Breaking: Michael Yon arrested at Seattle airport
posted at 1:22 pm on January 5, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Thank goodness our Homeland Security people are on the job after the EunuchBomber botched attack on Christmas Day. We certainly don’t want to have independent war correspondents passing through our airports without revealing their annual income:
Got arrested at the Seattle airport for refusing to say how much money I make. (The uniformed ones say I was not “arrested”, but they definitely handcuffed me.) Their videos and audios should show that I was polite, but simply refused questions that had nothing to do with national security. Port authority police eventually came — they were professionals — and rescued me from the border bullies.
When they handcuffed me, I said that no country has ever treated me so badly. Not China. Not Vietnam. Not Afghanistan. Definitely not Singapore or India or Nepal or Germany, not Brunei, not Indonesia, or Malaysia, or Kuwait or Qatar or United Arab Emirates. No county has treated me with the disrespect can that can be expected from our border bullies.
Jazz Shaw wonders what the hell is going on:
Very strange. Even if you’re into profiling, Yon would hardly fit one you’d be interested in. Of course, his passport, by now, doubtless has a list of countries stamped into it which could give an inspector pause, but that’s no excuse. Very, very strange. I expect this one will be high profile enough that you’ll see an apology coming from the government.
Unless there is more to this story, an apology would be the least owed to Yon. When an American citizen with a valid passport presents himself for travel, there should be some reasonable screening to verify identity and to determine whether there is a physical risk, ie, weapons and the like. Why should border security be interested in Yon’s annual income? How does that relate to national security and border protection? Unless this is an arm of the Internal Revenue Service, it doesn’t, and Yon was right to refuse to answer the question.
Instead of hassling American citizens about their income or watching the ice melt, how about paying attention to actual security and intelligence issues? Please?
Update: Media Matters wants to quibble over the use of the word “arrested,” but when the cops slap handcuffs on you and detain you, you’ve been arrested, both literally (as in “motion stopped”) and practically. Yon didn’t get booked, or charged with any offense, as Yon himself notes.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7
Jimbo3 on January 6, 2010 at 12:23 PM
If we have federal officers who are so uninformed they don’t at least know who Yon is , they should be terminated for gross ignorance ..
borntoraisehogs on January 6, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Once you’ve entered the airport of your final destination, you’re already trying to leave it. That’s all I meant, that he wasn’t about to board another plane and go anywhere else, meaning this isn’t a flight security issue.
As to customs, I’m not sure how much that changes about my argument other than it being a different agency. I understand that they have different roles, responsibilities and authority, but I still don’t see how forcing the man to stay in there because he refused to answer that question will help anything.
And I’m no more impressed with their ability to perform their jobs than I am TSAs, at least not so much more impressed that I’m willing to give them power they don’t currently have.
Esthier on January 6, 2010 at 1:18 PM
Both customs and TDA are part of the DHS.
blink on January 6, 2010 at 2:14 PM
Sorry TSA
blink on January 6, 2010 at 2:14 PM
Absolutely implied? That’s rich.
The only thing absolute is your need to ignore what I said and supplant it with your own meaning. You are absolutely typical.
You’re amazing. You twist one statement to mean something that suits your needs.
You got me genius. No, people on the no-fly list should not be treated just like you me or Michael Yon. Allow me to restate for clarity:
We should all be treated equally unless we are on the no-fly list.
You can profile me racially, economically, rhetorically, whatever. If I don’t like it, I can drive or fly charter. Profile away!
/ Here’s your tag.
The Race Card on January 6, 2010 at 2:48 PM
Yon’s Facebook page post.
Exclusive Big Government interview with Yon:
As is usual with “pigs jumped me” stories, there’s a point where the fuzz weren’t acting on a hunch or going through a checklist, they were reacting to a live pain in the ass.
I absolutely support the US govt keeping an eye on guys visiting Muslim countries. Please note, and I tried to get Yon’s own story here, he did NOT tell them he was a journalist. He just refused to answer, because he knows these pigs, and they ain’t got the power. At which point he was treated like any other political protestor on public property.
BTW I agree with him, when an American citizen does this crap, the TSA shouldn’t bother with him. Hold him for questioning by the FBI.
