you until your lawyer shows up and answers. And if he doesn't show, they ask you again before either arresting you for some crime related to not answering or refuse your entry.

Border agents can be bigger dicks than cops dream about being.

Re:Basic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldn't it work at the border?

Re:Basic.

[jareth-0205]

Well, for a start if you're not a British Citizen then you might not have a right to enter.

Re:Basic.

[jareth-0205]

before either arresting you for some crime related to not answering or refuse your entry.

*Searching for sarcasm... appears clean*.
So... In what way is that "working"? Ending up in prison or on a plane back home?

Re:Basic.

[astro]

A U.S. Citizen cannot be denied entry to the country. They *can* confiscate your bags... but they can't deny you entry.

You can be denied exit of the last country before the USA. I was detained at Schipol (Amsterdam international airport), subjected to a strip search and a "friendly" but hugely intimidating amount of questions. They also physically disassembled (but made no practical attempt to access the data on) a LaCie Rugged external HD I had with me. I could not simply ask for a lawyer. I *DID* have all the marks for a targeted search and interrogation: Looked like a total punk stoner leaving Holland for the USA (I've not been to Holland, except for this stop in their airport - my passport clearly showed this); was admittedly beyond the tourist Visa waiver on my US passport (had been in Germany for 6 months with my now wife, then fiance) and had a stack of German anarchist pamphlets in my rucksack (this last part was certainly why I was detained and harassed longer, but not the original reason).

While I understand the need for security, it bothers me greatly that I could be subjected to this for physical appearance and reading material that was well within my rights in all three countries to possess. It bothers me more that my friends react with shock not to this treatment but that I didn't get a haircut and mail myself the pamphlets rather than take them on a plane. The only bit that I completely have to roll with is that yes, I was legally no longer to be allowed in Europe at the time.

Re:Basic.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget that the RIPA act can give someone life in prison.

Statement: "What is your password for this machine, and your enterprise admin password?"
Answer: "You can speak to my lawyer about that."
Statement: "Another four years in prison, again, what is your local and domain passwords for your employer and your laptop?"

Repeat.

Re:Basic.

[TheCarp]

You are not the only person I have heard have trouble flying in or through Holland.

A friend of mine is Iranian and went home to visit family, with planned extended layovers in Amsterdam to have a little fun in between.

Twice he has done this, and twice subjected to invasive searches, including full cavity searches. We are not talking about some punk kid either, I mean a 60 year old, gray haired IT professional....up against a wall with his cheeks spread.

Re:Basic.

[Teun]

An unusual story as Dutch law will not allow invasive searches done by security people but only by a medical practitioner.

The typical solution would have been to x-ray him.

Re:Basic.

[TheCarp]

Maybe their airport security people moonlight at nurses?

I will ask him about it again next time I see him, perhaps I was exaggerating and it was only a strip search. Either way, pretty invasive.

Re:Basic.

[sumdumass]

Pretty much works the same way it does outside the movies. Tell a cop to ask your lawyer in real life and you will most likely either be in a position where you need one or are about to be.

But i was trying to exagerate it a bit so you can say a little sarcasm was with the "it works"

Re:Basic.

[Aighearach]

Actually when you tell them to ask you anything, you probably waived your right to remain silent, and if you then refuse to answer further questions it can cause you all sorts of problems.

You need to start the lawyer talk much sooner, before you've provided information or agreed to do so, and not play games with your responses.

Oh yeah, and that doesn't work at the border. At the border you actually go to jail a the end of that exchange, and pay a $10,000 fine too.

Re:Basic.

[Anonymous Coward]

yes the parent is probably confabulating this up.

Re:Basic.

[AK Marc]

If you aren't holding a passport to the country you are entering, that'll get you deported, and having the deportation on your record will keep you from traveling internationally without hassle for a very long time.

Re:Basic.

[AK Marc]

If you are trying to enter a country you don't hold a passport for, you'll be denied entry and deported. After that, every other country will harass you, as you don't get deported without reason.

Re:Basic.

[Anonymous Coward]

Twice he has done this, and twice subjected to invasive searches, including full cavity searches

You'd think he'd learn to avoid that airport/country the second time around.
Perhaps he enjoyed the experience more than he cares to admit.

Re:Basic.

[strikethree]

Hm. Odd. I have been through Amsterdam numerous times and only once was there any kind of "issue". Some guard guy at the gate politely asked me if he could search a particular pocket on my pants. I looked at him as if he was crazy and said, "If you must.", so he did. He found nothing of course. I expect that many Americans try to bring a little "souvenir" home with them and that would catch such an instance. I was mildly annoyed and seriously insulted... but meh. It was not a very big deal. I was certainly not up against a wall with a full search being done.

