Slashdot Mirror
FBI Accused of Abusing Criminal Database
Peace protesters were unable to leave the country to speak in Canada because their names had been added to a database of criminals. There's a serious due-process violation here because a listing in this database is equivalent to an "infamous" conviction. "'The FBI's placing of peace activists on an international criminal database is blatant political intimidation of US citizens opposed to Bush administration policies,' says Colonel Wright, who was also Deputy US Ambassador in four countries. 'The Canadian government should certainly not accept this FBI database as the criteria for entering the country... The list is supposed to be for felony and serious misdemeanor offenses. We don't qualify — it's for sex offenders, foreign fugitives, gang violence and terrorist organizations, people who are on parole...'"
To me, it is like the boy who cries wolf. If the FBI puts out "criminal" warnings on too many peace protestors, then the international criminal database will start ignoring FBI criminal warnings, allowing true criminals to exit the country and get away from prosecution. Way to go boys!
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
If it can be abused, it will. No news here. I'm sure a DNA data base will never be abused either. America is becoming a fascist nation. It's not there yet, but it's heading in that direction.
The thing is, not everyone who gets arrested normally gets put on that list. It's not supposed to be a comprehensive list of everyone who's ever been arrested, or everyone who's ever been charged, or even everyone who's ever been convicted of a crime. It's supposed to be a list of dangerous criminals. Now it's not.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
... I was not that long ago thinking about taking up a job in the US and moving there! I'm glad I didn't, as I really don't like what the US has become over the past few years under the Bush administration. I hope the next election will bring some change, but I fear Americans will just elect another candidate based on whatever the media is feeding them, not what the candidate is actually about. Still I am hopefull enough Americans have learned their lesson, and will take a different course! I've been to the US many times, and the people I've met are great, too bad some rotten apples managed to take control of the country!
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
Congratulations all you non-voters who have kept these people in power for so long. Now that everyone is safe, don't you feel much better?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
"The Canadian government should certainly not accept this FBI database as the criteria for entering the country"
..."
"It's outrageous that Canada is turning away peacemakers
Fix your own government and your own government database before you complain about someones else's government.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
There's a serious due-process violation here because a listing in this database is equivalent to an "infamous" conviction.
What does this sentence mean?
I'm pretty sure the rules are that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Liberty doesn't extend to cross-border travel in general because nations have the inherent authority to control their borders. No life or property was involved.
So what is the author talking about? It's completely unclear. I could guess it's just generic whining, but I'd really rather know the answer to the question: What is the author talking about?
The Canadian government should certainly not accept this FBI database as the criteria for entering the country
Yeah. Why wouldn't Canada want huge numbers of protesters in their country causing trouble? They're really missing out on all that valuable, constructive protesting that these paragons of civilization would be engaging in.
Canada is no different than anywhere else. Almost any government would shut out these protesters if they could. In a practical sense, they are a useless pain in the ass. Canada figured out a legal way to solve part of their problem.
Another bad thing is that it seems that these people can't actually run the government well, they only they are capable of doing correctly is character assassination, whether that be republican political opponents or civil rights activists. They're fucking incompetent in doing everything else. How long must we endure this? Oh yeah, it's right here.
Now I wonder if the next president will reverse this trend? If you listen to the Republican candidates, all they seem to care about perpetuating the policies that are ruining our government. The democrats seem like they're more level-headed, but I wonder if they have the courage to change the status quo, because they haven't done a damn thing since gaining congress. Where's Roosevelt when you need him?
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Oh, do shut the fuck up. Terrorists? Man, let's just throw that label on anyone whose speech we don't like. Disorderly conduct? "Oh bloody hell guvnah! Those people's conduct, it's disorderly!"
Do you just conveniently forget that the great moments of this nation's history were acts of resisting arrest, vandalism, and disorderly conduct".
Do you remember those damn Boston Tea Party Terrorists?
Do you remember when that pesky negro wouldn't learn her place?
What a sad day when I have to remind someone that not only was this country founded in protest, protests were still needed 200 years later because this nation still wasn't as great as it needed to be. You have zero concept of your nation's history, yet you have the nerve to suggest that resisting arrest is itself bad behavior?