Chris_Balsz on January 6, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Yon is now saying on his facebook page (not twitter thingie, as I originally wrote) that it was Customs, not TSA, who handcuffed him.
Jimbo3 on January 6, 2010 at 3:43 PM
That is the key. If it’s some bubba who’s got a big pot belly speaks like a hick and says screw the Constitution, THAT IS A SIGN OF DANGER!
Guys, please visit OathKeepers…these guys including police officers SUPPORT AND DEFEND our Constitution. They don’t play around with it like Glenn Beck or Chris Matthews do just to spew propaganda!
BobAnthony on January 6, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Maybe you’re right, I honestly can’t say with any authority; however, it’s clear that this has been your attitude from the start: that Yon had this “pig” mentality the whole time. That doesn’t make you any less biased than anyone who knee-jerkingly defended Yon.
Esthier on January 6, 2010 at 4:26 PM
Ignore what you said?
Here’s me ignoring what you said:
Now you can tell everyone what you meant by this statement.
Really? Well should cash paying, one-way ticket, no baggage passengers be treated equally, also?
Maybe you should take your time to think about who exactly should “all be treated equally” unless you want me to keep doing this to you for the remainder of day.
blink on January 6, 2010 at 4:42 PM
Me, too. But I think there’s a better way to keep an eye on guys visiting Muslim countries than asking a question of salary. Like Yon states in this telephone interview – he would have been happy to answer questions which were fair game. He would have answered questions such as, “which country are you coming from” and “what was your purpose of the travel?” These weren’t the questions asked.
Well apparently the Port Authority police disagree with you since they released him instead of holding him for questioning by the FBI.
BTW, you do know that if he was being “held” by the FBI, then he’d be under no obligation to answer their questions either.
And you also should know that a lack of responsiveness is NOT justification for initiating an investigation. Law enforcement can’t use circular logic with that – although some may try.
blink on January 6, 2010 at 4:49 PM
He probably meant that not all Muslims are of any specific ethnicity.
Not to stop a legitimate argument, but I don’t think ignoring behavior necessarily falls into the “treat everyone equally” argument. Most who argue this would say that all people (and not just Muslims or people who look like terrorists) who pay cash for a one way ticket, are on a terror list, have no passport, etc., should be denied entry onto a plane.
If Race disagrees with what I’ve said here, I doubt he’ll be shy about admitting it.
Esthier on January 6, 2010 at 4:53 PM
Quite possibly. But this is not the Kingdom of Yon, where Yon’s ideas are implemented in realtime.
No, I believe the Supreme Court has rejected that logic. A cop may chase who runs.
Chris_Balsz on January 6, 2010 at 5:11 PM
It’s basic criminal law that once you are not free to leave an officer’s presence, you’re under arrest, whether cuffed or not. Yon, a U.S. citizen, is most definitely entitled to our Constitution’s protections–i.e., no arrest without probable cause that he has committed a crime, the right against self-incrimination, against unlawful search and seizure, and the right to counsel, all of which were violated by the officers who cuffed him. Yes, he might have defused the situation by telling them he was self-employed as a journalist, but it is more likely that he was already targeted and the questioning was going to continue, regardless. There are, sadly, “bad cops” amidst the many “oath keepers” out there. The fact that Port Authority Po-Po turned him loose is the 10 ton gorilla in the room.
Ay Uaxe on January 6, 2010 at 5:14 PM
That sounds more like a response than a lack of one to me.
Esthier on January 6, 2010 at 5:34 PM
A traffic cop once asked for my SS#,
replied, “sorry don’t remember it.”
I didn’t lecture him on my RIGHTS!
Happily didn’t get ticket,
and was waved on with a
“HAVE A NICE DAY”
You get more with honey than vinegar
How hard is that Michael?
Also, many folks have asked about my income,
I give them a pat answer, “NOT NEARLY ENOUGH”!
The key is to SMILE when you say it, that-a-way
you don’t offend naive or deceptive interrogators.
Problem with Michael Yon is that he often acts as tho his
perception of the world is the only valid one–
and worse — that all should endure his oftimes
sophmoric lectures, based solely upon his POV.
