British Journalist deported from the US

[BOFH666]

Hi all, I apologise for posting another political thread on this board but I just read this article from the Guardian and it made me sick to my stomach. The short version: a British journalist travelled to the states with the usual visa-waiver form and was told that, according to the fine print, as a Journalist she needed a Visa to enter the country. This is a rule that's been on the books for some time but has never been enforced and there has been no formal notification that it is now active. This is far from an isolated incident.

This in and of itself wasn't what angered me, it was the disgraceful treatment of the woman during her detainment and eventual deporting. While it is not on the same cale as Abu-ghraib it is clearly a symptom of the same disease. For that matter, WHY is the American government cracking down on journalists entering their country? The only countries in the world that do so are the supposedly "evil" regimes that the US opposes. In fact reading the account of how the guards acted I can't help but think it reads more like the sort of horror story we hear of interogations under the regimes of tyrants like Saddam Hussein

Oh, and according to a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security this is as a result of 9/11. Excuse me? Why the hell are journalists now considered a threat?

Anyway, here's the article, see what you think:

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

Somewhere in central Los Angeles, about 20 miles from LAX airport, there is a nondescript building housing a detention facility for foreigners who have violated US immigration and customs laws. I was driven there around 11pm on May 3, my hands painfully handcuffed behind my back as I sat crammed in one of several small, locked cages inside a security van. I saw glimpses of night-time urban LA through the metal bars as we drove, and shadowy figures of armed security officers when we arrived, two of whom took me inside. The handcuffs came off just before I was locked in a cell behind a thick glass wall and a heavy door. No bed, no chair, only two steel benches about a foot wide. There was a toilet in full view of anyone passing by, and of the video camera watching my every move. No pillow or blanket. A permanent fluorescent light and a television in one corner of the ceiling. It stayed on all night, tuned into a shopping channel.

After 10 minutes in the hot, barely breathable air, I panicked. I don't suffer from claustrophobia, but this enclosure triggered it. There was no guard in sight and no way of calling for help. I banged on the door and the glass wall. A male security officer finally approached and gave the newly arrived detainee a disinterested look. Our shouting voices were barely audible through the thick door. "What do you want?" he yelled. I said I didn't feel well. He walked away. I forced myself to calm down. I forced myself to use that toilet. I figured out a way of sleeping on the bench, on my side, for five minutes at a time, until the pain became unbearable, then resting in a sitting position and sleeping for another five minutes. I told myself it was for only one night.

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

Since September 11 2001, any traveller to the US is treated as a potential security risk. The Patriot Act, introduced 45 days after 9/11, contains a chapter on Protecting The Border, with a detailed section on Enhanced Immigration Provision, in which the paragraph on Visa Security And Integrity follows those relating to protection against terrorism. In this spirit, the immigration and naturalisation service has been placed, since March 2003, under the jurisdiction of the new department of homeland security. One of its innovations was to revive a law that had been dormant since 1952, requiring journalists to apply for a special visa, known as I-visa, when visiting the US for professional reasons. Somewhere along the way, in the process of trying to develop a foolproof system of protecting itself against genuine threats, the US has lost the ability to distinguish between friend and foe. The price this powerful country is paying for living in fear is the price of its civil liberties.

None of this had been on my mind the night before, when I boarded my United Airlines flight from Heathrow. Sitting next to an intriguingly silent young man who could have been a porn star or a well camouflaged air marshal, I spent most of the 11-hour flight daydreaming about the city where he so clearly belonged and that I had never visited. My America had always been the east coast: as tourist, resident, journalist, novelist, I had never ventured much past the New York-Boston-Washington triangle. But I was glad that this brief assignment was taking me to sunkissed LA, and I was ready to succumb to LA's laid-back charm.

The queue for passport control was short. I presented my British passport and the green visa waiver form I had signed on the plane. The immigration official began by asking the usual questions about where I was staying and why I was travelling to the US. It brought back memories of another trip there to write a series of articles about post 9/11 America for the German weekly Die Zeit. I had written about commuters who preferred the safety of train travel to flying, and about a wounded New York that had become a city of survivors. I had seen a traumatised, no longer cockily immortal America in a profound state of mourning. But it had seemed to me that its newly acknowledged vulnerability was becoming its strength: stunned by an act of war on its own soil, Americans had been shocked into a sudden hunger for information about the world beyond their borders.

"I'm here to do some interviews," I said.

"With whom?" He wrote down the names, asked what the article was about and who had commissioned it. "So you're a journalist," he said, accusingly, and for the first time I sensed that, in his eyes, this was not a good thing to be. "I have to refer this to my supervisor," he said ominously, and asked me to move to a separate, enclosed area, where I was to wait to be "processed". Other travellers came, waited and went; I was beginning to feel my jetlag and some impatience. I asked how long I'd have to wait, but received no reply. Finally, an officer said, noncommittally, "It seems that we will probably have to deport you."

I'm not sure, but I think I laughed. Deport? Me? "Why?" I asked, incredulously.

"You came here as a journalist, and you don't have a journalist's visa." I had never heard of it. He swiftly produced the visa waiver (I-94W) I had signed on the plane, and pointed to what it said in tiny print: in addition to not being a drug smuggler, a Nazi or any other sort of criminal, I had inadvertently declared that I was not entering the US as a representative of foreign media ("You may not accept unauthorised employment or attend school or represent the foreign information media during your visit under this program").

My protestations that I had not noticed this caveat, nor been alerted to it, that I had travelled to the US on many occasions, both for work and pleasure, that I had, in fact, lived there as a permanent resident and that my husband was a US citizen, as was my New York-born daughter, all fell on deaf ears. He grinned. "You don't care, do you?" I said, with controlled anger. Then I backtracked, and assumed a begging, apologetic mode. In response, he told me I would have to be "interviewed", and that a decision would then be taken by yet another superior. This sounded hopeful.

Finally, after much scurrying around by officers, I was invited into an office and asked if I needed anything before we began. I requested a glass of water, which the interrogating officer brought me himself. He was a gentle, intelligent interrogator: the interview lasted several hours and consisted of a complete appraisal of my life, past and present, personal and professional. He needed information as diverse as my parents' names, the fee I would be paid for the article I was working on, what it was about, exactly, and, again, the names of people I was coming to interview. My biography was a confusing issue - I was born in one country, had lived in many others: who was I, exactly? For US immigration, my British passport was not enough of an identity. The officer said, pointedly, "You are Russian, yet you claim to be British", an accusation based on the fact that I was born in Moscow (though I never lived there). Your governor, went my mental reply, is Austrian, yet he claims to be American. After about three hours, during which I tried hard to fight jetlag and stay alert, we had produced several pages that were supposed to provide the invisible person in charge with enough material to say yes or no to my request to be allowed entry. My interrogator asked one last obligatory question, "Do you understand?"

"Yes, I understand," I sighed, and signed the form. The instant faxed response was an official, final refusal to enter the US for not having the appropriate visa. I'd have to go back to London to apply for it.

At this moment, the absurd but almost friendly banter between these men and myself underwent a sudden transformation. Their tone hardened as they said that their "rules" demanded that they now search my luggage. Before I could approach to observe them doing this, the officer who had originally referred me to his supervisor was unzipping my suitcase and rummaging inside. For the first time, I raised my voice: "How dare you touch my private things?"

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

After my luggage search, the officer took some mugshots of me, then proceeded to fingerprint me. In the middle of this, my husband rang from London; he had somehow managed to locate my whereabouts, and I was allowed briefly to wipe the ink off my hands to take the call. Hearing his voice was a reminder of the real world I was beginning to feel cut off from.

Three female officers arrived to do a body search. As they slipped on rubber gloves, I blenched: what were they going to do, and could I resist? They were armed, they claimed to have the law on their side. I was an anonymous foreigner who had committed a felony, and "those were the rules". So I was groped, unpleasantly, though not as intimately as I had feared. Then came the next shock: two bulky, uniformed and armed security men handcuffed me, which they explained was the "rule when transporting detainees through the airport". I was marched between the two giants through an empty terminal to a detention room, where I sat in the company of two other detainees (we were not allowed to communicate) and eight sleepy guards, all men. I would have been happy to spend the night watching TV with them, as they agreed to switch the channel from local news (highlight: a bear was loose in an affluent LA neighbourhood) to sitcoms and soaps. Their job was indescribably boring, they were overstaffed with nothing to do, and so making sure I didn't extract a pen or my mobile phone from my luggage must have seemed a welcome break. I listened to their star-struck stories about actors they had recently seen at LAX. We laughed in the same places during Seinfeld, an eerie experience. I was beginning to think I could manage this: the trip was a write-off, of course, but I could easily survive a night and a day of this kind of discomfort before flying back. But then I was taken to the detention cell in downtown LA, where the discomfort became something worse.

