9 ms·

The Day US Customs Found A Bullet In My Pocket

311 points by bobds 16y ago

DanielStraight 16y ago
Excellent article. I think the best thing to take away from it is this little, innocent sounding line: "No matter what the reason, don’t ever write..." This says it all. If we must fear our government when engaging in innocent activity, then we have given our government too much power. Schneier addressed this in one of his many posts on privacy: "How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered." - http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_pr.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_p...
- swolchok 16y ago
  You forgot the implied "...and then cross an international border while carrying said journal entry."
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    And you forgot to mention that the vast majority of international borders don't include philosophical loyalty tests or religious screening. It's not a club I think America should belong to. Do you?
    - swolchok 16y ago
      It's not entirely clear to me that I don't want a person who crosses our borders in the circumstances that the author of the article did and carrying the things that the author of the article carried grilled to see if he cracks. Can you imagine what would happen if someone carried those things across a border, did NOT get grilled based on the "would be really inept" arguments, and then committed a terrorist act? We'd be calling for the screeners' heads, and quite probably would be right to do so.
      - Vivtek 16y ago
        Do you think white Christians who have been to Idaho should be prevented from buying fertilizer or renting trucks? Just in case they're going to repeat Oklahoma City? If not, I suspect you need to examine your priorities. Your attitude will be the downfall of this nation. I'm not kidding. It is killing us. Please stop. Read something. Learn about the world. Get outside and realize the sun is still shining and we still have Ferris wheels and there are no freaking terrorists trying to kill you in your bed. Really. I am up to here with this crap. Do you really understand the meaning of freedom so poorly? Sometimes you have to man up and accept a truly vanishing amount of danger in order to have a world you can live in like a real human being. Read up on road statistics, or infant mortality, or malaria, or actual wars in other places, then come back to me and tell me we have to toss out the entire freaking point of America in order to combat something none of us is ever actually going to see, but whose political fallout certainly does benefit a few powerful people. Benjamin Franklin would probably have been mildly surprised that America lasted so long - but he saw clear as day how it was going to end. I just wish it hadn't been in my lifetime.
        swolchok 16y ago
        Your analogy does not hold, as the guy was not prevented from doing anything. He was questioned, searched, and spied on by the FBI. As far as we know, no direct, material harm came to him.
        Vivtek 16y ago
        Do you think white Christians who have visited Idaho should be confronted verbally at length by policemen whenever attempting to rent trucks? Especially if they're carrying a Bible? Should the rental truck police demand to know whether they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, implying that if they do, they should definitely not be allowed to enter Oklahoma? Should the mothers of white Christians renting trucks have their phones tapped by the FBI? You could already have constructed this analogy. Instead you choose to be disingenuous about it. Don't you think America should be capable of doing better than this?
- oiuyhgthyjuki 16y ago
  I was part of a school exchange program to Moscow for the 1980 olympics - as part of the pre-trip briefing we were told not to write anything about our visit while we were there because anything we wrote would be checked by the Russians when we left and we could get our hosts into trouble. Of course being from a free country we laughed at this ....
rubyrescue 16y ago
I just want to know how his mom figured out the FBI tapped her phone.
- jat850 16y ago
  In the article, he says: "Through a friend of the family who used to work for the FBI, I later learned that as soon as I had left the Customs interrogation room, the local FBI office in Savannah, Georgia (where I was headed to visit my mom) had been notified of my arrival. As a result, the FBI then tapped the home phone at my mom’s house." So it sounds as though it was through this same "friend" he learned of the phone tap as well.
  - moron4hire 16y ago
    Why do we believe this "friend" actually exists?
    - smallblacksun 16y ago
      Because it was a story critical of the big, bad government, so it must be accepted at face value.
dmm 16y ago
> a shiny, unused bullet fell out of the front pocket. I'm assuming here that the author is refering to what is more accurately known as a cartridge. A bullet is the projectile, a hunk of lead, possibly with a jacket of copper or steel covering it. A cartridge is a bullet, a case, a primer and propellent. It's very easy to leave a catridge in a pocket and not notice it. Is there an english word for the practice of commonly refering to an entity by a subset of that entity?
- swolchok 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche is probably the term, although the context in which "synecdoche" is used is generally analysis of literature / "English class."
- ned 16y ago
  > Is there an english word for the practice of commonly refering to an entity by a subset of that entity? A metonymy. [edit: swolchok is right, it's a synecdoche]
  - golwengaud 16y ago
    Not quite. Metonymy is calling something by the name of a related object. The most common use of metonymy is probably "the White House" for President Obama's (Bush's, Clinton's, etc.) administration. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  ...what is more accurate know as a... Must be contagious.
  - dmm 16y ago
    Ha, good catch. I seem to make similar mistakes fairly often, mostly leaving suffixes off of words: s, ly, etc. It makes proofreading a requirement for anything important. I never seem to do it while speaking though. Maybe it has something to do with typing, like I've memorized the patterns of keypresses associated with certain words and attaching a suffix requires intervention at some level.
tibbon 16y ago
US Customer, Homeland security and similar worry me for the primary reason that I don't think there are any 'checks' on their power that have any influence from citizens. When even the most famous of US Senators are even harassed by security personel (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug...) then we're in a tricky place. An average citizen has zero recourse and can't just call the President asking for Homeland Security to stop bothering them.
rflrob 16y ago
Fortunately, not all customs officers are this bad. About a year ago, I spent a couple months traveling around the Mediterranean, including Syria and Lebanon. Upon my return to the states, I got some moderately thorough questioning, but nothing that required a separate interrogation room, and the officer was polite the whole time. On the other hand, I didn't have a bullet in my pants. TSA says: "You must securely pack any ammunition in fiber (such as cardboard), wood or metal boxes or other packaging that is specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition." (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1...)
- jat850 16y ago
