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.

Comments

of course

[Anonymous Coward]

figures...

Re:of course

[whizbang77045]

What did he expect? A Boy Scout merit badge?

Re:of course

[WCguru42]

What did he expect? A Boy Scout merit badge?

As a citizen of the United States? Probably that one phone call to his lawyer and the right from unlawful detainment, to name a few.

Re:of course

[MysteriousPreacher]

Your attachment to due process and the constitution makes Henry Kissinger cry.

Re:of course

[rhook]

Since he wasn't under arrest he had no right to a phone call. Last time I checked, US Customs didn't need a reason to detain anyone crossing the border.

Re:of course

[jaak]

As a citizen of the United States?

Wow, I can't imagine what would have happened if he hadn't been a citizen of the United States...

Re:of course

[Hatta]

Funny, I don't see an "except for the border" clause in the Bill of Rights.

Re:of course

[Abreu]

He would have been disappeared in a jail somewhere in Poland or Romania

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States

Re:of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You also dont have "unless we claim terrorism", "unless we're thinking of the children" or "unless corporate interests override" in there.

Re:of course

[iivel]

At the border, and before you cross through customs - you are not yet in the US

Re:of course

[Montezumaa]

Actually, you are in the United States and the agents of the United States are required to do their job according to the U.S. Constitution, judicial precedent, and U.S. Federal Law. A U.S. Citizen that is entering the United States and is detained once landing in the U.S. is protected by all laws and the U.S. Constitution.

I know that the U.S. Government tries to tell itself this is not the case, but it is. This guy did the right thing by not talking, which is what I would have done. He is under no obligation to give the U.S. Government any information.

It seems like J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is still going strong. It use to be that the FBI worked hard to have U.S. Citizens see "Red" in their soup with communist witch hunts, and now they are changing over to having us(U.S. Citizens) see terrorist in our soup.

People believe that the U.S. Government has gotten bad, or turned into a "police state", but the fact is that this sort of stuff has been going on for a long time. This situation will continue until those that are governed decide to change this and demand real change.

To save a lot of discussion...that will never happen. People will continue to keep their head in the sand, until they are targeted. At that point, it will be too late.

Re:of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you have a right to speak to a representative from your consulate.

Re:of course

[arashi no garou]

Keep in mind it's not the "one phone call" that you are entitled to as a detained or arrested individual. Take it from someone who worked as a booking officer early in life: Cops are only *required* to let you phone someone if you specifically say you want to call your lawyer. Anyone else -- Mom, Dad, best friend, etc. -- is entirely up to how gracious the detaining officers are.

Speaking of unlawful detainment, didn't you know there is no such thing anymore, at least if the federal government is the entity detaining you? Georgie Bush wiped his ass with the Due Process and Habeas Corpus parts of the law, remember?

Re:of course

[ta bu shi da yu]

So? He's a U.S. citizen!

Re:of course

[AHuxley]

http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2008/10/aclu-23-of-us-population-lives-in-constitution-free-zone.ars
"... federal statute 8 CFR 287.1 (a)(1-3) defines the border zone for enforcement purposes as encompassing an area within 100 miles of the actual border"
They can get to you at any "random" internal checkpoint they like :)
http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA some vids of the stops.

Re:of course

[MindlessAutomata]

Georgie Bush wiped his ass with the Due Process and Habeas Corpus parts of the law, remember?

News flash: This is the Obama administration we're in.

Re:of course

[arashi no garou]

News flash: The Obama administration started in 2008/2009, Bush took our rights in 2001. are you a teenager who doesn't remember that, or were you asleep last decade?

Re:of course

[Sir_Lewk]

Sush. We've always been at war with Eastasia.

Re:of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize... which unfortunately says more about the Prize than it does about ol' Hank.

Re:of course

[diamondmagic]

News flash: Not only is the Obama administration upholding Bush policy, but they are expanding upon it (Internet and cell phone logs are exempt from any constitutional protection because there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy," they say). What Bush did is what Bush did in the past, we get to blame Obama too, now. (And, News flash: our individual rights have been under attack for a very, very long time).

Re:of course

[MindlessAutomata]

Exactly. It's incredible that people will defend Obama on this just because Bush started it, as if Bush is somehow sticking his hand up Obama's ass and making him his puppet.

It's like a little kid justifying bullying other children because another kid who left the room "started it." "Don't blame me," Obama said, with a smirk as he blew cigarette smoke into your face, "Bush started this all."

Re:of course

[arashi no garou]

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm highly disappointed with Obama as well; it really pisses me off that no matter the political party we're going to end up with a shitty president.

And yeah, this steady erosion of our rights has been going on for a long time despite progress made in other areas. For example, these days you don't get detained for being black very often; rather it's how "radical" you are based on what you post or otherwise contribute to on the 'net.

Re:of course

[Miseph]

Among the list of things not included in the Constitution: Geographic limits to where the rules apply.

A crazy, anti-American pinko hippie like myself just might read the Constitution as saying "the government will not do these things" and insist that there are no exceptions based on where they try to do them, why they try to do them, or who they try to do them too. This gets patriotic God-fearing Americans who really honor and cherish the Constitution a bit pissy, because they would prefer the government to torture "the terrorists" and make people disappear when it is in the interests of "national security"... so they tell their congresscritters to try passing laws to make people like me keep our damn Freedom-hating mouths shut.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some more soldiers to kill with my desire to get them out of an unnecessary and unjust war.

Re:of course

[Runaway1956]

Parsing words is for people like Bill Clinton. Detained or arrested - they interrogated the man, and he is entitled to have a lawyer present during questioning. Three hours of interrogation without a lawyer, especially after he ASKED for a lawyer to be present, is unconstitutional.

If a cop ever tells you that "You're not under arrest, but you can't leave", you tell him that's bullshit, and you demand your lawyer be present.

Re:of course

[anagama]

The Obama administration also claims the right to simply call any US citizen a terrorist and assassinate him or her. No need for evidence, trials, or convictions. Just the say-so of some shadowy group or person. Now there's some change. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations

Re:of course

[Anonymous Coward]

News flash: This is the Obama administration we're in.

That doesn't undo the actions of the previous... But has anything changed for the better? Any promises kept? I see rewriting of the dictionary a bit, but things are progressing just as they were(seems to me).

Re:of course

[Ueland]

Well, it takes more than one new president to clean up that guy`s mess.

Re:of course

[jcr]

>Since he wasn't under arrest he had no right to a phone call.

If he was being forcibly detained, then he was under arrest. Courts have slapped cops many times for trying to pretend that someone wasn't under arrest when they weren't allowed to leave.

>Last time I checked, US Customs didn't need a reason to detain anyone crossing the border.

US Customs routinely operates outside the law. That's something we need to stop.

-jcr

Re:of course

[jcr]

If a cop ever tells you that "You're not under arrest, but you can't leave", you tell him that's bullshit, and you demand your lawyer be present.

Better still, point out that if you're not under arrest, but the cop isn't letting you leave, then the cop is a kidnapper.

-jcr

Re:of course

[jcr]

This is the Obama administration we're in.

That would be the Empty Suit in Chief who signed the PATRIOT act extension, right?

I really pity the people who believed that asshole ever had any intention of fulfilling any of his campaign promises. He was bought and paid for before he ever set foot in the Senate chamber.

-jcr

Re:of course

[jcr]

Federal statutes don't trump the constitution.

-jcr

Re:of course

[jcr]

For example, these days you don't get detained for being black very often

Unless, say, you drive a car through a neighborhood that the cops don't want you in.

-jcr

Re:of course

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference?

Re:of course

[Xaositecte]

Funny, I'd think you would have at least read the preamble to the constitution if you were planning on talking about it.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

There are also articles explicitly suspending all sorts of protection for the purposes.

The Constitution also directly provides the "exceptions" you don't think exist.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

That said, I agree with your point, that plenty of the decisions made as part of the "War on terror" are bullshit.

I just want you to read the damn constitution and know what it actually says.

Re:of course

[jhylkema]

Federal statutes don't trump the constitution.

All enactments of Congress are presumed constitutional. That presumption holds unless and until the courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, say otherwise.

May I suggest an "Intro to Law" or "Law for Nonlawyers" course at your local community college?

Re:of course

[jhylkema]

Funny, I don't see an "except for the border" clause in the Bill of Rights.

The latest example of the legal illiteracy that pervades /. This is a classic example of the kind of uninformed blather that comes out of the mouth of someone posting to /. from his parents' basement in between rounds of masturbating to Ayn Rand or some other losertarian fantasy/fallacy. The rest of us who have real jobs know that the world, and especially the legal system, is ever-so-slightly more complicated.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not apply at the border. At all. Anyone can be searched, questioned or detained at any time for any reason at the border or the "functional equivalent of the border." And in a country of laws, the U.S. Supreme Court has the right to say what the Constitution says.

Re:of course

[VShael]

Funny, I don't see an "except for the border" clause in the Bill of Rights.

It's been that way since 1985. (United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985))

Only recently has the government redefined what a border means, to be a 100 mile wide strip around the boundaries of the United States.

Since two thirds of the country lives within 100 miles of the old defined "border", that means almost 200 million people live in a constitutional free zone.

Re:of course

[iivel]

Interesting...I'd actually like to read some of the relevant court cases if you have them handy. I travel abroad fairly extensively and always operated under the assumption that before being allowed into a country I was covered by international law (or in the case of the EU, the EU constitution) ... but not necessarily offered full protection under the individual country's constitution.

I do remember a while back this coming up on /. regarding border protection confiscating laptops ... whatever was the legal fallout from that since that seemed to be a clear-cut violation of the due process clause?

Re:of course

[Anonymous Coward]

You can be legally detained without being charged for up to 23 hours and 59 minutes.

Re:of course

[Muad'Dave]

Then they don't have any jurisdiction, do they? They can't have it both ways - either you're in the US and they have jurisdiction, or you're not and they don't.

Re:of course

[Darby]

I really pity the people who believed that asshole ever had any intention of fulfilling any of his campaign promises.

Huh? He promised to keep up his support for the massive criminally treasonous extensions to FISA prior to being elected. He is keeping his promises to continue the treasonous policies of the Bush administration. Since prior to being elected he already declared his explicit intention to violate the oath of office for the office for which he was running (by supporting criminal spying on Americans) there was never any way any decent American or decent human being could have voted for Obama based solely upon that fact. Voting for him after that is a fundamental shirking of responsibility as a citizen and there is no excuse that can justify such a cowardly action.

The fact that the Republican candidates were ten times the traitors Obama is doesn't excuse his actions, it condemns Republican voters as the rabidly anti-American Nazi scum they are by definition.

Re:of course

[Miseph]

First of all, the preamble is not legally binding. It is an introduction, flavor text as it were. While reading it gives some insight to how the framers meant it, and helps to establish context, it is not to be confused with the actually meaningful parts which follow.

The Constitution proper outlines the structure for the United States of America, and more specifically for the Federal Government thereof. The first ten amendments, AKA The Bill of Rights, place restrictions on what laws can be passed by the Federal government (and most of these were, subsequently, imposed onto the individual States as well), and what actions it can take, insofar as dealing with civil liberties.

Nowhere in either part of this does it specify that the Federal Government may do the things it is prohibited from doing when a) acting outside of the United States, or b) dealing with non-citizens. That is to say, by my reading of the document, the US government is no more able to infringe upon the free speech of a Mexican citizen than a US citizen, and that it is no more able to violate the Rights of the Accused for an Iraqi citizen than a US citizen.

You did cite a specific passage stating that Habeas Corpus may be suspended, although arguably that particular line refers to suspending it altogether, ie. declaring martial law, rather than on a case-by case basis. more relevant would be the 5th amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." which actually DOES allow the government to treat military prisoners differently than civilian ones. Of course the 6th amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." does not. And given Article VI's clause on treaties: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." pretty much means that the various treaties on treatment of POWS etc. are given weight equal to the Constitution itself.

So what was that about reading the Constitution?

Re:of course

[Montezumaa]

Please do not take this as me being an ass(which I usually am), but there is no such thing as "international law". There are accords and treaties that counties will agree to, but there is no legal bindings set in these agreements. If the treaties are violated, then neither side will accept the agreements setup in the treaties.

If there was an animal that existed(international laws), then a country could require my extradition for violating other country's laws within the borders of my country(the United States). It gets really convoluted, but it is easy to understand the "broad strokes".

When you enter into the United States from another country, either by air, sea, or land, you are on United States soil. Since agents of the United States are handling incoming visitors and returning citizens, these agents are bound by the U.S. Constitution when handling possible violators of the law. This is how agents are trained when handling such situations(of which I have such training). U.S. Ports are handling in similar manners as U.S. Embassies, sort of. There are some exceptions(which are mostly court decided, not explicitly Constitutionally based) to U.S. Constitutional protections, such as search and seizure, but these exception are extremely narrow.

I am not saying that I agree with the exceptions, but these are exceptions that do exist. What I will say is that, in regards to the United States, you are fully protected by the United States Constitution when you are U.S. soil(which all property within 12 miles of the cost of the United States, Hawaii, Alaska, U.S. Embassies, and other various property owned by the U.S. Government).

Re:of course

[iivel]

I get the broad strokes - though in the brief readings I've been doin since your original post; wouldn't a treatise or accord be given the full weight of law (in the US)? If not something like the ICC couldn't exist (which does request, on occasion, the extradition of citizens; though not all countries have given up their soverign powers in all respects). I'm still slightly confused as to how the soverign power of a nation to impose laws can affect it's citizens when they are outside of the soverign territory...but I guess that's another issue.

It seems an interesting subject that I will have to educate myself more on. I did find the US Supreme Court Case Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Les Racisme et L'Antisemitisme 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001) rather interesting for the discussion on the comity of nations and the rare instances that it would be ignored.

Anyhow, thanks for providing real value to a thread (rare on /. sometimes) and correcting my misinterpretation on border crossing.

Re:of course

[jcr]

That presumption holds unless and until the courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, say otherwise.

Not according to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, or the promises that the Federalists themselves made at the Virginia ratifying convention.

-jcr

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone gets detained at the US border now and then. This sucks, but it's sad that we only hear about it when it happens to a Tor devoloper.

Re:So what?

[etymxris]

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.

Re:So what?

[0100010001010011]

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.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it good that we even have "a system"?

Re:So what?

[0111 1110]

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.

Re:So what?

[JustNilt]

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.

Re:So what?

[Redlazer]

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.

Re:So what?

[Sollord]

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.

Re:So what?

[Sollord]

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

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So what?

[MindlessAutomata]

The problem is the use of such systems to harass otherwise law-abiding citizens.

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?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:So what?

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:So what?

[moeinvt]

"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".

Re:So what?

[Optic7]

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? :-)

Opinions are a crime now?

[CarpetShark]

asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

That's more worrying than the detention etc. But then ground-level grunts never did know the law well.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

That's more worrying than the detention etc. But then ground-level grunts never did know the law well.

Do you think it will rain tomorrow? I don't really care what you think but I am trying to get a reaction that I can use against you.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

But then ground-level grunts never did know the law well.

The ground level grunts simply propagate the attitudes and atmosphere of the upper echelon. Sort of like "corporate culture" in the business world. I think it speaks volumes about the attitudes (ie complete lack of respect for the rights of those you're _servicing_) in general of the entire organizations.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[OverlordQ]

Where does it mention anywhere that his opinions were a crime? It's called interrogation, they're trying to establish his mindset. Couldn't resist a chance to bash The Man though.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[the linux geek]

Who said anything about it being a crime? What law says that law enforcement officers can't ask questions?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you mean by 'The Man'?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[sammyF70]

first rule of engagement during an interrogation : don't talk to cops (or wannabe cops), let your lawyer do the work. There are no innocent questions to "establish your mindset" when everything you say can and will be used against you.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Vellmont]

It's an obvious ploy to get him to start talking. More obvious is the line about "human rights being trampled". Once he starts talking the hope is he'll spill some information the FBI doesn't already know. Many people fall for this kind if thing as it appeals to their ego. Appelbaum is obviously smart enough to realize there's really nothing for him to gain by talking to the FBI, and only things to lose.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[angelwolf71885]

what law says they have the right to detain anyone without a resin? even with the patriot act they STILL need a resin!

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[darkpixel2k]

what law says they have the right to detain anyone without a resin? even with the patriot act they STILL need a resin!

Undoubtedly without a resin, nothing would stick.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said anything about it being a crime? What law says that law enforcement officers can't ask questions?

None. They can always ask questions, but you are not required to answer (see 5th).

But once the Customs & Border patrol determined that:

1. This guy is a genuine card-carrying American.
2. This guy is not carrying any illegal contraband on his person or in his belongings.
3. There is no warrant pending for his arrest.

He has therefore committed no crime, he has the right to enter the United States of America, and they have no right to detain him.

I hope he sues the fucks for a few million for violating his constitutional rights.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[RobertLTux]

well lets start with The Fifth amendment slide by the Miranda regs and end up speaking about the rules of evidence
(i think that they are not "allowed" to use any info prior to the reading of the Miranda text but will anyway).
some Leos use the YOU ARE NOT UNDER ARREST ploy to try to skate by Miranda (its implied that it only applies when you are under arrest)

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no innocent questions to "establish your mindset" when everything you say can and will be used against you.

When everything you say can and will be used against you there are some hilarious statements and questions that can be made. Love to see them try to use them in court with a straight face.

"Do you smell pork?"

"I fucked your mom last night."

"Officer did your parents have any children that were not mentally retarded or are you an only child?"

etc.,etc.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Simon (S2)]

America is at war. I think America pissed off a lot of countries, and it gives me the impression that it is scared and full of fear.
I am European, and went to a trip to Las Vegas last year to have some fun. When I landed in Chicago we (all EU citizens who landed there) had our fingerprints taken, and they took a picture of all passengers. I think it's crazy. What does your government want to accomplish doing so? If you come to the EU you just land, (sometimes you don't even) get you passport checked and you are done.

BTW, I really enjoyed my stay, Las Vegas is a great place to have fun, get drunk and play poker, an most American people there where really nice.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[angelwolf71885]

this is true but FISHING for a resin like they were doing ISN'T a resin

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[hedwards]

As soon as you're not free to leave you're under arrest, that's something which isn't very well communicated. Just because they haven't frisked you and put you in handcuffs does not mean you're not arrested. Judicially, there's been quite a bit of slide in terms of miranda warnings lately, with the courts allowing a lot of stuff which really shouldn't be.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Splab]

Damn, you beat me to it - it has to be posted on every single discussion until people get it.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

what law says they have the right to detain anyone without a resin? even with the patriot act they STILL need a resin!

Undoubtedly without a resin, nothing would stick.

Excellent!

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[X0563511]

Hostile attitude, disrespect for law enforcement officers - helps color your character the wrong way.

Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?) keep your yapper shut and let your lawyer do the talking.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[fotbr]

Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?) keep your yapper shut and let your lawyer do the talking.

There's no such thing as a friendly interrogation. Always, always, always keep your yap shut and let the lawyer talk. It's sad, but that's the USA of today.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't make fun of the disabled...

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Khyber]

"Hostile attitude, disrespect for law enforcement officers "

I have an easy answer to that.

"Officer (or agent, whichever the situation calls for,) you are aware that multiple state and federal Supreme Courts have ruled that I have a lawful right to use of lethal force in defense against an unconscionable arrest, are you not? Either you let me go now or I'm going to have to stand in front of a judge to once again get that fact reaffirmed."

Memphis cops HATED me. And the FBI, when they tried the same sort of bullshit with me in high school, back when Columbine happened, they REALLY didn't like it, either. Guess what? I'm still here, and they leave me the fuck alone.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[darkpixel2k]

this is true but FISHING for a resin like they were doing ISN'T a resin

I think you're missing something:

Resin: any of various solid or semisolid amorphous fusible flammable natural organic substances that are usually transparent or translucent and yellowish to brown, are formed especially in plant secretions, are soluble in organic solvents (as ether) but not in water, are electrical nonconductors, and are used chiefly in varnishes, printing inks, plastics, and sizes and in medicine

Reason: The word you appear to be looking for.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as you're not free to leave you're under arrest, that's something which isn't very well communicated. Just because they haven't frisked you and put you in handcuffs does not mean you're not arrested. Judicially, there's been quite a bit of slide in terms of miranda warnings lately, with the courts allowing a lot of stuff which really shouldn't be.

Are you a lawyer? I would guess you're not, because what you are saying is not correct.

When you are placed under arrest you are charged with a crime. Being detained is a valid (legal) event where the police can prevent you from leaving an area or hold you, but you are not charged with a crime. There is (in most reasonable jurisdictions) a time limit to how long you can be detained without charge. Once that limit has been reached they police must either let you go or charge you (in which case you must then must be able to a judge in a reasonable amount of time—habeas corpus and all that).

So being detained and being arrested are two different things. Either way, it's generally best to keep your mouth shut.

IANAL though.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Delarth799]

Psst, its spelled reason. Resin is a sticky plant substance used in glue

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?)

That's a great example, some time later in court:

officer: "the defendant as per his own admission was the last person to see the late Mr. Dorm A"
you: "what just happened?!"

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The law is a bit different when crossing the border

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

I've never tried, but isn't threatening officers with lethal force a bad idea? Especially if THEY have all sorts of weapons, while YOU are armed only with your bare fists (this was inside an airport, remember?). Well, when I think about it, it is probably even more stupid if you are actually armed, because that will probably make them take your threat seriously and try to avoid getting shot by shooting you first.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I put this simply... perhaps a simple "No" covers it.

You can be involuntarily detained without being arrested. There is, unfortunately, a lot of grey area surrounding why and for how long. It's not as simple as "free to go" or "arrested".

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish you people would stop thinking that the US is the best at everything. Our law enforcement in the UK is just as bad.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

And then they jailed you like the dumb idiot you are.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Well see, here's the thing.

Whenever the state does something that would be illegal for a citizen, they have to have a reason. Many of the things that police and other agencies do are "evil"--arrest and imprisonment is effectively kidnapping, execution is murder, seizing property (including money from fines and damages) is theft, etc--and so ideally they must justify that evil by showing that it is to prevent more evil things from happening in the future; otherwise, we wouldn't put up with it.

I would imagine that a lot of police and other agents (many of whom show up as 'corrupt' on most peoples' moral radars) forget that these actions are evil and consider it just another tool or part of the process of law enforcement. However, being arrested is to the suspect as bad as or worse than kidnapping, especially if they are, in fact, innocent. You are put in a terrifying situation, and if you say the wrong thing, even though you are innocent, you might (you fear) disappear for the rest of your life; the people involved make it clear that they don't care about you, but you're supposed to trust in their ability to dispense justice and ONLY justice; they have this kind of power over you but you have to trust the law to reign in their power and prevent them from doing truly evil things; etc.

So, though IANAL as well, I agree with the GP; as soon as they're kidnapping (even in effect), they should be under the same or more restrictions as when they're performing an arrest. If they try to sneak past that restriction on a technicality--and especially when that's for their own sakes and not for the suspect's--then they are showing that they can't be entrusted with the law per se. Because the law, and agents of the law, should be working to make less evil in this world; if they're doing evil things because they can get away with it rather than after deliberation, that's creating more evil, not less.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you are placed under arrest you are charged with a crime

That may be true in whatever dinky little country you came from, but here in the US, the government can arrest you and hold you for somewhere around 2 years before charging you with a crime.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as you're not free to leave you're under arrest, that's something which isn't very well communicated.

Care to back this up with some proof ? IANAL, but I always understood that the police have a right to detain you without arrest for a reasonable period so that they have time to investigate the underlying circumstances that caused your detainment. Say you charge away from the bushes by a darkened house at night just as a cop comes by. It may be your house. It may not, but the police can hold you under suspicion of a crime (burglary, peeping tom) until they've had adequate time to determine whether or not a crime has been committed.

I would ask the police if I was free to go or not. I understand there is a hard limit, but it's more like 1-3 days, depending on what the circumstances justify. If they go over that, then you may have recourse, but for me, I would ask a lawyer first. 3 hours doesn't seem unjust in this case.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[DesScorp]

That's more worrying than the detention etc.

Why? A crime occured... classified documents were given to unauthorized group, and the government is looking for both who leaked them, and who helped the leaker get the classified documents out. Asking him his opinions on the wars... a prime motivation for the leakers, almost certainly, is no different from investigators asking a suspect opinions like "Do you think the victim deserved it?"... it's all about building a case and establishing motivation. There is absolutely nothing unusual about this. Investigators and prosecuters have been doing it as long as there have been investigators and prosecutors. There's nothing unconstitutional about it all. After all, you DO have the right to remain silent. If you don't, that's your business.

BTW, how is what the leakers did any different than people that gave classified docs to the Soviets and Chinese? Motivation? It's the same motivation. My government is wrong, and the best way to change that is to help their enemies. Here's a bag of classified documents.

Assange is a little different, as he's a foreigner on something of a crusade against "American Imperialism", but Bradley Manning is no different from the couple that were just sentenced to prison for shoveling classified info to Castro for years.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[commodore64_love]

>>>What law says that law enforcement officers can't ask questions?

They can. But you don't have to answer per the following Supreme Laws: "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." ----- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ----- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Such as the right to travel freely without impediment.)

Now one could argue that because it's an international border, they can detain you forever, but I don't buy that argument especially when it involves Documented US citizens. Rights are inalienable and you have them even if the government is a Tyrant that does not recognize those rights. Indefinite detainment is a human rights abuse, and makes the US no better than the USSR or China or Cuba or Iraq.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[mwvdlee]

"Officer (or agent, whichever the situation calls for,) you are aware that multiple state and federal Supreme Courts have ruled that I have a lawful right to use of lethal force in defense against an unconscionable arrest, are you not? Either you let me go now or I'm going to have to stand in front of a judge to once again get that fact reaffirmed."

Yes, becauses when killers appear in court, judges always tend to believe the word of the killer over that of cops.

In court, being right means nothing if you can't prove it.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[commodore64_love]

There's nothing to be gain from talking to ANY officer. Name, drivers license, and that's it. (And if you're driving, you don't even need to show an drivers license. "My name is ____," will comply with the law. When I was pulled over by the Homeland Gestapo while traveling across the country, they tried to get me to talk but I refused.

"Why won't you let us search your trunk?"
"You said you don't have a search warrant."
"What do you got in there?"
"....."
"Where are you headed?"
"....."
"Where did you come from?"
"....."

They then made me stand in the hot afternoon sun for an hour, but I refused to comply. Eventually they let me go when they realized they had no other option.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[commodore64_love]

>>>It's crazy...If you come to the EU you just land

Maybe you too would have tight security if the EU has some major buildings, like the Paris Eiffel Tower and Ministry of Defence, blown to the ground by terrorists. As happened to us on 9/11.

I can easily imagine the MEPs standing in Parliament, having a fit, and then passing something similar to the Uniting Europe by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (EU PATRIOT) Act. After all, you Europeans have done it in the past with strong border controls and fingerprinting.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?)

If you had bothered to watch the youtube video, the Law Professor describes a story about a guy getting jailed for answering such "friendly" questions. How? He said he has no idea who the criminal was, was nowhere near the crime, but had no alibis to prove it, so the cops locked him up. Then they found some woman to testify that they saw that guy at the crime scene, and he was found guilty in court.

You should also watch the recent Penn & Teller episode about Criminal Justice. A black man was imprisoned for 35 years for a crime he never committed. He too had made the mistake of cooperating with police, and they rewarded him by taking away half his life. He was released when DNA evidence showed that the "criminal's blood" on the knife did not match his blood.

Don't Talk To Cops. Ever.
You'll just framed, even if you're innocent.
"You have the right to remain silent..." - US Supreme Court

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting soldiers and their trusted informants in danger is evil. I hope they arrest all of the wikileaks people.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[commodore64_love]

FIX:

(And if you're [not] driving, you don't even need to show a drivers license.)

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[hitmark]

did you happen to have news crews nearby, given that you didnt get stomped and slapped with "obstructing justice"?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[hitmark]

is this not a whistleblower scenario?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[AK Marc]

Not anymore. Arrest only applies if you aren't free to leave and you have no reasonable expectation that you will be released shortly (with varying definitions of "shortly"). They invented a grey area where you can hold someone and as long as the person you are holding believes they will be released shortly (even if that's based on lies by the officials) they are not under arrest. This pseudo-arrest applies for traffic stops (cops hold you against your will, then ask questions like "do you know why I stopped you" without informing you that you have the right to remain silent) and has recently been expanded to the 48 hour "holding" where they get 48 hours to find or invent a charge to arrest you with. But, since you are guaranteed that you will be released in some set time, you aren't under arrest, and so do not get the protections afforded to someone who is arrested.

Once you are arrested, there has been no slide of Miranda, it's just that arrest no longer means what it once did when the only two options were "free to walk away" or "under arrest." They invented a third option to get around the definition of "arrest."

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Vellmont]

There's nothing to be gain from talking to ANY officer. Name, drivers license, and that's it.
When I was pulled over by the Homeland Gestapo while traveling across the country, they tried to get me to talk but I refused.

In 2009 I was pulled over 4 or 5 times by Homeland Gestapo while vacationing in Arizona. They setup these large roadblocks, stop everyone and ask if you're a citizen. I'm a pretty average looking white guy, so they just flagged me through each time. In contrast it sounds like in your case it cost you an hour in the afternoon sun. So while you say there's nothing ever to be gained by playing the game (in this case just saying you're a citizen), I personally value not spending an hour in the sun. (Though I wouldn't have let them search my trunk if they asked either).

I'm actually still quite pissed off that this kind of crap is still happening. I don't agree with it in the least, and hate the fact that the Federal Govt. thinks they can just stop people driving around in their own country for no other reason than to ask us if we're citizens.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[adamofgreyskull]

Trilled:
1. Produce a quavering or warbling sound.
2. Sing (a note or song) with a warbling or quavering sound.

Trolled :
What you appear to have been. :)

And of coarse, the resin he was detained was because the Tor project facilitates the kinds of leaking/whistle-blowing that the government wants to stop. No doubt a lot of people are now under a great deal of pressure to plug the leaks and are doing everything in their power. Not a good resin, but there we are. Merely demanding that they have a "reason" isn't a very high benchmark.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[PrimaryConsult]

Oh, you mean like a subway station bombing?

Admittedly not the EU, but bad shit has happened all over the world. The correct response would be to sacrifice the least amount of liberty / financing to get the most amount of additional security. If every time the terrorists sacrifice a dozen guys, the US to spends hundreds of billions of dollars to help take away the freedoms they hate us for, they win.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't I seen articles and discussion here on slashdot about the new Homeland Security Constitution free zone of 100 Miles from any border or coastline giving the Homeland Security forces the power of detention for any reason, requirement to have valid Passports of other ID within the United States and the requirement to produce such ID on demand whether you are a US citizen or not.

Now there's the Arizona law, soon to be duplicated by other states across the republic, that extends that power from the Homeland Security forces to the local law enforcement and extending the 100 mile boundary to the whole state.

I think the most of the people in the United States are already living in a police state.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove Wikileaks put anyone in danger. If you can't do that, STFU. The US Government doesn't need anyone to spread propaganda for them. They make Goebbels look like an amateur

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[sumdumass]

The supreme court has stated over and over again that things entering or leaving the country is a matter of sovereignty which creates allowances in which the constitution doesn't strictly cover. This is backed up by the country's very first congress creating warrantless searches at the borders and ports in their very first year in operation. The first ruling by the supreme court concerning this comes over this very law in which a ship was boarded and searched and two stowaways were found and captured along with some illegal cargo.

The right to do more then what regular LEOs can do when at the border has been ingrained almost as long as this country has been around. The major difference now it the coverage and frequency of it happening.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[azgard]

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.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[joebagodonuts]

America is at war.

Ummm - I don't think we are. That is part of the problem: "A mere declaration of war would not have made that kind of appealing ending much likelier, but it couldn't have hurt either. Sixty-five years ago, we declared war against Japan and Germany, and we fought that one tenaciously and decisively and won it conclusively. We did not send the same message before hostilities began with either Iraq or Afghanistan, and there we drift and dither still. Now, we await commissions and coalitions to help extricate us from the shambles Iraq has become and achieve the stable state that Afghanistan could still be. Knowing what we were getting into in the beginning — and saying so out loud — might have helped spare us and the world a lot of pain."

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

is this not a whistleblower scenario?

No. A whistle blower would have provided only the excerpts required to make his case and trigger the investigation.

This asshat is accused of releasing documents that endanger the lives of Afghan nationals assisting the coalition forces and coalition service members. If found guilty, he deserves to spend the rest of his life doing hard labor in Federal PMITA prison.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Attitude, yes. BUT and this is HUGE--refusing to answer questions without an attorney present DOES NOT constitute probable cause, is NOT allowed to dictate police action, and is NOT admissable at trial. Don't be a dick, but don't give away your rights because a l.e.o. says that it will "help you/them out"

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Erikderzweite]

Terrorist attacks happened in Spain, March 11, 2004. That's EU. No "patriot" acts so far. Spain also has a long story of terrorist attacks in Basque province.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how exactly did the soldiers end up in the dangerous places which are Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[benedict]

My guess, based just on reading the news, is that Jake's detention had less to do with Tor, and more to do with WikiLeaks.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[NeutronCowboy]

More people have died in either Spain, England, Ireland or France due to terrorist bombings than in the US. No, there hasn't been anything as spectacular as 9/11. But in terms of actual body count, Europe has far more experience with terrorism than the US. Maybe that's why there wasn't this massive overreaction.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[darkpixel2k]

And of coarse

*sigh* This is never going to end, is it?

coarse: rough, unrefined, crude
course: as expected

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[nmos]

No doubt a lot of people are now under a great deal of pressure to plug the leaks and are doing everything in their power. Not a good resin, but there we are.

Actually, resin has been used for thousands of years for plugging leaks. Trying to reason with a leak has however proven less affective :)

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

unfortunately in the UK depending on when you choose to be silent, the jury can and will be instructed that they can draw inferences from it.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

What law says that law enforcement officers can't ask questions?

No law forbids that, to my knowledge.
But they didn't ask him if he prefers Coke or Pepsi, rock or hip-hop, basketball or baseball.
They detained him and asked him his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Torodung]

Whoa! Are we now the first and best example of international terrorism? Is that what you're saying? Look up the history of the IRA, dude. A campaign that had successful attacks over decades, and a much higher cost in lives and property. Then tell me we haven't gone a little, a smidge, crazy.

Patriotic landmarkism bugs me too. We should still be talking about the firemen, not the Trade Center. The lives are what matters, not the property, nor the notoriety of that property.

--
Toro

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[izomiac]

"Sir, were you aware that your left taillight is out?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!
"Did you just see two men in ski masks run this way?!?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!
"There's an accident a little further down this road, so it's closed. Can I direct you to a detour?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!
"It seems that your car died, do you need any assistance?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!

Yes, you should always pay a lawyer to deal with the police. Nevermind that most people interact with police several times a year, but only ~3-5% are ever arrested in their lifetime.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol... you bastard. And you made me waste my one slashdot comment.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[justin12345]

Europe has endured far more terrorism then North America (since we are talking continents here). The IRA, the Basque Separatist Movement, Al Qaeda bombings all over the place, Libyan Attacks in Rome and Vienna, Lockerbie, just to name a few. Though really that point is completely irrelevant.

The first terrorist bombing in NYC occurred on September 16, 1920 on the corner of Wall Street and Broad Street. It was a "horse drawn wagon bomb" which instantly killed 38 people and seriously wounded 400 more (which given it was 1920 probably meant they just died slower). If you go to the JP Morgan building you can still see the holes the dynamite propelled metal shrapnel tore in the building, they never repaired it.

At the time they handled it as a crime, nothing more, despite the fact that political pamphlets calling for the release of political prisoners were found nearby and the bombing was believed to have been tied to a group which had been distributing letter bombs to politicians for at least a year prior. They didn't go to "war on terror". They didn't use the incident to justify flagrantly violating the constitution. Imagine if they had though. What sort of country would we live in now if they had?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[ArundelCastle]

Rights are inalienable and you have them even if the government is a Tyrant that does not recognize those rights.

Sounds good on paper. If it's you and two G-men in a room, and those two guys decide to beat you to death, writing a letter to your congressman will not solve anything after the fact.

Speaking as a student of law and philosophy, we like to think that morality and duty makes discussions of "rights" more important than children inventing rules on a playground. But it isn't like that out in the real world. Rights only matter if people and governments respect them. Laws only work on people and governments that care about consequences of breaking them.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[nmos]

There's nothing to be gain from talking to ANY officer.

Well that's not true. If you don't have anything to hide then what you usually have to gain is your time. In most cases answering their questions and letting them look at whatever they want to see gets you on your way a lot faster than demanding your rights. Weather cooperation is the "right" thing to do depends on the circumstances, sometimes helping the people we pay to enforce our laws is the "right" thing to do but not if they are abusing their authority.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[roman_mir]

Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?) keep your yapper shut and let your lawyer do the talking.

- buddy, stop giving stupid advices.

Don't talk to cops or any other 'agencies' ever about anything, you may get seriously hurt.

There is no such concept as 'friendly interrogation', what's wrong with you?

-Hey, did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?

The correct answer is: -Am I under arrest? No? Bye.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[at_slashdot]

More people have died in either Spain, England, Ireland or France due to terrorist bombings than in the US.

I wonder if that's factual... you know... true. Do you have any supporting evidence?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be interested to count how many times the word "citizen" occurs in the Bill of Rights.

In fact, you might be interested to note exactly when the definition of "citizen" was first incorporated into the Constitution. Hint: it took a war to do it, and it wasn't against the British.

The number of "rights" that US citizens have, that non-citizens don't, is really extremely limited. The right to live and work in the country, and the right to be president - that's probably about it. When it comes to things like habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, "citizenship" makes no difference at all.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

... Trying to reason with a leak has however proven less affective :)

I certainly hope the smiley means you know the correct word is "effective."

Affective: relating to moods, feelings, and attitudes.
Effective: successful in producing a desired or intended result.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

And of coarse

*sigh* This is never going to end, is it?

coarse: rough, unrefined, crude

course: as expected

coarse: rough, unrefined, crude

of coarse: coming from something rough, unrefined, or crude

course: The expected action.

of course: Acting as expected

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weather cooperation is the "right" thing to do depends on the circumstances, ....

Weather cooperation is rare. I can hardly ever get the weather to do what I want it to do.

As an aside, what is it with the spelling on Slashdot today? It seems rather worse than normal. Maybe there's a "resin" for it.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[quenda]

blown to the ground by terrorists. As happened to us on 9/11.

EU has had countless bombings and hijackings from IRA, ETA, Baader Meinhof, PLO, Red Brigades, etc over decades.
The US has just one attack and runs around screaming like it's WWIII ...

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[nmos]

I certainly hope the smiley means you know the correct word is "effective."

Of corse!

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[kenj0418]

"Thank you for calling 9-1-1. What is the nature of the emergency?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[kenj0418]

So how exactly did the soldiers end up in the dangerous places which are Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place?

We were in Afghanistan because that's where the people that attacked us were based (at the time anyway). We were in Iraq because... LOOK OVER THERE AT THAT SHINY THING... (*runs off*)

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Type44Q]

this is true but FISHING for a resin like they were doing ISN'T a resin

I think you're missing something: Resin: any of various solid or semisolid amorphous fusible flammable natural organic substances that are usually transparent or translucent and yellowish to brown, are formed especially in plant secretions, are soluble in organic solvents (as ether) but not in water, are electrical nonconductors, and are used chiefly in varnishes, printing inks, plastics, and sizes and in medicine Reason: The word you appear to be looking for.

Are we absolutely sure he didn't mean "raisin?"

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reason: The word you appear to be looking for.

Are you sure? Perhaps it should be like this:
"what law says they have the right to detain anyone without a ricin? even with the patriot act they STILL need a ricin!"

A single molecule is not much but still..

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[6350']

Did *you* bother to watch the video? He was describing a hypothetical example to demonstrate a point, not a case.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Resin: any of various solid or semisolid amorphous fusible flammable natural organic substances that are usually transparent or translucent and yellowish to brown, are formed especially in plant secretions, are soluble in organic solvents (as ether) but not in water, are electrical nonconductors, and are used chiefly in varnishes, printing inks, plastics, and sizes and in medicine

Reason: The word you appear to be looking for.

War on Drugs, War on Terror, same shit, different day.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[prograsm]

You beat me to it... That was the point of the linked video. Watch it, people! There's absolutely no good reason to talk to a law enforcement officer - everything you say can be used against you, absolutely nothing you say can be used to your own benefit. If the ploice suspect you, you will be arrested no matter what, no one has ever convinced a police officer to change their mind.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[fotbr]

Proper vehicle maintenance avoids #1 and #4 entirely.
#2 - ignore them and continue about your business. You have no obligation to speak with them.
#3 - you should have turned off when you saw them turning everyone else away, or when you saw that they had the road blocked.

There's no reason to invite unnecessary contact with anyone wearing a badge. Unless you like being detained and having your vehicle and/or person searched.

I'll admit I'm very biased against police -- I've spent far too long in areas with small-town police departments where corruption is the norm. But as a result, I don't give a damn if the two guys in ski masks just robbed my bank's local branch while I was in the parking lot, I'm not saying a damned thing to the police.

Maybe things are better in larger cities, but having seen the news, I doubt it.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[mjwx]

They can. But you don't have to answer per the following Supreme Laws: "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." ----- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ----- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Such as the right to travel freely without impediment.)

This is what I like about Australia's customs service, they have a specific list of questions they are not allowed to ask (politics, religious and personal beliefs, sexual preferences or anything sexual). Pretty much they'll keep it limited to your travel. I find they will engage a lot in small talk when undergoing a thorough inspection and this will almost entirely relate to travel ("where did you go", "did you see X whilst you were there", "what hotel did you stay in", "was it nice" and so forth). This serves two purposes, first to put the person at ease and second to see if the person will show any obvious signs of lying.

I've arrived back from such lovely places as Thailand and the Philippines as a single male traveller, I've had my bags searched, laptops and camera's weren't even looked at, Xanax, Cialis, Alaxan (prescription strength Ibuprofen and Paracetamol, not advisable to take with Alcohol) weren't even looked at. When I drew attention to the prescription only pharmaceuticals I was told "they're not illegal" and I left with them. Apparently all they were interested in was my guitar case which had what looked like hidden compartments, small containers covered the bolts to prevent them from scratching the guitar and had desiccant pouches inside which looked like drugs on the X-Ray. I've been told by USian's I've met abroad that Thailand and Philippine stamps tend to get you scrutinised very closely.

Give section S195 of the Customs act a read. What many people forget in their "love" of freedom (Read: hate of "the man") is that the law that protects us from customs also gives us some obligations to answer all legal questions... truthfully.

BTW, before anyone brings up Julian Assange. That happens all the time to people with old passports due to the relatively high fraud rate involved with old passports. Assange was not questioned, they only verified his passport.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[mjwx]

Terrorist attacks happened in Spain, March 11, 2004. That's EU. No "patriot" acts so far. Spain also has a long story of terrorist attacks in Basque province.

Terrorist attacks have been happening in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland for over 50 years (the troubles, lockerby) and there is not UK Patriot Act, well until the US showed that it could be done with little opposition so long as people were scared enough.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure in the Penn & Teller episode, he was sent to prison even AFTER they found the DNA didn't match...

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[niteshifter]

You stopped your list a bit short. After doing your 1-2-3 they arrive at:

4. He's a potential material witness.

They won't know, indeed cannot know precisely how material his information is until he is questioned, hence the detainment.

All legal and proper (in the US). Been that way here since 1789, do try to keep up.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Casharelle]

Except that unfortunately in the UK you don't even have the luxury of being able to keep your yap shut, since there isn't a right to remain silent anymore.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[gmhowell]

What is this 'USian' of what you speak? Is that some subtle jibe such as calling an Austrailian citizen a 'sheep fucking aboriginal killer'?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

what do you mean "you people?"

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[LVSlushdat]

>Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.

What a crock! If you are detained from going about your business, you are ARRESTED!! This kind of crap really makes me embarrassed to be an American...

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[mjwx]

What is this 'USian' of what you speak?

Because Canadians, Cubans and Peruvians dont get the same problem.

Get over it.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[mdarksbane]

If you *do* have actual information that could be pertinent to their case, please *do* call your lawyer and give a statement he approves to the police, preferably with some immunity agreement. If no one talked to the police ever, they couldn't solve any crimes. The goal is to protect yourself while still allowing them to do their job of tracking down criminal and dangerous elements of society.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

They weren't actually trying to guage his political opinion, they were just trying to push him into an emotional state where he might give something away.

Nothing to see here, interrogation 101.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Khyber]

It may be a bad idea but courts have reaffirmed multiple times that you have the right to use any and all means available to resist an unlawful arrest.

Sometimes the best defense is the strong offense. And letting a cop know that you're aware you have certain situations that legally allow you to take their life gives them reason to rethink being an asshole just on the off chance they're outclassed.

It's called psychological warfare.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such thing as a friendly interrogation.

I think that's overreacting a little, but I don't know where to draw the line. Obviously when I report a burglary I'm going to answer questions. But I'm not sure at what point a police interaction become dangerous for an innocent person.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Khyber]

Most cops have recorders that would be used to record that 'threat.'

And the judge would go "Stating prior case findings is not a threat."

Why, yes. I've gone to court over this. Such statements are clearly protected first amendment speech.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[gmhowell]

If you were trying to invent a term that includes people only from a single nation in the North and South American continents, rather than being a a douchebag, you would have said Americans of the United States. But we know you're just being a douchebag. Or a sheep fucker. The choice is yours.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why they say that 'anything you say may be taken down and used against you in a court of law'. Because it as sure as i shit will NEVER be used for you.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[mwvdlee]

Unless all cops have perfectly functional recorders that are on all the time, they might as well not have any when it comes to it being used as evidence against the cop.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[stuckinphp]

America in 1 year, 2 months time.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[MasaMuneCyrus]

BTW, how is what the leakers did any different than people that gave classified docs to the Soviets and Chinese? Motivation? It's the same motivation. My government is wrong, and the best way to change that is to help their enemies.

EXCUSE ME? Giving classified docs to the Soviets is giving classified docs to enemies. But what Wikileaks did was give classified docs to the public. Since when is the public classified as an enemy of the state ? That'd be a much more important development than the mere leak of documents.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[jcr]

When you are placed under arrest you are charged with a crime

No, that's an arraignment.

-jcr

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[jcr]

Rights only matter if people and governments respect them.

More to the point, rights depend on our willingness to demand, and if necessary, fight for them. That is the critical role of the second amendment, and why it comes right after freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights.

-jcr

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[will_die]

That is because most of those laws already existed but were not heavy enforced.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[sammyF70]

"Officer Noob, what did the defendant tell you when you asked him whether he had seen two men in ski masks run ~this~ way?"
"He said he had"
"and yet, they had taken a completely different route, had they not?"
"indeed! We weren't able to catch them due to that misdirection. We also learned that the defendant bought a ski mask a few weeks prior to the felony but didn't book a ski trip. Our conclusion is that he worked with the other men."

Besides, I'd say asking the TOR guy about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is as far from innocent questioning as you can get

You really should watch the youtube video, it does a good job at explaining WHY you shouldn't talk to cops. Incidentally, this is true for the USA, but I don't know how much of it is true in other countries. Any European law experts around?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in the USA, you have the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate yourself. In the UK, you have no such rights.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[jhylkema]

What a crock! If you are detained from going about your business, you are ARRESTED!!

Wrong. Detained != arrested.

Reading assignment: Terry v. Ohio . If you've watched Law & Order, you've probably heard of a "Terry stop." That is what this is referring to. See my previous comment re: posting to /. from your parents' basement in between masturbation sessions to Ayn Rand.

This kind of crap really makes me embarrassed to be an American...

..If you voted for Comrade Obama, check back with me in a couple years.. I'm betting you won't like him then...

This ignorant dreck in your sig makes me glad I don't have to share a country you with anymore. Unfortunately, I have to share a very long "undefended" border. Now, if there was something I could do about that, I would. Those of us in touch with reality know that Obama is about as far as you can get from a "comrade." The truth is, the Obama administration is really Bush's third term.

I'll bet you think he's a Kenyan Muslim too.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[tapanitarvainen]

There's no such thing as a friendly interrogation. Always, always, always keep your yap shut and let the lawyer talk.

Unless (unlike Appelbaum) you're a non-citizen trying to enter the country. In that case, refusing to talk or requesting a lawyer means with practically 100% certainty that you won't get in. What you can do, however, is ask for an interpreter - and it may be a good idea however good your command of the local language is (as long as you aren't a native speaker). Interpreter's presence may defuse the situation with a suspicious border control official, interpretation gives you more time to think about your answers, and interpreters are often quite helpful and less, eh, scary than the interrogators (not without exception, of course).

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Further to that... guess where a lot of funding for that came from? The US was a little like the UK's Pakistan.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[VShael]

Wasn't the details of the case even more insidious? Like, the semen in the rape victim showed that it didn't match the blood type of the defendant? And the prosecutor argued that this didn't mean anything?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[VShael]

"They didn't use the incident to justify flagrantly violating the constitution. Imagine if they had though. What sort of country would we live in now if they had?"

Ask your grandchildren in about 50 years.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[HopefulIntern]

Well, no there is no Patriot Act because here in the UK they don't care about telling people new amendments to the law. We do, however, have more CCTV than anywhere in the world even though statistics show almost no petty crimes ever witnessed on these cameras ever go to court. So even though there is no Patriot Act, I would say the UK is just as caught up in post-9/11 (or rather, post 7/7) paranoia as the US is.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[sFurbo]

The most straight-forward interpretation of the situation is that the job of the (US) police is to ensure that somebody gets judged, preferably the guilty part (if convenient). That means that the goal of protecting yourself is best done by not drawing any attention to yourself.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

...execution is murder...

There's a difference between killing and murder. Self-defense is an easy example.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[RockDoctor]

Unfortunately, I have to share a very long "undefended" border. Now, if there was something I could do about that, I would.

Errr, well, it takes the actions of two countries for a border for it to be undefended. There's to prevent your government from sending out relays of soldiers in all-terrain vehicles to patrol your side of the border and detain (or deter) any illegal immigrants from the poverty-stricken south. Nothing apart from fear of the neighbours that you're not defending yourselves against.

Hmmm, I was just wondering if that claim was still valid. Germany has a pretty long border, with IIRC, either EU borders (free transit of goods, services and people) or their Swiss border. Hmmm, Liechtenstein too? France too, if you include the marine borders ; no, not France, I forgot the Med - probably borders Lybia.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[RockDoctor]

1. This guy is a genuine card-carrying American.

Metaphorical, or have you guys introduced Identity Cards of some sort? Or do you have to present your passport (as my Russian wife had to when she still lived in the USSR) when it's demanded by internal police?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[metacell]

If they didn't want Wikileaks to expose their crimes, they should have followed the law in the first place.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[0111 1110]

Manning was releasing information to the public about a US military cover-up of several murders and the attempted murder of children. It was his duty as a US citizen to make the public aware of the heinous acts being committed in our name. No damaging classified information was released. No actual harm was done except to the reputation of the US military. Manning was a patriot and a hero as is wikileaks for having the courage to release the information even knowing how angry it would make the US government. Restraining the US military from the callous murder of civilians is of the utmost importance to our country. The problem was the murders themselves, not the leaked information about them. The US military are the bad guys here. Congress should be investigating *them*.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[metacell]

Why? A crime occured... classified documents were given to unauthorized group, and the government is looking for both who leaked them, and who helped the leaker get the classified documents out. Asking him his opinions on the wars... a prime motivation for the leakers, almost certainly, is no different from investigators asking a suspect opinions like "Do you think the victim deserved it?"...

Except he wasn't suspected of that crime, or any other crime. If he had been, he would have had the right to a lawyer.

I can understand the government sometimes need to detain people at the border without just cause, if the matter is urgent - for example, if someone is suspected to be an actual terrorist about to commit a terrorist act in person. But there is no need to detain someone who is merely suspected of supporting a terrorist organisation, or suspected of already having committed a crime, or suspected to be vaguely connected to terrorism in some way. In those cases, there is no urgency, and the normal due process (arrest, lawyers, trial) would work just as well.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[metacell]

Since when is the public classified as an enemy of the state ?

Since they started demanding rights.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Rogerborg]

Since when is the public classified as an enemy of the state

1776, give or take.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[tehcyder]

There's no such thing as a friendly interrogation.

Do you call your lawyer when someone sops you in the street to ask the time?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[tehcyder]

I don't give a damn if the two guys in ski masks just robbed my bank's local branch while I was in the parking lot, I'm not saying a damned thing to the police.

There is a word for people like you where I live, and that word is "cunt".
I hope you're left to drown or burn to death by passers by one day because they don't want to get involved.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[tehcyder]

The correct answer is: -Am I under arrest? No? Bye.

Am I under arrest?
You weren't, but you are now asswipe.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad example. The UK is just as awful.

We only narrowly escaped ID cards with fingerprinting of every citizen, and that had to be accomplished by voting in a couple of posh boys.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[JCZwart]

And there I was, having misunderstood this and thinking you guys were talking about raisins. Now, I'm all for mentioning food in an otherwise somewhat sour political discussion.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[AP31R0N]

Because the sanctions were about to end, leaving Saddam to return to being a mass murdering, neighbor invading tyrant with billions in oil revenue to spend on rearming (with the help of China, Russia and France) and resuming WMD research.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Opinions are not crimes, but they can be motives, which are pertinent to crime investigations.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit, you were +2 Troll when I clicked Reply and that was worrying enough. Now you're +4 Insightful, which is simply alarming.

If you're really unable to tell the difference between giving information that's classified for a good reason to a foreign power with the resources and motivation to employ that information against their enemies in any way, and giving information that's classified to cover up something a country's government doesn't want its own people to see, to those people, then you're blind. I can only hope the people who modded you up were trolls.

"The best way to change that is to help their enemies" so the enemy of the US government is the American people? Sounds about right, actually.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[MBGMorden]

Passports are only required if you leave the country. I've never traveled internationally, so I've never had one. National ID didn't pass IIRC. The plan at the time was to just use the state-issued drivers licenses/id's anyways.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You(USA/UK) are in Afghanistan cus there is HEROIN there. And you make a nice profit out of it.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[roman_mir]

Well, the cops will be talking to my lawyer and then when we show that they had no reason for the arrest they'll be suffering some mild repercussions, while I'll be suing the PD for harassment and rights violations.

You on the other hand, are an asswipe, so you'll be cooperating and they'll be collecting 'evidence' on you based on everything you say and you just may spend an unreasonable amount of your useless time behind some metal bars, where you probably belong anyway, asshole.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[VShael]

The IRA have not killed anywhere NEAR the number of people that have been killed by the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq.

