Slashdot Mirror
Sci-Fi Author Peter Watts Beaten, Charged During Border Crossing
JoeGee writes "On December 8th, Canadian sci-fi author Peter Watts, author of the Rifters trilogy and Blindsight, was crossing the US/Canadian border at Port Huron, Michigan when he was involved in an altercation with US Border Patrol agents. According to Watts, he was beaten, left half-naked in a cold cell, and finally dumped on the Canadian side of the border with no coat. A legal consultant from the Electronic Frontier Foundation was successful in helping a civil rights lawyer in Michigan free Watts. Watts faces US charges of assaulting a federal officer. Based on the accounts, one can assume Watts did so by hitting the officer's hand with his face. If convicted, Watts faces two years in a US Federal prison."
They should give the border patrol the Nobel Peace Prize for keeping America safe.
This probably is a horrible abuse of power... but you never know with these things.
To quote Babylon 5:
"Truth is a three-edged sword. One side is your truth, the other side is their truth, and the third side is the truth."
I'd like more information.
I think I'd like to hear both sides of the story before I decide. Everyone who gets into an altercation with any sort of law enforcement officer always claims "I was like so totalllly innocent, dude!"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you consider the border patrols trustworthy, sure. I don't. I'd bet the only "crime" Peter Watts committed was of arguing back.
He back in Canada, do u think he would come back to the states to face charge? if they try to extradite him I'm sure the Canadian judge will laugh in the US face for wasting the courts time.
I love it (sarcastically) when I hear a guy's only crime was resisting arrest. On what basis was the arrest being made in the first place? Resisting arrest, of course!
It sounds like the facts aren't all in yet, so let's not leap to conclusions. We're hearing the account of Cory Doctorow -- who in his novel "Little Brother" had an obvious axe to grind against Homeland Security and law enforcement, to the point of suggesting "9/11 was an inside job". (Says one of the leaflets dropped by the novel's heroic protesters.) We're also hearing second-hand from Watts and the other people in the car. We're not yet hearing the guards' account. Maybe Doctorow et. al. are completely right, but let's not assume so right off the bat, eh?
The Doctorow account quotes Watts saying that he got out of his car when questioned (mistake #1), then refused the order to get back in (mistake #2). No, of course that doesn't justify a beating. It just suggests we don't have the whole story.
Revive the Constitution.
prevented the millennial bomber. No small thing.
It seems he didn't. Looks like he was being delayed at the checkpoint, got out of the car to ask what was going on, the officer told him to get back in the car, and instead asked a question. Now, when a police officer is in a situation like that, he usually likes to have complete control of the situation (understandable, since sometimes they end up dead when things get out of control). If he feels like you are trying to take control, things can escalate quickly. It would have been better for our author friend to instead get back in the car.
Now, from what I've read, it seems the border patrol escalated quickly and unnecessarily. In tense situations that can happen. It basically sucked to be Peter Watts at that moment.
Also it's worth noting that in some jurisdictions, assault doesn't have to be physical, it can be verbal. So if you do end up in a similar situation, the best thing is to be calm and acquiescent in the moment, and then sue the hell out of them later.
Qxe4
In a mature society, "civil servant" is semantically equal to "civil master." - Robert Heinlein
Never understimate the power of human stupidity -Lazarus Long
Wake up people, our laws are broken.
That's a very ambiguous statement. Cool.
Look guys, this is the same story we hear over and over again. First we need to hear the side of the border guards; secondly, always assume that government officials are assholes. Do what they ask, obey their orders, don't be a smartass - as a result, you will generally speaking be OK.
If you talk back, disobey orders and give them a hard time, crap like this will most likely happen to you because you escalate the situation and make the lives of people who already have miserable jobs more miserable. That's not an excuse, but don't be surprised when stuff like this happens.
Actually, you're thinking battery of an Agent, which is unwanted contact of any form, including brushing their hand away when they're punching you. Assault is anything that makes them think you might batter them, such as shaking your fist or raising your voice.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Let's wait for some actual facts, please, before lionizing this guy as a victim.
PS - Government police forces are supported by taxes. Quit voting for the guys who want to raise your taxes if you don't want government thugs to beat you up.
in the blue corner it's "hasty generalisation" weighing in at zero examples and in the red corner it's "the opposite hasty generalisation" weighing in at two anecdotes! ding ding! round one!
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Walking into a public police station is an aggressive act. The member of the public may be carrying a lethal threat to the officers inside the station, and therefore should be detained and strip searched immediately. It's for the officers' safety, they cannot know what kind of weapons that person possesses. Any resistance should be due cause for an arrest, the police have a hard enough job already.
apparently you haven't seen the video of a bart police officer shooting in the back a man who was being held face down on the ground by other officers, or the more recent case where a bart police officer grabbed someone [who did need to be taken off the train], walked the poor guy across the platform and smashed a glass barrier with the guy's face.
The BART shooting incident appears to have been incompetence in that the officer thought he pulled his taser. You'd have to be pretty brazen to shoot on purpose while surrounded by the public. The cop that threw the guy at the wall probably didn't realize that the glass would break. The guy was resisting and trying to attack the cop.
As a Canadian I will never understand why the US is so eager about its boarder security with Canada.
Take a look at a map of North America, we share a huge boarder. If some one wanted to get across undetected, they would go to Calgary, Edmonton, etc. Buy/Rent a off-road vehicle and just drive in across some open fields. It's not hard to figure out.
Boarder security at major ports of entry just pisses everyone off and hurts trade. The most they are going to catch are some teenagers buying pot and Canadian beer. The only real threat at the CAN/US boarder is people bringing handguns into Canada (where they are illegal) and selling them to Toronto street gangs.
Now they are giving a middle aged white guy a hard time? Please, this security theatre has gone too far.
Getting out of the car uninvited is an aggressive act
Sorry, getting out of a car is an aggressive act?!?!
_GETTING OUT OF A FUCKING CAR_ ?!?!?!?!??!
Sig Heil, you fucking fascist.
When an unarmed man alone gets into a fight with multiple armed people, it's a rare case where the unarmed man is the aggressor.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
In all jurisdictions, assault is *never* physical. The moment something becomes physical it is "battery."
Assault is the threat of committing harm. Battery is the carrying out of that threat.
Camping on quad since 1996.
Now, when a police officer is in a situation like that, he usually likes to have complete control of the situation (understandable, since sometimes they end up dead when things get out of control).
This is a common myth. Police officers are *rarely* killed on the job. And border guards? I'm sure it must happen, but it seems it must be exceptionally rare in their case. But somehow that's given as an excuse when they beat the shit out of someone for *daring* to ask a question.
If he feels like you are trying to take control, things can escalate quickly.
"Take control"? The border guards have fucking guns. More to the point, they beat and imprisoned the guy. Even further, they can press charges against him. What did he do? Asked a question? HOW DARE HE!
It would have been better for our author friend to instead get back in the car.
No, it would have been much, much worse. The worst thing one can do in the face of fascism is to acquiesce. Worst thing for society, specifically. Whether backing down or not was something he should do personally depends on how much he cares about personal liberty and what exactly he did. If all he did was ask a question, I can't see any way in which he should have known better.
Also it's worth noting that in some jurisdictions, assault doesn't have to be physical, it can be verbal. So if you do end up in a similar situation, the best thing is to be calm and acquiescent in the moment, and then sue the hell out of them later.
Shit, in some cases, assault can be a dirty look. But you're right, the best thing to do is be a good little slave and bow to your masters...
I agree. I found the US-Canada border in particular to be the home of the most unimpressive border guards I have seen, though to be honest, Homeland Security personnel in general are unimpressive. Rude, nasty, undereducated and morally/ethically small people abound in those uniforms. Not a fucking 'welcome home' to be heard from this bunch.
I come from a family full of cops, I work daily with actual combatant US soldiers and have immense respect for them, but seeing these Homeland Security pricks from their various ill-run agencies acting as officers of the United States makes me want to vomit. The whole organization needs to be deconstructed and re-imagined in some kind of intelligent form.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
But I fail to see what Obama has done to earn a Nobel peace prize.
He made the Norwegian leftists on the Nobel committee wet with the anticipation of what he might do?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If I were a president who inherited 2 messy wars that I didn't start, with the population of my country screaming "we have to get out of there!" because my country is burning its citizen's money as fast as it can shovel into the furnace, I would ask myself what would happen if I do pull out my troops.
Will there be civil wars and more slaughter? Will Taliban and Al-Qaeda return to power in Afghanistan, be emboldened in Pakistan and will that increase the risk that they seize power there too? Remember, Pakistan has nukes. Now the "dirty bomb scenario" becomes a nudge more realistic.
I would not be able to sleep with the decision to leave those people to die.
It's about cleaning up the mess your country started. Cleaning up a mess, which if you walk away from, will cause a lot of people to suffer, and a lot of people to die. You can walk away and no harm will be done to you, a tarnished reputation maybe but you still have money and Hollywood to buy other countries' love. Sure some people will say, "it's now their own responsibility to clean up their mess.", but I still can't buy that line... come on, who really fucked it all up? Do you really believe Rumsfeld and Co. did their best to save that place, and it's the Iraqis' own incompetence which is at fault? This is Rumsfeld that can't even protect his own men!
It was either Salam Pax or Raed Jarrar, the 2 (once-)famous Iraqi bloggers, who wrote, and I reinterpret, the US is going to pull out of Iraq one day, and after a while the public will forget that little adventure of theirs -- "hey we fixed that problem that was burning our money and killing our men (and women), so we can sleep soundly now!" -- but for people in Iraq the chaos will not be forgotten, because it would still be ongoing.
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Getting out of the car uninvited is an aggressive act. How were the officers to know whether or not he was a threat.
So beating him, imprisoning him, then threatening to charge him for assault (an almost inevitable side-effect of being beaten), is a measured response for people with guns, when confronted by a man with the audacity to make the terrifyingly aggressive action of exiting his car?
As a Canadian living in America for the past 10 years, and who would have gone home had the economy not imploded last year, allow me to quote Babylon 5:
"No more! No more of you! No more Nightwatch, no more hostages, no more lies. Not on my station, not on my watch. No more! No more."
-- Sheridan in Babylon 5:"Ceremonies of Light and Dark"
I love my adopted country, but since my name isn't John Sheridan, I'm tired of it and ready to just walk away and leave it to the Nightwatch.
So now you've read one side of the story.
but -- assuming the accuracy of Watts' story --
And that's why finding out the other side of the story is important. It keeps you from making assumptions.
If Watts' account is even close to correct, those agents belong in fucking jail.
No, it would have been much, much worse. The worst thing one can do in the face of fascism is to acquiesce. Worst thing for society, specifically
Dude, if you want to fight for your civil liberties by putting yourself in front of a police baton, where it makes little difference, go ahead. As for me, I'll fight for what I care about in the courts and at the ballot box, where it can actually make a difference. You may consider that being a slave, but that's ok because I consider your method just dumb.
Qxe4
In my experience, "assaulting an officer" means "being assaulted by an officer".
Requiem for the American Dream
This is a common myth. Police officers are *rarely* killed on the job.
Why is that relevant? Statistically speaking our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are "rarely" killed in the line of duty. So I guess they don't have any reason to fear death when they go out on patrol? A police officer has to worry about taking a bullet every single time he has an interaction with someone. Have you ever known that kind of fear? Ever had to contemplate absorbing a small piece of lead at supersonic speeds when you show up at the office?
I cut them a lot of slack even though I've had my share of run-ins with asshole cops. Even if you are dealing with one that's a complete asshole it does you no good to escalate the situation. It's only going to make it worse. Suck it up and do what they tell you. If the abuse was particularly egregious then do the American thing and sue the hell out of them at a later date.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Overly officious US border agents, the "Guantanamo halo effect" (ie. there is no rule of law)and the general unfriendliness at the border have caused me to cease visiting the US. I can say that I am far from the only Canadian I know that now refuses to cross the border.
I don't buy there, travel there, spend there, or .... even do business there.
I'm hoping that with the Obama administration I (and others) will become a little more comfortable and eventually travel through/to the US, but I'm far from the only Canadian that feels this way. Pity .... the US in general are great neighbors and great people.
I see you have never dealt with addicts.
Pardon, but being "*rarely* killed" is still being 'killed' nonetheless.
As a rule, I think it is not smart to fuck with armed people who work in jobs where they are much more likely to be killed (however 'rarely') than those of us in 'normal' jobs. I know that I personally would hate to be killed, and so can understand that it is probably a bit more stressful than what I am used to, working with/in the knowledge of that being killed on the job is a distinctly more likely possibility than in most other jobs.
Do I like subjugating myself to the control of a police of whatever sort? No, I don't. I hate it. But I can do it, when it means I can otherwise get along with my life in order to try and effect the change necessary to not have to deal with that sort of thing down the road. Whether that means working towards changing the system, or just getting the fuck away from/out of it.
Don't fuck with cops when things get stressful. It ain't smart. Wait 'til later, out of the stressful and high-strung situation, and you can be much more effective at whatever your intended purpose is.
