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...'"

Comments

What I don't get...

[downix]

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!

Re:What I don't get...

[Algorithmnast]

To me, it is like the boy who cries wolf.

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.

Re:What I don't get...

[apt142]

I think that Congress getting involved is the right action. But considering the other investigations they've done and the punitive actions that have come out of them, I'm not going to hold my breath. Congress has a lot of bark, it just doesn't have the bite it should.

Re:What I don't get...

[elrous0]

In the FBI's defense: catching actual terrorists is HARD, and if FBI agents miss 2 p.m. nap-time they get very cranky.

Re:What I don't get...

[skribe]

Do you mean bulletproof?

Re:What I don't get...

[kalirion]

Congress should stay out of it. A non-binding resolution saying that the FBI is not 100% correct would only enbolden the peace activists, and then where would we be?

Re:What I don't get...

[sckeener]

Congress has a lot of bark, it just doesn't have the bite it should

Let's see...government of dogs...who'll win?

435 House reps plus 100 Senators...for 535 people. That many voices would be quite loud. They could all yell at once, but there would be a finite limit to how many could bite at once on one victim. Even if they passed around the victim, there wouldn't be enough for everyone. They starve and thus are frequently replaced.

1 president. Loud for the single person he is, but ultimately not very effective either barking or biting. At least when he does bite, he'll have plenty to eat and since he is usually a lone wolf leader, he can sometimes direct the congress wolves where he wants.

9 Supreme Court justices. 9 people can be loud and they have quite the bite. Plenty of food for all....my money is on this group...after all they seem to outlive all the other groups.

Re:What I don't get...

[Mr. Slippery]

Unfortunately, with veto threats being thrown around, and partisan nonsense leading to the lack of a supermajority in the senate...there's not much that can be done.

Oh, horseshit. The Democrats could shut the government down, like the Republicans did over minor tax squabbles in the 1990s. They can - and should - say, "We will not pass any funding for the military, for foreign intelligence, or federal law enforcement, until we see reforms."

And of course, they have the power to ITMFA.

Under the Constitution, the Congress is the most powerful of the three branches of government. (Though Presidents have been trying to usurp that for a long time, and Bush has been the worst - it's time for Congress to issue an ass-whooping to him and to the office.) They could do a lot.

They don't want to, either because they agree with the criminal policies of the Bush administration, or because they think they're more likely to keep their cushy jobs if they take no action. In either case, fuck them.

Re:What I don't get...

[Megane]

None of this was made up the two people blocked from Canada are guilty of various crimes.

Link, please. Seriously, I want to know the details of these various crimes, not just an unsubstantiated throwaway sentence. And I don't see it in TFA, which is clearly from a site which believes Bush == Satan and wouldn't give those details because it might make their side look not so good.

Re:What I don't get...

[Belacgod]

In the same mess as we are now, but with bolder peace activists?

Seriously, the peace activists, bold or not, are completely irrelevant. Support for the war has risen and fallen with noble goals and complete failure to deliver, not with anything the antiwar movement has done.

Re:What I don't get...

[CaptainZapp]

Yeah, maybe. But winding up in the FBIs criminal database for such offenses is about like winding up in a federal sex offenders register for urinating behind a tree in public.

It's just blown out of proportion (and has a stench of pure malice, at that).

Re:What I don't get...

[alan_dershowitz]

The Democrats could shut the government down, like the Republicans did over minor tax squabbles in the 1990s. Clinton was the one who kept vetoing Congresses' budget. Details:

1. Ultimately he had a problem with one line item, regarding benefits for the disabled and seniors (big political win.)
2. He lied about what the line-item said (it was a reduction in the percentage increase in medicare, he said it was a cut in medicare benefits. Even after the reduction the percentage exceeded inflation by a large margin.)
3. When he was running for president he proposed almost the same exact thing, but actually a larger reduction. So why veto over it?

The reason was it was absolutely imperative that Clinton do everything in his power to undermine the new Republican majority Congress' "Contract With America," as it would have been highly embarrassing to the Democrats if they succeeded. One of the Republican planks was a balanced budget, Clinton didn't take this on until the Republicans tried to actually do it. So he proposed his own budget, substantively the same as the Republicans and picked out a politically viable attack point ("Republicans want to cut senior citizen benefits!!!") to differ on.

Question: if it was such a minor issue, then why didn't Clinton just sign the budget, which by the way it's Congresses' job to write and not his?

