Slashdot Mirror
Tor Developer Detained At US Border, Pressed On Wikileaks
suraj.sun writes with this news from CNET: "A security researcher involved with the Wikileaks Web site — Jacob Appelbaum, a Seattle-based programmer for the online privacy protection project called Tor — was detained by US agents at the border for three hours and questioned about the controversial whistleblower project as he entered the country on Thursday to attend a hacker conference. He was also approached by two FBI agents at the Defcon conference after his presentation on Saturday afternoon about the Tor Project. Appelbaum, a US citizen, arrived at the Newark, New Jersey, airport from Holland Thursday morning, was taken into a room, frisked and his bag was searched. Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained. They asked questions about Wikileaks, asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is, but he declined to comment without a lawyer present, according to the sources. He was not permitted to make a phone call, they said." Appelbaum told me that he just spoke at length with The New York Times, and quipped that his Defcon talk about Tor was "just fine, until the FBI showed up"; this post will likely be updated with more details.
Update: 08/02 03:59 GMT by T : Here's the NYT's coverage.
figures...
That's more worrying than the detention etc. But then ground-level grunts never did know the law well.
Snap!
Welcome to the United Federal Fascist State of America. Please enjoy your stay...
This kinda stuff is totally unacceptable. What law did he break? What was he accused of? Why was he detained? What right do they have to ask such questions? On what planet is a 3 hour detention reasonable?
The DHS is offering people large amounts of money to 'infiltrate' Wikileaks. Now''s your chance to cash in.
Good man. He refused to talk to the authorities without a lawyer.
I will never talk to the police without immunity.
Well it seems clear that there was nothing "random" about his detention. And it's bad enough that customs can seize anything going through the borders without warrant or cause. But it's even worse when border crossings get used as an excuse for warrantless interrogations.
Not everyone gets detained and asked about Wikileaks.
I've been randomly searched, but I've never been pulled aside and asked about something I've actually been working on. This guy has been flagged in the system.
Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.
Some of the most horrific words the war on terror has produced.
*shudders*
I actually prefer USSA (United Soviet States of America)
Is it good that we even have "a system"?
Why is this post marked as "troll"? Most of what the post says is true. Is it because the opinion expressed differs from yours? Weak!
Curious. Is it just me, or is the whole "you're not arrested, you're detained" just yet another attempt to avoid getting around the limits that the law, constitution etc. set by making up a new word?
Kinda like "enemy combatant" (no Geneva convention for you, Afghanis!), perhaps.
Put another way: if he was not under arrest, was he free to go? If he was not free to go, how was he not under arrest?
He is an American citizen, so there isn't an Immigration issue here. So the only thing left for "detaining" is Customs while they go through his stuff. Well, they can do that.
The article actually does say the "detaining" was him waiting for customs to search his bags, laptop, and cell phones (one of which they "seized").
What does not seem normal is the Army being there. He is not a combatent. He is a US Citizen. I do not see how the Army can tell him he is "detained."
That's just your point of view, and the point of view of the invaders to that nation. To a lot of people there, those are traitors, quislings...and that is even if these wikileak documents aren't disinformation, another of their bogus false flag ops.
And in my opinion, anyone who believes the government whackjob nutcase conspiracy theory about 9-11 is a drool. Why anyone would believe a source like the US government, which routinely lies about most everything, especially very important things, is beyond me.
Today they would just waterboard you and save the price of the wrench. (Re: the Xkcd cartoon in parent.)
I didn't know us hippies had a god.
Apparently they had to check inside his body cavity to make sure nobody else was hiding in there.
A security researcher involved with a website that leaks confidential documents on his way to a hacking conference was questioned for 3 hours at a border... So what? Isn't that expected for this type of work? Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of heavy government snooping but he kind of had it coming... If I was him, I would surely expect this to happen once in a while. Nothing to see here, move along...
TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS
as long as the blood in question isn't mine I don't actually have a problem with that
While I largely disagree with the two posts above, they don't fit my definition of trolling.
Starting a moderation fight based on different opinions, does not bring anyone much further with the debate. Nor with anything else.
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
Nah, nothing more yet than few poor guys rattling the cage to scare others.
Allow me to declare my intent to boycott ALL academic conferences held in my field in the United States. I'm sorry but this kind of thing is beyond preposterous.
1) The united states is at war in Afghanistan
2) Wikileaks leaked secret documents about the war in afghanistan in a reckless manner that possibly endangered lives of our allies
and soldiers on the battlefield.
3) A 3 hour border detention is less than someone would be detained for unpaid parking tickets. They did not arrest him. They could have
easily arrested him as a material witness.
4) Given that he was allowed to go on to his conference and he was not questioned further without his lawyer present...I just dont see the story here
other than its geek-celebrity news.
5) He was allowed to leave the country after his conference, not exactly what police states do.
Mr. Applebaum doesn't act like an innocent victim of human rights abuses. He acts like an uncooperative witness who flees at the first sign of oppurtunity.
It sounds like the FBI agents were genuinely trying to hear his side of the story about his rights being trampled
having been at the conference for other reasons.
Disclaimer: This is a mostly off-topic rant in reply to an off-topic troll.
It's just like Bush's America, but with a different figurehead. I'll wager $50 that the next guy, regardless of party affiliation, will be minimally different.
The President doesn't really matter. The orientation of Congress doesn't really matter. What matters is the overall opinion of the American population, and changing that takes a much longer time that 4, 8, or even 20 years. Look at the big picture as it's changed over the last few decades. There are a few things our representatives now realize:
The plain and simple fact is that every time the government does something just to "appease the general public", that means they're doing (mostly) what the general public wants. If they're wrong, and are trying to implement something that's proven impossible (like, for example, mandating DRM), then that means that the American public at large probably don't understand why it's not possible. If you oppose a pending bill and it gets passed, that means you didn't do a good enough job of convincing people of your viewpoint. Activists, as annoying as they are sometimes, play a vital role in making the general public aware of the issues at hand.
On topic, I understand why there are interrogations and detainments. Less than a decade ago, America was dealt a serious blow by an enemy that was living right among us. It wasn't so much the number of people that died that was so concerning. It was the fact that we knew almost nothing definite about the attack prior to them happening. Sure, there were reports of something being expected to happen, but thery were no more definite or detailed than the hundreds of similar reports that passed through the White House in the months before. September 11th of 2001 was the day we realized how little we knew about the rest of the world. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out. There are myriad groups out there keeping an eye on any civil rights violations, and I for one commend their work. There is a balance we must strike between absolute security and absolute liberty, and we will not reach that point within the span of one presidential term. I doubt we'll reach it within ten terms. America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years. We are cocky and immature, and so is our intelligence system. Give it time to grow, but make sure it's kept in check by the public activists and watchdogs. We'll grow up just fine.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Says who?
In a US-based airport, one is firmly within the US border and on US soil.
(The plane is probably at least 100-200 miles inside the border when it lands)
No names were revealed, they were blanked out. Unlike what some "journalist" might have said. Link: http://twitter.com/wikileaks/statuses/20070146579
Once you fall into the wrong hands you are no longer a citizen or an enemy. You are completely outside of any law available to mankind.
Even those arrested in connection with 9/11 got trials! (Admittedly, the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc did not)
What the hell is worse than being an enemy?
What law was broken by Wikileaks or the guy in the $subject ?
Hint: None.
How often do you travel? I've been pulled aside lots of times and really interrogated. Lots of personal questions: what do I do for a living, why am I traveling to or returning from country x, what do my relatives do for a living, where do they live, and much more. The extensive follow up questions would be even more personal and intrusive. On occasion the questions lasted for more than an hour. I also get chosen for a "random" search nearly every time. Maybe I just look suspicious. I am ghostly white and none of my family comes from the middle east or Southwest Asia. So it is not racial profiling. I can only imagine what it must be like for a foreigner. We don't exactly put our best foot forward at our borders. Much of the world already regards us as vicious, brutish thugs. Or at least our government. It always seems to happen on departure. Maybe because they know they have you over a barrel. They can easily interrogate you long enough to make you miss your flight. On one occasion they only released me just in time. I made the flight, but with only minutes to spare. In fact, it was only when I showed them my ticket and told them that I was about to miss my flight that they finally released me.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
(I am a lawyer but I am not an immigration lawyer)
Immigration law "airside" is complex. You are right to say that you are not yet on USA soil. However, that doesn't mean that the agents are entitled to act without limit. Their actions can still be reviewed by a court, and they cannot act beyond the powers given to them. For example, they are undoubtedly empowered to detain a person where necessary to determine their immigration status (for example, they suspect a US passport may be forged). However, the power to detain is also going to have limits. For example, an agent who detained an individual because they were wearing a hat from a rival baseball team may well be exceeding their powers, and that decision could be found illegal on review.
So, as the above poster mentioned, if they had a "hunch" that the person was entering illegally, then they may well be allowed to detain them. But this hunch seems based on the idea that the person might be involved with a criminal activity. Are the Border Patrol entitled to decline entry/detain a US citizen suspected of crime? I don't know. And what empowered US Army representatives to speak to the man? Again, I'm unclear. If Border Patrol were done with him, and they detained him to enable Army reps to speak to him, they would, possibly be using their powers for a purpose not authorised by the empowering instruments.
I would be very interested to hear exactly what grounds the individual was detained under, and whether it was within the scope of the empowering instrument. I suspect that this may have been pushing the boundaries, but without knowing the laws I can't possibly say for sure.
I look forward to being corrected by anyone with more knowledge than me.
To anyone.
Who the REAL terrorists are!
USA!, USA!, USA!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
"A large number of Afghan informants had their names exposed "
Did you even actually read the documents? Names were blacked out.
