Just being a douche?

[Leonidas]

You're assuming he is telling the entire story correctly.

Just saying, since you brought up assumptions.

Granted. I do not dispute that. In fact, it is likely he colored events to his advantage. Human nature.

I simply commented on the information presented rather than speculating on all sort of data not supplied. Otherwise I'd have concocted my own scenario with a differing data set in another thread.

 

[jlg]

.

 

[my-rifle]

I'm still curious about why she asked him what he was doing in China. Nothing that happens after that is as important as why she asked that question. Was she instructed to do so? That may be a criminal offense. At the very least it would involve massive incompetence. Did she do it on her own? If so what possessed her to interrogate the citizen? It's not her job by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Sin-ster]

Since none of us were there , we have six pages of pure speculation .

While true, all that means is that we'll never know for sure what happened. It does not mean that we can't get an (extremely?) accurate picture. As Leonidas pointed out, reading between the lines and inference are very important without video and audio to accompany the story. The guy took it upon himself to do a write up on the story-- his chosen voice and the specific details he lets the reader in on are going to influence their opinions, one way or another.

She not only had the demeanor of a prison matron, she looked like one. Now how does that detail about her appearance have any bearing on the cruel violation of his rights? It indicates more about the writer than the woman.

She said that the questions were mandated by Congress, and that the author should complain to them instead of refusing to cooperate with her. I highly doubt this is an exact quote-- it probably ended with "instead of being rude to me". Nonetheless, that's certainly what she meant-- "I'm just doing my job, and even though I may not agree with the question either, I have to ask it." This is clear evidence that she felt he was holding her responsible, and treating her as if she were the embodiment of Congress/POTUS.

She claimed he was refusing to cooperate at all. Certainly an exaggeration, but was it with malicious intent? This lady has a specific script, as "my rifle" pointed out. It's pretty clear that the vast majority of folks going through customs answers the questions and go about their business. I highly doubt that those who choose to exercise their right to remain silent do so in such a confrontational manner. So this guy is doubly different from the norm, bordering on hostile. He's coming back from China. Her job is to sniff out suspicious people and circumstances, and send them to the higher-ups. Despite misstating the facts (he was in fact compliant with all of his legal obligations), I don't think she was at fault.

Now, what happened after his interaction with the woman is a totally different story. Again, I find the rest of his ordeal deplorable on many different levels. But here's the most important thing to notice...

When he was clearly in the right to stand up to the bullies abusing their power and trampling his rights, he did nothing. He had tough words for a customs lady simply reading from a Congress script, but when the real injustice took place, he had only two things to say-- "Can I go?" and "Are you refusing to let me re-enter my own country?" The "none of your business" attitude was gone, he didn't take any names or ask to speak to superiors-- he complied fully and came home to write about the incident.

So you all see a hero who stood up for his rights and fought the good fight. I see a douche who was rude to a woman, cowed by the authority figures he should have opposed, and came home to brag about his deeds to the rest of the world. What he went through was wrong, no doubt about it, and I would be HAPPY to praise someone who honestly took a stand against the appropriate people, in the appropriate manner. This guy, however, is not such a person.

 

[Sin-ster]

I'm still curious about why she asked him what he was doing in China. Nothing that happens after that is as important as why she asked that question. Was she instructed to do so? That may be a criminal offense. At the very least it would involve massive incompetence. Did she do it on her own? If so what possessed her to interrogate the citizen? It's not her job by any stretch of the imagination.

I thought you said that was part of the "script"?

Grah, now you're confusing me!

If she's not supposed to ask that as part of her job, then you can COMPLETELY disregard my stance, and I side with the guy 100%. Since her motivation was never questioned, by the author or those of us in this thread, I naturally assumed it was pretty standard. Hell, I even called it SOP-- and had a few folks agree.

 

[Leonidas]

I believe it is SOP to ask FOREIGN nationals the reason for their visit here and they must answer or be denied entry. Not US citizens returning to their home.

What did she think she was going to do, not let him in the country? He's a citizen, which means he was in the country when the plane crossed into US air space.

Consider:

5th Amendment right to silence.
4th Amendment prohibition of unreasonable seizure. (The intimidation bit of "he's going to sit here for 4 hours" etc)
14th Amendment guarantee of due process

 

[Sin-ster]

I believe it is SOP to ask FOREIGN nationals the reason for their visit here and they must answer or be denied entry. Not US citizens returning to their home.

What did she think she was going to do, not let him in the country? He's a citizen, which means he was in the country when the plane crossed into US air space.

Consider:

5th Amendment right to silence.
4th Amendment prohibition of unreasonable seizure. (The intimidation bit of "he's going to sit here for 4 hours" etc)
14th Amendment guarantee of due process

If her question was not part of her job, then I'm totally changing my opinion. Even if she was simply mistaken for asking a US citizen (as opposed to a Foreign National), that level of incompetence is worth the attitude in such a situation.

Realistically, that's what the whole issue hinges on in my mind. Despite how ridiculous it is, if that's a question that Congress requires her to ask everyone coming past her desk, then his treatment of her does not sit right with me. If she was out of line, it's a totally different matter.

 

[Jed]

You're assuming he is telling the entire story correctly.

Just saying, since you brought up assumptions.

So make it a hypothesis.

 

[Leonidas]

Much more family friendly, now. Thanx, Jed

 

[Jed]

Don't thank me mate, thank the mods.

 

[Leonidas]

Try phallus next time.