Sklyarov Denied Visa to Return to U.S. for Trial

Kurt Foss writes "Visa applications for Alexander Katalov and Dmitry Sklyarov of ElcomSoft were recently denied by the American Embassy in Moscow, jeopardizing their return to the U.S. in time for the company to face criminal charges for allegedly violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) last year. The already rescheduled trial is presently set to begin in the U.S. District Court of Northern California on October 21."

Comments

good luck?

[spickus]

Sounds like a stroke of good luck?

Re:good luck?

[unicron]

Quite the opposite in fact. Had they actually been allowed here, they would have been able to defend themselves and maybe create more attention for their case. I suppose it's good they won't be in a situation to face jail or stiff fines, but I wish they could've been allowed to have their voices heard in court.

Re:good luck?

[Citizen of Earth]

Had they actually been allowed here, they would have been able to defend themselves and maybe create more attention for their case. I suppose it's good they won't be in a situation to face jail or stiff fines, but I wish they could've been allowed to have their voices heard in court.

I don't suppose that judges are allowed to nullify their verdicts?

Re:good luck?

[mythr]

What ever happened to the rite of Habeas Corpus? Since this has to do with the DMCA, it would have to be a criminal trial, and thus the trial cannot go on without him. If the DMCA allows prosecutors to violate due process, then it shouldn't be very long before it is deemed unconstitutional.

It might have been alright if they had waived their rights voluntarily, but they are being held against their will. If the trial is allowed to go on, the results should be very easily appealed. That is, if it is not deemed a mistrial.

While I am not a lawyer, a little bit of common sense goes (or used to, anyway) a long way.

Re:good luck?

[Capsaicin]

What ever happened to the rite (sic) of Habeas Corpus?

Umm considering they are both presently not in custody, where do you see the Habeas Corpus issue coming in?

Re:good luck?

[mythr]

They are effectively being detained by customs. Because of this, they are unable to make it to their trial in order to defend themselves. They may not be in police custody, but they are being effectively barred from the court by another branch of the government that is trying them. That is where I see the rite of Habeas Corpus coming in.

Re:good luck?

[BigDaddy]

This is a "right." Not a "rite."

You raise a good point. If they were to board a plane and be detained by customs, they might have a legitimate claim to habeas corpus.

Re:good luck?

[Capsaicin]

This is a "right." Not a "rite."

Actually its a 'writ.'

Re:good luck?

[Capsaicin]

They are effectively being detained by customs.

Not at all. It's simply a matter of refusing a visa request, no-one is being held in custody. Yet.

Interesting

[Darein]

So it appears the US has the ability to get them into even more trouble now? Does Russia extradite crimals to America?

Re:Interesting

[badvictor]

Extradition is usually done for certain types of crimes, like murder for example. As far as I know Russia and the USA have not signed any extradition treaties for DMCA violations.

Re:Interesting

[intermodal]

i seriously doubt they'd extradite Dmitry for this. For one, it was not illegal in russia, for another, it was not for a crime committed outside of russia where it was not a criminal act. So regardless of whether Russia extradites foreigners to the US, I don't see any reason why they would hand him over.

Re:Interesting

[kcbrown]

So regardless of whether Russia extradites foreigners to the US, I don't see any reason why they would hand him over.

Yes ... if everything is done on the up and up.

But I'm sure Russia will make an "exception" if given the right "reasons", those reasons being under the table and off limits to public viewing ... for "national security" reasons, of course...

Re:Interesting

[coupland]

I don't know about America, they do to Canada but here we call it "immigration". ;-)

Re:Interesting

[digerata]

Maybe the US wanted to 'avoid' the international backlash that would have happened had they shown up?

Not granting them visas is an easy way to push confrontation off for awhile.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

It ain't funny!

Fucking Russian cunts!

Re:Interesting

[Gonarat]

IANAL, but I don't see how they could extradite Dmitry. He did not ignore his promise to the U.S. courts and ignore U.S. Law -- the facts are Dmitry and Elcomsoft officials intended to be in California on October 21st for the hearing, but the U.S. Consulate was the one who denied entry to the U.S. I think that this alone would be enough for Russia to deny an extradition request if one was presented.

Tried in absentia?

[InterruptDescriptorT]

What would happen if they aren't able to be issued visas in time? Would it be constitutionally valid to try someone in absentia? The case going on in Philadelphia right now (can't remember his name right now, sorry) is interesting in that French authorities refused to extradite the defendant to the US because his original trial was held, and he was convicted, in absentia. This apparently contravened the European Convention of Human Rights, and the US had to agree to retry him before France would agree to the extradition. I wonder if there are any UN treaties that both Russia and the US would be a party of that might prevent poor Skylarov from more machinations of the US justice system.

Anyway, it's not like the US would ever send people into another country to kidnap someone whom they wanted to put on trial... Nah, that would never happen. </sarcasm>

Re:Tried in absentia?

[echophase]

Ira Einhorn, or something around that spelling.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[XorNand]

The guy your're talking bout is Ira Einhorn. France refused to extradite him because he could possibly face the death penalty in America. The circumstances are quite different than Skylarov's.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

modded as "Insightful"? You've got to be kidding me . . . so, how often, exactly does the US send people to another country to "kidnap" someone we want to put on trial?

Are you referring to the Mexican doctor who was kidnapped and brought to the US, and as a result had his case thrown out of court? This doctor, of course, used his medical training to keep a kidnapped DEA agent alive and conscious for several days during his torture by narcotrafficers (who killed him once they thought they had gotten all the info they were likely to get out of him). So, kidnapped? Yes. Case thrown out of court? Yes. Even though he was a horrible bad guy, who had done horrible things, the Court set him free. So to what are you referring? Perhaps you know of other examples? Or is it just that "they say" it happens, and that's good enough for you?

Oh, wait, I know of one other possible example -- in the mid-1980s, the US invaded Panama, and ultimately tried, convicted, and imprisoned Noriega. Ooh, if I were Dimitri, I'd be quaking in my boots -- you never know when a few Marine brigades are going to drop in . . .

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

killed his girlfriend, US citizen, fled to france.

Deserves full extent of punishment.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[schon]

how often, exactly does the US send people to another country to "kidnap" someone we want to put on trial?

You ask this question, then provide two examples.

So to spell things out for you, the answer would be "too often."

Re:Tried in absentia?

[scowling]

How often? Manuel Noreiga comes to mind, but I'm sure it's happened since then.

The SCOTUS ruled a few years back that it was legal for the US to kidnap foreign nationals for trial in the US, even if the crime didn't occur in the US and even if the law wasn't broken in the suspect's country.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[BrookHarty]

My understanding, when the US agreed to a re-trial without the death sentance, france deported him. (true?)

Re:Tried in absentia?

[sapgau]

In the 80's with the murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena. US special agents secretly searched and flew Dr. Alvarez Machain from Mexico and put him on trail on the US. Mexican authorities were outraged... but then again they weren't very 'efficient' at the time.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[jeffy124]

that is correct.

PA cannot give Einhorn the death penalty under (1) conditions of extradition and (2) capital punishment was not available back when the crime occured (1977).

Also, it seems the jury will get the case tomorrow afternoon, closing arguments come tomorrow morning. (I live in Philly, and have been following the trial based on news reports.)

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

no shit man. as an american citizen i pay enough taxes for my military so that we can have the best black ops in the world and i never - NEVER - have to be exposed to the illegal (kidnappings|torturing|executions) we perform.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

And to spell things out for you:

One example, that of Noriega, was hardly a "kidnapping".

The other example, that of the Mexican doctor, was promptly repudiated by the, yes, US court.

So, in claiming that there is some practice or policy of the US kidnapping people out of foreign countries in order to try them in the US, we are left with, well, NO examples. I notice you were unable to come up with any yourself.

Oh, well, best to rely on "they say" anyway -- facts merely interfere with perfectly good arguments . . .

Re:Tried in absentia?

[schon]

The other example, that of the Mexican doctor, was promptly repudiated by the, yes, US court.

So you're saying that this means it didn't happen?

Reminds me of Big Brother - "It didn't happen because we say it didn't happen!"

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Zeinfeld]

What would happen if they aren't able to be issued visas in time? Would it be constitutionally valid to try someone in absentia?

Not in this case. In the case you cite the defendant absconded during the trial. Under English common law it is only necessary for the defendant to be present in court to actually enter the plea. Once the plea is entered and the trial has begun the trial can complete whether or not the defendant absconds.

This case is very different, the government is preventing the defendants from attending. They are clearly being denied due process and the government is not entitled to prosecute the case in their absence.

While the article is correct that the consular officials have autonomy I very much doubt that this is an accidental occurrence. There is no way the DoJ wants this trial to take place. The FBI would look like complete idiots, particularly when it becomes obvious that Freeh and Ashcroft were more concerned about copyright than terrorism. The whole point of the scheme was to make the incomming AG look like a tough crime fighter aggressively going after the threats to society that Clinton ignored. Thats why the arrest took place July 2001. I predicted that this would happen when the plea agreement was entered.

Stopping the defendants from appearing for the trial is the easiest way to get the case to fade from view with the least possible amount of fuss. Someone from the DoJ will have had lunch with someone from DoS.

The judge may throw the charges out or leave them on file until the statute of limitations expires. I don't know the federal proceedure. It is possible that the charges will be thrown out on other grounds, the jurisdicition claim looks somewhat dubious to say the least. While the US courts does allow for extra-jurisdicitional charges the courts tend to only do so when the act in question explicitly states that it claims to be applicable in foreign jurisdictions.

What might be interesting is if a civil lawsuit was filed against Ascroft as AG claiming that the case was brought to violate Skylarof's civil rights.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[sharkey]

...the death penalty in America. The circumstances are quite different than Skylarov's.

They're taking it one step at a time. Keep your eye on the RIAA, Adobe and all the other DMCA supporters.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Frodo: It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance!
Gandalf: Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?
Gandalf: Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement. Even the very wise can not see all ends. My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before this is over. The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of the scheme was to make the incomming AG look like a tough crime fighter aggressively going after the threats to society that Clinton ignored. Thats why the arrest took place July 2001. I predicted that this would happen when the plea agreement was entered.

that's true...and makes sense now. i remember hearing ashcroft, soon after he got his position, going off on microsoft on pbs, all about how 'this administration' was determined to bring 'harsh justice to monopolistic behavior' i think were his words. and of course it was complete bs.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[darien]

All EU member states are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights), which prohibits the death penalty, and forbids acts which might expose individuals to it (such as extraditing them to countries that still practise it). As I understand it, the convention is enforced in the European Court of Human Rights, but many nations have also passed local laws formalising this commitment. I'm afraid I can't find a reference for France, but the situation in the UK is:

The United Kingdom is a signatory to the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights which outlaws the application of the death penalty. Consistent with the convention, the Extradition Act 1989 provides that extradition may be refused if the fugitive stands accused or convicted of an offence for which he could be or has been sentenced to death. The United Kingdom/United States Extradition Treaty also provides that extradition may be refused unless the requesting party gives satisfactory assurances that the death penalty will not be carried out. In practice, US extradition requests involving capital crimes are very rare. Not all US states continue to apply the death penalty. Those which do stand ready in extradition cases to provide assurances that the death penalty will not be carried out.
Source: Written reply to Parliamentary Question asked of Lord Marlesford by Lord Rooker, 8th November 2001

Re:Tried in absentia?

[BalkanBoy]

It is "Manuel Noriega", not Noreiga :). (just FYI).

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

What would happen if they aren't able to be issued visas in time? Would it be constitutionally valid to try someone in absentia?

No. Likely fifth and sixth amendment violations for due process, and the right to cross-examine.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[chefmonkey]

The guy your're talking bout is Ira Einhorn. France refused to extradite him because he could possibly face the death penalty in America. The circumstances are quite different than Skylarov's.

Wait... I thought the DMCA did carry the death penalty. Is Eisner losing his iron grip on congress?

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

One example, that of Noriega, was hardly a "kidnapping"

Ahh.. so, a bunch of people with automatic weapons come to your country, put your house under siege, haul you away against your will to another country, and you think that's not kidnapping?!?!?!

Jeebus, where are you from, Afghanistan?

The other example, that of the Mexican doctor, was promptly repudiated by the, yes, US court.

But it still happened

we are left with, well, NO examples

No, we're left with TWO examples (Last time I checked, 0 != 2)

Re:Tried in absentia?

[fenix down]

Hear, hear! Who better to settle our oldest constitutional debates than a monarchist fantasy author?

Excellent work, Holmes.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Ozymandias_KoK]

So....hopefully he'll bite off someone's finger and fall into a volcano?

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy your're talking bout is Ira Einhorn. France refused to extradite him because he could possibly face the death penalty in America. The circumstances are quite different than Skylarov's.

Same as the guy in California that tortured, killed and buried a lot of people around his place in the boonies in California, then bailed to Canada. No extradition unless the death penalty is dropped as a possible outcome.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, but the only references to extradition to a possible death penalty say the extradition "may" be refused -- no requirement that it be so.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Capsaicin]

The circumstances are quite different than Skylarov's

Yes, but not in any relevant way, given the question being adressed was the constitutionality of trial in absentia.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Capsaicin]

but the only references to extradition to a possible death penalty say the extradition "may" be refused -- no requirement that it be so

Yes but any decision not refusing to give up an individual to a human rights violating state, would be challenged at the European Court of Human Rights. And one imagines, reversed.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Richy_T]

Yeah, Read The Fine Manuel!

Rich

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

killed his girlfriend, US citizen, fled to france.

You mean accused of killing his girlfriend. Remember innocent until proven guilty.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[mpe]

Oh, wait, I know of one other possible example -- in the mid-1980s, the US invaded Panama, and ultimately tried, convicted, and imprisoned Noriega. Ooh, if I were Dimitri, I'd be quaking in my boots -- you never know when a few Marine brigades are going to drop in . . .

Kidnapping a Russian citizen is hardly going to help in Bush's campaign to get the UN to back his invasion of Iraq. Panama does not have a veto in the UN security council, Russia does. The US is already being seen by most of the world as an outlaw nation, assuming the US government has any sense, no-one will even think of trying anything so stupid.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

The SCOTUS ruled a few years back that it was legal for the US to kidnap foreign nationals for trial in the US, even if the crime didn't occur in the US and even if the law wasn't broken in the suspect's country.

It's spelled Scouts, not Scotus. And I don't see why a troop of kids should be deciding this sort of issue.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh.. so, a bunch of people with automatic weapons come to your country, put your house under siege, haul you away against your will to another country, and you think that's not kidnapping?!?!?!
Jeebus, where are you from, Afghanistan?

An even better example where a group of people come, bomb and invade your country. Then cart off loads of people for the "crime" of defending against being attacked.
So we go from 2 examples to a whole lot more.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[_Spirit]

Eehm yes, but something different is going on here:

These guys are prevented from attending the trial by the US Government. If you choose to stay away I can imagine you forfeit your right to a defense. If you are kept away, the ability to defend yourself is taken from you. How can there be a fair trail if you don't defend yourself ?

The SCOTUS thing you mention is retarded by the way, it means that everyone around the world would have to stick to US law or fear abduction by the US government ? Combined with the above it would mean they could even try you beforehand so you cannot defend yourself. Sounds like something a South American dictator might do (hello mister Noriega !)