To even suggest they have, is delusional.

Even if you narrow the numbers in the current middle east occupations down to "collateral damage" which is what the Pentagon frequently calls accidental civilian deaths which terrorise the local populace, it's still far far more than the IRA ever laid claim to.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[kevinNCSU]

No. A whistle-blower generally has a specific problem they are trying to resolve and that could not be resolved when they tried taking it up their normal chain of command. If the PFC had just leaked the helicopter gunship video in order to try to get that taken care of it could potentially be considered whistle-blowing (though still highly illegal the cause could be a bit more understood). Leaking 70,000 documents (most of which you can guarantee he didn't read) cannot be seen as whistle-blowing under any stretch of the imagination.

Whistle blowing would have been contacting the media, saying there's a problem without needlessly revealing classified documents. Asking to speak to congressional oversight committees. There's more than a few senators/congressmen that would love to earn their stripes taking on abuse/scandal in the war an embarrass one administration or the other if it exists. Whistle-blowing does not entail breaking both the law and your oath and putting soldiers and Afghani Civilians who have cooperated against the Taliban in harms way.

Lastly it's called whistle-blowing for a reason. Your making noise and taking a stand. did this guy tell his superiors he thought something was wrong? did he lodge complaints and pass them up his CoC? did he contact JAG? Congress? did he do anything to try to identify whatever "situation" he was blowing a whistle on before releasing thousands of classified documents? This guy is an insult to actual whistle blowers who stand up over issues they believe need to be resolved. He's not taking a stand, he's just leaking classified documents while trying to hide and the volume and nature of the content (nothing we didn't really already know other than specific names of people in theater) makes it clear he has just a general beef and not any specific situation he's concerned with.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Monchanger]

That such a colossally idiotic statement, it's hard to imagine where you get your misguided beliefs. Even television doesn't portray that kind of police stupidity.

Maybe you should consider not representing yourself in court?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the USSA?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[kevinNCSU]

If your intentions are to avoid the police and unnecessary search/detainment you'd do well to learn how social interactions work. Dealing with the police is not a math or computer science problem whereby ignoring a friendly remark by them and whipping your car around you've somehow chosen a different logic circuit which makes it impossible for them to detain or grow more suspicious of you. Yes, everything you say can be used in court, so don't say anything they can use. A simple "Sorry officer, I can't help you" in response to asking about men with ski masks is going to garner a lot less suspicion and not going to be usable than simply ignoring them and trying to walk away. Which sounds worse on a police report?

1. When asked about the masked gunman suspect became nervous, ignored questions from the officer and attempted to quickly leave the scene.
2. When asked about the masked gunman suspect apologized for not being able to help the officer with his question.

Same with whipping your car around when you see police at what you don't know is either a checkpoint or a simple detour. Guess what they do when you whip your car around at a DUI checkpoint. Your efforts at avoiding any unnecessary contact with police are going to backfire.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Civil_Disobedient]

how is what the leakers did any different than people that gave classified docs to the Soviets and Chinese

Oh, analogies! I love analogies!

Here's a helpful wikipedia link for you to read when you have some free time: The Pentagon Papers.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Because Canadians, Cubans and Peruvians dont get the same problem.
Well do any of those countries names have America in them? No? Well then American most probably refers to someone from the United States of America.

Get over it.
Quit being a churlish little bitch, and use the proper names for things.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[sp0tter]

^--- these are my imaginary mod points. If I had real ones I would give those as well.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the assclown gave it to the citizens of every state on the fucking planet. Hopefully he can sleep well knowing that his ego stroking has probably gotten a shit load of formerly friendly Afghani's killed.

But who gives a fuck. You have a right to know.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[0111 1110]

I don't agree with it in the least, and hate the fact that the Federal Govt. thinks they can just stop people driving around in their own country for no other reason than to ask us if we're citizens.

This is the very essence of the whole "papers please" issue. I don't care what the justification is. Being subject to random stops to be questioned by LEOs is one of the defining characteristics of a police state. It's scary that the majority of our elected officials seem to be in support of this sort of thing. I mean, being stopped and asked if you are a citizen. It really is like something from the old USSR. I am convinced that eventually the majority of Americans will decide in favor of safety over freedom. This is only the beginning.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Psst, its spelled reason.

Psst. It's spelled "it's".

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Omestes]

As an Arizonan: Have you even read the damn law? I am getting so sick of people from other places sticking their nose in our business, especially doing so ignorantly.

This is as true for the East Coast liberals and the damn Tea Party folk. Bugger off until you know what your talking about, understand the circumstances, and read the actual law. And then, still bugger off and mind your own damn locality.

Yes, the police will be able to ask for your papers (if the court allows) if there is reasonable suspicion that your are hear illegally, and if you have already been stopped for another reason. And no, that is not "racial profiling". Or tyranny, or acting like Hitler, or fighting for the freedom of whatnot so more Republicans can be elected.

I find it very amusing that a large portion of the protesters against the law were from California, or speaking Spanish and waving Mexican flags. I find it even more amusing that the vocal supporters of the law are basically all racist morons (watch some clips of Jan Brewer).

As a not, I am a liberal and a lower-case "L" libertarian. I am not racist, I have nothing against Mexicans (living in Arizona it is really hard to have something against them, as all of my neighbors when I was growing up spoke Spanish, most of my friends are some flavor of Mexican descent, and 90% of the people you deal with in this state have at least one Mexican ancestor) I, also, support the law.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Agripa]

In contrast it sounds like in your case it cost you an hour in the afternoon sun. So while you say there's nothing ever to be gained by playing the game (in this case just saying you're a citizen), I personally value not spending an hour in the sun. (Though I wouldn't have let them search my trunk if they asked either).

The difference being then he would have spent an hour in the sun, provided incriminating statements, and maybe fallen into a perjury trap. Cooperation does not preclude being screwed over when they have already made up their mind.

An offer by law enforcement to not inconvenience you is not consideration and they can break it at will without penalty. They might as well offer to not break your arm.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the assclown gave it to the citizens of every state on the fucking planet. Hopefully he can sleep well knowing that his ego stroking has probably gotten a shit load of formerly friendly Afghani's killed.

But who gives a fuck. You have a right to know.

We do have a right to know. So who does give a fuck? Glad to see we all worked that out.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

No, its not.

An arraignment is a formal reading of the charges.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish they'd lock you up in Gitmo for the rest of your life, or shoot you for treason, but unfortunately the US gov't is a little (ok a lot) too sensitive about civil liberties and its image right now.

We are fighting a WAR, can't make an omlete without breaking some eggs, and civilians do die. They struck first, how can you forget 9/11. NEVER FORGET and NEVER STOP FIGHTING UNTIL VICTORY!

Most of the enemy civilians would do a 9/11 or worse on us if given the chance.

Just whose side are you on?

Move to Iran, and enjoy the "freedom". Talk about the gov't bad, and your head will be free from your neck!

P.S. People were recently trying to blow up a gas pipeline though JFK airport, attempting to kill more than 9/11

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/nyregion/03kennedy.html

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[RockDoctor]

Passports are only required if you leave the country.

Strictly, I thought that their purpose was to request other governments to assist the passport holder in their travels, and practically to assist in paperwork on re-entry to your home country by providing evidence of a right to enter. At least, that's how I read the wording on my passport, and I'd be (only moderately) surprised if it was significantly different in other countries, diplomats being what they are. My wife's first several visas to visit the UK had large letter writing indicating that she didn't have unlimited right of either re-entry, or of residence at all.

I also seem to recall having much the same conversation on SlashDot when GWBush ("Shrub") became the first president of recent times to not have a passport. I don't remember what the wash-up of that was, or if he ever bothered to get a passport (since it was not credible that he'd ever be travelling without a suitably accredited bunch of SS bodyguards and probably a fist full of diplomats, so his identity was never likely to be seriously in doubt).

The plan at the time was to just use the state-issued drivers licenses/id's anyways.

Possibly also discussed in the same discussion : that again begs the question of what non-drivers would do. I already get trouble at the bank when they ask for my drivers license to probe my identity, and I hand over my (perfectly valid) driving license, which contains no photograph nor any other form of security markings, no holograms, nothing - just various printed reference numbers and my name and address. The youngsters behind the counter look highly confused and often have to call for a supervisor.
(That's a UK license, and I'm already chuckling at my various friends who have got the new "photo drivers license" (which is only an adjunct to the "paper license" such as I have) and are discovering that they have to get it replaced every 10 years, whenever they move, etc, etc, at a non-trivial cost. There's 25 years to go before I have to return my license and so participate in the new scam, though it is likely that I'll do something that will trigger a new (10-year, photographic) license being issued. And no, we're not required to carry our licenses here, despite what the Police tell people. So I don't.)

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

People in Europe are called Europeans.
People in Asia are called Asians.
People in Australia are called Australians.
People in America are called Americans.

Your country is called United States of America or USA for short. It's not just the single word America, so you're the one who should get over it.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Yvan256]

Maybe it's the new nemesis of The Doctor?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Even television doesn't portray that kind of police stupidity.

AGAIN: Watch the Penn & Teller episode (that qualifies as television). They (or rather their experts) make the argument that's exactly what police/prosecutors do: Try to put somebody in jail, even if the person is innocent. They don't care, because the system is corrupt in that fashion and they are typically trying to get re-elected.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[commodore64_love]

>>>If you don't have anything to hide then what you usually have to gain is your time.

So naive. People have written books about citizens who had "nothing to hide" and yet still got charged with something. The best-remembered of these would be Professor Gates who was (rightly) angry but still cooperated to show he was the owner of the house, and yet the police arrested him anyway.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Monchanger]

I watched the excerpt and it's just a bit of anecdotal evidence, which specifically mentions that a jury convicted the poor guy. Why don't you blame only the prosecutor when it's the jury who actually decided the guy was going to jail? Oh yes- because you only want to discredit government of being stupid, not actual citizens.

Penn has a well-known libertarian agenda. Sometimes he makes sense, other times extremely very selective in the material used for the show. Why? Because it makes good television to keep things simple with no facts cluttering the narrative. He had this one BS episode on Walmart which comes to mind- he chose a couple of real idiots to stand for the anti-business POV as if that was the best argument being made. Then he spends a bunch of airtime yelling at them when they're not around.

What you get is a man who is not above picking a specific case, or putting forth an idiot as proper representation of a different viewpoint to make his points. He's a hack and a coward for doing this when he's more than intelligent enough to make a proper argument. So, no- his anti-government propaganda doesn't count as definitive proof of how the world works.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference in policy - then and now - have to do with the global rise and fall of capitalism. for the last 30 years or more, capitalism has been in a severe decline.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[CarpetShark]

Emergency Services: "Thank you for calling 9-1-1. What is the nature of the emergency? Car crash? Building on fire?"

Caller: "I'd like to speak with my lawyer!"

Emergency Services: "You'd LIKE to? Oh my god, this is serious!"

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[nmos]

So naive. People have written books about citizens who had "nothing to hide" and yet still got charged with something.

The reason these things are worthy of a book or the occasional news story is that they are relatively rare. Cops in the US probably have hundreds of thousands of citizen contacts every day.

The best-remembered of these would be Professor Gates who was (rightly) angry but still cooperated to show he was the owner of the house, and yet the police arrested him anyway.

Professor Gates was certainly not cooperative and his anger was completely unreasonable. He should have been grateful that his neighbours and the police were trying to make sure some random person wasn't breaking into his house. If anything that's a good example of how being uncooperative can make your life a lot harder than it has to be even (especially) if you havn't broken any law.

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[jcr]

An arraignment is a formal reading of the charges.

At which time, you are charged with the crime. Until the arraignment, if you are in custody, you are under arrest but you are not yet charged.

-jcr

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, it would "North Americans" or "South Americans" to follow the pattern. I am amazed you missed the derivative relationship between "Europe"/"Europeans", "Asia"/"Asians", "Australia"/"Australians" (and, to extend this to be all-inclusive, "Africa"/"Africans"). Therefore, "American" refers to a particular subset of "North Americans": the citizens of the United States of America. This is because "Americans" has never been used to collectively refer to "North Americans" AND "South Americans" simultaneously and, therefore, is not likely to ever gain widespread acceptance of that usage. Besides which:
1. How often would it be useful to use "Americans" to refer to both "North Americans" and "South Americans" collectively? AND
2. Who really wants to use the descriptor "United States of Americans" (awful, but the best I could think of in the short time available to me) or some such to refer to the subset of "North Americans" currently uniquely identified by the term "Americans"?

Re:Opinions are a crime now?

[robsku]

And majority supported this - yet they still call this a free world (USA that is, not my country where no such insane laws exist).

Sane laws only protect you until someone decides that they don't. Much like witch hunt in dark ages, other laws were just (considering what it meant back then) but if you were suspected of being witch then buy buy sanity and right for defense, welcome torture
How many, like back then, have confessed just to have the suffering end?

USA Patriot Act: Pros And Cons
http://www.lifescript.com/Soul/Self/Growth/USA_Patriot_Act_Pros_And_Cons.aspx
Quote:

The time immediately following the passage of the Act was a scary time to be an American. The detainee camp at Guantanamo Bay was opened in 2002, housing a then-undisclosed number of people from multiple nations who were imprisoned without traditional legal protections for often unknown reasons.

"without traditional legal protections"

That means, for example, no lawyer, imprisonment for as long as they want, etc. And you call it free country? Starting to remind China's justice system, though at some points even it is not that bad.
America a free country? There are numerous with more freedom, you could also read:

USA PATRIOT Act @ Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

Many people arrested because suspected of terrorism or something to do with it have been released. Even from Guantamo Bay (I might have mispelled the name, interesting is that it's a prison not on north america soil - as I understand what happens there and on what basis people are kept there would make it illegas in NA.

One of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act is in title V, and relates to National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. ...*snip*... This provision of the Act was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of an unknown party against the U.S. government on the grounds that NSLs violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because there is no way to legally oppose an NSL subpoena in court, and that it was unconstitutional to not allow a client to inform their Attorney as to the order because of the gag provision of the letters. The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional.[133] Later, the USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.[134] However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags.

Tell me that USA is a free and justice country when you or your fellow man is framed, suspected of terrorism connections and taken to Guantamo Bay. The policy practiced there and thus also in USA soil can fairly compared to worst parts of chinese policy (ie. their actions in Tibet, which does not even belong to them rightfully).

I could ramble and quote more but I'm tired and if you still believe that what USA does is just then writing about it more would propably not even help.ave not heard of patriot ac

coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Snap!

WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW HIPPIES?

[Anonymous Coward]

SO MUCH ANONYMITY FAGGOT HIPPIES!

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like GAY CHRISTIAN MAGIC.

Re:WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW HIPPIES?

[FrankHS]

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.

Hello slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a chick with a dick

Welcome to Obama's America

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope you like it!

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Sarten-X]

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:

• They can't be overtly racist and get away with it.
• They can't really expect support for any anti-gay legislation.
• Anything supporting the oil industry has to also support more environmentally-friendly technology.
• Anything that has the appearance of improving security, or at the very least improving our awareness, is expected to be done.

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[WCguru42]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Sarten-X]

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:

• Forged travel documents are easily available everywhere.
• The middle east is polarized around loving us or hating us.
• There are lots of leftover munitions in the middle east. Leaving now leaves them in the hands of the polarized factions.
• North Korea is run by a child with deadly toys.

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Vellmont]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Vellmont]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Vellmont]

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?

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[SudoGhost]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[warpmoon]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Sarten-X]

In terms of foreign intelligence, yes. Foreign actions are a different matter entirely.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Vellmont]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[ridgecritter]

"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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[davidbofinger]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[sribe]

...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...

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Sarten-X]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[0111 1110]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[hmallett]

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?

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[metacell]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[metacell]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Vellmont]

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?

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Vellmont]

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.

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[WCguru42]

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?

Re:Welcome to Obama's America

[Sarten-X]

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.

Well, good

[Etcetera]

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.

Quit whining and start taking responsibility for your actions. And understand that when your associates do illegal things, you're going to get questioned about it on re-entry into the US.

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

OH HAI THERE SAMMY MCSAMEFAG!!!!1

Re:Well, good

[brasselv]

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.

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

No names were revealed, they were blanked out. Unlike what some "journalist" might have said. Link: http://twitter.com/wikileaks/statuses/20070146579

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

What law was broken by Wikileaks or the guy in the $subject ?

Hint: None.

Re:Well, good

[Khyber]

"A large number of Afghan informants had their names exposed "

Did you even actually read the documents? Names were blacked out.

Jesus christ.

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Well, good

[betterunixthanunix]

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?

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Well, good

[Cruciform]

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?

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

The names were all censored in the release. Perhaps you should actually learn what you're talking about before mouthing off.

Re:Well, good

[horza]

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.

Re:Well, good

[commodore64_love]

>>>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.

Re:Well, good

[commodore64_love]

>>>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

Re:Well, good

[antibryce]

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

Re:Well, good

[hitmark]

heck, was not the concept of onion routing created by the us military?

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the TOR (The Onion Router) development itself was initially funded by US Naval Intelligence, yes.

Re:Well, good

[darjen]

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.

Re:Well, good

[Luckyo]

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.

Re:Well, good

[Nidi62]

Names were blacked out, huh? http://defensetech.org/2010/07/29/wikileaks-deep-dive-suicide-vests-nork-ammo-and-afpak-ceasefires/

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.

Re:Well, good

[sumdumass]

Hint: None that we know of.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Well, good

[sumdumass]

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?

Re:Well, good

[sumdumass]

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?

Re:Well, good

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Well, good

[toQDuj]

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".

Re:Well, good

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Well, good

[toQDuj]

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!

Re:Well, good

[antibryce]

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.

Re:Well, good

[flanktwo]

"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!

Re:Well, good

[sumdumass]

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.

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.

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.

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.

his 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.

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

Quit whining

Says the man trolling on Slashdot. :)

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Well, good

[Luckyo]

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.

Re:Well, good

[daveschroeder]

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.

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Well, good

[Luckyo]

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.

Re:Well, good

[betterunixthanunix]

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?"

Re:Well, good

[commodore64_love]

>>>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).

Re:Well, good

[sumdumass]

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.

Re:Well, good

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

UFFSA

[markdavis]

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?

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much every country on earth will allow someone to be detained for 3 hours. Days would be unreasonable, hours is not.