Though my experience was far removed from the images of real torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, it was also, as one American friend put it, "conceptually related", at distant ends of the same continuum and dictated by a disregard for the humanity of those deemed "in the wrong". American bloggers and journalists would later see my experience as reflecting the current malaise in the country. Dennis Roddy wrote in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Our enemies are now more important to us than our friends ... Much of the obsession with homeland security seems to turn on the idea of the world infecting the US."

On a more practical level, this obsession, when practised with such extreme lack of intelligence (in both senses of the word), as in the case of my detention, must be misdirecting valuable money and manpower into fighting journalism rather than terrorism. Ordinary Americans, rather than the powers that be, are certainly able to make that distinction. According to an editor at the LA Times, there has been a "tremendous" response from readers to the reporting on my case, and I have received many emails expressing outrage and embarrassment. The novelist Jonathan Franzen wrote, "On behalf of the non-thuggish American majority, my sincere apologies."

These would have been comforting thoughts the following morning when I was driven back (in handcuffs, of course) to the communal detention room at LAX, and spent hours waiting, without food, while the guards munched enormous breakfasts and slurped hot morning drinks (detainees are not allowed tea or coffee). I incurred the wrath of the boss when I insisted on edible food. "I'm in charge in here. Do you know who you are? Do you know where you are? This isn't a hotel," he screamed.

"Why are you yelling?" I asked. "I'm just asking for some decent food. I'll pay for it myself." A Burger King fishburger never tasted so good. And it occurred to me that a hotel or transit lounge would have been a better place to keep travellers waiting to return home.

As documented by Reporters Without Borders and by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (Asne) in letters to Colin Powell and Tom Ridge, cases such as mine are part of a systemic policy of harassing media representatives from 27 friendly countries whose citizens - not journalists! - can travel to the US without a visa, for 90 days. According to Asne, this policy "could lead to a degradation of the atmosphere of mutual trust that has traditionally been extended professional journalists in these nations". Asne requested that the state department put pressure on customs and immigration to "repair the injustice that has been visited upon our colleagues". Someone must have listened, because the press office at the department of homeland security recently issued a memo announcing that, although the I-visa is still needed (and I've just received mine), new guidelines now give the "Port Directors leeway when it comes to allowing journalists to enter the US who are clearly no threat to our security". Well, fine, but doesn't that imply some journalists are a threat?

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

[red indian]

.........from the same country who refuse to return I.R.A. suspects to the U.K. on the grounds that their "human rights" would be infringed if they were returned to the U.K. The message being terrorism is ok as long as its not happening in the U.S.

[kis123]

Funny how I haven't seen this in my local newspaper, or on television media. Another example of our rights being taken away behind our backs while we fear the big bad terrorist threat.:sowrong:

[Jimblast]

It's because she was a Liberal. LOL! JUUUUST KIDDING! :devil:

[a1532b]

That's disgusting! It makes me embarrased to be american when I read things like that...

[Haltickling]

While this incident was certainly a nightmare for the journalist, I can't help to throw in a few grains of salt:

In my job as a travel agent, I've had a lot of experience with journalists, as well as with security/police/immigration staff. Those two groups don't mix very well. Journalists hate nothing more than burocratic, self-important officials, and the officials hate nothing more than boisterous, snotty journalists. I can well imagine the tone of their "conversation"... It's a bad idea to be snotty or arrogant towards a police officer, anywhere in this world. It's an even worse idea to threaten them with the press. So I may be allowed to think that part of this journalist's predicament was self-influenced.

That doesn't mean that this way of treatment was right. Especially since 9/11, the US policy has become much more xenophobic. One Arabian stamp in your passport, and you could end up in hours of interrogation with immigration.

Additionally, they put the hurdle for ALL travelers much higher. Frome October 2004 on, the visa waiver program will only apply to computer-readable passports. Especially in Britain and Italy, many people still hold their national passports which are not computer-coded. All these people will have to apply for a visa. They will have to travel to their country's capital to apply at the US embassy personally, as the US consulates have stopped to accept all visa issues after 9/11. I'm afraid that the US will lose a lot of tourists. Another hurdle: All airlines will have to submit their entire data (whether US-related or not) to the FBI. That means that the FBI will check all Lufthansa or British airways passengers, even on domestic flights. "Anytime you fly, you fly with FBI", so to say...

Much of this whole visa waiver scheme is a joke anyway. People have to fill in lots of completely harebrained questions: "Do you plan to commit a crime in the USA?" - "Do you plan to buy/sell/consume illegal drugs or weapons in USA?" and so on. It's simply a ridiculous waste of paper and manpower.

[Jimblast]

Keep the b*tch out! If she wants to get in so badly....tell her to sit in a hot van and cross the border with 40 other Mexicans sitting in the same hot van...or swim across! I don't see what the big deal is....we don't need the Brits....they need us! First they rag on our country...then they want to come in here? What? Get 'em out....it's almost the 4th of July...if they wanna start somethin', bring it on! Americans aren't clamoring to go to London....it's way overpriced and they can't stand dentists! Wow...that got me worked up....anyone have a crumpet? LOL! HEEEY....I'M JOKING....don't get so worked up! The British are fun to beat up on! At least they aren't the French! Friggin' Frogs....nuke 'em. Hey BOF...how many words was that?! :devil:

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by a1532b
That's disgusting! It makes me embarrassed to be american when I read things like that...
I love my country, but I'm ashamed of the administration. :sowrong:

~Rose~

[kis123]

Originally posted by Roseblossom
I love my country, but I'm ashamed of the administration. :sowrong:

~Rose~

rose;

You have a knack for saying things with such simplicity that it's almost scary. I want to be like you when I grow up.:D ;)

[Ghost2004]

Seriously tho, even tho I DO love the US as my natal country, times like these I am glad I don;t live there and pity those like my parents who do.

All we can hope for is change come November


Ghostie

[the_Baron]

oh just wait till the Ghosts of McCarthey bring all you nay sayers to the congressional floor, and then blacklist you from participation in tickle forums.


Long Live King George!

[Jimblast]

...and I commend them. As mentioned in this Forum many times....ANYONE can be a terrorist. She's a journalist...fine print or not it was her or her organization's responisbility to know the laws in a post 9/11 era. How ironic that with the hardest free borders in the world to protect, a few terrorists waltz in (amongst millions of travelers annually) to an airport and of course 9/11 results. First these journalists do stories on how unsecure are airports are (which I think is a good thing for them to do) but then we turn around and hear this...gee....let's have another 911 Commission to sort this out. This shows why liberals just love to complain....airports aren't secure enough but hey...if I'm detained because I broke the rules, THEY'RE THE GISTAPO! LOL! There's no winning with you people. The people who run security at LAX were doing their job. Her people at her newspaper who supposedly should be EXPERTS at making travel arrangements didn't. She ought to report on how her organization failed to know the laws and how incompetent they were. I would like to know what this woman looked like. If she were caucasion with blonde hair and blue eyes and they did this...you liberals should be happy! THEY WEREN'T GUILTY OF RACIAL PROFILING! Thank God Bush will win in November...with you liberals, there's no winning whatsoever! I'm happy to know that they are cracking down. Awwwww....the POOOOOR JOURNALIST had handcuffs on and wanted decent food! The MORON or her IDIOTIC NEWSPAPER didn't read the fine print...came to this country, didn't abide by the rules and was detained! IN MOST THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES SHE'D BE IN SOME HORRIBLE PRISON OR WORSE!! And then there are those that say how horrible the administration is for that? I have a great idea....if you're a jounalist from another country and we just treat you soooo badly....STAY HOME! Sorry BOF....this thread isn't even worth printing....bigger issues out there....this goes beyone political, it's nitpicking! I'm actually glad you did print it though....it is proof positive that you Bush Haters will find the smallest thing and make a big issue out of it. Pitiful...OF COURSE in a situation like this small things will fall through the cracks. GET OVER IT! There are bigger fish to fry in the world. I wonder how she would have been treated in North Korea? Hmmmmm......you people are nothing but a bunch of crybabies. Now go do something with your lives! GEEEEEZ!