The sci-fi authors audience on this story is not going to be appreciatively larger than had he done the things needed to _stay out of jail_ for two years, and spent that time as a free man writing and exposing the incident from the standpoint of someone who isn't in jail. Not to mention that the two years would be, for him, much more enjoyable.
Ask Mandela if he was able to do more from inside his jail cell, than from without.
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
As for me, I'll fight for what I care about in the courts and at the ballot box, where it can actually make a difference.
Those make almost no difference. The courts don't matter because it would be your word against the word of a couple sworn upholders of the law (who of course would have erased any recordings that you might try to have subpoenaed). The ballot box doesn't matter because don't blame me I voted for Kodos.
What does make a difference is getting people in general to actually give a damn. So you get things like the organized civil disobedience of the civil rights movement, where demonstrations of what's wrong are forced into the public's awareness. This in turn leads to a chance that someone decent (at least with regard to that one item) might appear on the ballot and actually have a chance of getting elected, and that those running for reelection will have to at least act like they care so they have less risk of getting kicked out.
"I'm not saying that tapping an officer on the shoulder is assault,"
Good, because legally it is battery.
"it probably isn't a good ideal to initiate physical contact by surprising them with a tap on the shoulder from behind when they might have a (quite reasonable) expectation of being attacked."
Sure, I can agree with that. Do not touch police officers, ever.
"Also, cursing at an officer isn't assault but why be a jerk?"
We have the right to be jerks, that's why. Failing to exercise our rights means that we will eventually lose them.
"Cops have a difficult job"
So do plenty of other people. What makes police officers special is that they can legally hold a person against that person's will; this is a dangerous right to grant anyone, of course, so we have all kinds of laws protecting innocent people from cops.
"in my experience are pretty friendly even under adverse conditions."
Some cops are friendly and firmly believe in protecting the public, whom they serve. However, we no longer live in a world where the police only arrest dangerous people. There are too many laws on the books, and it is now difficult to be a law abiding citizen. Police officers are paid overtime regardless of whether or not they were clocking those extra hours interrogating a real criminal. DAs and other public, political figures want to look "tough on crime," and put pressure on the police to be more aggressive; and of course, appearing to be "part of the war on terror" is all to appealing to police departments.
Again, we grant the police the right to do things that would be illegal for the rest of us. We must be extremely careful about giving out such a right, and remain on the alert for any possible abuses.
Palm trees and 8
OK, what I hear you saying is roughly that if no one cares about a subject enough to get it on the ballot, then it won't be on a ballot. So you use civil disobedience to raise people's attention. Civil disobedience becomes a kind of advertising technique.
The problem is most of the time it doesn't work that well, and it hurts. If you want to get your voice out, there are other ways to do it that work a lot better and don't hurt as much. A well organized ad campaign, for example, will be much more effective than trying to get in a confrontation with police officers.
Qxe4
He got the prize just for not being Bush It's how he was elected, and now it got him another win.
If the committee were sane, they should have waited until Obama actually ended the wars, unless the New World Order is going all 1984 on us and telling us that "War is Peace".
p.s. I'm diggin' your +1 troll, man.
Since quite a few are asking, I figured I'd provide the pertinent sections of TFAs.
According to an update in the Boing Boing article, Watts got out of the car to ask what was happening -- presumably because his car and/or person was being searched. When the officers refused to answer and told him to get back in the car, he asked the question again. At which point he was attacked, his property was seized, and he was asked to waive his Miranda rights.
Sounds like the unfortunate combination of a pissed off officer and a less-that-sympathetic citizen compounded by detectives/officers who get pissed when prisoners refuse to talk. I can empathize with both parties (first and second, not third -- right to remain silent means right to remain silent,) but -- assuming the accuracy of Watts' story -- the assault charge is probably trumped up. Convincing a judge of that is a whole different story.
It probably shouldn't be too hard to convince a judge of this since, as far as I know, all border patrol stations are video taped. I would assume they'd also have audio in there... First thing I'd be doing, if I were truly innocent, is requesting the video for the time in question.
I've known a few. I don't see them as particularly inclined to initiate an assault on multiple police officers unarmared either, actually.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Why is that relevant? Statistically speaking our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are "rarely" killed in the line of duty. So I guess they don't have any reason to fear death when they go out on patrol?
This is apples and oranges. They are in locations where they are shot at every day. They aren't surviving for lack of attempts on their life. In the case of the border guard, how many times do you think he's been shot at? Yeah, I don't know either, but I'll bet it's extremely low. I'll be even further that the times he's been shot at by someone simply asking him a question is even lower, and even lower still, from people who he's beating and then throwing into a cell.
A police officer has to worry about taking a bullet every single time he has an interaction with someone.
Bull. Shit. He has as much to worry about taking a bullet "every single time he has an interaction with someone" as I do. There are *some* interactions that are riskier than others, but it's absurd to state he has to fear every encounter.
Have you ever known that kind of fear?
Yes. And no, I won't elaborate, except that it's none of your business.
Suck it up and do what they tell you. If the abuse was particularly egregious then do the American thing and sue the hell out of them at a later date.
Fuck that. It shouldn't get to that point in the first place. While there are definitely some insane people who provoke cops for no apparent reason, this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about someone who asked a boarder guard what's going on, then got a beating for it. Even if he was confrontational, the cop's response *was* atrocious.
We've got to quit treating the police like gods. They're men. Bad things happen when you treat classes of men as gods.
Strange... this would almost lead someone to conclude that these border patrol agents are some sort of collection of individuals whose behavior might vary.
Nah, that is just silly.
Are you so sure that they have video cameras covering the exit area? One weird thing about this is that the incident happened as he was leaving the US, where you normally don't stop at all.
Yes, because you're entering Canada, and they've got all sorts of cameras too. I seriously doubt there is a single square inch of a border crossing that isn't under 24x7, recorded surveillance.
Actually, that's an excellent point, one I didn't think of. At least the last time I hit one of the VT crossings, the into-Canada side, you only talk to a Canadian border agent. You talk only to a US agent on the way in.
I'm now really, really curious as to why he ended up talking to any US customs agents on his way out of the country. If you're leaving, the US doesn't give a rat's ass what you've got in your car or anything- you're literally someone else's problem. I know a number of people with restricted academic visas who didn't have problems leaving the US- they had problems getting back in, because their visa said they were not supposed to leave the US, and the US customs agent wanted to know why they were coming back in...
