We've heard one side of the story -- from someone who tells stories for a living. He may have been arrested, and he may have been beaten, but I'd wait to hear more about why.
That said, I definitely agree that there is another side to this story. For one thing, everything that happens at a border crossing is videotaped from about 14 different camera angles, so there's no way they're going charge him with assault unless he actually took a swing. The fact that the situation even got to that point--multiple guards, pepper spray, verbal commands--means he did something pretty egregious. The crossing guards are dicks but they are professional dicks, at least in my experience. Do as you're told and you'll eventually get through. Ignore repeated commands and project the same surliness back at them and you're just asking for trouble.
As a frequent border crosser though, I'll note that I have _never_ witnessed, nor been exposed, to anything other than thoroughly professional (if sometimes highly antagonistic and hostile) behavior on the part of Immigration. These guys _really_ know what they are doing - and the "psych out" is intentional - nothing personal.
Though, I'll admit, traveling back to Canada for a visit (I work in Silicon Valley) and explaining what I (a Canadian Citizen) will be doing there, and why, and where - does get a little old after 10+ years of doing so. At least I know what to expect.
When crossing an American border. Or do you believe this can happen when you drive into Norway, Switzerland, Croatia or even Turkey?
Yes it can happen.
(I'll let someone else comment on "if you don't obey, you're asking for it".)
That's commonsense, but its truth still pisses me off. There is zero reason border guards deserve deference, and projecting surliness to people behaving surly is my natural right.
No? Such universal, stratospheric levels of assholedom don't arise organically--border guards behave the way they do because they are trained to. Probably because the alternative, cheerfully waving everyone through, is unacceptable from a national security standpoint.
I know you can justify pretty much anything these days by waving the security flag, but I think in this instance it's fair. They deserve deference because somebody has got to secure our borders in this day and age, and like it or not, this is probably the best way to go about doing it. I'm willing to live with my feelings getting hurt if it means people aren't able to drive bombs over the border.
Pretty soon simply giving the guard an annoyed look can land you behind bars for a few hours. This is the opposite of the rule of law, it is giving way too much power to the whim of the guy with a gun.
The smart ones make the bombs inside the country. When has anyone ever tried to drive a bomb across the border? Hell, this is the same thing as airport security. They could just drive the bomb into the mess of cars at the border before being inspected and it would have the same effect. It would be even a more spectacular effect if done on a bridge (i.e. Ambassador (Detroit-Windor); Peace Bridge (Buffalo,NY); Rainbow Bridge (Niagara Falls)) because then it would strike fear into people about not being caught in the blast but being on the bridge that is collapsing (Hollywood milks this one all the time).
Any sophisticated attacker would realize this and simply go a few miles out of the way to one of those logging roads.
I hardly think that your example offers evidence that border security enhances national security, only that it did in one isolated instance (with a very stupid terrorist).
Odds are if the terrorist failed to realize he could cross the border without being screened, he would have made some other mistake that would have foiled whatever his planned attack was.
They are not out to blow you up. They want to destroy your way of life - your freedoms and the notion that government serves the people. The want the opposite.
And they are winning. Blowing people up is not the objective: it's the tool.
Al Qaeda spent $20,000 or so on September 11. The US spent $1 trillion and counting. They "won" the minute we opened our checkbook; turning the country into a police state was just dancing in the end zone.
Security theater does not equal actual security. If someone actually wanted to drive a bomb across the border, I'm sure they'd find a way.
But this guy was trying to leave.
On top of that there is a much easier way to get a bomb in to the US, buy it in bits and pieces in the US, assemble it there. No point in taking it across the border.
Have you ever been to EU? Or somewhere else? How it is, that these guys are able to act professionally, non-emotionally and secure the borders without acting like assholes?
This is not either-or situation, border guards can do their job without intimidation and beating people.
(The US border is in fact the worst one I ever went through. Makes you think.)
I actually find US/Canadian Border guards not too bad (by comparison) - as you say they are at least professional and perfectly helpful if you are courteous.
I agree with what you end with: he has to have done something pretty stubborn and rude to get that treatment.
My first time into Canada had me dragged through the entire process. Questioned, threatened, bag searched, more threatening, etc. In the end the other officers were telling the one dealing with me to lay off, I overheard one say, "He's got nothing, you've got to let him go through." The man who searched my baggage was downright courteous, he even complimented me on my packing skills.
The first thing in the article that made me question WTF was when he got out of the car. In my experience with police, you never get out of the car until you're directly told to. Whether he was told to or not, I didn't get from the article. If he wasn't told to, that would have at least got him slammed to the ground and handcuffed.
This wasn't his first time crossing the border, so this seems a little erroneous. He should have known how to behave at a border crossing, what he did to let this occur is beyond me. I've been greeted at customs by four cops with MP5's (gotta love the Spanish hospitality), and I doubt a single one had less-than-lethal rounds in them. I acted courteous even though I was speaking a foreign language, the immigration officer was a bit abrupt but I let it slide. The captain, or whatever he was, of the squad asked how good was the book I was reading (a Terry Pratchett novel I believe it was) and wished me a good vacation. There was a lot more stress there than at any other land or airport border crossing I've done.
Make no mistake, when you really do cross the actual line with a cop/border guard, you will pay with all the force of the law (and then some).
Beyond yelling, I'd be very surprised if 1 law-abiding author without a criminal history would try to physically confront a group of armed guards.
So is standing up and yelling at an officer enough to justify getting beat up, thrown in jail, & charged with assaulting an officer?
I wouldn't be surprised to find out their General Orders demand decisive force once a situation escalates; if you've confronted the wrong kind of guy, doing things that just piss them off (like getting grabby and trying to guide them back into the car) could be dangerous.
They demand compliance. If the officer does not have compliance he is legally required to gain it by escalating up the force scale.
According to the police manuals, in the event of non-violent non-compliance, non-lethal force should be used such as pepper-spray or taser until compliance is gained.
The charge of assaulting an officer probably came into effect after the writer was pepper-sprayed. The police probably tried to subdue him and he struggled - struggling often counts as assaulting an officer. And people who are getting tasered and pepper-sprayed often struggle out of instinct.
If that sort of thing is 'routine' you've got a real problem.
If this is the case everywhere then it should be make public knowledge. Because there are a lot of people that feel they have the right to argue with an officer as long as they are not being physical.
I have a suspicion that if that ever was released as knowledge to everyone there would be a lot of political movement to limit the extents of it.
Why are American schools so bad?
Why does the media fail to teach anyone anything?
Schools are bad because school funding is flawed. All the metrics and standardized testing cannot fix a broken foundation.
It's not the media's job to teach. It's the media's job to generate the most possible advertising income.
They make stuff up all the time. It's shameful. Before you get all "Oh, you must be one of those jerks!". I would like to say that by not getting pissed off you can spontaneously create a relationship with a law enforcement officer and actually get them on your side.
This actually takes a tremendous amount of self control, which we are not capable of at all times, since we are all fallible humans. However in most cases law enforcement works for us, we pay their salaries to protect us (sometimes from ourselves) not to abuse us.
The circumstance of being a non-citizen at the border is of course different but in a larger sense is the same. If you anger your neighbor enough times then they will seek a remedy through a higher authority.
The solution is using the law. Every time government agents abuse their authority they must be sued, if there is to be law then it must be the tool we all use. If there was abuse of authority in this case then there is a legal remedy to be sought.
I don't want to live in a police state. I have some personal responsibility, as does everyone else, in preventing that from happening.