Government Argues In Court That It Can Kill US Citizens At Will With Zero Judicial Oversight

from the your-tax-dollars-incoming dept

The federal government is back in court, arguing for its unilateral right to kill US citizens. Two journalists who had appeared to have been mistakenly targeted by drone strikes sued the government in 2017, seeking an injunction forbidding their own government from extrajudicially killing them.

The journalists, Ahmad Zaidan and Bilal Kareem, both experienced near misses by drone strikes. The suspicion they were mistakenly targeted was confirmed by an NSA document leaked by Ed Snowden that claimed Zaidan -- an Al Jazeera journalist -- was a member of Al Qaeda. His targeting was related to the government's bulk collection of metadata, which would have placed Zaidan close to several Al Qaeda members. His proximity to Al Qaeda members was to be expected, given his coverage of Al Qaeda activity and other events/incidents in the areas he covered.

All it takes is metadata to get someone killed -- even US citizens like Bilal Kareem who, like Zaidan, routinely covered Al Qaeda activity and spoke to Al Qaeda members. Kareem's solo lawsuit demanding confirmation that he had been placed on the government's kill list was terminated by the DC Circuit Court in 2019, which held that the information was too sensitive to share with US citizens possibly marked for death by their own government.

His joint lawsuit with Zaidan lives on, however. And it may finally provide the journalists with some answers. As Megan Mineiro reports for Courthouse News Service, the DC judges handling the case seemed rather shocked by the government's assertions.

Drawing alarm at the D.C. Circuit, a lawyer for the United States argued Monday that the government has the power to kill its citizens without judicial oversight when state secrets are involved.

“Do you appreciate how extraordinary that proposition is?” U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett asked Justice Department attorney Bradley Hinshelwood, paraphrasing his claim as giving the government the ability to “unilaterally decide to kill U.S. citizens.”

The "state secrets" assertion was the same claim used to escape Kareem's solo lawsuit. But it doesn't appear to be working quite as well this time -- not when the government is saying it can engage in extrajudicial, extraterritorial killings of US citizens and other non-terrorists. "We kill people based on metadata," a former US government official gleefully exclaimed in response to Snowden leaks. That still holds true, and it appears the government loses no sleep when it kills the wrong people based on flawed assumptions about patterns in its metadata stash.

The government's alternate argument wasn't much better. It basically claimed Kareem couldn't prove the US targeted him because lots of people were throwing around bombs and missiles.

Shrugging off Kareem’s claims as baseless speculation, the government argued the alleged airstrikes occurred at a time when Syria was wracked by civil war.

“In all of these circumstances, he’s not even the only person present, much less is there anything to suggest that he’s actually the target of any of these specific attacks,” Hinshelwood said.

Of course, the government could easily prove it never targeted these journalists by handing over information about the contested drone strikes. But it won't. It would rather argue it can kill whoever it wants without oversight or judicial review. The government would rather make this bold statement in open court than submit classified info directly to judges and lawyers with security clearance that would confirm or refute the placement of the plaintiffs on kill lists. The government's priorities are incredibly screwed up. And we have a long and pointless "war on terror" to thank for its refusal to answer questions about its drone strike programs -- programs that may well be targeting innocent people (including US citizens).

Filed Under: ahmad zaidan, al qaeda, bilal kareem, doj, drone strikes, extrajudicial assassination, judicial oversight, kill list, metadata, national security, nsa, state secrets, terrorism, us citizens

CBP Detains 9-Year-Old US Citizen For 36 Hours, Accuses Her 14-Year-Old Brother Of Sex Trafficking

from the safest-border-ever dept

Today's example of the government's ugliness comes to us courtesy of Customs and Border Protection. There's a crisis at the border if the latest national emergency is to be believed (it isn't), and the only way to stop it is to ramp up enforcement. If this means tossing a 9-year-old American citizen in the clink, so be it.

A mother and her 9-year-old daughter were separated for 36 hours after the child fell into U.S. Customs and Border Protection custody because agents at the border didn't believe she was who she claimed to be, a mother says.

This debacle started the way something like this usually does: with US citizens engaged in activity they engage in every day. In this case, mother Thelma Galaxia's children were being driven from Tijuana to the border crossing in order to attend school in San Ysidro, California. This was the normal state of affairs for her 9-year-old daughter and 14-year-old son.