Still, as mentioned earlier,if Rivers and Yon’s sob-stories can hold off a Union takeover of TSA and the installation of a LIAR at its Head, that’s all good. Or, will it become more likely>
“Let’s Roll”
On Watch on January 6, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Pull the definitions of both race and ethnicity.
This is certainly a required part of both definitions,
Now, how does your interpretation of what The Race Card may have meant mitigate claims that he introduced race into the discussion?
So behavior that includes purchasing a certain type of ticket shouldn’t be ignored with respect to “treating everyone equally.”
Should behavior that includes joining certain radical groups be ignored with respect to “treating everyone equally?”
Should behavior that includes joining a known radical religious congregation be ignored with respect to “treating everyone equally?”
Should behavior that includes converting to a certain type of religion be ignored with respect to “treating everyone equally?”
Since you seem to think you understand The Race Cards black and white idea of where the line needs to be drawn with respect to “treating everyone equally” (a line he has already redrawn once), then perhaps you can draw the line for me.
Anyone that pays cash for a one-way ticket should be denied entry onto a plane? That’s crazy.
I think you need to explain “etc.” Such policy can’t be set with “etc.” Please draw your line.
blink on January 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM
I hope he was due for some questioning, having been to where he’s been. No one has the right to demand trust from the TSA. They’re there because America don’t trust air travellers. We don’t trust air travellers because Al Qaeda abuses our civilian air transport system for suicide bombing.
Not at all. Most Code Pink protestors ejected from the Senate Gallery were not charged. They were detained, moved out of the way of purposeful use of public property, and set free.
Both are evasion of police authority, which, being limited by the 4th and 6th Amendments, is also confirmed.
Chris_Balsz on January 6, 2010 at 7:23 PM
This has nothing to do with Yon’s ideas. This has to do with appropriate requirements with respect to answering DHS questioning. Do you actually think this issue only applies to Yon?
You believe wrong.
First, running is different than refusal to answer a question.
Second, you’re even wrong about your supreme court claim. The courts have been very specific about NOT stating that a cop may chase who runs without specific requirements.
In this 2000 case, the SCOTUS determined that officers are provided with reasonable suspicion to warrant an investigatory stop if a suspect takes flight in a high crime area.
Here are the two requirements they stated.
Those requirements are very specific.
So, I’ll restate:
Bottom line: A lack of response can’t be used as a reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop, and one is under no obligation to respond to law enforcement officers unless they are conducting an investigatory stop.
Again, law enforcement can’t use circular logic despite the fact that some may try.
blink on January 6, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Your legal analysis is completely flawed. See my thorough response to your initial claim regarding this point.
blink on January 6, 2010 at 7:43 PM
Yes, it’s ease to use honey instead of vinegar, and it’s prudent to consider that option even in the face of an unlawful investigatory stop.
However, opting for honey is certainly not a requirement. And condemning those that opt against honey is lame.
blink on January 6, 2010 at 7:47 PM
Who, in that airport room, said it wasn’t appropriate DHS questioning? Whose opinion did Michael Yon rely on? It has everything to do with his ideas about what he should answer.
The course I had on that was before 2000. Your link is dead, please gimme the name of the case.
Chris_Balsz on January 6, 2010 at 8:14 PM
Nobody. Including Yon.
Yon claims that it was inappropriate for DHS to require an answer, and many, many agree with him.
Sorry for the bad link. Try this one for a summary. It’s ILLINOIS v. WARDLOW.
blink on January 6, 2010 at 8:29 PM
Hh, I thought it was Indianapolis vs Edmond.
You could be right, because the cases I looked at involve a criminal charge, even if its a fine. And that was cited by the majority as a factor in finding the search or stop reasonable. And Indianapolis which was also decided in 2000 said that a checkpoint may be licit if it is aimed at an immediate and specific threat. Maybe Yon should do America a favor and sue the US govt so the Supreme Court can rule on that specific issue, if a checkpoint is constitutional how far can the cops go to demand cooperation with the checkpoint?
Chris_Balsz on January 6, 2010 at 8:52 PM
Yes, specific checkpoints are legal especially those which are permanent.
However, according to the opinion rendered in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte in 1972 (a case involving border checkpoints),
Yon clearly didn’t consent, so the question becomes whether or not refusal to answer certain questions (e.g. annual income) can constitute adequate probable cause to justify further detention.