Your friend's experience is weird.

The agent barked the questions at Radack

[OzPeter]

Every time I have been through Customs and Immigration in the UK I have witnessed (or been subjected to) the agents there acting in a very demeaning manner towards travelers. To me it is SOP for the UK, to the point that I think the equivalent people in the US actually seem nicer.

So while she may have been targeted because of who she is and who she is representing, the style of the questioning is not surprising.

Re:The agent barked the questions at Radack

[iserlohn]

The UK border force demeaning? They're angels compared to the ones in the US!

Re:The agent barked the questions at Radack

[Ash-Fox]

Every time I have been through Customs and Immigration in the UK I have witnessed (or been subjected to) the agents there acting in a very demeaning manner towards travelers. To me it is SOP for the UK, to the point that I think the equivalent people in the US actually seem nicer.

I don't know... I've been to the U.S. Had to fill in a form on the flight saying I am not a terrorist, spy etc. Then get finger printed, picture taken and asked if I am there for business or pleasure, then asked trick questions.

Compare this to the UK where they don't even sit behind equipment that fingerprints or photographs you and they just want to see your passport.

Re:The agent barked the questions at Radack

[Anonymous Coward]

My experiences with US Customs and Border patrol seem to revolve around questions as to how much wine I might have in my suit case. I've never had issues at London. Amsterdam has always been very nice. Be polite and answer the exact question they asked, no more, no less.

Re:The agent barked the questions at Radack

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm British and travel to the USA often, they are not any better. I've been treated worse trying to enter my own country than trying to enter the states.

Re:The agent barked the questions at Radack

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Australian I regularly travel to both the US and the UK. the US is definitely far worse to the point of insanity, though the UK can be a royal pain in the arse too.

When I watched films about the Nazis...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was a kid, the TV output from America and the UK made every effort to show us why the regimes of the Nazis and the Soviets were 'bad'. One might think the fact that both regimes had been directly responsible for the murder of tens of millions of Humans would have made such concerns redundant, but Human psychology proves that people respond far better to depictions of individual acts of petty cruelty over scenes of unthinkable slaughter.

My point is that such dramas had many common themes. Mistreatment at international borders was certainly one.

Anyway, I have lived long enough to see each of those dramatic atrocities become standard operating procedure by the regimes of the UK and USA. The BBC is at the forefront of producing propaganda selling these abuses as 'essential'. It is notable that after 9/11, for more than one year the BBC worked in pro-torture arguments into every form of its TV output, and shortly afterwards torture was a commonplace tactic used by both official British and American forces.

Now watch the activity of the usual vile shills in this discussion. Long before Snowden's set of 'leaks', it became common knowledge that the British and Americans spend billions every year saturating public forums with pro-government0agenda propaganda. The owners of Slashdot do not promote their stories by accident. Even a story like this is NOT anti-government, like it seems, but a chance to 'threaten' ordinary citizens by reminding them what will happen to them or their families if they dare 'defy the king'.

Re:When I watched films about the Nazis...

[Ash-Fox]

The prevalent news source in the UK for most citizens is the Daily Mail (which likely wouldn't discuss these issues, because it's nowhere sensationalist enough), not the BBC. The BBC does have even close to as much of an influence. A lot of people don't even give a crap about the news the BBC reports.

Is this Stuff that Matters?

[StevenMaurer]

Someone being questioned closely by a border patrol agent is something that happens every single day, and the questions being asked seem perfectly in line with the sorts of things such agents ask.

So why is this news for nerds? Are you going to front page everything even remotely associated with every associate of Snowden? Regaling us with "Snowden's hairdresser given an unfair ticket for running a red light" stories?

Re:Is this Stuff that Matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is this news for nerds?

Clearly readers of the site are interested in this article. You are the only whiner.

If you don't like the article, don't read it.

And quit your bitching, you pathetic little cunt.

Re:Is this Stuff that Matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

A few pathetic whiners are interested in yet another Snowden or Assange story. The vast majority are not.

Re:Is this Stuff that Matters?

[StevenMaurer]

Actually, if Slashdot users could Exclude Stories by Tag, so that I, for instance, could simply exclude all the Snowden whining from my feed, now that would be an incredibly useful feature for Slashdot Beta.

I don't begrudge people their obsessions. So if you've really got a hard-on for every single conspiracy theory involving the man ("Greenwald's new Wordpress-based toy website crashing under millions of hits - they must have been hacked by the NSA!"), have fun. But please Slashdot, give the grownups a bit more control. Usually I just scan the headlines. I don't have time for anything more.

Re:Is this Stuff that Matters?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is this news for nerds?