Please help metamoderate.
apparently you haven't seen the video of a bart police officer shooting in the back a man who was being held face down on the ground by other officers
In 1999 1.5 million vehicles crossed the Blue Water Bridge at Port Huron Michigan. Blue Water Bridge Canada
The US has a population of 300 million people and employs about 700,000 police officers. Q: How many police officers are employed in the United States
It is easy to find an incident but it is much harder to prove a pattern.
I'm not saying that tapping an officer on the shoulder is assault, but it probably isn't a good ideal to initiate physical contact by surprising them with a tap on the shoulder from behind when they might have a (quite reasonable) expectation of being attacked.
So you're saying treat them like vicious feral dogs.
I am not a crackpot.
Everybody in the services industry has a difficult job, and we all have bad days or come across obnoxious people we have to deal with. However I don't expect a waitress to spit in somebody's food, for a computer technician to hide kiddie porn on a drive whilst 'fixing' it, or a policeman to abuse and torture civilians by tasers or in this case pepper spray and fists.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
First up, I've witnessed and had described by retired police officers occasions when an officer elected to go medieval on a citizen who was being only mildly disagreeable, or didn't immediately understand what the officer wanted, so I can well imagine Mr. Watts was unreasonably roughed up, and hit with trumped up charges.
That said, based on the information in TFA's links, as a practical, like-to-avoid-getting-my-ass-handed-to-me matter, I might question Mr. Watts' evident lack of "street smarts". I'm just a mid-aged, college-educated white boy who for the most part stayed out of trouble. But, even I have heard and read enough to know that:
Unfortunately, Mr. Watts may not have had any previous experiences that would prep him for the possibility that getting out of the queue at a border crossing wasn't the best plan. I hope his only lasting consequences are a bruised body and ego.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Every fox I have asked has said that you are required to give him the key to your henhouse, too.
Just because a cop says so doesn't make it correct.
The militarization of the police; where every traffic stop is treated as a 'Life or Death' situation, is as much a result of the behavior of the police as it is of the risk.
I understand and agree with your sentiment here but I don't think you can blame the police for this turn of events. We are the ones who tolerated and even encouraged the War on Drugs. We are the ones who tolerated and even encouraged the War on Vice. In so doing we transformed the police from being people that we turned to for protection to being people that we are all afraid of, on one level or another.
We the people created the militarization of the police. In 50 years we went from a police force armed with revolvers and shotguns to SWAT teams packing fully automatic M-16s and armored vehicles. We went from the beat cop who knew everybody on his patrol to nameless faces behind riot shields that kick in your door and shoot your dogs, all in the name of the fucking War on Drugs.
Ever watch the TV series "The Wire"? There's a great scene in it after a police officer gets shot during a drug bust gone wrong. His CO laments the fact that he didn't sign up to do this kind of work and would rather be doing things that are "worth taking a bullet for". I've known my share of police officers and I suspect that most of them share this thought process. For better or worse though they are trapped in the system that we created for them.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Or more accurately, assaulting an officer means trying to defend yourself from aggressive police.
I can't speak about this particular case, but there is always in regards to hierarchical organizations, especially military and law-enforcement, people draw into its ranks seeking authority and respect. To such a mentality any slight against their authority is in itself a crime worthy of physical punishment. And anyone from within their own ranks that dare speak up are themselves criminals and traitors; often such whistle-blowers are effectively committing career-suicide.
Unfortunately proving that law enforcers used excessive force is almost practically impossible, unless the incident were clearly recorded, or the victim is an obvious cripple of such a nature and appearance that it instils immediate feelings of sympathy in most people (read: media). For the rest of the citizenry the best they can hope for is to have the charges dropped. Peter Watts will, in my opinion, probably find himself banned from visiting the US for quite some time to come; regardless of how badly he might have been mistreated.
The Long Now Foundation
Also you push other countries around to remove the same rights from their citizens. See drug laws and the most recent thing being IP laws with ACTA being pushed by Americans to take away my right to play the DVD I purchased on my computer and my right to make personal copies of stuff and lend stuff to you to make personal copies.
I'm as much against the stupid War on Some Drugs, ACTA, ridiculous IP laws, etc. as the next Slashdotter, but as an American, I think you citizens of other countries need to take responsibility for your own governments' actions and stop blaming ours. Just because our crappy government is asking yours to pass these stupid laws doesn't mean you have to; you are all sovereign nations, and you can pass or not pass any laws you choose. Just as our crappy government is our fault and our responsibility (we're the citizens and the voters), your crappy governments are your own fault and responsibility. If you don't like your government passing these crappy America-backed laws, then fix your government! Elect new officials!
There are some countries out there with enough balls to tell our government to shove it when they try to convince them to pass certain laws, such as Netherlands where pot is mostly legal, or China where they carry out all kinds of human rights abuses that our government complains about (though that certainly seems like the pot calling the kettle black). Maybe the rest of you guys can learn from these countries.
Honestly, if I make a choice and do something stupid, it's my own fault. If Bob tells me I should do something stupid, and I do it, whose fault is that? It's not Bob's fault primarily, it's mine for being stupid enough to listen to him. People (and governments by extension) are responsible for their own actions. You can't go around blaming others for your own choices, even if they advised you.
Like all successful police states these people aren't busted for expressing anti-Government views. Instead laws are passed taking away fundamental rights (remember your bill of rights is not an exhaustive list and IIRC amendment #9 basically states this) then the undesirables are targeted.
The favourite rights to be removed are things like the right to grow plants and have the products in your possession.
Okaaay. I so I guess you're pretty militantly pro-legalization on marijuana, but aren't you spinning things a little bit too much by calling drug possession your "right to grow plants and have the products in your possession?"
I mean, context matters. You might as well describe speeding laws as interfering with your "right to drive," noise ordinances as abridging the "right to enjoy music," and laws against shooting people as abridging your "right to play catch."
Plus, if you want to characterize prisoners in jail for drug violations as "political prisoners," then you're going to have to call anyone who is in prison for a crime they don't believe is wrong a "political prisoner." That just renders the term meaningless.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
While I appreciate your effort to make good discussion please spare us the babble and provide some facts please.
What exactly would you consider being in jail for "political reasons"? By the sounds of it you're considering laws (read legal reasons) that you disagree with invalid and therefore political.
Laws passed that "take away rights" are taken at the request of the public, where a majority exists that agrees. This is usually due to one's "right" infringing on another's. For example. I have the right to free speech, but my neighbor also has the right to live without me blaring derogatory remarks through his window all day. So it's illegal. What you mean by "fundamental" is unclear to me.