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Anonymous Coward]

"forbids acts which might expose individuals to it (such as extraditing them to countries that still practise it)"

Or brutally murdering someone, perhaps? I always love to hear about 'superior European morality'. They don't give a shit about the original victim, but just try to punish the murderer and everyone goes apeshit.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[elseware]

Hear, hear! Who better to settle our oldest constitutional debates than a monarchist fantasy author?

Find wisdom where you can. Beware of easy false logic, like if a fantasy writer said it then it's not important, or the internet classic "Painting buildings is evil because Hitler did it."

Re:Tried in absentia?

[LeftOfCentre]

The EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights (not the same thing as the European Convention on Human Rights, by the way) prohibits extradition to countries using death penalty unless credible assurances are given that it will not be applied.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Myco]

Would this be a plausible way to gain residency in the EU, were someone so inclined? That is, become accused of a crime which carries the death penalty (whether or not you actually commit the crime is left as an exercise for the reader), fly to Europe, and demand asylum? I realize it would be stupid and impractical, but disregard that and consider whether it would work.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[shadowbearer]

How interesting.

So if a citizen of the EU comes over here and commits a capital
crime, then he can't be subject to the death penalty; but if an
American commits the same crime we can be?

We're fucked.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[nalfeshnee]

i thought your article was spot on, but with reference to your .sig and at the risk of being seen as horribly insensitive at this particular moment in time (my point is however a general one):

Guns don't kill people
Snipers kill people

dude - the gun helps, don't you think?

somewhat surprisingly, there *is* a connection between firearms deaths and firearms themselves.

nalfy.

p.s. please ignore if you were being ironic. ;)

Re:Tried in absentia?

[ErikZ]

It's called a DICTIONARY. Use it.

Kidnap:
To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom.

So, how much ransom are we holding Noriega for?

Yeah, I hear the police "Kidnap" people all of the time! Toss them into small concrete rooms!

As for the "Lawful" aspect. It seems to be in a gray area of power politics. At the very least tell us who is suing us over this?

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Luyseyal]

Right, because the association is a non-sequitur. Some associations are not, though. E.g., confiscating privately owned firearms was perfectly relevant to the Nazi Party's coalescing of power. Which is why I think the gun nuts have a point, even if they may take it too far in certain cases.

-l

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Bernie Fsckinner]

Put the fucker in general population.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[jeffy124]

Reminds me of a joke I heard shortly after 9/11.

Basically, the Philadelphia Daily News asked a top-notch local defense attorney if he would defend Osama bin Laden in court. The lawyer said "Sure! It'll be my easier acquittal! I'd tell the jury that if they convict him, he'd die a humane death in 30 years in prison. If they acquit, then the general populace would quickly take care of him."

Re:Tried in absentia?

[multiplexo]

He would have finished him off then and there, but pity stayed his hand.

"It's a pity that I've run out of ammunition" thought
Dildo as he ran up the tunnel away from the cries of the screaming Goddam.

from Harvard Lampoon's Bored of the Rings

Re:Tried in absentia?

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

No, however the european contry will most probably not extradite him to the US unless they get assurances that he will not have to face the death penalty.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Morth]

Would this be a plausible way to gain residency in the EU, were someone so inclined? That is, become accused of a crime which carries the death penalty (whether or not you actually commit the crime is left as an exercise for the reader), fly to Europe, and demand asylum? I realize it would be stupid and impractical, but disregard that and consider whether it would work.

Can only speak for Sweden but here risk to be killed by the government in the home country is enough reason to get asylum, yes.

However, they do have to prove that they are indeed in risk of getting killed if they get deported. [sarcasm]One popular way seems to be to announce yourself as homosexual in a major newspaper.[/sarcasm] Being under a death sentence is probably another.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Myco]

Heh, that's funny because actually I'm a U.S. citizen on a year-long exchange program in Sweden. So that's useful info. You know, uh, hypothetically. ;)

Re:Tried in absentia?

[Canis Lupus]

Maybe not. At least in the US (again, bad example), there are many people in permanent limbo (many in jail), because they committed a crime in the US but are not US critizens, and the persons' country of origin refused to allow them to return home.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[hesiod]

There is no law that I know of that _requires_ death as punishment, so all they have to do is extradite you while promising not to kill you.

Re:Tried in absentia?

[shadowbearer]

meant we in the US :)

Your tax dollars at work

[Audacious]

The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Reminds me of the IRS. :-)

Re:Your tax dollars at work

[Em Emalb]

this is modded funny at the moment. It's not funny, it's Alanis Morisette (sp?) IRONIC.

Taco, how about a moderation for Ironic? H hit it right on the head.

Re:Your tax dollars at work

[hazem]

It's probably better to have the different parts of the government working at odds. Sure, it's not very efficient, but do you really want a government that has the IRS, the DMCA, and Ashcroft working really efficiently?

We'd have no rights in no time!

No - I'd rather pay for less efficient government.

Re:Your tax dollars at work

[Lumpy]

noo this is a case of the head being firmly planted within the anus of this country. a position we have been in for at least 30 years now.

as time passes the amount of incompetence in the government increases at an exponential level. by tommorow the amount will start to double every 24 hours.

Re:Your tax dollars at work

[Anonymous Coward]

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

--w.b.yeats

Re:Your tax dollars at work

[oniony]

The left hand won't do what the right hand is doing. Reminds me of RSI. ;)

Makes perfect sense.

[Dr Caleb]

If he can't get back to the US, he won't be able to defend himself, and will be considered guilty (plus charges for not appearing). Then he won't be able to overturn the RIAA...er...DMCA.

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[zebs]

If he can't get back to the US, he won't be able to defend himself, and will be considered guilty

What?? If he's not present then how does that show his guilt?

Ok, the prosecution can make there case but he's entitled to a defence.

Whats to stop him just never going to the US anyway? So he'll get fined, wow big deal, how would they get the money off him if hes not even in the country.

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[Cyno01]

the elcomsoft trial has nothing to do with the RIAA, sklyarov and elcomsoft are in trouble because they wore some software that converted e-books to pdf files (e-book encryption was a code shift of like 8 characters or something a joke really), this conversion of legally purchesed e-books to anthoer format for fair use is a violation of the DMCA (when is the judicial bracnh gonna get off its ass and declare the DMCA, and the PATRIOT act for that matter, unconstitutional)

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[BrookHarty]

Nothing stopping him from sending a letter to the court, delivered by a US Lawyer.

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[Suppafly]

What?? If he's not present then how does that show his guilt?

Because otherwise there would be no incentive for people to show up to court.. They'd just be like 'ah screw it I know I'm innocent.. forget that..' so instead, if you don't show up, they just put in a verdict against you and then put out a warrent for your arrest.

Anyway.. in this case, there is obviously some kind of paper work they can file or something do have the trial date reassigned until they can be present.

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[Dr Caleb]

the elcomsoft trial has nothing to do with the RIAA

First, that four letter acronym was on porpoise, merely to give a humourous light to the situation.

Second, if you think the RIAA, MPAA, MS, etc have no stake in this trial, think again. Circumvention of digitally encrypted information is what this trial is about. Without DRM, copy protection, and protection under the law, the economic forecast for those organizations looks dim without the protection the DMCA gives them. Any encryption scheme where the key is given along with the data can be broken (CSS), and a simple substitution algorithm (Adobe) can be broken, so long as people are allowed to distribute the method.

Third, it's not like I just crawled out of my cave after the Y2K 'incident'. Most people who have been reading /. for 4 or so years have heard far too much about this case.

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[zebs]

Because otherwise there would be no incentive for people to show up to court..

Effectivly they'd be assumed to be guilty then?

If I'm not mistaken (and I'm not expert on legal things) if you're arrested and charged you're only allowed to go free before trial if bail is granted, and skipping bail is an offence?

But of course bail is only granted if its deemed unlikely that the defendant will skip bail...?

You have to wonder what was put on the visa application.

"Reason for application: So I can defend myself against one of your crappy laws."

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[flossie]

You have to wonder what was put on the visa application.

Well, one of the questions on a visa application form asks if you have ever been engaged in terrorist activities. Given the rather broad definition of terrorism just at the moment ... one has to wonder if contravention of the DCMA would count.

Answering yes to questions of that sort (there are others: are you a smuggler, are you a spy, etc.) generally leads to a pretty swift refusal.

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[flossie]

That would rather impede his defence somewhat, however. The constitution guarantees a fair trial, not just any old trial.

Then again, as he is not a US citizen, there are some who would question whether he actually has any rights at all under the US constitution.(A certain politician certainly seems to think not).

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[zebs]

Answering yes to questions of that sort (there are others: are you a smuggler, are you a spy, etc.) generally leads to a pretty swift refusal

As if anyone with bad intentions would answer truthfully.

I be the guys at the Embassy couldn't quiet beleive someone actually answerd yes!

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[flossie]

As if anyone with bad intentions would answer truthfully.

I am not entirely certain about this, but the only rational explanation I can conceive for these questions is that it is easier for the US to deport someone who lies on their visa application. So, if they later find out that you are a terrorist/smuggler/spy/communist/liberal/Canadian/ etc., immigration can just kick you out for lying on the visa form rather than having to haul you before a court.

Alternatively, perhaps the INS is just a bit naive.

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[dbrutus]

Just for fun, you can see a few of the 9/11 terrorist's visa applications. Judging by these, you'd *really* have to screw up your filing to be denied.

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[flossie]

They don't really look that bad. Comments about the extravagence of people who can afford a six month trip are just silly. When you consider that US embassies receive thousnads of applications from people who barely speak English, have never seen the format of a US address, etc. these applications look fairly reasonable. As for the comments about the convenience of repeat applications containing the "correct" answers to questions, this really is to be expected. When a visa is refused, the embassy generally tells you why they refused it in order to help you to determine what is necessary for you to appeal (and whether an appeal would have any chance of succeeding). Consequently, it would take rather a great degree of stupidity to make the same mistakes on two consecutive applications. I am quite sure that embassy officials see hundreds of applications like these every day. If they refused them all, the US would never get any visitors from overseas.

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[Reservoir Penguin]

I live in Russia, about 75% of non-immigrant visa
applications by Russian citizens are denied. When it come to Russian citizens US consulates work in preumption of guilt mode. Anyone applying for a non-immigrant visa is presumed to be a potential immigrant and will only be issued a visa if the applicant can provide that they have substiantila reasons to return home. Usually it means having 20000 dependents in Russia, substential real estate, and a be earning 5 times the average russian salary.

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[mjh]

Effectivly they'd be assumed to be guilty then?

No. In order to go to trial, the prosecution needs to make a prima facie case. That is the prosecution needs to have enough evidence, that w/out defense, the defendant will be found guilty. If the prosecution does not make a prima facie case, then the judge can throw out the case, and the defense doesn't even have to say a word.

If the defendant doesn't show up, it's easy for the prosecution to get a conviction because all they really need to do is make their case. Undefended, the prosecution can almost always make a prima facie case.

But IANAL, so take it for what it's worth (Hint: not much).

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively, perhaps the INS is just a bit naive.

You notice they finally gave up on having the airlines ask stupid wuestions like "Have our bags been out of your sight? Has anyone else packed then for you?" It would have been far simpler to just combine them into "Do you want to make your flight or would you rather miss it?"

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[Happy go Lucky]

Because otherwise there would be no incentive for people to show up to court.. They'd just be like 'ah screw it I know I'm innocent.. forget that..' so instead, if you don't show up, they just put in a verdict against you and then put out a warrent for your arrest.

Not quite.

What happens is the defendant (in criminal cases-civil cases are different) fails to appear. The judge then postpones the proceedings and issues a bench warrant for the defendant. Then, one of two things can happen. In rare and relatively-serious cases, the sheriff's fugitive squad will actually go hunting. Far more commonly (like the guy who gets cited for driving an uninsured car and skips his court date) the charge remains filed and the warrant sits in the state's central registry until some cop contacts the defendant again. That's when the defendant goes to jail.

The vast majority of such fugitive warrants are just that: Someone got a traffic citation. He didn't pay it but didn't appear in court to contest it. Warrant issues, and he gets arrested the next time I catch him running a stop sign. He posts bond (non-DUI-related traffic misdemeanors range from $200-$1000 in my county, 10% non-refunded if he uses a bondsman), is released on that bond, and a new court date is set. Or he doesn't post bond, and is taken before the judge "without undue delay." (That's the exact wording of my state's statute. It's been interpreted to mean the next morning that the court is open for regular business)

In Skylarov's case, I'm not sure where it'll go. He's not the defendant, so he's unlikely to be subject to any warrants for failing to appear. The US Attorney MAY try to reinstate the charges since Skylarov didn't testify as required by his plea agreement. However, if Skylarov made a good-faith effort to comply and was blocked by government actions beyond his control, I doubt a judge will allow the charges to actually be reinstated.

Besides, this is Federal law enforcement we're talking about. We local cops have a saying, that no situation is so bad that the FBI/INS/DEA/Etc. can't screw it up even more.

Civil law is both simpler and more complex. If one party to a civil case fails to appear, the judge may just order summary judgement for the other. I suppose it might be possible for a civil defendant to be held in contempt for failing to appear, but I don't know. I've never arrested someone for it, and here in Colorado a person cannot be jailed without any criminal charges at all. God only knows what kind of silliness the feds are playing with, though.

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[dbrutus]

Leaving you current school/employer field blank, saying you're married but not providing the name of your spouse, not marking down any ties to home country that would overcome the standard presumption of immigration, these are all pretty bad. Beyond that, not all schools are permitted to accept foreign students. They have to be accredited study programs and thus the schools should have been listed better.

In any E. European country, all these applications would have been bounced immediately and you'd have to go to the back of the line and start over. Stating you want to stay 3 years on a visa whose max stay is 24 months is also a huge red flag. The 2nd time around, there should have been a full investigation on that one. There doesn't seem to have been.

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[Guppy06]

"But of course bail is only granted if its deemed unlikely that the defendant will skip bail...?"

IIRC the problem with skipping bail is that you don't get your money back (not showing up for trial is just an offence in and of their own right). That's the reason why bail bondsmen are so interested in getting their clients who skip bail: They can't get their money back without the perpetrator.

Did Sklyarov get out on bail? What will happen now that he can't show up to reclaim it?

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[dmoran]

Actually, this is not just Russian citizens. ANY visitor to the United States--except those from visa waiver program countries--must prove that they are not planning to immigrate. (If they *do* want to immigrate, there's a completely different system.)

Usually, the easiest way to prove that is to prove that you have significant ties to the country from which you're traveling. Yes, this usually means have some money in the bank, a decent job, and (perhaps) some immediate family who are not accompanying the person(s) traveling.

Why? Because the assumption is that the US is a really great place to live, and that many people want to live there. Because Congress has decided to limit the number of real immigrants into the United States, it can be difficult to get an immigrant visa. This leads many people, naturally, to get a non-immmigrant visa and then simply overstay their visa, effectively immigrating illegally. So US visa law is written so that the person applying must PROVE to the officer involved that they are not intending to immigrate.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Re:Makes perfect sense.

[Reservoir Penguin]

I understabnd the system in theory. I also understand that consular workers are overworked and swamped. I was denied my forst visa 4 times even tho
I had good proof. It gets easier if you alredy have been ussied a US visa in the past. However the atnosphere at the consulate in Moscow is just horrible. Every time I go there there is someone crying or screaming. Last time it was an elderly woman having just been dienie a visa to visit her son and granson in America.

In Russia...

[Marijuana al-Shehi]

In Russia they tell jokes about the insane bureaucracy in America.

Re:In Russia...