Clearly readers of the site are interested in this article. You are the only whiner.

If you don't like the article, don't read it.

And quit your bitching, you pathetic little cunt.

Well... aside from the people whining about the beta.

Re:Is this Stuff that Matters?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"So why is this news for nerds?"

I have a much, much, much better question. If this isn't newsworthy, why the fsck are you wasting our time posting in this thread? Are the other ones too hard to find?

Re:Is this Stuff that Matters?

[superwiz]

pathetic little cunt.

Guess you like em big. That's a first.

Re:Is this Stuff that Matters?

[basecastula]

He is making a larger statement about how the content has been changing on /.

When you pull the Tiger's tail

[AutodidactLabrat]

expect the teeth and claws. Snowden and Assange have tweaked the powerful, dragging their criminal deeds into the light. NO ONE will be free to act as their agents, servants or mouthpieces without being harmed in every possible way. Look at the collusion between Visa and the U.S. Government attempting to choke off Wikileaks. If that is not evidence of common conspiracy, Visa acting to reduce its income in order to satisfy an agenda of government, what is? Next time you think "Government vs. Business", remember this IS Business-government (fascism).

Re:When you pull the Tiger's tail

[Anonymous Coward]

Just avoid Heathrow. The border agents in smaller airports are much better except when they're being assessed.

Pro Tip: Take the train

[ciurana]

Greetings.

After having been harassed a few times during business trips to London after having worked for two London-based companies, I decided to never fly into London again if I can help it. Instead, I fly into Paris from either Moscow or the US, have a nice lunch somewhere near Gare du Nord, then take the Eurostar into London (about a 2-hour ride). The UK immigration officials at the rail station are way nicer and more polite, the process is much faster, and in general the suckage is much lower.

Cheers!

pr3d

Re:Pro Tip: Take the train

[Anonymous Coward]

Fly to paris? Never again. The frogs are slow and they had douple security check. Like Russia style, just pull a table from some border guys ass and line up everyone after just being checked.

Re:Pro Tip: Take the train

[basecastula]

They should just put this in the summary. To lighten it up a little bit.

Re:Pro Tip: Take the train

[sociocapitalist]

Greetings.

After having been harassed a few times during business trips to London after having worked for two London-based companies, I decided to never fly into London again if I can help it. Instead, I fly into Paris from either Moscow or the US, have a nice lunch somewhere near Gare du Nord, then take the Eurostar into London (about a 2-hour ride). The UK immigration officials at the rail station are way nicer and more polite, the process is much faster, and in general the suckage is much lower.

Cheers!

pr3d

For similar reasons I no longer fly into NY. I'd rather fly into Boston and drive to NY then deal with the mess at JFK.

Non-story

[murdocj]

Wow... customs agent questions traveler. I'm sorry, but, guess what, THAT'S THEIR JOB. I've had some interesting discussions with officials at airports.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Non-story

[Anonymous Coward]

The new normal, go on about your business citizen; and pick up that can.

Re:Non-story

[Anonymous Coward]

Krystallnacht was "someone's job" too, dickhead.

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The story is that Radack mentioned she was told she was on an "inhibited persons list."

The "inhibited persons list" is a TSA thing, so why is this relevant in the UK?

Re:Wrong

[nitehawk214]

The story is that Radack mentioned she was told she was on an "inhibited persons list."

The "inhibited persons list" is a TSA thing, so why is this relevant in the UK?

She was drunk.

Re:Wrong

[murdocj]

Isn't that the "uninhibited persons list"?

Re:Wrong

[nitehawk214]

Or the "inebriated persons list".

Re:It's obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he's worried about real things that impact real people.

Slashnerds aren't real people. Who cares if all 15 of them are pissed off?

Re:me too

[davester666]

If you feel oppressed by it, try asking her if it would be alright for you to be on top for once.

wtf

[lagomorpha2]

"Radack claims that the officer told her that she was questioned because she is on an "inhibited persons list", a term coined by the US Department of Homeland Security. It means the US Transportation Security Administration has officially instructed an airport operator or aircraft operator not to provide the individual with access to an area or with a boarding pass to the destination."

Be an ethics lawyer: get on the no fly list?

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

It means the US Transportation Security Administration has officially instructed an airport operator or aircraft operator not to provide the individual with access to an area or with a boarding pass to the destination.

That's not what "inhibited" status means. It means there's some reason to suspect the person might be traveling with a fake passport or visa so extra proof of ID is suggested. TFA doesn't give any background about why this person was flagged, but presumably because of her association with someone suspected of spying.

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

the no fly list and inhibited persons list are not the same thing.

Freedom is not free

[slugstone]

you have to kill it.

