Slashdot Mirror
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."
Thugs have no authority. The are responsible for the crimes they commit and should be jailed immediately.
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?
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.
Passenger treated like dirt by airport staff. News at 11!
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Negotiating book and movie deals?
Have gnu, will travel.
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).
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?
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?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
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.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
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'.
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.
This is a boring sig
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.
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).
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
http://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
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.
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.
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?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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.
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."
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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.)
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
If you feel oppressed by it, try asking her if it would be alright for you to be on top for once.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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.
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
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
"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?
Louise Mensch is a publicity seeking fuckwit.
And that seems to be Snowden's "crime", embarrassing the U.S.
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".
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
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.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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".
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Slashdot reader can't read, and/or cannot comprehend the implications of what was read!!!!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Please mod parents +Insightful.
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.
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.
Book deals are absolutely serious legal business involving contracts and would be 100% covered under normal rules of privilege.
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.
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.
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.
Isn't that the "uninhibited persons list"?
pathetic little cunt.
Guess you like em big. That's a first.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
... 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.
linquendum tondere
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.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Here you go.
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?
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.
He is making a larger statement about how the content has been changing on /.
I never even said a word about the lawyers making money. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Yes, you are more correct. I was just paraphrasing Frank Herbert.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Or the "inebriated persons list".
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
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.
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.
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.
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
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.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
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.
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".
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun