4 ms·

I'm being detained because - A) I'm not the right skin color. B) DHS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection are evil. -or- C) I work for a group that has be

I'm being detained because - A) I'm not the right skin color. B) DHS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection are evil. -or- C) I work for a group that has been classified as an eco-terrorist organization. And due to past terrorist events my org was involved in, they want to find out what I'm doing here. Doesn't C) explain this so much better than A) and B)? But then there wouldn't be a story here to report on.

kintamanimatt 13y ago
That's a false dichotomy. Why can't all three be factors?
- smalltalk 13y ago
  It may be all three factors, but given (C), (C) alone is reasonable justification for his situation, rendering (A) and (B) irrelevant.
nraynaud 13y ago
C) after having been actively attacked by some State special forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior edit: I keep thinking about that, and I don't know how you don't become crazy when you discover that the four or fifth biggest economy (at the time) actively attacked you. A "sane" level of paranoia doesn't exists anymore, you are actually framed by the secret services, you are in the novel, in the movie. They have allies all over the world, the rest is USSR friends you don't trust either or non-aligned third world countries.
- jordanthoms 13y ago
  Exactly - I don't generally support Greenpeace, but there is no doubt they were a victim of state-sponsored terrorism - the state being France. Actually, it's the only terrorist attack we've ever had in New Zealand, and it resulted in a civilian's death. France threatened to embargo NZ goods within the EU unless we handed back their terrorists. At which point they were released and promoted.
  - nraynaud 13y ago
    And now some of them work in the US.
grey-area 13y ago
We consider greenpeace terrorists now?
- powertower 13y ago
  Eco-terrorism is very real - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism And the problem the law has with it is not due to it's ends, but with it's means.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    Just because some people have committed violence in the name of defending the environment, why does that relate to greenpeace. As far as I know they are are non-violent. This is what is wrong with the label terrorist - it mixes up people happy to shoot at crowds and bomb markets with all sorts of other people the government finds threatening. The aim of its use is to label people as beyond the pale and therefore not worthy of the protection of our laws. We should be very wary when this label is used. That these powers have been abused for detaining and searching members of greenpeace, or film makers like Poitras, is a very persuasive argument for me that the government should not have these powers of arbitrary arrest or detention at all.
  - latk 13y ago
    Terrorism implies violence or threats of violence. Neither Greenpeace nor Chris Eaton can be reasonably labeled as “terrorist” or connected with terrorist actions. Calling such organizations and people terrorist is disrespectful to victims of actual terrorists. It can be argued that eco-activism hurts “the economy”. But that argument goes both ways: Some practices like whaling, mining, fracking and deforestation do (or can do) massive ecologic damage, and are not sustainable. On his blog, Mr. Eaton mentioned the possibility that he may be subject to such intimidation precisely because of the inability to connect him with illegal activities (http://chriseatondotnet.tumblr.com/post/59902438104/freedom http://chriseatondotnet.tumblr.com/post/59902438104/freedom).
nnash 13y ago
The article states in the first paragraph that it's exploring edge cases from a thousands* of foreign travelers. *surprising that they don't give a real number.

kintamanimatt 13y ago

That's a false dichotomy. Why can't all three be factors?

smalltalk 13y ago
It may be all three factors, but given (C), (C) alone is reasonable justification for his situation, rendering (A) and (B) irrelevant.

nraynaud 13y ago

C) after having been actively attacked by some State special forces http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior edit: I keep thinking about that, and I don't know how you don't become crazy when you discover that the four or fifth biggest economy (at the time) actively attacked you. A "sane" level of paranoia doesn't exists anymore, you are actually framed by the secret services, you are in the novel, in the movie. They have allies all over the world, the rest is USSR friends you don't trust either or non-aligned third world countries.

jordanthoms 13y ago
Exactly - I don't generally support Greenpeace, but there is no doubt they were a victim of state-sponsored terrorism - the state being France. Actually, it's the only terrorist attack we've ever had in New Zealand, and it resulted in a civilian's death. France threatened to embargo NZ goods within the EU unless we handed back their terrorists. At which point they were released and promoted.
- nraynaud 13y ago
  And now some of them work in the US.

grey-area 13y ago

We consider greenpeace terrorists now?

powertower 13y ago
Eco-terrorism is very real - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism And the problem the law has with it is not due to it's ends, but with it's means.
- grey-area 13y ago
  Just because some people have committed violence in the name of defending the environment, why does that relate to greenpeace. As far as I know they are are non-violent. This is what is wrong with the label terrorist - it mixes up people happy to shoot at crowds and bomb markets with all sorts of other people the government finds threatening. The aim of its use is to label people as beyond the pale and therefore not worthy of the protection of our laws. We should be very wary when this label is used. That these powers have been abused for detaining and searching members of greenpeace, or film makers like Poitras, is a very persuasive argument for me that the government should not have these powers of arbitrary arrest or detention at all.
- latk 13y ago
  Terrorism implies violence or threats of violence. Neither Greenpeace nor Chris Eaton can be reasonably labeled as “terrorist” or connected with terrorist actions. Calling such organizations and people terrorist is disrespectful to victims of actual terrorists. It can be argued that eco-activism hurts “the economy”. But that argument goes both ways: Some practices like whaling, mining, fracking and deforestation do (or can do) massive ecologic damage, and are not sustainable. On his blog, Mr. Eaton mentioned the possibility that he may be subject to such intimidation precisely because of the inability to connect him with illegal activities (http://chriseatondotnet.tumblr.com/post/59902438104/freedom http://chriseatondotnet.tumblr.com/post/59902438104/freedom).

nnash 13y ago

The article states in the first paragraph that it's exploring edge cases from a thousands* of foreign travelers. *surprising that they don't give a real number.