Your statement about the "police state" that I live in leads me to believe you see anarchy as a better solution. The USA is no more so than any other government and if you are opposed to all those then I challenge you to show me a functioning, no, successful Anarchy that has been able to accomplish the things that our current world economy has in the fields of collaborative research and scientific advancement. If the governments of our world were not paying the way for research who would? Don't you dare say the people because they barely pay taxes for it when required by them. There is a reason our world has evolved to be the way it is.
Seeing drug laws. Seeing IP laws. Not all pushed by "Americans". Nothing about IP is fundamentally American even. It's a capitalist necessity. The USA was not the first capitalist nation. Although I do not agree with the ACTA or most IP law, I think without a decent source your argument is not valid.
Charges of selling seeds where legit... And in YOUR country too. In fact the raid, according to the article, was only at the REQUEST of the US DEA. It's definitely illegal in the USA and our officials have every right to go after him considering he's probably responsible for many seeds in America. If your government didn't agree they should have left him alone. Congrats. You're a small minority of people who don't have the pull to get things done. Personally, I wish this whole war on MJ would end. I see it more as a waste of tax money, but what do I know.
And why would you need to tase someone who is face down on the ground and under control ? Tasing is the new way to beat-up without leaving massive bruises. Really it does relieve the itch of trigger happy cops. When taser showed up they where supposed to be the last line of defense so you would not kill a suspect where you would have shot him before.
I'm very sad to see that you're excusing murder because tasing someone on the ground is considered 'normal' and 'OK'.
The BART shooting incident appears to have been incompetence in that the officer thought he pulled his taser. You'd have to be pretty brazen to shoot on purpose while surrounded by the public. The cop that threw the guy at the wall probably didn't realize that the glass would break. The guy was resisting and trying to attack the cop.
I find it hard to believe that anyone's going to mistake their gun for their taser. In any case the subject had already been subdued. This excuse comes off sounding as plausible as the dog ate my homework.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Right. When that fist or nightstick is headed towards your face, don't throw up your arm to protect yourself, just take the hit. We have advanced dental science in America; once you get out of prison your teeth can be made almost as good as new. In fact, it's recommended that with every kick or punch, you say "Thank you sir may I have another".
Asshole.
Allowing cops to beat on people with no punishment for them and punishment for their victims even if the cops were in the wrong -- that's what's really anathema to the rule of law. That's rule of men, men with badges.
I realize that what I'm about to say might not appeal to you. Please try to keep an open mind.
I've been reading Slashdot since about 1999. I've seen a lot of "outrage stories". Stories intended to get your blood pressure shooting through the roof. And they used to work on me.
Remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait? The story was circulated that Iraqi soldiers were taking premature babies out of incubators and throwing them on the ground. Turned out to be a total fabrication, created by Kuwait to get the US into the war. It worked.
Every controversy has two sides. No sane court will convict without hearing both sides. "There are two sides to every beef."
The "outrage story" is always based on giving you only one side. And it works - until you're old enough to recognize it.
Realize that every person who had an unpleasant contact with these border guards could tell a similar story. Only one in a 100 will recognize his own mistake. The majority will claim that he was nice, and the other guy created the problem.
America is immensely less free, with much less privacy, than when I was 20, less than 30 years ago. It's amazing how much freedom we've lost and people don't even seem to notice because they are told we are so much better than other places.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I don't agree.
If he had respectfully refused and said, "I haven't done anything to earn this yet" then he would have been the man I hoped I voted for.
Given McCain/Palin, I really didn't have a choice, but Obama is turnout to be much more of a tool of corporate interests and a lot less effective than Bush at getting *ANYTHING* done. I mean come on, we are closing on a year now. I could cut him some slack for the first 6 months because that was really Bush's policies playing out.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
In principle you are perfectly right. The problem comes when the nation doing the pushing is 10 times larger (population) spends most of their money on weapons and you are economically dependent on them.
America has a long history of beating the shit out of countries that have something they want and don't give it. Just today I was reading in the paper Obama saying that he won't hesitate to enter a just war. And America is very good at twisting something into a just war, 2 of them happening right now. Iraq was disobedient and got invaded and Afghanistan wanted proof that Bin-Laden was behind the 9/11 actions and got invaded.
There is a reason that you guys have 10 or more carrier fleets spread around the world and it's not for self-defence.
Also it is kind of disheartening when our political activists end up in American jails where it is very hard to run for government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Then ask why the USA spends more on 'defense' than the next 5 countries on the list combined.
The USA projects its power well. That tends to have an effect on decisions made elsewhere.
Allowing cops to beat on people with no punishment for them and punishment for their victims even if the cops were in the wrong -- that's what's really anathema to the rule of law. That's rule of men, men with badges.
And telling the cops not to enforce the law against a recalcitrant suspect when the cops are in the right is likewise anathema to the rule of law. It's just as foolish to say the cops are always in the wrong as to claim that they are always in the right and it's double-foolish to think that a resisting suspect is any more likely to be innocent than one than a compliant one. Somehow I imagine it works exactly the other way -- a person that is so full of themselves that they engage in acts that violate the rights of others is probably the same one that doesn't believe they have to submit to lawful authority.
Moreover, I have never said that cops should escape punishment for their actions, only that the proper venue for resolving the dispute about whether the cops were in the right or the wrong is most certainly not on the street. Wrongful arrest, excessive force and deprivation of rights (S1983) are all actions you can take in a court to vindicate any (putative) wrong. Many such cases are filed every year, a decent fraction succeed -- you are a long way for claiming that there is no punishment for unlawful actions by policing just because you don't approve of the particular method, penalties or venue.
In my experience, idiots who resist arrest always seem shocked when they're met with force. I think it's a strange form of narcissism - this irrational belief that only your desires matter, and that you can do whatever you want without fear of repercussions.
No one is telling them not to enforce the law. Just not to beat the suspect.
Dream on. Unless someone unrelated to the cops got it on videotape or you're some sort of VIP, you'll never get YOUR day in court. Oh, you'll be in court all right, for all the charges they pile on you. You might get out of them. But "take it to court" translates to "STFU" when it comes to cops.
So the proper measure of whether a citizen is in compliance with the law is whether he wins a contest of force with the police?
No, that's for a jury to decide after the fact. The ability of the people to resist the government by force if necessary, is a crucial limit on the power of the state. The state has a different set of options available to it when the people are armed, than it does if the people are unarmed. I suggest that you go and read The Gulag Archipelago, and pay particular attention to the chapter entitled "the arrest".