:sowrong:

[kis123]

Jimblast;

Normally I find your posts intelligent and interesting. But, I have to ask you something about your last post:

Have you been smoking something??????????:confused:

Your stance is very over the top to say the least. I bet you really think what happened is okay since she wasn't American, right? I am sure you are familiar with the concept of putting yourself in someone else's shoes. Would you want this happening to you? And don't be so naive to believe that just because you're an American citizen, that this couldn't be you someday! Do you know that there are people in immigration prisions right now just because.....
no reason in specific, just because they carry a certain last name or look a certain way. I'd certainly call that racial profiling. It'll only be a matter of time when Americans get the same treatment. Then will you still be able to say the same imflammatory commentary in your previous post.

I'm sure Bush will win just like you desire. He is your President, not mine. He's done nothing that I can benefit from. The economy isn't growing like he said. Only people that have been previously laid off are returning to work. I've seen no new jobs created that someone can raise a family from. We're still downsizing, outsourcing, and cost-cutting to make rich corporations richer. When your President effectively deals with those and the many other DOMESTIC issues he's ignored, I'll back him up on the foreign affairs ones.

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by kis123
rose;
You have a knack for saying things with such simplicity that it's almost scary. I want to be like you when I grow up.:D ;)
Kis, your kind words put such a smile on my face! And you, too, Ghostie.

I love seeing that there are plenty of folks out there who know right from wrong, and say it loud.

~Rose~

[Cosmo_ac]

It's interesting how in some ways America has become such an embberassment to itself, and even funnier ways how some people who post are an even greater emberassment to it.

[kis123]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
It's interesting how in some ways America has become such an embberassment to itself, and even funnier ways how some people who post are an even greater emberassment to it.

I'm going to stick my neck out on this one........

Do you care to elaborate on this statement? I'm really curious to hear exactly what you are talking about.

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
It's interesting how in some ways America has become such an embarrassment to itself, and even funnier how some people who post are an even greater embarrassment to it.
Yep :p

No need to even respond to them - they do such a great job of making fools of themselves, all by themselves. Nuff said, eh?

[Cosmo_ac]

Don't worry Kis, that post wasn't aimed at you. And i think if you look at some of the other posts, you'll understand what i mean.

[Jimblast]

that you spelled that word in that manner. Spelling and reading are good things, try them sometime.....clean that up...will ya? How did you spell it? 'emberressment'? What is that?

Kis! I'm not exactly sure why you think I'm only aiming this at folks traveling from other countries. Then again, (maybe because our British friends in here hate the United States so much while twisting off about how great their country is and I love the fact that the journalist was from England has NOTHING to do with it!). LOL...NOT! Sorry, I had to needle 'em. I don't care where you are from, you follow the rules in this situation. I nearly hurled when that POOOOOOOR woman never thought a fish sandwich from Burger King tasted so good! Awwwwwwww! I think I had a tear flowing down my cheek...and where are the violins playing? What bothered me was that this reporter was ragging our security for something that was essentially her fault! It has nothing to do with whether or not she is American or from any other country. Maybe she misses Saddaam (Sorry Cosmo....check that spelling for Saddaam will you...then again don't, I really don't care if I spell that criminal's name wrong!) entertaining the press with lavish parties and putting them up in palaces while they tried to put a spin on how wonderful he was. I'm sure because he treated them so well he was a wonderful human being. The point you're missing is you're damned if you do, damned if you don't with the liberals. Many tens of thousands of journalists from other countries travel to this country. I'm sure this is an isolated incident. The vast majority are treated more than fairly here. If it's a problem, we fix it. I'm tired of it and so is most of America. And Kis....I'm waiting to see Cosmo's elaboration as well. I wonder if he can spell it correctly! LOL! :devil:

[Cosmo_ac]

Jim, I think I’ve explained myself well enough, though I’m not surprised if it flies over your head. And lets face it Jim, it's very much so because she's not from America. However, if you can find a case with an American citizen, who is white and not Muslim, who went through something like this, I’d be interested in seeing it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/12/06/international1423EST0548.DTL

[Knox The Hatter]

Most broadcast and print journalists think they're above the law and the equal of God anyway, and boy, do they complain when it's proven otherwise. They claim that they're doing it all to enlighten you, and then call you names when you don't agree with the spin they're putting out. Journalists are a necessary evil...I despise them anyway.
Doesn't excuse the way she was treated though. Totally unprofessional. Just like this inept, incompetent, xenophobic, moronic administration.

[evilqueen]

and enjoy accounts of their directives gone awry, I must question the authenticity of Elena Lappin's article, since a suspiciously similar incident happened to an Australian journalist late last year.

The journalist, Sue Smethurst, flew to LAX on November 14, 2003 to conduct an interview with Olivia Newton-John. She did not have her journalist's visa. She was detained, fingerprinted, interrogated, strip-searched, denied hot nourishment, and watched her guards gorge themselves on a meal while she sat hungry. All these details are remarkably similar to the ones in the Guardian article. In Smethhurst's case, she was accused of causing a disturbance, then handcuffed and escorted onto a plane back home. Not having the benefit of an arrest to verify her story, Lappin sexes up her story with references to her Russian background, sure to get heads nodding as readers reflect on Americans' well-known phobia for all things Russky.

Google Sue Smethurst's name and you will find many links to articles about her mistreatment at LAX. What you will not find are any signs that it was written up in the Guardian, an excellent source for news that is often not reported in the U.S. but as likely as any to be the victim of plagiarism, which I believe is the case here.

I find it hard to believe that Elena Lappin would be unaware of such mistreatment of a fellow journalist to the extent that she would fly to LAX without her journalist's visa and place herself at risk for so similar an incident. If these events really have happened to two different journalists, then apparently LAX security has a veritable assembly line of thugs waiting to bully unsuspecting female reporters.

While I have no doubt that these events took place, I strongly doubt they involved the journalist quoted here.

[Jimblast]

I think EvilQueen is onto something here. The best way to check whether or not this is myth or legend is to go to Snopes.com and key in these people's names! Cosmo....don't be ridiculous. I think my post is over YOUR head....reread it...reading's a good thing! Of course Americans themselves have been subjected to treatments like this! I was with my business partner and he was strip searched at JFK after they found a blow torch lighter on him that he tried to sneak through. He missed the flight because he was held for hours. I told him he was a moron for trying to sneak that lighter on board. He totally looks American. It isn't about other countries. I've randomly had my bags searched in airports and I'm GLAD they're doing it! Supposing you got on a jetliner and terrorists stood up possibly using a shoe bomb or whatnot, looked Middle Eastern, and began to highjack your plane in mid flight? Wouldn't it cross your mind that MAYBE the airport security should have checked that guy out more carefully? Have you seen the photos of the idiot who tried unsuccessfully to light his shoe bomb in mid flight? WHY DIDN'T THEY PROFILE HIM and check him out? Not only did that guy look Middle Eastern....her LOOKED LIKE A CRAZY PERSON! LOL! Sorry Cosmo...but flat out you are dilusional if you don't think what they are doing is right. I'm picturing you on a highjacked flight....what...would you be saying...'Ooooh you pooor terrorist! We FEEL your pain! We deserve to be blown to bits! We're so sorry!'. GIVE ME A BREAK and WAKE UP PAL! I travel waaay too much and hope to high heaven (sorry I used that term for all you secularists out there) that they checked ALL of us out as thoroughly as possible. What that woman went through is a mere invconvenience. And yes, most of these journalists are from the elite media anyway...I don't feel sorry for her in this situation at all. Feed her another Fish Sandwich and send her the hell back! She probably made this whole thing up anyway! I'm going to check out what Evil Queen has said. Even if it IS true....WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? Those of you who live in another country and 'dis our policies....STAY OUT! We don't NEED you! Jeeeeez! 'Over your head, Jim..' WHATEVER! LOL! :sowrong:

[BOFH666]

Jimblast, before you insult others maybe you should re-read what was written. I said at the top of the first post, it wasn't her being refussed entry, but her treatment by the imigration officials that I found to be appaling. Why treat her this way at all? Also, it has NOTHING to do with her not being American. British citizens are allowed to enter the US for a period of up to 90 days without a Visa. She didn't have any banned materials on her, she'd filled out all the paperwork she usually did and she got thrown out for being a journalist. That was it, that was the extent of her "crime". She wasn't even there to cover a political story. So why does America now want to prevent journalists from entering the country without prior approval?

Oh, and please try and keep a civil tongue. Everyone else seems to be capable of discussing this topic politley, please try and return the favour.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by evilqueen
and enjoy accounts of their directives gone awry, I must question the authenticity of Elena Lappin's article, since a suspiciously similar incident happened to an Australian journalist late last year.

