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.
FBI Director Edgeworth had no comment.
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.
You're aware of what "OpEd" or "Editorial" means, right?
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/
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?
... 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
Thank Jebus we have keyboard warriors like yourself helping change the world.
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.
Why is it that everytime the US government asks for an increase in powers, they always deny that it will be abused. And I defy anyone to come up with an example of a federal power that was granted and NOT abused. Although I am a political liberal and I do think that government can provide a useful service, I feel that this type of invasive power is an example of government at its worst.
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
You're telling me that people in law enforcement are abusing their authoritah? No, I simply cannot believe it! I've never seen a cop doing 20 over the speed limit with no lights and thus no reason to be disobeying traffic laws. I've never heard about cops shooting black men and planting a weapon on the body or planting drugs on people they've arrested. I've never heard of the FBI conducting surveillance on people whose only offense was getting on the bad side of a certain transvestite cocksucker whose name rhymes with Hoover. Nooooo. Law enforcement officials have nothing but respect for the law and the American citizen. They will be the first to tell you that they want no more p owers than the minimum required to do their jobs effectively, for they know that our greatest treasure is our freedom and the more onerous the law, the more those freedoms are threatened.
Sarcasm, moi? Perish the thought!
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
"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.
It looks like these ladies like being arrested, and I think the convictions are coming by default when they just pay the fine. It doesn't sound like they've done anything particularly dangerous.
I wouldn't be surprised if an investigation up the bureaucratic tree finds that it was deliberate retaliation from the Bush administration, and I'd like to see what the muckraking press turns up.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
As a sidenote, yes, Canada has recently been getting extremely picky about letting people with criminal records into the country, even petty crimes and decades old DUIs.
From Article:Huh? What? When did we annex Canada? I'm sure there's some Canadians that this statement would piss off - they're quite capable of running their own country, they don't need Bush's help. Besides, why would Bush be working to make it more difficult for US Citizens to enter Canada?IE you're troublemakers, therefore the border agents were quite right to deny you entry.It looks like it's proper for you to be listed:
1. Individuals who have been fingerprinted and whose criminal history
record information has been obtained.
Any arrest is generally for at least a 'serious misdemeanor'. Minor misdemeanors get a ticket and a court date.
I don't read AC A human right
...if they want to have their names removed from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, which appears to be what the Canadian officials pulled. The NCIC "is provided by the FBI, federal, state, local and foreign criminal justice agencies, and authorized courts." Thus, the NCIC is made up of FBI data and data provided to the FBI by other government organizations. To correct a record in this database, "the subject of the requested record shall request the appropriate arresting agency, court, or correctional agency to initiate action necessary to correct any stated inaccuracy in subject's record or provide the information needed to make the record complete." Unfortunately, accessing the record in the first place can be a challenge; it looks like it requires being fingerprinted and making the request through a law enforcement agency that has access to the record. More information is available here.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htmI worked as an Immigration Officer with the Canada Border Services Agency. My duties included evaluating whether individuals were admissible to Canada based on the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The following is my personal opinion and I don't represent the Government of Canada. Also, this is not legal advice and I accept no liability.
Yes, we do have access to NCIC the FBI criminal database and we do use it as supporting evidence when we're determining if someone is inadmissible to Canada based on criminality. However, I never seen anything in the database that is not: (a) an arrest record, (b) a record of court proceedings, or (c) a warrrent/lookout/restraining order.
I can tell you that "listing in this database" is only equivalent to "a conviction" when it says exactly what you were charged and convicted of. For example, it will show you were arrested for Assault on such and such date. The next record will show that you appeared in court on such and such a date. It will then show the judge's opinion, followed by a sentence if you were found guilty.
The only ambiguity arises when the offence is not a serious misdemeanor. The problem occurs because it is up to the individual state court's to file the necessary paperwork with NCIC to have the information put into the database. Sometimes these clerks are busy and backlogged and never get around to inputting the judgement of the court into the database. In that instance, it will show you were arrested for "driving while intoxicated" but will not show if you were found guilty or not guilty. In this case, the onus is on the individual entering Canada to prove that they are not inadmissible based on criminality. The reason is that we officers are making a decision on the balance of probabilities and having evidence of possible criminal activity usually outweighs the individual's word.
I have never had someone's criminal record simply say "Peace Activist" or something equally silly. Unless you were convicted of a criminal offence, or it's reasonable for me to believe you have, then you are not going to be refused entry for criminality.
The above may contain some errors or it may be unclear. I don't have time to proofread it before work.
It doesn't take a conviction to get into the NCIC. All it takes is an arrest, and let's face it folks, most peace terrorists have been arrested in their lifetimes, usually for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, vandalism, and other misdemeanor crimes.
Oh, I just read this one. They've been to Cuba, a state sponsor of terror. No wonder they're on the list. Never mind that I hear Cuban cigars are perfectly legal in Canada.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
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.
One word: COINTELPRO.
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.
For those that haven't read TFA, this is CODEPINK we're talking about. Yes, the same CODEPINK chicks that sneak into the house of reps / state of the union / etc and then start going batshit crazy (because that's an effective method of communication). I'm pretty sure that "sneaking" into US government buildings and causing a ruckus would likely be enough to get yourself on certain lists.
Remember, they had actually been arrested, and who is to say what an infamous crime is? Like almost all of the American constitution it is extremely ill defined, if at all. (i.e. "UnAmerican")
p.s. I think that the Bush administration does abuse it's power and adding these people to the international criminal database is stretching the law (to say the least). The point I am trying to make is tighten up your constitution or things like this will keep happening.
America, Home of the Brave.
The USA has finally outlawed complaining! I'm moving down there now.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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!
That would mean that the listings are correct. They'd have to go through the work of getting their records expunged, sealed, or pardoned. All unlikely to happen as long as their position is:I get news about the requirements for crossing into Canada occasionally - I live only ~45 minutes from the border.
The Canadians have access to our criminal records to the point that their check will find out if you have a DUI, or even certain serious traffic offenses, so the level of crime required to get into whatever database they check must be pretty low.
DUI is specifically mentioned because it has the same requirements for entry as these women are complaining about, except I remember a fee being involved.
I don't read AC A human right
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
People think the govt. should have unlimited authority, but the very real certainty for abuse never occurs to them. (And it **will** be abused.)
When the next administration (or the next one after that) starts committing really outrageous abuses, I hope like hell it's a Democrat so I can listen to the Republicans screaming their heads off.
These people were labled and punished for being dangerous criminals without due process. They wanted to go to Canada but were not able to do so without being "criminally rehabilitated."
The Canadian government was tricked. They agreed to use a US database of dangerous criminals and were told that it contained lists of people who had committed or were facing charges for eight violent crimes. The FBI added these people to the list for something else.
If I were a Canadian, I'd say the list was no longer dependable and demand my government quit using it.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
You'd be better off moving/staying in Canada, who denied the complainers entry.
I don't read AC A human right
I was generalizing. Like I said, there are different categories of criminal inadmissibility. We take into account the types of offences, the sentences, how long ago the offences took place, and so on. Also, if you are inadmissible, it's possible to obtain a temporary resident permit to overcome that inadmissibility.
I'm sure there's lots of people who are inadmissible to Canada. I'm not going to decide for you whether a large group of people is inadmissible, simply based on the possibility they were unjustly convicted of an offence. We decide things on a case by case basis.
Those RAT bastards! How dare they smoke good cigars.
cat sig >
Insofar as King, the memo regarding COINTELPRO against blacks said "The Counterintelligence Program is now being expanded to include 41 offices... For maximum effectiveness of the Counterintelligence Program, and to prevent wasted effort, long range goals are being set...Prevent the rise of a 'messiah' who could unify, and electrify, the militant black nationalist movement...King could be a very real contender for this position should he abandon his supposed 'obedience' to 'white, liberal doctrines'". This is simply a secret police, a political police, trying to undermine the democratic process in this country. I know old-timer activists from the 1960s who found out due to FOIAs that the FBI had tried to get them fired from their jobs by sending anonymous letters to their employers.
Then on Fox News they whine how the liberals shackled the CIA and FBI in the 1970s - they neglect to mention how Nixon's White House staff, including old CIA hands like Hunt, were doing things like breaking into the Democratic Party campaign headquarters at the Watergate hotel however. The CIA was undermining democratic governments not only in places like Chile, but in Australia (Whitlam affair) and Italy (P2, Gladio). Even after the FBI was supposedly cleaned up in the 1970s, Reagan had them trying to seduce nuns (who were unhappy about nuns being raped and hacked up in El Salvador, as well as the archbishop being assassinated) involved in CISPES. Now with the Patriot Act etc., all of the constraints and watchdog functions over these organizations have disappeared.
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.
When the next administration (or the next one after that) starts committing really outrageous abuses, I hope like hell it's a Democrat so I can listen to the Republicans screaming their heads off.
Thank you for buying into party lines. When will you see people as people and not a party member? As long as you keep buying into this ridiculous two-party culture nothing is going to really change.
And if that is too much to ask of you, what are *you* going to do if the Democrats take office and the abuse doesn't stop? Are you going to see it as something going dreadfully wrong or just shrug it off as being justifiable since it's sponsored by your little political crutch?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
It's supposed to be a list of dangerous criminals. Now it's not.
Yes it is. All peace activists are dangerous - to the chickenhawk sleazebags running our government. Look at Nixon's Vice President. The hippies were right! They still are.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
"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?
"The thing is, not everyone who gets arrested normally gets put on that list."
Source this please.
I see a few people discussing the actual standards, but like you, none of them has provided a decent source.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
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.
Speaking as someone who has used NCIC extensively (See this thread http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=344011&cid=21169011 further down) ...
There are many people on the NCIC just because they have a single misdemeanor arrest. However, a record of an arrest usually won't make you inadmissible to Canada on it's own, though it certainly doesn't help. See the other thread for way more information.
Bingo. It's up to Canada to decide whether or not to let you in. I noticed that they didn't deny having been arrested.
So I suppose people are just guilty when arrested and not innocent until convicted?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Protesters == troublemakers, huh?
More like Protesters with multiple arrests and convictions for various 'disturbing the peace' offenses == troublemakers. Wave signs, hire billboards, hand out pamplets, fine and dandy. Vandalize property, block traffic, disrupt meetings, not so fine.
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.
There's a difference between protesting and commiting criminal offenses. Besides, my founding fathers went a bit beyond 'protesting'. They went so far beyond that they actually picked up arms and fought. And yes - they were troublemakers. It would have been within France's rights to deny them entry when they came asking for aid.
It's quite simple - any country that treats dissenters as criminals is in danger of becoming a totalitarian state.
There's a difference between treating dissenters as criminals and treating criminals who happen to be dissenters as criminals. These women have commited acts that would be considered crimes even if they weren't done as 'protests'.
And personally - I don't think a DUI can EVER be considered petty.
I listed it seperately from petty crimes - I don't consider them petty, though their importance is reduced when they're 'decades old'. What I was meaning is that Canada is requiring the same thing these women were complaining about for people who got a DUI 20+ years ago - and have had clean records since then.
I don't read AC A human right
It's a culture and a belief system, which does not afford you the protections you think you deserve.
Blar.
Whoa there cowboy. Have you ever heard of false arrest? Or seen where someone who was arrested then later all charges dropped?
Being arrested is NOT the same thing as being convicted.
Think before you write.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
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
Its Canada's fault. The FBI publishes multiple lists. The Canadians block for any arrest or conviction. I've seen them turn away tourists from the USA for a previous DUI arrest.
Why would anyone other than these people want to go there anyway. The lakes back east are polluted with acid rain, fish are dead. Raw sewage is dumped into the Pacific. Oh, I forgot, prescriptions cost 1/10 what they do in the US. Get me a ticket!!
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
The Battle of Blair Mountain was the largest organized armed uprising in American labor history and led almost directly to the labor laws currently in effect in the United States of America. For nearly a week in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, between 10,000 and 15,000 coal miners confronted state and federal troops in an effort to unionize the southwestern West Virginia mine counties. Unionization had succeeded elsewhere as part of a demographic boom that was triggered by the extension of the railroad and was characterized by unprecedented immigrant hiring and exploitation in the region. The battle was the final act in a series of violent clashes that have also been termed the Redneck War, from the color of bandannas worn by the miners around their necks for friend-or-foe identification, and the likely impetus of the common usage of the original Scottish term redneck in the vernacular of the United States.
Yeah, I guess in your twisted racist world, people who fight for their rights and the rights of their fellow man are "Under-achieving White Trash".
I hope you feel like an asshole, you certainly act like one.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
I'm pretty sure you don't know who or what you're talking about, but don't let that stop you from making snide remarks.
Quick summary, for the ADD folks: The activists correctly appear in the NCIC, and the Canadian border guard correctly denied entry to them. They could file some paperwork to clear things up, but they'd rather play the martyr role and grab attention.
More details: The NCIC lists everyone who has been arrested for anything, along with the disposition of the charges (conviction, dismissal, acquittal, etc.) If you're arrested for anything, you go into the NCIC.
The activists in question are fond of getting arrested and convicted on purpose, so it should be no shock that when they tried to enter Canada, the border guard's computer lit up like a Christmas tree. These chicks have rap sheets a mile long.
Canada's admittance policy is public, and you can look it up if you want to. Their eligibility for entry into Canada will depend on the severity of their convictions, and how long it's been since the convictions (time differs for different severities). There is a straightforward formula, and it is not up to the border guard to judge whether or not they are eligible.
This article is sensationalist, and factually wrong. Just so you know.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
See, that's a post that fits your stated criteria quite nicely.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Do you think he should be on a list of criminals, maybe? Possibly for his relentless non-violent protest?
You sir are so dead wrong!
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
There are a few voters who get to see the presidential candidates with their own eyes, and ask them questions. These are the voters of New Hampshire, who traditionally have a large voice in the presidential election process.
They didn't say that the information in NCIC was inaccurate, just that they are "special" and shouldn't have been in the database. It's up to Canada to set and enforce their border policy. They refuse entry to many people who have been convicted of minor crimes. If they want to exclude people that have been arrested and convicted of a crime associated with a political protest, they are free to do so. It is possible to be a dissident without engaging in criminal acts. It just might not get you on the 6 o'clock news.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I agree that it's not in Iran's best interest to use nuclear weapons against world powers, including the US. However, that doesn't mean that terrorists wouldn't. Let's look at the facts, a group of guys took over 2 commercial airliners in order to crash them into buildings. They obviously committed suicide in the process, and they were cheered by militant Islamic fundamentalists. My concern is simple: if terrorists have the money to purchase a nuclear weapon, why wouldn't Iran sell to them? It's money in their pockets, an indirect strike against the US, and complete ability to deny that they had any involvement whatsoever. We can't pin any of the new IEDs flowing into Iraq on them, what makes any of us think that we could do the same with a nuclear bomb?
"The only constant in the universe is change." - Unknown author
"We decide things on a case by case basis."
I gave you two cases. Were they around today, and their various arrests more recent, would they be admissable?
I'm not sure she does not belong on the list but I am sure if someon goes on that list there better be a process and specific reason:
It could be that her belief that those who destroy property in protest should not be arrested
"There has been some controversy about a quote from me that... implied that I was calling for the arrest of those people who destroyed property in downtown Seattle during the WTO protest. I want to make it clear that the quote was distorted, taken out of context, and not reflective my true feelings. I did not call for the arrest of anyone..."
Then again maybe she has no business on the list but there needs to be an audit trail either way..