[FunkSoulBrother]

In Russia they tell jokes about the insane bureaucracy in America.

In America we tell jokes about the insane alcoholism in Russia.

Re:In Russia...

[swb]

This guy and I used to have conversations about the USSR during the early 80s, wondering if we could ever tell if the picture we were given of the US/USSR situation wasn't actually the reverse of what most USians believed; USSR being "free" and the US being the tyrannical dicatatorship.

It creeped me out a little thinking that maybe it was all a vast conspiracy.

Re:In Russia...

[Tackhead]

> > In Russia they tell jokes about the insane bureaucracy in America.
>
>In America we tell jokes about the insane alcoholism in Russia.

In Russia, they wake up next morning and are sober.

Re:In Russia...

[T-Kir]

I'll never forget a BBC TV news report from a couple of years ago, about a really harsh winter which was killing off (or freezing to death) a lot of the avid vodka drinkers, especially the homeless... while the reporter was talking from Moscow, a tramp was crossing the road very very slowly... and stopped near the middle, and didn't move for the rest of the report.

Now I know it isn't funny to laugh about people dying because of this, but just the thought of someone succumbing to the very same thing they were reporting about, live... is just plain freaky.

Re:In Russia...

[jonr]

Is that the best you could come up with?

Re:In Russia...

[DaytonCIM]

LOL! Right on!

Re:In Russia...

[f97tosc]

This guy and I used to have conversations about the USSR during the early 80s, wondering if we could ever tell if the picture we were given of the US/USSR situation wasn't actually the reverse of what most USians believed; USSR being "free" and the US being the tyrannical dicatatorship.

I visited the USSR in the early 80s and I can assure you that your speculations were quite unfounded.

If you are not convinced, I suggest a trip to North Korea before it falls apart.

Tor

Re:In Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Russia, they wake up next morning and are sober.

In USA, they wake up the next morning, and are still dumb enough to pass DMCA.

Re:In Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhhh the kind of things that idealistic college students ponder about due to their lack of exposure to reality.

Re:In Russia...

[rant-mode-on]

• I visited the USSR in the early 80s and I can assure you that your speculations were quite unfounded.

I went to MVS today for 5 excruciating hours, during which a trip to North Koreas felt quite inviting.

Re:In Russia...

[goga]

> I visited the USSR in the early 80s and I can assure you that your
> speculations were quite unfounded.
> If you are not convinced, I suggest a trip to North Korea before it
> falls apart.

Sorry man. I didn't VISIT the USSR in the early 80s -- i lived there. I still live in Russia.
I have lived a year in America, too, so I am able to compare.

The USSR in the 80s, while not a democracy by any means,
was _very_ far from the insanity that was and is North Korea. You know, we used to make jokes about Kim Il Sung and the "Free Korea" magazine
back in 1983.

Life in Russia in the 70s and 80s was probably closer to life in
America than in North Korea. That still does not mean it was "normal" by Western
standards, of course.

Re:In Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

> > In Russia they tell jokes about the insane bureaucracy in America.
>
>In America we tell jokes about the insane alcoholism in Russia.

In Russia, they wake up next morning and are sober.

And in England they say "Hey! You stole that line from Churchill!"

Re:In Russia...

[Reservoir Penguin]

While I'm too young to remember the 70s. Life in in the 80s certiabnly wasnt anyhting like in the US. Maybe if you were living in Moscow. But not here in Novosibirsk.

Re:In Russia...

[kennyj449]

It was probably a joke or something. More likely than not, the tramp would've lost his/her balance well before freezing in place. To freeze while walking out of the blue like that doesn't happen unless it's EXTREMELY cold (think antarctic) or you're playing Diablo II.

Re:In Russia...

[goga]

Well maybe I was not clear enough. Of course there were differences. Like no free (public) speech, no free elections, market economy, etc. Important differences.

Still, comparing this to People's Democratic Republic of Korea is an overkill. North Korea is a Stalin-type tyranny, where your private life is constantly under pressure from the State.

In the USSR in the 70s and 80s, nobody really believed the official ideology -- including the authorities themselves. It largely became a ritual, simple rules one should follow so that the state leaves you alone. You didn't criticize Brezhnev at party meetings, much the same way you don't (openly) hack cryptographic software in today's America. There were political prisoners, yes, but you needed to really press for it to become one.

To repeat the important point: the state was easy to ignore.
I don't believe this is possible in North Korea, or was possible in Russia in the 30s to 50s.

There were good sides to the regime, too (no wonder Communists are still popular here):
-- guaranteed minimum level of life, much more so than in today's Russia (well, that depended on oil prices, but still...)
-- better education system
-- much lower crime level. That, by the way, is a general tendency: less democracy => less crime.
-- less nationalism. Not that it was perfect. It was harder to enter a university if you were a Jew (I am). But that was nothing compared to today's anti-Caucasus sentiments of many Russians (including officials). I don't know how that translates to Korean situation, though.

I never thought I would defend Brezhnev times before anyone, honest. I would never want to go back. But there are different levels of badness.

Oh yes, I lived in Moscow. I don't think it was _that_ different from Novosibirsk.

Re:In Russia...

[Tackhead]

> > > > In Russia they tell jokes about the insane bureaucracy in America.
> > >In America we tell jokes about the insane alcoholism in Russia.
> >In Russia, they wake up next morning and are sober.
>And in England they say "Hey! You stole that line from Churchill!"

In absence of mod points, I've gotta bump that up. *ROFLMAO*

Re:In Russia...

[TaleSpinner]

In the US the inmates are clearly running
the asylum, but to anyone who has actually
read any of their history, I wouldn't
try to out-weird a Russian. Not only would
it be extremely difficult, in the final
analysis - what would it say about the US to
succeed?

This has never happened before?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? This is just wierd. It seems absolutely baffling that the visa office wouldn't have a specific procedure for letting in and out people who wish to defend themselves in a lawsuit in the united states.

I find it just about impossible to believe that this has never happened before. If there's no procedure to ensure that those who wish to enter the U.S. because of a U.S. court summons actually are allowed to enter, then surely at some point this problem has come up in a previous court case. Isn't there any precedent for this? How as this handled in previous cases? Surely someone somewhere must know.

Re:This has never happened before?

[sunking2]

Really, why should they go out of there way to help someone enter the country? He could have stayed here, hell he could have stayed here in a nice cozy little jail for free. He decided to post bail and leave the country. With that, it becomes his responsibility to get back. Otherwise people who want to make the trip often would run up parking tickets just so they could speed up there visa process. I know, that's a stretch, but it states my point.

He chose to leave, the day he got back he should have started the process to ensure that it gets done on time. If my kid gets home after curfue I don't care that he got held up at the train tracks and I sure don't expect the train conductor to do his job any differently because of him.

Re:This has never happened before?

[suwain_2]

I think you might be a troll, but I'll bite.

I think a better analogy would be if your kid arrived home three weeks late because the train stopped in the tracks where he was waiting to cross, and did not move for weeks.

Clearly, this is an exaggeration -- but my point is that it was completely unexpected that his visa application would be rejected.

BTW -- to state that he could have stayed in a prison is absurd. I don't know anyone who would want to stay in a prison for about six months while awaiting trial, particularly not with the shining example of justice he's been given. I think just about any of us would have gone back to Russia, too. Frankly, I hope Dmitri never comes back -- not that he's not welcome, but that I don't think he would possibly *want* to come back.

Re:This has never happened before?

[oh]

If my kid gets home after curfue I don't care that he got held up at the train tracks and I sure don't expect the train conductor to do his job any differently because of him.

So you kid is on his way home, does the right thing and heads off with plenty of time to catch the train home, and then finds that the train aren't running, and you wouldn't cut s/he any slack? I hope thats not what you saying.

Say the trains are stuffed up, and the conductor has shut the doors, but the train hasn't pulled out yet. You kid is standing outside a train that will get s/he home on time, but the doors are shut. You don't think the conductor could do what I think is the right thing and leave the doors open until the train is ready to go? Expecialy if asked? "Please sir, If I don't get this train I'm going to miss my curfue and my dad is going to hit the roof. Can you open the doors for me?"

Re:This has never happened before?

[flossie]

Visas are not valid indefinitely (and the applicant has no way of knowing how long the visa will be granted for - I applied for a visa to work on a US government contract, it was granted for a year; my girlfriend applied to come and visit me, hers was granted for ten years). Applying too early could result in the visa expiring before the trial - and it costs money every time you apply.

As for the implication that he could have stayed in the US, how would you like a foreign government to prosecute you. Would you have no desire to see your family and friends during a traumatic time like that. Remember, Dmitry has not yet been convicted of anything. Why should he have any less right to see his family than an American who did the same thing. In fact, given the fact that he didn't actually commit any criminal acts while in the US, I find the idea that he should be responsible for hanging around while the prosecution gets itself sorted out rather sick.

He had every right to go home.

Re:This has never happened before?

[Dirtside]

He could have stayed here, hell he could have stayed here in a nice cozy little jail for free.

Right, I mean, who could possibly object to being put in jail in a foreign country on account of an idiotic law (bought and paid for by corporations, mind you)? I can't think of any reason that Dimitri might have wanted to go home. He certainly couldn't have wanted to see to his affairs, or see his friends or family there before standing trial here; no sane person would want that! And certainly it would be silly of a country to want to admit someone who they've charged with a crime and set a trial date for. Yeah, that would just be nuts.

Re:This has never happened before?

[njchick]

He could have stayed here, hell he could have stayed here in a nice cozy little jail for free...
If my kid gets home after curfue I don't care that he got held up at the train tracks

You probably don't have kids. Dmitry has.

Re:This has never happened before?

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it just about impossible to believe that this has never happened before. If there's no procedure to ensure that those who wish to enter the U.S. because of a U.S. court summons actually are allowed to enter, then surely at some point this problem has come up in a previous court case. Isn't there any precedent for this? How as this handled in previous cases? Surely someone somewhere must know.

It'd be funnier than hell if the court slapped the consular official with a citation for contempt of court, obstructing justice or somesuch.

Re:This has never happened before?

[Anonymous Coward]

If my kid gets home after curfue I don't care that he got held up at the train tracks and I sure don't expect the train conductor to do his job any differently because of him.

I'm glad I had a reasonable father and not a prick like you.

Re:This has never happened before?

[Spunk]

Heh, that's excellent. I am sorry I can't give you mod points.

Let me guess...

[javahacker]

Let me guess, they can't can't get a Visa to enter the country for their trial, because they are charged with crimes in the US?

Re:Let me guess...

[homer_ca]

Yes, I believe a criminal background is one reason they could use to deny an entry visa. Catch-22

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds about right. Why would they even want to come back is the next question.

Re:Let me guess...

[flossie]

But he hasn't been convicted yet. Of course, I don't know that he hasn't been convicted of any speeding offences in Russia, but given the fact he recently did obtain a visa (else he wouldn't have this trouble to deal with) I think it is unlikely.

Really, this just demonstrates the inconsistancy of the US visa review process. He is being refused a visa by the same embassy which recently granted him one!

Re:Let me guess...

[Henry V .009]

But he hasn't been convicted yet.

But he'll obviously be convicted when they deny him the visa and he can't complete the terms of his plea bargain. They can't give a visa to someone who is going to be convicted now, can they?

Re:Let me guess...

[tftp]

I don't know that he hasn't been convicted of any speeding offences in Russia

Speeding offence in Moscow is practically impossible. Traffic is too bad. Old city, narrow streets.

in Absentia ?

[satsuke]

OK .. would both parties be found guilty of criminal conduct in absentia if this is allowed to stand?

Maybe they would serve the prison term or pay the fines in absentia too. (EG not at all)

I think the more likely reason for the denial is some lower level functionary within Russia processed the application, with no knowledge of the circumstances or publicity around this action processed in the normal course of things .. ie badly..

But of course there are a sort of appeal process in the diplomatic corps for dealing with this sort of thing. It will probably just take longer than the initial criminal hearing to take place.

Re:in Absentia ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the more likely reason for the denial is some lower level functionary within Russia processed the application, with no knowledge of the circumstances or publicity around this action processed in the normal course of things .. ie badly..

Dear dipshit -- it was the AMERICAN embassy that refused to grant him a visa.

This is just too funny...

[Xeriar]

The Department of Justice demands their presence in the U.S., but the Department of State denies it. Neither organization is accountable to the other. It's not like the DoJ can say 'well they didn't show up, it's their fault...'

This is too amusing to NOT be picked up by the media again. I don't think it will result in protests so much as the DoJ and DoS being the butt of jokes for a few weeks, but still.

Re:This is just too funny...

[Tackhead]

> The Department of Justice demands their presence in the U.S., but the Department of State denies it. Neither organization is accountable to the other. It's not like the DoJ can say 'well they didn't show up, it's their fault...'
>
>This is too amusing to NOT be picked up by the media again. I don't think it will result in protests so much as the DoJ and DoS being the butt of jokes for a few weeks, but still.

And then the INS wakes up and says "Hey, he's got a criminal record? C'mon in! Oh, wait, he hasn't been convicted yet. Can't let him in. But since he's here (we didn't find out about his charges until six months after he got here, y'know?), and since he got convicted after arriving, we'll deport him, but we can't do that until after he's served his sentence. After his time's served, we'll just keep him in, uh, "custody" until we can figure out how to deport him. That shouldn't take more than, oh, hell, how am I supposed to know, these forms are hard, maybe, another 4-5 years after his release from custody for us to deport him. If we can't deport him, 'cuz, like, his country won't take him back, well, then we'll just keep him in custody until they change their minds. Can't have folks like that walkin' the street. Oh, wow, is it, like 3:00 already? (*stamps "Approved" on the next two sheets on the pile, some bearded guy named O. B. Larden, and another guy named "Atta" who wants to go to flight school, hey, gotta meet my quota*) Time to go home. Another hard day's work at the INS!"

Re:This is just too funny...

[AJWM]

Actually the INS is part of the Department of Justice. I think the only reason State gets involved is because they're running the embassy. Or perhaps there's a split in responsibility between visitor visas and immigration visas.

Just have the INS issue Dmitry a K-1 visa, which will automatically expire in a couple of months when he doesn't marry a US citizen. (The K-1 is a "fiance(e) visa" to allow someone into the country to get married.) (And yes, I'm kidding.)

Re:This is just too funny...

[MAXOMENOS]

"Hey, what's he charged with anyway?"

"Oh, he's a Russian who came to the United States, gave an academic lecture, and was promptly arrested for that lecture by the FBI."

"Shows them Russians right for exercising their freedom of speech in the USA."

I halfway expect to find myself in a picture frame with Rod Serling standing nearby.

So what?

[boola-boola]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it really matter? He doesn't live in the US (nor is he a citizen, IIRC), and even if he's found guilty, can we even do anything about it? I doubt anyone will make any significant effort to bring him to the US for punishment. Plus, I would hope his country would back him up and give him some sort of protection.

(I'm sick of this DMCA nonsense. Can't we get that sh*t revised? Oh wait, the general public can't afford lobbyists so therefore our opinion doesn't count.)

Re:So what?

[chris_mahan]

I think maybe that they have the cojones to do the "Right Thing", knowing full well that they could rock the boat on a silly law that many americans dislike intensely yet cannot do anything about because of the Ascroft Posse.

If he manages to come here, and manages to win, then I will personally be grateful for his act of courage in the face of adversity.

Because, of course, he doesn't have to come here. There is absolutely nothing the US can do to make him come here. (Russian Army, Nukes, UN Security Council, War on Terror, etc)

Re:So what?

