and then post your feelings about it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1231089,00.html

During my surreal interlude at LAX, I told the officer taking my fingerprints that I would be writing about it all. "No doubt," he snorted. "And anything you'll write won't be the truth."

Typical.

- N

here are some extracts

As it turned out, I was to spend 26 hours in detention. My crime: I had flown in earlier that day to research an innocuous freelance assignment for the Guardian, but did not have a journalist's visa.

My protestations that I had not noticed this caveat, nor been alerted to it, that I had travelled to the US on many occasions, both for work and pleasure, that I had, in fact, lived there as a permanent resident and that my husband was a US citizen, as was my New York-born daughter, all fell on deaf ears.

Before I could approach to observe them doing this, the officer who had originally referred me to his supervisor was unzipping my suitcase and rummaging inside. For the first time, I raised my voice: "How dare you touch my private things?"

"How dare you treat an American officer with disrespect?" he shouted back, indignantly. "Believe me, we have treated you with much more respect than other people. You should go to places like Iran, you'd see a big difference." The irony is that it is only "countries like Iran" (for example, Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe) that have a visa requirement for journalists. It is unheard of in open societies, and, in spite of now being enforced in the US, is still so obscure that most journalists are not familiar with it. Thirteen foreign journalists were detained and deported from the US last year, 12 of them from LAX.


Three female officers arrived to do a body search. As they slipped on rubber gloves, I blenched: what were they going to do, and could I resist? They were armed, they claimed to have the law on their side. I was an anonymous foreigner who had committed a felony, and "those were the rules". So I was groped, unpleasantly, though not as intimately as I had feared. Then came the next shock: two bulky, uniformed and armed security men handcuffed me, which they explained was the "rule when transporting detainees through the airport". I was marched between the two giants through an empty terminal to a detention room, where I sat in the company of two other detainees (we were not allowed to communicate) and eight sleepy guards, all men.

Asne requested that the state department put pressure on customs and immigration to "repair the injustice that has been visited upon our colleagues". Someone must have listened, because the press office at the department of homeland security recently issued a memo announcing that, although the I-visa is still needed (and I've just received mine), new guidelines now give the "Port Directors leeway when it comes to allowing journalists to enter the US who are clearly no threat to our security". Well, fine, but doesn't that imply some journalists are a threat?

Maybe we are. During my surreal interlude at LAX, I told the officer taking my fingerprints that I would be writing about it all. "No doubt," he snorted. "And anything you'll write won't be the truth."

I'm fucking terrified of this country. I don't ever want to go there.


:(

I wouldn't if I was you either. What are you gonna do? I would convince your hubby to move to your country, if I was you.

I'm a submissive wife :(

I think that eventually we will come to the decision that it's best to be ACTUALLY free, and then we can move back to Brasil

and then post your feelings about it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1231089,00.html
why this woman was put in detention:
My crime: I had flown in earlier that day to research an innocuous freelance assignment for the Guardian, but did not have a journalist's visa.

the reason she was put there:
One of its innovations was to revive a law that had been dormant since 1952, requiring journalists to apply for a special visa, known as I-visa, when visiting the US for professional reasons.

now, are you telling me that her employer didn't know about this law?

my feelings about it?
go cry on someone elses shoulders, possibly that womans employer for being negligent. i would.

on second thought, if i was that woman i would sue my employer for not informing me of that law and sending me here without proper credentials.

I'm fucking terrified of this country. I don't ever want to go there.


:(
listen to more anti amercan propaganda varda, does wonders for your sanity.

Homeland Gestapo. I'm oh-so-glad they kept me safe from that terrible and highly dangerous journalist that was gonna go and do something so terrorist in nature that she'd use the evil Constitution of Free Speech to do me harm!

- N

Homeland Gestapo. I'm oh-so-glad they kept me safe from that terrible and highly dangerous journalist that was gonna go and do something so terrorist in nature that she'd use the evil Constitution of Free Speech to do me harm!

- N
say what you will.
that womans employer KNEW about that law.

What a load of bullshit. While I can agree a bit with leo (if you're a journalist you should know the laws, blah, blah, blah...), but that kind of treatment just goes to show how the "terrorists" are beating us to death with our own paranoia. We're going to hell in a fucking handbasket. IMFO.

What a crazy story.
Part of me wants to disbelieve it because I'm used to most service people being apathetic at best. I imagine they deal with hundreds of people a day, and they don't bother wasting energy becoming unnecessarily emotional. The way this article makes it sound, the agents at the customs office were like enthusiastic extensions of a "stereotypical evil pissy America".
Maybe she was one of those dramatic demanding pain in the butt people who intentionally do stuff to get a rise out of people, then play up the angle. That's what I thought when I read the part about how she freaked out when they looked through her luggage. Luggage searches seem pretty innocuous to me.