Jesus christ.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Where I come from to be detained means that you are legally under arrest regardless of whether you have been informed of such or not. This is plain and simple an abuse of power by the US government. Good thing we have groups like wikileaks working towards glasnost.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
It was the fact that we knew almost nothing definite about the attack prior to them happening. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
News flash, that is an impossible mission without grossly destroying the United States and the liberties that have been fought for over the past two centuries. We are not (by inception) a nation of safety but a nation of individual freedoms and collective assistance. Attacks will happen, and the constitution allows for some defense against those attacks, but the rights of the citizenry are paramount to that defense.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out.
I'd have to disagree. We as a nation have let the enemy win as a significant portion of the citizenry and leaders have been terrorized into removing what makes this nation great in the hopes of not being afraid. Let's get this out in the open, if you want a free society then you're going to have to deal with the fear that nothing will be certain. Take something as simple as driving, you are taking a risk that the person on the other side of the road matching your 50 mph isn't going to just drive straight into you. Life is dangerous, deal with it.
America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years.
And England has no better method of detecting impeding attacks. Nor does any other nation.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
"There is a balance we must strike between absolute security and absolute liberty,"
And where in any of the documents establishing this country or the law of this country is the above stated or implied ? The problem is that the people in charge are flagrantly violating our rights, and people like you are using fucktard logic in agreeing with them. The only step that would have been required to prevent 9/11 would have been to leave the middle east to its mess 30 years ago - instead we got involved, and continue to be involved for no good reason. As a country and a people we have no long term interest in the middle east. Our involvement has given them a reason to hate us. We have supported the people who have killed and oppressed them. Then we started wars to clean up our mess, and in the process are continuing to kill innocent civilians and allow the assholes to run things because its easier for us.
How about we get back to basics - we ensure our own absolute liberty, and mind our own fucking business - the security portion will work itself out.
Khyber is a troll... See this post for some of Khyber's previous experiences, greatness and accomplishments.
Is it good that we even have "a system"?
I debated whether to even bother responding to this for a good 10 minutes but, in the end, decided it needs saying.
Yes, it's a good thing that we even have "a system". There are good, legitimate uses for "a system". What is not good in this case, and in the larger picture lately, is the way the system is being used. This may seem like splitting hairs to some but it is an important distinction.
A nation has the right (and indeed, the obligation) to protect itself from undesirables crossing into the country or, similarly, to allow the authorities to execute arrest warrants as needed. Having a record of who's in the country, for how long, etc, is just a good idea in general for any nation. In addition.
The problem is the use of such systems to harass otherwise law-abiding citizens. It's troublesome to me that this is happening regularly. This doesn't mean I decry the need for the system in general, however.
You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
Then Al Gore should go to jail for creating the Internet that carried this data and even kiddie porn.
If you say that Al shouldn't then you have to admit that Jacob shouldn't either since all he did was create the network that carried the data.
Robert Gates said that the release of the WikiLeaks documents may damage our reputation in Afghanistan.
Perhaps it is rather the fact that we kill people and lie about it that damages our reputation in Afghanistan.
We have a right to be informed, because if the public is misled, democracy itself becomes false.
Those who fear the truth are not fit to lead.
Quit whining and start taking responsibility for your actions
This man didn't post anything. He is a Tor developer.
To put this another way, I am a cryptography researcher. Must I now be careful about what specific research I do? Should I be worried that I might be detained at an airport because of my work?
Palm trees and 8
Many would argue that the fact that there is a system is a promise that it will be misused. I don't know how true that is, but government transparency would do much to solve it.
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
A large number of Afghan informants had their names exposed
No, they did not. Wikileaks took care to remove this sort of information.
Quit whining and start taking responsibility for your actions.
Stop reading right-wing neoconservative blogs and think for yourself for a change.
So you're buying the spin, no questions asked.
What about the behavior that the documents expose? The people that have been killed and those that will continue to be killed due to cover-ups of unethical, corrupt, and outright murderous action?
Reminds me a bit when some Germans tried to help Jews to escape or hid them from Nazis. This was also some kind of treason and endangered to the whole Germany, their perfect race and their war moral. If you helped the wrong people... you got visited by Gestapo and this meant trouble.
You, my American friends, should also be aware that you should not disturb your country to spread their pro-war propaganda. You should also try to be calm, follow your leader and help drive war against people who have a different religion. It's better than being arrested by Gestapo... I mean... FBI...
The names were all censored in the release. Perhaps you should actually learn what you're talking about before mouthing off.
"We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Fuck your war.
you had me at #!
Where I come from to be detained means that you are legally under arrest regardless of whether you have been informed of such or not. /i
Glad I don't live in such a repressive place!
Here in the U.S., it means just that - you are being detained. There's a time limit on the detention, after which they much charge you are let you go. Unless they have other evidence against you if you just smile politely, refuse to answer questions and run out the clock there's nothing they can do.
I'd be a lot more worried in a place where being detained also meant arrest, because places that lump that kind of thing together also seem to look the other way when it comes to roughing up detainees a little to get something out of them. Here in the U.S. they wouldn't lay a hand on you unless you gave them clear cause to do so.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ha! Never knew that. That's kind of funny to me. See...
(1) TOR -- developed by navy
(2) TOR -- now home to pedos worldwide
(3) Navy -- home to a guy I knew whose ex found a bunch of CP on his computer.
Not a logical connection, but I lol'd.
Indeed. The US officials were quite happy to pat him on the back when his software enabled pro-democracy Iranians to leak details of protests there.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
I gotta stop getting my news from the Internet. I totally missed Congress' declaration of war. I was under the impression that we were allied with the government of Afghanistan. BTW, Mr. high and mighty, why did you capitalize Afghanistan and not United States? Are you some kind of treason supporter?
Assange is skirting responsibility/ liability.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/07/29/128848467/fears-for-afghans-cited-in-wikileaks-leak
We don't need a flawless answer to know "what's going on". Instead, we just need to reestablish the base level of intelligence that we held for many years. From the 50s to 70s, things were pretty clear overall. The USSR was trying to surpass our technology. Soviet spies were coming to the US through various channels, but often with detectable ties. The middle east was dealing with its own problems, and its own issues with the Soviets, too. Korea was so screwed up from war that they weren't much of a threat. Between Russia and us, the nukes kept everyone else pretty quiet.
We need to get that simple level of understanding again. Some parts are clear already:
What's not clear (to my knowledge) is how the various factions are operating, where they're located, or what will appease everyone enough to stop fighting. This isn't the oppose-us-and-disappear world of 1984. It's a plea for understanding, backed up by enforcement.
We as a nation have let the enemy win as a significant portion of the citizenry and leaders have been terrorized into removing what makes this nation great in the hopes of not being afraid.
Like what, exactly? The right to state your opinion without being imprisoned for it? Sure, you might be investigated, just like you would if you walked down the street shouting "I killed five children!" but you won't face anything too serious. Certainly nothing like the forced suicide you'd meet after insulting the North Korean government.
We had temporary safety from about 1985 until 2001. We obtained it by being the strongest (and most stable) military power in the world. Now that guerilla/terrorist warfare is recognized to be stronger, we have lost all security.
To regain our security, we must start investigating again. As I said originally, it falls to the various activists and watchdog groups to voice concerns over the cost. Consider what good ol' Ben Franklin said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I am not suggesting we give up essential liberty. I suggest we be a bit more accommodating of the agencies trying to secure our country. When things get out of hand, let the activists complain. I'll consider the issue and sign a petition if I agree. In the mean time, I will simply wait.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Can someone (who knows what the hell they're talking about, and can give cites) please tell us what the actual Federal law is that controls this situation.
Because I tell ya what, folks: some son of a bitch detains ME and they got some 'splainin' to do!
"Am I under arrest?"
"No? Then shoot me, mother f*cker, or get out of the way."
And I'm headed for the door. And ANYONE who lays a hand on me is guilty of assault, and I plan to protect myself.
Screw it; my retirement pay comes in whether I'm in jail or not.
Toad
Were they US carrier phones or European carrier phones because that is all they really need in order to take them... ICE has an absurd amount of power and leeway at the border before a person passes through customs. It also probably didn't help that he had 3 phones.
See your the power SOB they pull out of line so they can't get in trouble for profiling well you and everyone's grandmother
We the People of the United States, in Order to... insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, ...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We need to keep America safe and tranquil. Overall, that's worked pretty well. There's been the American Civil War, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the World Trade Center attacks. Not bad for two hundred years.
We also must keep liberty, and ensure it passes to future generations. The attack on Pearl Harbor might have been stopped if we'd had mandatory military service, but that's been determined as encroaching too far on our freedom.
What rights have been violated here? The right to commit treason without interference? The right to carry any potential weapon you want anywhere you want?
Given that Mr. Appelbaum was released, probably with a verbal apology and thanks for his time, it seems he and his technology were determined to not be a threat.
The reason we were in the middle east 30 years ago was to counter the threat of the USSR. The USSR had nuclear weaponry, and was expanding its influence over more natural resources, in an effort that appeared to be fueling its war machine. The USSR had suffered embarrassment in World War II, and seemed poised to take over where Germany had failed. We know now that the USSR was collapsing already, but at the time, intervening in the middle east looked like the best option to prevent World War III.
Now, we're faced with a situation remarkably similar to Vietnam. If we leave, we've utterly ruined a nation and a culture. If we stay, we at least have a chance to help rebuild once things settle down.
As I said earlier, if you don't like something speak up. You have the right to petition the government. You have the right to express your opinions in public channels. Go for it. We the People of the United States voted for those "assholes" who are running things. If you want a government that supports non-interventionism, go vote for it. Convince enough people that it's the right policy, and we'll get the chance to see how it works.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The plain and simple fact is that every time the government does something just to "appease the general public", that means they're doing (mostly) what the general public wants.
A completely false way to frame the situation. A few problems with how you've framed this:
The general public does not want one thing, it wants a multitude of different, conflicting things.
Even when the general public wants the same thing, they want it in vastly different ways.
The general public can be convinced of a LOT given enough nonsense. (Most people somehow got convinced to attack Iraq as a result of 9/11 and many are still somehow convinced the two are linked).
