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...'"
True. Also consider that there are likely to be legal ramifications - in the current political scene it should be easy enough to get Congress involved in investigating the FBI. And then - not joking here - like the boy who cried "wolf", someone gets eaten.
Let's hope it's the people actually responsible for the names being added.
A few years ago, a US anti-war activist named Scott Parkin was seized in the streets of Melbourne, Australia, on his way to a seminar on "non-violent resistance", detained for a week and deported as a "threat to national security", on the basis of intelligence which has still not been made public. Could this database have been the intelligence in question?
So let me see if I have this straight:
1) The were denied entry on Aug 19 cause they have a criminal conviction.
2) They tried again 2 weeks later (without filling the paperwork), and were denied entry.
3) American Citizens are trying to tell the Canadian Government what their criteria for entry should be?
If there is a problem with the FBI, focus on that. Do not (under any circumstances) tell my government how to run our border - it is none of your damn business.
Yes I'm pro-peace - but I don't respect stupid political stunts with bs conclusions.
Anon
No, it's already here.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/142555-Fascism-is-HERE-NOW-Violent-Radicalization-and-Homegrown-Terrorism-Prevention-Act-of-2007
I vote in local elections when I can make a difference. I don't vote when I can't. I know what's going on, and I'm vastly more intelligent than the average US redneck.
I don't vote in presidential elections. It's not worth doing; it's an absolute waste of my time. Do you even know how the electoral college works? Do you understand that, since I live in Rhode Island, my state is going to vote for the 'Democrat' the media displays the most of regardless of how many people vote against him/her? A shit ton of stupid people vote because idiots like you pressure them to, and go out to the polls completely uninformed. I suggest that more than half of the US population is UNINFORMABLE in the first place, and has no place at the voting booth.
Unfortunately there's no way to weed them out. The slow decline of the country due to idiots like you is unfortunately preferable to the instant decline we'd see if there was some kind of selective voter system.
Stop pressuring people to vote. Except in rare circumstances, it won't even make a DIFFERENCE, and it will probably make things worse.
Addenum: I suppose that if I had information that you were going to commit a criminal offence while in Canada, that may be grounds for inadmissibility. I've never had it come up before, and I don't have time to look it up now.
Look it up in IRPA if you're interested http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/I-2.5//20071030/en?command=home&caller=SI&fragment=immigration&search_type=all&day=30&month=10&year=2007&search_domain=cs&showall=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50
A friend of mine was a non-violent peace protester from the 60s (he had many police abuse stories) and whenever there was an arrest, it was never for "peace protester". It would be for "disturbing the peace", "assaulting a police officer", failure to follow police orders (whatever it's really called), causing a public disturbance rioting, etc...
So, in that database, would it give a context for the arrest?
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Years ago, I think it was during the first Clinton campaign, a russian reporter commented that with the two candidates, the requirement that questions be submitted in advance, the carefully screened events etc etc, it was becoming more and more like the USSR elections he used to "report" on before the collapse.
This is NOT a slam against the US, most countries are going through this at the moment. It isn't even about any polical leaning, Labour in Great Britian is supposed to be left. It just seems as if we seem destined to go to more and more restrictions on our freedoms, in the name of protecting us. Except that it never seems to be about us, but rather the people already in power.
That is not what has me worried. What worries me is how little the comman man cares about it all. Bread and Circusses, it really seems true. Give them reality tv, and the masses will keep queit. Move people vote on Idol then on elections. Starlets get more news coverage then the war.
What I think has happened is that we have led the press become too commercial, they were supposed to be the watchdog of the goverment, instead we allowed them to become slaves to the dollar, worried about ever increasing viewing figures/profits instead of reporting the news.
Paranoids don't help, sometimes I think they are a plot in themselves, by coming up with insane theories while the simplest is simply that the fast majority of news outlets are owned by just a handfull of people.
And who is going to report on the press going bad? The press? It is all a simply slippery slope. Where does it end? The rush to have scoop first, leads news outlet after news ooutlet to report stories that later turn out to be false. Some people even put scams up in order to prove this and NEVER FAIL. Does the media do anything with it? Holland has had one recently, how many reporters/editors were fired? None.
The first time a reporter agreed not to ask a question duing a press conference that led to now questions having to be asked in advance all the way to staged FEMA press-conference.
But hey, there is good news, in the 2008 elections, old USSR reporters can relive the old times.
The dutch news is a prime example, the intros have gotten longer and flashier, total airtime has shrunk, what time remains is now wasted on pre-views and recaps of things that are in that same news program, more time is spend on weather and sports. It was during gulf war 1 that the dutch news had a 5 minute segment of the queen opening some art exhibit. The US got Britney Spears, we got Maxima, no dear news editor, a new royal being born is NOT headline news, it is at best a human interest story, worth no more then a 20 second segment at the end of the news.
If you want to see why democracy is failing, watch the news. It will become painfully clear when you realize that the actuall NEWS content is starting to approach zero.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In case you are talking about Iran then it is rather obvious not even they would be insane enough to use one. They don't want the bomb in order to attack the US ( that would only get them blown off the face of the earth ), they want it in order to be able to continue running the state as a theocratic dictatorship without risking external intervention. There is little risk Iran will actually use a nuke against another country. There is however a huge risk that they will get even more defiant of human rights once they have one.