The journalist, Sue Smethurst, flew to LAX on November 14, 2003 to conduct an interview with Olivia Newton-John. She did not have her journalist's visa. She was detained, fingerprinted, interrogated, strip-searched, denied hot nourishment, and watched her guards gorge themselves on a meal while she sat hungry. All these details are remarkably similar to the ones in the Guardian article. In Smethhurst's case, she was accused of causing a disturbance, then handcuffed and escorted onto a plane back home. Not having the benefit of an arrest to verify her story, Lappin sexes up her story with references to her Russian background, sure to get heads nodding as readers reflect on Americans' well-known phobia for all things Russky.

Google Sue Smethurst's name and you will find many links to articles about her mistreatment at LAX. What you will not find are any signs that it was written up in the Guardian, an excellent source for news that is often not reported in the U.S. but as likely as any to be the victim of plagiarism, which I believe is the case here.

I find it hard to believe that Elena Lappin would be unaware of such mistreatment of a fellow journalist to the extent that she would fly to LAX without her journalist's visa and place herself at risk for so similar an incident. If these events really have happened to two different journalists, then apparently LAX security has a veritable assembly line of thugs waiting to bully unsuspecting female reporters.

While I have no doubt that these events took place, I strongly doubt they involved the journalist quoted here.

While I can't of course guarantee the accuracy of this report, Elena Lappin is far from the only one to have reported such treatment.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/15/foreign_reporters/

June 15, 2004 | The Department of Homeland Security has started enforcing an obscure provision in immigration law requiring foreign journalists to seek special visas before entering the United States, even though their nonreporting countrymen can enter without any visa at all. Last year, at least 13 foreign journalists were detained and deported at U.S. airports -- most in Los Angeles -- according to the advocacy group Reporters Without Borders. At least one more journalist was similarly turned away this year after being detained, interrogated and strip-searched.

Why does the "land of the free" need to specially monitor and control the flow of incoming journalists? "Considering the fact that the United States has never licensed journalists, that in the United States anyone can be a journalist and that because most countries that require special visas for journalists tend to be totalitarian states, I think it's kind of stupid," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Under the Visa Waiver Program, citizens of 27 countries -- predominately from Western Europe -- can visit the U.S. for up to 90 days without first getting a visa. Among the questionable characters ineligible for visa waiver are convicted criminals, people with communicable diseases, suspected terrorists, slave traders -- and reporters. However, according to journalist advocacy groups, the law lay dormant until March 2003 when the Department of Homeland Security formally incorporated the Immigration and Naturalization Service and suddenly began enforcing it. (A spokesman for DHS said that while he could not cite specific cases, he did recall it having come up in the past.)

"It's really a slap in the face to the entire industry," said Kevin Goldberg, an attorney for the American Society of Newspaper Editors. "Not to mention the treatment of these people who have come here -- not just deported but really seized at the airport and violated at the airport. These are journalists, not terrorists, suspected terrorists. Their only weapon is their pen."

The most recent incident occurred in early May when Elena Lappin, a British freelance journalist traveling to Los Angeles to work on a story for the Guardian of London, was detained, questioned, strip-searched, handcuffed and taken to a downtown holding facility for the night. Twenty-six hours after arriving, she was put back on a plane to England. Instead of writing the article she planned, she gave the Guardian 2,400 words on her Kafkaesque encounter.

Lappin's case is not isolated. In 2003, 12 journalists were detained at and deported from LAX. Last March, a Danish photographer had DNA samples taken before he was deported. That same month, a Swedish reporter was turned away at a Washington airport, where he was photographed and fingerprinted, and not allowed to call his embassy. Last May, six French reporters in two groups were detained at LAX; they were on assignment to cover a video-game trade fair. All were deported, the first three "after being repeatedly questioned and body-searched six times," according to Reporters Without Borders. Similar fates awaited a Swedish freelancer in May, a pair of Dutch reporters that same month trying to cover an awards ceremony for world film stunt champions, a British reporter in October and an Austrian in December. In many of the cases, the reporters were treated like criminals: handcuffed and taken to prison holding facilities where some were not allowed to sleep.

According to Bill Strassberger, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, detention and handcuffing of journalists is simply the product of following regulations. Once someone is rejected, the airline that brought them is required to return them, and in some cases flights are not available for 24 hours. "If they have to be transported to another location, then procedure requires that they be restrained," Strassberger said. "It's unfortunate because I know every time you hear about one of those things you cringe, but you do have that concern for officer safety."

Strassberger denied that the law requiring special journalist visas -- called "I visas" -- had lain dormant, but nevertheless acknowledged that it is being more vigorously enforced, because, he said, "quite honestly, 9/11. It goes back to after the terrorist attack, the inspections process, the inspectors, the customs and border protection officers are just being a little more thorough, a little more careful about who's coming in."

Reporters Without Borders, the American Society of Newspaper Editors, and the International Press Institute have all raised a hue and cry, which prompted U.S. Customs and Border Protection commissioner Robert C. Bonner to issue an advisory on May 20 allowing individual immigration officials to let "nonthreatening" reporters into the country without a visa -- once. "We are an open society and we want people to feel welcome here," Bonner said, apparently without any irony

But as Goldberg, ASNE's lawyer, pointed out, the underlying problems remain unsolved. What happens if a foreign reporter who's had his or her one waiver needs to get into the U.S. to cover a breaking news event, like a real terrorist attack? "Another problem is that it opens the door to content review," Goldberg said. Added Dalglish: "Once you start putting an immigration officer at an airport in charge of who in the world is entitled to be a journalist and who isn't, that's on the path to defining who's an American journalist."

The other unanswered question is: Whose idea was it to crack down on the supposed menace of invading foreign media hordes. "The Bush administration doesn't like the press?" Goldberg asked rhetorically. "That's the best I can come up with, frankly. They've been reluctant for almost four years now to give information out to the press. They don't deal with the press on a level playing field. They've made life hard on other civil liberties. I can't imagine them bending over backward to help the press."


I'd say that put pretty good odds on the story being true. Also, as you said, the Guardian isn't a tabloid paper and it's rare it publishes something like this without checking its sources first.

[drew70]

Originally posted by BOFH666, aimed at Jimblast
...Oh, and please try and keep a civil tongue. Everyone else seems to be capable of discussing this topic politley, please try and return the favour. Yes, everyone is so civil..."...Just like this inept, incompetent, xenophobic, moronic administration...""...Have you been smoking something??????????..."..."No need to even respond to them - they do such a great job of making fools of themselves..."Oh yes, this thread is virtually drowning in civility. :blaugh:

[BOFH666]

First quote - directed against the administration which, as far as I know, has no login account on these forums.

Second and Third quote - direct responses to Jimblast's usual bashing after not one, not two but three posts.

Normally I wouldn't say anything about this, but all I've seen for the last week from Jimblast is posts that attack and insult others. There's a good discussion going on here, and I welcome his views on it, but I do NOT want it to devolve into a flame war and for the point of the thread to be lost.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Jimblast
I think EvilQueen is onto something here. The best way to check whether or not this is myth or legend is to go to Snopes.com and key in these people's names!

This isn't what Evil Queen is saying. All she's saying is that this report is very close to what happened to an Austrailian journalist last year and is questioning whether this account is accurate or not. The fact remains that, even if it is fake, which I doubt as it's not an isolated incident, it DID happen to a journalist, just an Austrailian journalist instead of a British one.

Originally posted by evilqueen
While I have no doubt that these events took place, I strongly doubt they involved the journalist quoted here.


See?

[drew70]

This may seem a bit cruel, but I'm glad this happened. Journalists have long held the upper hand, the pen being mightier and all that. It's nice to see some of them brought down to earth for a change. Thanks for the encouraging news, BOFFER!