There is no "general public". There's just what you can get away with.
September 11th of 2001 was the day we realized how little we knew about the rest of the world. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
Who the fuck is this "we" you speak of? Do you perhaps mean you?
The U.S. government is many things, but ignorant of the rest of the world is NOT one of them.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out.
This is nothing but unbridled optimism and blind faith. Why will this eventually be worked out, and not the far more likely case, completely forgotten about?
There is a balance we must strike between absolute security and absolute liberty, and we will not reach that point within the span of one presidential term.
Why are security and liberty things that are necessarily at odds as if less liberty means more security and vice versa? Isn't it just possible that many of the things we do for "added security" (like say for instance this bullshit about bringing liquids on an airplane) only serve to destroy our liberties and give us zero security? Isn't it possible that some security measures like re-enforcing the cockpit doors on airplanes added a lot of security, but cost us zero in liberties?
Your dichotomy is utterly false, and it's not too hard to see that.
AccountKiller
Remember, as all the right-winger apologists for this kind of un-American crap keep reminding us, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".
Good luck to us in getting back all the freedoms ursurped since Saint Reagan (especially those lost to that garbage PATRIOT Act).
This space intentionally left blank.
>>>The posting of the classified info via Wikileaks was a crime.
So is a War of Terrorism against Afghan people that results in innocent cameramen and children (inside the van) getting killed. And even though it's not a crime, it's pretty cold-hearted for the US Soldiers to say, "Hahahahaha. The children deserved it. Shouldn't have driven in front of my sights."
We wouldn't even know about that crime against humanity if wikileaks had not revealed it. And the people, the ultimate holder of all legitimate authority, deserve to know.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
>>>Stop reading right-wing neoconservative blogs
The left-wing democrat blogs are saying the same thing (that wikileaks committed a crime & should be censored).
Try to be less biased in your reporting.
R or D - both dicks
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Did you actually read them?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/publication-of-afghan-informant-details-worth-the-risk-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange/story-e6frg6so-1225898273552
The sanitized version in papers had names blacked out, but the actual leaked docs were basically unedited. The Taliban has already announced they're using it to compile a list of people to kill.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/taliban-says-it-will-target-names-exposed-by-wikileaks.html
I largely disagree with your drastic oversimplifications of very complicated world events and turning them into neat little bullet points while ignoring hundreds of other trends and events. I could go on, but there's something more disturbing. This is the statement I don't understand at all:
We had temporary safety from about 1985 until 2001. We obtained it by being the strongest (and most stable) military power in the world. Now that guerilla/terrorist warfare is recognized to be stronger, we have lost all security.
What's the threat that YOU PERSONALLY face from "guerilla/terrorists" warfare? Are you really and truly afraid of Al-Queda? Why is safety supposed to be the big goal we're all trying to obtain? What really makes you think we've lost it? How is this such a large threat to the country as a whole?
Frankly I'm far more threatened by the economies dependence on cheap oil imports, the increasing gap between the rich and poor, the increasing polarity of political parties, our ever increasing "fear culture", and pissing away billions of dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan than I am of those Al-Queda fuckheads.
AccountKiller
we have lost all security.
Please. That is ridiculous hyperbole. We lost 3000 people in the last 10 years to terrorism. We lose that many to food poisoning every year. We've lost more people to rampant militarism (6700 between Iraq and Afghanistan) in the same time frame. You fear mongers are more dangerous than the fucking terrorists. Your pathetic cowering is pathetic.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
heck, was not the concept of onion routing created by the us military?
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
A completely false way to frame the situation.
That's why I said "mostly". It's a very distilled view of the issues, but it's a fair way to make a general statement. Politicians are humans, and they have their complexities. Take a look at recent issues, like the Arizona immigration law. It's supported by a simple majority (58%, apparently). Not great, but worth consideration. Also worth reconsideration after a while.
Of course the public can be convinced of a lot of things. Having a few people who "know things" make decisions is not a democracy, though. Democracy must follow the will of the people, in the hopes that it's eventually right.
The U.S. government is many things, but ignorant of the rest of the world is NOT one of them.
Then why were we almost completely unaware of the various operations of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and others? Regarding Al-Qaeda, we knew they were planning many things, but had so much incorrect information that the important intelligence was overlooked. Perhaps the problem was that we were too aware. Regardless, a lot of old information cannot be relied upon. Everything we know must be verified again.
Why will this eventually be worked out, and not... completely forgotten about?
Once again, this is the job for the activists. I hope there are activists working until every single detainee has been released or had a full trial. Yes it's optimistic, but also grounded in firsthand experience with activist groups. They're far overloaded, but also the most dedicated groups I've ever seen. Though not blind, I do have faith that the vast majority of cases will be handled. I simply hold no naive belief that things will be fixed quickly. I do not believe much will be forgotten about, simply because of the magnitude of the problems. A lot of mistakes have been made in the past 9 years, and there are a lot of people working to correct them. Case details are being recorded like never before. I doubt it's really even possible to entirely forget any current cases. There will be enormous delays, but in the grand scheme of things, everything will work out in the end.
Why are security and liberty things that are necessarily at odds
They're not always (or even usually) opposed, and I didn't intend to imply that. Rather, I was thinking of the Ben Franklin quote about giving up essential liberty for temporary security, which refers only to cases where they are opposed. When we can have both, let us of course take what we can get. When we cannot, we must be sure that the only liberties we sacrifice are ones that we really don't need, like the ability to walk up and have a friendly conversation with the pilot.
To this end, convincing politicians of what's unacceptable goes back to the comment I made regarding activists. When the time comes to fight the next ridiculous liquids-on-airplanes rule, activists will be the ones to do it.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
If I'm going to write a book on US foreign policy, I'd rather not do it on Slashdot.
I do actually face a personal threat, living near a nuclear power plant. That's immaterial.
What we've lost is the security, not necessarily the safety. They are different concepts. We may effectively be safe. Being locked in a small cage with a decent food supply is safe. Being secure is another matter. Being in a small cage means being subject to all sorts of external threats outside your control. In 2001 we saw that any foreign agency wanting to do us harm could do so without much in the way to stop them. After grounding all flights we were safe, but we had no security. From a more Slashdot-specific perspective, it's like discovering your main server's been rooted for a few months. It's pretty easy to be safe from very similar attacks, but what other holes might exist?
I'm not saying that terrorism is our biggest problem, or that we're always going about it in the right way. I'm saying that attacking any politician for not fixing all your problems is asinine, and every problem should be viewed from a comprehensive perspective. I'm saying that democracy has worked pretty well so far and, given enough time, it will work well here.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Some of the TOR (The Onion Router) development itself was initially funded by US Naval Intelligence, yes.
I think it is wise to place a little skepticism on what's reported in the MSM about the taliban and other groups that have been deemed enemies by our political masters.
Then why were we almost completely unaware of the various operations of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and others?
Which "the various operations" are you talking about? Can you be specific, or is your complaint that the U.S. government isn't omniscient? Why does being unaware of whatever these operations are make the U.S. ignorant of the rest of the world? This is just an astounding claim to hear from someone. The U.S. intelligence apparatus and knowledge of world events is not insignificant, so this idea that we're ignorant of the rest of the world is like saying Microsoft doesn't know anything about selling software and creating monopolies.
When we cannot, we must be sure that the only liberties we sacrifice are ones that we really don't need, like the ability to walk up and have a friendly conversation with the pilot.
I don't think you could ever really expect to do that on an airplane, at least not in the last 40 years.
What pissed me off though is that we're giving up liberties, but not getting any security. How is stopping some software developer for 3 hours and taking his cell phones making us safer? How is stopping people from bringing a bottle of water on an airplane make anyone safer? It doesn't, but it sure looks like something is being done.
You also have this strange sense of "the activists". Who are these "the activists", and why are these people the only ones that can look out for our liberties?
AccountKiller
Just no. There is no link anywhere to non-sanitized version. Leaked docs that are posted on wikileaks are sanitized. Taleban is doing what it was doing since 1970s - scaring the shit out of informants though any means necessary, which includes lying. I'm sorry, but you're clueless.
you let go of some of your rights so the government protect you from some vague threat. And then use those powers for intimidation tactics. We should not be surprised that this is how homeland security and the patriot act are used.
We came out of the cold war thinking we were finally going to be a free people again, freedom lasted about a decade is all and we're back to business as usual. Pathetic.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
If our country wasn't randomly bombing the shit out of all manner of other people, and actually keeping an informed and healthy electorate whose votes were actually counted, we wouldn't need a system.
This country has been sliding deeper into fascism since JFK was shot in the face. We need a system now because the evil corporations who control everything (news, transport, government, education, food) are doing evil things that honest and decent people are definitely considering fighting with violence.
You may call George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin terrorists, but they were fighting tyranny, and as such were heroes. Just as anyone currently fighting the US government and it's corporate oligarchy is also a hero. I myself will fight any maniacal fascism with such a "system". I would do that because I believe in the Bill of Rights. I believe that all men are created equally, and I believe that the rights of individual people supersede the rights of corporations to continue to profit while murdering as many living things (people included) as possible.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
22358)At 0528Z TF Bushmaster reported that 3 MVTs Mullah Salim, Mohamad and Mullah Abdula are in SC 23''S immediate AO(w/in 3-5k) and planning an IED ambush. Bushmaster intercepted TB Comms wih hostile intent over the past 36 hours. TF Bushmaster believes they have emplaced up to 4 IEDs on routes they expect them to take. TB in area are re-directing civilian traffic away from suspect IED locations. We do not have eyes on TB Re-direction location.
Names and locations are clearly given. If these names aren't blacked out, neither will names of Afghanis we are working with be blacked out. Even if they went through and blacked them out, some are bound to be missed.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
this is exactly what happened last time i went to canada.
i was pulled aside, my car and person were searched and i was questioned extensively for over an hour before they let me into the country.
feels bad man.