Idiot.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] Days would be unreasonable, hours is not.

Idiot.

And soon it will be "weeks would be unreasonable, days are not.", then that would be reasonable, etc.

Idiot.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

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?
His business partner posted classified documents to the web. They asked about that. according to the summary he was told he was being detained, but not arrested. They have the right to ask those questions because a close associate committed a crime.
Tell me, if your robbed and your stuff is traced back to a house with two occupants; one who the police are pretty sure did it, and the other who they don't think did it, but don't know. According to your logic they shouldn't be able to talk tot he second one. Are you really sure that's the argument you want to make?

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

What planet do you live on? Classified government docs were leaked. Of course the government is going to try to find out who leaked them and how. And 3 hours is not unreasonable and as far as decrying the government, you are more than welcome to move to a country where he would have disappeared and you would never have read about it.

Re:UFFSA

[Reginald2]

Breaking the law would mean he was a citizen.

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.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

For starters he's a known associate of a known felon.

Re:UFFSA

[BradMajors]

The crime? Possible involvement in esponiage. Possible treason for supplying classified information to foreign enemies.

Re:UFFSA

[markdavis]

Hey "Anonymous Coward", you call me an "idiot" because I think being detained for three hours is unreasonable? Well, perhaps my time is more valuable than yours.

Re:UFFSA

[0111 1110]

But how many countries *routinely* detain people for that amount of time for no reason at all? I have traveled to something like 50 or 60 countries, including some of the last remaining communist ones and I never experienced anything like what I have experienced trying to enter or leave my own country: The People's Republic of North America.

Re:UFFSA

[canadian_right]

3 minutes isn't reasonable if there is no evidence of a crime. And what the hell is "detained"? If they don't arrest you should be able to go your own way.

You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your rights from them; you give them permission rule, only so long as they follow the rules: laws and constitution.

And name calling never made an argument more persuasive.

Re:UFFSA

[markdavis]

Thanks for the info. I did not know any of that from the either the summary or the article. It sounded like he was just being harassed about the Tor project or security testing. I probably would not have posted knowing what I know now.

Re:UFFSA

[Zironic]

The general idea as far as I know is that if you suspect someone has performed a crime, but you do not yet have evidence, then you can detain them for a short while as you gather your evidence preventing him from for instance running as you start to search his backpack.

Police seem to like exploiting their right to detain for frivolous reasons though.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

The crime? Possible involvement in esponiage. Possible treason for supplying classified information to foreign enemies.

....Then you gather evidence then prosecute/arrest the "suspect", . Abusing the border interrogation system in order to obtain pressured information from an American citizen is way messed up. If there is a crime, arrest. Otherwise screw off.

Re:UFFSA

[phantomfive]

They thought he might be related to a crime (releasing classified documents. Whether you think that should be a crime or not is a different subject). In nearly any country, if the police think you are involved in some crime, they have the power to detain you and ask questions. There is no problem with this: it's what we want our police to be doing, solving crimes. And they do catch real criminals (murderers, etc) at the border. Really, being questioned or detained at a border doesn't make a country fascist.

The biggest news here is that the government is serious about finding who leaked those documents. For some reason that really annoyed someone high up.

The biggest problem with what happened is something that wasn't even mentioned in the summary: they kept three of his cell phones for no apparent reason. The article only presents one side of the story, but assuming it is accurate, this is unjust. They shouldn't keep objects without a reason.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Breaking the law would mean he was a citizen.

Heh.
Appelbaum, a US citizen

More like dual citizen of the US and Israel.

Whenever the US gets stabbed in the back, look for the Jew!

Re:UFFSA

[Sarten-X]

One where you expect to travel between sovereign states after doing something that might put one of them at risk. In perspective, 3 hours is 1/8th of one day. That's 1/2920 of a year. Or one part out of 233,600 in an 80-year lifespan. In exchange for that bit of time, the government agencies (FBI, CIA, DHS) can get a bit more insight into Tor and how it actually affects American security.

Does Tor see many clients from Afghanistan?

What countries have exit nodes that are government-run, and probably likely to be monitored?

In a general sense, is this even something we should be worried about?

Personally, I think such a trade is acceptable. If I were to make a magic system that did something the government saw as a threat, I'd rather spend a few hours talking to the government and explaining things than make life harder for the folks I trust with the safety of myself and my neighbors.

Re:UFFSA

[schnikies79]

They had a reason, possible treason. It wasn't a random detention.

Re:UFFSA

[unixan]

What law did he break? What was he accused of? Why was he detained? What right do they have to ask such questions?

Welcome to law enforcement procedures. Of course you're allowed to have an opinion. But, say, your legally allowable opinion on your neighbor's yard maintenance might be a motive for why your neighbor is dead, for example. And 12 hour interviews are completely allowed. You just need to know your rights and how to use them; for instance, explicitly saying you invoke your right to remain silent until you have a lawyer present.

Now, is it reasonable for the FBI to suspect Jacob Appelbaum is involved in the wikileak and put him in the box for 3 hours? THAT's another question...

Re:UFFSA

[jimicus]

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?

"Embarrassing the Government" is an unwritten crime in most countries, though it's also a hard one to commit because you usually need to demonstrate publicly in several respected - preferably international - media channels that the government has made an almighty ballsup of something.

Penalties vary from country to country. In some countries, the penalty is simply harassment of a legal - yet annoying - nature for an unspecified period of time. In others, the penalty is death by suicide.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

But how many countries *routinely* detain people for that amount of time for no reason at all?

I have no idea, but how is that relevant? He was detained for questioning in connection with a crime (the leak of classified information.) He was released when it was determined he was not responsible.

Every country *routinely* detains people for a few hours in connection with crimes, except for the ones that simply arrest immediately and hold indefinitely.

Re:UFFSA

[Splab]

Wait.. WHAT??

If they want answers to such trivial things they can start by giving him a call or write an e-mail (or try google...) - detaining someone against their will for 3 hours to "learn" is by no means acceptable.

Re:UFFSA

[schnikies79]

Tor was originally developed and funded by the U.S. Navy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)

Re:UFFSA

[fatalwall]

Yes they can detain you for questioning but no they can not withhold your right to have your lawyer present for said questioning.

This is not every country we are talking about here. This is the United States. The country that raves about its treatment of citizens and how glorious Democracy is. Every time they pull things like this they show the truth that no government is any better then any other because people are all the same and will do what they want when in power no matter what rules exist.

Re:UFFSA

[Sarten-X]

And since then, how much input has the military had, especially in regards to the current operating network?

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, now that the us is on even ground with the rest of the world there is now LESS of a reason to live here and contribute.
The US was never the 'chosen one' of countries, it was just more free.
It isn't anymore, you can get harassed elsewhere and pay less taxes, or get real health care.
Or you can stay in the US and be a citizen of the belligerent nation and carry that reputation when you leave the US
It might be worse elsewhere, but it is for sure CHEAPER and EASIER TO COMPLY with the laws of other nations.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Without any kind of evidence you are just as guilty of the same thing.

Re:UFFSA

[ImNotAtWork]

Israel. Airport security in the U.S. is a joke compared to what they have going on there. Remember when they were confiscating whatever the new apple product was. There security is armed to the teeth. I understand they are trying to keep their country safe and am not making a judgment; just pointing out that the U.S. isn't the only one detaining people at airports for questioning.

On another note.. would you let some one you know hacking your companies website go ahead and sit in the break room with administrative assistants without at least talking to him? The U.S.Government is trying to protect security and information leaks. This was an opportunity to grab for some low hanging fruit, hoping they would get lucky.

By being well informed of his own rights the target was able to stop any communication with out a lawyer present.

Re:UFFSA

[Sarten-X]

How likely is it that an email would actually be answered in a timely fashion, or provide nearly enough information? In an interview, you can tell when someone's lying. There's facial cues, hesitation, tone of voice, etc. which are all lost in a written response. A phone call wouldn't be as bad, but that means having to track down the guy's personal phone number, which is not really affordable on a wide scale.

Then there's the issue of identity. Even if a phone call or email could be established, how can anyone be sure that the answers are actually coming from the person they intended to contact? It's cheaper and easier to simply meet the person at the border, have a conversation, and be done with it. With the amount of complaints about government spending, I'm still glad they'll take the cheap route.

Re:UFFSA

[SirRedTooth]

Being detained for absolutely no reason is disgusting.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they take iris scans in israel? Do they insist on fingerprinting all travellers travelling into israel?

Re:UFFSA

[Omnifarious]

I don't know what the exact rules are on detaining people, but I suspect they would never get away with this anywhere other than the border. I don't think the police are allowed to detain you to try to get you to answer questions. I think they can if they have enough evidence for it to be possible that you were directly involved in a crime and so can arrest you, but otherwise I think they can only take the time you volunteer to give them.

The rules for what is and isn't allowed to be done to US citizens by the government shouldn't change just because said citizen is re-entering the country with a valid passport.

This kind of fishing expedition by government agents is basically harassment, and if it's legal it should be made illegal.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's still illegal because government has no right to detain you without suspicion. You forget that government has to play by the rules like everyone else. If you want to know something in the business world, you give someone a call or shoot them an email. You don't detain them in your facility for three hours while your rent-a-cops interrogate them.

Re:UFFSA

[Sarten-X]

The guy works on a system that effectively cripples the government's ability to observe and investigate. Related to a smaller crime, it'd be called "obstruction of justice". Once you start talking about terrorism and acts of war, it's called "treason". That sounds like suspicion to me.

Re:UFFSA

[flipper9]

Back in the mid 90's I was detained at the Canadian border for 2-3 hours (I was driving into Canada) while on a camping trip. I had just graduated from college, and decided to go camping in North Dakota and Southern Canada just for fun. I was stopped, taken upstairs, repeatedly asked questions where a customs offer would come in the room, ask me if I had ever been to prison, been in front of a judge, how much money did I have, did I have a job, etc. She would leave for a few minutes, would come back and ask me similar to identical questions while typing on her computer, leave and come back...repeated for almost 2 hours. Then they took me down to my truck and searched everything, took apart my camping equipment, took a keen interest in my first aid kit, but found nothing (there was nothing to find) and let me go. I was detained for 2-3 hours just because.

On my way back into the USA, they barely batted an eye.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I am starting to see proto fascists in my own lifetime. I never expected that.

Re:UFFSA

[0111 1110]

Was this by chance a Quebec border? The agents there are notorious. I was also detained for so long that I told them I no longer wished to enter Canada ever again and would like to withdraw my request to enter their great country. But they said they had the right to detain me for some very long time (I can't remember how long). I was eventually refused entry, but it took them hours to make that decision. Just as in the US, Canadian customs and immigration agents have virtually unlimited power and no oversight. They really can do whatever they want and make decisions without any justification. I have never had a problem entering Canada west of Quebec though.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Stolen Classified Documents ..is what we are talking about, I mean I would be concerned if they were not concerned about tracking down how this happened etc. Part of that is finding any leads they can.

Re:UFFSA

[KahabutDieDrake]

That may be how it works, mainly because most people buy whatever they are told. However, legally speaking, if you aren't "under arrest" you can get up and walk out. Try it. If they don't want you to leave, they will feed you some bullshit. Continue walking, and you'll probably find yourself under arrest, and everything that comes with that. Like your lawyer.

Re:UFFSA

[Sarten-X]

Fascism would involve a government being an absolute authority, ruled by the decisions of a select few people without input from the public. Accepting that a government has the authority to investigate threats is not fascism. It's the acceptance of the rule of law.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascism would involve a government being an absolute authority, ruled by the decisions of a select few people without input from the public.

That sounds like a lot of what the US has been doing since 9/11 actually. Here's a hint. President + Congress Senators is still a "select few" and most certainly doesn't involve input from the public.

Re:UFFSA

[Belial6]

And what the hell is "detained"?

"Detained" is what they call an arrest where your right are being violated.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

I other news Army declares war on Navy.

Re:UFFSA

[hitmark]

i keep wondering why the nation have yet to tear itself apart. But then i guess its much easier to build such a complex system then break it apart, just observe the continuing creation of the european super-nation that seems to have taken on a life of its own.

Re:UFFSA

[Sarten-X]

Have you tried? You can call, send an email, send a physical letter, or visit in person. If that's too involved for you, you can vote. Those are all input, with varying levels of effect.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

In their own words, it *was* a random detention.

Re:UFFSA

[magetoo]

And did they have any influence even at the start?

But the important thing, IMO, is that the project was sponsored at all. According to Tor's Sponsors page, they still receive funding from the Navy; presumably they are not unaware that various "bad" people can use (and are using) the network as well.

Re:UFFSA

[amRadioHed]

Except that the Constitution sets limits on what the government can do to people, regardless of who they are. Citizenship is not relevant.

Re:UFFSA

[Jedi Alec]

Tell me, if your robbed and your stuff is traced back to a house with two occupants; one who the police are pretty sure did it, and the other who they don't think did it, but don't know. According to your logic they shouldn't be able to talk tot he second one. Are you really sure that's the argument you want to make?

Yes, the police would be allowed to talk to him...on public property and so long as he is cooperating. If they want to force the issue, get warrants to search the premises and for his arrest, evidence permitting.

Whatever happen to the fucking land of the free?

Re:UFFSA

[Sarten-X]

Meh. I've done government-sponsored work, too. It's usually not even a case of the left hand not knowing what the right's doing. It's the left hand not knowing what the left hand did five minutes ago. One part of the Navy knowing something has no bearing on any other part, and especially not the Army.

Re:UFFSA

[sumdumass]

The didn't withhold his right to have a lawyer present. They just continued to ask questions and then let him go once the realized he wasn't going to say anything.

In no way did they take his ability to be legally represented away.

Re:UFFSA

[sumdumass]

Umm.. Actually citizenship is entirely relevant. A good portion of the constitution and the laws of the land that mimic protections in the constitution do not apply if you are no a US citizen and did not commit the offense in US jurisdiction.

Re:UFFSA

[magetoo]

Sure. I just don't buy that it is simultaneously "[crippling] the government's ability to observe and investigate" (upthread) and "meh, somebody else's problem" for the Navy.

Re:UFFSA

[Sarten-X]

Tor makes detailed observation impossible. That makes the Army suspicious. Meanwhile, some Navy official likes the idea, so they approve. It's not unreasonable or unusual for different sections to not trust each other or even know of each other's actions. This is the government, after all. Never attribute to malice...

Re:UFFSA

[c0lo]

Fascism would involve a government being an absolute authority, ruled by the decisions of a select few people without input from the public.

No, not necessarily fascism, that would be simply despotism/oppressive - other political regimes exposed it as well without being fascist (see the "In Russia..." series). Not that the ideas/principles such regimes make use to justify the oppression would make difference to the life of the ruled.

Accepting that a government has the authority to investigate threats is not fascism. It's the acceptance of the rule of law.

I'd rather call it cowardliness. As every human creation, every law has limits - I haven't seen any law that can be applied as it is in all and every situation that the bitch called everyday life would come up with. Put the law above the sky, fail to exercise a proper control on the law (even if challenging it at times, if required) and one will get pretty soon into Pisso's justice.

Re:UFFSA

[Sarten-X]

Fascism (n) a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)

From WordNet

I was accused of being a (precursor to a) fascist. I have no interest in holding the authority of the government over the authority of the people at large. I am, however, of the opinion that the public has confidence in the government's ability and need to investigate threats. In fact, the American public voted for the laws that allowed this detainment, according to the legal process we've held for two hundred years.

The limits placed on a law should be based on practicality, liberty, and benefit. Prohibition of alcohol was repealed because it caused more problems than it could possibly solve. Segregation was abolished because it was a clear affront to essential liberties. Countless laws have been rejected for being impractical.

I, for one, believe that the ability to detain incoming travelers at the border, with a reason, is good. The inconvenience is a few hours, and the benefit is a significantly larger pool of intelligence. Once essential liberties get breached, like being detained beyond the limits of the law, or being detained without reason, or being subjected to unreasonable searches, then it is time to reconsider the law.

I do not "put the law above the sky". I put the law above the minor inconvenience of people who work with things that threaten the nation.

Re:UFFSA

[c0lo]

How likely is it that an email would actually be answered in a timely fashion, or provide nearly enough information?

How's the timely fashion relevant to the issue? What would have happened if, instead of 3 hours, the guys would have had an answer in 3 days?

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

In exchange for that bit of time, the government agencies (FBI, CIA, DHS) can get a bit more insight into Tor and how it actually affects American security.

Seeing as how the Navy funded the damn thing, I'd think the US government should already know.

Does Tor see many clients from Afghanistan?

How the fuck should I know. Even if I wrote Tor, there are no central servers. That's the fucking point of it.

What countries have exit nodes that are government-run, and probably likely to be monitored?

All of them, if they know what's good for them, again with the decentralization thing. There's no way for any government to know, and so the only course of action is to set up as many nodes as possible and monitor as widely as practical.

In a general sense, is this even something we should be worried about?

No, because NSA has bigger computers and better monitoring of both domestic and foreign networks than competing governments.

Shit, any government flunkie could get a better report (and not expose just how freaked out they are by Tor) by submitting an "Ask Slashdot" question than by annoying the guy who wrote it for them.

Re:UFFSA

[mjwx]

Welcome to the United Federal Fascist State of America. Please enjoy your stay...

Federal is a bit redundant, all fascist nations tend to have centralised governments. I know that dictators like to have long government names though, it's almost like the length of their national name is compensating for something.

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 detention was not totally unreasonable. I believe US law permits up to 24 hours without a charge being laid, after that you need to be charged or released. Now the questioning was unreasonable, the questioning unveiled the motivation behind his detention and that was completely unreasonable. With the motivation being to intimidate the developer the length of detention is unimportant, two minutes is a bad as two days.

Re:UFFSA

[c0lo]

I was accused of being a (precursor to a) fascist.

Reading a bit the thread, it doesn't look to me necessarily so (the comment is a bit ambiguous), but yes I admit the comment you replied does admit such an interpretation.

I am, however, of the opinion that the public has confidence in the government's ability and need to investigate threats.

Strictly by the logic, it takes only one counter-example to invalidate: speaking for myself, no, I don't hold too much confidence in the government (only a limited one). Also speaking for myself, I consider that the actions mentioned in TFA just crossed the limits of my confidence. Now, the real question here is indeed how representative am I for the public?

In fact, the American public voted for the laws that allowed this detainment, according to the legal process we've held for two hundred years.