Now look at today, the exact same thing would happen. Congress would shut down government, Bush would say "troops daily are not getting the supplies they need to fight, because the Democrats shut down the government." And he would be more or less right, and he would win. Because his message "sounds" better ("Democrats are putting the troops in danger",) he has the bully-pulpit, and his strategy team is still better than the Democrats'. There is no way that Congress could win that fight, and it probably would in fact prevent some troops from getting supplies they otherwise would have gotten.

Re:What I don't get...

[cayenne8]

"I would say we need another JFK, with thicker skin this time around."

That's why I hear they've been trying to mate Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver...

They want to breed the first bulletproof Kennedy!!

Re:What I don't get...

[magisterx]

Perhaps I misunderstood the article, but as I read it, the FBI's database contained a true and accurate record of her arrest. While she may consider to be justified, that is beside the point, they were legally criminal. The FBI simply reported the fact that she was arrested with an accurate reason as to why in their database. It was the Canadians who made the decision to refuse her entry using accurate information. She may argue that it was a peaceful arrest for deliberate civil disobedience, but it seems that its up to the Canadians what their criteria is for excluding people. If anything, it seems like her argument should be with Canada's policies, the FBI just reported facts.

Another point, is that those practicing civil disobedience are deliberately and knowingly breaking the law. Whether or not they were justified or morally right in doing so, they broke the law knowingly. Shouldn't they be prepared to accept those consequences? If they are truly morally right and justified in breaking the law, then isn't accepting the consequences of breaking the law as a very minor sacrifice for righteousness? If they are not ready to accept that price, they shouldn't have broken the law.

Note that I am not trying to pass judgment about whether they were or were not actually justified, but that is beside the point of the fact that they are knowingly practicing civil disobedience which by its definition involves deliberately breaking the laws.

Re:What I don't get...

[Mr. Slippery]

Clinton was the one who kept vetoing Congresses' budget.

And Bush has kept vetoing funding bills that contained troop withdrawal provisions. Congress should have stood firm and not given him one without such provisions.

Bush would say "troops daily are not getting the supplies they need to fight, because the Democrats shut down the government." And he would be more or less right, and he would win.

"Win" in what sense? If Congress stands firm and denies him funding for the war and for his little domestic Big Brother operations, he has no choice. Congress gets its way. America wins when we stop wasting our blood and treasure over there and we reign in the madness of King George; Iraq wins when the people get their way and the occupation ends.

(Does Iraq then fall apart? Probably. Blame for that lies with the British Empire who put together such an unstable structure in the first place. The nation of Iraq was doomed from the start; the best we can hope for now is to put the area under an international team of peacekeepers and let a partition work itself out with as little violence as possible.)

If by "win" you mean "score political points", if Congressional leaders are more worried about poll numbers than saving lives, fuck 'em. Fiat justitia, et ruat caelum. But I can think of two possible political responses:

1. "Mr. President, we've sent you bill after bill to fund our heroic troops, yadda yadda yadda, red white and blue apple pie. But you've vetoed each and every one. Mr. President, why do you hate our troops?"
2. "Mr. President, the Congress has stepped up to take responsibility. We erred when we believed your fabrications and authorized you to send troops to Iraq. Your job as commander in chief is to lead the troops in battle - but it's our job to decide which battles. You lied to get us to send troops into Iraq, then screwed the pooch and left it to us to clean up afterward. Fine. We are revoking your authorization. We will fund only military operations with the goal of bringing our heroic troops home after their quick victory over Saddam's forces, yadda yadda yadda, red white and blue apple pie. The American people will not give you a dollar for anything else. If you refuse, you will be stranding the troops over there without funding to fight. Only someone who hates the troops would veto this proposal to fund the operations to bring them home. You don't hate the troops, do you, Mr. President?"

Of course, either would require principled and courageous leadership from the Democrats. Har de har har.

Hmm

[Kamineko]

FBI Director Edgeworth had no comment.

So who is surprised ?

[budword]

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.

Re:Wait one minute...

[seebs]

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.

That could explain...

[acb]

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?

Re:That could explain...

[elrous0]

Hell, even Henry Rollins ran into trouble in Australia. Some guy saw him reading the book Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam In Central Asia on a plane and turned him in as a terrorist. And you think AMERICANS are touchy.

And to think...

[FredDC]

... 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!

Re:And to think...

[pipatron]

How would they know what the candidate is actually about, when their only images comes from the media?

Re:And to think...