[Jimblast]

That some of those quotes alluding to how 'civil' this thread is were posted. BOF....I don't need you in your condescending manner explaining to me how to conduct myself in any way shape or form in terms of posting in 'your' thread here. You're posting a thread of which you yourself mention you cannot guaranty accuracy. Additionally, you're missing my point. Your obsessive ranting and raving over how horribly America treats journalists is pitiful. We know you dislike our country so why not just admit it and be done with it? I believe I'd have more respect for you if you actually made that omission. I have read more than my share of individual's bashing not only this administration but also this country. I'm okay with those that live here doing it, but someone not living here yet reaping the benefit of a free speech forum by trying to be heard is well...quite outrageous. We treat foreign jounalists as well as anyone anywhere else in the world. In case you forgot, we were attacked by terrorists in a very big way. Yes, it will cause change and has. I really don't see a mass exodus from America to other countries, BOF. In fact, people are fighting and clawing from other parts of the world to get inside of our borders and take their shot at living the American Dream. A lot of people fought and died to preserve that dream. It's a shame that you cannot recognize that! As I've suggested before, focus on your own country. You all have plenty of problems to fix over there. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans really just don't care how your journalists are treated. Pretty much we know the overwhelming majority are treated quite well, thank you. Your country needs our country far more than we need yours. If I'm in a situation where I'm dependent on someone else as your country is on ours (and hopefully I'm never in that situation), I just don't think I would rag our country as you do. These little threads you put in here always have a connotation of how 'horrible' the U.S. is. Well I happen to think at this time, it's the greatest country to live in on earth and resent your negativity. I've been to many countries throughout the world, and one really appreciates this country once they see what other countries are like. There are many things we take for granted here that so many countries just don't have. So yes, I'm calling you on it and I'm sure others will as well. I'm watching and reading a number of people sit idly by as you verbally assault how we do things and have the audacity to agree with you. Sorry pal, I'm not of that nature. I've fought for this country and watched friends get maimed and die in the name of freedom. Yes, we make mistakes, but all in all, this is a great country and certainly if you wish to compare accomplishments from the era of when we were founded vs. what England has done it might make you understand why I just don't put a lot of stock in your feeble attempts at taking pot shots at us. And yes BOF, this post is directed at you in case you might be wondering.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by drew70
This may seem a bit cruel, but I'm glad this happened. Journalists have long held the upper hand, the pen being mightier and all that. It's nice to see some of them brought down to earth for a change. Thanks for the encouraging news, BOFFER!

Isn't that a bit stereotypical though Drew? I mean, mention "journalist" and the first image that springs to MY mind is the greasy haired, slick backed, £5 suited, gutter-trawling snotrag of a writer who lives only to dig dirt and invent it out of the air when it can't be found. But not all journalists are like that, any more than all politicians are thieving, on the take, self-serving gits. There's plenty of Sun and Star and Daily Mirror reporters I'd like to see this happen to, but the three or four I've heard of being given the Charles Manson Treatment in the US seemed to be more reputable.

[BOFH666]

I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to this, it doesn't matter what I say when minds have already been made up, but I might as well put this clearly for anyone who wants to read it.

I like America. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I love America. Or at least, I love the principles and ideas that America represents. For me, and I think every post I've ever made on here about a serious issue reflects this, there is nothing more sacred than the concept expressed by this simple line:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"

Free speech, a free press, the freedom to practice religion as you wish, the ideal of "Liberty and Justice for all", I want nothing more than for such a country to trully exist. While, of course, NO country can live up to these lofty goals America was making a damn good effort at it. I was considering for a number of years moving over there once my student debts were paid off, but I am deeply concerned about what America is becoming, or threatens to become, if events continue as they are now.

I do not dislike (or hate) America, the Democrats, the Repbulicans or any other political party for that matter. I do not dislike (or hate) the people or the culture, in fact most Americans I know are kind hearted and friendly people. I do however dislike the current government because it has commited what, to my mind, is the worst crime a government can do against its own people short of outright persecution. It has lied to them, repeatedly, to justify and enhance its own agenda but even for that I do not "hate" them. I would never wish for a repeat of Novemeber 22nd 1963 for example. However that sentiment, that a democratically elected government should not lie to its own people, is the same reason I criticise my own country as our current Labour government has done exactly the same thing.

I criticise policy, not because I "dislike America", but because I want to see it regain its moral and ethical centre in the world. I want America to take the lead not just in military terms but in terms of morality, compasion and tolerance. I want, more than anything else, everyone to be able to live in a world guided by that one simple principle of "freedom and justice for all" and it breaks my heart to see what American foreign policy (and indeed, internal policy) is doing to that principle. While I might not have agreed with all his actions, Clinton somehow managed this balancing act of moral authority with military might.So did Bush Senior, and so did Reagan (with the possible exception of Central America). Since Vietnam the US has worked hard to build up that moral authority and now.... well, that's for a different debate.

As for my posts on this board, I've said before that I don't object to anyone based on what political party you support, or what your personal beliefs are or any other opinion you may hold. They are your beliefs and you are entitled to them, as I am to mine. However I also believe it is the duty of every citizen, and in fact everyone who is affected by a particular issue, citizen or no, to ask questions of those in power, to hold them to task for the decisions they make. Whatever decision you make, whatever opinions you hold should always be backed up by a reason. If you wish to live in a free society it is your right, your duty and your obligation to ensure the government is accountable for its actions and that those actions are justified. "By the people, and for the people" does not mean ticking a ballot slip ever four years.

I freely admit most of what I post here takes the, for lack of a better description, Democrat point of view. However the bulk of what I post is presenting data and facts to attempt to add detail to a debate and allow those reading it to make up their own minds on whatever the truth of the matter might be. If there is one call I keep making, in virtually every post I make of that sort, it is for those on the "other side" of the debate to respond in kind. I want to be proved wrong, I want to see the data, the evidence, to prove what was originally said was accurate. In most cases though it doesn't appear for whatever reason. The reason that my arguments tend to be more on the Democrat side than the Republican is that, and I know I'm generalizing here, the "Democrat" arguments are already well represented by those that make them, and are backed up with facts. There simply isn't usually any glaring omission that gives cause to go and research the subject for myself. This I have no problem with and any "Republican" posts that do the same I tend to absorb what's said and stay out of the discussion. Sadly, and I know this is another generalzation, on the political debates the right wing point of view tends to be expressed in terms of "I'm right, because I said so" which is something that will cause me to research a topic for myself in order to find out the facts. Recently at least it's been very hard to discover any facts that support that point of view, which is why I always ask for the original poster to provide them as my natural asumption is I didn't find the data they were using rather than such data doesn't exist.

Now as for my personal opinions, I've said this before as well, but my views are a mix of policies from both the left and the right sides of the political spectrum. I hold no allegance to a specific party, but will make my own mind up on the issue based on the evidence I can find and vote accordingly.

As for "attacking" other countries, I suggest you take a look at your own posts for that. I have never said "America is horrible" or any blanket expression of the sort. Again, if you read what I oringialy posted, while I don't understand why journalists are suddenly on a list that included convicted criminals in requiring Visa permits and will question that policy, it was the treatment of this woman while in custody that sickened me. There are echoes here of the same abuses that took place in Abu Ghraib and that have been reported in the police service as well. THAT is what worries me not the policy itself, what is the underlying reason that officials in places of public trust would abuse their power like this so easily? And of course I cannot guarantee the accuracy of any opinion piece, article or research document that I have not written myself, and where the supporting evidence has not been created by me from scratch. That is simply common sense, and if you're going to insist on a 100% guarantee that what you hear and read is accurate then you might as well get used to the sound of your own voice because you will never believe anything else. In this case I believe the report to be accurate, although obviously you have to take into account the fact that the writer is going to paint the bleakest picture she can, that those publishing it have a sufficient record to make it credible and that there is suffecient evidence of simillar cases to support the claim. Most importantly there has been no denial of this claim which lends it credibility. This to me puts it into the upper percentiles when it comes to evaluating the reliability of the source.

As for the comments quoted, again I'd point out that these only came after you started attacking others. I've seen you do this before and didn't want the thread to devolve into a flame war. Again it was a polite request based on past evidence to treat others with some common courtesy, not an attack. Why did I refer to you specificaly? Because you were the first to do so, nothing more or less than that.

One thing I would say, despite what you may think, I've always tried to be nothing but respectful of others here no matter what they've said or how much provication they've thrown out. While I don't claim to always manage that I think my record's pretty good in that regard. I have gone out of my way to be polite, to present information in whatever way was requested, to research information that I've been asked for and to defend my own opinions (and indeed it seems my right to hold those opinions) all the while ignoring as best I can a seemingly never-ending wave of insults and, in some cases, outright attacks and I think it's a shame that courtesy is not returned.

[Cosmo_ac]

So jim...you friend was held for a couple of hours and missed his plane, because he tried to sneak a lighter on board. Much different then what happened to the reporter. So, please, post an article, showing something like this happening to a white, non-Muslim American, in America. It would be nice if you could do that. It would also be nice if you could actually back up any of the things you say, but perhaps that’s expecting too much.

[BOFH666]

One thing I forgot to mention regarding my posting habbits on these boards. Yes the majority of posts are based on American stories but, as Jim said, this is an American-orientated board, albeit with an international membership and is one of the few places I've come across with so many diverse opinions gathered in one place.

Now I'll quite happily post on UK issues here, I spent the better part of an hour putting together a post on the recent UK local elections and the hammering the current Government recieved for example then decided against posting it. Why? Because the background work to understand what was going on was considerable and there are few on here who would want to do that work as that is, after all, a British issue. And there's the problem, if we post British issues on here it will have a very limited audience while issues such as this raise questions that affect everyone here to a greater or lesser degree and (hopefully) stimulate debate.

