Dr Peter Watts, Canadian science fiction writer, beaten and arrested at US border
Karl Johanson
*Excerpt:
"Update: Here's more from Peter, in his own words: "Along some other
timeline, I did not get out of the car to ask what was going on. I did not
repeat that question when refused an answer and told to get back into the
vehicle. In that other timeline I was not punched in the face,
pepper-sprayed, shit-kicked, handcuffed, thrown wet and half-naked into a
holding cell for three fucking hours, thrown into an even colder jail cell
overnight, arraigned, and charged with assaulting a federal officer, all
without access to legal representation (although they did try to get me to
waive my Miranda rights. Twice.). Nor was I finally dumped across the border
in shirtsleeves: computer seized, flash drive confiscated, even my fucking
paper notepad withheld until they could find someone among their number
literate enough to distinguish between handwritten notes on story ideas and,
I suppose, nefarious terrorist plots. I was not left without my jacket in
the face of Ontario's first winter storm, after all buses and intercity
shuttles had shut down for the night.
"In some other universe I am warm and content and not looking at spending
two years in jail for the crime of having been punched in the face." "
Will in New Haven
I'm outraged by what happened to Peter Watts. I'm also outraged and
disgusted by how the moderator treated dissent in that thread. Fuck
the blogverse. Give me usenet anytime. I got so pissed that I didn't
donate to Peter's defense fund. I may go back there and do so at some
point. HE isn't the moderator there.
--
Will in New Haven
Kip Williams
This is being discussed there and at Making Light (among other places).
At the latter, Jo Walton has expressed scorn for those who inevitably
suggest (see comment #5 at Boing Boing, for instance) that none of this
would have happened if only Watts had cringed more.
We've reached a pretty nasty state of affairs. I blame post-9/11
paranoia for making things this absurd at our northern border, and am
sorely disappointed that Obama hasn't dialed things down already.
Kip W
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> >
> This is being discussed there and at Making Light (among other places).
> At the latter, Jo Walton has expressed scorn for those who inevitably
> suggest (see comment #5 at Boing Boing, for instance) that none of this
> would have happened if only Watts had cringed more.
>
How about those who want to withhold judgment until we have all the
facts in the case and not just one side of the story?
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
Karl Johanson
news:7oi9cpF...@mid.individual.net...
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>> >
>> This is being discussed there and at Making Light (among other places).
>> At the latter, Jo Walton has expressed scorn for those who inevitably
>> suggest (see comment #5 at Boing Boing, for instance) that none of this
>> would have happened if only Watts had cringed more.
>>
>
> How about those who want to withhold judgment until we have all the facts
> in the case and not just one side of the story?
??????????????????????????????????????????? More than one side of the story
is on the URL. Peter's side is he was attacked by multiple officers. The
officers' side (as pointed out on the URL) is that he assaulted one of the
officers.
Karl Johanson
Kip Williams
"Assault" in this case meaning "asked why."
Kip W
Kay Shapero
says...
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams
> declared:
> > >
> > This is being discussed there and at Making Light (among other places).
> > At the latter, Jo Walton has expressed scorn for those who inevitably
> > suggest (see comment #5 at Boing Boing, for instance) that none of this
> > would have happened if only Watts had cringed more.
> >
>
> How about those who want to withhold judgment until we have all the
> facts in the case and not just one side of the story?
>
>
mail) at www.whitehouse.gov suggesting he have someone look into this
and pointing out just what it does to our image (after all, we're
talking politicians here). This alone won't do much, however the more
of us who go and do likewise, the more likely it becomes that someone
might actually do so, and GET the whole story. Alas, it sounds rather
like the sort of petty bullying you find when some people get a little
power, and frankly I would not be surprised at all to find the report as
we've heard is accurate.
--
Kay Shapero
address munged, email kay at following domain
http://www.kayshapero.net
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>Karl Johanson wrote:
>> "Sean O'Hara"<sean...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams declared:
>>>>>
>>>> This is being discussed there and at Making Light (among other places).
>>>> At the latter, Jo Walton has expressed scorn for those who inevitably
>>>> suggest (see comment #5 at Boing Boing, for instance) that none of this
>>>> would have happened if only Watts had cringed more.
>>> How about those who want to withhold judgment until we have all the facts
>>> in the case and not just one side of the story?
>>
>> ??????????????????????????????????????????? More than one side of the story
>> is on the URL. Peter's side is he was attacked by multiple officers. The
>> officers' side (as pointed out on the URL) is that he assaulted one of the
>> officers.