Oh, did they? No, no, no... think before you answer... did THEY directly vote for this law? Or was it voted by their representatives? In case is the later, does the their vote for their representative means an 100% trust the representatives will do the best in all circumstances, and no control is ever needed once the vote is cast? (just in the case you are tempted to answer positive, here's a hint: how come the judges have the power to interpret the law created by the representatives? How come that, even with the judges having this power, the society found useful to use jury in serious cases?)

The limits placed on a law should be based on practicality, liberty, and benefit.

Good set of reasons to limit the law, but I don't think one can come with a complete and full-proof set of reasons (this would be a law in itself).

I, for one, believe that the ability to detain incoming travelers at the border, with a reason, is good. The inconvenience is a few hours, and the benefit is a significantly larger pool of intelligence. Once essential liberties get breached, like being detained beyond the limits of the law, or being detained without reason, or being subjected to unreasonable searches, then it is time to reconsider the law.

Essential liberties, you say? From TFA: Appelbaum was asked by an attendee for his phone number. He replied "that phone was seized." Guess they just wanted to crack some nuts with the phone and were missing a nut-cracker. No, sir, surely they didn't have any intention to browse through the list of contacts or, using the phone id, to search for what calls have been made/received.
And even if they did browse for contacts and such, privacy is not an essential liberty, is it now?

I do not "put the law above the sky". I put the law above the minor inconvenience of people who work with things that threaten the nation.

As long as it is not you (or government, or anyone else for that matter) to judge what is a minor inconvenience to myself or to anyone else anyone else, I don't see a problem with this.

PS: just in case, I'm not suggesting that you are a fascist, or coward or making any moral/ethical judgement about you. Just presenting some opinions, even with the risk of being destroyed by facts. As it is, for the matter, the opinion that some good will arrise by withholding the information about the fact that more civilians were killed in Afghanistan than in 9/11.

Re:UFFSA

[dkleinsc]

And your argument is far from frivolous, as federal courts have just ruled that people who were kept in Gitmo for the better part of a decade were not denied their right to a speedy trial.

Re:UFFSA

[v1]

I thought I read that you could be legally "detained" for up to 24 hrs, at which point they either have to place you under arrest (formally charge you with committing a crime) or let you go. If this is the case, then his three hour detention was not at all illegal.

I've seen at least one example of where this was abused, where someone was detained for 23 hrs, let go, and before they got a block from the police station, was detained again. Judges don't look very kindly on that sort of thing though.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

And what the hell is "detained"? If they don't arrest you should be able to go your own way.

At border crossings, you don't have a right to go anywhere until immigration officials have cleared you. I am not aware that any country has any constraints on how long they may take to clear you. This is why a border crossing is such a good place to interrogate someone: there's no legal recourse, and immigration officials are allowed to be dicks just as much as they happen to feel like.

That's the same in every country, of course. US immigration is hellish enough, but UK immigration is an appalling nightmare; even when going into a country with a good human rights reputation it's always possible to fall foul of someone who doesn't like the look of you.

I guess the story here is that it's not just "someone who doesn't like the look of you", it's "persecution upon the instruction of anonymous federal authorities".

Re:UFFSA

[Charliemopps]

If you are suspected of a crime the police/FBI can detain you for however long it takes to deem if there is probable cause to arrest you or not. If this stretched into days, obviously his lawyers would get involved, judge would review what information the FBI had order that he be released if they didn't have anything. So yes, 3hr detentions are common and make sense. The government probably believes that someone at wikileaks aided in the "theft" of the classified material and are trying to find out who. Remember that a federal crime was committed here. We don't think of it as so bad because the material released we feel should have been public anyway. But this just as easily could have been the leak of detailed weaknesses in our tanks or helicopters. Wikileaks may be responsible enough not to release that sort of information but the government can't assume that.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Ball park, of the last 10 crossings into the USA, as a male Canadian with no criminal record, no speeding tickets, white/english. I've been 'questioned' for over 3 hours about 3 times, with most crossings taking 1 hour, and 2 were without delay.. Once I was turned around at airport and told to bring additional bank statements, deed to my house, etc; When weeks later I did/returned with them, was one of the 'without delays entries, and they didn't even want to see them...

In order to export a vehicle from the USA you must 'check it out' on the US side or they will just turn you around at the Canadian side. Sent in papers 72 hours+ previous, went into the exporting vehicle lane, and they questioned me and looked over every scrap of paper in my possession; 2 hours into it I did mention "you do know I'm leaving right?" 2 hours later they finished and direct me to my vehicle.

They have gone through photos on my digital camera, and files on my laptop on other crossings.

The American people are imo no different than any english speaking first world countries peoples, and I'm sure we are all $ruled$ by the same... It would be nice for a little slack on all sides of common countries imo.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest news here is that the government is serious about finding who leaked those documents.

And here I was thinking that they had already caught and disappeared Mr Manning into some Dubai hell hole! You mean he might be innocent?

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

You also need probable cause, ie a sound basis for your suspicion.

Caps can't search cars for drugs because their bored, but they can search a car leaving a known drug dealing area whose occupants are exhibiting a pattern of behaviour consistent with drug users.

IANAL

Re:UFFSA

[gknoy]

I believe a less stressful option would be to ask them, "Am I free to go?". Not "Am I under arrest", as you don't want to give them ideas, and there are times you could be Not Under Arrest yet not yet free to go.

Re:UFFSA

[qbast]

[...] whose occupants are exhibiting a pattern of behaviour consistent with drug users.

IANAL

Like being black.

Re:UFFSA

[VShael]

Welcome to the United Federal Fascist State of America.

No, you'll know the end has truly come when they start referring to it as the Peoples Democratic Republic of America.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Have we all forgotten that we know who leaked the documents? Remember Brad Manning? Was there any reason to detain anyone?

Re:UFFSA

[MHolmesIV]

It's called civil forfeiture. If he wants them back, he'll have to respond in court, and it could cost him thousands of dollars, not worth it for some phones.

Oh, and because it's the _phone_ committing the alledged crime, and not a person, it has no right to protection from search and seizure, and therefore they can search the phone records and contents without violating the rights of the previous owner of the phone.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

In Japan, you may be legally detained by the police for up to 23 days without charge.

Re:UFFSA

[Agripa]

The biggest problem with what happened is something that wasn't even mentioned in the summary: they kept three of his cell phones for no apparent reason. The article only presents one side of the story, but assuming it is accurate, this is unjust. They shouldn't keep objects without a reason.

I wondered about this also. It would be an easy way to intercept calls made to him on phones that they did not previously know about.

Re:UFFSA

[Uncle Warthog]

You can call, send an email, send a physical letter, or visit in person. If that's too involved for you, you can vote. Those are all input, with no level of effect.

There, I fixed that for you.

Re:UFFSA

[Yvan256]

Peoples Democratic Republic of America, A.K.A. Wal-Mart?

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the idiot. This guy is closely associated with a major major crime. One that could easily and justifiably result in the death penalty. I'm surprised he was only detained..and didn't just disappear into the ether upon entering the US. This guy is leading a group which has committed treason.

Re:UFFSA

[Sarten-X]

Now, the real question here is indeed how representative am I for the public?

It doesn't matter if you represent the public at large or not. You have an opinion, and have stated it, so it should be weighed equally to any other opinion (including my own).

an 100% trust the representatives will do the best in all circumstances, and no control is ever needed once the vote is cast?

Of course not. Personally, I'd rather not listen to the mindless drivel of politicians all day, so I do put a lot of trust into my elected officials. If I didn't, I'd run for office myself. That said, I do think it'd be interesting to see a politician offer direct voting to constituents. Communication (the biggest barrier to direct democracy) has improved a wee bit in the last two centuries.

how come the judges have the power to interpret the law created by the representatives? How come that, even with the judges having this power, the society found useful to use jury in serious cases?

The judicial system in general is a limit on the practical application of laws. It's not intended to change the law (which is why people get so upset about "legislating from the bench"). The role of a judge is to determine how laws apply in a fair manner. For example, is it fair to allow consumers to unlock phones? Is it fair to allow carriers to lock them? A judge should be the one deciding.

In civil matters, there's usually an established method to re-evaluate an issue later. Civil decisions don't matter as much as criminal cases. In a criminal case, a judge's bias could easily get an innocent bystander a death sentence. That's why there's a right to have a trial by one's peers, where fellow members of society will decide whether the evidence indicates guilt.

Good set of reasons to limit the law, but I don't think one can come with a complete and full-proof set of reasons (this would be a law in itself).

When a law becomes a problem, those who oppose it should petition the government to repeal it. The matter then falls to the judges to evaluate whether the law is still necessary. It literally becomes a judgement call.

And even if they did browse for contacts and such, privacy is not an essential liberty, is it now?

Nope. Not in a public area, where a phone rewired into a bomb can kill hundreds (or given the worst case, thousands) of people. In granting extra power to customs officers, Congress has voted that the right to life is more important that the right to privacy, in this limited area. If you want to opt out, don't cross the border. Again, the legislature can only go so far. If the general public want privacy rather than safety, they (we) can petition. When the government is convinced that the public opinion and need has changed, the laws will be changed to reflect it.

As long as it is not you (or government, or anyone else for that matter) to judge what is a minor inconvenience to myself or to anyone else anyone else, I don't see a problem with this.

Through levels of representation and indirection, it's me. It's also you. It's everyone together, democratically.

PS: Thus far, your facts are as close to accurate as anything else in the past 9 years. Personally, I think the border security is asinine. I also think it's asinine to blame parties or a few politicians for things that have been generally accepted by the public. I'm glad to see support for security theater waning, but people jumping right into the political rhetoric annoy me.

Re:UFFSA

[Sarten-X]

Seeing as how the Navy funded the damn thing, I'd think the US government should already know.

The DoD funded the creation of the Internet as a whole, and now we have a military unit dedicated to protecting against online threats. Funding and use are different concepts.

there are no central servers. That's the fucking point of it.

Just because there's no central servers doesn't mean nobody has any idea what goes on. There's logs exchanged for bug reports, user comments, and a general community of interest. A project insider likely has a fair idea of what's going on. Knowing there's "a lot" of users from somewhere is only marginally less useful than knowing there's 15,931.

There's no way for any government to know, and so the only course of action is to set up as many nodes as possible and monitor as widely as practical.

Or ask someone who's probably already been spoken to by other governments about doing this. Even some reliable statistics about the size and churn of the Tor network are useful.

NSA has bigger computers and better monitoring of both domestic and foreign networks than competing governments.

Really? What proof do you have of this? Just a blind faith in the theory that the government is all-powerful?

Even if the NSA did have enough computing power to break encryption, it doesn't help if traffic is routed around their listening nodes. Statistical analysis of Tor's churn can help tell them how much they're missing. Knowing what changes are coming in the community can help them adapt faster.

any government flunkie could get a better report ... by submitting an "Ask Slashdot" question

And given the quality of your statements, they'd waste far more than 3 hours trying to sift through the mindless drivel.

Re:UFFSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and because it's the _phone_ committing the alledged crime, and not a person, it has no right to protection from search and seizure,

Unless they know the phone committed the crime... They are merely suspicious that the phone committed the crime.

Desperate...

[Anonymous Coward]

The DHS is offering people large amounts of money to 'infiltrate' Wikileaks. Now''s your chance to cash in.

Re:Desperate...

[Ethanol-fueled]

That's actually the modus operandi of all the 3-letter agencies and military intelligence overseas:

Instead of doing any real detective work, just throw tons of money at snitches.

Think about that when you're unemployed and feeding your family ramen noodles while lying crooks and scumbags get fifty grand a year to spin tall tales and bogus claims about cases that go nowhere. From link:

The FBI pounced on this disclosure, and soon Khan was on the Bureau's payroll at $50,000 a year as an undercover informer, charged with returning to Lodi and probing the terror ring. To date the Bureau has paid him $250,000.

Ask for a lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Good man. He refused to talk to the authorities without a lawyer.

I will never talk to the police without immunity.

Re:Ask for a lawyer

[Arimus]

Err... having lawyer does not equate to having immunity.

The horror

[Reginald2]

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.

...asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan...

*shudders*

Re:The horror

[Reginald2]

How is this flamebait?

Re:The horror

[FrankHS]

And if he had said. "I think the United states should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.", what happens then?

Yet as far as I know it is still legal to hold the belief that we should get out of there.

USSA

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually prefer USSA (United Soviet States of America)

TRUE OR NOT THATS' DISTURBINGLY HOT

[Anonymous Coward]

YOUR PRESENCE IS REQUIRED HERE

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like KATHLEEN FENTS COCK.

arrested/detained?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:arrested/detained?

[bsDaemon]

You do know your beloved FDR's administration originally came up with the "Enemy Combatant" designation for German saboteurs and spies in the US during World War II and it's not some newfangled Bushism, right? No, you probably didn't. Not that makes it right or anything, but its not like they pulled this out of their ass for the current adventurist pursuit.

Re:arrested/detained?

[Mashiki]

"Enemy Combatant" is much much older then that, the only thing that's changed from 1000 years ago is the name. But every convention on the rule of war has had something covering people who attack others, or aren't part of a marked standing army.

Re:arrested/detained?

[volkerdi]

The rules are different at the border. Until you pass the border, they can detain you without arresting you, and they can do so on a mere hunch. You aren't "in the United States" yet, and you do not have your constitutional rights until you are.

Re:arrested/detained?

[dcollins]

They're both wrong, so we should abolish it. FDR used it in a case against 8 men (Ex parte Quirin). Bush used it against some 775 detainees at Guantanamo and unknown others. So, we can say that Bush is approximately 100-fold more in the wrong than FDR was.

Also, Bush expanded the meaning and use of the term (to automatically include anyone in the Taliban or al Qaida, regardless of actions) in his November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism".

So again: We should abolish it. As has been indicated under the Obama administration in a statement by Attorney General Eric Holder on March 13, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

Re:arrested/detained?

[CrashandDie]

So which constitutional rights do you have? Which laws apply? It was said he came from Holland, do Dutch laws apply?

It seems weird that having just landed, you do not benefit from any protection, and they are free to do as they will. How come that US law applies to a plane that flies around the planet, having departed the US, until it hits the ground in another country, but the other way around doesn't work?

So effectively, until the plane lands in the US, it is still under Dutch law, but not yet under US law? Where is the coherence in this?

Would someone who is enlightened enough please explain?

PS: I'm a security consultant, and have been quizzed quite a few times by US border, but also in the Ukraine, Australia, and where not. It never went very far, usually just being asked if I had any hardware that needed to be declared, and people asking information about the smart cards they were using.

Re:arrested/detained?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought constitutional rights are conferred upon american citizens not location based?

Re:arrested/detained?

[b4dc0d3r]

Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained

ICE is allowed to detain aliens without arresting them, since there's no point arresting someone if you're just going to deport them. The Army is allowed to detain enemy combatants.

The police are free to detain someone until they determine whether an arrest is necessary. An example would be if you are pulled over and the police suspect drunken driving. You can ask "Am I under arrest or am I free to go?" and you'll get either "I'm still trying to figure that out, how about doing a mandatory drunk test for me" or if you push it "If you want one or the other it's going to be an arrest and we're taking a blood sample." You're not in one of two mutually exclusive states (arrested or free).

Until a determination is made, and the timeframe does not exceed what is allowed for either party to make such a determination, I see no problem. The intent of the law is to be able to hold the bad guys long enough to figure out what they're up to, while releasing the good guys within a reasonable time.

I do see a problem with a US citizen returning from Holland (not known for its terrorism) and being subjected to a search which was obviously targeted. As soon as the person is found to be a citizen, ICE should be out of the picture, unless there is something suspicious that would trigger the Customs part instead of the Immigration part. In this case, I'm betting the Army told ICE the guy was suspicious.

You can have a problem with the laws if you want, but your post is close to fear-mongering. This is not an attempt to avoid getting around the limits of a law - ICE alone would have the authority to detain someone if something were suspect, either an alien or a customs problem. Why he was detained is the problem, not the semantics.

He was not under arrest, and he was not free to go, he was being detained to determine if there was a problem.

Re:arrested/detained?

[Khyber]

"The rules are different at the border. Until you pass the border, they can detain you without arresting you"

US Airspace = border crossed. You are on American soil. Airport = American soil. Otherwise the TSA would have no presence and instead it would be private security agencies contracted out by governments which have vested rights to the airport.

Re:arrested/detained?

[PitaBred]

So when I leave the US, I give up my citizenship until after I get back in? Or does the constitution only apply to citizens inside the borders?

Re:arrested/detained?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

There are legal limits on being detained just like there are when you're arrested. There is a particular legal meaning to being detained, so the police aren't really "getting around" anything.

As a citizen you are in a state machine, being in the "free" state most of the time (hopefully); "detained", "charged" and "arrested", "given bail", "guilty", "imprisoned", "pardoned", etc., are various other states.

Re:arrested/detained?

[vlueboy]

American laws and interpretations are certainly made for naive followers...

If the region were a border, the Mexicans and Canadians or United Nations or whoever should be present to enforce your HUMAN rights that you had while you were "overseas" or in their more ... hospitable countries, and help remove you from this "detention" that your AMERICAN rights seem to warrant you... But WHERE can we seek those opposition representatives for a helping hand at times like the man in the article?

That's right! The "border" is not a mixed multicountry environment since Holland already lost power over the man thousands of miles away as he got on the departing plain. This border is 100% American, which explains why the UN or Geneva convention people or whoever are nowhere. Americans are indoctrinated as having "inalienable" rights since before they even forged their independent states through war. They can't now say that the rights are invisible. By getting off that airplane he was already in American soil, and the forceful nature of the detention --if the guy indeed has no effective rights, then what prevents them from killing him at a whim? Oh, so there ARE some rights. Just the illusion that there aren't.

Re:arrested/detained?

[carbon_tet]

The rules are different at the border. Until you pass the border, they can detain you without arresting you, and they can do so on a mere hunch. You aren't "in the United States" yet, and you do not have your constitutional rights until you are.

As a United States Citizen, the United States Government must respect your Constitutional rights no matter where you live, because the Constitution governs the scope and behavior of government. Yes, you may be outside the borders of the United States, but the government must play by its own rules when addressing American citizens. IWSBAL.

Re:arrested/detained?

[bl968]

Actually you can be detained and searched up to 100 Miles from the Border.... It's the Constitution free zone... Roughly 2/3rd of the US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

Re:arrested/detained?