Hint: None that we know of.
There, fixed that for you.
Um.. You mean since the mid 1990's right? The Taliban didn't exist in 1970's.
Or is Taliban and Taleban two different groups and I don't know about the second?
Just because I love messing with people, especially with the police, I would: First, ask a lawyer. Secondly, start singing. I'm tone deaf. Talk about psychOPs!
What about them?
It's not like reporting these breaches to different authorities wouldn't have had better results then giving it to the world. I mean if you have evidence of a crime happening, then it's a misprision of a felony if you don't report it. Why why is it more proper to give information to our enemies then simply doing what the law requires in the first place? And why should this excessive act be somehow protected when the proper channels would have been enough to fix the concerns?
Wow.. Way to spice your post up with all those emotional adjectives and stuff. I mean I'm sure your point would have simply dissolved without the sensationalism.
It's not a crime against humanity, that's little more then your distorted opinion. It's not "a War of Terrorism against Afghan people", it's a war on terrorism that caused a war in Afghanistan to happen when they decided to protect the people behind the 9/11 attacks against America. And yes, some of them are Afghan people, some of them aren't, but it doesn't matter anyways because the war is just even if you do not like what happens in a war.
...if they're this scared of it. I'm recommending it to everyone now, not just a select few.
What matters is the overall opinion of the American population
Couldn't be further from the truth. As long as they keep getting reelected, officials don't give two shits about the American people. It isn't the people's opinion that passes the laws, its the lobbyists and the interests of the corporations they represent.
It was the fact that we knew almost nothing definite about the attack prior to them happening. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
News flash, that is an impossible mission without grossly destroying the United States and the liberties that have been fought for over the past two centuries. We are not (by inception) a nation of safety but a nation of individual freedoms and collective assistance. Attacks will happen, and the constitution allows for some defense against those attacks, but the rights of the citizenry are paramount to that defense.
With decent enough analysts and sophisticated enough agencies, that mission could be accomplished. But instead, the agencies responsible for this mission argue that their jobs would be made easier by erasing some of the rights that the citizenry has. The problem isn't the legal structure and never was. The problem was lazy domestic security agencies. (The FBI is an exception. ICE and BP are not.)
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out.
I'd have to disagree. We as a nation have let the enemy win as a significant portion of the citizenry and leaders have been terrorized into removing what makes this nation great in the hopes of not being afraid. Let's get this out in the open, if you want a free society then you're going to have to deal with the fear that nothing will be certain. Take something as simple as driving, you are taking a risk that the person on the other side of the road matching your 50 mph isn't going to just drive straight into you. Life is dangerous, deal with it.
This sounds impossible but you're simultaneously under- and over-estimating the threat. Underestimating it because a head on collision at 50 miles per hour between me and some drunk driver will not cause widespread civil disruption and upheaval as a biological strike or chemical strike would. Overestimating it because most of this apparatus is designed to protect the government's defense capabilities. The citizen rides along, since the government is responsible for some level of domestic security...But the wikileaks case is a perfect example - it strikes at intelligence capabilities within Afghanistan...Though, for all we really know, that leak was planned and those "informants" are all actually Pakistani agents of influence.
America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years.
And England has no better method of detecting impeding attacks. Nor does any other nation.
Oh, they do, actually, as do most European governments. In the UK, the authorities can drop you down a hole for 72 hours without allowing you contact with anyone. The French and the Germans have similar policies. But they are unencumbered by anything like the US Bill of Rights.
Domestic security in a democracy is hard. Domestic security in a democracy like the US, with the Bill of Rights, is even harder. That's why we need smarter agencies.
Instead, we just need to reestablish the base level of intelligence that we held for many years. From the 50s to 70s, things were pretty clear overall.
You want to go back to the type of society you had back in the days of, for example, Truman and Nixon? That almost got us a third world war.
Get a grip.
Simple solution -- don't be a patriot.
The posting of the classified info via Wikileaks was a crime. A large number of Afghan informants had their names exposed and will probably be killed (and/or have family or friends killed or used for extortion) before we can safely (and expensively) extricate them.
How do you know the leak wasn't planned? That those whose names were visible weren't Pakistani agents? Or that this wasn't a means to apply pressure on the Pakistanis to get their shit together?
TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS
as long as the blood in question isn't mine I don't actually have a problem with that
It seems your blood would not meet the above criteria.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
In terms of foreign intelligence, yes. Foreign actions are a different matter entirely.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
..the begging of Swordfish to me.Hope he doesnt have the same..treatment as the hacker in the movie.
There's no patch for stupidity
Believe it or not, the law is not an absolute, it allows for some flexibility, some common sense. While overly pedantic geeks want everything spelled out in a completely explicit manner, you come to discover that is impossible. You think the laws are complex now, you can't believe how complex they'd have to be then, no person could understand them, and there'd be all sorts of inadvertent loopholes. So you find that the law is flexible in various areas. You have definitions like "reasonable" that are not precisely defined.
In terms of holding someone at the border, well a couple hours would be reasonable. I don't know if you've never traveled internationally, but it can take a couple hours to pass the border when nothing special happens. You get a lot of people there, it moves slowly. So a couple hours would be fairly reasonable, whereas a couple days probably wouldn't.
Who decides? Well judges and juries. That's where such a thing would get reviewed. If you were detained for days that would probalby not be ruled as reasonable.
Is it cut and dried? No, and it will never be. If you don't like it you can try to design a system where all laws are 100% explicit, but you will find out that it won't work.
"Uhnnuuh... pick me, Mr Keating, pick me. Mr Keating, pick me!"
"Yes, Splab, what is it?"
"I wanted to say the same thing!"
So let's say a crime has happened, or the police expect one has. They got a 911 call to that effect. There's a bunch of people around, and it looks like something might have happened. When they come up, you say "I'm leaving." They can detain you. They don't arrest you yet, since it isn't clear you've done anything wrong, but they can tell you that you can't leave. Reason is that they don't want you running off, should it be that they need to arrest you. So for how long? Isn't precisely defined. Like many things in the law, it is situational and open for some interpretations. Like "reasonable doubt" or "probably cause" "reasonable amounts of time" is not defined down to the millisecond. It is, well, what is reasonable. So if they detained you while they interviewed people and figured out what the hell was going on, that would probably be ruled reasonable in a court. If they took you to jail and held you for a couple days without charging you, that would almost certainly be ruled as not reasonable.
Or if that's excuse enough to get stopped, life must really be a bitch for Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf.
Have gnu, will travel.
Most obvious is that Al-Qaeda, with the protection and aid of Afghanistan and Pakistan, put hijackers onto multiple planes in 2001.
The CIA reported in 2002 that Iraq had WMDs.
Iran's latest foray into nuclear weaponry wasn't announced publicly until 2002, by which time it was well under way. There is no declassified indication that the CIA knew of it.
I'm not saying the intelligence apparatus is insignificant, or even missing important things. The problem is that a large portion of its information was wrong. The hijackers were given flight training without concern. Iraq didn't actually have WMDs. Iran had a very active nuclear program.
To correct what we think we know, everything has to be verified again. That means asking a lot of questions, and it's going to take time. Whining about the President isn't going to help. What will help is patience, understanding, and the democratic process. Have tolerance for the programs that already exist, oppose the ones that you disagree with, and make your opinions known to your representatives.
That's where the activists come in. As far as I'm concerned, anybody can be considered an activist. All it takes is having the ambition to do something useful about an issue you consider important, and thus being active in the democratic process.
If you oppose a pending bill and it gets passed, that means you didn't do a good enough job of convincing people of your viewpoint. Activists, as annoying as they are sometimes, play a vital role in making the general public aware of the issues at hand.
In that regard, I already consider you an activist. You're engaging in an intelligent debate about an issue. Others will (hopefully) read this and it will affect their opinions a little. That means public opinion shifts a little, which means votes shift a little, and democracy moves on. The fact that we disagree on some issues is irrelevant.
A more direct form of activism is to contact your representative and state your opinions. Better yet, make an appointment to meet with them. The stereotypical sign-holding protester is just one kind of activist. You don't need to be chained to a tree to make a point.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
That's kidnapping. Charge someone with something on evidence, or release them. Or admit it's tyranny.
--
make install -not war
oh, I didn't realize you had read all 71,000 docs. I haven't either, but I have read several that included informant names (in some cases even GPS coordinates of informants houses.) Seriously, it's all online at wikileaks, just go read it.
If your in the US stay inside, if your outside the US dont fly in/over.
Rent/own/borrow the bandwidth and a buy/code/find a quality videoconference package.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
So it's just whether they're a law-abiding citizen, eh? When the speech controls are put into place, you'd be find with dealing with those horrible people that expressed the wrong opinion of the government, right?
Judging our knowledge of the rest of the world by what we don't know is always going to make us look extraordinarily ignorant. That's because we essentially are when it comes to the fine details.
What I disagree with is the idea that we could somehow have known about everything that goes on in these tiny groups. Other countries have intelligence forces as well, and they've equally failed at stopping terrorist attacks. The UK had a period of 20+ years where the IRA lead a bombing campaign against British targets. Israel has had various bombing campaigns against it for years. But yet the intelligence and police forces of both countries were largely ineffective at stopping the bombers. The only thing that really stopped the IRA was the economy of Ireland improved, not the UK intelligence and police. Why should we be any different?
Your definition of activists is interesting, but you're using the wrong word. To 99% of the populace "activist" means those annoying people holding signs, or that judge who made some decision you don't like and therefore he's "legislating from the bench". I guarantee you very few people would identify someone writing a letter to an editor as an activist. I don't know there's a proper word for it, but activist isn't it.
AccountKiller
Derby Line is a town in Vermont and in Quebec. The town straddles the border. You can hold a (small) conference in the town's public library with some people physically in Canada and others physically in the United States.