Also, to imply that anyone other than Americans are not qualified to speak on these sorts of issues is, logically speaking, back to front. If you are an American citizen your view will be clouded, however unintentionaly, by your own political and social view. When you wish for an impartial view on any subject you turn to a neutral party as they are more likely to base their case on the facts to hand rather than gut feeling.

[kis123]

Originally posted by drew70
Yes, everyone is so civil...Oh yes, this thread is virtually drowning in civility. :blaugh:

Oh, come on Drew!

My commnent about "Are you smoking something" was completely civil compared to the name calling and mud slinging that is very commonplace on this board. Don't start splitting hairs. Besides, Jim's post was particularly harsh even from his regular patterns. We have the right to express ourselves in a manner that is respectful. If my comment was that offensive to you, I apologize.

[Haltickling]

It's sad that people like BOFH who never uses offensive language gets at the center of hate-posts, just for mentioning a different opinion than some people here, and backing his posts with facts.

To me, one pattern seems clearly visible behind that behavior: Many conservative people prefer to run through their lives with blinders and a closed mind. That matches my own experience from thousands of personal debates. Whenever some non-conservative opinion comes up and they can't find any good counter-argument, they resort to name-calling or other personal attacks.

Mind you, that doesn't mean that all conservatives act like that. It just means whenever I encounter that behavior in real life, it seems to come from fanatical conservatives. They don't want to hear about different views or different angles, reminding me of kindergarten arguments when the kids stick fingers in their ears and loudly sing "la-la" whenever they don't want to listen.

Listening obviously is less popular in certain conservative circles, especially in difficult times. That brings us back to journalists, who live on people who are listening (or reading, as an equivalent). And that may be a reason why journalists derserve a "special treatment" in the opinion of some people... :rolleyes:

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Haltickling

To me, one pattern seems clearly visible behind that behavior: Many conservative people prefer to run through their lives with blinders and a closed mind. That matches my own experience from thousands of personal debates. Whenever some non-conservative opinion comes up and they can't find any good counter-argument, they resort to name-calling or other personal attacks.

Mind you, that doesn't mean that all conservatives act like that. It just means whenever I encounter that behavior in real life, it seems to come from fanatical conservatives. They don't want to hear about different views or different angles, reminding me of kindergarten arguments when the kids stick fingers in their ears and loudly sing "la-la" whenever they don't want to listen.


To be fair, that's hardly a conservative monopoly, the far left can be just the same way.

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by BOFH666
To be fair, that's hardly a conservative monopoly, the far left can be just the same way.
In my experience, the far left will argue till you're blue in the face, making you look like a close-minded conservative... :p

[BOFH666]

LOL, different tactics maybe, but the same basic principle: Argue or yell until you decide it ain't worth the fight anymore.

[Jimblast]

Hmmmm....so the ONLY people ever stopped randomly in any American Airport are Muslim and non white? When was the last time you traveled in the U.S.? Many people randomly have their bags checked at every major airport that are white, black, hispanic, asian, you name it. I'm as white as one can be and I've been randomly checked. My friend that tried to sneak the lighter on board was randomly checked. That's how they nailed him! Again, here's another person who complains about our policies concerning security after 9/11 and but absolutely will NOT come up with a viable solution. It's amazing! Minimally, BOF has at least attempted to come up with solutions, I may not agree with them, but he tried. In your case, as much as you state that I don't come up with any facts, I would have to say you don't come up with any solutions. So I'm curious, are you wanting to keep our security the same as it was leading up to 9/11? I absolutely feel that we should profile people whose ethnicity originates from the Middle East. By the way, since that day, how many terrorists attacks have been thwarted because of these policies? How many major attacks have happened on American soil since 9/11? I think it is idiotic NOT to impliment these policies. Civil Liberties? Not in war time. I happen to think we are in WWIII. You may not agree. But my whole premise is based upon the fact that because I (as many Americans do) feel we are in the middle of a war on terror, no caution is too great. I actually don't think the Patriot Act goes far enough! And the Abu Gharza situation? Sorry, I just don't feel sorry for them. We're about to see another American beheaded tomorrow and we're worried about prisoners both in Iraq and GOTMO? Nope....don't feel sorry for them one bit. Most countries would just dig a mass grave, line them up in front of a firing squad, and fill those graves with their bodies. I think it's dangerous NOT to do WHATEVER it takes to get information out of them! I'm curious if our worthless Senator from Massachusettes (the one who should give all his inherited money to that woman he drowned years ago....what a scumbag)..whom I'm sure you agree with would worry about civil liberties if we knew a terrorist had knowledge of an impending nuclear attack on our soil. And as for the journalists from other countries.....I'm too busy being productive and helping our economy to worry about what happens to them. Countries like France, Germany, China, you name it need us economically. They depend tremendously on our consumption. Countries who dis us or don't back us? We just don't buy their stuff. France is learning about that right now. Let's see what happens to their economy with their U.S. exports running at an all time low. French companies? Kick 'em out. We don't need 'em. What was this thread about anyway? LOL!

[evilqueen]

BOFH666, I am sorry that my remarks were twisted in an attempt to discredit the facts of your initial post: that foreign journalists are being detained and treated like criminals when they attempt to enter the United States. My questioning of Elena Lappin's account was based on the similarity of her incident to the one involving Sue Smethurst. I also took exception to her reporting of the language used by her detainees, which didn't ring quite true - not quite American, to my ear; but I did not doubt that such an incident had taken place.

However, after reading what Reporters Without Borders has published, I began researching similar stories and I am afraid my flip remark about an assembly line of bullies at LAX is closer to truth than I had suspected. <b>In 2003 alone, 12 foreign journalists were subjected to almost identical mistreatment at Los Angeles International Airport.</b> Several more incidents have occured at other U.S. airports. Accounts of the abuses were published by sources ranging from The Guardian to The Toronto Star to the Toledo Blade (in Ohio - not exactly a hotbed of anti-American sentiment).

These journalists were not from countries suspected of harboring aiding or abetting enemies of the U.S. They were from United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Austria and Australia. (The French correspondents traveled to the U.S. to cover a videogame expo. The Austrian, the editor of a movie magazine, was here to interview Ben Affleck. The Australian was editor of a women's magazine she described as "a cross between Good Housekeeping and People.")

It is outrageous that citizens of friendly nations are handcuffed, subjected to criminal detention and denied access to attorneys when they have committed no offense. They were detained under a rule established during the McCarthy era in 1952, but seldom if ever applied until after passage of the Patriot Act. I would guess, judging by the reasons they traveled here, that they visit the U.S. less frequently than hard-news journalists, and were unaware that the rules had changed.

I am disheartened but not surprised by the disdain expressed here for the ordeals of these individuals. These stories illustrate the kinds of freedom that the Patriot Act erodes for American citizens and non-citizens alike. (For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical and financial records, and conduct secret searches and telephone/internet survelliance.) Today, rights are being denied some foreign journalists from friendly countries. Tomorrow, the rights denied could be yours.

In the words of Martin Niemöller, a German Protestant pastor, in 1938:

First they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
And I did not speak out –
Because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out –
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me –
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by evilqueen
BOFH666, I am sorry that my remarks were twisted in an attempt to discredit the facts of your initial post:


LMAO - don't worry about it, you kinda get used to it after a while, it happens a lot when someone is desperate for an argument, any argument to turn the heat onto someone else and, in this case, it got both of us heading off to find the REST of these cases so it's a plus point on average ;) Just for the record I thought you were perfectly clear in your language and reasoning, any chance of you posting to this sort of thing a little more often?

Originally posted by evilqueen
that foreign journalists are being detained and treated like criminals when they attempt to enter the United States. My questioning of Elena Lappin's account was based on the similarity of her incident to the one involving Sue Smethurst. I also took exception to her reporting of the language used by her detainees, which didn't ring quite true - not quite American, to my ear; but I did not doubt that such an incident had taken place.

However, after reading what Reporters Without Borders has published, I began researching similar stories and I am afraid my flip remark about an assembly line of bullies at LAX is closer to truth than I had suspected. <b>In 2003 alone, 12 foreign journalists were subjected to almost identical mistreatment at Los Angeles International Airport.</b> Several more incidents have occured at other U.S. airports. Accounts of the abuses were published by sources ranging from The Guardian to The Toronto Star to the Toledo Blade (in Ohio - not exactly a hotbed of anti-American sentiment).