[DNS-and-BIND]

I'm curious - under your definition, does the Geneva convention apply to non-uniformed combatants? What does the Geneva convention say about this topic? I eagerly await the results of your scholarship.

Re:arrested/detained?

[Sollord]

If I'm not mistaken they can hold someone for upto 72hours for no reason while they determine if they will be arrest them for a crime or as a material witness. You don't have to be arrested for a crime there other things they can take you into custody for.

Re:arrested/detained?

[rcw-home]

You aren't "in the United States" yet, and you do not have your constitutional rights until you are.

Ahh, but you do. He's a citizen. Why? Because he was born here (Jus soli) or naturalized. What protections do Citizens have against the government? Let's start with the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The jurisdiction clause is not a loophole; if you're not in the jurisdiction of the United States, they can't touch you (legally anyway - this is not a discussion about extraordinary rendition, military action, etc.)

Re:arrested/detained?

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you are on a plane from country A to country B, and the plane is forced to touch down in country C, you could be held for trying to enter country C without a visa...

No, (international) airports are magic. For good reason, and by international agreement. The airport has a region ("airside") which is no mans land, and you are passing a border when you go to and from airside, hence the presence of customs and immigration officials. When you travel from A to B via C, you don't go through the border, so you don't need permission to enter country C.

Of course the US could say "We've decided we don't like that any more" and then the EU will say "That's nice, all US citizens transiting through the EU will now need entry visas" which will cripple US international travel (look at a map) and/or make a mint for whichever EU country offers cheap and easy Schengen visas to US citizens.

Re:arrested/detained?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Police here in the U.S. have always had the right to detain anyone they suspect is involved with a crime for as long as it reasonably takes to investigate the crime and their involvement, subject to statutory limits each jurisdiction has. The length of time cannot be longer that what it would reasonably take to discover what crime has occurred and what the detainees involvement would be up to the statutory limit. When they arrest you, they are charging you with a crime. If they do so without any evidence, the arrest would be illegal. If they arrest you for the wrong crime, you are likely to go free.

When an officer happens upon a possible crime, they can't always know immediately what's happening and who might be involved. They have to be given reasonable time to determine the facts prior to making any actual arrests and without any of the potential actors leaving the scene. It is not a civil rights violation. It's common sense. Police could not do their job otherwise. All they have to do is prove that they had a valid reason to suspect a crime had occurred and that the persons being detained may have had something to do with the crime.

Re:arrested/detained?

[amRadioHed]

The rules are different at the border. Until you pass the border, they can detain you without arresting you, and they can do so on a mere hunch. You aren't "in the United States" yet, and you do not have your constitutional rights until you are.

That's crap. The constitution limits the power of the government. It doesn't matter who they are dealing with, or where. If a person is acting as an agent of the US government then the Constitution applies.

This is also why the claims of Gitmo being a legal gray area are also hogwash.

Re:arrested/detained?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious - under your definition, does the Geneva convention apply to non-uniformed combatants? What does the Geneva convention say about this topic? I eagerly await the results of your scholarship.

According to GCIII, Article 4 (Treatment of POWs and who qualifies):

[Who counts as a prisoner of war]

1.2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

        * that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
        * that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
        * that of carrying arms openly;
        * that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Later, it does go on to say that non-uniformed combatants who spontaneously take up arms in the face of an occupying force may or may not be afforded POW status. There's no requirement to do so, and the US codified this in 2006, paving the way for the tribunals.

Most of the AQ/Taliban "resistance" miss the mark on the third and fourth bullets, so are not required to be treated as prisoners of war and in fact are "illegal combatants" as defined by the Geneva conventions. If you doubt this read them, they are actually quite entertaining. For instance, you must provide a salary to POWs, paid in Swiss Francs and based upon the GC category the prisoner falls under.
       

Re:arrested/detained?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're about as intelligent as people who post things like "'Piracy?' I thought that was something that happens on the ocean," or people who quote dictionary entries during arguments.
    The fact is "enemy combatant" didn't enter the popular lexicon until the Bush administration incorporated it into their talking points. The term will be forever tainted by, and its usage entirely coincides with, the "current adventurist pursuit." Perhaps the GP doesn't read the same blogs, never listened to the same AM stations, or didn't get directed to the same Wikipedia page as you, but he is still correct in treating the term as an inexorable piece of Bush's legacy, as he made it uniquely his own during the previous decade(as another poster mentioned: compare 8 Germans, in a single case, to 775+ "detainees" over 8 years). I suppose that makes him "wrong," but I'd say he's wrong for the right reasons. You, on the other hand, are "right," but for the wrong reasons- namely rabid jingoism, mindless partisanism, reflexive contrarianism, and a technical nitpick over a tiny, inconsequential detail that isn't really worth a damn here.

Re:arrested/detained?

[CrashandDie]

Another thing I find interesting is the ability to place phone calls whilst you have not actually passed through security/border control.

Legally speaking, I'm thinking you may not actually be allowed to turn on your phone until you're through (nearly in any airport I've been to, there is a sign saying that phone usage is prohibited, sign that disappears as soon as they've looked at your passport and you sail through).

Though, more than once, I've heard people talk on the phone (and did it myself), using the local network indiscriminately, and giving away information about my arrival, the quality of travel, and where I was at the moment. I've never been questioned about it, but it still seems as though this too is a grey area.

Re:arrested/detained?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you're arrested, you must be charged or released within 48(?)hrs. but you can be detained w/o charge indefinitely.
China, (insert enemy state), etc do this often.

Re:arrested/detained?

[merky1]

They're both wrong, so we should abolish it. FDR used it in a case against 8 men (Ex parte Quirin). Bush used it against some 775 detainees at Guantanamo and unknown others. So, we can say that Bush is approximately 100-fold more in the wrong than FDR was.

What was the detainment of Japenese American done by FDR called? At least Bush didn't pull anything as racially motivated...

Re:arrested/detained?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume many of us have watched the TV series Law & Order. Often the police mention that they can only hold a person for some length of time (hours) until they either have to press charges or let the person go.

I am assuming that they way the criminal justice system works is this. The police see you throw a rock and then hear glass break. They detain/arrest you on suspicion of vandalism and put you in a police car. The police then give their information to some attorney for the government who then decides is this is enough evidence to charge the person or not.

The time between picking you up until the attorney decides to press charges is being arrested/detained.

Given this deft analysis of Law & Order the police in this case mis-spoke. They should have said you are not being charged with a crime at this time but we are arresting/detaining you.

posting AC because I am applying law learned at the U of TV.

Re:arrested/detained?

[msuarezalvarez]

The US requires visas for passangers in transit who have to change planes at an US airport.

Re:arrested/detained?

[VShael]

We should abolish it. As has been indicated under the Obama administration in a statement by Attorney General Eric Holder on March 13, 2009.

So why hasn't he then?

Re:arrested/detained?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good to live in a country where constitution has not limits of applicability induced either from a geographical location or from nationality, race, sexual orientation or political ideology.

Re:arrested/detained?

[rowdymick]

Arrest would be reasonable grounds to believe the person is involved.
Detention would be reasonable grounds to suspect the person is involved.

Law enforcement agencies didn't make up the word "detention" to get around limits of the law. It has been tried and tested in courts as a means to investigate suspicions further and gather information / stop the destruction of evidence.

In the Third Geneva Convention under Article 4.1.2 a prisoner of war includes:

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

- that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
- that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
- that of carrying arms openly;
- that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Does the Taliban meet all four criteria? I didn't think so.

Re:arrested/detained?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is parent not modded up?

(Captcha infringe. How appropriate.)

Re:arrested/detained?

[hitmark]

is there not a story about someone that ended up living for months on a US airport because when trying to get into the US, his passport was revoked or something? End result, he could not fly to some other nation, and if he walked out the airport doors he would be arrested.

"Detained"

[seeker_1us]

Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.

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."

Re:"Detained"

[bsDaemon]

Stop quoting laws to us. We carry swords.
-- Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus

Re:"Detained"

[Anonymous Coward]

It was probably CID.

Re:"Detained"

[Anonymous Coward]

You were carrying a sword? In an airport? No wonder they detained you!

Re:"Detained"

[kbensema]

Stop quoting Pompey the Great to us. We have (for now) the Second Amendment.
-- United States Citizen

Re:"Detained"

[salesgeek]

What does not seem normal is the Army being there.

Why is it surprising that the Army had a few questions for the developer of software that was apparently involved in a major disclosure of confidential information? The Army does have police powers (not everyone, but those to whom it's delegated) like many agencies.

The police have the right to ask questions to people who may have evidence germane to an investigation. Sometimes that involves detaining someone briefly (3 hours is brief). None of this means that Appelbaum is being investigated or that he is being accused of any sort of crime. The presence of the Army is not shocking giving they have an ongoing criminal investigation. There's literally nothing in the news story that is worthy of more than making a note that the bad guys might have used Tor.

Cheesethegreat - Since you are an attorney, maybe you can explain better than I what someone's rights are when answering police questions when you are not a person being investigated, and there is not an expectation that a question could possibly be incriminating to you? I seem to recall from my service in the Navy that people have their constitutional rights, but are not Mirandized or given Miranda rights (remain silent, attorney present, phone call, etc...) nor do they have the right to remain silent where the question could not possibly be self incriminating and the subject of the investigation is not themselves.

Re:"Detained"

[gmhowell]

nor do they have the right to remain silent where the question could not possibly be self incriminating and the subject of the investigation is not themselves.

A person is a damned fool if they think that they can determine this on their own. They are doubly foolish if they trust a law enforcement officer to answer this question for them. Someone in one of these threads had links to the ACLU vids on talking to the cop. Long story short: shut your pie hole.

Re:"Detained"

[VShael]

I do not see how the Army can tell him he is "detained."

Posse Comitatus would seem to indicate that they can't.

But then, the constitutional rule of law hasn't applied in America for some time now.

Re:"Detained"

[Burz]

Perhaps because the President recently signed an order to treat American citizens suspected of hostile acts as if they were "enemy combatants", even killing them without a trial if the military deems necessary.

I would say that, without saying so, the Army now thinks it is their prerogative to detain, harass or kill even a citizen like Applebaum depending on their own internal suspicions and deliberations.

POV

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:POV

[muindaur]

As i feel the U.S. Soldier(I'm a US Citizen) that leaked that classified footage should be tried by court marshal(he was a US Soldier in a US Military facility therefore it shouldn't be a civilian court) for treason, and executed by a firing squad should he be found guilty.

I, with my Libertarian viewpoint, also feel that we should close all foreign bases, and put the tax dollars into researching military and space technology(for military and exploratory purposes.) That way we can increase our ability to defend ourselves from foreign attack, in addition to developing better technology.

That said, I still agree with the above poster. Lives are still being endangered, and most people probably don't care about reading those documents: except people that dislike the US Government.

Re:POV

[Anonymous Coward]

...Lives are still being endangered...

On the other hand, exposing wrongdoing just might save lives if it provokes the right thing in hastening a quick withdrawal. To paraphrase, The whole region "is not worth the life of a single American boy". The blood is on the hands of the invaders/occupiers. Let's not try to kill the messenger. He might be a traitor in American eyes, but a hero in everybody else's. He should stand proud in front of that firing squad if it comes to that. As an American, I place the truth above politics..

It's not like they took him hout back and shot him

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I'd care. He deserves to be strung up. Damn commie sympathizers.

They were just checking for proxies

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently they had to check inside his body cavity to make sure nobody else was hiding in there.

Goes with the job

[DaMP12000]

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...

Re:Goes with the job

[Anonymous Coward]

Plenty to see here.

Why are you blind?

Re:Goes with the job

[troubbble]

No kidding. Why should anyone care about the treatment of such a shady character who dares to indirectly involve himself with politically controversial activities?

And for God's sake people--HE SHOULD EXPECT THIS TO HAPPEN EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE!

Re:Goes with the job

[TheTurtlesMoves]

The point is that you shouldn't expect it, or tolerate it.

Re:Goes with the job

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing has changed in the US in the last 30 years right? After all, it's just a fluke that laws removing American rights have been passed as well as conjuring up the name 'Department of Homeland Security' which is eerily similar to that of another famous country during WWII.

Re:Goes with the job

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that expected for this type of work?

Unfortunately, today it is expected. The point is that it shouldn't be.

The purpose of the customs and border inspection ought to be exactly threefold:

• To prevent people not legally allowed to enter the country from entering, i.e. people who are not citizens and who do not have the correct paperwork; people who are not citizens and are known criminals.
• To prevent people from bring contraband into the country, i.e. any items on a specific list of items which it is not legal to bring into the country.
• To ensure that the appropriate tariff/duty is collected on those items being brought into the country which are subject to such tariffs/duties.

Any detention not related to the first is an abuse of power.

Any search or seizure not related to the second or third is unreasonable.

I know that US courts have many times ruled otherwise, but to me that is an indication that the courts are subject to political pressure, not an indication that it is just.

THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME TO

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Hardball?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, nothing more yet than few poor guys rattling the cage to scare others.

Boycott US Conferences

[mutherhacker]

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.

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[vcgodinich]

What other countries will you boycott as well?

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[Mr. Foogle]

Please come back and play Mr. Self Righteous after your own government stops violating human rights at the drop of a hat, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Greece

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[Anonymous Coward]

I betting he'll say Israel.

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[Fnkmaster]

Umm, you are aware that this guy is closely involved with Julian Assange in running Wikileaks, which leaked tons of US classified information, right? The summary is utterly misleading. This isn't a random dude getting harassed by the US government just because he works on Tor technology. In fact, that fact appears to be completely unrelated to his detention.

I'm not going to judge whether the wikileaks leaks are legal or not, moral or not, the fact is when you get involved in that line of work directly opposed to the US government AND you are a US citizen, a few hours questioning is par for the course. If they said he'd been detained for 3 *weeks* without being charged, I'd say okay, there's something to make a big deal about here.

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[mutherhacker]

Please rinse your mouth before talking about Greece.

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[mutherhacker]

I am aware of his background. Today we tolerate 3 hours, tomorrow we will tolerate 3 weeks.

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

You know, that intent is great and all, but as quite many important conferences are helt in the US, that intent will seriously hamper any academic career. Try explaining your professor/boss/whoever is paing you that you can not attain an important conference because "the US are evil and all".

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[Carlos Rodriguez]

I'm not sure if the parent's post qualifies as a Tu Quoque fallacy or as a personal attack.

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[Mr. Foogle]

Why not both?

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[Leebert]

Umm, you are aware that this guy is closely involved with Julian Assange in running Wikileaks, which leaked tons of US classified information, right?

No, they didn't. Someone who had access the information leaked the information to Wikileaks. Wikileaks merely published the leaked information.

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[WeatherGod]

Saying that Julian Assange "runs" WikiLeaks is a little simplistic. While he does act as a sort of Editor-In-Chief, he primarily serves as a spokesman for the organization. Honestly, to be the public face for a website like that takes balls, and I would certainly act to make sure the content that is released is good before putting my balls on the line.

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[Anonymous Coward]

so?

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[Anonymous Coward]

What's this academic field of yours- perhaps "Failed European states," with an emphasis on cash-strapped Mediterranean countries?

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to declare my intent to boycott ALL academic conferences held in my field in the United States.

You misspelled Amerikkka, like some capitalist sheeple tool.

The United Jew$ of I$rael and the United $nake$ of Amerikkka are also valid $pelling$, if you aren't a $heeple tool of our kkkapitali$$$t kkkorporate kkkrony overlorkkkd$.

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[Thundersnatch]

You better stay the hell out of Europe. Police there have vastly greater powers of search, seizure, and detention than they do in the USA. I particularly enjoyed being "monitored" by two jackbooted thugs with sub-machine guns while being "interviewed" by customs in Frankfort. And that was in the late 90s, pre-9/11.

Re:Boycott US Conferences

[Mr. Foogle]

After, certainly, to remove the foul taste.

I can not wait!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can not wait to hear what the idiots at Slashtard err Slashdot think about this! Wait, yes I can.

Get a life you inbred idiots.

We are at war

[voss]

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.

Re:We are at war

[Omnifarious]

If they could've arrested him as a material witness they should've. And there is a story, harassment. If they don't have the evidence to arrest him, he should be free to go, and if they do, they should arrest him.

Re:We are at war

[drinkypoo]

5) He was allowed to leave the country after his conference, not exactly what police states do.

They do if they have reason to do so, e.g. protecting their image when the publicity would be worse than harassing the target.

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.

Not hanging around waiting to become a statistic doesn't make you a coward, or a criminal, but it is a sign of intelligence.

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.

You sound hilarious.

Re:We are at war

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

1) But not legally so, just because the government commits a crime it does not allow them to trample on the rights of others.
2) Just as a witness in a court endagers the wellbeing of a murderer, the government have no rights to keep secrets from the population, especially not when their action causes people to die.
3) You will not be detained for unpaid parking tickets without at least some kind of witness or someone stepping up and accusing you of breaking the law.
4) This is news for nerds, if you don't want to read it I suggest that you have a beer and watch a movie, trust me, it is way more entertaining and you will feel a lot better. It might not be news that the government spend you money to harass innocents but it is still worth to point out from time to time, that money could be better spent by lowering the taxes or repairing the roads.
5) They obviously tried to intimidate him, that is exactly what police states do. No matter how large police-force you have you still need honest people working to get tax-money for the cops salaries and put food on the table. To keep a firm grip on the population you settle for intimidating them into obedience. This has been true for every fascist government since the beginning of time and those who didn't oppose the injustice were never assaulted and never saw the big problem.
 

Re:We are at war

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Re:We are at war

[PitaBred]

They could ask him questions without detaining him. Detaining him was a show of force.

Re:We are at war

[stimpleton]

"1) The united states is at war in Afghanistan"

Show me the declaration according to the UN charter. Fittingly the US in Afghanistan was like this detainment of this programmer. IE they are pressing an authoritarian mantra.

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.

Copy pasted from a US millitary speech? Arguably everything could contribute. Protesting against the Mai Lai Massacre killed US soldiers indirectly. Moral lowered by poor opinion back home caused battle errors?

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.

It was 3 hours too many

5) He was allowed to leave the country after his conference, not exactly what police states do

Well no, police states do let people go, under agreements of refugee discussions. Not all refugees arrive on a 12" dinghy or scramble over barbed wire walls.