Of course you are. I just crossed the border yesterday, and buried in the cement are metal spheres with a line on them, saying USA on one side, and the other country on the other side. Mexico in my case. The border lines are clearly drawn in many ways at every crossing.
How would you know for sure that the proper channels are being used correctly without leaked documents? The only way to trust is to see someone doing what they told you they would do, not because they say "trust us".
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
Incomplete knowledge isn't a problem. When that incomplete knowledge results in new attack vectors, that's a problem. The IRA and Israel bombings were primarily acts of ongoing war with known enemies, where intelligence can be expected to be faulty and incomplete. The WTC attacks were unexpected. We weren't expecting anyone to be capable of that scale of attack. That's a problem. Again, I don't expect we'll know everything about everyone, but we should at least know what our threats are.
Activist is the right word. It's the general term for someone who takes action to effect a change. The fact that it's associated primarily with militants is an unfortunate consequence of the popular media. The public usually just doesn't hear about the quiet ones. The closest alternative is "advocate", but that implies being in favor of something, so use of the word would need qualifiers like "advocate of the repeal of X" or "advocate for the cause opposing X". Simply "activist" is the best word I know of.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Because if the behavior didn't stop, then whoever ratted it out would go through more channels and eventually file a lawsuit when he thinks they were retaliating against him. And yes, eventually, someone will not want to have the responsibility of the cover up on their shoulders. Specifically if the information was given to a member of the armed services comity that already has the classifications to view such information.
Hell, leaking the documents and giving our enemies or potential enemies information doesn't absolve anything you are worried about. In the chopper video, the airmen were already cleared of wrong doing and no one has released any information of charges or anything to be filed against them. The only difference is that the people who Hate the US now have the video to rail about. So by going through the proper channels, the only thing different between that and releasing the info so our enemies and potential enemies can get it is whether he violated laws or not and how much damage is done to the US in the process. In this case, he can be shot for the violations in which I find not only appropriate, but endorse.
Supreme laws, you say? It is the people that are supreme, not We the People of the United States: as you can see, whatever the people would write is like throwing a ball into the air and any corporation whose agency can't hold onto that ball as it falls back to the people simply returns to them as gravity would have it. You still haven't addressed that the United States is not a plural function but a competitor Nation as compared to The 48 united States of America that brought Several States together. The United States was originally a creditor nation of Moroccan moors founded in 1754 because they couldn't gain admittance; then in 1776, The United States was captured by Freemasons who then rendered into a debt charter under the Articles of Confederation, thus distorting the history of the 10 presidents before George Washington. Blah Blah went on after nation states from America walked out of Congress, so he created the Union; then in 1871 Abraham Lincoln grafted the United States into the Union, created a federal corporation in the District of Columbia called "United States" to transfer title of ownership (emancipate) of war-prize slaves away from The 48 united States of America rather than free them (manumit), onto to that same federal corporation animated by the United States in the Union. Blah Blah goes on.
My point being is that a 14th-amendment citizen of the United States is a derogatory term created to induce a disabled character onto the person of a man so-that he may forever be deprived of his liberty and freedom as franchise of the United States rather than a paramount lord in the country who is a patroon at the general post-office. All the questions derived from a detainment are presuming that the questionaire is given to a citizen of the United States, because it's a bit-bucket they created to manufacture evidence. Forever in commerce is the presumption of DMV, surety to all enactments of the Legislature, so good-luck on any presumptions of Right to Public Vehicular Travel.
Documented US citizens... hahah. Is that like a book club you join with Amazon or Barnes'N'Noble where someone writes something derogatorily contrary to your character and you are forced to abide by that autobiography until you pay the debts incurred? Pederast/rapist once or forever until payed-off like any other debt? Thief once or forever until payed-off like another debt? The courts need 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment more than the people ever needed it, because libel and slander are only answerable in the district courts of the States, not some federal municipal corporation like United States District Court or their franchizes of justice plaguing every federally-incorporated city outside of the township. What rights are you talking about that are unalienable, inalienable, or unalienable when war violates all just to deploy the deceptive edge against the adversary? How do we not know that the Constitution and unanimous Declaration of Independence of the 13 United Colonies wasn't just a ploy to change the domestic sheep'
"It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out."
No. This contravenes American principles. For example, we decided it was worth presuming innocence, thereby guaranteeing freedom for some portion of the guilty, rather than punishing the innocent. We pay the cost of this freedom, and IMHO, we're the better for it. I'd rather distribute the cost of doing it this way over our entire society than concentrate it on "some innocent folks" falsely detained/deported/convicted/tortured in black facilities/etc. "Some innocent folks" - nicely dismissive of people who deserve better. But, hey - feels ok not to think about them if they're just "some innocent folks" out there. Not like it's anyone you know or care about or depend on.
"America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years. We are cocky and immature, and so is our intelligence system."
Your assumption that things get better as cultures age is unfounded. As but one example, China and Egypt are two cultures having roots far, far deeper in the past than America - by your prognostication, they should have grown "up just fine" by now. I'm curious - in which culture, American, Chinese, or Egyptian, would you rather be an accused criminal/terrorist?
" Give it time to grow, but make sure it's kept in check by the public activists and watchdogs."
In my view, the public activists and watchdogs are being outcompeted by the growing power of the state. This is linked to financial interests, which have almost completely taken over American legislative, judicial, and executive governmental functions. Public activists and watchdogs may march and bark, but they less and less influence events.
Your worldview simply kicks the can down the road, as our problems worsen. Time fixes nothing. Courageous people who won't rationalize, ignore, or excuse injustice make our lives better. If you believe what you wrote, you're not in that crowd.
I agree that the proper channels are the first thing to try, but beware that there is a massive barrier against speaking out. On the other hand, abuse of power is relatively easy, so you need a huge amount of opposite mass to get anything changed through the normal channels. Examples of this are people who try to report police misconduct through the proper channels, and are met with hostility and indifference at every level.
Whistleblowing, on the other hand, if done right, is a surefire way to get immediate attention to certain items. Sure, the chopper pilots have been cleared beforehand, but their behaviour certainly borders on the "gross neglect" or "carelessness" side. That this comes to light is not necessarily a bad thing and helps to reassert the nastiness of war to all world citizens. Sure, it sows hate, but it also sows validation. Afghans who for ages claimed these sort of attacks were happening now are validated and may feel that at least some justice is present.
This sort of thing would not be necessary if there was a true free press (as Assange notes). If these attacks were regularly shown on television, wikileaks would not get the impact they do now. Free press is necessary for a properly functioning democracy, and the fact that wikileaks can make such an impact is sign that this is not the case.
As for "leaking documents to the enemy", if they are truly worth their salt, they already have the majority of this information anyway, added to some of their own. If they did not have this information, what the hell are you worried about? They then obviously cannot organise well enough to pose any serious security threat.
War is brutal, never "surgical", and it is a good thing this is shown so that the barrier for entering another war increases. Please remember that the life of a US citizen is worth exactly the same as that of a citizen of any other country!
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
uh, there are names in the wikileaks postings. Several news outlets, including the Washington Post, have searched the released docs and found names that weren't redacted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072904900.html
wikileaks didn't scrub the docs thoroughly, even the founder of wikileaks is basically saying "hey, not our problem!" He's not denying it, I find it interesting you are.
Most people would not argue that. However many in two rather small minorities would: libertarians and those who would actively misuse the system if they were in control of it.
They are both right but neither have a solution. Libertarians would only be mollified by the destruction of the system (immediately triggering the necessary reinvention of the system and most likely in an even worse edition) and the others would only be satisfied by acquiring control of the system (immediately misusing it to "right wrongs").
And this ladies and gentlemen is why the US "society" is miles down in really deep doo-doo: the "correct" and "morally superior" but consequently entirely unhelpful and extraordinarily counterproductive extremes (and I'm not talking about the nuts among them) of the US constantly giving the thoroughly corrupt mainstream every possible helpful excuse and reason to continue to exist.
Is it a real world example of a "Black Iron Prison"?
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. -Thomas Jefferson
Seriously, what mental lapse do you (and other like you) have? I read about terrorist attacks, and watch people read how the attack was done, and then I hear people utter the complete and utter nonsense bullshit "so thats how they are doing it now". What a moronic thing to say! How completely stupid. Its like there is a new rule that is learned, and that we have to adapt our security strategy to accommodate the new rule. Its as if they are following some kind of rule book. But they aren't. They are following an algorithm. It goes like this: 1) find a way to be a successful terrorist in a unique and original way. 2) if some new parameter has not been put in place to prevent the previous method from being successful, then repeat the method. 3) if some new parameter HAS been put in place to prevent the reuse of the last (or any) previous method, then go back to 1). Unique ways of being a terrorist always means you always get the element of surprise, and they never expect you since they are stupid and writing down millions of rules, constantly fighting the last war. If they are chasing their tails, they are destroying their own liberty (not an outside force), thus becoming the enemy within. If destruction of American liberty is the goal of terrorists, they are being successful. Oh, and other countries (a huge number) are younger than the US, and many are less draconian.
There, fixed that for you.
Sigh, how can you expect others to defend rights you will not defend yourself. Not all revolutionary acts need be violent.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Forgive this for being only tangentially on topic:
The press surrounding Wikileaks's release of secret Afghan war documents has been drawing comparisons to Woodward & Bernstein's release of the Pentagon Papers back in the early 1970s. Public opinion of Wikileaks seems to run the gamut from "serving the public right to know" to "string up the traitors for putting troops in danger".
I'd bet that a sizable portion of those reading this thread (myself included) were born long after the Pentagon Papers issue. For the older Slashdotters in here I ask: Is the comparison valid? Was the public similarly as divided over the Pentagon Papers then as they are over Wikileaks now?
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
... The 1984 President!
Obama's Operation Mind Crime is in full swing.
Be advised.
Attach electric wires to its balls and send the shots until he speak. He will speak I guarantee...
"A large number of Afghan informants had their names exposed "
Did you even actually read the documents? Names were blacked out.