Since a question regarding annual income is understandably a privacy issue. It’s unreasonable to contend that no reason exists NOT to answer such question. Therefore, the refusal to answer such questions does not constitute any reasonable suspicion, therefore the officer doesn’t have probable cause.
So, you see? I’m not claiming the that DHS can’t ask the question about income. I’m claiming that DHS can’t use Yon’s refusal to answer the question about income as probable cause for further detention.
Frankly, I think Yon has a great civil case for unlawful detention. However, given that the detention was short and that he wasn’t hurt, he’ll have a difficult time proving damages.
Did you take your course prior to 1972?
blink on January 6, 2010 at 9:31 PM
I should explain this better.
It’s unreasonable to contend that it’s suspicious for someone to NOT answer a question about annual income. It’s not suspicious for someone not to answer that question. Since it’s not suspicious then the officer doesn’t have probable cause.
What if the DHS officer had asked Yon’s sexual orientation? Do you think that his refusal to answer the question is suspicious enough to give the officer probable cause for further detention?
Or do you think that it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to have non-suspicious reasons to refuse answering this question? I do.
blink on January 6, 2010 at 9:49 PM
B … bb…. but he doesn’t like Israel!
From his Facebook page:
So do we still like him or is he a left-wing anti-Semite?
A Axe on January 6, 2010 at 9:58 PM
There’s more recent rulings on checkpoints. Indianapolis v Edmonds, which I read trying to track your case down, says broad checkpoints are unconstitutional…
I’m up too late to wrangle it right now. I see I don’t really have supreme court authority for the idea that you have to answer questions at a checkpoint. I would think it logically follows from the existence of a checkpoint, but there’s no ruling on that specific aspect. However when I think about it, a search and seizure can be compelled but not self-incrimination. in other words, Yon cannot be compelled to answer, not because its an irrelevant question, but because it IS a proper question for law enforcement. In all the cases I’m looking at tonight, if you refuse to cooperate you either walk away, or forfeit a privilege such as driving a motor vehicle on public roads. what’s the next step when an arriving person will submit to a search but stands mute at an airport checkpoint? Detention for a hearing? Release to another airplane back to where he come from? release to the parking lot? Remember what answer we give applies to foriegners on US soil as well as citizens.
Chris_Balsz on January 6, 2010 at 9:59 PM
Yes, which doesn’t apply to constitutional checkpoints such as airport customs.
There’s a huge difference between refusing to answer ANY questions (such as where are you coming from?, etc.) and refusing to answer personal questions.
Refusal to answer non-personal, reasonable questions is suspicious and should lead to further detainment because the detaining officer has probable cause.
Your question becomes germane for law enforcement AFTER continued detainment. If charges can’t be filed, then release must eventually occurred.
Under these circumstances, you’re right. Even answering a question such as, “what was the purpose of your visit?” could self-incriminate (for example, if your purpose was to purchase drugs, to bribe overseas officials, or have intercourse with minors), therefore, one is under no legal obligation to answer. However, in such circumstances, law enforcement would have every right to further detain.
I think US citizens would be treated differently than non-citizens. A non-citizen could probably have visas legally revoked quickly and deported simply based on the suspicious behavior. I think a citizen would need to be charged (difficult to do without evidence) or released.
Remember, Yon isn’t claiming that he shouldn’t have had to answer ANY questions to avoid being further detained. He is simply claiming that refusal to answer questions regarding income and passwords shouldn’t provide reasons to be further detained.
blink on January 6, 2010 at 10:31 PM
Media Matters can suck it. When law enforcement has restricted your movement and you no longer feel that you are free too leave, it is a de facto arrest.
Squid Shark on January 6, 2010 at 10:35 PM
@ blink
What country has the largest number of Muslims? What race were the terrorist at Beslan?
Muslim is not a race. Many ethnic groups contribute to the worldwide Muslim population. I did not have to imply anything; my statement was unencumbered. Take my words at face value or admit that you’re unable to deal with the face value of said words.
Regarding no-fly list. It’s a new day, flying is not a privilege. I don’t care how you got to the airport, what you’re wearing or what’s on your Ipod. Everybody needs to go through the same protocols.