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
How dare you mod e down for calling someone a racist when they are ACTUALLY EXHIBITING THEIR RACISM.
No, you're just an idiot. Redneck isn't a race. Heck there are plenty of white people who are intelligent and informed, which demonstrates quite clearly that being a redneck has nothing to do with race.
"Nigger", "Spic" and "kike" wouldn't be tolerated, but apparently it's ok to be a racist as long as it's rednecks you're racist against.
Of course not. Those are totally different things. The first three are insults about things people can't change. You can easily choose not to be a redneck. Just learn to read, think, and stop fucking your sister. The fact that those people choose to be so deeply ignorant to the point of engaging in treason by supporting Shrub means they *deserve* to be insulted. They are a disgrace to our species and our nation and they chose to be so.
Now quit being a whiny ignorant little bitch and deal with the fact that actions have consequences. Being called a fool when you're a fool is hardly much of a consequence anyhow, so grow up and get a spine.
Congress, by using the capitol police to abrogate the First Amendment right to petition, is responsible for giving the FBI the opening to misuse the database. Here is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiradcejA6o.
Since I came to leave here, I only can claim that during the last years of the Clinton era.
btw, I leave on California, so I do not think that people is so stupid, but that was a real saying that I head
when I was a kid.
The States routinely dictate how things will be done. Canada is setting their clocks back a week later this year, who do you think made a unilateral decision to do that? Canada just followed.
A few years ago, Canada wanted to change its cannabis laws to something less ignominious, but the Canadian justice minister went to Washington to ask permission from the drug czar, and was denied. So the laws stayed the same.
Canada used to sell steel to the U.S. for one CENT for a ton.
A ton of steel, for one little disk of copper.
Canadians are not pissed off by the statement of truth these guys uttered. Canadians would be pissed off at the ignorance you display, though.
You can't take the sky from me...
I personally believed there were both noble and ignoble goals behind going to war in Iraq- I wasn't dumb enough to believe Saddam was supporting Al-Queda, or that our administration had nothing but good motives behind the invasion, but I knew Saddam was a horrible monster that had been a serious threat to his neighbors and stability in the region. Of course, it's clear now that if there were noble goals they were compromised by the incompetence of those in charge.
Napoleon once said 'never ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence'. I don't think it was unreasonable to assume that our administration was just incompetent instead of malicious. Now most people assume our leaders are both incompetent and malicious, but early on everything could have been explained by mere stupidity.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
... that read like it was written by a fourth grader.
a) There's a very real danger now, as terrorists have-or-will-soon-get a nuclear bomb, and it's not a scientific exercise; it's meant for killing....probably a lot of us, in this audience living in NYC. We have to be watching.
b) I'm worn out from the tired old "Bush lied" and "We're starting a theocracy" panic lines I hear over and over. We're nowhere near that, either.
But it's interesting how, despite the fears of an potential American theocracy (from just a moment of silence or Christmas decorations) that a lot of this crowd forgets the *real* and *existing* theocracy that has us in it's sights. And we're making allowances for them- prayer rugs, permission to leave class 5 times a day, etc.
Look, I hate to break it to you but you are an ignorant cowardly fool.
Waaaaaaaa Mommmy the eval terrorists are under my bed waaaa waaaaa waaaaa.
I am so fucking sick of weak willed *cowards* like you pissing yourself in your eagerness to throw out my freedoms and all the hard work that has been done over the centuries by brave patriots (people entirely unlike you) in order to reign in the power of the government.
Oh no mommy Bush said terrorists are everywhere so I'm going to sit here and cry like a little bitch all day instead of pulling my head out of my ass and noticing that terrorism is a pretty trivial threat.
Fact: 9/11 only succeeded due to gross incompetence on the part of this administration.
You're licking the administration's asshole eagerly with this assinine, cowardly filth you're spewing.
The fears of a theocracy are very real and have nothing to do with the bullshit you made up though. So your deep hatred and contempt for honesty has been clearly noted as well. You might actually look into the intrusion of religious extremism into our government and military as well as the whole extremist creationist (ID movement) before you spout more idiotic nonsense and lies.
I'm so sick of whining cowardly pussies like yourself claiming Bush didn't lie (that's another lie on your part, pussy) and then backing his treasonous assaults on this nation.
You have proven yourself absolutely to be coward, a fool, and a traitor.
Now go STFU or maybe kill yourself. You would be doing the world a favor by eliminating one more cowardly fool.
An arrest does not constitute a criminal record. A criminal record is a record of criminal convictions.
remember the little bit about "innocent until proven guilty"?
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
When I first read the article it appeared that, at the least, they have been arrested. Going by other links, and rereading the article, I'd say they've actually been convicted.
Remember, we're going by Canada's rules here. If they've decided merely being arrested in the USA is enough reason to deny entry, that's their business.
I don't read AC A human right
(I am not racist or sexist, I am repeating what I have heard from others and what I believe many people's rationale will be for voting another Republican into office.)
Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
Ok, so let's look at the source URL of this... you go to the web page, and its a basically a left wing action site. I would be MORE than willing to bet that this is somehow the digital equivalent of the guy taking a dump in front of the white house while holding up an anti-war sign. He says he's getting hauled off to jail, to the media, because of his sign, and meanwhile the real issue is that he took the dump, so he could get hauled off to jail.