Traffic was heavy at the crossing so her friend told them to walk across the border to make sure they got to school on time. Both children were questioned by CBP officers. These officers decided 9-year-old Isabel Medina didn't resemble her passport photo. They accused her of actually being her cousin, Melanie.

That wasn't enough for the CBP. It also decided to terrorize her 14-year-old brother, Oscar, by accusing him of being a criminal.

Galaxia said officers made Oscar Medina sign a document that said his little sister was his cousin.

“That is not true,” Galaxia said. “She is my daughter. He was told that he would be taken to jail and they were going to charge him for human trafficking and sex trafficking.”

The intimidated 14-year-old signed the document, thus making the CBP officers technically correct in their assumptions. They now had a paper signed by a human trafficker family member stating that Isabel Medina was actually someone other than the person she actually was.

Galaxia's children might have been detained longer if she hadn't gone to the press. NBC7 reports the Mexican consulate contacted the station while Galaxia was being interviewed by journalists, saying the children were being released to her. Presumably, the station's requests for comment from the involved government agencies got the wheels rolling on her daughter's case. The CBP, meanwhile, has refused to comment on this detention, claiming it's still in the middle of investigating this incident.

It seems like one of the CBP officers might have tried to contact the children's parents to straighten this out. But I guess it's a lot easier to intimidate children into false confessions when there are no other adults around standing up for their rights or contradicting the CBP's assumptions.

Filed Under: cbp, children, immigration, isabel medina, overreaction, thelma galaxia, us citizens

TSA Sending Air Marshals All Over The US To Tail Non-Terrorist US Citizens

from the skies-must-be-almost-too-quiet dept

The TSA is still wasting time and money making no one any safer. Documents obtained by the Boston Globe show the agency is sending its most limited resource -- air marshals -- on useless trips around the nation to surveil people who may have done nothing more than pause in front of an airport shop window.

The previously undisclosed program, called “Quiet Skies,” specifically targets travelers who “are not under investigation by any agency and are not in the Terrorist Screening Data Base,” according to a Transportation Security Administration bulletin in March.

The internal bulletin describes the program’s goal as thwarting threats to commercial aircraft “posed by unknown or partially known terrorists,” and gives the agency broad discretion over which air travelers to focus on and how closely they are tracked.

"Quiet Skies" relies on in-person surveillance of targets by "Flying Air Marshals" (referred to as FAMs in the program's documents). The TSA doesn't say very much about the program exposed by the docs leaked to the Globe. It prefers to point at its "broad discretion" to counteract terrorism -- something its doesn't do much in practice, but spends millions every year doing in theory.

"Whatever it takes" apparently includes adding people to watchlists simply because they've passed through certain foreign countries or are somehow "connected" to someone on the US government's multiple watchlists, no matter how tenuous that link is. This has led to air marshals following flight attendants, business people, and even other law enforcement officers all over the country, jumping from plane to plane as often as their targets do.

Marshals are given a sheet to list observations of the target's behavior while traveling, noting how often they sleep, use the restroom, access electronic devices, or otherwise do the things terrorists and non-terrorists alike do while on airplanes. But the surveillance extends to the airport itself. The checklist marshals are given also asks them to make note of "suspicious" behavior in airports, like changing directions when walking, looking into shop windows (supposedly checking reflections to see if they're being followed), or simply having the misfortune of being the last person on the plane.

The TSA apparently feels this suspicionless tracking of US citizens is not just Constitutional but somehow doing something to keep Americans safer. The air marshals actually performing the tracking disagree.

“What we are doing [in Quiet Skies] is troubling and raising some serious questions as to the validity and legality of what we are doing and how we are doing it,” one air marshal wrote in a text message to colleagues.

[...]

In late May, an air marshal complained to colleagues about having just surveilled a working Southwest Airlines flight attendant as part of a Quiet Skies mission. “Cannot make this up,” the air marshal wrote in a message.

One colleague replied: “jeez we need to have an easy way to document this nonsense. Congress needs to know that it’s gone from bad to worse.”

That those on the inside of the TSA's travel safety racket are questioning its means and methods isn't a good sign. The expressed concern about possible legal/rights violations indicates the criteria for turning an average US citizen into a "Quiet Skies" target must be absurdly low. Other comments indicated that even if the program somehow manages to be fully legal and Constitutionally-compliant, it's still a waste of resources.

Several air marshals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly, told the Globe the program wastes taxpayer dollars and makes the country less safe because attention and resources are diverted away from legitimate, potential threats.