>
>"Assault" in this case meaning "asked why."
If his side of the story is the one that is the true one...
--
"If tempted by something that feels "altruistic", examine your
motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still
want to do it, wallow in it!"
-Lazarus Long
Sean O'Hara
declared:
I see nothing of the sort in the Boing Boing story, unless you count
the brief mention of what Watts is charged with. That's not enough
for me to decide whether this is worth getting up in arms over.
Without evidence beyond the word of one person involved, I have no
way of telling that this isn't like the incident in October where a
blogger posted a story about the TSA taking away her baby -- which,
when the TSA released surveillance footage of the alleged incident,
turned out to be bullshit.
http://consumerist.com/2009/10/tsa-takes-baby-away-from-mother.html
Paul Ciszek
In article <7oi9cpF...@mid.individual.net>,
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams
>declared:
>> >
>> This is being discussed there and at Making Light (among other places).
>> At the latter, Jo Walton has expressed scorn for those who inevitably
>> suggest (see comment #5 at Boing Boing, for instance) that none of this
>> would have happened if only Watts had cringed more.
>
>How about those who want to withhold judgment until we have all the
>facts in the case and not just one side of the story?
No one on either side is disputing two facts:
1) Watts was *leaving* the USA
2) It was agents of the USA that did this
When did we join the ranks of those nations who harras people
who are trying to *leave*?
Even if Watts had been a terrorist...OUTSIDE of the USA is
where the USA should want him to be, no?
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> In article <7oi9cpF...@mid.individual.net>,
> Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How about those who want to withhold judgment until we have all the
>> facts in the case and not just one side of the story?
>
> No one on either side is disputing two facts:
>
> 1) Watts was *leaving* the USA
> 2) It was agents of the USA that did this
>
[citation needed]
Michael Benveniste
wrote:
>> 1) Watts was *leaving* the USA
>> 2) It was agents of the USA that did this
>
>[citation needed]
http://www.thetimesherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009912120305
Note that this local newspaper got the travel direction wrong in their
first story as well. If you're looking for an official record as a
cite, it may be a while. USCBP has yet to comment, release any
official record, or release any video.
I assume that Boing Boing and EFF, among others, have filed FOIA
requests for records and video. While I think it would be a mistake
for the USCBP not to release the tape once the "suits" are back in the
office, it's also a mistake I expect them to make.
In line with those expectations, I strongly suspect I'll be donating
to Mr. Watts's defense fund sometime next week.
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Science is so powerful that it drags us kicking and screaming towards
the truth despite our best efforts to avoid it. And it does that at
least partly fueled by our pettiness and our rivalries. Science is
alchemy: it turns shit into gold. -- Peter Watts
David Loewe, Jr.
Ciszek) wrote:
>Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams
>>declared:
>>> >
>>> This is being discussed there and at Making Light (among other places).
>>> At the latter, Jo Walton has expressed scorn for those who inevitably
>>> suggest (see comment #5 at Boing Boing, for instance) that none of this
>>> would have happened if only Watts had cringed more.
>>
>>How about those who want to withhold judgment until we have all the
>>facts in the case and not just one side of the story?
>
>No one on either side is disputing two facts:
>
>1) Watts was *leaving* the USA
>2) It was agents of the USA that did this
>
>When did we join the ranks of those nations who harras people
>who are trying to *leave*?
As pointed out in the comments section of the bit on Boing Boing, when
people started trying to smuggle things *out* of the country - things
like large sums of cash or prohibited for export electronics.
>Even if Watts had been a terrorist...OUTSIDE of the USA is
>where the USA should want him to be, no?
--
"Quote! Quote! Young man, the barbarians are hammering at
the gates of our civilization, and you stand there saying
'quote' when you mean 'quotation'."
- Prof. Charles Lloyd of Davidson College, circa 1968
Konrad Gaertner
>
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams
> declared:
> > >
> > This is being discussed there and at Making Light (among other places).
> > At the latter, Jo Walton has expressed scorn for those who inevitably
> > suggest (see comment #5 at Boing Boing, for instance) that none of this
> > would have happened if only Watts had cringed more.
>
> How about those who want to withhold judgment until we have all the
> facts in the case and not just one side of the story?
Customs officials told the Star Watts was given directions "and
became non-compliant...he did not follow directions and a
physical altercation" ensued.
An officer with the Port Huron police told the local newspaper
that Watts "angrily" got out of the rental car and when he
refused to get back in, they tried to cuff him and he became
"aggressive." In the melee, police said, Watts "choked" a customs
officer.