It's obvious from the get go that this isn't news... its a political news release, propaganda designed to rile people, and the dopes that bought into it, are well, just dopes. I wonder how much the original poster is either a zombie or an operative.
Either way, the story is a joke.
This is my sig.
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!
They seem to be able to protest just fine. It's just their hijinks have apparently made them persona non grata in Canada.
Looking further into it, they've probably been convicted/pled guilty by paying the fine to at least some of the charges. There's also records expurgement and false arrest lawsuits if they actually didn't do anything.
"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.
Let them go to canada, then refuse them entry back into the USA then. This denial only gets them more news - moreover, it's Canada's rules that got them denied, nothing Bush nor his administration did*.
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?
You're way overgeneralizing here. The way I look at it is like this: You're protesting against Bush. Not wanting to hear you anymore(and because you have a history of doing stuff that gets police involved), somebody tells you to stay off their property. You call this surpession. I call it 'Do your protesting on your own lawn'. See the difference? I'm not saying you can't protest, just don't try to do it on my lawn or in my house. Just scaled up to cover a country called Canada.
*At least the higher ups. They might of gotten arrested by the FBI for some of their hijinks and gotten into the system that way. Still, not likely to reach Bush's desk, or even on of his direct appointees.
I don't read AC A human right
Please note that all "In Soviet Russia..." jokes have now been replaced with "In post 9-11 America..."
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
As a Canadian I'll say I'm pissed off. If these guys were popular celebrities they'd have been waved through for all their DUI's and such.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
But my point is, the NCIC isn't some secretive blacklist like the infamous no-fly list. The NCIC is detailed, you can view your record and correct it, if it's incorrect.
Here's what I find when I look further, unvarnished outrage:
The NCIC may not be as bad as no-fly lists but that makes it's abuse more shocking. The three arrests were for protesting and it is clear than the activists are not the violent felons the laws were designed to keep out of Canada. This is an evil political abuse that will keep these protesters legally out of Canada for five years.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
So, peaceful protesters are troublemakers?
It'd require an interesting definition of 'peaceful' to covuer the women in the article, who have done things like handcuff themselves to chairs, disrupt public meetings, block public access roads, etc...
May I kindly point you into the general direction of this gentleman?
Gandhi was most definitly a troublemaker! Still, he was generally very willing to talk and discuss, whereas Medea Benjamin and Ann Wright seem much more 'anti'.
Do you think he should be on a list of criminals, maybe? Possibly for his relentless non-violent protest?
Was he actually arrested for performing illegal acts? Acts that would still be illegal if they weren't in regards to a protest?
I don't read AC A human right
Then you canadians need to grow a pair. I mean, it's like California has a bigger set if what you say is true.
I'd love to see cannabis legalized. I view it's illegality as a source of pain, suffering, and criminality here in the USA.
The States routinely dictate how things will be done. Canada is setting their clocks back a week later this year, who do you think made a unilateral decision to do that? Canada just followed.
It's helpful sometimes to stay in synch with the USA - Canada didn't have to, I'm sure they went through their procedures to follow suit.
I don't read AC A human right
Where you like to argue that 'hacker' does not mean 'cracker', even though the entirety of the world has shifted to that definition. Face it chum, today's rednecks aren't exactly fighting for unionization. Today's rednecks are conservative/republicans who decry science in exchange for faith, hate gays and believe whatever fear-mongering comes from their government. Today's rednecks come from states who need handouts at the Federal level to keep their governments in operation...the residents can't earn enough so the coastal states pick up the tab.
Seems like 87 years have changed some things...
Blar.
I mean, it thus should stop Paris Hilton ever going to Canada, no?
Insert
Works every time.
You can't take the sky from me...
I don't personally know their criminal records. What exactly were they convicted of? Which offences? When did they happen? What were the circumstances surrounding each event? What was the court's judgement? What were the sentences, if any? From those questions, and others, you can determine whether someone is criminally inadmissible. If they've been found inadmissible, you can see if they can be deemed rehabilitiated or not. If they cannot be deemed rehabilitated, they require a permit to be admitted into Canada. Permits take into account why they're coming to Canada, how long their staying, and so on.
So no, I can't tell you if they would be admissible, since I don't have enough information.
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.
I agree, your border patrol people should not subscribe to a US generated list of who may cross your border. I have a feeling that's about to change and you will, once again, be in full control. As it is now:
" The border agents at the Rainbow Bridge at Niagara Falls who barred Medea and Ann said the mere fact that they were listed on the NCIC was sufficient to bar them from entry."DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Please read a bit more history. You said:
Agreed, but that difference depends also on what lawmakers you have, because they decide what constitutes a criminal offense:<insta-Godwin> Februari staking 1941 </insta-Godwin>
I find it a bit worrying that most of the population in any given country don't understand how important and precious the small percentage of anti-government malcontents are, to keep their government sane and honest. You've heard of "checks and balances": this is one of them. Notice it when your government starts its own "National Reorganization Process" (symptom: a lot less anti-government malcontents on the streets).
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
No, if they were popular celebs, they would have gotten clearances before hand and then presented it and been waived on through.
Canada allows exceptions to the rules but you have to apply for them before hand. This is no secrete. What it does is allow you to make a case for being in the country despite being technically barred. I need to do it because I had a conviction for assaulting a police officer that was overturned on appeals about 15 years ago.