At the same time, I want to believe her - mainly because if she was telling the truth exactly like it happened, and in its exact context, then the system needs to be changed immediately. I don't want to contribute to any problems by pretending nothing is happening.

there is one thing to remember, and that is:
this law was enacted in 1952, so apparently it was needed.
our lawmakers seen a need for it big enough to make a law about it.
now 50 some odd years later it is seen to be needed again.

superluminal:
did we "go to hell in a handbasket" during the 50s"?

there is one thing to remember, and that is:
this law was enacted in 1952, so apparently it was needed.
our lawmakers seen a need for it big enough to make a law about it.
now 50 some odd years later it is seen to be needed again.

superluminal:
did we "go to hell in a handbasket" during the 50s"?

As I seem to recall... we did, big time:

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

say what you will.
that womans employer KNEW about that law.

Who are the ones that enacted that stupid law in the first place?

Why fear some terrorist that you'll never be in danger of when you have these punk government officials domestically terrorizing us all the time.

- N

At the same time, I want to believe her
oh, i do believe her. just like i believe every other person that's in jail.
i've been in jail and i hated every second of it.
so, if you hate something how are you going to depict it? peaches and cream?

listen to more anti amercan propaganda varda, does wonders for your sanity.

I have my own experiences with the US embassy of Sao Paulo to know for a fact that this is not propaganda

have fun in your own dream bubble

Why did they not tase her?

It seems unfair. :(

As I seem to recall... we did, big time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
i believe the late 50s and 60s was a pretty good time for the US.
mccarthyism, hmmmm. what can i say? it happened. but we didn't "go to hell" during that time. mccarthy was eventually censured wasn't he?

i believe the late 50s and 60s was a pretty good time for the US.
mccarthyism, hmmmm. what can i say? it happened. but we didn't "go to hell" during that time. mccarthy was eventually censured wasn't he?
Well, I suppose it depends on which side of the congressional/senatorial hearing bench you're on, dosen't it?

I have my own experiences with the US embassy of Sao Paulo to know for a fact that this is not propaganda

have fun in your own dream bubble
you seem to believe something has to be 100% false to be propaganda.

there is no doubt this woman was detained.
the detention was probably as she described it. jail isn't pretty, nor is it supposed to be. the real onus here falls squarely on the shoulders of that womans employer. her employer knew of that law.
the only conclusion i can draw is that she got exactly what she was hoping for and the INS fell for it.

mccarthyism, hmmmm. what can i say? it happened. but we didn't "go to hell" during that time. mccarthy was eventually censured wasn't he?

And look what types of fear-mongering and other similar ways of thinking it's spawned or resurrected these few decades later. Those guys do more damage to our Constitution than any terrorist or Communist ever have or will.

- N

you seem to believe something has to be 100% false to be propaganda.

there is no doubt this woman was detained.
the detention was probably as she described it. jail isn't pretty, nor is it supposed to be. the real onus here falls squarely on the shoulders of that womans employer. her employer knew of that law.
the only conclusion i can draw is that she got exactly what she was hoping for and the INS fell for it.

What I meant is that it is a fact that US authorities like to treat people like shit for whatever reason.

I think that the treatment she received was atrocious

I can tell you, U.S customs is a pain in the ass for a "whiteguy" with a "newsman" voice. They are such a pain in the ass, I can only imagine if you are part of an "undesirable" demographic. I have stopped traveling there for leisure. Only if my job required it, would I go there now.

such as a journalist

What I meant is that it is a fact that US authorities like to treat people like shit for whatever reason.
it wasn't for "whatever reason", she broke the law.

I think that the treatment she received was atrocious
varda, varda, varda, what are we gonna do with you?
the only thing i can say is she's a journalist, she's good at writing, her employer wouldn't keep her around if she didn't sell papers, and people just loves to dig dirt. it's just too bad the US must suffer this crap.

And look what types of fear-mongering and other similar ways of thinking it's spawned or resurrected these few decades later.
oh come on neildo, even you don't buy that line. yes indeed, mccarthyism is to blame for what happened to that woman.
Those guys do more damage to our Constitution than any terrorist or Communist ever have or will.

- N
what guys?

Only if my job required it, would I go there now.
kind of shoots the OP in the butt doesn't it?

it wasn't for "whatever reason", she broke the law.

in my case it was for whatever reason


varda, varda, varda, what are we gonna do with you?
the only thing i can say is she's a journalist, she's good at writing, her employer wouldn't keep her around if she didn't sell papers, and people just loves to dig dirt. it's just too bad the US must suffer this crap.


lol, I'm not going to reply to this

And look what types of fear-mongering and other similar ways of thinking it's spawned or resurrected these few decades later.

oh come on neildo, even you don't buy that line. yes indeed, mccarthyism is to blame for what happened to that woman.

Yeah, modern-day McCarthyism. He set the benchmark for a fearful government/populace.