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/738143--u-s-border-guards-arrest-author-peter-watts?bn=1
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
Karl Johanson
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Karl Johanson
> declared:
>> "Sean O'Hara" <sean...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7oi9cpF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams
>>> declared:
>>>> This is being discussed there and at Making Light (among other places).
>>>> At the latter, Jo Walton has expressed scorn for those who inevitably
>>>> suggest (see comment #5 at Boing Boing, for instance) that none of this
>>>> would have happened if only Watts had cringed more.
>>>>
>>> How about those who want to withhold judgment until we have all the
>>> facts in the case and not just one side of the story?
>>
>> ??????????????????????????????????????????? More than one side of the
>> story is on the URL. Peter's side is he was attacked by multiple
>> officers. The officers' side (as pointed out on the URL) is that he
>> assaulted one of the officers.
>>
>
> I see nothing of the sort in the Boing Boing story, unless you count the
> brief mention of what Watts is charged with.
You also said you wanted "all the facts of the case" and I don't suggest
that those are there, but the URL did present both sides. However, the that
mention that you mention is the officers' side of the story, I. E. that
Peter assaulted one of them. Both sides mentioned.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:D5bVm.105455$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
> "Sean O'Hara" <sean...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7oj7nqF...@mid.individual.net...
>> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Karl Johanson
>> declared:
>>> "Sean O'Hara" <sean...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7oi9cpF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Kip Williams
>>>> declared:
>>>>> This is being discussed there and at Making Light (among other
>>>>> places). At the latter, Jo Walton has expressed scorn for those who
>>>>> inevitably suggest (see comment #5 at Boing Boing, for instance) that
>>>>> none of this would have happened if only Watts had cringed more.
>>>>>
>>>> How about those who want to withhold judgment until we have all the
>>>> facts in the case and not just one side of the story?
>>>
>>> ??????????????????????????????????????????? More than one side of the
>>> story is on the URL. Peter's side is he was attacked by multiple
>>> officers. The officers' side (as pointed out on the URL) is that he
>>> assaulted one of the officers.
>>>
>>
>> I see nothing of the sort in the Boing Boing story, unless you count the
>> brief mention of what Watts is charged with.
Sorry, I edit scrambled that last post a bit.
You also said you wanted "all the facts of the case" and I don't suggest
that those are there, but the URL did present both sides. The officer's
side of the story is that Peter assaulted one of them. Both sides mentioned.
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> We've reached a pretty nasty state of affairs. I blame post-9/11
> paranoia for making things this absurd at our northern border,
I'd be deeply ashamed of the US government if it had anything to do
with me. Since I'm forbidden from voting, it does not. It might as
well be an occupying power.
> and am sorely disappointed that Obama hasn't dialed things down
> already.
Did he campaign on a platform of ending the hysteria? (Serious
question -- I wasn't paying attention.)
It's clear that both major parties stand for pretty much the same
things: Higher taxes, bailouts, a *much* higher national debt,
and a reduction in freedom.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Doug Wickstr�m
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/11/dr-peter-watts-canad.html#more
>
>*Excerpt:
>
>"Update: Here's more from Peter, in his own words: "Along some other
>timeline, I did not get out of the car to ask what was going on. I did not
>repeat that question when refused an answer and told to get back into the
>vehicle.
When a law officer stops you, you do _not_ get out of the vehicle
until and unless asked/told to do so. Police of all nations
regard drivers exiting a vehicle unbidden as a potentially
dangerous situation. From that moment, he started an altercation
that escalated to his disadvantage.
The rest of his story, about the loss of his possessions, etc.,
is perhaps less excusable than his subsequent personal treatment
-- but only if true.
--
Doug Wickstr�
Will in New Haven
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:56:38 -0800, "Karl Johanson"
>
"If you walk near that dog, he will bite you." This may be true but it
does not justify the dog biting you. Maybe police officers need to be
re-trained. There are certainly situations where an officer might feel
threatened by someone exiting his vehicle and asking a question. This
does not seem like such a situation.
Joel Polowin
> until and unless asked/told to do so. Police of all nations
> regard drivers exiting a vehicle unbidden as a potentially
> dangerous situation. From that moment, he started an altercation
> that escalated to his disadvantage.
That turns out not to be the case. I've seen a couple of replies
to such assertions which can be summed up as "maybe where
*you* live, bucko, but here it's exactly the opposite."
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/011966.html#388036
David Loewe, Jr.
<nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:56:38 -0800, "Karl Johanson"
><karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/11/dr-peter-watts-canad.html#more
>>
>>*Excerpt:
>>
>>"Update: Here's more from Peter, in his own words: "Along some other
>>timeline, I did not get out of the car to ask what was going on. I did not
>>repeat that question when refused an answer and told to get back into the
>>vehicle.
>
>When a law officer stops you, you do _not_ get out of the vehicle
>until and unless asked/told to do so. Police of all nations
>regard drivers exiting a vehicle unbidden as a potentially
>dangerous situation. From that moment, he started an altercation
>that escalated to his disadvantage.
I'll amplify here by noting that cops are on occasion ambushed by
motorists in cars and in other seemingly innocuous situations. For an
example, I'll remind the posters about the 4 cops shot in a donut shop
in the Puget Sound area recently.
>The rest of his story, about the loss of his possessions, etc.,
>is perhaps less excusable than his subsequent personal treatment
Putting a man out in a snowstorm without his jacket is inexcusable -
unless the jacket is evidence.
>-- but only if true.
--
"A lady came up to me on the street and pointed to my suede jacket.
"You know a cow was murdered for that jacket?" she sneered. I replied
in a psychotic tone, "I didn't know there were any witnesses. Now
I'll have to kill you too."
- Jake Johanson
David V. Loewe, Jr
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
Cops die in situations that do not appear threatening to you or I all
the time. To reiterate something I mentioned in another post, those
cops in that donut shop in Washington State probably felt they weren't
in a threatening situation.
--
"In a cruel and evil world, being cynical can allow you to get some
entertainment out of it."
- Daniel Waters, screenwriter of HEATHERS
Keith F. Lynch
> until and unless asked/told to do so. Police of all nations regard
> drivers exiting a vehicle unbidden as a potentially dangerous
> situation.
Perhaps Peter Watts didn't recognize the situation as a hostile one
until too late. Maybe he thought the people in question were friendly
and trying to be helpful, and he was getting out to see if he could
be of assistance since there appeared to him to be some delay or
confusion which he could perhaps clear up to everyone's benefit.
And just because something can be viewed as a *potentially* dangerous
situation doesn't make violence an appropriate answer. If a
panhandler approaches me on the street, I don't have the right to
beat him to a bloody pulp, even if I think maybe he might have been
intending to rob me. Not unless I had strong evidence that he was
in fact attempting to rob me.
Sometimes when someone enters a donut shop, it's with the intention of
shooting every policeman in sight. But that doesn't mean that from
now on whenever someone enters a donut shop, policemen are justified
in taking preemptive violent action just in case.
Keith F. Lynch
> Doug [redacted] <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> ...
My apologies to Ben. It's late and I was in a hurry, so I
accidentally let an eight-bit character slip through. I'll try to
keep it from happening again. I hope your system was not too badly
damaged by my slip-up.
David Loewe, Jr.
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Doug Wickstr�m <nims...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> When a law officer stops you, you do _not_ get out of the vehicle
>> until and unless asked/told to do so. Police of all nations regard
>> drivers exiting a vehicle unbidden as a potentially dangerous
>> situation.
>
>Perhaps Peter Watts didn't recognize the situation as a hostile one
Which is not the point...
Even in a friendly situation, it is not a good idea in the US to get out
of the car unless bidden to do so.
>until too late. Maybe he thought the people in question were friendly
>and trying to be helpful, and he was getting out to see if he could
>be of assistance since there appeared to him to be some delay or
>confusion which he could perhaps clear up to everyone's benefit.
>
>And just because something can be viewed as a *potentially* dangerous
>situation doesn't make violence an appropriate answer.
The claim is that they told him to get back in the car and he would not.
At that point, they tried to either (I am unclear on this) to get him to
go back into the car or to arrest him. If the former, it quickly
degenerated into the latter when he refused.
>If a panhandler approaches me on the street, I don't have the right to
>beat him to a bloody pulp, even if I think maybe he might have been
>intending to rob me. Not unless I had strong evidence that he was
>in fact attempting to rob me.
>
>Sometimes when someone enters a donut shop, it's with the intention of
>shooting every policeman in sight. But that doesn't mean that from
>now on whenever someone enters a donut shop, policemen are justified
>in taking preemptive violent action just in case.
--
"Why is it, Scott, that we always have to respect their cultural context?
Why is it that they never seem to respect ours?"
President John P. Ryan in Executive Orders
James Nicoll
>until and unless asked/told to do so. Police of all nations
>regard drivers exiting a vehicle unbidden as a potentially
>dangerous situation.