Here is a link from the Canadian web site (or it appears that way. maybe a border station at Seattle or something) that tells more about the process. Here is another link to a story from February talking about it.
Without changes in Canadian law, it will be five years before they can apply for entry.
Thanks for the link, it shows they never should have been on this list which is supposed to be for:
"Peace Protester" and "political adversary" don't seem to belong there. Use of this list for anything but it's purposes is a violation of law. The particular violation represents a violation of the victim's right to due process and a challenge to Canada's sovereignty.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Oh, hold it bub: You're missing something very important.
1. I wasn't specifying Iran in particular. Russia has a lot of "missing" nukes, not to mention those awaiting us buried in the desert south of our border in case we started the whole thing. There are *dozens* of places who want to blast NYC (or someplace nearby) as the "head of the beast" or somesuch.
2. Iran, in many places wants *precisely* the end of the world. In the one I heard, paraphrasing, "To make such a holy effort against such an adversary would make us shine in the Muslim world, even if there's no Iran left after the attack". (Which made me wonder if his populace heard that in English).
3. Iran calls for the explicit annihilation of Israel in no uncertain terms. Not only do they have no bones about it, they deny the holocaust ever happened.
Iran has little or no intervention, now, thanks to the ever-useless UN. (Don't get me started...) If we stop buying *anything* from them, they always have Russia, and Russia doesn't care, even if it means powering a people who attempt to assassinate their leader. They've always been the source of guns, like China, for the last few decades. And not just guns- after the first half of the Gulf War we found "many" Mig 25 Foxbats buried in the sand. They didn't want to suggest how many had been found for stategic reasons. And let's not forget that this penny-ante dictator was in posession of 8 tons of nuclear material, 2 of which were enriched.
And as to a "supporter of Israel"; I'm not, anymore. There are good reasons for it.
Everything in the Old Testament was about the fall of the 'first Adam', and the sacrifice of the 'second Adam', by which all people of all lands could find redemption, not just those living in that ancient land of Israel. The reason they don't have access to their temples is because, like He said to the woman at the well, "Soon, no one will make sacrifices at Judea and (the other temple)." His point, just like when he said, "You will tear down this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days" he was pointing to himself.
Faithful study of the Bible shows there's no racism in the Bible. One didn't have to be born to a circumcised male and his bald-headed-but-wearing-a-wig wife in order to be in "Israel". Evidence of this are the two non-Jewish ladies in Christ's bloodline. One was even a member of the enemy of the Jews, but was permitted, not because of where she lived, but her relationship to God.
The land there is just a spot of land God pointed Moses to. Other than mineral and historical benefits, there's nothing there to speak of that isn't everywhere else. "Israel" is a relationship to God. It's open to all- Jew, gentile, slave and free.
Fighting to move all the Jews back to Israel is called zionism. It's founded in the dispensational interpretation of a priest named Darby. His reading of scriptures suggest we move them all to Palestine/Israel/Trans-Jordan, where 3/4 of them will be killed. That's not being very supportive.
Think: how horrible it would be to push these people to follow their misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bible, when the same reading shows they'll be slaughtered. Beyond this, how horrid is it, considering the "Biblical proportions" of Christ's sacrifice on the cross for the redemption of all people, but to put the Jews back where they were, making *animal* sacrifices as if Christ did nothing!
Hank Hanegraaff has the right reading on it. He runs the Christian Reseach Institute, a clearinghouse for Biblical fidelity. *Proving* biblical truth, dispelling rumors, and making sense of ancient Hebrew poetry by scientific means...and nothing from outside the Bible itself.
I know he's headed the right way; his message distrubs traditional Christians with it's simplicity and reason, and he's having money trouble because (say it with me, children) "There's always money for a heretic!".
Hank wrote "The Apocalypse Code", the same name of Hal Lindsey's book of the end-times. But inst
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
The title of TFA:
Whatever the merits of the list, it was not used to persecute these people in the USA. In fact, one hysterical clown from "Code Pink" (the outfit, whose members were denied entry to Canada) was recently allowed rather close to the Secretary of State. She and the other members of the organization were only ejected from the congressional hearing after the confrontation.
The complaints are directed at Canada:
We allow all sorts of lunacy here in the US, but I don't blame the Canadians for desireing (so to speak) to keep foreign lunatics out of their country.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Wow. Where to start?
The closed-minded isolationist, despite proof of terrorists being found in droves?
The angry, "I must be right because CNN agrees with me mindset"?
The hateful, nearly puke retort?
Nah, you're a troll. I've tried to debate with you before, but you always end (and start, for that matter) with vulgarity that let's me know you don't have an argument you can prove- you must be brutal to enforce your point of view.
Please; don't respond to the irony of calling yourself "open minded" or "enlightened"; you're not.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
" ... Any arrest is generally for at least a 'serious misdemeanor'. Minor misdemeanors get a ticket and a court date. ..."
The US considers any Canadian Criminal Code conviction as "equivalent to Felony" (since "Felony" is a phrase that describes a class of crime in the US but that particular phrase is not used elsewhere). Canada considers any "Serious Misdemeanor" and any "Felony" as equivalent to a Criminal Code conviction. The same language is never used to describe crime or to form statutes in each country.
