Your last paragraph has a nice focused point to discuss. The problem (as I see it from the comfort of my armchair) is not whether Moxie should be searched or questioned, it's how. For example, if the police appear at his home and bring him in for questioning, there are a nice series of legal rights and procedures in place to ensure that the investigation is performed properly.
Likewise, if the police wish to search his laptop or phone, there are again a nice series of procedures in place that Americans have already agreed are in society's best interests to enforce.
I would never suggest that the police do not do their job according to the rules in place. I am suggesting that using the border search rules to perform an investigation of an associate of a suspect gives the appearance that the police are avoiding the proper procedures because they don't have the evidence and cause to question him or search his laptop and phone.
This, I argue, undermines the credibility of the investigation, which is of great harm to society as a whole.
But: there is a pair of subtexts in the gestalt of the discussion about his border drama that I have a hard time accepting.
The first subtext is the notion that the US government is now harassing security researchers. That notion attaches itself to the headlines being written: "security researcher stopped at border". No. "Security researcher" wasn't stopped. "Affiliate of Wikileaks volunteer" was stopped.
The second subtext is that questioning an affiliate of a Wikileaks volunteer would constitute harassment. Words mean things. Harassment describes government interventions whose sole purpose is to cause discomfort to targets. But an actual crime took place. It wasn't a small crime; it was a criminal event of fairly epic proportions. It may well be mitigated by the ethics of whistleblowing (I don't think so, but respect people who do, and count many of them as friends). Aggressive investigation of epic criminal events is not harassment; it's a central part of the government's charter.
(Did you make any of these claims? I don't care to find out. My issue is with the subtexts, not with any particular person's argument.)
The rest of this discussion, about the justice/injustice of border searches and whatnot... I have less strong opinions about. I've been searched aggressively at US borders. I didn't like it. I thought it was wrong. I researched it, read a bunch of court opinions on it, and came to the conclusion that much like the interpretation of our Second Amendment that guns should be minimally regulated, this is a settled bit of American law that I'm going to have to learn to dislike passively.
I agree with disputing both subtexts. The OP does not suggest that security researches are being targeted for searches. I certainly don't disagree with the notion of investigating a suspect's associates under certain circumstances.
Given your feelings about the subtexts, I think I understand your comments.
Likewise, if the police wish to search his laptop or phone, there are again a nice series of procedures in place that Americans have already agreed are in society's best interests to enforce.
I would never suggest that the police do not do their job according to the rules in place. I am suggesting that using the border search rules to perform an investigation of an associate of a suspect gives the appearance that the police are avoiding the proper procedures because they don't have the evidence and cause to question him or search his laptop and phone.
This, I argue, undermines the credibility of the investigation, which is of great harm to society as a whole.