[JoZZ]

It seems it matters to them, maby they want to clear there names.

Re:So what?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

You made your own counterargument.
We cant get rid of the DMCA if the people trying to fight it are denied access to this country.
Skylarov was the perfect case against the DMCA, but because of this he wont be able to fight it, and it will all be forgotten.

Re:So what?

[kcbrown]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it really matter? He doesn't live in the US (nor is he a citizen, IIRC), and even if he's found guilty, can we even do anything about it? I doubt anyone will make any significant effort to bring him to the US for punishment.

Oh, I'd be willing to bet they will make the effort in this case.

See, this is the DMCA we're talking about here. The media conglomerates want this law enforced throughout the world, because otherwise it doesn't have the kind of teeth it needs to be truly effective (if circumvention devices can be distributed from outside the U.S. then, as with encryption, they can be used by people within the U.S.).

If Sklyarov is detained and brought to the U.S. for punishment after being found guilty in his (in absentia) trial, that will make it clear to people throughout the world that they are not safe from the U.S. even if they live in another country entirely. More importantly, it will make it clear that the DMCA is a law that the U.S. is willing to enforce on the world through any means at its disposal.

Plus, I would hope his country would back him up and give him some sort of protection.

You can hope that all you want, but the reality is that no country will protect an individual citizen if given sufficient incentive not to. I strongly suspect the U.S. has ways of giving Russia the incentive it needs to hand Sklyarov over.

Re:So what?

[flossie]

No chance! If Dmitry gets convicted for this absurd law in absentia, there is absolutely no way the Russian government would hand him over (and he would be crazy to come voluntarily, even if he could get a visa after being convicted). There are no extradition treaties in place for copyright infringement (as if that really mattered in the grand scheme of international politics!) and the Russian state is not quite as weak and willing as many Americans would like to believe. The Russians and French are not giving Bush a very easy time over the Iraqi UN resolution that he wants. If he gets it, America will have to give *major* concessions to Russia - I have no doubt at all that the current administration is well aware of this. In fact, that could explain the visa refusal. By delaying the trial, the US government can try and get UN backing for their war before they start trying to defend themselves against Russian criticisms of their legal system.

Re:So what?

[gweeks]

I don't know about Russia, but in the US if you are convicted of a felony by another country, even if the offense is legal in the US you are a felon. You lose your right to vote and your right to posses firearms and suffer under all the other restrictions of a felon.

Re:So what?

[Lord Sauron]

>there is absolutely no way the Russian government would hand him over

If I was him, I'd say FUCK YOU Adobe, DoS and DOJ.

Adobe is the root of all this evil. Boycott Adobe.

Re:So what?

[eMilkshake]

In other news, the Seven Dwarves were dispatched to Russia on a secret mission. An interview with the squadron leader, known only as "Doc," revealed they were going to "bust some rusky butt."

One man, who snickered at the sight of over half a dozen vertically challenged men sporting berets and ak-47s, was quickly laid out and taught it's not nice to laugh at the short as they proceeded to the airport.

Gotta love US bureaucracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Something very similar happened to my uncle once.
He was a serving officer based outside the US, and was ordered back to a base in the continental US, but his pasport was lost and the office containing his birth certificate back in the US had burned down.

So customs wouldn't let him back in the US, and he'd be AWOL if he didn't report to that base in the US.
Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

He actually ended up getting back in by pointing out that he was married to a US citizen (his Korean-born wife who'd gotten US citizenship thru him in the first place). ^_^'

In Soviet America...

[Anonymous Coward]

The insane bureaucracy tells jokes about YOU!

Re:In Soviet America...

[BollocksToThis]

I think you mean, it plays jokes on you. ;P

Sklyarov

[torqer]

I've been out of the loop for a bit, so excuse me for sounding dense, but could some one give me a synopsis of the Sklyarov case? or a link to one?

Re:Sklyarov

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok certainly. There is a nice little synopsis here. In case you don't feel like clicking the link, here's the first paragraph:

Just more than a year ago there were worldwide protests exhorting the U.S. Government to 'Free Dmitry,' demanding that young ElcomSoft programmer Dmitry Sklyarov be allowed to return to his native Russia. Eventually both Sklyarov and his employer were indicted on criminal charges of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). On July 16, 2001 Sklyarov had been arrested by the FBI in Las Vegas, stemming from allegations raised by Adobe Systems regarding an ElcomSoft software program that could be used to decrypt Adobe PDF-based ebooks. In December Sklyarov was finally allowed to leave the U.S. after a five-month detainment, with charges against him deferred in return for his testimony in a trial involving ElcomSoft.

You're welcome. :)

Re:Sklyarov

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been labeled a troll and shunned. Ha ha!

Here's an entire web site that'll explain things.

Re:Sklyarov

[boola-boola]

Probably because this has been posted a million times since it happened, and there are probably countless articles concerning it; would it have been too hard for him to hit up google and type in "sklyarov" ?

Re:Sklyarov

[Grishnakh]

Ok, maybe, but still "troll" is the wrong rating even then. "Overrated" maybe, or "redundant".

Re:Sklyarov

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been out of the loop for a bit, so excuse me for sounding dense, but could some one give me a synopsis of the Sklyarov case? or a link to one?

Your density is unforgivable. Who broke the fucking G on your keyboard so you can't type "google". And where the hell do you get off demanding that we excuse you when you won't even say "Please". Live in ignorance, you pissant boor. The only loop you deserve to be in is a noose. (I don't know about you, but I feel a lot better.)

Re:Sklyarov

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been out of the loop for a bit, so excuse me for sounding dense, but could some one give me a synopsis of this Google thing? or a link to it?

Re:Sklyarov

[Anonymous Coward]

"would it have been too hard for him to hit up google and type in "sklyarov" ? "

is it too hard to just answer his question? dumb fuck.

Transport Dmitry

[jhouserizer]

Sounds like it's time for a new campaign...

• Free Dmitry Campaign (succeeded, more-or-less)
• Bring Back Dmitry Campaign
• Re-start at campaign 1 if necessary

Or maybe we can start a campaign to bring Dmitry here "virtually" via web-conferencing or something... he deserves the right to defend himself!

..On the other hand, maybe we should ask him first... maybe he's happy to have a legitimate excuse not to come...

Re:Transport Dmitry

[Insightfill]

Let's let him teleconference-in using that streaming DVD encoding that was mentioned the other day - let's really tick off the DMCA proponents!

Oh lovely Visas

[T-Kir]

Visa processing time are notoriously long, I've been back in the UK for about 7 weeks trying to get a visitors visa.. both applications were refused under section 221(g) - or providing inadequate proof that you are to return to your native country (even though I have proof of a full time job that I have to return to). No I'm going back again next week under the waiver program, but you can't do diddly on that program (i.e. extending your stay, etc).

I also doubt that Russia would be on the Visa Waiver scheme (I haven't checked the list)... maybe when they filled out their forms, did they tick (YES) to one of the silliest questions on the US Visa form (silly because I'd assume you wouldn't admit to it!)->

Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose?

Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State?

Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide?

(YES) (NO)

Anyhow, lets hope they can get something sorted quickly... the US doesn't want to look like it is deliberately denying them entry into the US so that they lose the 'charges will be dropped if you testify', but the case pretty much requires them to be there.

Re:Oh lovely Visas

[shepd]

>Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide?

I know everyone assumes you should answer no to this no matter what, but that isn't always the right answer.

There's a man who's been on trial in my area for a very long time, who was an interpreter for the Nazis. He lied on his form when he entered Canada to be a citizen in the early 50's. Now that he's a few years from death, and has commited no new crimes, they're telling him he needs to be deported because he lied. One only knows if he would have gotten into Canada had he said he was a Nazi. Knowing our immigration system, I think the answer would have been a wholehearted yes.

Fact is sometimes stranger than fiction.

Re:Oh lovely Visas

[Anonymous Coward]

My answers:

Do you seek to enter the United States to engage in export control violations, subversive or terrorist activities, or any other unlawful purpose? Ans: (Yes, I am a member of the Republican Party...wait....I am a democrat...wait...nevermind)

Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State?
Ans: See above answer

Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide?
Ans: To #2, my government (American, advocates it, does that mean because they do therefore I did too, since being a democracy and all)

Re:Oh lovely Visas

[Malc]

I hear you. They probably accused you of lying or something. I tried to go to Chicago for weekend a couple of years ago, entering under the visa waiver programme. I was going with my future in-laws to see my future sister-in-law run her first marathon. I was basically told that they didn't believe me and that I would probably disappear and turn up working illegally in Silicon Valley. Well, I would have probably spent well over $1,000 on that weekend, but the economy in Ottawa got the benefit of it instead. I was always brought up to be honest, but they make a mockery of it.

On another occasion, my parents came out from the UK to visit me in Canada. They took a road trip down to Cape Cod. At the border they saw a young British couple with similar holiday ideas being being hassled. The reason the border partol was giving? They were unmarried! So much for an open border certain prominent politicians in the US tried to blame for letting terrorists in to the country last year.

Re:Oh lovely Visas

[YDdraig]

I've always wondered if they catch many exceptionally stupid terrorists with that one.

Re:Oh lovely Visas

[WCMI92]

"On another occasion, my parents came out from the UK to visit me in Canada. They took a road trip down to Cape Cod. At the border they saw a young British couple with similar holiday ideas being being hassled. The reason the border partol was giving? They were unmarried! So much for an open border certain prominent politicians in the US tried to blame for letting terrorists in to the country last year."

Wrong conclusion, right idea.

The problem is that the INS and State Department are abusive assholes and harass those WHO TRY TO OBEY THE LAW. VIOLATE the law and enter this country illegally and they will fall all over themselves to force schools to educate you in your language, give you welfare benefits, etc.

Our system of immigration is terminally fucked because it PUNISHES those who try to obey the law while REWARDING those who violate it.

Re:Oh lovely Visas

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, if someone was to use a deffinition that included cultural group as part of genocide then the US government has committed it many times. You need an example? Look at how the Native Americans have been treated by the government. Would people agree that to some extent the government has tried the deliberate, systematic destruction of their cultural group? (or racial group).
Or if you want some contraversy, political groups are also in this deffinition, Al Queda (Ok, I said it, I don't want to show sympathy for any group but it fits for this example), is a political group that is being systematicly and deliberately destroyed, so technically any soldier invovled in that conflict would have to mark yes on the form.

Re:Oh lovely Visas

[xlv]

I don't think you can use the Visa Waiver Program once you've been denied a visa in the past. I don't really remember the details but you may want to check the immigration newsgroups/websites to make sure.

IIRC, denial of a visa is one of the reasons you can use to apply for a visitor visa instead of using the waiver program. Twisted logic, I know but it's the INS we're talking about here...

Re:Oh lovely Visas

[anto]

I almost had a similar incident.

I have been to the USA about 5 or so times in my life, the first around age 10 (with my parents) Until my last trip I have always held a US visa for the duration of my passport (in fact from memory I used to hold a visa that was valid after my passport expired)

In september / october 2000 I decided to take a round the world trip (well mostly europe, the UK and the US) I spent 2 months overseas, visited about 10 counties, had all my flights pre-booked (although with the option of changes) had a basic itenary worked out etc etc. I decided that as Australia was now a signitory to the Waiver scheme it would be an easier process than the standard visa application (which takes a reasonable amount of time)

While in europe and the UK (ok I know they are the same thing) I had nothing but praise for immigration & customs personel - while I wasn't always warmly greeted into the country I felt I was handled fairly and professionally.

When I got to the US the whole story changed, though no fault of anyone (airline delays etc) I missed my original flight to the US (which was via Heathrow) forcing about a 6-7 hour delay (and an extra dirversion in the US) which much meant by the time I fronted at immigration I had been awake for over 30 hours. I filled out all the forms correctly (in fact my forms were used as an example to others behind me on how to fill them out etc) At the time of my 'interview' with the immigration officer, I enjoyed (pick the sarcasm) a nice 15 minute interview.

Topics covered included how I was planning to come to the US to work in IT (since I open admited to working in IT) how much drugs I was planning on selling in the US, my plans for sponging off the welfare system in the US (I really had to try hard not to laugh at that one :) Then he started off asking about countries that appeared in my passport (finland being highlighted for some particually close attention) To make the process evern more fun the officer threw in more than a couple of local sayings getting quite angry with me when I was confused. He asked me what crimes my traveling companion had commited. He asked what would happen if he told my companion I had 'dropped a dime on him' (I was tempted to ask from what hight) Generally it was an intimidating, scary procedure which resulted in me trying to get back out of the US ASAP. The entire time I tried as hard as I could to be helpful & curtious, only to be yelled at when I offered more information that was requested.

My traveling companion received even worse treatment - he took the whole process much more personally (and has less of a tollerance for stupidity) I had previoudly spent quite a long time trying to convince my companion that not everyone in the US matches the stereotypical Amerian, only to have all my work undone by some idiot at the border. It sadens me that hundreds of people arriving on night were exposed to this man as their first point of contact on arriving in the US.

The moral of the story is getting a visa while you are safe and at home (and protected by your countries constitutional rights) is much safer & easier than hoping that it all turns out OK when you turn up at the border. I have entered the US since (by road from nice friendly safe Canada) and didn't have and of the same problems, hopefully this was just one person...

Slick Rick

[dnoyeb]

They pulled this trick on Slick Rick the rapper who happened to be born in England. They secretly appealed and won a decision on his deportation.
Then when he tried to return they surprised him with this order. Essentially saying he self deported and as such has no right to appeal...

Re:Slick Rick

[Anonymous Coward]

Folks.. He is talking about Slick Rick the Ruler.

Re:Slick Rick

[dnoyeb]

Actually I was talking about MC Ricky D.

they didnt drop the bomb on him untill AFTER he left the country. THey could have told him while he was here. Of course thats what you pay the lawyers for...

Judge likely to dismiss

[belphegore]

Since the US Government is violating Dimitry and Elcomsoft's rights, I can't imagine many judges not dismissing the case if the visas remain ungranted:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[Cheeziologist]

not that im supporting in any way the decision to not grant them visas....but on the point you make, it only applies to US citizens. The US has no authority to apply freedoms it outlines to people that are not their citizens (I don't think)

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[KingJoshi]

US can grant or deny those freedoms to non-US citizens as they wish if they're on US soil. Non-US citizens are guaranteed basic rights, but even that's sketchy. There's no real concrete laws about this (IANAL), and the executive branch does whatever suits them and the public allows.

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[JohnnyBolla]

Since when did US Constituional rights apply to foreign nationals? The Constitution applies to citizens of the Untied States.

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[Tassach]

The principle on which the Bill of Rights is predicated is that EVERYONE has certian rights (Speech, Free exersize of religion, trial by a jury of your peers, and so forth), and that the US Government is expressly forbidden to infringe on those rights (As in "Congress shall make no law..."). This is why the PATRIOT act is blatantly and irredeemably unconstitutional. IMHO, every Congressman and Senator who voted in favor of it should be held personally and criminally responsible for such a blatant and willful violation of their Oath of Office.

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[GMontag451]

The amendment says "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused..." so, if the US government has the right to try you, you have the right to a speedy trial.

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[belphegore]

Read it again guys:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy..."

No mention of citizens, etc. These are not rights of citizens, but constraints on prosecution which apply in *all* criminal prosecutions, and which apply to the accused whether the accused be American, foreign, a turtle, or whatever.