It would also be helpful if you knew that there are misdemeanors in Canada, but they are in essence minor traffic violations only. Serious traffic violations are Criminal Code[Felony] convictions. There is also no means or provisions to reduce any Criminal Code [Felony] sentence to misdemeanor in Canada. Shoplifting is a Criminal Code offense, and there is no way to reduce that to anything other than a Criminal Code [Felony] conviction. The same goes for all offenses in Canada that are not extremely minor (no court appearance-pay-the-fine types). Assault is always Criminal Code; Theft of any kind or any amount; Impaired Driving; etc. They simply cannot be misdemeanors under any circumstances in Canada.
So, it's not only possible, but fairly common for convictions in the US to be reduced to a level of misdemeanor that would be Criminal Code convictions in Canada, and could not be anything but Criminal Code convictions under any circumstances. Thus, "serious misdemeanor" is the cutoff but it still misses some convictions that would be flagged going the other way.
The US has access to the same information on Canadians as Canada has on US citizens, and this has been going on for almost three decades, back when "there's no reason why anyone would want a computer in their home" seemed a reasonable statement by the CEO of a computer company to make.
I think that's an erroneous interpretation. It appears to mean that an individual who is in the database for having "been charged with serious and/or significant offenses" must have been fingerprinted or (if you read down a bit more) "three or more convictions for a violent felony or serious drug offense" (which seems redundant since it seems unlikely that anyone with that many serious convictions would not have a set of fingerprints on file).
Fingerprints are used in this system to ensure that an unauthorized person does not purport to be the subject in the NCIC database (perhaps using fake ID) to obtain information about that person.
is large enough that they can sustain a Bush veto of anything the Democrats do.
Repeat: the DEMOCRATS in Congress have not failed us. Often. Most of the time, the problem is that they lack the supermajority needed to overwhelm a united front of Republicans standing behind Bush's vetoes.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Yeah them were the days, OBTW that naked chick puts out if you got a black eye while being arrested!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Or that other one, whose name escapes me at the moment... you know, hamburgers, apple pie, and all that. That one. They're pretty bad too.
How bad does it burn knowing I was right and you couldn't refute me?
And I especially love that you spew more ignorance though, that's so awesome that you think being ignorant and prejudiced is something to be proud of.
You made my point for me and didn't even realize it.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
The thing is, not everyone who gets arrested normally gets put on that list.
Wanna bet, do ya huh, not only is everyone who is arrested of a felony or a serious misdemeanor on the list, but even being fingerprinted gets you on the list, being kidnapped or even sometimes being missing gets you on the list; go check the website they list what's in the database and what isn't. These ladies are habitual, career criminals, of course they are on the list, I admire those ladies, they at least put their asses on the line for a cause they believe in, but that doesn't make them not what they are.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"Now quit being a whiny ignorant little bitch and deal with the fact that actions have consequences. Being called a fool when you're a fool is hardly much of a consequence anyhow, so grow up and get a spine."
Please give us your name and address, so we can come by and see how much spine you have.
Of course you won't, because you're all talk and no sack. See, if you were what you cliam to be, or expect others to be, you'd be happy to deal with the consequences of talking shit like you have.
But instead, you'll come up with a lame excuse, completely ignoring the fact that you were the one expecting people to "deal with the fact that actions have consequences".
Like I said, all talk.
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
Yeah, I guess in your twisted racist world, people who fight for their rights and the rights of their fellow man need to "learn to read, think, and stop fucking your sister".
Wow, something from ancient history which is no longer like it once was.
Oh wait, I'm actually not impressed by it at all.
That was 1921, this is 2007. Now these are the people leeching off of my taxes, whining about reality and stewing in their ignorant hatred of gays.
So, sorry, but yes, those people I'm talking about need to learn to read, think, and stop fucking their sisters.
The ones you're talking about are mostly dead and betrayed by their descendents.
I hope you feel like an asshole, you certainly act like one.
No, I can tell the difference between current reality and that of a hundred years ago. I'm sorry you can't, but that's really your problem and doesn't make me an asshole.
Lastly, find me a non-white redneck. Exactly.
They have them, but most are white. However, I'm white as well and I have nothing but contempt for the redneck leeches living off of my work while claiming to be capitalists, and betraying my country because they're too stupid to think and too cowardly to either admit they're wrong or to deal with the consequences of their mistakes.
Thanks for demonstrating YOUR racism too, I always knew you were a cunt, but now I have a reason beyond you being an abrasive douchebag.
Right, I'm racist against what, exactly?
I hate stupid, ignorant people regardless of color.
Besides, I'm white dipshit.
Please give us your name and address, so we can come by and see how much spine you have.
I have plenty of spine, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I have no intention of putting my wife and family at risk to no purpose. Given that you are arguing in support of mass murdering sociopathic terrorists, you'll understand if i doubt you'd restrict yourself to attempting to hurt me when you've demonstrated your allegiance to people who have repeatedly demonstrated their belief in going after families.
How exactly would that be demonstrating spine?
Of course you won't, because you're all talk and no sack. See, if you were what you cliam to be, or expect others to be, you'd be happy to deal with the consequences of talking shit like you have.
I have no problem dealing with consequences of my actions. The consequence of my action, were you or your people decent humans, would be a loud pop as you all pulled your heads out of your asses and took a breath.