[clay_buster]

Blah blah blah. That's fine. I'm sure someone will talk about the drop in "whatever" but who cares. The country is growing faster than it can absorb already. I'm sure the millions that try and come in every year will pick up the slack. The US hasn't changed any more than other countries when they think they have some threat to the state. You could even make the case that it has changed less than many countries, the UK for instance. Governments always try for more control because they think they can eliminate risk and surprises by doing so. Combine that with personal desire for control and you have the average government. People ask why US citizens don't get more angry about things. Political anger comes from the underclass that feels like they or their neighbors have been personally wronged. There is a large poor group in the US but many feel like they still have a chance to move up. Look at the gigantic immigrant community for proof of this. The middle and upper classes are empowered and comfortable. Its hard to get angry when you have one of the highest living standards in the world, the most comfortable lifestyle unlimited food and good shelter. The next election will completely turnover the government while leaving corporate (companies, trial lawyers...) interests in the driver seat. A government completely run by the Democratic party will be just as screwed as the previous one run by the Republican party. The liberals in my state talk about how they want a one party, Democratic, system but I fear what they want to do as much as I fear the Republicans.

s/freedom/security/g

[Gothmolly]

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?

Re:s/freedom/security/g

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Self Rightous BS

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Complaining about Canadian rules?

[GoofyBoy]

"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.

Re:Wait one minute...

[Firethorn]

If you get arrested you got arrested. It might not have been a fair arrest and there should be a process to explain yourself and get past the authorities. BUT, and this is the big BUT how is the border person going to know the difference? There are peace activists that should not be put on the list and then there are some that should be on the list and then some.

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.

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:

"In the past, Canada has always welcomed peace activists with open arms. This new policy, obviously a creature of the Bush administration, is shocking and we in the US and Canada must insist that it be overturned. Four members of the Canadian Parliament--Peggy Nash, Libby Davies, Paul Dewar and Peter Julian-- expressed outrage that the peace activists were barred from Canada and vow to change this policy.

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?

Wright asserted, "We will never be criminally rehabilitated since we intend to continue to engage in non-violent peaceful protest of Bush administration policies, particular the war on Iraq and we intend to peacefully and nonviolently protest all of these until they end. They can lead to arrests for civil disobedience, like refusing to move from the fence in front of the whitehouse or standing up and speaking at congressional hearings."

IE you're troublemakers, therefore the border agents were quite right to deny you entry.

Wright added, "The fact that the FBI has put us on this list. The National Crime Information Center Computerized Index is a form of political intimidation. The list is supposed to be for felony and serious misdemeanor offenses.

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.

These protesters may need to go an extra step...

[The Empiricist]

...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.htm

Ahem.

[Hemogoblin]

I 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.

Re:Ahem.

[Hemogoblin]

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

Re:Ahem.

[Hemogoblin]

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".

Re:Ahem.

[Hemogoblin]

It's not a court of law. We are not privy to the events surrounding the criminal case, nor do we make findings of law on the case. The judge did that when you had your trial, where the crown had to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge found the person guilty, end of story.

Anyone we refuse entry into Canada is not a Canadian citizen nor a permanent resident of Canada. They don't have a right to enter the country. If they're seeking entry into Canada, they must prove they're not inadmissible. If we didn't make decisions on the balance of probabilities, we would let a whole lot of questionable people into the country. The US government complains enough about how "slack" we are as it is. Offtopic, but that kinda pisses me off.

Re:Ahem.

[sumdumass]

Peace activist is a misleading term. Often they are the exact opposite of "peace" in the name of peace.

And you looking at different definitions of serious too. You have the state's definition and then you have the feds definition as well as the other countries definition. Crime statistics between two separate countries are never directly comparable for this reason alone. Take suicide for one, it is perfectly legal in most European countries but considered murder in America and get reported as one in the criminal data collections. Getting busted with pot can be a serious crime in the US but not even a minor misdemeanor in other countries. Canada seems to be a country that will not let you in for a drug conviction when it is practically legal to use the same stuff over there.

Often the denial of entry lists look at your criminal records for two things. Have you committed a crime that they think is serious and have you committed a crime that your government thinks is serious. between these two, they have set up an arbitrary line consisting of the probability that you might be a liability of some sorts while in the foreign country.

Re:Ahem.

[sumdumass]

Being convicted doesn't automatically mean you are denied entry. It means that you will have to secure entry rights before going across the border and probably have a decent reason for going in.

The blanket denial is to keep trouble makers out. You can apply in several ways to get around this. It usually involves signing a statement to the effect that you won't commit a crime while in the country.

So while I am not a Canadian, I have had to get this a couple of times to visit friends and an in-law from up there. I had a pretty serious conviction too. It was overturned on appeal and is no longer on my record but it still comes up when I check to see if I need the waiver or not.

Re:Editorial, not News

[morgan_greywolf]

Yeah, OpEdNews carries regular news stories in addition to OpEd pieces. The news articles are, of course, chosen for by those with a left-leaning bias, but they are still news articles nonetheless.