  I don't fully understand how he made it to Customs without someone catching the ammunition earlier. I can't recall a travel experience where I went through Customs before going through security first. As Customs occurs at port of entry, I assume he would have passed through security in Delhi. I suppose security could have been lax or complacent there, but it still seems an odd thing to have made it through a scanner first.
  - jemfinch 16y ago
    My belt buckle has much more metal than a shell casing, and it never sets off the metal detectors at airports. Shell casings have less metal in them than the buttons on my button-fly jeans. EDIT: I was mistaken, he did say it was an unused bullet, so it was more than a shell casing.
    - jat850 16y ago
      Yeah, that's a good point. I was thinking more along the lines of an X-ray machine (see, I don't even know enough about security processes to know if that's the right terminology) where they reveal outlines of denser objects, rather than the pass-through metal detector itself.
  - gvb 16y ago
    He actually says "bullet", I would interpret that literally - just the bullet, not a full shell and definitely not any gunpowder.
enjo 16y ago
Meh... the whole thing didn't sound so unreasonable to me. The guy took a trip to two places well known for harboring and training terrorists. They found a bullet, a piece of terrorist propaganda, a burqa, and a note in his journal outlining some desire to renounce his citizenship. I'd be pretty damn suspicious too. I may not like it, but there are folks trying to kill us (all of us). These agents have a job, and that's to try and ferret out as many of these people attempting entry to our country as possible. It may be inconvenient, and it may be pretty nasty...but it's necessary. That's the reality of the situation. I'll also remind everyone to take any one-sided account like this with a certain grain of salt. It's a pretty emotional thing, and often certain points are quite exaggerated. Sometimes "yelling" is really "stern questioning". Other times "an hour and a half" is really "15 minutes". Ok.. let the down-voting commence :)
- ojbyrne 16y ago
  Having been through many secondary inspections at the US border (don't ask) I kind of agree with you. Essentially they're doing an interrogation, and they deliberately browbeat you in the hopes that you'll actually reveal something incriminating. Anything that will give them a shred of leverage they will use to try and intimidate you (none of the things in the article are actually incriminating, but they're "leverage"). EDIT (sober second thought): The phone tap (if true) does seem a little beyond the pale.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  Customs agents' job is to prevent contraband and unauthorized individuals from entering the country. It is not their job to berate American citizens returning from trips abroad. It is not their job to engage in emotionally charged interrogation regarding a person's religious views. It is not their job to intimidate, harass, or jump to unsupported conclusions.
  - confuzatron 16y ago
    I'm pretty sure it's their job to ask people questions and put them off balance while doing so. Even to the extent of saying unreasonable things and raising their voices. It is irritating to be on the receiving end and I say that having only got the low-level treatment that I think everybody gets. But there you go.
sgt 16y ago
Reminds me that time I brought a rifle bullet (only the case, not the projectile itself) onto an international flight in Europe. I bought it as a souvenir in Poland and figured I could bring it with my handluggage. Before I knew it I was surrounded by these security types asking me all kinds of questions, and I said.. "what's the matter... it's not like you can KILL someone with an empty bullet!" - That didn't help, but they eventually let me go, bullet included. This was in 2002.
- jcl 16y ago
  For what it's worth, stupider things have happened. Here's a story (also 2002) of an octogenarian war-hero ex-governor detained because he was carrying a nail file, a dummy bullet, and -- the most suspicious item -- a Congressional Medal of Honor: http://www.snopes.com/military/medal.asp http://www.snopes.com/military/medal.asp
moultano 16y ago
Assuming we want customs officials doing anything terrorism related at all (which I'm not convinced of) this doesn't seem bad. Basically they made him socially uncomfortable for a while, and sent him on his way. They didn't take any of his stuff, they only detained him for an hour and a half. Overall it seems about as inconvenient as a flight delay.
- yread 16y ago
  plus they bugged his phone and put him on a list for private screening
- dkarl 16y ago
  Nice to know that if they don't have any legal way of stopping you or coercing information out of you, they'll only resort to harassment and intimidation for a little while before letting you go. Of course, the Customs Officer ignored the other four books and while holding up the book of quotes from the Prophet, proceeded to repeatedly scream “Do you believe in the words of the Prophet Mohammed?” over and over again while standing one foot away from my face. Every time I tried to mention the other books, and the one time I tried to ask why that question was even relevant, I was immediately cut off and told to be quiet. So in the end, the only reply I gave to his question was, “What?” They love yelling, and it isn't because they want you answer or comply. Apparently yelling serves some purpose in itself. Whenever someone shows me a police video, I take careful note of when they stop yelling variations on "Get down on the ground!" I saw one recently where the police fatally shot a guy (completely justified; he actually attacked a cop who was holding a gun on him, and another cop shot him) and one cop yelled "Get down!" or "Get down on the ground" at him three times after he had already fallen on the pavement.... I saw nothing inappropriate in the shooting, but I got a morbid chuckle out of the cop screaming at the dude to comply when the dude was already flat on the ground motionless and bleeding. It's also pretty shocking to watch the video of the guy being shot in the BART station in Oakland and try to figure out in what way he was resisting the two cops who were holding him face down on the ground while he was handcuffed. The cop who shot him kept yelling at him to stop resisting and then just popped him. He was -- what, shifting his weight? Trying to raise his head to answer their questions? Who knows. No level of compliance would have saved him, just like the guy who wrote this article didn't actually have to answer the questions. They just wanted to yell at him; they didn't want answers.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- js2 16y ago
  It wasn't the TSA, it was US Customs and Border Protection.
vl 16y ago
I wonder if it's was a bullet or indeed a cartridge? It's kind of hard to find "unused bullet" without it being in a cartridge.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  it is simple logic - if it was a cartridge, he would still be writing this from inside a prison. While you can't do much with a bare bullet itself (may be you can try to throw it hard), the cartridge can very easily be put to use - you don't need 900m/s muzzle velocity at close range really.
  - yread 16y ago
    How would you go about firing at somebody without exploding in your face? Can it be done?
    - chc 16y ago
      Drop something heavy on the explody end and it works much like a gun's hammer. There's no aim, but you do get ignition. Some kids used to do this for fun in one of the neighborhoods where I grew up.
js2 16y ago
Related discussions: * "I Am Detained By The Feds For Not Answering Questions" - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1681721 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1681721 * "Writer Peter Watts Guilty Verdict in Border Incident" - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1204737 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1204737