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[Tassach]

More accurately, the Constitution applies to the *government* of the United States. It is a list of things (enumerated powers) that the US Government can and cannot do. One of the things that it is explicitly forbidden to do (by the Sixth Amendment) is to deny someone their right to a public trial by a jury of their peers. Period, end of story, no if's, and's, or but's. It doesn't say "Unless they're an enemy combatant" or "Only if they're a US citizen", or anything else with the sole exception of common law suits where the disputed value is less than $20.

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[kimgh]

I continue to take some comfort in the fact that this is not the first time unconstitutional laws have been passed in this country. Remember the Alien and Sedition Acts? They were passed in a climate of fear very similar to the one we are now in vis a vis terrorists. Only then the terrorists were French, rather than Islamic. Somehow, the country got through that and those laws were repealed (and they were not even declared unconstitutional, because that was before the principle of judicial review of laws passed by Congress was established).

I think there is hope that the current passel of unconstitutional laws will not stand the test of time, either, particularly if people like us keep the pressure on and keep shining lights into the dark corners of government in this country.

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[flossie]

The US has no authority to apply freedoms it outlines to people that are not their citizens

That's a frightening statement. What exactly prevents the US administration from treating other human beings with dignity. Does the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights count for nothing in the Land of the Free?

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[Anonymous Coward]

You are incorrect. The constitution of the United States explicitly applies to "persons" not just to citizens, except when it so specifies. All *persons* in the US have the rights and responsibilties outlined therein. The government is not permitted to violate these rights even if the accused is not a citizen. This is one of the strongest arguments against the bullshit "enemy combatant" strategy currently being used by Ashcroft et al.

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[Sylver Dragon]

What exactly prevents the US administration from treating other human beings with dignity. Does the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights count for nothing in the Land of the Free?

As a slightly disaffected American, I have to ask, when was the last time the US government paid any attention to the UN's resolutions?

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[Anonymous Coward]

The rights are only extended to U.S. citizen and immigrants.

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[Anonymous Coward]

These united States, being joined together in a union independent of foreign powers,

and the United Nations organization being a foreign power (of a sort)

The United Nations has no authority here. Or as the Greeks once said "Molon labe"

OTOH, the Constitution expressly forbids a large number of actions by the federal power in what used to be a sleepy town between Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

This includes the sarcastically named "USA PATRIOT Act" and the treatment of prisoners of war at the Guantanamo Bay naval base (the commander there just removed due to his opposition to interrogation methods being (presumably illegally) employed.

Who will stand for the old republic?

Re:Judge likely to dismiss

[Windcatcher]

Not true. This is a common misconception about the Constitution; it doesn't outline rights, it never has. It limits the government. That's all it does. The problem is that we're always talking about "Constitutional rights". Yes, these limitations on government spring from concepts that there are unalienable rights, but that isn't how the Constitution goes about ensuring that those rights are protected. It doesn't explicitly grant rights to anyone; it says that these are things that our government may not do--EVER. It makes no distinction regarding rights of citizens vs. non-citizens, it simply places binds the government from doing specific things that would wind up infringing upon those rights.

This is extremely important to understand, especially in light of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Ninth basically says that, unless there is a law explicitly making something illegal, then it is legal. It strengthens the purpose of the Constitution, which is to limit the government, not to explicitly grant rights. It means that the burden is entirely placed upon the government (our legislators) to outlaw a practice. The Tenth Amendment says that powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government are in the sole purview of the various States. It is meant to keep the States soverign (and keep YOU in control, since individuals have more control over their state legislatures).

constitutional issues

[JDizzy]

I wonder what leagal ramifications this means to Sklyarov? IT is said that if he testifies i the case, his charges will be dropped! So if this is a tactic to force him NOT to testify, then the charges will be reinstated in full, and with extra penalties.

"If, however, Alexander and Dmitry are unable to come to trial at all, we are likely to face a host of legal issues, including constitutional issues," says Serebryanaya. She deferred further speculation, citing a preference to "cross that bridge if we come to it."

It is also said that the US State Dept. has no legal recource for refusing a visa, as in the Justice dept has no leverage with them to do anything. So thins might be Powell's way of asserting a forced verdict in this case. This might also set a precendence in the world-wide court, if we USA folks can procescute outsiders, yet we refuse these bad folks entry, what is the point? Guilty without trial?

Doesn't seem fair to me!

Re:constitutional issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, all of these blithering idiots report to President Boob....err...Bush. (blithering idiots stick together)

So the notion that DoJ can't force DoS to grant a visa is unadulterated bullshit.

The cold war pissing match continues

[_Sambo]

I don't know what it is with the US and Russia. I lived in Russia for two years after High School and became fluent in Russian. I remember all the problems that each city's local Visa office (The dreaded OVIR) gave me in each city. I had to leave the country half way through my time there to get a new Visa. I felt that the officials there were difficult to deal with because it was an untrusted American they were dealing with.

It's kind of nice to know that it's a two way street in regards to Visas.

Good luck to Sklyarov.

Re:The cold war pissing match continues

[flossie]

US visa law is no different. I was in the US - I had to leave the country to get new visa.

If there is any difference, it is probably that the Russians aren't yet as good at extracting money from foreigners.Enter the US, apply for an I-94 extension ($150), wait a few weeks, get granted an extension that expires in a few weeks, apply for a new extension ($150), wait a few weeks, ....

Re:The cold war pissing match continues

[fuzzybunny]

Are you kidding?

While I'm fairly convinced that my experience in Russia was skewed by having visited only Moscow and St. Petersburg (Russian friends roll their eyes knowingly when I mention this), I have never been through as much bureaucratic hell as there.

I'm an American who speaks 3 languages fluently, and it's always bothered me that most American bureaucrats aren't required to do so--but I've usually encountered Americans abroad who've made an effort to communicate with foreigners--even if it means TALKING REAL LOUD (yes, you've all seen it.)

I never ran into so much demotivation and unfriendliness (downright hostility) as during my time in Russia--and I try to adapt, prepare, and be as flexible as a good guest ought to. Frankly, I left the country unable to help thinking "Yes, don't let any of the bastards into the US!" after being screamed at by the x-tieth babushka for mistakenly asking for the wrong type of train ticket. And they didn't seem to treat their compatriots any better.

Most assessments of US bureaucrats here are dead-on; the majority I've dealt with are ill-educated, hostile, and unmotivated. It's only at Atlanta airport where I've actually been treated civilly by security flunkies, and I travel quite a bit. However, I have a degree, however limited, of sympathy for the consular officials in Moscow issuing visas. Hell, I'd be demotivated after living there as an American.

Not that it's an excuse, but maybe understandable.

They don't give the reason...

[Alioth]

The article says no reason was given. I doubt that's the case (they probably wouldn't tell journalists though).

Having been through the US visa process, I know how officious that lot can be. I have been refused a US visa twice (the visas were subsequently granted). To give you an insight to how assinine the US embassies can be, the first time was because they couldn't determine exactly how long I had worked for my company (I think it was refused under '221 (g)' (iirc)). Now they could have just phoned either myself up or the company up and asked.

Instead, I had to go to London, waste 4 hours sitting in the US Embassy in their "delicatessen" (they have this big square room, with about five subway-station-style windows at one end. First you line up to get a number. Then you wait for up to five hours until they call your number. There are newspapers in this room - these papers are all about moving to the US. The first half goes on about how terrible your country is and how wonderful the United States is, and the latter half is devoted to how they aren't going to give you a visa anyway. I kid you not!) Finally, my number is called. The officer asked one question. "How long have you worked for your company in the last five years?". I told them. >stamp stamp approved. A whole day wasted on a question that could have been answered by fax or phone without having to see me in person.

The second time I was refused was for a visa *that had already been approved* by the INS in the USA. We sent the forms into the US Embassy when I was back home. They refused it because one of the forms "was out of date". I downloaded the 'current form'. It was IDENTICAL IN EVERY RESPECT to the one they objected to apart from the date in the bottom. ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL in all the boxes, the layout, the information, everything but the blasted date on the bottom! It delayed me for a week and my company not only lost a week of my time, they also had to pay extra as I had to change my airline ticket. It's only the INS that do this - I've had quite a few dealings with another US govt. agency - the FAA. They haven't minded about different versions of the same form which differ only in date.

The INS is absolutely *abysmal*. It's even worse than the IRS because they have so little accountability. The people who vote don't care because they don't have to deal with them, and the people who have to deal with them aren't allowed to vote!

Having said that, I greatly enjoyed my time in the USA and I think it's a great country - so please don't take my rant as a rant against the US - it is not. It's a rant about the INS. The INS are the worst kind of bureaucrats, and I wouldn't be surprised if Skylarov has been delayed by some petty bureaucrat playing his power-games over a form with the wrong frigging date in the bottom corner.

Re:They don't give the reason...

[BrookHarty]

Thats an old trick, the reason they make you resend the documents, match your fingerprints with the first form....
-
Tinfoil hats, shiny side in.

Re:They don't give the reason...

[Drogo Knotwise]

But aren't customs, immigration and taxes always the most powerful and least accountable forms of government?

Re:They don't give the reason...

[Anonymous Coward]

The embassies are run by the Department of State (and not the INS). The embassies decide if they will give you a visa or not.

INS are the people who check the actual entry into the US (in the airport) and it is not because you have a valid visa that they will allow you access.

Re:They don't give the reason...

[doodleboy]

I have to say I agree with your assessment of the INS. I am a Canadian citizen with no criminal record ("Are you, or have you ever been, a prostitute or procurer of prostitutes?"), no medical problems, etc., and it took forever to get a simple K1 fiance visa to enter the US.

I was told by the American consulate in Canada that my application should only take a couple of months to process if it was the slam-dunk it appeared to be. Instead it took over a year. And my plaintive phone calls trying to figure out what was going on were met with unhelpful statements like, "you will be contacted at the appropriate time," by obviously bored bureaucrats who refused to even look into the matter.

The INS office here is even worse. I will spare everyone the gory details, but I will say that I was genuinely shocked at how rude consular employees are. It's the jail-guard syndrome, where jobs that give people power encourage the petty tyrant within.

I've mentioned my experiences with the INS to a couple of Americans, and they both told me I should have just flown down here and gotten married, as it was highly unlikely I'd get tossed out. I knew people did such things, but I figured I have nothing to hide and I'll just play by the rules. And look where it got me!

Obviously I have nothing against the United States, since I chose to move here (who knew winters could be so warm?). Seriously though, any system that keeps out the innocent while letting the criminals in must be in need of a serious overhaul.

Re:They don't give the reason...

[Guppy06]

"But aren't customs, immigration and taxes always the most powerful and least accountable forms of government?"

The Department of State is a pussycat compared to the Treasury Department. Note two of the three you listed falls into their department.

You've got the Secret Service, the IRS, the BATF... No matter what you do in the US, do not mess with the Treasury Department. These are the guys who brought down Capone, after all!

Re:They don't give the reason...

[Richy_T]

I came to the U.S. on a 90 day visa waiver. I married my wife (an American) towards the end of the waiver period so I returned to the U.K. to stay legal. My wife went to a lawyer to get my visa rolling and she said that I should just have stayed and applied for a change of status. We decided to live in the U.K. for a bit anyway so no big loss.

However, two years ago, we returned to the U.S. I went through all the application process as required (took 7 months in all I think. When my wife joined me in the U.K. , her visa took about two hours). I arrived in the U.S. and was told I should receive my green card in about seven months, if not to contact the INS, in the meantime, a stamp in my passport allowed me to work. Two years, two extra stamps and a replacement passport later, still no greencard. And their fax number for enquiring about the status never picks up.

Really, it's no surprise to me that terrorists get visas after they're dead.

Rich

Re:They don't give the reason...

[SuiteSisterMary]

As a Canadian citizen, I tried to get into the States under Trade NAFTA, a TN-1 visa. As one of the six people, at the time, on the planet who could do my job, I was denied entry as they'd have hated to take a job away from an honest American citizen.

I heard one story of a fellow at Pearson Int'l Airport who was waiting in line. There's a big red line at the US terminal; on this side, you're on Canadian soil. On that side, you're on American soil. Or carpet. Either way. Anywho, he plunked his bag down, to dig out his passport and what not. American guard says 'get your bag off of American soil, sir.' Guy says 'Sure thing, just let me grab my passport here, so I can give it to the.....' and the guard picks up the bag, and hucks it back onto the Canadian side. The fellow, when he got back to the window, was denied entry.

Re:They don't give the reason...

[Fastolfe]

I was genuinely shocked at how rude consular employees are. It's the jail-guard syndrome, where jobs that give people power encourage the petty tyrant within.

While I don't doubt your experiences here, keep in mind also that a sizable percentage of the people going to see the consulate are not in a very good mood either.

Re:Your tax dollars at work - IRS

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why the left and right hands of the IRS shouldn't know what they are doing. They are both rummaging around in in my pocket and I've got a photon microlight in there. They should even be able to see.

Time to use reverse psychology.

[coupland]

When he wants out of America they detain him. When he wants back into America they refuse him. If he was smart he'd send them a note pleading with them to find him guilty.

Dial down the center...

[plasticpixel]

Can't this guy use a phone? All he needs to do is testify, he's not on trial here. Don't people testify via telephone all the time?

Or maybe they can set up a Chat room for the testimonial?

All this technology and lawyers are still banging rocks together.

Re:Dial down the center...

[JoZZ]

Yea an open chatroom, and then instead of layers we have an /. interview.

Re:Dial down the center...

[SuiteSisterMary]

He's not a witness; he's the accused. Under American law, he needs to be in front of a Judge for anything to happen, IIRC.

Not guilty necessarily

[aWalrus]

The article says that the agreement is to drop charges against Skylarov if he testifies in the trial against ElcomSoft. Thus, if he can't be there, he may be prosecuted.
--

Re:Not guilty necessarily

[flossie]

Fortunately for Skyralov, he can't effectively be prosecuted unless he returns to the US. Given the hospitality he received last he visited, it would be perfectly understandable if he desired never to see the place again.

I suspect he would rather clear his name, however.

Re:Not guilty necessarily

[dbrutus]

Actually, what is most likely to occur is the lawyers, judge, and a court reporter are destined to go to Moscow to take his testimony if the US govt. doesn't change its mind. It might be interesting though if the judge ordered the issuance of a visa...

Getting in the US

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

He should change his name to Mohammed Atta or Osama Bin Laden and he'd get right in.

They gave a visa to Mohammed Atta well after the September 11 attacks...

And plus, a terrorist isn't considered as much of a threat as someone that might give back fair use to the people...

Re:Getting in the US

[qnonsense]

• They gave a visa to Mohammed Atta well after the September 11 attacks...
  

Funny. I thought Atta died on September 11.

Re:Getting in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

He did die in the attack. But that didn't stop the INS, powerful bureaucrats that they are...

Re:Getting in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

He did. And his visa arrived several weeks later. Hooray for people...

Re:Getting in the US

[CoolQ]

Hi-
Exactly! They sent him his visa in the mail well after he was already dead. (months, IIRC) How hard is it for the INS to realize that he was one of the hijackers?
--Quentin

Re:Getting in the US

[Zeinfeld]

They gave a visa to Mohammed Atta well after the September 11 attacks...

Funny. I thought Atta died [cnn.com] on September 11.

He had a pending visa application in. On 9/11 he was on some sort of student visa.

However according to recent reports none of the hijackers should have been granted visas if the criteria had actually been applied correctly at the time. Three were on the CIA watch list and the 'pilots' had no support.