These journalists were not from countries suspected of harboring aiding or abetting enemies of the U.S. They were from United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Austria and Australia. (The French correspondents traveled to the U.S. to cover a videogame expo. The Austrian, the editor of a movie magazine, was here to interview Ben Affleck. The Australian was editor of a women's magazine she described as "a cross between Good Housekeeping and People.")

It is outrageous that citizens of friendly nations are handcuffed, subjected to criminal detention and denied access to attorneys when they have committed no offense. They were detained under a rule established during the McCarthy era in 1952, but seldom if ever applied until after passage of the Patriot Act. I would guess, judging by the reasons they traveled here, that they visit the U.S. less frequently than hard-news journalists, and were unaware that the rules had changed.

I am disheartened but not surprised by the disdain expressed here for the ordeals of these individuals. These stories illustrate the kinds of freedom that the Patriot Act erodes for American citizens and non-citizens alike. (For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical and financial records, and conduct secret searches and telephone/internet survelliance.) Today, rights are being denied some foreign journalists from friendly countries. Tomorrow, the rights denied could be yours.

In the words of Martin Niemöller, a German Protestant pastor, in 1938:

First they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
And I did not speak out –
Because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out –
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me –
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.

You know, I wonder if Niemoller gets royalties on that quote, it's seeing a LOT of use recently ;) But yeah, I had an idea that it wasn't an isolated incident, I was going to go for a deeper look today but had to defend myself against, well you read it, and that takes some time and soul searching.

You're spot on with the language in that article, it doesn't sound "right" for an American, on the other hand if I was in that situation I doubt I'd be remembering the exact words too clearly either. And it's not THAT far removed from some of the things you hear on "Cops" and the like. How does it go again: Actions speak louder than words?

My biggest concern is WHY journalists are being treated this way. From what I remember of the process, don't official Visa's have to be approved by the US? If that is the case, then I can only see one use for this, to refuse access to journalists that the administration has "black balled" for reports that they don't like which I believe violates the First Ammendment.

[Roseblossom]

Oh now I get it, you're a Brit! No wonder! You're welcome for us winning the war for you against the Germans! Not recognizing that the U.S. saved your butts in WWI and WWII is like trying to say that you don't have man boobs. By the way, you're welcome! Don't you guys have dentists over there Geez...I hate rotten teeth! J/K! LOL! HEEEY....I'M JOKING....don't get so worked up! The British are fun to beat up on! At least they aren't the French! Friggin' Frogs....nuke 'em. And Canadians can't spell!! Hey BOF...how many words was that?!Your posts are too boring to read! LOL! JUUUUST KIDDING! AND I don't need to hear in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM that I'm a rude bully! Hmmmmm......you people are nothing but a bunch of crybabies. Now go do something with your lives! GEEEEEZ! Maybe you and your boy Michael Moron should go on over to Iraq and rescue your hero Saddam because he's such a great human being!! LOL! I'm picturing you on a highjacked flight....what...would you be saying...'Ooooh you pooor terrorist! We FEEL your pain! We deserve to be blown to bits! We're so sorry!'. GIVE ME A BREAK and WAKE UP PAL! Blow them up, ask questions later. They're a bunch of Cockaroaches! It's all very simple....level it and lime it. Period. Thank God Bush will win in November...with you liberals, there's no winning whatsoever! GET OVER IT! Even if it IS true....WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? Jeeeeez! Have you forgotton 9-11?! WHATEVER! Those of you who live in another country and 'dis our policies....STAY OUT! We don't NEED you! Go to a dentist! LOL! J/K......NOT!! Why can't we all just get along?

[evilqueen]

Why are journalists being targeted? Prior to enforcement of the I Visa requirement, journalists had entered the U.S. under a 1986 visa-waiver program that allows citizens of 27 countries, including France and the United Kingdom, to visit the United States for up to 90 days for business or pleasure. While the visa-waiver does not apply to journalists, for years the I-Visa requirement was ignored or overlooked. In some cases a fine of $100 was levied. Certainly no one was cuffed and marched onto the next plane out of the country.

According to the U.S. Department of State - Bureau of Consular Affairs, revalidation of one's I Visa is not guaranteed. So a special visa becomes another way of controlling journalism's access to the U.S. A few small fish have been caught in the I Visa net, but there may be a long-term plan for restricting reporters judged to be troublesome by the administration. Here is another Slate article that speculates on this theme:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2100403/
-----------------------------
What's wrong with requiring foreign journalists to have a special press visa, you ask? Why shouldn't they have to show that they are here for good and benign reasons? Well, for one thing, we don't require most tourists from these friendly nations to obtain visas. Indeed, some of the reporters locked up and deported from LAX had already been allowed through immigration as tourists and were only nabbed later when they or their colleagues copped to being journalists. Singling out reporters for greater scrutiny than ordinary sightseers suggests there is something uniquely dangerous about journalism. As Lappin points out in her piece on her ordeal, only countries like Cuba, Syria, Iran, and North Korea demand that reporters have special visas. As James Michie, the public affairs officer at the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, told me this afternoon, this happens in other countries, too; another journalist reported to him that she was frequently treated this way in Yugoslavia. America: Striving to be more like Yugoslavia each day.

Far worse than the fact that we're singling out reporters for abuses: Since when is the U.S. government in the business of accrediting journalists—foreign or domestic? What possible journalistic standards must be met in order to prove to the INS that one is enough of a journalist to merit a press visa? The list of enumerated requirements would make it impossible for a reporter from an allied country to cover a breaking story in a timely way. Reporters must now provide a letter from their employer detailing their assignment and place their hope in the broad discretion afforded immigration authorities. Of course, freelancers just looking for a story without a contract in their pocket are presumably out of luck, too. Unless, of course, they elect to lie and call themselves tourists with super-big cameras. The state cannot be in the business of acting as arbiter of who's allowed to come and write about America.
----------------------------

BTW, in response to the outrage expressed by journalistic organizations and the countries of the journalists who were detained, INS is modifying the ruling to allow a one-time entry without an I Visa.

I don't post much about political issues on this board because it just seems a waste of time. Most people who post here either do not like or are not interested in politics, and their preferences are reflected in the level of discourse displayed here.* I would rather spend the time educating myself by reading a variety of national and international sources, and working to improve my beloved country through voter activism. :D

*EDIT to add: VERY well illustrated, Roseblossom! :smilelove

[Cosmo_ac]

Jim, once again, you’re either not reading, or not understanding what I’m saying. Now, pay close attention. What I’m saying is, the American, white and non-muslim, is not just stopped, and randomly searched. Still with me so far? What I’m saying is, they’re treated like the reporter in this case. Still following me? I hope so.

Now, as for a solution to tighten security? Well, lets see…Locks on the pilot’s cabinets would be a great start. It’s an amazing thought, a terrorist stopped because of a five dollar lock on the door. But, that might be too complicated for airplane companies to install, as was the case here. So, the question is, how do we stop terrorists from getting into America? Well, technically you can’t. You seem to be under the impression that terrorists come from the Middle East only. Why it hasn’t occurred to you that anybody with a desire to, can become a terrorist, I can only wonder.

Let’s see though. I suppose, you could make a special committee in each country with flight access, and have the committee, say a council of six, take applications from those wishing to have access to the US. Then, the committee can do a full background check, and if satisfied, give the person or persons a photo ID card, with all information stored, plus the amount of time they may stay in the US. Of course, this won’t be fool proof, but it would certainly cut down on risks by a bit. Of course, the US economy, especially tourism, would suffer greatly and the US would loose billions of dollars, but whatever it takes to make you feel a little safer when you sleep, right?

As a response to how many attacks have been thwarted, I’m not sure. Could you give me a number, backed up with some reports? As for how many have happened since? None, to my understanding. Here’s a question though. How many happened BEFORE 9/11? From outside terrorists, I mean.

WW 3? No jim, that’s only in your mind. Notice how neither Vietnam or the Gulf war was never called WW3? My guess is because the Major countries of the world weren’t at war, like the previous two. As far as the war on terror, I have to ask, where exactly is Terroropolus? You know, the homeland of all the Terrorists and their wives (Terrorism’s) and there children (Terrorits)? Oh wait, there is no Terroropolus. So, with no homeland, no flag, no nationality limits, no given race, religion, or skin color, well, they’ll be a bit hard to find, won’t they? And I wonder when will it end? It won’t. So long as humans exist, there will be the chance for Terrorists Jim. This isn’t like any war your country has fought before. There is no way of telling who the enemy is. You can hunt them down. You can kill them. But you can never truly stop them. Face it Jim, this war was lost the second your country declared it.