If you track down a book about Canadian cops called (IIRC) THE BLUE LINE,
you will discover that Canadian cops of that time regarded drivers hopping
out of their cars as an indiction the drivers were both hoping to avoid the
fine for not wearing thier seat belt and being very optimistic that the
cops hadn't seen that trick before.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Paul Ciszek
In article <sc2ai5tvcc2bnqnk9...@4ax.com>,
David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>When did we join the ranks of those nations who harras people
>>who are trying to *leave*?
>
>As pointed out in the comments section of the bit on Boing Boing, when
>people started trying to smuggle things *out* of the country - things
>like large sums of cash or prohibited for export electronics.
Interesting...I wonder if it is possible to leave the US without
showing "papers, please". Is Keith now a prisoner here?
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:12:38 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
>
>
>
>
>
I've been _shot_ in what might not have seemed to most people to have
been a threatening situation. I know the role that paranoia can take
in a person's life. For years afterword it was very hard not to throw
down on anyone who entered the store in a ski mask, even in January
when they weren't uncommon. An officer can certainly be concerned when
someone exits a car in this situation. Concerned enough even to tell
the person to stop and enforce it at weapon-point. This may offend the
person exiting the vehicle and may cause her or him some emotional
distress but it will not cause injury.
That the cops felt fear when he exited the vehicle is understandable.
However, beating him seems to have been a _retaliatory_ act, not self-
defense. They were taking their understandable fear out on him. He had
not shown a weapon or struck anyone. They had him under their control
and continued to strike him. If this is true, they should go to
prison.
Mike Van Pelt
Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>> How about those who want to withhold judgment until we have all the
>> facts in the case and not just one side of the story?
>
> Customs officials told the Star Watts was given directions
> "and became non-compliant...he did not follow directions
> and a physical altercation" ensued.
>
> An officer with the Port Huron police told the local
> newspaper that Watts "angrily" got out of the rental car
> and when he refused to get back in, they tried to cuff him
> and he became "aggressive." In the melee, police said,
> Watts "choked" a customs officer.
I have no opinion whatsoever on whether Dr. Watts behaved in any
"angry" or "aggressive" manner, but I do note that in his own
account, he said that he got out of the car when he was stopped,
and when told to get back in the car, he did not do so.
That's two things that are pretty basic "do not do this when
stopped by law enforcement officers" guidelines. Maybe
customs are different in Canada. And obviously, if that's all
Dr. Watts did, it would not in any way excuse the escallation
by the customs people that has been reported.
Don't think that this sort of thing can't happen in Canada,
though. Ask Keith Henson about how an RCMP SWAT team executed
a "dynamic takedown" on him, automatic weapons drawn, in a
Canadian shopping mall.
--
Mike Van Pelt "If they're going to talk about
mvp.at.calweb.com Camelot, then we get to talk about
KE6BVH The Lady in the Lake." - ?
Sandra Bond
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:56:38 -0800, "Karl Johanson"
><karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/11/dr-peter-watts-canad.html#more
>>
>>*Excerpt:
>>
>>"Update: Here's more from Peter, in his own words: "Along some other
>>timeline, I did not get out of the car to ask what was going on. I did not
>>repeat that question when refused an answer and told to get back into the
>>vehicle.
>
>When a law officer stops you, you do _not_ get out of the vehicle
>until and unless asked/told to do so. Police of all nations
>regard drivers exiting a vehicle unbidden as a potentially
>dangerous situation.
Not so. Standard practice in the UK is to get out of your car
immediately you're stopped.
S&ra
--
sandra bond is san...@ho-street.demon.co.uk, and should know better
"I thought Morden was the end of the line until I discovered Babylon 5"
sandra says: keep looking for the door into summer
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
>
> In article <sc2ai5tvcc2bnqnk9...@4ax.com>,
> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>When did we join the ranks of those nations who harras people
>>>who are trying to *leave*?
>>
>>As pointed out in the comments section of the bit on Boing Boing, when
>>people started trying to smuggle things *out* of the country - things
>>like large sums of cash or prohibited for export electronics.
>
> Interesting...I wonder if it is possible to leave the US without
> showing "papers, please". Is Keith now a prisoner here?
Was it ever possible to legally cross without showing some form of
identification? It's been 15 years since I drove across the border
but IIRC the guards on the entry side in both directions checked everyone's
ID.
As far as the story, it's been my experience that border guards and
security personnel in general have an unusually high probability of being
sphincters and are carefully screened to eliminate the slightest traces of
a sense of humor or compassion.