Re:Getting in the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. That's why it's funny (or not depending on your point of view/sense of humor). Dead man. Leader of terrorist attack. Sure, VISA EXTENDED.

Re:Getting in the US

[qnonsense]

My bad. Oops

From the Hacker Hall Of Fame, a tale from the past

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Great Hacker Hall Of Fame, I bring you this, so that you will remember where it all started (Written by The Mentor for Phrack magazine in 1986). NEVER FORGET WHO YOU ARE!!

--->
\/\The Conscience of a Hacker/\/ by +++The Mentor+++

Written on January 8, 1986

Another one got caught today, it's all over the papers. "Teenager Arrested in Computer Crime Scandal", "Hacker Arrested after Bank Tampering"... Damn kids. They're all alike.

But did you, in your three-piece psychology and 1950's technobrain,
ever take a look behind the eyes of the hacker? Did you ever wonder what made him tick, what forces shaped him, what may have molded him?

I am a hacker, enter my world...Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm smarter than most of the other kids, this crap they teach us bores me...

Damn underachiever. They're all alike.

I'm in junior high or high school. I've listened to teachers explain
for the fifteenth time how to reduce a fraction. I understand it. "No, Ms. Smith, I didn't show my work. I did it in my head..."

Damn kid. Probably copied it. They're all alike.

I made a discovery today. I found a computer. Wait a second, this is cool. It does what I want it to. If it makes a mistake, it's because I screwed it up. Not because it doesn't like me...

Or feels threatened by me...Or thinks I'm a smart ass...Or doesn't like teaching and shouldn't be here...

Damn kid. All he does is play games. They're all alike.

And then it happened... a door opened to a world... rushing through
the phone line like heroin through an addict's veins, an electronic pulse is sent out, a refuge from the day-to-day incompetencies is sought... a board is found.

"This is it... this is where I belong..." I know everyone here... even if I've never met them, never talked to them, may never hear from them again... I know you all...

Damn kid. Tying up the phone line again. They're all alike...

You bet your ass we're all alike... we've been spoon-fed baby food at school when we hungered for steak... the bits of meat that you did let slip through were pre-chewed and tasteless. We've been dominated by sadists, or ignored by the apathetic. The few that had something to teach found us willing pupils, but those few are like drops of water in the desert.

This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch, the beauty of the baud. We make use of a service already existing without paying
for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek
after knowledge... and you call us criminals. We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias... and you call us criminals. You build atomic bombs, you wage wars, you murder, cheat, and lie to us and try to make us believe it's for our own good, yet we're the criminals.

Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity. My crime is that of judging people by what they say and think, not what they look like. My crime is that of outsmarting you, something that you will never forgive me for.

I am a hacker, and this is my manifesto. You may stop this individual,
but you can't stop us all... after all, we're all alike.

+++The Mentor+++

--->

Get started, Dmitry!

[fobbman]

Maybe he can crack the Department of State and get hisself "distributed" into the US.

Miranda rights.

[Qrlx]

Hey, don't forget about your Miranda rights. Miranda was a convicted rapist and a very bad man. The police never informed him of his rights (you have a right to remain silent, etc.) He got off (in more ways than one) and in return for the suffering of his victims we have the right to remain silent. Thanks for taking one for the team, ladies!

Okay, back to the topic:

If I were the defense, I would argue collusion between the DOJ and INS. They are working more closely in the post 9-11 era, you know.

Re:Miranda rights.

[terrymr]

The INS is part of the DOJ - no need for collusion there.

Re:Miranda rights.

[Eccles]

Miranda was a convicted rapist and a very bad man. The police never informed him of his rights (you have a right to remain silent, etc.) He got off (in more ways than one) and in return for the suffering of his victims we have the right to remain silent. Thanks for taking one for the team, ladies!

Uh, no.

Miranda's original conviction -- based on the tainted confession -- was overturned. However, Miranda was convicted in the retrial, served 11 years, and then died in a bar fight four years after being paroled. See this.

Re:Miranda rights.

[Ozymandias_KoK]

The right to remain silent was already there. It was the idea that you need to be made aware of your rights that the case brought to light.

that's not true!

[Anonymous Coward]

The CIA killed her and framed him for it because of the research he was doing into Psychic Warfare and Mind Control. Wake up, you cad!

Re:that's not true!

[cei]

Ironic that this is being modded as +1 Funny, because that's actually his defense!

Re:that's not true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironic that this is being modded as +1 Funny, because that's actually his defense

It get wierder ... his defence is actually the truth!

Posting anonymously to avoid being framed by the CIA.

Re:that's not true!

[Hrothgar The Great]

It get wierder ... his defence is actually the truth!

Posting anonymously to avoid being framed by the CIA.

I guess some people will believe anything. Hey, I think the X-Files is on. You'd better get home. The truth is out there.

Re:that's not true!

[operagost]

I'd believe that argument once someone explains how the putrefying corpse remained in the trunk in the padlocked closet for two years, with the vile fluids running through the floor into the apartment below, without him knowing it.

You can't just "plant" a corpse that you've been rotting for two years in a person's residence and have it cause damage like that with no time to work.

OT: Irony

[flossie]

The most ironic thing about that song is the fact that there are very few examples of actual irony in it. Most of the complaints are things that are generally considered to be just plain old bad luck.

True irony is perhaps the highest form of humour.

Re:OT: Irony

[VValdo]

True irony [dictionary.com] is perhaps the highest form of humour.

Since fifth grade I've been hearing this bizarre heirarchy of humor, with puns and/or slapstick most frequently cited as the LOWEST forms.

What the hell? Are people so insecure/arrogant about their sense of what's funny that they have to actually rank them? To what authority does this appeal? Is there some consortium of comedians or something that releases a yearly report on the latest comedic standings?

(funny answers are appreciated)

W

Re:OT: Irony

[TheKey]

Stuff can be funny but not ironic. Irony is just a literary tool, and to just blatantly throw it around describing everything that's funny as ironic would be .. well, wrong. I mean, it's communication, man. Irony has to be a specific thing, or no one would know what the hell you were talking about when you said "Dude, that's ironic."

Re:OT: Irony

[lorcha]

The sad thing is that there are school teachers who use this song to explain "irony" to students. Someone should remind them that "rain on your wedding day" is only ironic if the bride and/or groom is a meteorologist.

Re:OT: Irony

[shadowbearer]

Move over Carlin, you have competition :)

A Truly Worthy (TM) rant, sir.

SB

Someone will say this sooner or later...

[ross.w]

1. Conduct "Free Sklyarov" campaign
2. Conduct "Bring him back" campaign
3. ??
4. Profit!!!

Free!

[newestbob]

Free Dimitri!

Free Mickey Mouse!

Free Software!

MAKE MONEY FAST

DoJ is your friend

[craw]

If Sklyarov really wanted to get into the US he should break into some FBI computers. Then he should offer the FBI his paid assistance in fixing the computer security holes.

Handshakes

[Chas]

[Right Hand] Hey Lefty!

[Left Hand] Yeah?

[Right Hand] What'cha doin'?

[Left Hand] ......

[Right Hand] Well?

[Left Hand] Well, what?

[Right Hand] What are you doing?

[Left Hand] I do not know such information. Nor could I pass along said information if I did know such information.

Terrorists OK - DMCA "violators" not wanted!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hijackers can get visas no problem, like the 9-11 ones did. Yet DMCA "violators" are denied Visas to defend themselves in court?
Well, it's great to see the US bureaucrats have their priorities straight.....

Re:Terrorists OK - DMCA "violators" not wanted!

[Anonymous Coward]

A bit Off-Topic, but if you're talking about visas...

Your (American) visa policy is very, very strange.

For example, if I wanted to go to US from my country (Poland), I'd have to call a number beginning with the prefix 0-700 and wait about 10 minutes for some chick at the US Embassy to answer my call. But I'm paying for that - even if my call isn't answered :)))

In Poland, telephone numbers beginning with 0-700 cost ca. 30-40 times higher than the local phone calls. :))) Maybe US Embassy has a deal with Polish Telecom Ltd. :>>> That's a good business - to be an American embassador. :>

After that, I'd have to register (after someone at the Embassy decides to answer my call!) via that telephone line, and few days later I'd have to wait in a queue in front of the US Embassy to fill in my papers. After few weeks of waiting I would know the results of the visa lottery (yes - it's a lottery - and it's an official name for that!)

If you're not drawn out by lot - it starts from the beginning - again, call the "hotline", stand in the queue, fill in the papers... etc.

The funny thing is that, Poles have got to have a visa to enter US, but - US citizens don't have to have one if they want to enter Poland.
This is the American way of "justice". :> And this makes me really angry - if Poles are required to have a visa in US, the Americans in Poland should be the same. And vice-versa.

Moreover, 70% of Poles requesting a visa don't get one.

Thank God I don't have to (nor I want to) go to the USA. :)

The terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Afghanistan got your visas easily, but many peace-loving people from Poland (and other European countries) simply didn't - so this resulted in splitted families - e.g. husband in Warsaw, wife in NYC. And then George W. Bush says
to our president Aleksander Kwasniewski "Poland is our dearest and biggest friend in Central Europe".

Yeah, right. As it can be seen above.

"Dearest friends" are nearly banned (by the "visa lottery) from entering US, but islamic terrorists can go to US and learn how to fly...

So, the story about Sklyarov doesn't surprise me.
Just the usual business with US visa bureaucrats. :)

What happened to Mr. Sklyarov is just one of many proves for that jokes have something in common with the truth. :)

(mqs@space.pl)

visas and courts

[Anonymous Coward]

I once was a consular officer, albeit not in Russia. Russia is what's known as a "visa mill". That means that there are a lot of folks who want visas, and, as a result, long lines. Most applicants get about 60 seconds at the window, whereupon the consular officer must decide yea or nay. It isn't an exact science. One looks for discrepancies between what the applicant says, how they appear, and their papers. In Skylarov's case, I have no idea how he appeared, what he was asked, or what he said. However, his story may have sounded strange, or he may not have explained the circumstances well. Hence, no visa.

The DOJ has nothing to do with visas, and the State Dept (NOT the INS) has nothing to do with the DOJ. Later, when I left the FOreign Service, I went to law school and clerked for a federal judge. We have several cases where defendants and/or witnesses couldn't get back in to the US. GUess what -- there's nothing the court or the DOJ can do to get anyone a visa. In one case, where an actual defendant couldn't appear, we continued the proceedings until such time that the government could produce the defendant. In another case, where a witness couldn't appear, we allowed a deposition transcript to be used ("declarant unavailable exception")

Trials in absentia may be permissible under state law, but I've never seen such in federal court.

Re:visas and courts

[Anonymous Coward]

It's become much harder for Russians to get visas to the US since 9/11. My father-in-law, a respected scientist from Russia, was unable to attend a conference this year in the US that he helped organize because he couldn't get a visa. He'd never had any problems previously. It seems to me that the DOS[1] has streamlined the process since 9/11: rubber-stamp all visa applications from Russia with "no". Now it takes less than 60 seconds.

[1] Feel free to expand that as "Department of State" or "Denial of Service", as you see fit.

Re:visas and courts

[octalc0de]

It seems to me that the DOS[1] has streamlined the process since 9/11: rubber-stamp all visa applications from Russia with "no". Now it takes less than 60 seconds ....
[1] Feel free to expand that as "Department of State" or "Denial of Service", as you see fit.

What about Disk Operating System?

It seems that DOS has streamlined the process.... all with no. Now it takes less than 60 seconds. :)

turn about is fair play?

[loners]

Russia wont hand them over until the USA hands over FBI Agent Michael Schuler who was indicted for hacking into russian computers. After the US judge basically ruled that it is not a crime for US agents to commit a crime somewhere else, dont count on russia or the USA ever "swapping prisoners".

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Archfeld]

Mod this guy up. Boy George has decided its ok to have your cake and eat it too. Everyone in the world is held to US laws, EXCEPT US Law Enforcement Officials.

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Planesdragon]

Everyone in the world is held to US laws, EXCEPT US Law Enforcement Officials.

If those said US law enforcemnet officals ever go to Russia, they can expect to be captured, tried (if they're lucky), and jailed.

We've got a good 15-50 years of "supernationalism" until some agreed-upon mechanism for punnishing extra-national criminals is agreed upon. Probably by an extension of the UN War Crimes court into a body to deal with inter-country legal affairs that aren't War Crimes.

To whit; I can get on a boat chartered in China from California, hook up to an international communications system not owned by the USA, hack a server in Japan, go back to the USA, and ignore any legal threats on the basis that no applicable law makes what I did illegal. If I'm out of the country ANYWAY and I've got a good reason, I've got an even better situation.

Until I go to Japan, of course.

(IANAL; if you, knowing that I am not qualified to dispense legal advice, decide to act upon my suggestion, you should also jump into the ocean while you're out there and save the gene pool.)

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe not a swap but buying people isnt out of the question.
Look at how the US is bartering with the Security Council members to support the latest Oil war.
"Dont veto and well make it worth your while."

If I was Skyboy, I wouldnt count out being handed over by his govt. His freedom CAN be bought, its just a matter of price.

As for US spies, you can count on one hand how many of them would actually be held in the countries they were spying. There was a case in eastern europe two weeks ago (bulgaria, romania,etc) which is a repeat of the Yoogosliavian farce from this summer where a US 'attache' was caught on video receiving documents from a minister in exchange for money, the minister was later tried in court and sentenced to jail based on the audio and video proof but their countries puppet govt APOLOGIZED to the US for holding the 'innocent' attache overnight!

All I know about international politics I learned on The Sopranos; the principles are the same.

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

We've got a good 15-50 years of "supernationalism" until some agreed-upon mechanism for punnishing extra-national criminals is agreed upon.

And how long until that agreed-upon mechanism that's been agreed upon is backed with enough teeth to make a whit of difference? Until we have a one world government (which is probably a really bad idea), we will have to deal with these situations.

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've got a good 15-50 years of "supernationalism" until some agreed-upon mechanism for punnishing extra-national criminals is agreed upon. Probably by an extension of the UN War Crimes court into a body to deal with inter-country legal affairs that aren't War Crimes.

Fat chance it'll taake anywhere near that long. We're doing everything we can to spread the gospel of DMCA, complete with sanctions on those who don't want to knuckle under. Meanwhile we're taking the worst of the UK surveillance-of-public-places practices and China's internet chokepoint policies and trying to make them our own.These bastards, including W and St. Ashcroft the Righteous, won't be satisfied until they've made Stalin look like only the neighborhood peeping Tom.

Re:turn about is fair play?

[g4dget]

We've got a good 15-50 years of "supernationalism" until some agreed-upon mechanism for punnishing extra-national criminals is agreed upon. Probably by an extension of the UN War Crimes court into a body to deal with inter-country legal affairs that aren't War Crimes.

The US has refused to ratify the treaty on the international criminal court because of the completely hypothetical possibility that US citizens might be tried elsewhere. I don't believe the US is going to subject its citizens to any form of foreign jurisdiction if it can help it.

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Florian Weimer]

Probably by an extension of the UN War Crimes court into a body to deal with inter-country legal affairs that aren't War Crimes.

There's the International Criminal Court, but the United States are actively undermining it.

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Planesdragon]

The US has refused to ratify the treaty on the international criminal court because of the completely hypothetical possibility that US citizens might be tried elsewhere.

Not citizens--soldiers in peacekeeping missions.

The fear is that countires that hate the US will bring spurious charges against innocent US soldiers; I think it's actually justified, although we're a bit extreme in our denial of the court.