This makes sense?

[Kohath]

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.

Context of charges.

[iknownuttin]

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.

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?

Re:Context of charges.

[Hemogoblin]

It would show where the arrests took place, which police department, and what year. That's about it. I would treat them as anyone else who had a criminal record. I can't make a new finding of facts or guilt right at the border, so I go with what the judge decided. If he thought he/she was guilty for offences committed while protesting, so be it.

Re:Context of charges.

[Firethorn]

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.

How long must we endure this?

[je ne sais quoi]

"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 worst thing about this is that it's not the first time U.S. policies are being abused to punish people not loyal to Bush or changing policies in favor of those who are loyal to Bush, and it won't be the last. Just another in a long line of disappointments from the current administration and our government in our continuing slide into fascism.

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?

Re:An arrest gets you into the DB

[apparently]

most peace terrorists have been arrested in their lifetimes, usually for disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, vandalism, and other misdemeanor crimes

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?

Re:Codepink clowns..

[scubamage]

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.

"Censorship"?

[Cally]

Yup. I'm puzzled to see this story's currently tagged "censorship", when plainly whatever has happened, isn't censorhip. It's an infringement of personal liberty by a police force which is clearly starting to act, around the edges at the very least, as an arm of the executive. When the police are the same as the state, there's a name for that - it's not censorship, it's "police state".

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.)

FBI = political secret police

[br00tus]

The Nixon library keeps releasing tapes of his conversations - recently they released tapes of him talking to J. Edgar Hoover where Hoover is not lambasting even out of the mainstream people but columnists from the New York Times and Washington Post and the newspapers themselves. The FBI had a massive campaign of political intimidation and involvement, not only monitoring people like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but sending him blackmail letters if he didn't conform his political speeches to those of Hoover's liking. Not to mention the massive COINTELPRO campaign of harassment against organizers in the 1960s.

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.

Re:Wait one minute...

[16Chapel]

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.

We have a winner!

[east coast]

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?

Re:Wait one minute...

[fredrated]

"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?

Years ago, a russian reporter said

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:It's not hard to understand.

[Kohath]

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.

Re:An arrest gets you into the DB

[Hemogoblin]

Having used NCIC extensively (see my above posts)...

Yes a single arrest can get you in the NCIC. That usually won't make you inadmissible to Canada on its own though.

Re:Wait one minute...

[Hemogoblin]

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.

Re:Wait one minute...

[Firethorn]

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.

Re:An arrest gets you into the DB

[EmagGeek]

You've obviously never been to a peace "protest," nor do you know much about the Boston Tea Party. The BTP was certainly an act of Terrorism by a small army of smugglers who were making fortunes off of breaking the Law. It was certainly not an act of Patriotic protest, but rather an act of economic terrorism perpetuated by a band of common criminals who didn't take kindly to the disruption of their racket. The BTP was neither supported nor condoned by the government of the colonies, and extensive case studies have found that, while considered a tipping point in the course of human history, the revolution was imminent with or without the occurrence of the BTP.

While one could certainly argue that The King's economic treatment of the colonies was certainly biased and unfair, committing acts of terrorism is not an effective way to discuss grievances. The Declaration of Independence had not been envisioned until June, the following year, so to draw some kind of causality between the BTP and the creation of the USA is strictly speculative. In fact, nowhere in the text of the DofI is the Tea Tax mentioned with specificity.

There is a difference between peaceful assembly and non-peaceful assembly. The latter is an act of terrorism and the former is a constitutionally protected right. When you intentionally obstruct the rights of others during the course of your protest, you cross the line that distinguishes between "peaceably assembling" and "committing an overt act of terrorism."

Examples: Obstructing rush hour traffic by laying down arm-in-arm across the street, spray painting fur coats, setting fire to a parking lot full of un-sold SUVs, breaking noise ordinances, throwing objects at people and police, disobeying the restrictions of your assembly permit... all of these throw you into the bin of common criminals as far as I am concerned. These people are the ones who destroy the process for the redress of grievances for everyone else who conducts themselves lawfully.

opinionpiece

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Editorial, not News

[sumdumass]

Because newspapers have opinion sections. They aren't news, more likely someone's incorrect interpretation of the news. I say incorrect because the most rememberable ones that I know of, are totally incorrect.

The funnies or comic strips, people seeking people and help wanted ads appear in the news papers, it don't make them news either.

Re:This isn't news, yet...

[BlueParrot]

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....

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.

Education for your racist ass

[SIIHP]

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.

Government bloat

[mr_mischief]

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.

Re:Government bloat

[mr_mischief]

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.