Jesus christ.
I hope he wasn't an informant whose name you just exposed!
Would you like a beating with your interrogation?
The President doesn't really matter. The orientation of Congress doesn't really matter. What matters is the overall opinion of the American population
There's an element of truth to this, partly because there's benn a lot of convergence in major parties over the last few decades. It started in or before the early 90s in America (Clinton &c), and in the early-mid 90s in Britain (Blair, Brown &c). In Australia it happened in the early 80s (Hawke, Keating &c). Whether this really is the tail wagging the dog I'm curious to know.
But it's an overstatement to say it "doesn't really matter". Iraq, for instance, would be a very different place if Al Gore had been president rather than George Bush. (Not trying to say better or worse, just very different.)
America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years.
There is no such other nation.
The United States is actually one of the more constitutionally conservative countries. Its last major change to its way of government, neglecting gradual extensions of the franchise, could be argued to be either 1861-5 or 1783. There aren't many countries who can beat that. Britain can probably claim 1660 but I can't think of anywhere else offhand that beats the US.
Putting soldiers and their trusted informants in danger is evil.
Really? Maybe you should think who sent those soldiers to Afghanistan in the first place.
Man volunteers for army, then to training. Swears he is prepared to kill and die. Boards plane to war zone. His superiors give him dangerous jobs, he accepts. Their organization, and himself, invade, spy, manipulate, corrupt, kill, torture, whatever, for some reason, more important than human lives, of all factions. Brandish weapons at people and make enemies daily, from many factions. I publish info with his name and business somewhere. Some faction reads it, finds and kills him. What killed him? Consequences of his and his group's actions, weapons, location, choices, and above all, the weapons of his enemies? Or the info about his actions? I read somewhere "Guns don't kill, people with guns do". True. Info doesn't kill either. People with guns do.
The difference is that the resistance caused the exposure, not the other way around. If you are reporting through the proper channels and start getting resistance, then a whistle blower lawsuit ends up giving all the exposure in a legal way without giving useful information to the enemy or potential enemies.
Whistle blowing is little more then telling on your boss and/or your bosses boss. It's not going directly to the public specifically, it could be going to regulatory authorities first.
And no, I do not think their behavior borders on the "gross neglect" or "carelessness" side, that is an opinion you made when you clearly have never been in a situation where you life was in so much danger that extreme actions needed to be taken. And by that, I'm saying you have never been shot at and had to return fire while watching you buddy die because you are pinned down and can't get help to him. When you survive something like that and have to go back in, you get not only cocky, but slightly trigger happy because the only different between you walking away and dieing could be who shot first or who shot the most accurate. You take threats, like someone crouching by a corner and aiming a device that from a distance looks similar to a RPG launcher who is also surrounded by armed men in a war zone that active fighting is taking place in, as serious threats, not a wait and see what happens threat because when the situation is like that, too often, if you wait, you will be dead.
Now the copter was supporting other forces and supposed to be detecting threats. Even if they were immune from the RPG, they had a duty to protect other forces. They were cocky, and that might have had something to do with it. But given the same situation, I would have acted the same. And after I found out there was kids present, I probably would have blamed the perps too so I wouldn't feel guilt that would end up getting my brothers in arms killed by delayed actions next time. You have the pleasure of reviewing the tapes and blowing them up with people drawing lines and pointing things out. The copter crew didn't as it was happening in real time for them and the threat was very real even though it was non-existent.
It's not like they adopted the Vietnam style saying where they shoot into a rice paddy and say the one who run are VC the one who stand still are well trained VC. They saw something, misidentified it as it appeared to be aiming at them or something in their direction, the fired, when another vehicle approached and people got out running towards the weapons, they fired again.
Read section 412. It permits indefinite detention of immigrants and non-citizens.
But only if, again, they are identified as terrorists or otherwise engaging in activity that endangers national security. The whole section is called:
SEC. 412. MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS; HABEAS CORPUS; JUDICIAL REVIEW
Again, if you are a terrorist and they have proof of same it's quite a different matter than just holding you because they have questions.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...but they were no more definite or detailed than the hundreds of similar reports that passed through the White House in the months before.
Incorrect. They were no more definite or detailed than the tens of thousands of similar reports...
Ok maybe the idiom was more about bodily harm but thats the last thing you should worry about if you are detained, they wield a power far more scary then just beating me up.
Why are you scared at all of this? Of a few questions? Really?
I mean, not only can they not do anything to you legally at that time, but if they did do anything so have so many legal options that would totally screw them over, they are literally powerless before you lest you even THINK they are harassing you.
You are only scared because you chose to be. There's nothing scary about them at all, you should check into what REAL police states do when they "detain" you if you want a reason to have actual fear. It's more like being pulled over for speeding - an annoyance, but hardly scary.
Learn to get over you fear of authority figures, and remember they are just doing a job - just respect that and don't give them any more grief than they deserve.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There are plenty of countries where being detained is not the same as being arrested. I am saying that ANY of those countries are better than a country so primitive as to make no distinction.
Why are you disagreeing with that? Would it be blind loyalty to your OWN country perhaps?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Given that I've been one of those "innocent folks" being questioned twice now, I'm going to respond with a hearty "suck it up". My first detainment consisted of being asked a few questions about drug trafficking until they determined that the dog involved just screwed up. The second was getting pulled aside and asked about what I'd been doing in Africa. My total inconvenience: less than an hour.
Presuming innocence does not mean you get to do anything you like and have no inconvenience. Presuming innocence means that you don't get locked in shackles for 10 years because someone well-known in town accused you of a crime. It means that there has to be some kind of evidence before you have to deal with any kind of serious problem.
China and Egypt
The current Chinese government was established in 1949. Egypt's came in 1953. They also were both founded with different principles and ideals. A better comparison would be Great Britain, which has managed to avoid major political replacement for roughly a thousand years. The political ideals of modern Britain are on par with the United States, and their justice systems are similar. I also never said that our criminal justice system was in any way bad. I said that our intelligence (meaning the CIA, DHS, and parts of the FBI) are immature. We've made overt mistakes that have cost thousands of lives, and it's understandable that they are now scrambling to improve.
public activists and watchdogs are being outcompeted by the growing power of the state.
The state is controlled by representatives who are brought into office by the voting public. The representatives represent the public.
This is linked to financial interests
That's interesting, since bribery is outright banned. The way it really works is that a corporation can donate a large amount of money to a politician's campaign, and arrange for the contribution to take place during a personal meeting. Also during that meeting, the corporate representative can mention that the several thousand employees would benefit from some pending bit of legislation. That's several thousand opinions added to the politician's understanding of the issue. The general public also has the right to contact the politician, though it does require a lot of "people skills" to get an actual face-to-face meeting.
A better way to have your voice heard, as I've explained elsewhere in this thread, is to become an activist yourself. For the most effect, go through the effort to meet your representatives. Write them letters. Even open debate increases awareness of a topic, which is a form of activism. Congratulations. You're an activist now.
My worldview is that knee-jerk reactions to short-term problems just makes more problems. We need to pick a course and stick with it, until we can clearly see the outcome, then decide whether it's desirable or not. Inconvenience is not an injustice. Calling people cowards for having different opinions is hardly making lives better. I believe that the democratic process works, and that the best way to effect change is through the democratic process.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
"Many would argue that the fact that there is a system is a promise that it will be misused. I don't know how true that is, but government transparency would do much to solve it."
Seems the government is very transparent about the fact that they can and will skirt violating civil and human rights of people crossing the border as often and as severely as they can, else why would we even know about these things at all?
Not sure what, if anything, is solved by that transparency, except perhaps a subsequent decline, however negligible, in immigration to the U.S.
Less than a decade ago, America was dealt a serious blow by an enemy that was living right among us. It wasn't so much the number of people that died that was so concerning. It was the fact that we knew almost nothing definite about the attack prior to them happening. Sure, there were reports of something being expected to happen, but thery were no more definite or detailed than the hundreds of similar reports that passed through the White House in the months before. September 11th of 2001 was the day we realized how little we knew about the rest of the world. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
Wah? really?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/11/politics/11intel.html?ex=1281412800&en=3c4c0f2346a58391&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss (New York Times)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,53065,00.html (Fox News)
http://www.newsweek.com/2001/09/12/we-ve-hit-the-targets.html (Newsweek, grep "cancel")
http://www.newsweek.com/2001/09/23/bush-we-re-at-war.html (Newsweek, grep "Oh s--t")
Your friendly anonymous coward who can't remember his login.
....the Hacker community needs to do a better job of exposing threats. The questioning of an MIT hacker several months ago should have been more widely publicized. What is needed is a site just like Who is sick? called Who’s been questioned? Anyone who had been questioned by the FBI or the CIA could post the questions that they have been asked.The questions and especially their aggregation would contain a lot of very interesting information. Patterns emerge, and the threats to freedom will be understood more clearly. The rest of my post here: http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/wikileaks-reaches-critical-mass/ Who is sick website: http://whoissick.org/sickness/ Cheers! eee_eff
So the name on the desk changed. The calamitous policies, the wars, the complete disregard for human rights continue.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
I've been "detained" a number of times in my life. "Registration, driver's license, and proof of insurance, please." I've not been held and interrogated by federal agents for three hours. Again - once you identify yourself to any officer, you answer a few cursory questions that might help identify you, if you attempt to leave and the cop won't allow you to leave, then you are under arrest, and entitled to legal counsel.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The first thing to do if you're being detained at the airport is tell them reasonable things that they should need to know. True, maybe you're not constitutionally obligated to do so, but what harm lies in telling the people who are doing you detaining the kinds of things that you would tell a complete stranger while chatting in line? Being friendly in the beginning (even if they are assholes) and giving them the information that they need to know is more than likely to get you released from whatever side-room (all airports I've been in have a room set up just next to the security lines, not a "back room" at all).