Yeah, because theres nothing wrong with the concept of having to sneak into PUBLIC buildings where PUBLIC OFFICIALS have their meetings after being elected by their PUBLIC. If you can't immediately see whats wrong with that idea, then you should go move to some country like Sierra Leone because you have no goddamned idea what it means to live in a democracy, a nation OF THE PEOPLE.
If you were convicted of a criminal offence, it's going to show up on your record no matter what (unless the clerk is busy, like I said). It seems reasonable that people making decisions based on criminal convictions should have access to it.
Now, keep in mind that we don't have a one-size-fits-all criminal category. There are three degrees of seriousness for criminal offences that deal with: summary, indictable 5 years imprisonment, and indictable 10 years imprisonment. If you're simply charged with a single misdemeanor from a long time ago and it doesn't fall into a higher category, it is unlikely that you'll be inadmissible for that single offence.
Also, if thesse protestors have numerous criminal convictions why should they have special priveledges just because they're protestors? How am I supposed to know, right at the border, whether or not they were unfairly convicted of breaking the peace? In theory, the court in which they were tried was supposed to make findings of fact and law. If these people who had all the evidence thought the protestor was guilty, then how am I, someone who has no access to the events, supposed to say whether or not it's unfair?
I'm not attacking you personally, you just brought up the point of "peaceful protests".
And it's really depressing to note that even now, the majority of Americans see no problem with ripping up or ignoring international law and treaties, so long as they're told it's being done to "terrorists". On the contrary, Republican candidates are competing to make the most outraegously statement of support for the blatantly criminal action that is Guantanamo. Very, very sad (speaking as a non-American.)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Protesters == troublemakers, huh?
Do you even know any of your country's history? If your founding fathers hadn't protested your country would never have been born. Sometimes people have to make a stand based on their morals, and if they have the balls to do it non-violently then they deserve your respect.
It's quite simple - any country that treats dissenters as criminals is in danger of becoming a totalitarian state.
And personally - I don't think a DUI can EVER be considered petty.
Having seen video of various protests back in the '60s, Those sound like accurate crimes to charge peace protestors with.
Did abuse happen? On both sides.
Still, by my understanding, if a conviction for an old reformed hippy showed up from back in the '60s, it'd be up to the Canadian authorities as to whether they allow entry or kick it back to the appeal/reform process.
I don't read AC A human right
"I noticed that they didn't deny having been arrested."
Bingo, you just found the way to supress all discent. For example, someone has the gall to wear an anti-bush shirt to a public event? Arrest them, and they will always be treated as a criminal in the future, making their voice that much harder to be heard! Just what we want!
"why would Bush be working to make it more difficult for US Citizens to enter Canada?" Remember free speech zones? Anything that makes it harder for Bush to hear those opposed to him is good in his eyes.
"IE you're troublemakers, therefore the border agents were quite right to deny you entry."
So in your puny world, anyone that tries to exercise their freedom and hold the government accountable is a troublemaker and deserves to have his activities surpressed? Karl is that you? You are such a tool. By the way, do you work for the White House, and just plant this comment?
These people were labeled and punished...
It's not a punishment. Canada has no obligation to let people in the country. If they grant you entry, it's essentially a privilege.
If I were a Canadian, I'd say the list was no longer dependable and demand my government quit using it.
If I were Canadian, I'd cheer the result.
Maybe the list isn't supposed to be used for this particular result. So perhaps create another, even better list -- "Troublemakers who have nothing to offer" -- to keep protesters and activists out.
I'm sure there are dangerous criminals on that FBI list in addition to the annoying protesters though. I'm guessing Canadians don't want to start importing sex offenders and armed robbers so they may want to think twice before they oppose using that FBI list.
As a citizen of the USA, I hope Canada does start importing our protesters and sex offenders and gives them generous social benefits to try to get them to stay in Canada.
This story is tagged with "opinionpiece" - the latest BS campaign from the rightwing political PR industry. When these people refer to something controversial in the public discussion as "it's just an opinion piece", they're implying that it should be ignored. Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck offer a demented police state to tens of millions of viewers? Don't worry, "it's just an opinion piece". Al Gore says scientists are shocked at how much faster the Arctic melted this year than their worst fears? Don't worry, "it's just an opinion piece".
Yes, it's an opinion piece. The opinions based on solid facts, held together with solid logic, especially the ones offering compassion with people like you who got screwed (so you could be next), those opinion pieces are important. The Constitution is an opinion piece.