While I've never been beaten up or arrested, I did spend several hours
waiting in the Ottawa airport while the authorities got around to
searching the contents of my laptop. Apparently they were afraid I was
there to take Canadian jobs.
The worst I've personally seen was from the security personnel at London
Gatwick, who left my 86 year old father standing for close to an hour
while they waited to carry out a Special Random Inspection on him and his
carry-on, then continued to leave him standing as they carried out the
inspection, all the while refusing to let him sit in the chair that was
two feet away and refusing to allow me to help him. It was only the thought
of spending years in a British prison that kept me from kicking the
inspector's nads up his nose.
Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Keith F. Lynch
> entered the store in a ski mask, even in January when they weren't
> uncommon.
I never wear a ski mask no matter how cold it gets, precisely because
of the unfortunate connotation of those things.
Keith F. Lynch
> Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Interesting...I wonder if it is possible to leave the US without
>> showing "papers, please". Is Keith now a prisoner here?
> Was it ever possible to legally cross without showing some form of
> identification? It's been 15 years since I drove across the border
> but IIRC the guards on the entry side in both directions checked
> everyone's ID.
I visited Mexico (Tijuana) in 1984 and 1996, on foot. Both times,
nobody on either side stopped me from leaving the US or entering
Mexico. Both times, nobody stopped me from leaving Mexico, and
there was one perfunctory question ("Are you a US citizen?") when
re-entering the US. No papers.
I refrained from answering the question, "Si, senor."
In 1996 I was accompanied by several people including a Canadian and a
German, both of whom had to show papers. I suppose the Canadian could
have lied and claimed to be a US citizen.
> While I've never been beaten up or arrested, I did spend several
> hours waiting in the Ottawa airport while the authorities got around
> to searching the contents of my laptop. Apparently they were afraid
> I was there to take Canadian jobs.
Now that laptops can store more text than can be read in a lifetime,
what do they do?
> The worst I've personally seen was from the security personnel at
> London Gatwick, who left my 86 year old father standing for close to
> an hour while they waited to carry out a Special Random Inspection
> on him and his carry-on, then continued to leave him standing as
> they carried out the inspection, all the while refusing to let him
> sit in the chair that was two feet away and refusing to allow me to
> help him.
Was he an American WWII vet? If so, it's a pity it's too late to go
back in time and let the Brits deal with the Germans without US help.
But hey, at least in the UK he'd get free medical care if he
collapsed.
Paul Ciszek
In article <hg6vri$4sv$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> hours waiting in the Ottawa airport while the authorities got around
>> to searching the contents of my laptop. Apparently they were afraid
>> I was there to take Canadian jobs.
>
>Now that laptops can store more text than can be read in a lifetime,
>what do they do?
Do they require you to relenquish your password? And what do they do
if your laptop is running Linux?
Paul Ciszek
In article <hg6tu4$bvh$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> For years afterword it was very hard not to throw down on anyone who
>> entered the store in a ski mask, even in January when they weren't
>> uncommon.
>
>I never wear a ski mask no matter how cold it gets, precisely because
>of the unfortunate connotation of those things.
Does anyone wear them for skiing? I do not ski, but it has been my
impression that skiers tend toward more fashionable options, like
goggles. Myself, I find that a Polaron knit hat and a hood surrounding
the face, and generous use of chapstick, are quite sufficient.
Paul Ciszek
In article <hg7bn3$312$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>In article <hg6tu4$bvh$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>>> For years afterword it was very hard not to throw down on anyone who
>>> entered the store in a ski mask, even in January when they weren't
>>> uncommon.
>>
>>I never wear a ski mask no matter how cold it gets, precisely because
>>of the unfortunate connotation of those things.
>
>Does anyone wear them for skiing? I do not ski, but it has been my
>impression that skiers tend toward more fashionable options, like
>goggles. Myself, I find that a Polaron knit hat and a hood surrounding
>the face, and generous use of chapstick, are quite sufficient.
It occured to me after posting that having a beard and mustache
probably minimizes any advantage to wearing a ski mask in any case.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
> <rksh...@rosettacondot.com> wrote:
>> While I've never been beaten up or arrested, I did spend several
>> hours waiting in the Ottawa airport while the authorities got around
>> to searching the contents of my laptop. Apparently they were afraid
>> I was there to take Canadian jobs.
>
> Now that laptops can store more text than can be read in a lifetime,
> what do they do?
Poke around until they get bored, I presume. I was bored before they
started.
