×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Edward Snowden's Lawyer Claims Harassment From Heathrow Border Agent

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the papers-please dept.

Security 261

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

261 comments

Thugs. (1)

lasermike026 (528051) | about 2 months ago | (#46268199)

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

Re:Thugs. (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#46268375)

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. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268555)

Exactly. Thugs cram things like BETA down our throats.

You DOUCHEBAG beta eating masturBETAr MODS! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268865)

Mod parent up. If you mod parent down or mod ME down, you only make me stronger, D-o-U-C-h-E!!!

Mod parent up! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46269255)

Mpu mpu mpu

Re:Thugs. (2, Interesting)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#46268873)

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. (4, Insightful)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 months ago | (#46268921)

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. (5, Interesting)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 months ago | (#46268843)

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. (4, Interesting)

sosume (680416) | about 2 months ago | (#46269217)

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.

me too (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268201)

i claim harassment by beta.

Re:me too (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268343)

I claim harassment by your mom's stinky hairy vagina.

Realpolitik (2, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#46268207)

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 (2, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 months ago | (#46268369)

I would like to direct you here:

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

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268459)

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

Re:Realpolitik (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 months ago | (#46268885)

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 (3, Informative)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 months ago | (#46269333)

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 (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 months ago | (#46268531)

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 (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | about 2 months ago | (#46268999)

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 (3, Informative)

2sheds (78194) | about 2 months ago | (#46269113)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268657)

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 (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 months ago | (#46268725)

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

Re:Realpolitik (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#46268775)

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 (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 months ago | (#46269357)

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

Is Snowden being tried? (0)

jkrise (535370) | about 2 months ago | (#46268211)

So why does he need any lawyers at this stage?

Re:Is Snowden being tried? (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268259)

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? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 months ago | (#46269395)

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? (1)

PPH (736903) | about 2 months ago | (#46268273)

Negotiating book and movie deals?

Re:Is Snowden being tried? (1)

rjhubs (929158) | about 2 months ago | (#46268541)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46269527)

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? (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#46268341)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268559)

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? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 months ago | (#46268739)

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? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 months ago | (#46269497)

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? (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 months ago | (#46268955)

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? (1)

Marillion (33728) | about 2 months ago | (#46268495)

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? (4, Insightful)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about 2 months ago | (#46268659)

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? (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 2 months ago | (#46269041)

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? (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 2 months ago | (#46269019)

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.)

Get over it (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 months ago | (#46268271)

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

Re:Get over it (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 months ago | (#46268653)

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 (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#46269441)

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.

It's obvious (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268277)

She went to Russia to avoid beta.

Re:It's obvious (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268327)

Why didn't Snowden let us know about that abortion that is Beta a long time ago?

Re:It's obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46269219)

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?

not surprising (4, Funny)

joe545 (871599) | about 2 months ago | (#46268345)

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 (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 months ago | (#46268489)

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

Re:not surprising (3, Informative)

joe545 (871599) | about 2 months ago | (#46268533)

RTFS she will visit Assange who is skipped bail.

Re:not surprising (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 months ago | (#46268607)

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

Re:not surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268745)

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

Re:not surprising (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#46269145)

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 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268727)

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 (1)

JonahsDad (1332091) | about 2 months ago | (#46268875)

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 (1)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about 2 months ago | (#46269045)

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 (1)

Tom (822) | about 2 months ago | (#46269311)

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

The UK border staff are wildly incompetent. (4, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 months ago | (#46268367)

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. (3, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 months ago | (#46268425)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46269107)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268521)

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. (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 2 months ago | (#46268597)

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. (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 months ago | (#46268815)

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. (3, Insightful)

jittles (1613415) | about 2 months ago | (#46269479)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268613)

"Yes, sir."

Re:The UK border staff are wildly incompetent. (1)

jxander (2605655) | about 2 months ago | (#46269129)

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. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 months ago | (#46269473)

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. (1)

Rigel47 (2991727) | about 2 months ago | (#46269309)

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. (2)

jittles (1613415) | about 2 months ago | (#46269435)

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.

Basic. (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 2 months ago | (#46268401)

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. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 months ago | (#46268439)

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

Re:Basic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268561)

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. (2)

astro (20275) | about 2 months ago | (#46268909)

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. (3, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | about 2 months ago | (#46269387)

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. (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 months ago | (#46268595)

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. (1)

jareth-0205 (525594) | about 2 months ago | (#46268691)

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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268601)

Why wouldn't it work at the border?

Re:Basic. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46269161)

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.

The agent barked the questions at Radack (3, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 months ago | (#46268433)

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 (1)

iserlohn (49556) | about 2 months ago | (#46268641)

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

Re:The agent barked the questions at Radack (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268983)

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 (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 2 months ago | (#46268649)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268869)

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.

When I watched films about the Nazis... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268435)

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... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 2 months ago | (#46268721)

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? (0)

StevenMaurer (115071) | about 2 months ago | (#46268443)

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? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268615)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268965)

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

Re:Is this Stuff that Matters? (1)

StevenMaurer (115071) | about 2 months ago | (#46269419)

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.

When you pull the Tiger's tail (5, Insightful)

AutodidactLabrat (3506801) | about 2 months ago | (#46268547)

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).

Pro Tip: Take the train (5, Informative)

ciurana (2603) | about 2 months ago | (#46268573)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46269329)

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.

Non-story (1, Interesting)

murdocj (543661) | about 2 months ago | (#46268587)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46268867)

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

Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46269069)

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:Non-story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#46269135)

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

wtf (2)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 2 months ago | (#46269519)

"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?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...