This latest exposure of TSA tactics shows the agency is far more interested in exploring the outer limits of its "broad discretion" than actually nailing down its primary task: keeping terrorists and explosives off airplanes. The US government maintains multiple terrorist watchlists -- each of those the result of "broad discretion" -- that provides the TSA with numerous targets for extra screening and increase in-person observation. Apparently, that's not enough for an agency that has consistently failed to uphold its end of its post-9/11-attack mandates.

Filed Under: air marshals, quiet skies, surveillance, tsa, us citizens, watch list

DC Court Confirms That Government Agents Can Abuse US Citizens' Rights With Impunity If They Leave The Country

from the the-problem-is-that...-no-one's-ever-told-them-'no' dept

Your rights as an American citizen are null and void if you happen to be outside the nation's borders when those rights are violated. That's the gist of a ruling handed down by the DC district court last Friday.

A federal court on Friday dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit on behalf of a U.S. citizen who was illegally detained and mistreated by American officials in three east African countries in 2007. After fleeing unrest in Somalia, New Jersey resident Amir Meshal was arrested, secretly imprisoned in inhumane conditions, and harshly interrogated by FBI agents over 30 times before ultimately being released without charge four months later.

The ACLU had argued that Meshal's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated by these FBI agents, but the court has found that there's no legal recourse available for Meshal. It even admitted that the allegations, along with the legal questions the decision itself raises, are "deeply troubling." Unfortunately, the district court finds itself unable to do anything more than dismiss the case.

The defendants have moved to dismiss his case, alleging that even if Mr. Meshal’s allegations are true, he has no right to hold federal officials personally liable for their roles in his detention by foreign governments on foreign soil.

Except that it wasn't just foreign governments. It also involved US FBI agents who operated extraterritorially, operating in an area where they had no true legal authority to pursue or detain suspects. Any imprisonment was courtesy of local governments in three East African nations. The alleged torture, however, was All-American.

Despite it being held that Americans are not stripped of their rights when they leave the country, the court finds that earlier precedent finds in favor of the government thanks to the always-useful evocation of "national security" and "terrorism." (The FBI agents believed Meshal was connected with al-Qaeda.)

[I]n the past two years, three federal courts of appeals, including the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, have expressly rejected a Bivens remedy for citizens who allege they have been mistreated, and even tortured, by the United States of America in the name of intelligence gathering, national security, or military affairs.

The decision notes that courts have been reluctant to insert themselves in matters of national security, either in terms of military detainment or actions resulting from executive orders. This court is no different, although Judge Emmet Sullivan at least has the modicum of decency to note how truly screwed up this whole situation is.

The facts alleged in this case and the legal questions presented are deeply troubling. Although Congress has legislated with respect to detainee rights, it has provided no civil remedies for U.S. citizens subject to the appalling mistreatment Mr. Meshal has alleged against officials of his own government. To deny him a judicial remedy under Bivens raises serious concerns about the separation of powers, the role of the judiciary, and whether our courts have the power to protect our own citizens from constitutional violations by our government when those violations occur abroad.

This is another win for the unsavory side of our government, which uses fear of terrorism as an excuse for all sorts of malfeasance and overreach. Rather than buck precedent, Judge Sullivan cites and follows, creating even more precedent that will make attempts to reverse this trend less and less likely.

As it stands now, the government need only claim it suspects you of terrorism to treat you however it wants once you leave the relative safety of the United States. No one is allowed to question actions performed under the color of national security. The State knows best and if you try to challenge its actions, you'll find that route has been blocked by bad precedent set in deference to executive branch FUD.

The ACLU completely understates its opinion of this ruling.

"It is a sad day for Mr. Meshal and for all Americans, who have a right to expect better of their government and their courts than immunity for terrible government misconduct."

Oh, we certainly have the right to expect better. We just don't have any way of demanding it. That decision currently lies in the hands of legislators, a group that has also shown an appalling tendency to defer to national security fearmongering. Judge Sullivan knows this is terribly wrong but can't find a way to get out from under bad precedent. Here's hoping judges in the future can do better.

Filed Under: constitution, rights, us citizens

Administration Officials Perform Some Very Public Handwringing Over Extrajudicial Drone Killing

from the the-eternal-martyrdom-of-the-executive-branch dept

The administration has sort of painted itself into a corner with its new rules on drone strikes. It's apparently seeking to take out a US citizen who has joined al-Qaeda and is "actively plotting" against the US. Multiple issues have arisen, thanks to Obama's better-late-than-never drone guidelines, which were issued last year to appease the many countries perturbed by the US government's increasing reliance on drones to take out suspected terrorists.