As far as you not caring about how war prisoners are treated, I’m not surprised. You seem the type who would put one American life over a thousand foreign lives. Uber-Americans are so sad. You say you’re worried about another American being beheaded? Have you ever put two and two together, and figured maybe how the US is treating these countries is a reason why US people are being killed? As they say, what goes around comes around. Now, I don’t blame you for being scared Jim, but that’s no excuse for letting go of your humanity.

On a side note, if you ask any interrogator worth his pay he’ll tell you one thing. Torturing people is in no way an effective way to get credible information. Think about it. You beat somebody enough, they’ll tell you they built the statue of liberty. There’s no way of knowing what their saying is true. What it all comes down to, especially if time is a factor, is the person wanting to tell you the truth. Also, on a side note of prisoners being treated. Has it crossed your mind that all this “US playing with legal torture methods” will lead to US soldiers being treated the same way, legally in future wars? The US is paving some scary ground while they’re pissing themselves. Not good for the world, and not good for the US.

Actually Jim, I’d say the US economically, is pretty fucked. Compared to what it exports, the US is in a Huge billion dollar trade deficit. Simply put, American goods aren’t selling, and they’re buying whatever they can, usually superior products built in other countries. So, if the US decided not to buy stuff, that would suck, yes. But, the other countries could trade amongst themselves. Meanwhile all US products would stop being purchased. It would suck for the world, and there would be trouble for a time. Add into the fact all foreign labor companies, (auto, computer, etc) would simply pull out and go to other countries more then willing for their business. Meanwhile the US would be left Billions in debt, and forced to live off there own resources, which we know aren’t exactly great. Simply put, the US would collapse a lot sooner then the rest of the world.

Yes Jim, France is learning a hard lesion. But then again, they already had a good idea that there were a fair amount of bigots in America, so they probably already knew most of that lesion. I have to wonder Jim, are you upset because they didn’t want the US to go to war. To have the UN inspectors do there job, and try and find the WMD that the US said were in Iraq, and yet amazingly, despite reports from the US that there were weapons there, none were found. In fact, even the US, after attacking and invading Iraq, has yet to find any sign of any serious WMD. They say, standing up to a bully is hard, but standing up to a friend is even harder. The French thought the US was making the wrong decision. So, they acted on that.

And I know that after 9/11 a lot of Americans wanted blood. Hell, you got it. Probably five times the number of people who died in 9/11 have already been killed by US, many of them innocent people. I would ask if this number satisfies you Jim, but we all know it won’t. You’ve made that very clear already.

[Jimblast]

You're literate! Very good post! I agree with one or two things, most of them I don't, but the points are well taken and we won't change one another's minds. Rather than going point by point, this is most definitely WWIII! I'm posting something about that with my next post. Nope, not a bigot. Our non bigoted military is the only one with it's firepower to restrain themselves to save as many civilians as possible. We're doing it every day in Iraq. Facts to back up thwarted terrorist attacks? Looks like you're good at looking that stuff up, feel free to use your search engine.

ROSIE! I'm flattered you cut and pasted my post! It was nice to read it again and thank you! I hope you read what I wrote every day for the rest of your life!

:devil:

[Jimblast]

U.S. Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station,
Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It is
an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this
action is so necessary.

AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than
3,000 Americans were killed -AD) and maybe it was, but I think it should
have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been
buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll
over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a
religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked
and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright
attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most
powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this
sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 23
years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and
had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had
to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert.
The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's
inability to deal with terrorism.

America's military had been decimated and downsized/right sized since the
end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly
organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was
doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and
killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her
citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into
the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The
alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over
2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps
headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her
dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is
driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gates
of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a
restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid..

Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main
gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze
alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we
watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list
and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when
they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic
bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying
to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war.

The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder. The terrorists decide to
bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and
killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after
a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking
garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and
over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war?
The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35
yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys
the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over
500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America
does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision.
They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to
sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12
October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded
killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we
sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think
this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are.
America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the
snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high
officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But
if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see
exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the
National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since
1979.

The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we
have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a
people decide enough is enough.

America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been
changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice
to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the
snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "...it seems all we
have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to
disseminate to terrorists around the world.

Support Our Troops and support President Bush for having the courage,
political or militarily, to address what so many who preceded him didn't
have the backbone to do both Democrat and Republican.. This is not a
political thing to be hashed over in an election year this is an AMERICAN
thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to
come.

[drew70]

Originally posted by kis123
Oh, come on Drew!

My commnent about "Are you smoking something" was completely civil compared to the name calling and mud slinging that is very commonplace on this board. Don't start splitting hairs. Besides, Jim's post was particularly harsh even from his regular patterns. We have the right to express ourselves in a manner that is respectful. If my comment was that offensive to you, I apologize. You don't offend me, Kis. In fact, your comments were the mildest of the three I quoted. Even were they crude and crass it wouldn't bother me. I a proponent of civility for the most part, but I do believe there are times when stronger language is called for. You can ask any of the regulars here, I've been a vocal advocate for the abolishment of the current censorship policies here at the TMF.

No, the only reason I quoted you and the others was to make the BOFFER aware that Jimblast wasn't the only one conducting himself in a less than civil manner. I felt his conduct was unfairly singled out.

I don't often enter these political debates, because it seems that for whatever reason, the collective political landscape of the TMF leans wayyyy to the left, with remarkably few exceptions. Take Rose for example. She's so far to the left I sometimes wonder if she isn't Shining Ice in drag. And Knox. Great guy, but I'd give anything to reel him back into a more balanced political mindset. Jimblast is farther to the right than I would choose to be, but because his posts are so radically different from the 100-fold tiresome anti-Bush drivel we're constantly pounded with, I find them rather refreshing, whereas under different circumstances, I might be inclined to challenge him. To me, neither side is right or wrong, so like a volleyball game, I'll jump on the team with the fewest players, if I decide to play at all.

[venray]

It is only that those that are far left are most vocal Drew. Methinks
the reason is that those in the center and slightly off to the right are secure enough in their positions that they do not bother to try and debate intelligently with the others.

Myself...I just like to keep things going every now and then so complacency doesnt set in...LOL

As far as civility goes, note that none of these posts have been deleted or edited lest we have to kill the entire thread.. you are right in pointing out that both sides are guilty where personal remarks against one another are concerned...

Some who have made such remarks have actually reported others as being out of line, not taking a look at their own comments....

If it gets out of hand we will close the thread down, but contrary to popular belief, we hesitate to do that in most cases..

Ray

[Roseblossom]

Some fish are so used to it that they don't even realize what polluted water they're swimming in.

~Rose~

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by venray1
Some who have made such remarks have actually reported others as being out of line, not taking a look at their own comments....
I complained about JimBlast long ago, when his mean-spirited put-downs first started violating the golden rule.

Nothing was done, so I took off my bunny gloves and handled it myself, here: [http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=44506&perpage=15&pagenumber=7]

Everyone knows who is on the short list of troublemakers; if the mods won't stop them, I guess we all have carte blanche to give them the sharp edge of our tongues.

Button :cool:

[MrMacphisto]

Originally posted by venray1
It is only that those that are far left are most vocal Drew. Methinks
the reason is that those in the center and slightly off to the right are secure enough in their positions that they do not bother to try and debate intelligently with the others.

Myself...I just like to keep things going every now and then so complacency doesnt set in...LOL

As far as civility goes, note that none of these posts have been deleted or edited lest we have to kill the entire thread.. you are right in pointing out that both sides are guilty where personal remarks against one another are concerned...

Some who have made such remarks have actually reported others as being out of line, not taking a look at their own comments....

If it gets out of hand we will close the thread down, but contrary to popular belief, we hesitate to do that in most cases..

Ray

Heh... Clever wording... I suppose, in certain ways, we are different sides of the same coin. I would simply replace the "slightly off to the right" with the "slightly off to the left." But yes, complacency is a deadly thing....

The far left and far right are the most vocal. Being mostly far left myself and witnessing the far right (like JimBlast and Maniactickler), I should know. But then again, verbal theatrics keep things interesting. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen....

[drew70]

Originally posted by ticklebutton
I complained about JimBlast long ago, when his mean-spirited put-downs first started violating the golden rule. Shame on you!Nothing was done, so I took off my bunny gloves and handled it myself, here: [http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=44506&perpage=15&pagenumber=7]Way to go! Standing up for yourself is the only way to go. There's no honor in running to the mods crying foulEveryone knows who is on the short list of troublemakers;I'm sure everybody's list differs. I'd put the BOFFER at the top of that list, myself if the mods won't stop them, I guess we all have carte blanche to give them the sharp edge of our tongues.Now, you're talking. I've been saying this for years! Bring it on, baby!!