Solzhenitsyn makes the point that the thugs who took people to the gulag had no fear at all that they might meet any forcible resistance. Neither, for that matter, did the thugs who rounded up the Japanese-Americans in California to take them to FDR's concentration camps. Compare this to the attempts by federal troops to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. In Vermont, for example, they were met at the state line by militia who told them to fuck off home, because the Fugitive Slave Act was null and void in their state.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
That's a pretty dumb comparison. Get back to me when Americans are being hauled away for expressing anti-Government views. Get back to me when Joe Biden assassinates Barack Obama so he can seize power.
You mean get back to you when it's too late? Like the Germans in the winter of 1945?
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
Thank you. I live outside the US and will vilify the US government (and people) with the best of them, but that often makes people think they can then start on the "they're taking over the world and making everybody follow their laws and enslaving people in Kafoonistan blah blah blah" and have me play along. No. The US is taking over exactly nobody, not even Iraq and Afghanistan, which they have actually been trying to take over for the last few years. The US government or US-based companies make cases to their counterparts in other countries, and those parties agree to them. If the people in the other countries don't like it, they need to raise a stink about it to their local governments. It is not the US government's responsibility to ensure that everything is rainbows and unicorns around the world; it is the US government's responsibility to do their best to get those rainbows and unicorns in the US.
People always act like US diplomats come in and hold the heads of the heads of other states' heads down to the bargaining table with a Glock as they put a pen in their hands. It's preposterous.
Complain about wars all you want. The local people didn't ask for them. But when you start saying something like "The US is forcing us all to..." just stop and ask yourself if you know what the word "force" means.
The US drives me nuts. But I also would like people to be a little more fair about things. If the whole world just decided to ignore the US with their ridiculous ideas, those ideas would change almost over night.
I often wonder if foresight wouldn't have lead to constitutional amendments preventing the restrictions since imposed, as I'm quite sure the right to bear arms explicitly disavows any future police state.
Its too bad really, when I look at America now and count off all the things they used to mock the Soviet Union for, all the freedoms those poor "commies" didn't have that Americans no longer have either. I specifically recall many political discourses and writers commenting on how evil it was for their governments to encourage snitching on your neighbours and how the KGB would make you disappear without access to representation.
Welcome to the era of the FBI snitch 800 numbers, and the ability to throw people in jail without access to a lawyer for security reasons, without an open hearing, with no public record. Sounds like something America fought against to me.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Afghanistan wanted proof that Bin-Laden was behind the 9/11 actions and got invaded.
Give me a damn break. That Government knew damn well what he was up to. Al Quada was practically a law enforcement auxiliary for the Taliban. We could have handed them a videotaped confession and it would not have made an iota of difference in their attitude.
There is a reason that you guys have 10 or more carrier fleets spread around the world and it's not for self-defence.
No, it's to protect all of our Allies whom have the luxury of investing in massive social safety nets because they don't have to pay the true cost of their own national defense.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The problem is not as clear cut as you think. I know it's a popular and misguided philosophy in the US to think that you can live and not affect the environment around you but this is not the case.
Now, the US simply doesn't ask for these laws to be put in place, they shoe horn, back door and in some cases force it. Most of the bad US laws entered onto Australian books came attached to trade deals (pretty one sided trade deals at that), the unenforceable DMCA came in on the free trade deal made by Howard in the early 2000's. In the case of many Asian 3rd world nations the introduction of these laws came attached to aid packages which is why the drug laws in Thailand became so draconian. In many cases the US has threatened sanctions and even military action for not adopting laws stipulated by the US, a lot of this happened in South America which is why much of Latin America is Europe friendly but not US friendly.
Honestly, let me fix this for you. If bob sells widgets and you need a widget for your douvalacky but Bob wont sell you a widget until you do something stupid and you do, who's fault is that? It is Bob's fault primarily, it's called coercion and in many cases does absolve the person who commits the stupid act as it was not their intent and the coercive party was the one with the motivation.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I am a US American, but I live in Japan with my wife, who is Japanese. We have severely reduced the number of trips back to see the US family due in no small part to our unpleasant experiences with immigration and the TSA.
One time the immigration goon almost wasn't going to let my wife in because she only had $5 (oh, and a joint US savings account with almost $100k in it, and a checking account in her name only with a few thousand more--ATM cards in her wallet), and they didn't believe that she was married to an American. She started jumping up and down and waving to me, where I was waiting, which was a long way away, since the armed thug in the hall told me I couldn't wait for my wife by the booths, and that we should just meet up in baggage (good thing I kept just standing out of his sight, but where I could still see my wife, who was taking forever). I then started walking to her booth, panicking that they might detain her and we didn't have phones or anything, and were not even in the right state yet (connecting flight), so I would have nowhere to go and no one to help me. Of course, the goon put his blue-rubber-gloved hand in my chest and started regurgitating his training, but evidently this was enough for the moron dealing with my wife to believe that the panicked guy getting in an altercation for this woman actually was her husband.
Then there is the string of presents for Japanese relatives that have been destroyed by the TSA in their vigilant "dump the suitcase on the floor, rummage around in the contents, open any toiletry bottles, and then scoop the pile up and throw it back into the suitcase" searches. They scratched an otherwise spotless guitar that I was transporting for sale, and broke a brand new one that I had put in an expensive flight case because I thought I'd learned my lesson the first time. How they managed that, I don't even know. They've done hundreds of dollars of damage to our stuff over the last few years, so now when we go, we just mail everything home. Our highly-suspect garlic salt seems to slip through the postal service unabated.
And then there's this "even if you are from a visa-waiver country, you need to tell us 3 weeks in advance that you are coming so we can get the detention cage ready for you" bullshit. Gee, guys, going online and giving you all the details of my wife's stay in the US, almost a month before... That really kinda sounds like what most people in the world would call a "visa." In fact, the only country I've had to do that for, aside from the US (for my wife), is China. And then you only have to do it a few days before!
It breaks my heart to see what utter pussies my countrymen are. Nineteen assholes knock down a couple buildings, and we blame our freedoms and beg for them to be taken away. And what absolutely slays me is that the Tea Party morons--the very people who would support these actual intrusions on our freedoms--scream about their freedoms when the government is trying to bring their health bills down to something that doesn't send them into bankruptcy.
The US is a wasteland. Avoid.
No one is telling them not to enforce the law. Just not to beat the suspect.
And if the suspect will not comply with the law without a beating, what then? The police have a choice -- they can enforce the law using physical coercion (colloquially, "beating") or they can let the law go unenforced. I suppose they could sit there and try to reason with the suspect until he gives up, although that might take a while (or the suspect might just walk away).
You have given the police two directives that, in rare cases (remember the selection bias here, no one reports on the vast majority of seizures that do not require physical force), cannot be simultaneously satisfied.