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen and the Justice Department must build a case against him, a task it hasn't completed

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And President Barack Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

Oddly, the DOJ hasn't completed its case against the targeted American, despite officials (anonymous ones) claiming the man is a "facilitator" who has been "directly responsible" for attacks on Americans overseas. Flimsier cases have floated entire prosecutions (including many, many of the FBI's homegrown terrorists). It must be the potential stripping of due process (no matter how meaningless that process has been in practice) holding the US back.

It may not even need a case. It may just need to offer sufficient justification for carrying out a death sentence without due process. That's the sort of thing Rep. Mike Rogers seems to think the US should be doing anyway. His unwavering belief that the US is a country constantly besieged by attackers leaves no room for constitutional nuances like due process. This, along with "transparency" is referred to by Rogers as "red tape."

Even as the "case" is being built, there are other concerns. As we just covered recently, the NSA aids in tracking down strike targets, but it's doing so using (no big deal, it's just) metadata, some of which is less than precise. Those who think they are targets are swapping SIM cards around as quickly as possible to thwart geolocation tracking, which ultimately means the target being killed may not be the person the NSA thinks he/she is.

But moving beyond Rogers' histrionics and the NSA's haystacks, these statements by anonymous government officials don't look like much more than further appeasement. Rules were put in place to make other countries happier and this very public hand wringing looks for all the world like the administration stage-whispering "See how very complicated this is, and how restrained we're being in response." Admittedly, stagecraft is a large part of politics, but this particular incident is notable for its overacting.

The government has killed four Americans with drone strikes since 2009, so this open-air discussion has less to do with concerns about following proper steps than it does with letting unhappy foreign nations know how seriously we're suddenly taking our targeted killing responsibilities. The limitations on drone strikes were a long time coming, and it has taken a sustained uproar over several years to get them implemented. The last time the administration spent any time considering the implications of its hands-off approach to extrajudicial killing was towards the end of Obama's first term in 2012, when there was the momentary concern that The Bad Guys (the other party) might have the same unfettered access and authority.

As much as the unnamed American might be deserving of punishment for his attacks on Americans, the administration should stick to its self-imposed rules and follow the processes it implemented. And the least it could do is follow the rules without carrying on in public, trying to conjure up some sort of sympathy for the difficult decisions it faces.

Filed Under: barack obama, cia, doj, drones, targeting, us citizens, white house officials

Entire Court Discussion Of Feds Blocking US Citizen From Flying To No Fly List Trial... Redacted

from the sickening dept

We already wrote about the release of Judge Alsup's ruling in the Rahinah Ibrahim case. However, I wanted to do a second post, concerning one of the issues that first grabbed our attention about the case -- the fact that Ibrahim's daughter, a US citizen, was put on the no fly list and blocked from flying to the US to be a witness at the trial. The DOJ insisted that this was untrue and the daughter had simply missed her flight -- claims that were later proven to be outright lies. At the time, it appeared that Judge Alsup was not at all happy about this, and we hoped that this would result in some sort of sanctions or punishment for the federal government lying to a federal judge.

And, that whole incident is discussed in the ruling, but we have no idea what it says. Because the entire section is redacted. At the beginning of the filing, Judge Alsup notes about this incident that: "the snafu was the result of government error, albeit corrected quickly, as will be outlined at the end of the findings of fact." Then you jump to the section about "The Citizen Daughter" and you get a brief recap, noting that Ibrahim's daughter, Raihan Binti Mustafa Kamal, a US citizen, was blocked from getting on her flight to the US in Kuala Lumpur. And then you turn the page and get this: In other words, if Alsup did anything about this "snafu," we're unlikely to ever know about it, which seems fairly ridiculous.

