There is a "smart" way to go through security: don't make waves; obey orders; get along. Clearly this guy didn't do the "smart" thing, and he didn't realize his mistake until it was too late.
That being said, many on this forum jump to the conclusion that the Canadian "deserved" what happened to him. That he "deserved" to get anally probed. One commenter actually said that
Being allowed to fist people is almost reason enough to join the police force.
WTF?
The stated intent of the border security is to make the country safe from external threats. There is a lowered right of privacy at a border checkpoint so that falls below what we expect from the 4th Amendment. Because of this lower standard, both states and agents have a greater degree of power and both take advantage.
The US government has moved its "border checkpoints" 50 miles away from the border so that they can stop your vehicle and search it without probable cause. It's true. You might wonder why the border checkpoint is 50 miles away from the border. You might say that such a checkpoint does nothing to protect our borders because the person and vehicle are already well within the country. And you would be right. But it does give the government the opportunity to search you and your vehicle without probable cause and that suits the government just fine.
Just as governments take advantage of power, so do people. The Canadian asked the second border agent if the agent honestly thought that the Canadian was a terrorist. After some quibbling, the agent answered, "no". Ladies and gentlemen, that is the end of the story. If the border agent honestly felt that the Canadian posed no threat, then the agent had no legitimate cause to detain, question or search the Canadian. And when the Canadian sues for false arrest, I predict that admission by the agent will be crucial.
While there is a lower standard of 4th Amendment protection at the border, and searches are exempted from the warrant requirement, they are still subject to the amendment's reasonableness requirement. Border Agents may conduct "routine" searches without any level of suspicion, while "nonroutine" searches must be supported by reasonable suspicion.
The agents admission that he didn't think that the Canadian was a terror threat is AN ADMISSION that he did not have a reasonable suspicion.
Having admitted that there was no legitimate reason to detain or search the Canadian, the only remaining reason was that which could be inferred by the previous conversation and by the comments of the posters on this thread: the border patrol agents were going to teach the Canadian a lesson. I've got news for them: it is not the job of the border patrol agents to teach lessons. The state cannot punish people unless there has been a decision by a court, and that is called due process.
"Are you going to shoot me?" is not a threat, except perhaps to an inflated ego. I don't think any court will assert that it is, especially when there is a recording showing the manner in which the "threat" was spoken.
For those of you who are still not convinced, and will assert that the Canadian "had it coming" because he disrespected the AUTHORITIIIIE of the agent, I pose this Hypothetical: How would you like it if you were in some 3rd World country and a Border Patrol Agent had it out for you merely because he thought you were being disrespectful? Would he then be entitled to arrest you AND YOUR WIFE. And have you both FINGERED in you private areas?
Let's please move beyond these childish notions of allowing random Agents to PUNISH strangers merely because Agents happen to have a Badge. All people deserve to be treated with dignity; If for no other reason, we should treat others with dignity because we expect to be treated with dignity.