Some opinion pieces, that aren't derived from rigorous and fair thinking, are indeed worthless. But when you ignore an explanation of how the FBI is framing innocent activists with crimes that shut down their rights, you're helping destroy those rights. When you push the "ignore the opinion piece" line, you're leading the destruction.
Yeah, everyone's got one. But like asses, some are better than others, some should never see the light of day, and some should be prized by anyone who can get a look.
--
make install -not war
[In best Spanish accent]: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You can debate whether violent protest is right or wrong, but it's generally not terrorism by any reasonable definition, most directly because the aim is not asymmetrical conflict to incite terror but direct conflict with authorities to register displeasure. Calling it "terrorism" is not only foolish but is offensive in that it trivializes actual terrorism by grouping it together with these much more innocuous things.
Finally, you seem to dismiss violent protest out of hand as invalid, but that's essentially absurd on its face, since this is just an intermediate level of force, between non-violent protest and outright rebellion, used by the populous to maintain control. I certainly think that violent protests are used in many situations where they are uncalled for, counter-productive, and wrong, but there can also be times they are necessary to show the will of the people (and hopefully avoid all out civil war). Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
I personally believed there were both noble and ignoble goals behind going to war in Iraq-
Then you're deeply ignorant and painfully naive. Wars do not happen for noble goals. Deal with that fact, and you'll be well on your way to waking up and sounding like you actually live in the real world.
I wasn't dumb enough to believe Saddam was supporting Al-Queda, or that our administration had nothing but good motives behind the invasion,
OK, but...
but I knew Saddam was a horrible monster that had been a serious threat to his neighbors and stability in the region.
So you know that the administration was lying in order to push an agenda that you knew wasn't good (or related) and yet because your enemy is pure evil, they must be pure good since they're opposing him?
Seriously, that's what you just said or close enough.
Since Saddam is an "evil monster", it's ok with you to let some other evil monsters destroy America and rob it blind in order to push their own agenda which you already knew was bullshit?!?!
Dude, you are batshit fucking insane, and you are responsible for what Bush has done to this country due to your idiocy. Grow up, be a mna nad deal with that fact as opposed to whining like a little bitch about how you shouldn't be called stupid for doing stupid things.
I don't think it was unreasonable to assume that our administration was just incompetent instead of malicious.
That just proves how deeply fucking ignorant and naive you are. It is 100% unreasonable to assume something so fucking stupid when you could have just read the writings of the members of this administration, followed the money and paid attention to the hard sell and the lies at the time it was happening. That's what all the good intelligent people did, and that's why none of them supported Bush for a second. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but when you repeatedly do things that stupid, it's perfectly reasonable to call you stupid because you've proven it repeatedly.
Now most people assume our leaders are both incompetent and malicious, but early on everything could have been explained by mere stupidity.
No, it could not, under any circumstances, be explained merely by stupidity. Again, you demonstrate only your deep naivity and you total lack of understanding of either history or human nature.
So big government that intrudes on the freedom of the people through excessive laws, regulations, and taxes is "everything bad"? I don't suppose you have some reference to me calling rape, child molestation, AIDS, dengue fever, bridge collapses, and terrorism "leftist", do you? It's going to be pretty difficult to find those references, since they don't exist.
Those who don't understand socialism vs. capitalism nor authoritarian vs. representative governments are doomed to reinvent the horrors of past socio-political experiments that have failed. Whether the bulk of wealth is tied in name to the government or to corporations that lobby the government and are in turn propped up by the government makes very little difference in the freedom of the people. It's the lack of wealth and power of the private citizens that leads to abuse of the people. The centralization of power into the hands of a few on a national scale is what makes it easy to abuse the people.
Whether you can argue for or against any particular combination of government and economic systems is irrelevant if you can't even see where big, powerful, restrictive government from one party is the same as big, powerful, restrictive government from the supposedly polar opposite party. The supposed goals of protecting workers or protecting people from crime are irrelevant when it's the government causing the loss of the most important aspects of a free, happy, fulfilling life.
Just because the American media calls the Democrats the "left" and the Republicans the "right" or one "liberal" and the other "conservative" does not make it so. Both major parties are for big government. They both favor lots of social programs and lots of spending on keeping the people in line. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it talks like a liberal and votes like a liberal, it's probably a liberal.