jdietrich 16y ago
This sort of treatment is difficult and unpleasant, but imagine how it would feel to be a young Muslim on the receiving end of such a grilling. Imagine what might have transpired if this chap had answered "Yes, I do believe in the words of the Prophet Muhammad". Imagine how this might affect someone who has grown up with the suspicion and abuse that Muslims living in the west have increasingly had to endure. A considerable proportion of Islamist terrorists and terrorist would-bes are western-born Muslims who feel that they are defending Islam. They have been told that the West, America in particular, considers them to be the enemy simply by merit of their religion. Young men and women are tracing modern Islamophobia back to the crusades and perceiving themselves to be fighting for survival. These beliefs have been made quite clear, perhaps most explicitly in the "martyrdom" videos released by the 7/7 London bombers. Here we have one of many incidents where a uniformed representative of the United States government is giving the clear impression that they perceive Islamic beliefs is inherently suspect. This man was not being interrogated to reveal what he had done or who he had consorted with, he was being asked what he thought and believed. Let that sink in for a minute. During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the IRA pursued an explicit policy of "the worse, the better", knowing that by provoking the British army and the RUC into heavy-handed reaction, they could rally support for their cause and rouse antipathy towards the British government. The British army and the RUC were often referred to as "the IRA's recruiting sergeant".
- petsos 16y ago
  "Here we have one of many incidents where a uniformed representative of the United States government is giving the clear impression that they perceive Islamic beliefs is inherently suspect." As an outsider (neither Muslim nor American), I have to ask: how is that an impression and not a policy? The customs agents are government employees that, I assume, are ordered to act that way.
  - wdewind 16y ago
    I think the "uniformed," implies policy.
  - nostromo 16y ago
fosk 16y ago
Am I the only one experiencing an "Error establishing a database connection" exception when trying to open the link?
anigbrowl 16y ago
I don't find this credible. The lack of temporal context is one reason - you don't find out that the whole episode is meant to have taken place several years in the past until the end. 'and then it all went away' - just in case anyone who's traveled with Earl in recent years disputes the idea that he has difficulty clearing customs. I mean, you're an experienced globetrotter returning from the world's hottest war zone with live ammunition in your pants, but are just astonished at the idea that such a thing should be considered suspicious? I call bullshit. This is just filler for marketing purposes.
- gbhn 16y ago
  The article doesn't imply he's astonished at all. It more paints the picture of a world-weary traveler recounting an interesting, harrowing tale about the time he got through a foreseeable but nasty experience.
- KoZeN 16y ago
  I call bullshit I'm with you 100%. A lot of this just doesn't make sense. When he mentions that he was 'invited' into the interrogation room he makes no reference to any aggression or hostility from his interrogator until this guy finds a book referencing the prophet mohammed amongst other religious icons and suddenly we have a complete psycho on our hands: ...holding up the book of quotes from the Prophet, proceeded to repeatedly scream 'Do you believe in the words of the Prophet Mohammed?' over and over again while standing one foot away from my face. Whilst I appreciate there are probably a few unintelligent brutes defending the US as immigration officers, this particular guys approach appears to be lifted from a poor straight to TV movie. I personally believe airport security and political correctness has gone completely over the top and I'm disgusted by the general level of ignorance towards the Muslim religion but this whole article reeks. I simply don't buy it.
rdl 16y ago
I think he was unlucky (or was flying through an airport that sucks, or just met the wrong people, or failed an attitude check?). I've done stuff which almost exactly matches this profile (flown from India after visiting Afghanistan, with Afghan clothing in my bag, with no US government connected paperwork beyond a passport, with lots of random electronics in my bag, etc.) -- I was there to help set up medical clinic equipment. In IAD, SFO, and JFK, the Customs people were nothing but polite, speedy, and friendly.
mtogo 16y ago
It's intermittently down for me, here's a google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SECcYsQYdekJ:www.wanderingearl.com/the-day-us-customs-found-a-bullet-in-my-pocket/+http://www.wanderingearl.com/the-day-us-customs-found-a-bullet-in-my-pocket/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SECcYsQ...
ars 16y ago
So, on the one hand we don't like security theater. On the other hand when real security is implemented, we don't like that either. So what should we do? And please don't tell me that real security does not involve what was described in the article, because the reality is that until we invent mind reading machines, that's pretty much the only way to do it.
- blahedo 16y ago
  I think the objections are not to every aspect of this story. For instance, the bullet is definitely a problem that they needed to address. The OBL candy is perhaps... iffy. However, things like carrying a burqa and especially carrying books about various religions should not be---and a questioning that starts with screaming about Muslims is seriously not "real security". That's what we're complaining about.
Tyr42 16y ago
I cannot view the article. I'm getting "Error establishing a database connection". Is there a mirror somewhere? Edit: oh I didn't see this[1] comment mostly down the page with a link to the google cache page[2]. Thanks. [1][http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1857943 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1857943] [2][http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SECcYsQYdekJ:www.wanderingearl.com/the-day-us-customs-found-a-bullet-in-my-pocket/+http://www.wanderingearl.com/the-day-us-customs-found-a-bullet-in-my-pocket/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SECcYsQ...]
run4yourlives 16y ago
The most troublesome part of this entire story is that the guy flew internationally with a live round in is pant pocket and the first person to notice was a customs agent in a secondary screening room.
- aidenn0 16y ago
  Not really, my watch (A large automatic spring movement) has more metal in it than a 7.62mm cartridge, and I've made it through a metal detector a couple of times with forgetting to take it off. While you could kill someone with a single bullet by constructing a zip-gun, that is about the extent of the damage you can do.
  - run4yourlives 16y ago
    You would think however that gunpowder would be one of the things that they'd test for, considering that if you can sneak a single round on, you could sneak several, theoretically.
bkmrkr 16y ago
GOOD, they are doing their job!
petenixey 16y ago