I’ve had a gun pulled on me by a senior citizen. I’ve known more than one kid with a genius-level IQ who ended up murdering a family member. Of the many Muslims I’ve known, I’ve never known a terrorist. My version of reality makes it easy for me to give the same middle finger to all parties.
Profile away TSA!
No need to respond — your wit and wisdom are oh-so-taxing on my tired wittle bwain.
===
@ esthier
It’s not easy being honest when that honesty makes you a target for derision or ridicule among one’s chose peer-group. It might be easier for me to be more diplomatic/agreeable in many threads wherein I have commented. However, I prefer to speak my mind openly and honestly.
Truth is its own reward. Thank you for acknowledging my efforts.
The Race Card on January 6, 2010 at 11:20 PM
I love when liberals assume someone is stupid. You do have a “tired wittle bwain” compared to me.
Muslims are “a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics.”
Your collection of “[m]any ethnic groups” contributing to a worldwide population is a . . . what for it. . . race!
Understand? No? I’ll make it easy for you.
Muslims are a race!!!!
Please tell me that’s not what you were hanging your hat on? Especially after I told Esthier to pull the definitions. Surely, you aren’t that stupid. Are you?
What else you got?
blink on January 6, 2010 at 11:43 PM
However, opting for honey is certainly not a requirement. And condemning those that opt against honey is lame.
blink on January 6, 2010 at 7:47 PM
Get your head outta your nethers pal!
Never said “honey” was a “requirement”,
just a tactic that those(like Yon)when confronted by authority should consider, rather than telling the man with the badge he has no right to ask a specific question, or to lecture him on what questions he can ask! A simple “I’m not sure how much I make – I work for donations” could have deescalated the confrontare.
Certainly, in the wake of the Christmas Airport security breech, a wise and worldly player like Yon could pull in his neck and not present as part of the problem to the Security types. From Yon’s report it doesn’t sound as though he acted very wisely! As for me “condemning him”, I think you’re reading more into my comments than I wrote.
Odd though, that so often lately, Yon’s Big story always seems to be about him. Perhaps, the “Border Bully” that Michael excoriates, inadvertantly pushed his most sensitive button–MONEY? At any rate, Yon should get some folding cash out of his latest “Oh Poor Me” lament – How dare customs ask about his income, as he returns stateside from Hong Kong?!
“Let’s Roll”
On Watch on January 6, 2010 at 11:46 PM
Let me try this again.
Even those on the no-fly list?
You think that travelers not on the no-fly need “to go through the same protocols” as those on the no-fly list?
That doesn’t make any sense. Why have a no-fly list if you’re going to require everyone to go through the same protocols?
blink on January 6, 2010 at 11:48 PM
Reread my comment. I never said that you said honey was a requirement. I merely stated that honey wasn’t a requirement to establish that as a fact (since you didn’t).
Oh please. How can you state this after writing this in the same, freaking paragraph?
Not only are you condemning him you’re claiming that he’s “part of the problem.”
What’s unwise about his actions? He refused to answer a question that he didn’t want to answer. You don’t know his reasons, nor the value he placed on those reasons, for not wanting to answer. You don’t know the amount of utility that he gained from not answering. Not answering might have been worth a night or two in jail to him. If that’s the case, then he certainly acted very wisely since his detainment was much shorter.
Get you head out of your nethers.
blink on January 7, 2010 at 12:01 AM
Just because I’m a nice guy – you can save yourself from future embarrassment (you can’t save yourself from present embarrassment) by instead writing that Muslim is not a nation or nationality.
Muslim doesn’t fit either of those definitions. It comes close, but doesn’t fit either requirement of: 1) fitting with the etymology “nasci, to be born”; or 2) being part, or capable of being part, of a nation state.
blink on January 7, 2010 at 12:12 AM
That’s as far as I got in my thinking, when I realized that asking questions is part of running a checkpoint–but that’s interrogation, not search. A search can be compelled. A search can be conducted while the owner is absent. An owner who disrupts a search can be restrained. Interrogation is cooperative, and the Fifth Amendment guarantees a right to stand mute.
That makes sense, but after Hamdan v US, I’m not sure the court would agree.
I think that formula is bogus, but, he’s in a good position to take it to the Supreme Court.