>> The worst I've personally seen was from the security personnel at
>> London Gatwick, who left my 86 year old father standing for close to
>> an hour while they waited to carry out a Special Random Inspection
>> on him and his carry-on, then continued to leave him standing as
>> they carried out the inspection, all the while refusing to let him
>> sit in the chair that was two feet away and refusing to allow me to
>> help him.
>
> Was he an American WWII vet? If so, it's a pity it's too late to go
> back in time and let the Brits deal with the Germans without US help.
He is, but never actually set foot in Europe. He spent the entire time
in Greenland (at Narsarsuaq, I believe).
> But hey, at least in the UK he'd get free medical care if he
> collapsed.
Heh. Right... Actually he'd be charged at a rate that would make US
doctors and hospitals blush. The "free" care doesn't apply to visitors,
at least not visitors from the US. I'm not sure what they'd do if he
couldn't pay.
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
>
> In article <hg6vri$4sv$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>
>>> While I've never been beaten up or arrested, I did spend several
>>> hours waiting in the Ottawa airport while the authorities got around
>>> to searching the contents of my laptop. Apparently they were afraid
>>> I was there to take Canadian jobs.
>>
>>Now that laptops can store more text than can be read in a lifetime,
>>what do they do?
>
> Do they require you to relenquish your password? And what do they do
> if your laptop is running Linux?
They allowed me to log them in rather than give them my password. It was
my work laptop and running Windows. I have no idea what they'd do if
they couldn't figure how to operate it. Could be anything from waving me
on through to refusing me entry depending on their mood.
Jette Goldie
He'd be treated at the hospital, then billed later, or his
travel/health insurance company would be billed. "Free at point of
use" means exactly that. No A&E department even has the facility to
take payment.
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
David Loewe, Jr.
<jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>
>>> But hey, at least in the UK he'd get free medical care if he
>>> collapsed.
>>
>> Heh. Right... Actually he'd be charged at a rate that would make US
>> doctors and hospitals blush. The "free" care doesn't apply to visitors,
>> at least not visitors from the US. I'm not sure what they'd do if he
>> couldn't pay.
>
>He'd be treated at the hospital, then billed later, or his
>travel/health insurance company would be billed. "Free at point of
>use" means exactly that. No A&E department even has the facility to
>take payment.
Which makes the inclusion of undocumented aliens in the figures of
"Americans without health care coverage" even more hypocritical than I
had previously thought.
--
"Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow share their dreams
With you and me"
- Klaus Meine
Andy Leighton
><jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
>>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> But hey, at least in the UK he'd get free medical care if he
>>>> collapsed.
>>>
>>> Heh. Right... Actually he'd be charged at a rate that would make US
>>> doctors and hospitals blush. The "free" care doesn't apply to visitors,
>>> at least not visitors from the US. I'm not sure what they'd do if he
>>> couldn't pay.
>>
>>He'd be treated at the hospital, then billed later, or his
>>travel/health insurance company would be billed. "Free at point of
>>use" means exactly that. No A&E department even has the facility to
>>take payment.
>
> Which makes the inclusion of undocumented aliens in the figures of
> "Americans without health care coverage" even more hypocritical than I
> had previously thought.
Not really. Undocumented aliens are treated by the NHS without any
expectation that the money will be paid. Asylum seekers are entitled
to any healthcare. If their asylum claim fails, or they are otherwise
illegal, the government (at least in England - it might be different
in Scotland and Wales) says they should get emergency care only (and
a few other public health things - like treatment for highly infectious
diseases like TB). However a doctor's surgery only asks about
eligibility upon first registering so failed asylum seekers often stay
on the books as acceptable. Most doctors don't see this as a problem.
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
Do you think that they don't get Emergency Care in the US?
>However a doctor's surgery only asks about
>eligibility upon first registering so failed asylum seekers often stay
>on the books as acceptable. Most doctors don't see this as a problem.
Most US illegals are not asylum seekers.
Moreover, in Canada (at least in Quebec per the article by J. Clarkson),
they DO expect you to pay first for non-Emergent Care (which is
pertinent for the "previously thought" portion of my remark.
--
"Soldiers, when I give the command to fire, fire straight at my heart.
Wait for the order. It will be my last to you. I protest against my
condemnation. I have fought a hundred battles for France, and not
one against her ... Soldiers, Fire!"
- the Last Words of Michel Ney
Keith F. Lynch
> rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>>> But hey, at least in the UK he'd get free medical care if he
>>> collapsed.