If after a terrorist attack, it emerged that the attacker had recently returned from Afghanistan to have a friendly chat with security officers about his Osama Bin Laden candy box, his book on Mohammed, the live round in his pocket and the notes in his diary about how to renounce citizenship everyone would be appalled. This is an interesting article but the fact that the author is in any way surprised by what happened to him is astonishing. Whilst it would be nice to live in a world where this wasn't necessary we don't and I'm reassured that the security response was what it was.
- djacobs 16y ago
  I'm not. The raw emotion controlling the interrogating 'official' is not reassuring to me at all. Also, "live round"? Really?
  - petenixey 16y ago
    I used the term "live round" rather than "bullet" in deference to the other comments on the page. The emotion is unfortunately part of the process. An interrogation is designed to unsettle someone, it's not a process of uncovering evidence, an audit; it requires shaking the fruit down from the tree. Had he been interrogated in such a manner for simply being muslim or Afghani I would have been saddened but in the context these questions were apparently merited. Either you bring paraphernalia associated with terrorism and accept the consequences or you leave them behind. Expecting to bring those things back from Afghanistan and just walk through is ridiculous.
    - davidcuddeback 16y ago
      > Expecting to bring those things back from Afghanistan and just walk through is ridiculous. My reading of the story has the CBP agent pulling him aside solely on the fact that he visited Afghanistan and Pakistan. They did not uncover the other items until they thoroughly searched his pack while already in the interrogation room. Edited to add (from the story): "Once inside the room, the Officer began to inspect the contents of my backpack."
    - 16y ago
nphase 16y ago
Note to self: never bring a bullet back with me when traveling back from a country known for training and funding anti-american terrorists.
leif 16y ago
"At one point, frustrated by the lack of training/knowledge of the people put in charge of protecting the US borders, I literally pulled out my guidebook and gave them a lesson in geography and in a sense, in reality as well. I showed them excerpts of the guidebook that spoke of friendly locals, must-see highlights and a generally safe environment for travelers." I can only hope that this brief education opened the minds of his interrogators somewhat (and the thought that it might have gives me a warm and fuzzy, yet reservedly so, feeling inside).
lwhi 16y ago
Could any of this questioning have occurred without aggression? Why is the aggressive tone necessary? Would the conclusion have been any different if the questioners had been more civil? EDIT: Personally, I think the process of reviewing whether a person is a security threat, should be a much more sombre affair. Level headed pragmatism is necessary to make informed, sensible judgements. It sounds very much like the security staff were living up to the clichéd machismo of their TV or film-based counterparts .. and it leads me to think that intelligence is being supplanted by each staff member's personal desire to project authority.
alanh 16y ago
At times, I find it unthinkably barbaric that it actually matters what side of invisible lines you’re on, in 2010. But of course, the real world is a touch more complicated than the We’re All Just People-land I’m imagining.
hartror 16y ago
Scary :( I wonder if officaldom gets the irony of acting like this? I mean this is exactly what terrorists set out to cause.
rsingel 16y ago
Am I the only one here wondering "Why are you answering questions at all?" The Fifth Amendment still applies at the border and you aren't going to talk your way out of anything. When asked a question at the border -- IF you are a US citizen, shut up. Don't say anything. You are more likely to get in trouble for making a false statement to a federal office than to talk your way out of something. You can't be denied entry to the country for not answering questions. Just shut up. You have the right to remain silent. Use it.
donohoe 16y ago
Was he under arrest or bring detained? My understanding is that as a US citizen he committed no crime and could have asked if he was bring detained, under what law, or if he was free to go... However, through coercion, and lack of knowledge on his rights he consented to this interrogation. Anyone know for sure what his legal position was?
edanm 16y ago
A famous Israeli (a reporter, I believe) once forgot a bullet in one of his bags during his travels - he had recently been on reserve training duty, and used the same bag for that as for his travels. I don't remember the details, but he was travelling through another country (not the US or Israel) when the bullet was found - and he was imprisoned for several months for it.
rohi81 16y ago
Not being a citizen of US and not being a follower of the religion of Islam (which I happen to respect like any other religion) I think this guy/ you did everything possible to freak out a customs officer. The reason I say this is you don't expect every custom official to have traveled the world and be aware of the actual culture. They only know what they have been told along with what they have heard, which is to say that they know nothing (unless each custom official has had a state department course on countries). For a country that has been deeply scarred by a terrorist act all the officials know of is to look for some tell-tale sign of association. Those tell-tale signs as in your case may be completely bogus but they don't draw the distinction. I agree the experience is bad and system doesn't see the difference.Let me point out that I don't support this behavior any more than you do but with the current situation I cannot blame them too.
lionhearted 16y ago
I travel a lot and have made many border crossings. Like anyone who travels a lot, occasionally I get searched. The first time this happened, I would stand there passively and take questions. This seems to be most people's default reaction. Now, however, I take a bit more initiative - I help a customs officer unpack my things, and I intentionally point out things they'd want to question me about and explain their usage. For instance, I was stopped flying into London from Barcelona, and I had some Spanish anti-inflammatories, anti-biotics, and a freezable gell-pack for my knee for after working out. I said, "Sir, I'm going to unpack this part of my bag. I've got medicine in here - the Spanish equivalent of tylenol and antibiotics that I bought at a pharmacy, and a gel pack. I have these because I have a knee injury, and I also work out, but I need to take care of my knee after workouts." Then - no problem. I used to travel with some audio/visual equipment that would get searched like crazy, until I started saying, "I've got some A/V equipment with me, I make short little snippets when I travel. I'm not a formal journalist, it's just a hobby. I can explain what any of it does, if you need me to." This kind of preemptively explaining medicine, electronics, etc. would've probably helped this guy. "Excuse me, officer, I collected some weird artifacts while traveling. This here was a gift I received from a child in XYZ city, I bought these books while traveling since I was trying to learn about the influencers of the culture and they came sold in a pack together, etc, etc..." Take the initiative, be polite and friendly and explain well. It'll help, especially if you have things they'd typically question you about.
jrockway 16y ago
This article needs a link to one of those "don't talk to the police" articles. Just let them arrest you. When the judge realizes what happens you will be back out in society, perhaps with an apology. Also, you can't lose your citizenship by committing a crime. You certainly can't lose it without a trial.
riffic 16y ago
He shouldn't have answered one single question.