Filed Under: dhs, doj, no fly list, rahinah ibrahim, raihan kamal, redacted, us citizens, william alsup

Homeland Security Is An Embarassment With The Way It Treats US Citizens At The Border

from the this-needs-to-stop dept

A few months back, we wrote about the horrific treatment by Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol agents of On the Media producer Sarah Abdurrahman and her friends and family at the border. They were all US citizens and yet were detained for many hours for no reason, had their electronics seized and were generally treated terribly. Homeland Security has refused to explain why it stopped them -- though, the obvious answer is that they were Muslim. There is now a similar story from Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, the Emmy-nominated producer and host of Huffpost Live (full disclosure: he once had me on his show), discussing how he gets detained every time he returns to the country. This time, he was just coming back from the World Economic Forum at Davos, and he was given a document with a big X over his face and sent to a "special" line: As he notes, the room was... full of "brown" people:

At the door, an Egyptian-American woman greeted me, "Al Salaam Aleykum," she said. I reluctantly responded "Wa Aleykum Al Salam," though I was hardly feeling at peace. The room was filled with rows of seats and several DHS officers with colorful folders (red, yellow, green, blue) lined up in front of them with passports and travel documents. The juxtaposition of the colorful folders with the rows of mostly brown people filling the seats was suspect in itself.

"Omar Mubarak... Juan Diaz... Sayed Hussain," the officers called us one by one.

I couldn't help but feel as though JFK itself was a bit racist.

And, just as Sarah and her family and friends discovered, despite being US citizens, DHS treats them all like criminals:

After a 14-hour trip, I wanted to stretch my legs. So I stood up, anxious to find myself back in the room, especially after having written to the DHS. "Take a seat," the officer at the door sternly said to me. I told him I wanted to stretch my legs after the long flight. He told me I wasn't allowed to stand up. You are also not allowed to use your phone or electronic equipment. I was also slightly surprised to find as many children in the room as there were cameras.

"Sir, I'm a U.S. citizen who wants to stand while being detained. Am I not allowed to stand?" I said, pointing to the Asian man and Pakistani woman standing with their toddler strapped to the man's chest. Anyway, there were only two empty seats in the room with a capacity of 60.

"Sit down!" he repeated for the sixth time, and came and confiscated my phone, which I was using to try to text my coworkers who were waiting to share a car home.

Like Sarah, DHS won't provide any information as to why he was detained. And it clearly wasn't random, seeing as this is the third time in a row it has happened. While he has applied to have his name removed from the list, as we noted with the lawsuit involving Rahinah Ibrahim, DHS seems to have no interest in correcting its mistakes until forced to do so.

Frankly, this is disgusting. It's sickening that we are treating American citizens this way as they attempt to return home. Homeland Security and the US government seem to have dropped all pretense of freedom if you happen to be brown, Muslim or have an Arabic name (and just imagine those who hit on all three). This is not what this country is supposed to stand for -- and the fact that we now have two very similar stories from prominent journalists, and DHS continues to respond by saying absolutely nothing, is even more disgusting. With On the Media, they've been trying to pressure Congress to investigate the matter, but to date, no one in Congress seems to want to take on this issue, which is a real shame.

Filed Under: ahmed shihab-eldin, customs and border patrol, detention, homeland security, profiling, sarah abdurrahman, us citizens

Rep. Alan Grayson Asks Eric Holder If US Citizen Glenn Greenwald Will Actually Be Allowed Back Into The US Without Arrest

from the shameful-that-this-question-is-asked dept

It's horrifying enough that this question needs to be asked, but Rep. Alan Grayson, who has been one of the most vocal members of Congress in calling out the NSA's bad behavior has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, seeking assurance that if US citizen Glenn Greenwald were to come back into the US that he could do so without being arrested. Grayson notes that a variety of prominent people, both within and outside the government (but who have influence on the government) have called for Greenwald to be arrested and prosecuted.

Mr. Greenwald, a United States citizen currently living in Brazil, has been publicly attacked by Members of Congress such as Representative Peter King, who on multiple occasions has called for his arrest merely because of his reporting as a journalist on the NSA. The Chairs of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Mike Rogers, have appeared to echo this threat, as have prominent foreign-policy commentators such as Alan Dershowitz and Marc Thiessen.

He also highlights the infamous UK detention of Greenwald's partner, David Miranda. And then asks the basic question of whether or not the US government will agree that Greenwald can enter his own country without arrest for the crime of "journalism the government doesn't like."

I regard this as regrettable, because: (1) the commission of journalism is not a crime; (2) on the contrary, it is protected explicitly under the First Amendment; and (3) Mr. Greenwald's reports regarding these subjects have, in fact, informed me, other Members of Congress, and the general public of serious, pervasive violations of law and constitutional rights committed by agents of the government.

Bearing in mind that Mr. Greenwald is a citizen of the United States, please let me know: (1) whether the Department of Justice intends to bring charges against Mr. Greenwald, and (2) should Mr. Greenwald seek to enter the United States, whether the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, or any other office of the federal government intends to detain, question, arrest, or prosecute Mr. Greenwald, or to monitor or interfere in any way with his entry into or movement within the United States.