For instance, when I was going to Japan to study for a year, I wasn't pulled aside. But if I was, I would tell them:
Here, I am a US citizen, here is my flight ticket and passport. I am going abroad to study Japanese at such and such university in Tochigi Prefecture, Japan.
If they must know,
I am a Japanese major at such and such university in Indiana
In most cases those kind of simple answers, which I think most reasonable people would not think is exceptionally intrusive, would go a long way to getting you out of that room as soon as possible. Only if they start asking weird things, like "what is your mother's name" and "where did you grow up", or even "how much money do you make", should you start declining questions.
I am not comfortable answering that question.
A few years ago I flew from The Netherlands to the USA for a Microsoft conference. At the airport I was asked who packed my suitcase. I was first unwilling to answer that kind of stupid questions but I was told to cooperate or I couldn't board the plane. I asked why these questions were necessary and I was told the USA required them. So I answered "My wife" (which was true). I was then asked "Do you trust your wife?". I was amazed about these kind of questions... wtf do you think .. of course I trust my wife. It went on and on...
When I arrived in the USA, I had my picture taken like I am some kind of criminal, fingerprints were taken (my own country doesn't even have my fingerprints!), I was asked where I stayed, when I would go back (it was written down in the passport), what I was going to do in the USA, why (!), and after that I was asked 10 (!) more times by various people what my business was in the USA, what I was going to do there. And not by normal people, but by people with assault rifles, army boots and what looked like combat police uniforms.
At that moment I decided: I'll never ever go to the USA again, until they become sane again.
Ps: when I and the rest of the people from my plane were waiting for the first customs counter (where you get your mugshot taken and fingerprints seized) border patrol was actively looking for people who held a passport with arabic characters in their hand. These people were taken aside.
Isn't there a line in the USA anthem which says 'land of the free' ? I don't know but what the USA is doing has little to do with 'freedom' IMHO.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Quit whining
Says the man trolling on Slashdot. :)
Given that I've been one of those "innocent folks" being questioned twice now, I'm going to respond with a hearty "suck it up". My first detainment consisted of being asked a few questions about drug trafficking until they determined that the dog involved just screwed up. The second was getting pulled aside and asked about what I'd been doing in Africa. My total inconvenience: less than an hour.
This is not what America was supposed to be about. The founding fathers of this country what be aghast at this example. We are moving very quickly into police state territory with this kind of thing. Will you just "suck it up" when you are detained for a day instead of an hour? What about a week or a month? Because that is exactly where we are headed. That's the problem. The principle is the same, regardless of exactly how much of your time they have taken. You can't have both freedom and security. It's a zero sum game. The Soviet Union had a very low crime rate. Is that where we are trying to go? If they have a valid reason for suspicion that is one thing, but these sorts of examples are known as "fishing expeditions". They are detaining you in the hope of finding something to nail you with. Why do they do it? Because they can. Power corrupts.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Soviet Union understanding of law as an instrument of politics and human rights as rights of society(that is state), not of an individual.
sorry, just felt left out as a German ;-)
Although we did implement some quite draconian surveillance laws back then. Still feel ashamed about that - and even more ashamed that it is happening again and all my voting does nothing to stop it.
Ah, the power of fearful, narrow-minded retirees...
What the story doesn't mention is that his mouth spontaneously disappeared and he was then implanted with a robotic insect-like tracking device.
I think we all know who won.
... why not get a Wikileaks member for that?
(Oh, right, they're pretty elusive.)
The only thing that really stopped the IRA was the economy of Ireland improved, not the UK intelligence and police.
Nothing to do with the Good Friday Peace Agreement then?
Just question since I'm a bit uncertain about this point but do they really need to submit proof that you are a terrorist?
Here in Sweden because of stupid ass "jump when usa tells you" policy an Swedish citizen got all his bank accounts locked because usa said that he was a terrorist. No trial no nothing. He had a hard time defending himself.
First because he could access no money and it was illegal to give him any money at all. Seriously, if he was begging on the street it would have been a crime to give him a dollar. Thankfully people ignored that and so did the police.
The next problem was that the so called evidence was classified. Good luck putting up a defence in that case.
I got the impression that after USA had had him judged without a trial they lost interest.
Besides if they, in your example, had proof then they wouldn't need to just detain you now would they? If they have proof the can arrest and go to trial. The law is only useful if they have suspicions but can't prove anything. As such it could be used to harass almost whoever they want.
"This message was brought to you by Sarcasm and Troll Feeders United (or STFU, for you un-hip people)."
You left out a word, SuperKendall: "suspected".
Section 412 covers detention of suspected terrorists. And what does it take to be a suspected terrorist?
There's a big difference between an "enemy combatant" and a suspected terrorist.
You started this all by saying "around here we don't have indefinite detentions" and now we're down to indefinitely detaining suspects for god's sake (not to mention sex offenders who have completed their sentences).
You are welcome on my lawn.
... those that are American citizens should be prosecuted for treason and if found guilty, given the death penalty as is provided for by the law. These a-holes are risking lives by releasing this information.
one can imagine the interrogation techniques of the law enforcment officers involved were probably not legally pristine, even for the time.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out.
I'm afraid it's not just a temporary problem. Usually, big scares (like terrorism) are used to justify legislation wanted for other reasons. For example, the police or intelligence agency wants to eavesdrop on phone conversations without a warrant, but it won't pass. Then a terrorist attack happens, and they get their chance. Once the legislation is passed, it's very hard to get rid of. The nation moves further and further towards a repressive police state.
The reason we were in the middle east 30 years ago was to counter the threat of the USSR. The USSR had nuclear weaponry, and was expanding its influence over more natural resources, in an effort that appeared to be fueling its war machine. The USSR had suffered embarrassment in World War II, and seemed poised to take over where Germany had failed. We know now that the USSR was collapsing already, but at the time, intervening in the middle east looked like the best option to prevent World War III.
And it turned out to be wrong. Before that, it was Central America, and before that, it was Vietnam, and before that...
If one's good intentions fail time and again, maybe it's time to step back and admit defeat. To admit that predicting world politics to the best of one's abilities and then deploy military force doesn't work that well - because it's not really possible to predict the outcome.
Assange should _seriously_ consider having people around him 24/7 if he doesn't want to end up in a third world torture site and avoid flights that have a high possibility of getting diverted to a U.S. airport. Nobody screws that openly with the fantastic business the U.S. military/industrial complex has going for itself. It's just the reality today.
Then why were we almost completely unaware of the various operations of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and others? Regarding Al-Qaeda, we knew they were planning many things, but had so much incorrect information that the important intelligence was overlooked. Perhaps the problem was that we were too aware. Regardless, a lot of old information cannot be relied upon. Everything we know must be verified again.
Do you think the restrictions in freedom since 9/11 have helped against these problems? Do you think they're proportionate to the security gained?
For example, has extended wiretapping and the indexing of 200 million americans' phone conversations helped the intelligence agencies weed out incorrect information?
I wouldn't be surprised if the so-called safety measures have actually increased the amount of incorrect and irrelevant information that confuses intelligence.
"A nation has the right (and indeed, the obligation) to protect itself from undesirables crossing into the country or, similarly, to allow the authorities to execute arrest warrants as needed."
Unfortunately, the gangsters in Washington D.C. have decided that "nation" == "government". Their mission is no longer to protect the people of the US, their focus is protecting themselves and the ruling class. Therefore, the CITIZENS of the US, are now seen as a threat which the "nation/government" must protect itself from.
btw, governments have "powers", only people have "rights".
1970s was the time when modern mujahideen, the people that we in the west like to call "Taliban/Taleban" (depending on how to choose to translate to latin alphabet) as their most modern umbrella organisation have appeared in their modern capacity.
These are still same people, using same training, same approach, same strategies and tactics that they originally used against Red Army, with similar degree of success. It's kinda funny that people choose to pick on potentially wrong latinisation as the infamous fly in the distance and pointedly ignore the elephant in their face.
I have to admit being somewhat confused here, I've never been to the US, so maybe I'm missing something obvious, but this guy flew from Seattle (in the US) to Las Vegas (in the US), so exactly which border did he cross?
Hyperbole. He's saying "there is always potential for us to have missed something". What we have in western media is a pretty massive "throw shit at him and see what sticks, then hammer it in". This particular angle seems to have stuck a chord.
And finally, informants are trash in eyes of any invading army - this is an established fact with US Army from many of our past wars, as well as countless armies. They're on local sellouts on payroll, and once their usefulness is up, they're left to fend for themselves at best, and killed or "traded" to the people they originally sold out at worst. In this light, the claims of "saving, extracting, being worried about safety" et al psychological waxing seems ironic at best, mainly aimed at people who don't understand anything about waging a war of conquest and occupation.
I urge you to look into and study most documented examples of how such people were treated in the past if you even for a moment consider that invading army will care for informants after their usefulness as infiltrators is up.
Yes you can arrest someone as a material witness for a good long while even pre-9/11, the law was enacted in 1984.
"In addition, if prosecutors have reason to believe that a material witness in a criminal proceeding may flee, they may obtain a warrant for that person's arrest and detain that person, under a 1984 federal statute. The warrant must be approved by a judge, and the witness is entitled to a hearing to determine bond and, if necessary, a court-appointed attorney."
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-material-witness.htm
Its long established that the police can hold you up to a day without charging you. This is standard and the shortest time in the western world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_a_suspect#United_States
Someone is claiming a 3 hour detainment is a violation of civil rights??? A three hour hold is barely enough time for ICE to call their supervisor, run a background check and have army and DHS people drive down from their offices. If anything he got VIP treatment.
btw: He did flee the country after the conference. Noone stopped him from leaving or tried to "make him a statistic".
Unless, things have changed recently, in the UK refusing to talk can be used against you as much as anything you say.
We US people threw you Brits out for exactly the reasons we now complain about our own government (well that and your ancestors were messing with our ability to make gobs and gobs of money, and Money has always been the true King of the US). But recent government regulations have fixed the hole in British law that allowed us to revolt the first time. So, it's basically game over for revolutionaries in the modern US of A.