311 points by bobds 16y ago

Excellent article. I think the best thing to take away from it is this little, innocent sounding line: "No matter what the reason, don’t ever write..." This says it all. If we must fear our government when engaging in innocent activity, then we have given our government too much power. Schneier addressed this in one of his many posts on privacy: "How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered." - http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_pr.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_p...

swolchok 16y ago
You forgot the implied "...and then cross an international border while carrying said journal entry."
- Vivtek 16y ago
  And you forgot to mention that the vast majority of international borders don't include philosophical loyalty tests or religious screening. It's not a club I think America should belong to. Do you?
  - swolchok 16y ago
    It's not entirely clear to me that I don't want a person who crosses our borders in the circumstances that the author of the article did and carrying the things that the author of the article carried grilled to see if he cracks. Can you imagine what would happen if someone carried those things across a border, did NOT get grilled based on the "would be really inept" arguments, and then committed a terrorist act? We'd be calling for the screeners' heads, and quite probably would be right to do so.
    - Vivtek 16y ago
      Do you think white Christians who have been to Idaho should be prevented from buying fertilizer or renting trucks? Just in case they're going to repeat Oklahoma City? If not, I suspect you need to examine your priorities. Your attitude will be the downfall of this nation. I'm not kidding. It is killing us. Please stop. Read something. Learn about the world. Get outside and realize the sun is still shining and we still have Ferris wheels and there are no freaking terrorists trying to kill you in your bed. Really. I am up to here with this crap. Do you really understand the meaning of freedom so poorly? Sometimes you have to man up and accept a truly vanishing amount of danger in order to have a world you can live in like a real human being. Read up on road statistics, or infant mortality, or malaria, or actual wars in other places, then come back to me and tell me we have to toss out the entire freaking point of America in order to combat something none of us is ever actually going to see, but whose political fallout certainly does benefit a few powerful people. Benjamin Franklin would probably have been mildly surprised that America lasted so long - but he saw clear as day how it was going to end. I just wish it hadn't been in my lifetime.
      - swolchok 16y ago
        Your analogy does not hold, as the guy was not prevented from doing anything. He was questioned, searched, and spied on by the FBI. As far as we know, no direct, material harm came to him.
        Vivtek 16y ago
        Do you think white Christians who have visited Idaho should be confronted verbally at length by policemen whenever attempting to rent trucks? Especially if they're carrying a Bible? Should the rental truck police demand to know whether they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, implying that if they do, they should definitely not be allowed to enter Oklahoma? Should the mothers of white Christians renting trucks have their phones tapped by the FBI? You could already have constructed this analogy. Instead you choose to be disingenuous about it. Don't you think America should be capable of doing better than this?
oiuyhgthyjuki 16y ago
I was part of a school exchange program to Moscow for the 1980 olympics - as part of the pre-trip briefing we were told not to write anything about our visit while we were there because anything we wrote would be checked by the Russians when we left and we could get our hosts into trouble. Of course being from a free country we laughed at this ....

rubyrescue 16y ago

I just want to know how his mom figured out the FBI tapped her phone.

jat850 16y ago
In the article, he says: "Through a friend of the family who used to work for the FBI, I later learned that as soon as I had left the Customs interrogation room, the local FBI office in Savannah, Georgia (where I was headed to visit my mom) had been notified of my arrival. As a result, the FBI then tapped the home phone at my mom’s house." So it sounds as though it was through this same "friend" he learned of the phone tap as well.
- moron4hire 16y ago
  Why do we believe this "friend" actually exists?
  - smallblacksun 16y ago
    Because it was a story critical of the big, bad government, so it must be accepted at face value.

dmm 16y ago

> a shiny, unused bullet fell out of the front pocket. I'm assuming here that the author is refering to what is more accurately known as a cartridge. A bullet is the projectile, a hunk of lead, possibly with a jacket of copper or steel covering it. A cartridge is a bullet, a case, a primer and propellent. It's very easy to leave a catridge in a pocket and not notice it. Is there an english word for the practice of commonly refering to an entity by a subset of that entity?

swolchok 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche is probably the term, although the context in which "synecdoche" is used is generally analysis of literature / "English class."
ned 16y ago
> Is there an english word for the practice of commonly refering to an entity by a subset of that entity? A metonymy. [edit: swolchok is right, it's a synecdoche]
- golwengaud 16y ago
  Not quite. Metonymy is calling something by the name of a related object. The most common use of metonymy is probably "the White House" for President Obama's (Bush's, Clinton's, etc.) administration. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 16y ago
...what is more accurate know as a... Must be contagious.
- dmm 16y ago
  Ha, good catch. I seem to make similar mistakes fairly often, mostly leaving suffixes off of words: s, ly, etc. It makes proofreading a requirement for anything important. I never seem to do it while speaking though. Maybe it has something to do with typing, like I've memorized the patterns of keypresses associated with certain words and attaching a suffix requires intervention at some level.

tibbon 16y ago

US Customer, Homeland security and similar worry me for the primary reason that I don't think there are any 'checks' on their power that have any influence from citizens. When even the most famous of US Senators are even harassed by security personel (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug...) then we're in a tricky place. An average citizen has zero recourse and can't just call the President asking for Homeland Security to stop bothering them.

rflrob 16y ago

Fortunately, not all customs officers are this bad. About a year ago, I spent a couple months traveling around the Mediterranean, including Syria and Lebanon. Upon my return to the states, I got some moderately thorough questioning, but nothing that required a separate interrogation room, and the officer was polite the whole time. On the other hand, I didn't have a bullet in my pants. TSA says: "You must securely pack any ammunition in fiber (such as cardboard), wood or metal boxes or other packaging that is specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition." (http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1...)