I don't believe the US is going to subject its citizens to any form of foreign jurisdiction if it can help it.

In 1952 we wouldn't have allowed trade with Russia, Germany was split, and Iraq / Al Queada were far lesser evils. In 2052 I suspect the world might change just as much.

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Planesdragon]

And how long until that agreed-upon mechanism that's been agreed upon is backed with enough teeth to make a whit of difference?

Only long enough for the US to want to enforce it on someone else. Drug trafficking, anyone?

Until we have a one world government (which is probably a really bad idea), we will have to deal with these situations.

Why do you think it's a really bad idea? Half of the countries out there ALLREADY think that we've got a world government. Giving it teeth and direct representation would just force dictators to be benevolent if they want to stay in power.

(Most of the other arguments I know of to a one-world government can be bypassed with a simple "The USA does that anyway, so why not give non-USians a chance to say in their own fate?")

Re:turn about is fair play?

[arkanes]

Sure, it's justified, but it's as valid for any OTHER country. Claiming that Americans (only) should be immune is just ridiculous. Also note that soldiers in peacekeeping missions are in fact citizens ;)

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Rhubarb Crumble]

Not citizens--soldiers in peacekeeping missions.

I always thought the canonical example of a US citizen that might be tried was Henry Kissinger, on a long list of war crimes allegations (try googling for "kissinger" and "cambodia").

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Planesdragon]

I always thought the canonical example of a US citizen that might be tried was Henry Kissinger, on a long list of war crimes allegations (try googling for "kissinger" and "cambodia")

I say we try him--if we haven't done so allready at home.

The argument isn't USA wanting to be immune to legitimate claims--it's a desire to avoid all spurious ones.

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Planesdragon]

(Soldiers in peacekeeping missions are citizens, but not all citizens are soldiers on peacekeeping missions.)

It's not as justified for any other country--the USA is seen as the personification of "The West," and there are more countries and more groups that want to cause us harm than there are that wish harm to any one of our allies--maybe more than all of our allies put together.

A permanent "UN Investigation" bureau might be a good answer to the issue. As would significat penalty for a spurious filing.

Re:turn about is fair play?

[lone bear]

check www.freelori.org the us does not always protect it's citizens as required by us law

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Rhubarb Crumble]

The argument isn't USA wanting to be immune to legitimate claims--it's a desire to avoid all spurious ones.

That rings a little hollow though...kind of sounds like arguing the only way to avoid miscarriages of justice is not to have any justice in the first place.

As it is, the US is frequently engaged in military action all over the world, and frequently legitimises these actions by claiming to be protecting human rights, preventing war crimes, chasing terrorists, etc. Of course, many people would argue these claims are a poor smokescreen anyway, but the US's argument is hardly made more believable by claiming that they (alone in the world) should be exempt from the justice that they (claim to) mete out on other people. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, and all that.

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Planesdragon]

That rings a little hollow though...kind of sounds like arguing the only way to avoid miscarriages of justice is not to have any justice in the first place.

Picture a city where all crimes have to have someone step forth and accuse. There is no police force in this city, and no penalty for a citizen who makes a false claim. Now, picture that the state police wants to go in, but they'll be subject to the laws of this city--and they're going after a gang boss smart enough to abuse the system.

I don't care if it's accurate--this is how I believe my government views the problems with the world crimes court. It's not an argument that "we should be immune from justice." It's an argument that "this court will be abused, and is not justice."

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Psion]

"Boy George has decided its ok to have your cake and eat it too." Umm...how exactly is the Executive Branch responsible for the actions of the Judicial Branch carrying out the laws written by the Legislative Branch. You may or may not have just cause to hate Bush, but is it really necessary to blame everything that goes screwy in this country on him?

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Rhubarb Crumble]

Picture a city where all crimes have to have someone step forth and accuse. There is no police force in this city, and no penalty for a citizen who makes a false claim. Now, picture that the state police wants to go in, but they'll be subject to the laws of this city--and they're going after a gang boss smart enough to abuse the system.

So instead, they're going to go in anyway, but only if they can do as they please. Sorry, it doesn't work for me. Justice - of any kind - only works if it's above board, and that means public. (cf. "we have evidence that xyz is linked to terror, but we can't tell anyone until AFTER we've bombed them to rubble, trust us." is an example of how not to do it.)

Take our friend Slobodan Milosevic at the moment, currently on trial in The Hague for genocide, amongst other things. Yes, he's doing a lot of the finger pointing you mention ("the only civilian casualties were caused by NATO bombing" etc.). Yes, he's a dead smart boss who knows how to play the propaganda game. But he's not getting very far with it.

I don't care if it's accurate--this is how I believe my government views the problems with the world crimes court. It's not an argument that "we should be immune from justice." It's an argument that "this court will be abused, and is not justice."

The helpful attitude would be to help the system not to be abused (or come up with a credible alternative - and no, "because we say so" unilateralism doesn't count). You can't play and be the referee at the same time, but that's what the US seems to want to do. At least that's the impression they give.

No one says the ICC is/will be perfect, but the argument in its favour is that any kind of "due process" - particularly one that makes as much information as possible public - is better than none at all.

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Planesdragon]

The helpful attitude would be to help the system not to be abused

Yes, it would.

Re:turn about is fair play?

[arkanes]

Any more than, say, the US might wish to harm "rouge" nations? The idea that we're the most important nation in the world and that we need/deserve special treatment because of it is really a fallacy. There's plenty of nations (I'd go so far as to say most of them) who don't really care about the US and have no beef to grind. And pre-emptively claiming that we need immunity to prosecution because of the POSSIBILITY of false claims... well, that just strikes all kinds of wrong chords with me. It's a claim that the US is a) automatically in the right in any of it's actions b) can be depended upon to police it's own military (something that we actually have a pretty poor track record of). It makes us look like either arrogant hypocrites, or a country with something to hide. If bringing a false claim is so easy as to justify this claim to immunity, what reason is there for the court at all? If we're so positive that no US soldier would ever do anything to warrant investigation by this court, why are we afraid to allow them to appear before it? Is it an admission that the normal rule of law just doesn't work? Do we really believe there would be a concerted, organized effort to harm America via this court? If we do believe that, isn't our vulnerability to these claims something we should investigate on our own?

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Archfeld]

Err the push for the war on terrorism, the patriot act All originated with Boy George. A$$croft is operating with complete acknowledgement and approval of the Whitehouse, I don't think there is any doubt about that. I don't know Bush so I don't hate him, I do not however have any respect for him, based on his actions and rhetoric. He scares me more than anything else...Like the old Twilight Zone episode with the super powered kid in charge of everything, liable to throw a tantrum and lash out at anytime...

Re:turn about is fair play?

[Planesdragon]

two points:

1: I think the US should join this silly international court--and that it should have both real teeth and its own investigative body.

2: The USA prosecutes its own soldiers for violations. "Rouge nations," by and large, don't.

Re:turn about is fair play?

[snarkh]

Any more than, say, the US might wish to harm "rouge" nations?

Those evil communists. They are everywhere.

Yeah, since the US is so safe already...

[MSBob]

Let's go after some poor Russian chap. Luckily the US doesn't have snipers out on the loose shooting random people like ducks, it is essential that they concentrate on some low key, harmless, russian coder to boost their egos a little.

A bit like with Iraq really, the US failed to capture Osama so they're now after (fingers crossed) easier targets to make them appear less incompetent in the public eye. Seems like trying to prove that the country still works even though hardly anyone still believes that it does.

Re:Yeah, since the US is so safe already...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the sniper, killing far fewer people in that area than are killed in traffic accidents, did choose a State which denies its citizens their second ammendment rights. If he or she had tried this in Texas, he or she would have been long dead. . .

Re:Yeah, since the US is so safe already...

[pommiekiwifruit]

If he or she had tried this in Texas, he or she would have been long dead. . .

I have wondered how carrying a pistol was supposed to protect you from a sniper rifle. I guess if you carried it in the right place it might stop the bullet (depends how fast it is going by the time it reaches you). But Kevlar might be a tad more effective.

Message From Jack 'n' Hill

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet.

Visas in general

[mcelrath]

I understand that the state department has gone all Draconian with visas lately. I have a number of colleagues that have complained of not being able to get a visa (under circumstances where they could previously), and some stuck in China and Canada indefinitely...

Does anyone know more?

Glad I live in America, land of the free, where I am protected from these dangerous people.

-- Bob

Re:Visas in general

[ender81b]

Yeah I have a friend from Oman who can't go home because there isn't anyway he would get back. Out of his 12 friends, who live in various places in the mideast, who left over the summer (or christmas) to return home to visit their families, they are all college students here, not a single one got a visa. Everyone was denied. It is insane.

Re:Visas in general

[bad-badtz-maru]

Do you mean these individuals were unable to return to college?

maru

Re:Visas in general

[ender81b]

Yes, not a single one was able to return. Including his best friend who had a perfect 4.0... nice huh?

Love - leave

[t_allardyce]

Sometimes you love someone very much but they hurt you too much, and you have to just leave.

Why the hell would he ever want to go back to the USA ever in his entire life ever?

No visa??

[Sanga]

How about Discover or Master card??

My solution

[nytes]

Maybe if they broke the DMCA again the US would let them in?

No death penalty in PA

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy your're talking bout is Ira Einhorn. France refused to extradite him because he could possibly face the death penalty in America. The circumstances are quite different than Skylarov's.

There is no death penalty in PA! He will never get the death penalty because there was no death penalty in PA when the murder took place. Please no media, no lawyer, nobody has ever said this. Don't repeat crap to cover up that the French gov't kept a possible murderer from justice for over 20 years.

The French gov't believed his lies about how the CIA is pinning the murder on him.

Re:No death penalty in PA

[Doomdark]

Yes, it is hard to believe a government would actually stand up to its ideals; ideals of considering death penalty being barbaric act no civilized society should impose on anyone.
It sure seems much more likely french gov't just took the word of this very likely guilty person.</sarcasm>

Believe me, french people despise murderers just as much as anybody else, but:

• They (like many europeans) have doubts about fairness of US legal system (whether that's fair or not is another issue altogether)
• They (majority of people, not nearly all) think death penalty is about as honorable act as slavery, torture or cannibalism.

Re:No death penalty in PA

[Anonymous Coward]

They (majority of people, not nearly all) think death penalty is about as honorable act as slavery, torture or cannibalism.

How can you put the death penalty, torture and slavery in the same basket as cannibalism? C'mon man, cannibalism is just totally barbaric!

Re:No death penalty in PA

[Anonymous Coward]

THERE IS NO DEATH PENALTY IN PA!!!! He will never be killed by the US gov't (because there are laws in US that are actually enforced). The French gov't was fooled by him. They thought the CIA did it. Idiot!

Re:No death penalty in PA

[Anonymous Coward]

Barbaric, but tasty. Mmm.

Why not use this to get the charges dropped?

[rbook]

The article says Sklyarov's lawyers are protesting the visa denial. Isn't that backwards? Why not go to the court and say, "Our client can't show up because the government -- which is prosecuting him -- is denying him a visa. Therefore, the government can't both prosecute charges and prevent him from answering them, so all charges must be dropped!"

I am not a lawyer, but maybe someone who is could tell us if this argument is valid.

Re:Why not use this to get the charges dropped?

[forkboy]

State and Federal government are 2 different entities in the eyes of the court. If you're supposed to be in Federal Court for a trial, but can't make it because some podunk town threw you into detox after catching you driving drunk, you'd be held in contempt or found guilty (depending on the charge) for not showing up.

I am not a lawyer, but I've taken a few law classes. (and I watch Law and Order) =P

Re:Why not use this to get the charges dropped?

[rbook]

But this is a Federal trial, and the Federal government is denying the visa!

I know the Justice Dept. and the State Dept. are separate and probably don't communicate much, but it is the "United States" that is the party to the prosecution, and the "United States" denying the visa.

U.S. District Court of Northern California

[dirvish]

Where is the U.S. District Court of Northern California? I am in Nor Cal and I would love to attend.

Re:U.S. District Court of Northern California

[ehintz]

San Jose Federal Building

He should sneak in from Canada

[Newer Guy]

He should sneak in from Canada and under the glare of TV lights show up in court at the appointed time. I can see the row that wouls happen in that court when the INS show up to deport him for being in the country illegally.

Where are the Green Card lawyers...

[ErikVonLiedtke]

..when you need them.

Never attribute to malice ...

[Charles Dodgeson]

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

Yes, this is paradoxical. Yes it is stupid, yes it (initially) puts him an (even more) difficult position. But it isn't some plan. It's just normal visa issuing stupidity.

By way of anecdote. My wife ended up in a similarly nasty situation. Before we were married she could travel from her native Hungary to the US on visitor visa without a problem. But once we were married, the US embassy is Budapest was reluctant to give a visitor's visa to the wife of a US citizen since she could easy not return. The advised us for her to get a green card.

But also, quite reasonably, the green card (immigration visa) is for people who actually immigrate to the US. That is, you should really reside in the US if you have an immigration visa.

So two rules, each of which make some sort of sense (though not a whole lot) interact to put us in a nasty situation.

This is clearly what is going on here. The US Embassy doesn't issue visas for people with criminal records (a rule that makes sense). Sklyorov is required (or at least requested) to testify.

Now judges aren't stupid. If the visa problem can't be fixed, the judge will take that into account. And there's good news. It further paints Sklyorov as an innocent victim, serving to further ridicule the system that got him jailed in the first place.

As a final note, having lived in a soviet block country and elsewhere in Europe. I can say that the US is by far the most bureaucratic country on the planet.

Re:Never attribute to malice ...

[hafidhahullah]

Yes. Leave it to the Slashdot genius moderation to score this one "insightful." The "immigration visa" is something issued by the U.S. State Dept. at the Consular Office in the country of origin of a foreign national trying to enter the U.S. The "green card" is a document issued by the INS AFTER you have immigrated to the U.S. which is basically a "right to work permit." The green card is usually conferred on immigrants who have attained "permanent resident alien" status, and in some cases it is granted to "conditional resident alien" status individuals, who are then required to return in two years for a final review before they are granted "permanent resident alien" status. If you are confused and don't know the difference, it is all explained very well at the INS's web site.

Re:Never attribute to malice ...

[Charles Dodgeson]

I'm all too familiar with all of these distinctions. Indeed, I have the extreme misfortunate of being familiar with immigration procedures in three countries. I conflated the two (green card and immigration visa) to simplify presentation. There are other shortcuts and omission from my anecdote as well (e.g., I was vague about whether previous travel to the US was on a B-1 or B-2 or other status). The point, however -- that there can be two rules, each which make some sense on their own, but can lead to a Catch-22 in combination in some cases -- remains.

At least one INS site, they, for presentation purposes, also conflate Immigration visas with Permanent Residence status.

By the way, as long as we are in pedant mode, it is misleading to call a green card (conditional or permanent) "basically a right to work status". It involves other rights, and is seen as a step toward naturalization. The imfamous H visa is more appropriately called a work permit.

The US is contradicting its own policy?

[Ryu2]

From the Visa FAQ linked from the planetpdf.com site:

* Q: How can an applicant learn why he/she was denied a visa at a post overseas?

A: An applicant is always told the reason for denial, orally or in writing. If an applicant does not understand the reason for denial, or wishes to offer further evidence to overcome the denial, he/she should contact the post where the application was made to determine that post's reapplication policy.


