I really cannot figure out why he did that... Yes - freedom is cool in lots of situations. It's nice not to be detained without a reason, hit without a reason, denied entrance somewhere without a reason.
This does not mean you should be a jerk to any staff member. They're asking questions - everyone knows they will. "I don't want to answer that" is way better than "None of your business" - it actually is their business. That's why they're there. Disagreeing with them is one thing, being rude to staff just because you have the right to is another.
This makes me sad. There are so many ways and reasons to fight for freedom, but being rude to people following their standard job very near the useless end of that list... Nothing accomplished, some staff members annoyed, other passengers delayed. Rather childish.
Also, he showed exactly how security works. They identified an angry / aggressive person, separated him from the crowd / put under observation, checked his bags for dangerous items. Maybe there's a reason to ask after all?
His entire position is that, as an American Citizen, it really is none of their business what he was doing. Now that I think of it, shouldn't the job of Customs and Immigration be the following for returning American Citizens:
I don't disagree that he does not have to answer questions. That does not mean security staff cannot ask questions. Do you think it really matters what you answer? Would anyone say "I was organising an attack on X.", "I was meeting with Russian mafia.", etc.? Most of the people will say "business", "family visit" or something similar anyways.
The person who doesn't - whatever the reason - is the one to look at.
Still - I see the reason why the questions are being asked. Even if you don't have to answer.
I'd really like to see if you'd get the same treatment if you simply said "I do not want to answer this question, because I'm not required to." with a smile instead of being passive-agressive.
How certain are you that you haven't just violated a law with that answer? And, how certain are you that response won't be used against you in a criminal case?
I'm actually serious - I don't have the legal background to understand whether your response ""I do not want to answer this question, because I'm not required to." would put me in legal peril.
You have doubts against my answer - which is ok of course. Yet, you don't question "none of your business", which is demonstrably worse in at least two ways (social interaction, perceived aggression). Can you show why? Even for a non-lawyer like me it shouts "verbal abuse of staff".
> how certain are you that response won't be used against you in a criminal case?
If there is a way to use that answer against me, I've already potentially lost any and all cases against me. If such response can be used against you, why do you believe your law to not answer will be honoured? You'll make a lot more mistakes of saying something wrong while proving you're right, since you will have to speak many more times. It is simply not a realistic scenario. You'll have to assume some things are not a work of government against you, in order to even begin fighting for freedom of not answering a simple question.
re: "None of your business" - Appeal to authority. The author is a Lawyer and states that is an acceptable response. If you indicated you had legal training, and that "...because I'm not required to " would not put you in legal jeopardy, I'd take you at your word.
In general, saying less is probably the safest approach if you are concerned about legal jeopardy. Not answering gives the individual interrogating you less leverage. You do have a right to silence once the basics (Your identity) are out of the way. Ironically, that is how the entire episode ended - eventually a supervisor showed up and said precisely that "He has a right to remain silent. Just inspect his luggage and let him go."
This does not mean you should be a jerk to any staff member. They're asking questions - everyone knows they will. "I don't want to answer that" is way better than "None of your business" - it actually is their business. That's why they're there. Disagreeing with them is one thing, being rude to staff just because you have the right to is another.
This makes me sad. There are so many ways and reasons to fight for freedom, but being rude to people following their standard job very near the useless end of that list... Nothing accomplished, some staff members annoyed, other passengers delayed. Rather childish.
Also, he showed exactly how security works. They identified an angry / aggressive person, separated him from the crowd / put under observation, checked his bags for dangerous items. Maybe there's a reason to ask after all?