Dream on. Unless someone unrelated to the cops got it on videotape or you're some sort of VIP, you'll never get YOUR day in court. Oh, you'll be in court all right, for all the charges they pile on you. You might get out of them. But "take it to court" translates to "STFU" when it comes to cops.
A quick search on LexisNexis cases file reveals more than 15,000 suits under 18USC1983 in which the disposition was in favor of the plaintiff. Who is dreaming, again? Citizens take the police to court and win (well, most of the time the government settles if you have a strong case) all the time.
Once a significant portion of the population ceases to believe the police are in fact on their side, to protect and to serve, the rule of law is lost. ...as we saw in the LA riots.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
they are told we are so much better than other places
Interesting observation. There's a saying that great people compare themselves to their goals, mediocre people compare themselves to other people. I've noticed over the last couple of decades a growing trend of Americans comparing their country with others, rather than with the ideals of the founders. Possibly 'America: Land of the free, home of the brave' should become 'America: Better than Somalia!'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
so THAT is what motivates police officers, now I get it.
In Canada we had a case which was captured on video of RCMP officers tazering a man to death. While legally it had been recommended to prosecute these officers, this is not going to happen without the cooperation of the RCMP. This is seriously fucked up.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Maybe people should just stop coming to the US. I've advised it before, and I will say it again; do not come here on vacation. You're just supporting fascism. Don't do business with US companies, either. If a nation acts reprehensibly, don't support it! I had a trip to Thailand planned, then they went back to fascism and started jailing people for talking shit about the King. That is some freshman-level shit, grow up and join the big parade.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I like the comment about how it's ok to take away rights at the request of the public.
Take a democratic society where everyone is supposed to have one vote representation. If there are enough people who are convinced that they should have something, then you can legally vote in a process to take away from one segment of society and hand it over to another, larger group. The easiest and most prominent example of this is the taxation of everyone who actually has money to give it to people who do not work or make as much money. Used to be banks would fail, not live on life support from our income.
You might say that there is some argument that these people who have money are stealing it from the poor and down trodden. You might find a few who are not ethical about it. But most are just smarter and more productive. Doesn't the guy who invented mutella deserve something? Did Google actually create something of value? Do you have a right to take it away? Based on what? You have done nothing to earn it.
The same thinking allows a room of 10 men and 2 women to democratically vote to gang rape the women. The only thing holding them back is moral fiber. But that can always change. It used to be that we were expected to be responsible for our own lives and not expect handouts or a Right to everything.
Ancient Greece had Democracy. They collapsed because the had mob-rule through democratic voting and the entire upper half of the society was destroyed. And at every election, the upper half was a lower standard than the last cycle. Divide by two and repeat until you hit a point where you can no longer sustain the civilization.
No, it's to protect all of our Allies whom have the luxury of investing in massive social safety nets because they don't have to pay the true cost of their own national defense.
I'm of the opinion that we wouldn't need to defend ourselves against most of the people we currently defend ourselves against if we weren't allied with the US (and therefore catching shit every time the US pisses someone off). Of course, if we weren't allied with the US we may be needing to defend ourselves against the US...
http://blog.nexusuk.org
There is a reason that you guys have 10 or more carrier fleets spread around the world and it's not for self-defence.
No, it's to protect all of our Allies whom have the luxury of investing in massive social safety nets because they don't have to pay the true cost of their own national defense.
Whoa, wait a minute. You think that the reason your allies can run more inclusive welfare programs and universal healthcare is because the US is taking it on the chin for the rest of the world with defence spending?
Perhaps that might be so if the US didn't spend nearly twice as much (percentage wise) on the crippled, hopeless and grossly unfair healthcare system it has currently compared to a country like the UK. We spend about 9% of our GDP on our healthcare system, you spend 16% of yours - your ineffective social systems are not in any way connected to your defence spending.
Yes, it is extremely useful to have the projected force of a US carrier group if you are involved in a war where it is required, but to state that those same carrier groups also provide sovereign defence for their allies... well. Not since WW2. The Royal Navy could defend the UK from a foreign power (with the exception of the US if it became hostile) and we still manage to run a welfare state. We are missing a force projection carrier like the Nimitz class, but that is being addressed. In terms of defence of the nation though, we do not need to rely on the US.
Maybe people should just stop coming to the US. I've advised it before, and I will say it again; do not come here on vacation.
Don't worry, I'm not planning to - the US is firmly on my "avoid list". However, getting to other places may involve connecting flights in the US, and that is a problem since the US has previously shown a complete disregard for international treaties that treat the airport as international territory. (There have been a number of incidents whereby people catching connections in the US, and therefore not going through customs, have been apprehended and generally treated like shit - they don't consider you to be on US soil so the US legal protections don't apply to you, but similarly they don't consider it to be international soil so they are quite happy to enforce US laws. In some of these incidents, the arrestee was innocent (or at least, never charged with anything), was held for several days without being allowed to contact their embassy or get any form of legal representation before being deported back to their home country).
Don't do business with US companies, either.
That's *really* hard. You're going to struggle to do stuff like buying a computer that hasn't got any parts supplied by any US companies...
http://blog.nexusuk.org
The Royal Navy could defend the UK from a foreign power (with the exception of the US if it became hostile) and we still manage to run a welfare state.
It couldn't have defended you against the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War. You chaps watered down the Royal Navy to the point that your ability to reclaim islands from a Third World nation was in serious doubt. One or two more Exocet hits or a little less stupidity on the part of the Argentinians and 1982 would have ended very differently. As it was you couldn't even mount the operation without logistical support from the United States.
Don't get me wrong, the Royal Navy is a fine force and is even a step or two ahead of the US Navy in certain areas, but you are kidding yourself if you think it alone could have defended the UK after WW2 without outside support or the use of the nuclear option.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Look up "hegemony", it describes exactly what's happening.
The purpose of resisting police violence is not to prevent dealing with the state, but rather to change the circumstances of that interaction, to not let yourself be beaten.
If you have to defend yourself against an abusive cop and then run away, you contact your lawyer. If you are arrested (quite likely), you surrender to the cops in the presence of your lawyer, with the local media, the ACLU, the force's internal affairs department, etc., all alerted to keep an eye on the situation.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The thing is, that of course in reality, cops, military, and other murderers only think they are in the highest ranks, while in reality being just above gulag torturers. In Germany we call that “Kleiner Mann ganz groß” (Little man (is) really big.).
Authority only exists, because people believe in it. If they stop, it’s gone.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Quite a bit, but I don't have the time or inclination to explain international politics to you in it's entirety. You'll have to make do with the abridged version.
