![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM [via BoingBoing]: Canadian science-fiction writer Peter Watts is convicted of obstruction for getting out of his car at a US Border crossing and asking what was going on, then not complying fast enough when he was told to get back in the car. He faces up to two years in jail.
The details of the case are both fascinating and worrying. So is the fact that many news reports are claiming Watts was found guilty of assaulting one of the border guards, which is unequivocally untrue (he was initially accused of doing so, but that’s not what he was convicted for).
The full background is here, and Watts’ own take on his conviction is here and here. I recommend taking the time to read them and understand what happened here, which was basically this:
The jury essentially upheld the right of the US border guards under current law to bully, beat up, pepper spray and arrest anyone – not just terrorists or drug mules or illegal immigrants, but anyone – for merely not complying fast enough with an instruction. Which is troublesome because “immediate compliance” means to comply without question, no matter what the situation, how dumb it might be or how it might affect yr civil rights.
I realize a lot of people will blame Watts for getting out of the car in the first place, and that the border guards rely on unquestioning obedience to do their job properly, so anyone who counters that directive is asking for trouble. (Watts explains his actions here in Point 5.)
The problem for me is that the Watts case boils down to the “sit down and shut up” argument that authoritarians tend to use to justify whatever they do. Moreover (and I don’t want to get into Tea Party territory here, but ...) one of the first ingredients of creating a police state is to establish the right of the police to do anything they want and you don’t get to question the scope of their ability without risking being arrested.
If you want to see what that’s like, go to England where the police are constantly threatening to arrest people for taking photographs in public places, especially if they're photos of policemen.
Or you can just go here and imagine how much fun some police officers could have if there were no checks on them at all. Like, I don’t know, sodomizing suspects with Tasers.
We have checks on police powers for a reason, and one of them is so that simply asking “Why?” is not a criminal act punishable with jail time.
Depending on how the sentencing goes, Watts may go to jail for doing just that. I can’t imagine the Founding Fathers being cool with that.
Then again, I suppose it depends on who you ask or what school you go to.
Respect my authoritay,
This is dF
===================
EDITED TO ADD [27 APRIL 2010]: Watts is free – he was fined and his sentence was suspended by the judge. So no jail time. But the above points still stand.
The details of the case are both fascinating and worrying. So is the fact that many news reports are claiming Watts was found guilty of assaulting one of the border guards, which is unequivocally untrue (he was initially accused of doing so, but that’s not what he was convicted for).
The full background is here, and Watts’ own take on his conviction is here and here. I recommend taking the time to read them and understand what happened here, which was basically this:
The jury essentially upheld the right of the US border guards under current law to bully, beat up, pepper spray and arrest anyone – not just terrorists or drug mules or illegal immigrants, but anyone – for merely not complying fast enough with an instruction. Which is troublesome because “immediate compliance” means to comply without question, no matter what the situation, how dumb it might be or how it might affect yr civil rights.
I realize a lot of people will blame Watts for getting out of the car in the first place, and that the border guards rely on unquestioning obedience to do their job properly, so anyone who counters that directive is asking for trouble. (Watts explains his actions here in Point 5.)
The problem for me is that the Watts case boils down to the “sit down and shut up” argument that authoritarians tend to use to justify whatever they do. Moreover (and I don’t want to get into Tea Party territory here, but ...) one of the first ingredients of creating a police state is to establish the right of the police to do anything they want and you don’t get to question the scope of their ability without risking being arrested.
If you want to see what that’s like, go to England where the police are constantly threatening to arrest people for taking photographs in public places, especially if they're photos of policemen.
Or you can just go here and imagine how much fun some police officers could have if there were no checks on them at all. Like, I don’t know, sodomizing suspects with Tasers.
We have checks on police powers for a reason, and one of them is so that simply asking “Why?” is not a criminal act punishable with jail time.
Depending on how the sentencing goes, Watts may go to jail for doing just that. I can’t imagine the Founding Fathers being cool with that.
Then again, I suppose it depends on who you ask or what school you go to.
Respect my authoritay,
This is dF
===================
EDITED TO ADD [27 APRIL 2010]: Watts is free – he was fined and his sentence was suspended by the judge. So no jail time. But the above points still stand.