It's a sad and shameful comment on the state of the US government today that this question needs to be asked, no matter what the eventual answer is. We've strayed very very far from the ideals that this country is supposed to embrace.

Filed Under: alan grayson, eric holder, glenn greenwald, us citizens

Border Patrol's Horrific Treatment Of On The Media's Producer, Family & Friends Highlights The Lack Of Accountability From DHS

from the shameful dept

By now we've all heard plenty of stories about ridiculous goings on at the border by Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol agents. We've written many times about questionable electronics searches. Still, I urge people to listen to the story that On The Media producer Sarah Abdurrahman did for last week's episode, all about how she, her family and friends were all detained at the Canadian border for around six hours, the treatment they received and the lack of answers that anyone is willing to give when she asked questions (as a journalist) about these actions. Listen to it and try not to get angry at the shameful behavior of these agents supposedly representing our country.

Everyone they detained was an American citizen, coming back to the US after attending a wedding of a cousin. They were treated terribly, put in a cold room with no food or drinks, and no information on what was going on. CBP demanded they hand over their electronics, and made it clear they might not get them back. The thing is, this isn't a unique situation. As the report notes, there's almost no oversight over CBP actions, allowing them to act with impunity. In the report, the story is told of a 4-year-old girl, an American citizen, who was detained for 14 hours, in a cold room, without being allowed to speak to her parents and given no food beyond a cookie. And then she was deported. Even though she was a US citizen. She was allowed to come back weeks later, but now has symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Abdurrahman's own story is perhaps not that crazy, but is still ridiculous. She tried to find out information during the detainment, but was repeatedly told "it's not your right to know." She wasn't even allowed to know the names of the CBP agents who detained them. When she asked, agents turned their backs to her so she couldn't see their name tags. Multiple attempts at getting Homeland Security or CBP to respond to questions failed.

She also tells the story of some other wedding attendees who were similarly detained with incredibly obnoxious behavior from CBP agents. The first one they met was quizzing everyone in the car on their names, and the 3-year-old kid in the back cheerily volunteered his name and the CBP agent snapped at him. The agents initially promised that they wouldn't search their phones, but then demanded that people unlock their phones, and even told them the phones would be confiscated and not returned. People complained that they needed their phones for work and were basically told too bad. Abdurrahman notes that three full cars of people from that one wedding all had their phones confiscated, and she notes that DHS claims only about 15 phones are confiscated each day by CBP, and wonders why everyone from one wedding appear to have nearly reached that quota.

Then there's the really ridiculous part: one of the people detained went through mutliple invasive body searches, and then after five and half hours was suddenly handcuffed and locked up in a jail cell with no explanation at all. He asked the officers to let his family know what was going on, but they didn't. Instead, they told his family to leave, and when they asked what happened, his family was told that "an agency" was coming to "pick him up," without giving any more details -- obviously leading to the worst assumptions. Instead, it turned out the guy had an unpaid ticket for a crooked license plate from 2006. CBP called the Michigan State Police to come "get him" over this -- and, again, didn't explain any of this to his family.

Basically, the CBP seems to act like you'd expect pretty much any group in authority with no oversight to act. They seem to feel free to terrorize people just because they can and because there are no recriminations. And there's basically nothing to be done about this. Abdurrahman finds out that they can submit a complaint, but that such complaints rarely lead to anything, other than getting a cursory letter saying that the complaint has been "dismissed."

The stories and quotes from the various individuals who went through this -- all American citizens just trying to get back into their own country -- are heartbreaking. They talk about how dehumanizing this is, how unwelcome it makes them feel in their own country, how it feels like an attack on their dignity, how it makes them feel like an animal. It's horrifying and shameful. It's also depressing. This is not how any country should act, especially towards its own citizens, and when it's my country acting this way, I'm horrified. Yes, all the stuff about America standing for freedom and whatnot can be seen as its own form of propaganda -- and most people realize that the US has never really lived up to the ideals it sets forth, but to have them stomped on so blatantly, and then having no one willing to answer for them is just... horrific. Sarah, her family and friends, all deserved much better. And, we, as American citizens all deserve much better.

Filed Under: cbp, customs and border patrol, dehumanizing, dhs, homeland security, sarah abdurrahman, us citizens