But Bob is the only supplier, sure others have attempted to make a widget but Bob attacks anyone who attempts to compete, Bob essentially has a monopoly, he also has many agents who are quite willing to do his dirty work for him.
Do you mean like North Korea, Myanmar, Venezuela. These nations by your definition have balls, they've stood up to the US and have said no and we see the kind of treatment they get.
Like I said, the situation is not so clear cut as you imagine. International politics is not black and white. You imagine a binary position, either a nation accepts it 100% or not at all. This is not the case, international treaty/deal negotiation is a game of give and take which means it is rarely as black and white as you would imagine.
Can you?
Really, can you?
Do you honestly believe that the US wouldn't threaten to cancel all it's trade deal, turn your other more "loyal" trading partners against you. The US has been doing this for the last 50 years in Asia and South America. Those who defied the US quickly found themselves with few friends.
Ahhh, so naive. So by this logic you are in 100% accordance with all current and future IP and DMCA type laws, after all if you are following, if you are not violently resisting then it is all by choice.
OH SNAP, but it was your choice yes?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Wrong again. If other countries don't like this, you're perfectly free to trample over trade tariffs in return. If the international court is unable to enforce its views, then just ignore the court and go back to tariffs. What's wrong with tariffs anyway? It's not like you absolutely need to buy anything from the USA (we don't make much these days, remember?). And you don't absolutely need to sell anything here either; you've got hundreds of other countries to sell to, and our money is just worthless paper anyway, being printed as fast as they can print it.
If you other countries are getting suckered into unfair trade arrangements by the USA, that's your own dumb fault. In any negotiation between parties, it's the responsibility of each party to reach an agreement that is most favorable to itself, not to all parties. If one party caves in and stupidly agrees to something that is unfair to it, then that's its own stupid fault for agreeing to it. It's just like haggling at a market; you don't try to get the vendor to accept a higher price because you think he's a great guy, you try to get him to accept an absurdly low price because that's most favorable to you. If he's stupid enough to take your low-ball offer, that's his problem.
Yes but this is just one of too many stories about over-reactions (to put it kindly) and outright dishonest behaviour by the boarder guards of various types, including the TSA.
Why risk it when there's the rest of the world to visit?
I've been to Japan, twice, since deciding not to go to the US anymore. They have pretty much the same checks as the US (fingerprints, photo on entry, declaration that you're not evil, IR checks to see if you have a fever) but not once did I feel threatened. The finger-print machine is more like playing a Nintendo DS or some Hello Kitty game! And none of the staff acted in a threatening or even over-bearing manner. They were cool and professional.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Yup, I agree with you. My country has internal corruption struggles, terrible drug violence and other insecurity problems.
In addition my country is one of the most important traders with the USA, exports a lot of workforce to the USA and maintains a very interlinked economy with them...
Given all that, my country still does not need to fear about being attacked by Al-qaida or other similar type of Middle-east terrorism. Why? because Mexico has been neutral during most of the struggles (except when Germans attacked a Mexican ship).
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
fascist propaganda is full of stories that are outright fabrications or contain only a tiny grain of truth, but are designed to amp up the emotional reaction of the reader to the max
and lo and behold: look at the reactions under this story. for all those reacting in high holy indignation: you're all fodder for fascism, as your mind is primed to overreact in kneejerk emotional ways and jump to absurd conclusions based on the sketchy details of a border dispute
none of you overreacting in this thread represent a protection from fascism. in your overreactions is a good representation of the soil in which fascism grows: jumping to angry and emotional based on flimsy sketchy evidence
fucking pathetic
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
yeah, getting up out of your seat, and walking over to talking distance with someone so that you can speak to them is in Politeness & Courtesy 101.
FGD 135
I have friends that are cops. and some of them have mentioned that more cops need to be shot and killed for their behavior before it will get better.
The cops firmly believe they are better than you and they have special rights over you. They are even told this. They protect their own to make sure that they dont get persecuted for violating rights. Hell they can kill someone and they get a free vacation with pay.
If a cop off duty is speeding ,they should lose their job and the ability to be a cop for the rest of their life. Cops should be held to a higher standard with ZERO tolerance to breaking any law.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I found a news article explaining that Mr. Watts was selected randomly for a "secondary Customs inspection" and that he was belligerent about it. I don't know what actually happened, but there's always another side to the story and, in typical Slashdot fashion, it doesn't appear anyone's considered what the other side to this one is.
What if I knew the other side, believe them, and still think them wrong? People subjected to random checks without explanation of reason get belligerent. It's a fact of human nature. People say things like "why" and "how long" and then they get assaulted for trying to figure out what's going on. I don't doubt a single claim of the authorities. I think the video will eventually be released. I think I will be appalled. I think the "authorities" will state that it was proper procedure and that Mr. Watts should have happily given over his papers to the Gestapo and awaited their determination of what to do with him, after all, it's not like people are thrown into camps where the US claims the occupants have no rights. I think that the charges will quietly be dropped, and that the officers who assaulted Mr. Watts will be told that they are expected to gas anyone that questions authority, as they did in this case.
You miss the point. It isn't that we believe his story 100% and think there is no other explanation. It's that we believe the story by the US government, and that we think, even in that case, they are still wrong.
It's quite likely that the US border agents went too far, but it's less likely that they beat up a Canadian celebrity just for sport.
It wasn't that he was a celebrity. It wasn't for sport. They beat him up because he questioned them. And, like good officers, explain *everything* to be threatening (back away? threatening. approach? threatening. stand your ground defiantly? threatening. look them in the eye? threatening. look around like you are looking for an escape or weapon? threatening). There is no action that has ever made it in a report of this kind that wasn't threatening. Yes, this out of shape old man was going to single-handedly take on 100 armed border guards, until they recognized the threat and neutralized it with minimal force. What's sad, is that is the official report. They tell you to do something once, and if you don't immediately comply, they assault you. There is no ability to assess the situation, figure out what's going on. You must obey authority, or you will end up in jail. Even if you didn't actually *do* anything. The authorities think that's great. After all, if you talk to anyone that's been a cop for 10+ years, they "know" that everyone's a criminal, they just haven't been caught. But as a citizen, I don't think I like that. I want my elected officials to change that policy. Unfortunately, there is no party running on a platform of increasing personal liberty (well, the Libertarians, but they want to increase corporate liberty first and foremost to a detriment of my personal liberty, and if they ever get around to my personal liberty, I'll be dead from a product malfunction and there'll be nothing I can do about it dead).
Learn to love Alaska