Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security Privacy Twitter

Edward Snowden's Lawyer Claims Harassment From Heathrow Border Agent 261

concertina226 writes "Jesselyn Radack, a human rights lawyer representing Edward Snowden, has claimed that she was detained and questioned in a 'very hostile' manner on Saturday by London Heathrow Airport's Customs staff. Radack freely disclosed to the border agent that she was going to see members of the Sam Adams Associates group, and when he realized that the meeting would be happening at the Ecuadorian Embassy, he went on to ask her if Julian Assange would be in attendance and to ask her about why she had traveled to Russia twice in three months."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Edward Snowden's Lawyer Claims Harassment From Heathrow Border Agent

Comments Filter:
  • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:42PM (#46268367) Journal

    I'm British.

    The border staff are a national embarrassment, and are wildly, wildly incompetent.

    I think they'd happily wave through a man going by the name of "Osama Bin Laden" (OK, he's dead who do we use now for the purpose hyperbole?) carrying a radioactive suitcase and declaring "Allah Akbar" and then hassle some poor American on a work visa for an hour or three.

    Actually in my limited experience, the border guards seem to give Americans a really hard time if they've got work visas.

    I've been stopped at the border and hassled by a dim border gard. He was clearly trying to catch me in a lie and asked a question about somewhere I was living. He didn't like my (correct) answer and insisted I must be wrong, repeatedly. What the hell are you supposed to say to an obnoxious border guard who won't accept the legal, legitimate truth as an answer?

  • Re:Realpolitik (Score:3, Informative)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:42PM (#46268369) Homepage

    I would like to direct you here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

    1. We're talking about England.
    2. They don't really have a Constitution in a single document form as it is known in other countries.
    3. It's not a dead parrot.

  • by 0123456 ( 636235 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:47PM (#46268425)

    Actually in my limited experience, the border guards seem to give Americans a really hard time if they've got work visas.

    Here's the thing: British voters don't like the mass immigration from the EU over the last couple of decades. So, every once in a while, the British government set out to win votes by 'cracking down on immigration'. But the EU says they're not allowed to restrict immigration from the EU, so they, instead, crack down on the skilled workers coming into the country from outside the EU on work permits... which are the kind of immigrants most British voters are quite happy to see coming to their country.

    It's not just the border guards that are incompetent, it's the entire British government. As the current floods so glaringly demonstrate ('hey, lets flood thousands of houses to SAVE THE BURDS!').

  • Re:not surprising (Score:4, Informative)

    by joe545 ( 871599 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:55PM (#46268533)

    RTFS she will visit Assange who is skipped bail.

  • by ciurana ( 2603 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @01:57PM (#46268573) Homepage Journal

    Greetings.

    After having been harassed a few times during business trips to London after having worked for two London-based companies, I decided to never fly into London again if I can help it. Instead, I fly into Paris from either Moscow or the US, have a nice lunch somewhere near Gare du Nord, then take the Eurostar into London (about a 2-hour ride). The UK immigration officials at the rail station are way nicer and more polite, the process is much faster, and in general the suckage is much lower.

    Cheers!

    pr3d

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17, 2014 @02:01PM (#46268615)

    So why is this news for nerds?

    Clearly readers of the site are interested in this article. You are the only whiner.

    If you don't like the article, don't read it.

    And quit your bitching, you pathetic little cunt.

  • Re:not surprising (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17, 2014 @02:10PM (#46268727)

    He's a fugitive from the UK's laws. Which he has undoubtedly broken.

    He was arrested by the UK police, which they were allowed to do because a European Arrest Warrant was issued.

    In the UK, we don't like to lock up people who haven't been convicted of a crime, so after a few days he was released on bail. The UK laws say that if you're on bail then the court can set reasonable conditions to stop you running away. You have to stick to those conditions, or you can be punished under UK law. His bail conditions were to check in with the police daily, and report to the police at a specified date.

    He had a chance to have legal counsel and to fight the European Arrest Warrant in court. And he did. First at the Magistrate's Court, and then he appealed to the High Court and then the Supreme Court. He lost all in 3 courts. He then had the option of appealing to the European Court of Human Rights and he decided not to.

    When it became obvious he'd lost, he went and hid in the embassy. That was a breach of his bail conditions.

  • Re:Realpolitik (Score:4, Informative)

    by 2sheds ( 78194 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @02:49PM (#46269113) Journal
    The ECHR to which the parent refers is not simply an international treaty obligation. The articles and protocols it creates are explicitly enshrined in British law via the 1998 Human Rights Act, an instrument which while hated by our far right parties is IMHO one of the shining achievements of recent times (though not without flaws). The draconian environment you'll undoubtedly find at UK border control is quite a different issue, but it's one that you'll find familiar the world over.
  • Re:Realpolitik (Score:4, Informative)

    by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Monday February 17, 2014 @03:13PM (#46269333)

    Advice, not authority. Believe it or not government officials are beholden first and foremost to the laws of their own government, and don't get *any* legal authority from foreign institutions unless they're operating within the borders of that institution's jurisdiction. Not even if the foreign institution is routinely flouting the laws that should be regulating its own behavior both at home and abroad.

  • Re:wtf (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 17, 2014 @03:53PM (#46269757)

    It means the US Transportation Security Administration has officially instructed an airport operator or aircraft operator not to provide the individual with access to an area or with a boarding pass to the destination.

    That's not what "inhibited" status means. It means there's some reason to suspect the person might be traveling with a fake passport or visa so extra proof of ID is suggested. TFA doesn't give any background about why this person was flagged, but presumably because of her association with someone suspected of spying.

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Working...