Re:These protesters may need to go an extra step..

[Lars Clausen]

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. Which is interesting, since one of the categories on the list is

B. Individuals who have been charged with serious and/or significant
  offenses:
  1. Individuals who have been fingerprinted and whose criminal history
  record information has been obtained.

(same source as parent)

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

Re:It's not hard to understand.

[lahvak]

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.

Indeed. I don't think anybody is accusing Canada of punishing these people. However, if these people were unjustly added to a list of criminals by US authorities, and if US authorities knew that adding names to this list will prevent these people from being admitted to Canada (none of which, in my opinion, was actually proved), then the US authorities are effectively punishing these people, by restricting their movement and preventing them from leaving the country. This is a violation or their rights, and when communist governments did it, western governments were loudly protesting (for which I am grateful). Of course, communist governments used much more direct method, and simply confiscated protester's passports. Again, I have seen no proof that US government is actually using this list to prevent "difficult US citizens" from traveling to Canada, however, the possibility seems to be there, and there is a standing accusation, so, in my opinion, this list and its use need some closer scrutiny.

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.

That actually happens fairly often. After the 1968 occupation of Czechoslovakia by soviets, Canada, US and most of other western governments allowed number of Czechs and Slovaks into their countries with very little background checks. The simple reason was that the Czechoslovak government, which collaborated with the occupants, could not be trusted, and if they said that somebody was a dangerous criminal, they could simply be peaceful protesters, or they could have a criminal record for such things as publishing a newspaper critical of the government or something of that kind. Or they possibly had no actual criminal record at all, and the government was just making it up. As a result, some number of people guilty of violent crimes were actually admitted to US and Canada, in addition to much larger number of completely innocent immigrants fleeing an oppressive regime. In fact, there were cases where the Czechoslovak government released prisoners and allowed them to leave the country, sometimes in exchange for them becoming spies and informing on expatriate organizations in US and Canada.

The question here is whether the US government and US authorities can be trusted.

Why not?

[paladinwannabe2]

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.

Re:Why not?

[cyphercell]

I personally believed there were both noble and ignoble goals behind going to war in Iraq...

You don't really understand what a LIE is do you?

Re:Why not?

[paladinwannabe2]

When you've got hundreds of people in our government, are you telling me that they all had the same motives? A good-hearted idiot can do more damage than an evil-hearted one, because people are less quick to spot them. 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. (I'd like to think that there are very few of those now). 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.

Re:Why not?

[Darby]

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.

Re:Why not?

[Sique]

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. What about having the people of Iraq sort Saddam Hussein out themselves? I have lived during a dictatorship that felt down just because the people started to quit it (I was one of them who had quit it ;) ). I strongly believe in the inalienable right of every people to deal with its dictators on its own. I think the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq actually made things worse. Basicly the U.S. betrayed the people of Iraq of the ability to free themselves. They just replaced the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, which was trying to get into each single corner of Iraq and care for everything, with the Paul Bremer dictatorship, which was caring about nothing exept for providing contracts to Bush-Cheney-buddies. This was then called "Freedom", for which 30000-50000 Iraqis died in an onesided war. What an achievement!

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.

Re:Why not?

[Darby]

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.

Re:Why not?

[ShieldW0lf]

Personally, I would say a "Peaceful Protest" just isn't good enough. Stand up and fight or be counted among your countrymen by those foreigners who have been wronged.

The way world politics are going, you Americans might want to start another violent revolution before you find that having millions of otherwise innocent foreign born people locked in FEMA Concentration Camps is not much different from having an army on your soil, and there are a lot of angry and wronged nations that will help them when the whole thing blows sky high.

Just a thought.

being arrested does not make you a criminal

[DM9290]

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"?

Re:An arrest gets you into the DB

[internic]

There is a difference between peaceful assembly and non-peaceful assembly. The latter is an act of terrorism and the former is a constitutionally protected right.

[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:

The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.

More Information to Counter Bullshit.

[Erris]

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:

• An outraged Canadian MP. There others, including a powerful one representing Toronto.
• Border guards must obey the list and were ashamed of what they had to do.
• That you can go to jail for accessing the information.

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.

Canadian Border Control Role Reversal.

[Erris]

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."

five years without trial.

[Erris]

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:

1. Wanted Persons
2. Individuals who have been charged with serious and/or significant offenses
3. Missing Persons
4. Individuals designated by the U.S. Secret Service as posing a potential danger to the President and/or other authorized protectees.
5. Members of Violent Criminal Gangs
6. Members of Terrorist Organizations
7. Unidentified Persons

"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.

Re:Wait one minute...

[budgenator]

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.