Seriously, I'm a fairly strong supporter of Israel, I think it is a damn shame they didn't bomb Iran's enrichment plant to bits before it was reinforced, and I would welcome any country putting an end to Iran's nuclear program, but not even I seriously believe they are building a nuke to give to terrorists. If you honestly believe in that garbage then you are pretty close in foolishness to the morons who think Iran just wants civilian nuclear power. Try to realise the world isn't black and white, that Iran is pushing for nukes doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration is a lying and corrupt group of criminals who should rather be imprisoned than allowed to run a country.
It's just blown out of proportion (and has a stench of pure malice, at that).
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
The biggest problem here is that the Executive branch has all the agencies, and whenever the leftists win a bigger government vote all the extra people in the bigger government are at the Executive branch's disposal.
Congress has some support staff, as do the justices of the Supreme Court. There are roughly two million civilian personnel of the federal government outside the Postal Service. For 535 people or 9 people to hold responsible two million individuals who are neither elected by nor directly responsible to the people is a bit ludicrous. The sheer size of the Executive branch makes accountability and the notion of checks and balances pretty difficult, even with the 94 federal district courts involved.
The Judiciary simply must be larger or the Executive smaller in order for the people to be properly served by checks and balances. In fact, I'd say the Judiciary really needs to be larger and account for more of the federal budget simply in order to guarantee a speedy trial as the sixth amendment promises while not putting undue strain on the court to shorten previous trials. Perhaps civil cases could be heard by a separate set of judges in each district specializing in civil cases, but I digress.
In any case, I'd think the huge Executive branch, with its apparent penchant for shifting blame and covering things up, is much too large right now for the other branches to balance it enough.
Do we really need 2 million people to provide federal government services to 303 million citizens on top of all the 16 million state, county, and city personnel providing services as well? In 2000, 19 million or so people were government employees (it doesn't say whether that includes revenue-generating government agencies like the Post Service). That's over 6% of the population living on taxes and borrowed money who are not elected, or over 14% of the total work force. I fail to see how that is sustainable, let alone sufficiently kept in check by state and federal courts and legislatures.
So in order to access the list to find out how to get on it, you give them another excuse to put you on it?
-Lars
When you've got hundreds of people in our government, are you telling me that they all had the same motives?
No, but that is completely irrelevant. Bush and his administration decided that we were going to war with Iraq *for their own reasons which are completely divorced from nobility of any sort*.
Do you see how easily distracted you are by irrelevancies? I'm not, and the fact that you are is a big part of your problem. Please try and fix yourself.
If you are not aware of the fact that they had invading Iraq as an agenda item from day one of the administration, then you really shouldn't open your mouth. Especially when you open your mouth to try and blame everyone but hte people responsible. It's one of the most disgusting qualities shared by you fascist apologists.
Life is much simpler when all your foes are evil and stupid, and all your allies wise and good, but in reality there are plenty of malicious idiots who always hated Bush, and there were many good, intelligent people who supported him.
Yes, that's the tack taken by the Republican party these last several decades which is a big part of why were in our current situation.
However the fact is that there is not one single good, intelligent person who ever supported Bush, and pretending otherwise (most likely since you supported him at some point and are too cowardly and dishonest to deal with the consequences of your actions) makes you look either even stupider, or even less good than you already do.
Explain how it would be possible for a person who is both good and intelligent to have ever supported Bush? If they're intelligent they would have known he'd be a fucking disaster and if they were good, then his agenda of hatred and contempt wouldn't have played with them.
If they're really fucking stupid, sure. If they're intelligent and a pure sociopath sure. But if they're intelligent then they knew damn well that Bush was incompetent at everything he's ever done and that he had not one gaol that a good person could align themselves with.
Now, of course, people who are too stupid to have recognized those facts do not qualify as intelligent. People who don't care because Bush was quite vocal about his hatred of gays does not qualify as good.
So, sorry, but you're dead fucking wrong.
I'd like to think that there are very few of those now
Yes, but we've already seen how insanely naive you are, so your happy fluffy bunny thoughts are pretty irrelevant (and ignorant, of course).
I find it embarrassing to watch the idiots who oppose Bush mock the intelligent people who used to support him... but I suppose they aren't smart enough to realize the damage they are doing to their own cause.
And I find it disgusting and cowardly to watch naive liars like you refuse to deal with the fact that actions have consequences. Instead you have to jump up and defend ignorant cowardly fucking traitors with really blatantly obvious lies.
Grow a spine and stand up for something worthwhile instead of defending liars, fools, and terrorists.
So, no, speaking the truth does no harm to the cause of truth which is the only one I'm on board with here. Anyone who doesn't already know that anyone who fell for Bush's transparent scam is an idiot or a sociopath isn't going to ever be convinced to change their position because that's not a position that you could reach by reason. In fact, only a complete rejection of reason and sanity could lead a person to your position.
Seriously, go ahead and try to come up with an intelligent, rational argument to support your position. You will fail absolutely as has everyone else who's tried. That's why there's such a vacuum of honesty in this administration. They have had to lie about damn near everything they've done because naive fools like you keep swallowing that shit and then spitting it back out.
So, good luck trying to sound sane with your argument. Oh, and lies don't count as rational arguments, which is a fact I'm sure your also totally clueless about.
If you ever compare video footage of the toppling of Saddam's statue in Bagdad with the video footage of the fall of the Berlin Wall, you might understand what I mean: The people watching the Saddam Statue falling could have also been watching the demolition of an old building on a construction site. It was just something to watch, but nothing to cheer about. The overall feeling was bleak, with some apathy and a little bit mocking about the 12 youths who were trying to actually get the statue down, which didn't work until an U.S. tank was gong to help by pulling the statue down.