News Here and Now!

[Zero__Kelvin]

Slashdot reader can't read, and/or cannot comprehend the implications of what was read!!!!

Re:News Here and Now!

[Aighearach]

... moderation report at 11!

Re:News Here and Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's 9:10, and so far so good. Keep checking your sock puppet accounts for mod points though!

Re:Edward Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Edward Snowden is watching the Olympics from the resort town of Sochi, Russia. The weather has been beautiful for the most part.

I value my freedom too much to travel to the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell even the US is better.

his "lawyer"?

[superwiz]

Is she American? In this case, she is a not a lawyer in Britain. She is a passenger boarding a plane after talking with a man who reveled secrets, some of which, were Britain's national secrets. If she didn't get strip searched (with a good cause, too), she should be thankful. Or is she a British lawyer? In which case, why the heck does Snowden need her? He is not British, nor is he in Britain. British lawyer would serve him no purpose. So my money is on Britain searching a foreigner (who happens to be a lawyer, but not in Britain) under the suspicion that she is helping to carry information to a known spy. Harassment, ha?

Re:his "lawyer"?

[Uberbah]

Is she American?

Here you go.

In this case, she is a not a lawyer in Britain.

Which does....what to change the fact that he is most wanted in the United States, and thus might want an American lawyer? Did you come up these deep, insightful questions all by yourself?

If she didn't get strip searched (with a good cause, too), she should be thankful.

You do know you out yourself when you want the whisteblowers and anyone connected to them strung up by their toes, but don't give a shit about the lawbreaking they reveal, right? See also this.

Re:his "lawyer"?

[superwiz]

Out myself? Out myself as who? Heh? I didn't say anything about what Snowden revealed. I just don't know enough about it. But an American lawyer in Britain does not and should expect to enjoy any kind of privilege. And as long as Britain considers Snowden a potential spy, those who communicate with him have to assume that they will be treated accordingly. I don't think it's thuggery to not treat a foreign lawyer as a non-lawyer. I think it's quite presumptuous, actually, to think that the privilege that exists in the United States would be automatically afforded in all countries.

When dealing with security...

[FrozenGeek]

... best to keep it simple. Get there prepared with all the info they will need. Answer questions directly and simply. Don't volunteer additional info. I've traveled extensively. I've also had interviews with security services in the process of landing jobs. Those rules have always helped. Never had any problems.

Who are the commie bastards now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US widely criticized the former Soviet Union with civil liberties violations, insisting on restricting travel for persons, the requirement of identity cards at all times, "some more free than others", and other behaviour not in keeping with democracy and freedom. The Soviet Union became Russia + multiple other independent countries from 1989-1992. However, the 'We Won' mentality in the US led American Politicians to believe that whatever draconian crap they assumed had brought about the fall of the iron curtain was good and wholesome like apple pie, and suddenly we have the US government acting above their own laws. The magna carta was a law passed in Britain that stated "The king is subject to his own laws", but in the US, the idea that the president is subject to laws just like ordinary people, and likewise government agencies are subject to laws like ordinary people is suddenly an abomination. This is very dangerous. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. The US is no exception.

"a real life DDOS"

[Burz]

Would actually be a general strike and/or a general boycott. You seem to be in denial, thinking the abuse of wealth and power is limited somehow to airports when it has worked its way into every aspect of life.

This country needs broad democratic reforms.

Wait, why business class?

[Phil Urich]

.. at which point, the person refused entry has to buy a ticket out of there as soon as reasonably possible. Which would typically mean buying a business class ticket.

I'll admit I'm not sure how that follows. Admittedly, our society has gotten to a place where we seem to assume that if a person doesn't have unlimited wealth it's a personal failing on their part, so I'm not entirely surprised if that's the case. But I'm curious what the legal justification would be.

Re:Wait, why business class?

[RockDoctor]

But I'm curious what the legal justification would be.

The justification is "You don't have a right to be here. You don't have permission to be here. Go away. Now."

Remember the situation : you have gone to someone else's country (therefore their rules apply ; there is no such thing as international law, and many countries don't subscribe to a particular set of "human rights"), and been refused entry. You never did have a "right" to be there, and now your permission to be there has been rescinded (check you visa terms and conditions : the country you're visiting can do this at any time without giving reason - generally ; some European countries have agreed to give up this right for citizens of other countries, but even within Europe it doesn't generally apply). That's it. End of necessary justification. Your permission has been rescinded.

For the rest - I would advise you to read the terms and conditions for the next visa you apply for. I have to have two passports, because I apply for so many visas at short notice. I RTFT&C, tedious though it is. You may be surprised about how few rights you have in most countries.