jat850 16y ago
I don't fully understand how he made it to Customs without someone catching the ammunition earlier. I can't recall a travel experience where I went through Customs before going through security first. As Customs occurs at port of entry, I assume he would have passed through security in Delhi. I suppose security could have been lax or complacent there, but it still seems an odd thing to have made it through a scanner first.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  My belt buckle has much more metal than a shell casing, and it never sets off the metal detectors at airports. Shell casings have less metal in them than the buttons on my button-fly jeans. EDIT: I was mistaken, he did say it was an unused bullet, so it was more than a shell casing.
  - jat850 16y ago
    Yeah, that's a good point. I was thinking more along the lines of an X-ray machine (see, I don't even know enough about security processes to know if that's the right terminology) where they reveal outlines of denser objects, rather than the pass-through metal detector itself.
- gvb 16y ago
  He actually says "bullet", I would interpret that literally - just the bullet, not a full shell and definitely not any gunpowder.

enjo 16y ago

Meh... the whole thing didn't sound so unreasonable to me. The guy took a trip to two places well known for harboring and training terrorists. They found a bullet, a piece of terrorist propaganda, a burqa, and a note in his journal outlining some desire to renounce his citizenship. I'd be pretty damn suspicious too. I may not like it, but there are folks trying to kill us (all of us). These agents have a job, and that's to try and ferret out as many of these people attempting entry to our country as possible. It may be inconvenient, and it may be pretty nasty...but it's necessary. That's the reality of the situation. I'll also remind everyone to take any one-sided account like this with a certain grain of salt. It's a pretty emotional thing, and often certain points are quite exaggerated. Sometimes "yelling" is really "stern questioning". Other times "an hour and a half" is really "15 minutes". Ok.. let the down-voting commence :)

ojbyrne 16y ago
Having been through many secondary inspections at the US border (don't ask) I kind of agree with you. Essentially they're doing an interrogation, and they deliberately browbeat you in the hopes that you'll actually reveal something incriminating. Anything that will give them a shred of leverage they will use to try and intimidate you (none of the things in the article are actually incriminating, but they're "leverage"). EDIT (sober second thought): The phone tap (if true) does seem a little beyond the pale.
jemfinch 16y ago
Customs agents' job is to prevent contraband and unauthorized individuals from entering the country. It is not their job to berate American citizens returning from trips abroad. It is not their job to engage in emotionally charged interrogation regarding a person's religious views. It is not their job to intimidate, harass, or jump to unsupported conclusions.
- confuzatron 16y ago
  I'm pretty sure it's their job to ask people questions and put them off balance while doing so. Even to the extent of saying unreasonable things and raising their voices. It is irritating to be on the receiving end and I say that having only got the low-level treatment that I think everybody gets. But there you go.

sgt 16y ago

Reminds me that time I brought a rifle bullet (only the case, not the projectile itself) onto an international flight in Europe. I bought it as a souvenir in Poland and figured I could bring it with my handluggage. Before I knew it I was surrounded by these security types asking me all kinds of questions, and I said.. "what's the matter... it's not like you can KILL someone with an empty bullet!" - That didn't help, but they eventually let me go, bullet included. This was in 2002.

jcl 16y ago
For what it's worth, stupider things have happened. Here's a story (also 2002) of an octogenarian war-hero ex-governor detained because he was carrying a nail file, a dummy bullet, and -- the most suspicious item -- a Congressional Medal of Honor: http://www.snopes.com/military/medal.asp http://www.snopes.com/military/medal.asp

moultano 16y ago

Assuming we want customs officials doing anything terrorism related at all (which I'm not convinced of) this doesn't seem bad. Basically they made him socially uncomfortable for a while, and sent him on his way. They didn't take any of his stuff, they only detained him for an hour and a half. Overall it seems about as inconvenient as a flight delay.

yread 16y ago
plus they bugged his phone and put him on a list for private screening
dkarl 16y ago
Nice to know that if they don't have any legal way of stopping you or coercing information out of you, they'll only resort to harassment and intimidation for a little while before letting you go. Of course, the Customs Officer ignored the other four books and while holding up the book of quotes from the Prophet, proceeded to repeatedly scream “Do you believe in the words of the Prophet Mohammed?” over and over again while standing one foot away from my face. Every time I tried to mention the other books, and the one time I tried to ask why that question was even relevant, I was immediately cut off and told to be quiet. So in the end, the only reply I gave to his question was, “What?” They love yelling, and it isn't because they want you answer or comply. Apparently yelling serves some purpose in itself. Whenever someone shows me a police video, I take careful note of when they stop yelling variations on "Get down on the ground!" I saw one recently where the police fatally shot a guy (completely justified; he actually attacked a cop who was holding a gun on him, and another cop shot him) and one cop yelled "Get down!" or "Get down on the ground" at him three times after he had already fallen on the pavement.... I saw nothing inappropriate in the shooting, but I got a morbid chuckle out of the cop screaming at the dude to comply when the dude was already flat on the ground motionless and bleeding. It's also pretty shocking to watch the video of the guy being shot in the BART station in Oakland and try to figure out in what way he was resisting the two cops who were holding him face down on the ground while he was handcuffed. The cop who shot him kept yelling at him to stop resisting and then just popped him. He was -- what, shifting his weight? Trying to raise his head to answer their questions? Who knows. No level of compliance would have saved him, just like the guy who wrote this article didn't actually have to answer the questions. They just wanted to yell at him; they didn't want answers.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

js2 16y ago
It wasn't the TSA, it was US Customs and Border Protection.

vl 16y ago

I wonder if it's was a bullet or indeed a cartridge? It's kind of hard to find "unused bullet" without it being in a cartridge.