From the article:

Nonetheless, visa applications for both ElcomSoft employees were recently denied, she said; no reasons were given.

Is the US contradicting its own policy here?

Re:The US is contradicting its own policy?

[Anonymous Freak]

No, it just means that they tell the applicant the reason, not joe-blow-random-press. Sklyarov and Katalov should have been told, if they're willing to share.

Re:The US is contradicting its own policy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the days before The Fall, getting a relative to visit from the USSR was relatively easy. The Russians just wanted to make sure that whoever was leaving the country had some assets, some family, etc. that they would return to.

After The Fall, getting a relative to visit became much harder. The applicant still had to demonstrate that they had some assets, family, etc. that they would return to... but this time, they had to demonstrate it to the U.S. government.

A relative of my wife's was refused entry, for undisclosed reasons. When I wrote a letter of support, saying I'd provide insurance and a place to live, my relative went to reapply, was again refused, and told not to come back.

I got my congresscritter involved, who kindly participated in a conference call with the Embassy, to no avail. When I asked why my relative had been refused, I was told that such information was not public, since if the reasons for refusals became known, then people would "tailor" their applications to avoid the pitfalls.

The problem with the Sklyarov situation is that it's not really exploitable with the hoi polloi. Give Joe Blow the details of this case, and his response likely would be "What's the big deal? They guy's guilty, right?" ...

Most likely reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely he is not allowed in the US because the INS is part of the Department of Justice.

It makes so much more sense for it to be part of the Department of Labor because that would be able to fuel economy and not treat every foreigner as a criminal.

Maybe "Somebody" doesn't want the DMCA tested

[Colonel Panic]

This would have been the first testcase that could overturn the DMCA. Don't allow them back in for the trial and there's no risk of the DMCA being overturned.

Other than to potentially overturn the DMCA, I really see no reason why Sklyarov or Elcomsoft would even bother to come over here, they did nothing illegal under Russian Law. Sure, it means they'll never be able to travel to the US again, but as it stands now they apparently can't do that anyway. So what is their incentive to try to get a visa that's been denied? (and have to go through all the hassle of a trial, and money for lawyers).

(+1; Insightful)

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtua|Mod Version 0.0.1-2

The DMCA is a federal law...

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA is a federal law... so why was this guy arrested? If he was in another country, this shouldn't have been arrested.

embassy hell

[Atilla]

yeah, I've been there, when I applied for a student visa for my second trip to the US...

I had paperwork in hand from the university that I was planning to attend.. It even stated that I was officially accepted. So, after all paperwork crap was filled out, the bitch at the embassy's visa counter denied me entry for a bullshit reason (I think she made it up on the fly) - my tuition was approx. $14,800 a year, so I had to show proof that I had $15,000 x 4 years (bachelors degree) = $60,000 in cash or in a bank account or whatever... I NEVER heard of such a rule. Who in the right mind would pay for 4 years of college up front unless they have nothing better to do with their money?

They did eventually let me in... By a stroke of luck, the last immigration counselor I talked to, graduated from the same school that I was about to start at.

So my point is... They could've denied these guys entry for any reason. Their default policy is to NOT LET ANYONE IN. I personally know of at least a dozen people that had similar problems in that same embassy...

Re:embassy hell

[island_earth]

They did eventually let me in... By a stroke of luck, the last immigration counselor I talked to, graduated from the same school that I was about to start at.

I'm depressed by your statement. I'm happy your problem was resolved, but who went to school where is entirely the wrong reason for the right outcome. That's just another sign of how screwed up and corrupt the INS is.

Re:embassy hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, that's one of the rules that are rarely enforced by the embassy. In any case, when I applied for F-1 visa, I *did* have to show the proof for fund for 4yr x $12,000 = $48,000. Not
that we really had that much money in reality
though...

Re:embassy hell

[h_jurvanen]

I had to show proof that I had $15,000 x 4 years (bachelors degree) = $60,000 in cash or in a bank account or whatever... I NEVER heard of such a rule.

If you have never heard of it, you weren't listening hard enough. Vocational students always have to show proof of funds for their entire anticipated stay. Non-vocational students have to show at least one year's worth of funds, and the visa officer has to be satisfied that the student will have access to enough money to cover the rest of the stay. If the officer is not satisfied, then the officer may demand upfront proof of funds for the entire stay. Maybe the visa officer was acting bitchy, but the rules are there. Next time ask to speak to a supervisor if you feel you've been unfairly treated.

If you don't believe me, read the regulations themselves or "What Consuls Look For".

That said, I'm glad that you eventually made it.

Its okay

[Anonymous Coward]

Its okay if you rant about us.

We used to be pretty smart in this country, but we've turned horribly stupid.

I may have to move because of the utter stupidity that exists and is accepted as normal these days.

Really horrible. My country continuously embarasses me any more, and I used to be a real rah-rah patriot.

It gets better!

[CrystalFalcon]

(The nice green little postcard you fill in on entry to the US)

Are you a member or representative of a terrorist organization as currently designated by the U.S. Secretary of State? (YES) (NO)

Have you ever participated in persecutions directed by the Nazi government of Germany; or have you ever participated in genocide? (YES) (NO)

(and so on and so forth, with "Are you seeking entry to overthrow the government?" especially notable)

Actually, my favorite is not the questions themselves, but two remarks at the bottom.

"WARNING: If you answered YES to any of these questions, you may not be permitted to enter the United States." (Like, why don't they add an eighth question, "Did you lie on any of the above questions?".)

and better yet, at the bottom there is a note saying "If you find a way to make this process less cumbersome, write to The Paperwork Reduction Project..." with a two-mile-long address. Yeah, duh! I'm sure terrorists will declare themselves as terrorists at the border. What did people smoke when they invented this, anyway? :-)

Re:It gets better!

[Anonymous Coward]

They were smoking the forms, hemp makes good paper....

Constinutional right to confront their acusers

[AIXadmin]

Maybe this does not apply because they are not US Citizens or a US Corporation. But isn't it a constinutional right to confront you accusers?

Re:Constinutional right to confront their acusers

[Martin Blank]

Yes, it is. With limited exceptions, the US Constitution applies to anyone under its jurisdiction, meaning that they have the right to free speech, the right to a speedy trial, the right to not have troops stationed in their homes here, etc. Gun ownership is the only one that comes to mind that may have exceptions, other than the exceptions anyone else is under (no yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc).

Obstruction of Justice

[whereiswaldo]

Why isn't it the US's problem? I'd be tempted to call this obstruction of justice on the part of those [not] doling out visas. But of course, IANAL.

Border agencies are filled with angry people

[geekotourist]

I think these agencies require a minimum rage or sadistic tendency to join, or at least they don't screen for such. So I've seen from my own experiences (coming back into my own country, I should note), my friends' experiences and articles I've read.

As your case shows, they can choose not to care about how their behavior effects you, your time, or the time and money of American companies. They don't have to design their system and locations for pure intimidation, but they do.

One of my own experiences: driving back into the US from Canada- me, a green-card relative (from Canada) and a cousin from Germany. The border agent asks our nationalities. We tell him. His eyes begin to narrow as his face turns red, bright red- we evidently are ruining his day, by being multiple nationalities. He spends five minutes checking out our papers, getting redder by the minute. (Papers are perfect, by the way). He then spends five minutes lecturing us- ranting, really- on how he could deny us entry if our papers weren't in order. He focuses especially hard on the green card, how if it hadn't been applied for on time and correctly he could deny her entry for 10 years. All we can do is nod: to speak back might cause him to explode. He talks on and on... all this to tell us what could have happened. If this is how you treat a citizen and a resident...

Friends: they wouldn't allow a highly educated foreign husband of a US citizen friend come in for 2 years as a visitor after they'd gotten married, because "they could run off and go underground." (my paraphrase) Sure. The two of them'd be happy to make $6/hour (the jobs available for illegal immigrants) rather than $50. Foreign graduate students in my department often had troubles coming back into the US, and this was long before 9/11. The dept. had 20 applicants for every space available: their screening process was rigorous. But again, the border agencies had to treat the students as if they were lying about why they were entering the US.

Stories and articles: if you get pulled aside as you enter the US at airports for an additional check, they could choose to treat you politely. Give you a chair with cushions. Treat you with dignity. But they choose not to. Treating all incoming visitors with paperwork problems as if they were criminals- that's going to help foreign relationships. Don't they care that they're setting an example of how Americans will be treated abroad? Do unto others and all that?

Good deal if he can get it

[billstewart]

First of all, this *is* Constitutionally interesting, and is probably caused by uncoordinated government stupidity instead of deliberate plotting by somebody. What should happen in a case like this is

• Can't get visa, doesn't show.
  
• Trial happens, bail confiscated, found guilty
  
• Dmitri appeals because he was unConstitutionally prevented from challenging the witnesses against him and various other due process things.
  
• Wins on appeal, prohibition against double jeopardy means he's off the hook
  
• Profit!

In reality, the judge, prosecutor, and his lawyer will have some sort of discussion and they'll put off the trial until they can get him there, or else drop the charges.

If Dimitry wants to travel anywhere

[xixax]

If I was Dimitry, I'd love to have this whole thing cleared up. Suppose he is found guilty (I agree with the conjecture that the intent is to make this debacle go away rather than to try him in-absentia), would such a verdict leave him open to being picked up in a 3rd country that has an extradiation agreement with the USA? Even if there's no intent to bring him in, I can see such a black mark making any international travel a series of lengthy interviews in various border protection offices.

Xix.

Idiot...He came to America

[kcb93x]

If you read the original case, Sklyarov came to the US to attend the DEFCON convention in Las Vegas and explain how he broke Adobe's eBook security, where he was promtly arrested by the FBI, from a tip from Adobe.

Tolkein? monarchist?

[MenTaLguY]

Actually, Tolkein was a self-described anarchist.

Overstay. (if thrown in prison)

[anonymous cupboard]

The issue judged by State is whether the person is visiting for the purpose stated and whether or not the person is likely to become a burden on the public purse.

There is a possibly that Dimitry finds himself in prison (a cost to the public purse). Under these grounds, State may refuse the visa.

I don't work for the gov, but a friend works at a US consulate in the visa department.

Ironically, unconvicted Russian Mafya goons, prostitutes and Islamic terrorists have no problems getting visas.

Re:Overstay. (if thrown in prison)

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC he has not been convicted either - only accused.

He could go to Canada, couldn't he?

[klwood]

I know of a court house in St. Johnsbury VT. If you go inside, there is a piece of black electrical tape that marks the US and Candian borders. Many years ago, a trial was held between the US government and a foreign person (wording escapes me). The condition was that the person would be unable to enter the US for the trial, yet they had to hold the trial. Well, the trial was held in this Library with the foreign person on the Canadian side and the US Government on the US side. Why not have them tried there. Seems to fit the bill to me.

Umm 4th Amendment

[MntlChaos]

Doesn't the US constitution require them to be there at the trial to "face their accusers"? If the DOS doesn't give them clearance, they should be free to stay in Russia.

Visas and Russia

[howiefl]

Just to let you all know that its not just Dmitry Sklyarov. Its ALL people trying to get a visa that are being delayed.

"Russian scientist Vladimir Braginsky, who has visited the United States regularly over three decades, has been waiting since July for a visa to collaborate on a billion-dollar, taxpayer-financed project involving 13 nations to prove Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Despite many calls to officials in Washington, Mr Braginsky ''has been left hanging for three months'' without any information on the status of his visa, said Mr Kip Thorne, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology."

Where is the courthouse?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a bunch of people together (EFF folk, maybe?) to stand outside the courthouse or maybe attend the hearing and let the judge know exactly what's going on.

Dimitry isn't a US citizen - is he? Can they use the Constitution to help him or is he out of luck?

This is what I think.

[rice_burners_suck]

Sing to the tune of "We're Following the Leader" from Disney's Peter Pan:

The government is stupid,
is stupid,
is stupid,
the government is stupid,
in everything they do.

That's what happens when one part of the government doesn't allow another part of itself to get its job done. And you wonder why it takes years to get a stamp on a piece of paper or something stupid like that.

watch out...

[g4dget]

If you have been denied a visa, you may not be permitted to come to the US under the visa waiver program.

That's BS

[g4dget]

The consulate has much more time to check than 60 seconds. Visa application forms are sent in weeks in advance. Furthermore, when appearing in person, the consular official still took hours (!) to process the application (I think that procedure doesn't exist anymore in many places). The consular office has all the time it wants to check whatever it wants. If it only takes 60 seconds per applicant, that's not a problem with the applicant or the system, it's incompetence on the part of the consulate.

It sure is a shame we don't have a President.

[RonVNX]

Because if we had like this President of the United States dude, and that dude was like the boss of the Executive Branch, which would mean like the DoJ and DoS completely reported to him, and served at the will of the President dude, and then this whole business about how the DoJ can't force the DoS to issue a visa would be complete government nonsense, because they'd have the same boss, and he'd like make it happen.

Too bad we don't have one of those President of the United States dudes, eh?

Not this time

[sverdlichenko]

Russia does not extradite own citizens in any case. If citizen commited a crime in other country, it will be punished in Russia and under russian laws.

Citizens of other states can be extradited, of course. But not for DMCA violation.

no trial, no overturn of the DMCA

[frovingslosh]

Looks like the gub'mint just does't want the DCMA to face a court test, at least not with a judge who has already expressed doubts of it's validity.

since you are referring to Afghanistan

[Anonymous Coward]

the men who were "cartted off" from their "country" were not Afghanistan nationals.

Re:in Absentia ? - reply

[satsuke]

Perhaps it was above your head to infer from the rest of the post that that was what I was talking about.

The lower level functionary spoken of is in Russia .. They don't fly people looking for visas to the US to tell them they can't come here.

Read before posting, always a good idea

Ooh, I see

[Rogerborg]

Purpose of visit

• To sell cracking software illegal under the "Strictest standard applies" terms of the Berne Convetion, and instruct the peace loving workers and peasants of the Imperialist USA on how to overthrow their bosses, end artificial scarcity, and fulfil the historical dialectic: APPROVED
• Summoned to appear by a federal US court: DENIED

And yet the US is the world only military and economic superpower and - de facto - runs the United Nations, and the World Bank. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Kafkaesque

[21mhz]

How bizarre, they managed to combine The Trial (the man is detained and tried for no apparent crime) and The Castle (the man tries to reach the place he is prescribed to report to, only to be rejected for no apparent reason) in one story!

Doesn't apply? (:good luck?)

[phorm]

He's not a US citizen, therefore not likely entitled to the same US rights (or at least it seems to often be interpreted that way). In fact, the way the US courts seem to be going, it seems that foreigners don't get the rights allowed to either US citizens or the (accused's) native country.

Levels of Humor

[drxyzzy]

Actually, the highest form of humor is clown jokes, specifically "What is the most difficult thing about X?" - Ans: "Getting the blood off the clown suit." Suitable values of X are: arguing intellectual property issues before Congress, marketing .NET, etc.

Is the justice dept. not talking to state dept.?

[wessman]

This is just another example of gov't agencies failing to communicate with each other. The judge will probably blame Sklyarov for this screw up, when it's the state dept.'s fault. Don't they know who this guy is and why he's visiting? Hello!

Last Post!

[alpg]

You can not get anything worthwhile done without raising a sweat.
-- The First Law Of Thermodynamics

What ever you want is going to cost a little more than it is worth.
-- The Second Law Of Thermodynamics

You can not win the game, and you are not allowed to stop playing.
-- The Third Law Of Thermodynamics

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...