Chris_Balsz on January 7, 2010 at 12:15 AM
Yes, in the wake of what you call the Christmas Airport security breech, let’s all give DHS a free pass to do whatever they want.
Got that, Michelle? No more blog posts making fun of DHS’ stupid decisions in the name of security. We’re going to give them all a free pass and bow to them “in the wake of the Christmas Airport security breech.”
blink on January 7, 2010 at 12:18 AM
I see, you’re from another country!
“Let’s Roll”
On Watch on January 7, 2010 at 12:29 AM
She’s not going to translate for you pal!
“Let’s Roll”
On Watch on January 7, 2010 at 12:33 AM
I’m not sure why you’re introducing all these other elements, but I agree with the interrogation comparison.
In fact, I can give you at least five reasons why a law enforcement officer that requires someone to disclose their name could be violating that person’s 5th Amendment rights.
Again, the problem is that a failure to disclose a name at a legal checkpoint or during a legal investigatory stop is suspicious and justifies further detainment.
However, if the officer tells you that his question regarding your name isn’t part of an investigatory stop then you have every right NOT to answer WITHOUT risk of further detainment.
Do you mean Hamdi v. Rumsfeld? I’m pretty sure you don’t mean Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.
I definitely don’t see the Hamdan opinion supporting your claim, but I don’t even see Hamdi supporting your claim.
Hamdi seems to support my claim that a US citizen needs to be charged or released, and I don’t see that it has any bearing on the deportation of a non-citizen.
On what basis do you think the formula is bogus?
I don’t think such a case would ever get to SCOTUS. I think the lower courts would decide for Yon without awarding any damages, and it wouldn’t be appealed.
blink on January 7, 2010 at 12:42 AM
You obviously don’t see anything.
Nobody needs a translation to know you’re wrong.
blink on January 7, 2010 at 12:45 AM
Quit playing with yourself pal — not impressed by your hallucinations of lower court outcomes before the facts, other than Yon’s confused lament are known.
“Let’s Roll”
On Watch on January 7, 2010 at 12:58 AM
That’s a fair comment (your only fair comment on this page).
I’ll restate.
If Yon is accurately presenting the facts, then I think the lower courts would decide for Yon without awarding any damages, and it wouldn’t be appealed.
Btw, most (more than half) of my comments haven’t even mentioned Yon’s situation. Many of my comments have simply been about the law.
blink on January 7, 2010 at 1:12 AM
@blink
Basically, anytime I dispute the party-line on race and/or gay marriage invariably some genius calls me a lib. Do you get off on that?
What makes me a lib? Please be specific. I would love for you to explain precisely what positions I have expressed that comport to your accusation. These days, the Republican label leaves a lot to be desired. But, I am nobody’s lib.
What tests is the conservative-credentialing board issuing these days? You self-important rowdies are a stain on the party.
If you’re interested in genuine discourse, I’m here. If you just want to sling mud, the floor is yours.
The Race Card on January 7, 2010 at 1:13 AM
If you’re not a lib, then I feel bad for calling you a lib.
And yours. Or have you already forgotten making this comment?
You’re here but have proven yourself incapable of genuine discourse. But if you want to try to get into the game, then you can start by answering the questions I asked in,
blink on January 7, 2010 at 1:38 AM
I didn’t forget and I don’t retract the “effyou.” You accused me wrongly and you know it. I owe you know apology for defending my self against an obvious smear. I’m sure you’d do the same.
Don’t feel bad for calling me a lib. Feel bad for making such a strong accusation with zero veracity.
Look if it works for you then, Yes, I’m incapable of genuine discourse. But you need to check the record. You have thousands of comments from which you may choose. Experience the incapability for yourself.
Regarding the questions(?) you posed here:
I simply don’t know what you’re asking. It sounds to me like you’re trying to support your odd posturing, but I can’t be sure. I’ll take your etymology and raise you a contemporary connotation any day of the week! I don’t care what you think you know about language of yore.
Frankly, I’d love to answer your question just to see how daft a response you will puke up. But I simply don’t understand what you’re trying to say. A thousand typing-monkeys have nothing on you.
Read it for yourself, then marvel at the drool running down your chin.
Thank you for your time and consideration herein. Good day kind genius.