VladRussian 16y ago
it is simple logic - if it was a cartridge, he would still be writing this from inside a prison. While you can't do much with a bare bullet itself (may be you can try to throw it hard), the cartridge can very easily be put to use - you don't need 900m/s muzzle velocity at close range really.
- yread 16y ago
  How would you go about firing at somebody without exploding in your face? Can it be done?
  - chc 16y ago
    Drop something heavy on the explody end and it works much like a gun's hammer. There's no aim, but you do get ignition. Some kids used to do this for fun in one of the neighborhoods where I grew up.

js2 16y ago

Related discussions: * "I Am Detained By The Feds For Not Answering Questions" - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1681721 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1681721 * "Writer Peter Watts Guilty Verdict in Border Incident" - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1204737 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1204737

jdietrich 16y ago

This sort of treatment is difficult and unpleasant, but imagine how it would feel to be a young Muslim on the receiving end of such a grilling. Imagine what might have transpired if this chap had answered "Yes, I do believe in the words of the Prophet Muhammad". Imagine how this might affect someone who has grown up with the suspicion and abuse that Muslims living in the west have increasingly had to endure. A considerable proportion of Islamist terrorists and terrorist would-bes are western-born Muslims who feel that they are defending Islam. They have been told that the West, America in particular, considers them to be the enemy simply by merit of their religion. Young men and women are tracing modern Islamophobia back to the crusades and perceiving themselves to be fighting for survival. These beliefs have been made quite clear, perhaps most explicitly in the "martyrdom" videos released by the 7/7 London bombers. Here we have one of many incidents where a uniformed representative of the United States government is giving the clear impression that they perceive Islamic beliefs is inherently suspect. This man was not being interrogated to reveal what he had done or who he had consorted with, he was being asked what he thought and believed. Let that sink in for a minute. During the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the IRA pursued an explicit policy of "the worse, the better", knowing that by provoking the British army and the RUC into heavy-handed reaction, they could rally support for their cause and rouse antipathy towards the British government. The British army and the RUC were often referred to as "the IRA's recruiting sergeant".

petsos 16y ago
"Here we have one of many incidents where a uniformed representative of the United States government is giving the clear impression that they perceive Islamic beliefs is inherently suspect." As an outsider (neither Muslim nor American), I have to ask: how is that an impression and not a policy? The customs agents are government employees that, I assume, are ordered to act that way.
- wdewind 16y ago
  I think the "uniformed," implies policy.
- nostromo 16y ago

fosk 16y ago

Am I the only one experiencing an "Error establishing a database connection" exception when trying to open the link?

anigbrowl 16y ago

I don't find this credible. The lack of temporal context is one reason - you don't find out that the whole episode is meant to have taken place several years in the past until the end. 'and then it all went away' - just in case anyone who's traveled with Earl in recent years disputes the idea that he has difficulty clearing customs. I mean, you're an experienced globetrotter returning from the world's hottest war zone with live ammunition in your pants, but are just astonished at the idea that such a thing should be considered suspicious? I call bullshit. This is just filler for marketing purposes.

gbhn 16y ago
The article doesn't imply he's astonished at all. It more paints the picture of a world-weary traveler recounting an interesting, harrowing tale about the time he got through a foreseeable but nasty experience.
KoZeN 16y ago
I call bullshit I'm with you 100%. A lot of this just doesn't make sense. When he mentions that he was 'invited' into the interrogation room he makes no reference to any aggression or hostility from his interrogator until this guy finds a book referencing the prophet mohammed amongst other religious icons and suddenly we have a complete psycho on our hands: ...holding up the book of quotes from the Prophet, proceeded to repeatedly scream 'Do you believe in the words of the Prophet Mohammed?' over and over again while standing one foot away from my face. Whilst I appreciate there are probably a few unintelligent brutes defending the US as immigration officers, this particular guys approach appears to be lifted from a poor straight to TV movie. I personally believe airport security and political correctness has gone completely over the top and I'm disgusted by the general level of ignorance towards the Muslim religion but this whole article reeks. I simply don't buy it.

rdl 16y ago

I think he was unlucky (or was flying through an airport that sucks, or just met the wrong people, or failed an attitude check?). I've done stuff which almost exactly matches this profile (flown from India after visiting Afghanistan, with Afghan clothing in my bag, with no US government connected paperwork beyond a passport, with lots of random electronics in my bag, etc.) -- I was there to help set up medical clinic equipment. In IAD, SFO, and JFK, the Customs people were nothing but polite, speedy, and friendly.

mtogo 16y ago

It's intermittently down for me, here's a google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SECcYsQYdekJ:www.wanderingearl.com/the-day-us-customs-found-a-bullet-in-my-pocket/+http://www.wanderingearl.com/the-day-us-customs-found-a-bullet-in-my-pocket/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SECcYsQ...

ars 16y ago

So, on the one hand we don't like security theater. On the other hand when real security is implemented, we don't like that either. So what should we do? And please don't tell me that real security does not involve what was described in the article, because the reality is that until we invent mind reading machines, that's pretty much the only way to do it.

blahedo 16y ago
I think the objections are not to every aspect of this story. For instance, the bullet is definitely a problem that they needed to address. The OBL candy is perhaps... iffy. However, things like carrying a burqa and especially carrying books about various religions should not be---and a questioning that starts with screaming about Muslims is seriously not "real security". That's what we're complaining about.

Tyr42 16y ago

I cannot view the article. I'm getting "Error establishing a database connection". Is there a mirror somewhere? Edit: oh I didn't see this[1] comment mostly down the page with a link to the google cache page[2]. Thanks. [1][http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1857943 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1857943] [2][http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SECcYsQYdekJ:www.wanderingearl.com/the-day-us-customs-found-a-bullet-in-my-pocket/+http://www.wanderingearl.com/the-day-us-customs-found-a-bullet-in-my-pocket/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SECcYsQ...]

run4yourlives 16y ago

The most troublesome part of this entire story is that the guy flew internationally with a live round in is pant pocket and the first person to notice was a customs agent in a secondary screening room.

aidenn0 16y ago
Not really, my watch (A large automatic spring movement) has more metal in it than a 7.62mm cartridge, and I've made it through a metal detector a couple of times with forgetting to take it off. While you could kill someone with a single bullet by constructing a zip-gun, that is about the extent of the damage you can do.
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  You would think however that gunpowder would be one of the things that they'd test for, considering that if you can sneak a single round on, you could sneak several, theoretically.

bkmrkr 16y ago

GOOD, they are doing their job!

petenixey 16y ago

If after a terrorist attack, it emerged that the attacker had recently returned from Afghanistan to have a friendly chat with security officers about his Osama Bin Laden candy box, his book on Mohammed, the live round in his pocket and the notes in his diary about how to renounce citizenship everyone would be appalled. This is an interesting article but the fact that the author is in any way surprised by what happened to him is astonishing. Whilst it would be nice to live in a world where this wasn't necessary we don't and I'm reassured that the security response was what it was.