Unless something has changed, the police have always been able to detain you, without charging you, for 24 hours. So, the fact he was detained for several hours really violates nothing. The fact they deprived him of his property, without due process is a problem.
There, fixed that for ya.
Make sure you're complaining about the right abuse of authority. Detaining people for hours is and always has been a useful tool for law enforcement in this country. It's a useful tool to hold someone, while they can easily do so, in order to build a case against them. Like detaining someone walking down the street with a flashlight and toolchest, who might just have attempted to rob that house up the street with the alarm blaring. He might be the robber, or he might just be a local guy walking over to a friend's house to fix a leaking pipe. But if you arrest and book him outright and he's not the crook he can sue, so it's smarter to detain, investigate and then book or release.
...ohh ... during WWII. Not that you'll read about that in any high school history books.
However, I will say all your freedoms are an illusion. That the law enforcement people regularly use their powers to harass. Your rights can be, and have been, taken away by Presidential, or Congressional, order at any time. Like
Lastly, I will say the FBI, et al were fishing. Trying anything and everything to find some poor slob they can pin the leak on. They really don't care if they get the right "guy". Anyone will do. Hence, if he'd said anything they could use against him, they would have. Even if it didn't really implicate him. Anything, anything at all, like: " I think the War in Afghanistan is a disgusting abuse of US authority", or "The troops really need to be brought home.", etc. Which is what they were trying to get him to say.
I wish more people understood how the law worked. They make completely invalid distinctions and make it sound like something improper.
was taken into a room, frisked and his bag was searched.
This is completely legal so long as they have probable cause. The fact they were there to specifically to detain and talk with him means they likely had probable cause. Had he refused detainment, they would be forced to either charge him or release him. Had he been charged, assuming they had reason to do so (they likely did, including impeding a federal investigation in matters of national security), it would have gotten far, far uglier for him.
Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.
First of all, understand that detainment means you actually are under arrest. There is a difference between being arrested/detained and being charged. The later is what they actually implied. In other words, he absolutely was arrested/detained, he was just not charged - yet, if at all. Had he attempted to leave without permission, he could have been charged with fleeing custody and likely many others.
Under the US law, you can be legally arrested/detained with probably cause and not charged. Its just that a clock starts ticking the second they arrested/detained. If he's not charged within a specific time period, they must release him. These laws have existed long before 9/11 and various paranoid, anti-Constitutional laws were passed.
They asked questions about Wikileaks, asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is, but he declined to comment without a lawyer present, according to the sources.
That's within both party's rights. It sounds like nothing improper took place there. Sounds like the law worked as designed.
He was not permitted to make a phone call, they said.
Legally, you are absolutely not entitled to a phone call until you are charged. But, they had a ticking clock in which time they must either set him free or charge him. Once charged, he has the legal right to both representation and a call. The call is frequently used to obtain representation.
The fact he was not charged and freed within a fairly reasonable time (three hours) means the law worked exactly as it should have while both empowering an ongoing investigation and protecting his rights.
Frankly, I don't understand why this is newsworthy in the least. "On ongoing investigation is conducted within the powers permitted by the law of the land. News at 11." WTF?!
That they figure out a way to arrest every one of the dirtbags who has ever worked on wiki leaks.
Classic example of good idea gone bad.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
I can in fact prove that steel frame buildings don't just fall down. Particularly building 7. The evidence is insurmountable. Anyone who says otherwise has no grasp of basic physics.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Your wikipedia link mentions nothing about a 24 hour period. That is *not* the standard in the US. It is the standard in the UK however. So much for it being the "shortest time in the western world". If they had enough evidence for an arrest then they should have arrested him, but indefinite detention without cause is a violation of international law and human rights. They didn't arrest him because they had no evidence against him whatsoever. They were just going on a fishing expedition and harassing him. Abusing their powers.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
This has nothing to do with Tor and everything to do with his links[1] to WikiLeaks. Period.
The fact that he is a Tor developer, and that WikiLeaks may at times advise people to use Tor, is coincidental and irrelevant.
He was questioned for his links[1] to WikiLeaks.
[1] Links/ties/aid/consulting/volunteering/whatever-you-want-to-call-it...the point is, there was a communication relationship with WikiLeaks, and that was why he was stopped. Not for being a "security researcher" or a Tor developer.
What if he was not a US citizen?
Wow, that's weird. I could almost pass for middle-eastern (or a variety of other ethnicities/nationalities) if you squint, and I never get "detained" or questioned beyond the normal questions at the borders (driving to/from Mexico, and flying to/from Europe and South America). Maybe it has something to do with the places you travel to? Or do you always wear a "terrorist" t-shirt when you travel? :-)
you cannot undue 9/11. even if you eradicate all constitutional rights and universal human rights; .. that .. maybe ..
invade ALL countries AND start the third world war.
maybe it's just time to admit
they (the 9/11 masterminds) were smarter(*)?
(*) disclaimer: I don't think it's smart to kill innocent people.
just so we're clear your argument has gone from "no they didn't!" to "it doesn't matter if they did!"? I just want to make sure we know where the goalposts are...
This part is MOST disturbing:
They asked questions about Wikileaks, asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is, but he declined to comment without a lawyer present, according to the sources. He was not permitted to make a phone call, they said.
I can understand a foreign national, but a U.S. Citizen is crossing the line. With the changes to Miranda, we are slowing becoming a police state.
He did flee the country after the conference.
I was under the impression that he left on a return ticket purchased before the initial stop. So to call it "fleeing" when someone leaves at an appointed time sounds like a mental illness, and such absurd characterizations that are factually incorrect (he did not "flee" in any definition of the word I've ever seen) is why you have stupid "I'm not a troll" subject lines. You are a troll. You are wrong in a manner designed to incite. That's a troll. Whether inadvertent or purposeful, no one can ever know because the two are indistinguishable.
Learn to love Alaska
There are literally thousands of professional engineers and scientists clamoring for revised NIST reports, a new investigation, and an official explanation of the obviously ludicrous 9/11 commission report.
As of course are all the families of the deceased.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Claiming that the "official" story has any validity at this point really bespeaks of gross ignorance regarding the entire subject. I don't know a single rational person with even a smidgen of physics understanding that would even begin to suggest that a plane and a little jet fuel could somehow weaken the central columns of all three buildings.
All the "debunking" has been thoroughly debunked at this point. The giant media corporations are still rolling with the obviously false official story, and I can only scratch my head and wonder that ANYBODY still buys that nonsense.
The structural steel at the core of all 3 WTC buildings is incredibly strong. If you've ever worked with the stuff, you KNOW there is no way an aluminum can and some jet fuel could have ANY meaningful effect on it.
Not to mention this picture:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg
This simply DOES NOT HAPPEN due to stress fractures, random chance, airplane fuel, or any other reasonable explanation short of Thermite/Thermate or precision torching, neither of which have been discussed AT ALL in the "official" report.
Frankly, your ignorance needs to be eliminated. Read that AE911 site. It's CHOCK FULL of science, facts, math, and irrefutable evidence concerning that day and it's events.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
You think that came out of a vacuum? The reason the agreement was possible is because of the economy. Who wants to spend their life blowing things up and killing people when you can have a chance at a real life?
AccountKiller
The fact that it's associated primarily with militants is an unfortunate consequence of the popular media.
In may be unfortunate, but it's a fact. Words are defined by usage, not by dictionaries. People who write dictionaries actually look towards usage.
The fact remains that words are used to communicate with others. How you personally believe people should use a word is irrelevant.
AccountKiller
Kindly link to where I posted such drivel so I can hit myself in the head. All I recall posting (and can see in this thread) is the answer to drivel claiming that "there are two versions currently available, one with all the names still in, and one with redacted names!", stating that no, there is no non-redacted version - the only version available online is sanitized.
His work on Tor was the reason for his communication with Wikileaks. So as someone doing cryptography research, I have to be careful about who I speak with, because if I give details about my work to the wrong people, I could be "detained?"
Palm trees and 8
>>>they decided to protect the people behind the 9/11 attacks against America.
As if their right. It's their country. Trying to capture the 5 or 10 men responsible for 9/11 wasn't worth the cost (~10,000 innocent Afghanis dead).
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
And our right was to throw them out of power, kill most of them, and allow a new government who wouldn't act in that way be established.
You can have certain rights, other will have them too. When they clash, the decision has to be made, does exercising this right outweigh the alternatives. Are the consequences worth the trouble? Unfortunately, the Taliban thought it was, now they don't have that right any more because they effectively endorsed Al Qeada and we removed them from power.
This sounds impossible but you're simultaneously under- and over-estimating the threat.
The point I was trying to make was this, every day we take risks, risks that can cause us to perish. I believe that freedom is more important than being free from risk. And before this gets twisted, every individual has the freedom to remove as much risk as they deem necessary, but the government should not be imposing on how much freedom should be removed to reduce risk.
In the UK, the authorities can drop you down a hole for 72 hours without allowing you contact with anyone.
And still, the nations you mention have been attacked. There is no way to prevent the unknown, only to mitigate against it. The tube bombings in London could have been prevented if no one rode, but are people really willing to give that up for the certainty that they will not die in a subway?
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
At the moment someone is inconvenienced enough that they feel it is unreasonable, they should complain about it. Apparently, that's exactly what's happened here.
By stating your opinion, you make a tiny push toward your opinions becoming accepted. I don't feel that a few hours is too bad, so I state my opinion, too. Both contribute to someone else's opinion, which on a larger scale contributes ever-so-slightly to the legislature.
It's called democracy. Everybody gets an opinion, even if they oppose absolute freedom.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
either you're a liar, or an idiot.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop
The version Wikileaks posted was not fully sanitized. The media outlets they released it to earlier apparently did a little more work sanitizing them, but the actual version wikileaks released publicly was not fully sanitized.