The Race Card on January 7, 2010 at 3:07 AM
It’s easy.
Do you believe that everybody needs to go through the same protocols?
After I first questioned you about this statement, you qualified the it by excluding everybody on the no-fly list. Then, you made the statement again without qualifying it.
If you do wish to exclude everybody on the no-fly list, then I’d like to ask you about others that you think should be forced to follow different protocols.
If you’d like to get a hint at the type of follow-up questions I’ll ask, then check my comment to Esthier at,
You would lose that bet.
That’s a shame. You could have learned something.
I don’t think you understand the thousand typing-monkey metaphor. A thousand typing-monkeys can produce works of Shakespeare . . . never mind. I don’t think you’ll understand the explanation.
I did reread and marveled at how nice I was to try to save you from future embarrassment. I am a kind genius.
blink on January 7, 2010 at 4:27 AM
FYI from Wikipedia:
The border search exception is a doctrine of United States criminal law that exempts searches of travelers and their property from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
The United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a division of the United States Department of Homeland Security, is permitted to search travelers and their belongings at the American border without probable cause or a warrant. These searches are therefore exempted from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement. Pursuant to this authority, CBP may generally stop and search the property of any traveler entering or exiting the United States at random, or even based largely on ethnic profiles.[1] However, CBP may only conduct searches of the traveler’s body — including strip, body cavity, involuntary x-ray, and in some jurisdictions, pat-down searches — if the Customs officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the traveler is concealing contraband.[2]
Although border-searches are exempted from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, they are still subject to the amendment’s reasonableness requirement.[3] Whether a border search is reasonable depends on a judicial analysis that balances the intrusion into an individual’s legitimate privacy and dignity interests against the government’s legitimate interest in the subject of the search.[4] In reviewing the reasonableness of border-searches under the Fourth Amendment, many courts have distinguished between “routine” and “nonroutine” searches.[5] CBP may conduct “routine” searches without any level of suspicion, while “nonroutine” searches must be supported by “reasonable suspicion”.[6] Under this analysis, searches of a traveler’s property, including luggage, briefcases, wallets, and other containers are “routine,” while searches of a traveler’s body, including strip, body cavity and involuntary x-ray searches, are considered “nonroutine.”[7]
Jimbo3 on January 5, 2010 at 10:24 PM
Jimbo3 on January 7, 2010 at 9:57 AM
Thanks, Jimbo3,
But Chris and I have dived into this topic much deeper than this wikipedia summary provides. Also, this summary doesn’t address questioning and detainment by CBP.
blink on January 7, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Hopefully somebody already said that no when you are handcuffed it doesn’t mean you’ve been arrested. It means you’ve been detained. Of course semantics or not this is insane, but handcuffs don’t equal arrested.
ac1 on January 7, 2010 at 10:32 AM
I think you mean that, in addition to being used for an arrest, handcuffs can also be used during mere detainments. If so, then yes, that point has been made a few times on these pages.
The legality of the detainment has been discussed at length.
blink on January 7, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Your penchant for telling others what they meant to say is ironic considering you have said nothing of substance yourself.
***
Michael Yon is a journalist. What other journalists deserve expedited treatment at our nation’s entry points? What other professions, first responders notwithstanding, should be granted such graces?
The Race Card on January 7, 2010 at 1:24 PM
Being handcuffed is not the worst thing in the world. Everyday in neighborhoods all across the country, people are securely detained by officers trying to get to the bottom of some BS story.
If you’re arrested falsely, file civilly. If you’re detained, humiliated and humbled by LEO but not arrested and did not have your rights violated — get over it. Any news of Yon’s official complaint or suit against TSA or its agents?
The Race Card on January 7, 2010 at 1:28 PM
I have stated volumes worth of substance. You just don’t understand any of it.
Yon definitely doesn’t deserve expedited treatment at our nation’s entry points.
Yon definitely does deserve the right to not be unlawfully detained. But this is another concept you don’t understand.
blink on January 7, 2010 at 4:36 PM
That’s not Yon’s claim. He’s claiming that he did have his rights violated.
There might never be an official complaint or suit. The absence of such doesn’t imply that his rights weren’t violated.
blink on January 7, 2010 at 4:39 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7