By now, the blogosphere is crammed with retellings of the incident involving Canadian SF writer Peter Watts at the Detroit border crossing. Dudgeon is high on both sides of the issue. There is an awful lot of passion flying around, most of it emanating from a lot of very indignant (and misinformed) people. As a Canadian SF writer (who also happens to be a security professional with practical training and experience in this area), I figured I'd weigh in and offer the following ...

Why Peter Watts Got Boot-Fucked by U.S. Border Guards


1. Peter was told to pull over. He pulled over (good), then got out of his car and demanded an explanation (bad).

• This is bad because an international border is a controlled area under the supervision of trained enforcement professionals who are under standing orders to defend it. This involves considerable risk. People brings guns, knives and explosives to border crossings every day. And one of the red flags that signals the start of a potential critical incident is a lack of compliance.
• When an enforcement professional pulls you over, it is known as a "stop." The proper behavior at a stop ... is to stop and await further instructions. This is for your safety ... AND theirs. Getting out and demanding a reason is construed as a "lack of compliance" (see above). Folks, this is the real world. Cops, borders guards, security officers get attacked routinely. They have the right to defend themselves. And defending yourself as a security professional means taking pre-emptive action.
• Getting out of the car and asking what's going on is being construed by Peter's supporters as reasonable behavior. And it is. But not in a security-controlled area. The reasonable behavior in such an environment is to be compliant, patient and polite. This signals the cops/security guys that you represent no danger to them and are willing to cooperate. (Remember: they're scared, too.) Anything else is a red flag.

2. Peter did not receive an answer to his question. So he asked it again (bad).

• Remember: controlled area. No answer is, in itself, an answer. I shall translate the lack of response from security-speak to civvy-speak: "Your question is secondary to the main issue. Right now, you are in danger because you have refused an order from armed security guys who would be forgiven for shooting you without a second thought. PLEASE! Shut up, sit down and let me do my job and I'll give you the information you want ... but on MY schedule, NOT yours. Remember: this is a security-controlled area. Therefore, the security guy's schedule prevails, not yours. My job is to protect you. Right now, the way I have to do that is by controlling your behavior for a little while. So sit down, shut up and be patient. Okay?" In a world of terrorism, vile criminal behavior and rampant psychosis, this is not an unreasonable request. It's not!
  

3. Peter was asked to get back into his car and did not (real bad ... and stupid).

• Outright lack of compliance with a security officer = assault. You may not like it, but that's the law.

In Peter's version, he got "punched in the face, pepper-sprayed, shit-kicked, handcuffed, thrown wet and half-naked into a holding cell for three fucking hours, thrown into an even colder jail cell overnight, arraigned, and charged with assaulting a federal officer, all without access to legal representation (although they did try to get me to waive my Miranda rights. Twice.)." My question to Peter is: was it worth it? For your little tantrum and grand-stand there at the Detroit border crossing? And the mileage you're getting from it now?

My advice: go before the judge, be contrite and respectful, apologize in the most sincere and forceful language available to you and GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE. Fighting this battle on principle is a losing proposition. You'll face defeat and prove nothing. Accept the way things are, admit you made a mistake and learn from it. And give the security guys a break next time. The Sixties ended on September 11th, pal. Get used to it.