djacobs 16y ago
I'm not. The raw emotion controlling the interrogating 'official' is not reassuring to me at all. Also, "live round"? Really?
- petenixey 16y ago
  I used the term "live round" rather than "bullet" in deference to the other comments on the page. The emotion is unfortunately part of the process. An interrogation is designed to unsettle someone, it's not a process of uncovering evidence, an audit; it requires shaking the fruit down from the tree. Had he been interrogated in such a manner for simply being muslim or Afghani I would have been saddened but in the context these questions were apparently merited. Either you bring paraphernalia associated with terrorism and accept the consequences or you leave them behind. Expecting to bring those things back from Afghanistan and just walk through is ridiculous.
  - davidcuddeback 16y ago
    > Expecting to bring those things back from Afghanistan and just walk through is ridiculous. My reading of the story has the CBP agent pulling him aside solely on the fact that he visited Afghanistan and Pakistan. They did not uncover the other items until they thoroughly searched his pack while already in the interrogation room. Edited to add (from the story): "Once inside the room, the Officer began to inspect the contents of my backpack."
  - 16y ago

nphase 16y ago

Note to self: never bring a bullet back with me when traveling back from a country known for training and funding anti-american terrorists.

leif 16y ago

"At one point, frustrated by the lack of training/knowledge of the people put in charge of protecting the US borders, I literally pulled out my guidebook and gave them a lesson in geography and in a sense, in reality as well. I showed them excerpts of the guidebook that spoke of friendly locals, must-see highlights and a generally safe environment for travelers." I can only hope that this brief education opened the minds of his interrogators somewhat (and the thought that it might have gives me a warm and fuzzy, yet reservedly so, feeling inside).

lwhi 16y ago

Could any of this questioning have occurred without aggression? Why is the aggressive tone necessary? Would the conclusion have been any different if the questioners had been more civil? EDIT: Personally, I think the process of reviewing whether a person is a security threat, should be a much more sombre affair. Level headed pragmatism is necessary to make informed, sensible judgements. It sounds very much like the security staff were living up to the clichéd machismo of their TV or film-based counterparts .. and it leads me to think that intelligence is being supplanted by each staff member's personal desire to project authority.

alanh 16y ago

At times, I find it unthinkably barbaric that it actually matters what side of invisible lines you’re on, in 2010. But of course, the real world is a touch more complicated than the We’re All Just People-land I’m imagining.

hartror 16y ago

Scary :( I wonder if officaldom gets the irony of acting like this? I mean this is exactly what terrorists set out to cause.

rsingel 16y ago

Am I the only one here wondering "Why are you answering questions at all?" The Fifth Amendment still applies at the border and you aren't going to talk your way out of anything. When asked a question at the border -- IF you are a US citizen, shut up. Don't say anything. You are more likely to get in trouble for making a false statement to a federal office than to talk your way out of something. You can't be denied entry to the country for not answering questions. Just shut up. You have the right to remain silent. Use it.

donohoe 16y ago

Was he under arrest or bring detained? My understanding is that as a US citizen he committed no crime and could have asked if he was bring detained, under what law, or if he was free to go... However, through coercion, and lack of knowledge on his rights he consented to this interrogation. Anyone know for sure what his legal position was?

edanm 16y ago

A famous Israeli (a reporter, I believe) once forgot a bullet in one of his bags during his travels - he had recently been on reserve training duty, and used the same bag for that as for his travels. I don't remember the details, but he was travelling through another country (not the US or Israel) when the bullet was found - and he was imprisoned for several months for it.

rohi81 16y ago

Not being a citizen of US and not being a follower of the religion of Islam (which I happen to respect like any other religion) I think this guy/ you did everything possible to freak out a customs officer. The reason I say this is you don't expect every custom official to have traveled the world and be aware of the actual culture. They only know what they have been told along with what they have heard, which is to say that they know nothing (unless each custom official has had a state department course on countries). For a country that has been deeply scarred by a terrorist act all the officials know of is to look for some tell-tale sign of association. Those tell-tale signs as in your case may be completely bogus but they don't draw the distinction. I agree the experience is bad and system doesn't see the difference.Let me point out that I don't support this behavior any more than you do but with the current situation I cannot blame them too.

lionhearted 16y ago

I travel a lot and have made many border crossings. Like anyone who travels a lot, occasionally I get searched. The first time this happened, I would stand there passively and take questions. This seems to be most people's default reaction. Now, however, I take a bit more initiative - I help a customs officer unpack my things, and I intentionally point out things they'd want to question me about and explain their usage. For instance, I was stopped flying into London from Barcelona, and I had some Spanish anti-inflammatories, anti-biotics, and a freezable gell-pack for my knee for after working out. I said, "Sir, I'm going to unpack this part of my bag. I've got medicine in here - the Spanish equivalent of tylenol and antibiotics that I bought at a pharmacy, and a gel pack. I have these because I have a knee injury, and I also work out, but I need to take care of my knee after workouts." Then - no problem. I used to travel with some audio/visual equipment that would get searched like crazy, until I started saying, "I've got some A/V equipment with me, I make short little snippets when I travel. I'm not a formal journalist, it's just a hobby. I can explain what any of it does, if you need me to." This kind of preemptively explaining medicine, electronics, etc. would've probably helped this guy. "Excuse me, officer, I collected some weird artifacts while traveling. This here was a gift I received from a child in XYZ city, I bought these books while traveling since I was trying to learn about the influencers of the culture and they came sold in a pack together, etc, etc..." Take the initiative, be polite and friendly and explain well. It'll help, especially if you have things they'd typically question you about.

jrockway 16y ago

This article needs a link to one of those "don't talk to the police" articles. Just let them arrest you. When the judge realizes what happens you will be back out in society, perhaps with an apology. Also, you can't lose your citizenship by committing a crime. You certainly can't lose it without a trial.

riffic 16y ago

He shouldn't have answered one single question.