>> Heh. Right... Actually he'd be charged at a rate that would make
>> US doctors and hospitals blush. The "free" care doesn't apply to
>> visitors, at least not visitors from the US. I'm not sure what
>> they'd do if he couldn't pay.
> He'd be treated at the hospital, then billed later, or his
> travel/health insurance company would be billed.
The same as in the US, then. Nobody is ever turned away from an
emergency room in the US due to inability to pay.
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Now that laptops can store more text than can be read in a
>> lifetime, what do they do?
> Do they require you to relenquish your password?
If they do, what if you claim you don't know it? You have it written
down at home. Or maybe it contains company-confidential material,
hence requires two passwords and no one employee knows both?
> And what do they do if your laptop is running Linux?
Or if it contains text in a language none of them can read?
rksh...@rosettacondot.com
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Now that laptops can store more text than can be read in a
>>> lifetime, what do they do?
>
>> Do they require you to relenquish your password?
>
> If they do, what if you claim you don't know it? You have it written
> down at home. Or maybe it contains company-confidential material,
> hence requires two passwords and no one employee knows both?
Refuse you entry and put you on the next plane to your originating
country?
>> And what do they do if your laptop is running Linux?
>
> Or if it contains text in a language none of them can read?
Refuse you entry as above, allow you entry or hold you until they find
someone that can operate the computer or read the text.
Jette Goldie
>
> Or if it contains text in a language none of them can read?
They get very suspicious.
netcat
@btinternet.com says...
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> > Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> And what do they do if your laptop is running Linux?
> >
> > Or if it contains text in a language none of them can read?
>
>
> They get very suspicious.
So one running FreeBSD with Estonian localizations would be right out,
then. I _thought_ there was a good reason why I haven't flown since a
certain date besides general paranoia on my part.
rgds,
netcat
Aaron Denney
> Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> In article <sc2ai5tvcc2bnqnk9...@4ax.com>,
>> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>When did we join the ranks of those nations who harras people
>>>>who are trying to *leave*?
>>>
>>>As pointed out in the comments section of the bit on Boing Boing, when
>>>people started trying to smuggle things *out* of the country - things
>>>like large sums of cash or prohibited for export electronics.
>>
>> Interesting...I wonder if it is possible to leave the US without
>> showing "papers, please". Is Keith now a prisoner here?
>
> Was it ever possible to legally cross without showing some form of
> identification? It's been 15 years since I drove across the border
> but IIRC the guards on the entry side in both directions checked everyone's
> ID.
It's still possible. 3 years ago I drove into Mexico. At the border
was the following: a stop sign, and an empty booth. The reverse, of
course, had more thorough checks, leading to a mile-long backup.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
Keith F. Lynch
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> And what do they do if your laptop is running Linux?
>> Or if it contains text in a language none of them can read?
> They get very suspicious.
They suspect that the person arriving in the US for the first time in
their life might be a *foreigner*? Gasp! Won't someone please think
of the children?
Joy Beeson
wrote:
> Was it ever possible to legally cross without showing some form of
> identification?
In 1980, when ridding my pockets of excess weight before a long bike
trip, I inadvertently stripped myself of everything remotely
resembling identification. We became aware of that after entering
Canada. After we arrived in Detroit, my spouse remarked that he had
stopped worrying about re-entry when he remembered that I had my name,
address, and emergency numbers pasted inside my helmet.
It's lucky for his peace of mind that he didn't mention that until
after we were back in our own country -- the address sticker had blown
out of the helmet in one the stiff head winds along Lake Erie.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Kay Shapero
jbe...@invalid.net.invalid says...
>
> It's lucky for his peace of mind that he didn't mention that until
> after we were back in our own country -- the address sticker had blown
> out of the helmet in one the stiff head winds along Lake Erie.
>
Oops... Coming back from the second Vancouver Westercon (1991) it
looked for a minute like my 5 year old daughter and I might have to stay
in Canada while my husband flew home for her birth certificate; luckily
I had a photo of her visiting the Easter Bunny in my wallet, and the
airport Canadian guards figured Vicky certainly looked and ACTED like
ours so we all got to fly back. We'd actually been warned to bring her
b.c. along; just forgot in the stress of preparing for the trip.
--
Kay Shapero
address munged, email kay at following domain
http://www.kayshapero.net
Kevin J. Maroney
Ciszek) wrote:
>It occured to me after posting that having a beard and mustache
>probably minimizes any advantage to wearing a ski mask in any case.
Trust me on this: no. The tip of the nose and much of the cheeks are
not covered by facial hair unless you have hypertrichosis.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com | www.maroney.org
Games are my entire waking life.