Those guys do more damage to our Constitution than any terrorist or Communist ever have or will.

what guys?

Homeland Gestapo and people or government officials that are scared to bits (or just want more control) over our latest fear, terrorists. It's amusing how we always gotta have someone to target and be fearful of. Isn't that one of the prerequisits for an Empire?

- N

Yeah, modern-day McCarthyism. He set the benchmark for a fearful government/populace.
the government wanted to censure mccarthy but JFK felt it would be unwise to do so. JFK was finally overruled and mccarthy was censured.
that doesn't sound like a fearful government to me.


Homeland Gestapo and people or government officials that are scared to bits . . .
you may be closer to the truth than you realize neildo.
. . . (or just want more control) over our latest fear, terrorists.
terrorists have diddly squat to do with anything.
more accurately, people that you would call terrorists.

It's amusing how we always gotta have someone to target and be fearful of. Isn't that one of the prerequisits for an Empire?

- N
how can you find it amusing when these people have our government by the balls?
man don't get me started.
i'll see you later.

terrorists have diddly squat to do with anything.
more accurately, people that you would call terrorists.

Well, I was referring to terrorists as an excuse, much the same way Communists were, to justify the actions of our government to keep the population under their control.

how can you find it amusing

Sad, yet amusing. That better? ;)

I find it amusing because people always fall for the same old tricks. It sucks, but interesting nonetheless and makes us look bad as someone else mentioned in another thread, the infamous quote by Hermann Goering:

"We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Ah, sheep.

- N

So this woman is subjected to the Kafkaesque crap because she didn't notice the fine print? This is a very bad joke.

"Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear." - Bertrand Russell

The only people who need to be afraid of journalists are those serving in the Bush administration.

So this woman is subjected to the Kafkaesque crap because she didn't notice the fine print? This is a very bad joke.

"Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear." - Bertrand Russell

The only people who need to be afraid of journalists are those serving in the Bush administration.

only despots fear a free press and a free thinking population

there is one thing to remember, and that is:
this law was enacted in 1952, so apparently it was needed. It was not needed then.

It was ignored for most of the Cold War, and seldom if ever enforced or employed, because it was not needed. Few professional journalists even knew it existed.

It is an example of the authoritarian ratchet: it's much more difficult to get these laws off the books, than to get them on, and once on they are always waiting for the whim of some official. The various intrusions and violations of what were formerly recognized civil liberties in the US, many codified in law these past few years, will not be repealed without concerted and determined effort - regardless of what happens in the terrorism field.

And the reason will be the same - when not enforced or employed, they do not seem to be urgent or dangerous.

And here i thought this was just another story about women forced into slavery or poor people eating bugs to survive.

BRAVO.

When they snap on the gloves, just bend over and close your eyes.

You're doing it for Freedom, after all!

I love how all you naysayers provide knee-jerk responses after listening to only one side of the story. :rolleyes:
It reminds me of those people that automatically jumped to Rodney King's side when the police beat the crap out of him, without hearing the police's side of the story (i.e. King was speeding, resisted arrest*, and was hopped up on narcotics).
Customs may or may not have overreacted in this situation. The woman could have had a bad attitude and provoked them. Customs and airport security are not ones that anyone should be messing with.
Even when I was still in the military back in 2003, I was coming back to Nashville from San Diego. SD's security opened up my suitcase and searched through it, and this was after I showed them my U.S. military ID. I didn't get any special treatment from them, nor did I expect it.
I'm not calling the reporter a liar, but a lot of the things that she stated in her article could either be exaggerated or fabricated altogether. Disgruntled people have been known to make their story a bit more 'marketable' when put on the spot; as if in a feeble attempt to obtain more sympathy/empathy.

*police have carte blanche permission to subdue you by any means necessary if you resist arrest

OMG..."I had to sit there and watch SEINFELD":eek:. Thats F'ING torture? How horrible, setting up security to get a good scoop f the EVIL in the world. But hey it is better than l;ooking at AIDS babies picking through vomit inducing garbage heaps full of disease and rats. So whart the fuck, lets all have some fun.

'The Guardian' Guardian of whom? their financial empire.

My point is reallly, someday(someday might be soon) the U.S will be hurting economically and missing tourist and commerce dollars as a result of pig-customs treatment, will add up.

Thats a good point. You should be proud of yourself.

My point is reallly, someday(someday might be soon) the U.S will be hurting economically and missing tourist and commerce dollars as a result of pig-customs treatment, will add up.

Its already happened

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gW0k9nzBC6HnafIwxJfGcmXxhGaQ

The number of foreign visitors to the United States has plummeted since the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington because foreigners don't feel welcome, tourism professionals said Thursday.

There should be less people needlessly flying aound the world.

For too many reasons to list.

There should be less people needlessly flying aound the world.

What, you hate this country? So much for capitalism and freedom. ;)

- N