You however seem to think I deserve to be beaten or something for merely stating basic simple facts to counter your idiotic delusional statement which merely demonstrates your ignorance of the definition of the word "racism".
Now when this is coming in defense of the fucking leeches living off of my work with all their bitching about how they need to be paid subsidies for every aspect of their god damned leech-lives, it's really sad and pathetic.
Now get all that Socialist bullshit out of your states and pull your own fucking weight for once and then you'll be in a position to speak that way to your betters. As it is, since I'm paying your bills for you, try showing a little respect. Oh wait, that would involve integrity. something else rednecks are totally lacking in.
But instead, you'll come up with a lame excuse, completely ignoring the fact that you were the one expecting people to "deal with the fact that actions have consequences".
Or, more likely, I'll demonstrate the idiocy of your "point".
Hm......
Can a nonliving object be criminal?
And HOW exactly did they abuse this inanimate object?
He is running as a Republican, but his ideas are far more conservative than those of any other candidate. He can truthfully be considered as a conservative libertarian. Read on:
He supports the repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act and all other recent legislation that has passed despite questionable constitutional merit. The restoration of our civil liberties is at the top of his agenda and he will work to disassemble the fascist workings that are currently gaining steam.
He supports sound economic policy, which is something that often seems ignored by every other federally elected official. He would end deficit spending and force the congress to stick to a budget.
He supports the end of political corruption and does not believe that congress should be allowed to continue channeling government funds to their corporate bedfellows.
He ardently supports the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which it contains. He has voted "no" thousands of times during his 10 terms in the House of Representatives, refusing to approve any measure which violates the spirit of the Constitution.
Please, read more about this guy. He's very smart, very honest, and very serious about turning this government around.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Couldn't the FBI just tattoo the forearms of peace protesters?
Then look up 'political asylum' which Canada granted, at least for a time, to a US citizen fleeing what he managed to portray as a railroading court conviction. It involved scientology and a alleged biased judge.
Because of various people, I've started specifying 'crimes that would be crimes even if the person wasn't protesting'. IE a person doesn't automatically get a pass from criminal prosecution because they're 'protesting'.
precious the small percentage of anti-government malcontents are, to keep their government sane and honest.
I don't mind anti-government malcontents, heck, I'm a libertarian. Almost by definition I'm a malcontent. It's just that I confine my activities to legal ones that won't hurt my cause - my weapons in this fight are words, not rocks, bottles, and molotov cocktails. I also don't feel the need to engage in theatrics like codepink. And I think theatrics are a good word for it - they plan their activities beforehand for maximum attention.
I don't read AC A human right
You "own me" the way my puppy does when it humps my leg after I say something simple enough for it to understand.
Thanks for leaping like a pet troll when I jerk your leash. Have a bath.
--
make install -not war
"Nice trading we got going there... it'd be a shame if anything were to happen to it..."
Works every time.
Still need to grow a pair.
The USA has more to lose than Canada does. Ones that would put up trade barriers, whether they're called tariffs or embargoes generally lose out more than the one being blocked.
I don't read AC A human right
Ok, so Canada doesn't split crimes into Misdemeanor and Felony levels. The USA generally considers fine level type stuff as civil offenses, not criminal.
In the USA, the general difference between Felony and Misdemeanor is possible punishments - Felonies are punishable by more than a year in prison, while Misdemeanors are punishable by less than a year in jail. The majority of crimes in the USA are misdemeanors.
Still, I'll admit that the line between felonies and misdemeanors is fairly artificial today.
I don't read AC A human right
Works every time.
Still need to grow a pair.
The USA has more to lose than Canada does. Ones that would put up trade barriers, whether they're called tariffs or embargoes generally lose out more than the one being blocked. google "softwood lumber"
The question is, who can hold out the longest? The answer is: The one who's 10 times the size of the other. And if that isn't true, then good ol' bribery will get you what you want.
You can't take the sky from me...
Does Iran want nukes, or just for us to think they're really close to them? Once they have nukes, they have something that takes incredible resources to protect, because who knows what terrorist group / cult will think it can use the weapon better than Iran's government and try to take it? Iran can't use a nuke until it has a plan to keep us form using ours, or the prophecy falls apart when the whole of their country gets nuked, without us bothering to put in a single soldier to be shot. Being wink wink nudge nudge riiiight on the edge gives the benefit of "better not mess with us or we'll put in an all-nighter and you'll be sorry" but without increasing internal security problems.
> they want it in order to be able to continue running the state as a theocratic dictatorship without risking external intervention
The fact that they think they need it tells us something. Iran probably believes an invasion is eminent to be making this much noise. Saddam made all the same noises to keep us out. Iran isn't going to make a full out assault on us until AFTER they get rid of Israel. They may hate us, but we won't be the focus unless we MAKE ourselves the focus. Strategically, Israel is right there, requiring fewer resources to approach, and they'll need lots of conquered lands under their control before they have access to the resources to take us on.
It's been a while now, but I seem to remember at least 1 DUI laden celebrity ended up being denied entry into Canada.
I don't read AC A human right
That's one industry; and happens despite you saying that Canada bends over.
Play hardball a little more and you'd likely get better deals; despite running the country your way.
I don't read AC A human right
You can't take the sky from me...