Re:We are at war

[whatajoke]

If you are an american, then osama bin laden has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

Re:We are at war

[Nikkos]

1) The united states is at war in Afghanistan

Yes.

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.

Maybe. These were "secret" documents, which just about damn near anyone has clearance to see. Most of them are simply just stuff that they hear and pass up, the vast majority of these could be completely false.

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.

Bullshit.

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.

He was detained, questioned, his receipts and laptop were inspected, and his 3 phones were confiscated. Didja miss that part?

5) He was allowed to leave the country after his conference, not exactly what police states do.

So your argument is that he was detained, searched, and some of his stuff was confiscated but since he got to leave none of his rights were violated? What fucking planet are you on?

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.

He didn't flee shit, and we don't know if the FBI agents were being genuine or condescending.

I think you need to pull your head out of the sand. For me this isn't about Bush, war, oil, etc. It's about the government keeping too many secrets and abusing power, and to me this incident stands as another example of such. Don't get me wrong, the government is right to keep investigating this leak, but messing with this guy seems more like harassment and the continuation of a witch-hunt.

Re:We are at war

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Show me the declaration according to the UN charter. Fittingly the US in Afghanistan was like this detainment of this programmer. IE they are pressing an authoritarian mantra.

What are you asking to see? The UN totally allows defensive/retaliatory military strikes.

Arguably everything could contribute. Protesting against the Mai Lai Massacre killed US soldiers indirectly. Moral lowered by poor opinion back home caused battle errors?

Nice attempt to shift the argument. The question is did those leaks contribute, and a good case has been made. What's wrong with the specific argument.

Re:We are at war

[clyde_cadiddlehopper]

Ummm. Pardon my ignorance, but when did congress declare war and on whom?

Re:We are at war

[AK Marc]

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.

You can't arrest someone for being a witness. You can question them and subpoena them, but you only arrest suspects, not witnesses.

Re:We are at war

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all refugees arrive on a 12" dinghy

No. Just the ones from Lilliput.

Re:We are at war

[quenda]

Not all refugees arrive on a 12" dinghy.

Do any refugees arrive on a twelve inch boat?

Re:We are at war

[JudgeFurious]

Oh you're lucky wee man! We'll let you in because you're a refugee and you won't take up much space but just you get out of line one time and if we can find you then you're out of here!

Re:We are at war

[pedestrian crossing]

What are you asking to see? The UN totally allows defensive/retaliatory military strikes.

Well, ignoring the UN tangent, how about a good old-fashioned constitutional declaration of war. You know, like in article one, section eight of the US Constitution.

Re:We are at war

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Well, ignoring the UN tangent, how about a good old-fashioned constitutional declaration of war. You know, like in article one, section eight of the US Constitution

Well, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution allows for the President to initiate defensive/retaliatory strikes, with Congress then setting whatever parameters on the continuing mission. The war in Afghanistan was quite legal under US law. Congress can tell Obama to pull out, but until then...

Says who?

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:Says who?

[JamesP]

In a US-based airport, one is firmly within the US border and on US soil.

Not until you clear customs.

Well, of course at the moment the airplane touches the runway you are on US soil (and probably before that) but customs are a strange place

Re:Says who?

[AK Marc]

If that happens to me, I'm going to demand to speak to the US consulate. As a US citizen on foreign soil, I have that right. If they assert I'm not in the US, I assert I get to speak with the consulate.

WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:WTF

[AlamedaStone]

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?

Being well-informed.

Re:WTF

[Iamthecheese]

An Enemy in a declared war has the Geneva convention. Those detained around the world by direction of the overzealous and otherwise evil politicians of today have nothing.

IAAL but IANAIL

[cheesethegreat]

(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.

Re:IAAL but IANAIL

[gmhowell]

I look forward to being corrected by anyone with more knowledge than me.

Alternatively, you may be corrected by a judge.

Re:IAAL but IANAIL

[martin-boundary]

I look forward to reading the comments by a judge who reads Slashdot :-/

Re:IAAL but IANAIL

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

If you are not on USA soil, where the hell are you? International waters?
If so, they are not entitled to anything at all, they (customs agents) are just people at international grounds carrying fancy uniforms. Then they try to kidnap you, use self defense and fight back. You can't possible commit a crime that way, your not even in a 'country'. And I'm sure international conventions or treaties for international ground/waters have self defense clauses.

I'm really curious what a court would say about that. Clearly they must agree that they have no jurisdiction outside their country.

It should be glaringly obvious..

[Paracelcus]

To anyone.

Who the REAL terrorists are!

USA!, USA!, USA!

Detained but not under arrest?

[dov_0]

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.

Mod Parent Down

[Anonymous Coward]

Khyber is a troll... See this post for some of Khyber's previous experiences, greatness and accomplishments.

Our reputation?

[$beirdo]

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.

Re:Our reputation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Question: Why did Julian Assange facilitate the killing of innocent people to protest the killing of innocent people? Answer: He wasn't protesting, he was advertising. Julian Assange doesn't give a good G*d D*mn about anyone's life, but his own. Why else would he put the lives Afhani families, and soldiers, including his own Australian countrymen in danger?

Re:Our reputation?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to wonder just how good a 'reputation' Mr. Gates thinks we have in Afghanistan. Perhaps he was thinking it would hurt the US publics perception that everything the US is doing in Afghanistan is on the up and up. Which it isn't, and hasn't been since we stepped foot there, but don't let that stop the war machine...

Better to fight it over there, than over here, right? I believe that is the current justified line....

Re:Our reputation?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the reputation of the USA in Afghanistan which concerns those in power, but rather the reputation of the Administration and Congress in the eyes of the electorate. Provoking a legitimacy crisis that involves electing people who can't easily be bought off by entrenched interests (in this case, the military-industrial complex) would be a disaster for democracy!!!

Re:Our reputation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Robert Gates said that the release of the WikiLeaks documents may damage our reputation in Afghanistan.

My understanding is that the administration and military are most unhappy about the release of Afghan informants and cooperators. Those people deserve to have their identities protected. By having them exposed, the US reputation is damaged; that is, if you cooperate with the U.S. your may be identified even if you were told you would be protected.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of things that the administration and military wishes were not revealed, but I hope we can agree that the release of names in this situation is both sloppy and probably detrimental to the situation on the ground.

Re:Our reputation?

[darkmeridian]

What about the disclosure of the names of the Afghans who helped us fight the Taliban, who are running around killing civilians, blowing supermarkets up, and repressing women? It's easy to say that a free nation should have no secrets, but no one wants to pay the price of that.

Re:Our reputation?

[dbIII]

What about the disclosure of the names of the Afghans who helped us fight the Taliban

You mean blackedout, blackedout and unreadable? They'll be pretty safe because nobody can work out who they are from the leaked documents.

Re:Our reputation?

[VShael]

Robert Gates said that the release of the WikiLeaks documents may damage our reputation in Afghanistan.

Yes, truth is frequently damaging to Propaganda.

Re:Our reputation?

[drdrgivemethenews]

Agree in priniciple, but I find the glib reaction here to the leak of actual names of informers worrisome (I apologize if this is getting off topic, but the case can be made that the actions of these Army officers are far less important than the motivating circumstances). The leak of _one_ name (Valerie Plame) sent the "liberal press" into contortions of fury, but we conveniently overlook the leak of Afghani supporters' names, some of whom are now possibly dead. Wtf?

The "conservative press" could do us all a favor, btw, and document some of these deaths, instead of just working itself up into similar contortions of fury over the matter.

But whether or not any actual damage is done, the Wikileaks were irresponsible in disclosing names of those who are not decision makers in the US command structure. Suppose the shoe were on the other foot, and there were active terrorist cells in the US assassinating anyone involved in helping the government fight them? Would anyone here say that Wikileaks should publish transcripts of the government effort, naming names?

--------

.sig transit gloria mundi

Knock knock, Gestapo!

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Knock knock, Gestapo!

[Belial6]

To be fair, it is not about driving a war against people who have a different religion. That idea comes from them. Not us. Do you really think that the people of the Middle East would be treated any different if they were "God Fearing Christians"? Not likely. The US is in these conflicts because a relatively unstable country is not bowing to our will in regards to the procurement of their natural resources. We don't really care about their religion.

The religious conflict is generated on their side. Primarily because it is the best way for the minority of people who are trying to horde all of the revenue generated by the procurement of their natural resources to convince their impoverished populace that they should fight and die to protect their revenue stream. It is also the best way to keep the destitute population's guns pointed at someone else than their own leaders.

So, while there is plenty of evil doings going on, to blame the US for targeting 'different religions' is a red herring.

Re:Knock knock, Gestapo!

[Anonymous Coward]

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 betcha!

Re:Knock knock, Gestapo!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think that the people of the Middle East would be treated any different if they were "God Fearing Christians"? Not likely. The US is in these conflicts because a relatively unstable country is not bowing to our will in regards to the procurement of their natural resources. We don't really care about their religion.

Oh yes. I think this exactly. Natural resources are second thing. Of course, Hitler was also disturbed by Jews doing well in economy and business. He said that they ruining the country and their shops have been burned and the goods stolen. Does it come close to your idea?

One thing is, you still do not see the simple matter that in different regions of the world people simply think differently. They have different values and different priorities. First thing is to survive somehow (simpler: they need money). And having a war forced on them makes the situation even worse. They will fight you, even you are doing "good" to them. Because you ignored their highest priority demands.

The religious conflict is generated on their side.

No. It is not. A conflict needs two parties. They have been perfectly well, without any influence from the outside.

Primarily because it is the best way for the minority of people who are trying to horde all of the revenue generated by the procurement of their natural resources to convince their impoverished populace that they should fight and die to protect their revenue stream. It is also the best way to keep the destitute population's guns pointed at someone else than their own leaders.

This is exactly the same thing US and many other governments are doing with their people, only on a higher level. Please think a minute about it.

So, while there is plenty of evil doings going on

Sure. Of course. But we are not in Hollywood and you have to let evil happen sometimes.

to blame the US for targeting 'different religions' is a red herring.

This different religion influences their lives. Resulting in the fact that they get different opinions than you. You should notice that Islam is deeply involved in politics and vice versa. This is a different approach than Christians have. And now I want to ask you something... who do you think will get searched at US border more likely: a white male who is a Muslim or who is a Christian?

I can tell you the answer from obvious things I observed here in Germany. One of my friend who comes from a major Muslim country was told at a bank here, he could not open an account, they have to check first, if he is a terrorist. I mean... WTF? Really WTF??!

This is how a lost war looks like!

Re:Knock knock, Gestapo!

[Hitto]

The persecution shtick works when you're actually a jew, not when you use a program hosting 90% of the world's pedophiles.

I mean get a clue, guys, even downloading tor will put you on the "HAS SUMTHIN TUH HIDE, HYUCK" list.

Furthermore...

[toby]

"We've always been at war with Eastasia."

Fuck your war.

Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[Deus.1.01]

What do you mean "Wouldn't lay a hand on you" you just got detained, right?

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[PopeRatzo]

Here in the U.S. they wouldn't lay a hand on you unless you gave them clear cause to do so.

Have a look at the Oscar-winning documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" and get back to me.

There's a time limit on the detention, after which they much charge you are let you go.

Have you ever heard of the "PATRIOT Act"?

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[SuperKendall]

Have a look at the Oscar-winning documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" and get back to me.

Wow, soldiers in a war zone sometimes use violence! News at 11!

I happen to have been talking about border agents. You know, what the original story was about?

Have you ever heard of the "PATRIOT Act"?

Have you ever looked up the definition of "enemy combatant"? Because you have to be declared one for that to apply.

Thankfully I live in a country where rule of law is important. If you really live somewhere that treats detention as arrest, then you don't even have the safeguards the Patriot act provides (not that I am saying it's great legislation, but it's a step above whamt you have.

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[MrHanky]

You know, if the U.S. wasn't the best country by default in the minds of brainwashed morons^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H loyal patriots such as yourself, it probably wouldn't suck so much.

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[Rich0]

Besides - no government anywhere is likely to lay a hand on you if you're 100% cooperative with whatever they want you to do. It is in their interest to give you the carrot as well as the stick.

If they tell you to sit and you sit, no problem. If they tell you to talk and you spill your guts, no problem.

I'm sure those fed-types are real nice up until the part where say that since you aren't being arrested you're going to go ahead and walk past them and out the door...

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[Deus.1.01]

My point being that being detained is already use of force, hence they have already "laid a hand on you".
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.

Thats why when it comes to detaining an individual they should have a damn good reason for doing so.

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[ta bu shi da yu]

Have you ever heard of the "PATRIOT Act"?

Sure have, in fact I wrote the Wikipedia article on it. Where does it state that you can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen?

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[PopeRatzo]

Where does it state that you can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen?

Well, the GPP didn't say anything about "U.S. citizens(s)".

He said "Around here..." and then "There's a time limit on the detention, after which they much charge you are(sic) let you go".

Section 412 of PATRIOT specifically permits indefinite detention and does not require any sort of "enemy combatant" status.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court (pre-Roberts and Alito) in Zadvydas v. Davis scaled it back some, but still, indefinite detention without charges is permitted.

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[PopeRatzo]

Have you ever looked up the definition of "enemy combatant"? Because you have to be declared one for that to apply.

Read section 412. It permits indefinite detention of immigrants and non-citizens. There is no requirement that they be held on terrorism grounds. It could be done simply based on an immigration violation.

Specifically, section 412 of the PATRIOT Act adds a section 236A(a)(3) and (a)(6) to the immigration law allowing this.

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[kenj0418]

Read section 412. It permits indefinite detention of immigrants and non-citizens.

Except that he is a US Citizen (from TFA, I don't think the summary mentioned)

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[jesset77]

^W > ^H, I'm just sayin :P

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[MrHanky]

Yeah, but that would close the browser window.

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[0111 1110]

There is no specific time limit on how long you can be detained. You can be detained for as long as the LEOs deem necessary. Technically I suppose this could stretch into months or years, but I think that would be impractical because as soon as they move you somewhere you are automatically under arrest and not detained. Once you are under arrest your rights change. Note that at a border you have no rights at all. No constitutional protection. No right to remain silent. No right to an attorney. No right to a trial. If an ICE agent feels you are guilty of a crime then you are guilty. Period. You have no right to a trial until you are actually admitted to the US. If an ICE agent wishes to execute you on a whim, he is within his rights. He would not even be suspended let alone prosecuted for murder. That would only be a violation of international law and not US law. And BTW, being a US citizen *does not* give you the right to enter the US without the consent of an ICE officer. If the ICE officer doesn't want to allow you to enter for any reason he does not have to admit you. In practice of course, these are human beings and, unless they are in a bad mood, unlucky, cop an attitude, are disrespectful, or seem unafraid of their power, most will not shoot you on the spot or detain you indefinitely.

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[NoOneInParticular]

Sure have, in fact I wrote the Wikipedia article on it. Where does it state that you can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen?

Don't worry, they'll get around to that eventually. For me as a European regularly travelling to the US, I know I am entering a place refusing to give me the same basic protection that my country is extending to Americans. Ah well, so is Uganda.

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[dcw3]

If an ICE agent feels you are guilty of a crime then you are guilty. Period. You have no right to a trial until you are actually admitted to the US. If an ICE agent wishes to execute you on a whim, he is within his rights. He would not even be suspended let alone prosecuted for murder.

Citation needed. I'm calling bullshit

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[ta bu shi da yu]

That's funny, because 8 USC 1226a says nothing of the sort.

8 USC 1226a allows for indefinite detention in cases where the Attorney General reasonably believes that the immigrant is engaging in espionage or sabotage; trying to overthrow the government; is engaging in terrorist activities; or is a threat to national security.

Try reading the part of the code that quote next time. It might be helpful.

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[PopeRatzo]

That's funny, because 8 USC 1226a says nothing of the sort.

in 236 (a)(3)(a) it says that the AG can certify an immigrant for indefinite detention based upon their being "... described in section 1182 (a)(3)(A)(i), 1182 (a)(3)(A)(iii), 1182 (a)(3)(B), 1227 (a)(4)(A)(i), 1227 (a)(4)(A)(iii), or 1227 (a)(4)(B) of this title"

Those section have to do with immigration violations. That's an "or" not an "and".

You gotta read more than just the cite, but the sections the cite cites.

Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that

[ta bu shi da yu]

Yeah, I did. They all refer to terrorism!

my response

[chronoss2010]

Sorry i am not answering anything until i see a lawyer.

Re:TOR? Navy?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

No We're Not

[fuzznutz]

1) The united states is at war in Afghanistan

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?

Re:No We're Not

[TangoMargarine]

Hence the "at war IN Afghanistan" (not WITH). But yes, if Congress didn't declare it, it's not officially a war.

Re:No We're Not

[phantomcircuit]

You mean like this one?

If you're going to call someone out for being wrong... try being right.

Re:No We're Not

[Civil_Disobedient]

Authorization for use of military force != declaration of war, you imbecile.

Hint: Only Congress gets to declare wars (Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution). If you're going to correct someone on the internet, try being right.

Re:No We're Not

[phantomcircuit]

That was passed by the house and senate and signed by the president. Try again.

Re:No We're Not

[Anonymous Coward]

totally missed Congress' declaration of war. I was under the impression that we were allied with the government of Afghanistan.

It is, therefore, a police operation. ;)

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange is skirting responsibility/ liability.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/07/29/128848467/fears-for-afghans-cited-in-wikileaks-leak

Put all War Leakers in JAIL

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone with the Wikileaks set up should be shot(well jailed) on sight. I don't care about anything other than the leaks. Loose lips sink ships and all that. The Wilkileaks guy is a socialist and is just going after the U.S. He never posts anything harmful to say Germany or any other country. Put them and the N.Y.Times people in jail. If that happened enough, then the leaking would stop.

What IS The Law?

[Toad-san]

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

Re:What IS The Law?

[brasselv]

Just a remark:
--> if you say "mother f*cker" to an officer, you give them a reason to actually arrest you, even if they had no reason before.
Best case, you'll be charged with one of those generic "disorderly conduct" violations.

You are much better off staying calm and cool.

Re:What IS The Law?

[seeker_1us]

If you get a passport and do some international travelling, you are going to have to lose your attitude.

Do a little research about the authority of the Customs. It's not very difficult.

Any country's port of entry has the right to search your stuff, including your own country. You will wait for that process to be complete if they choose to do this.

Re:What IS The Law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your retirement pay doesn't come if you're in a box six feet under due to suicide by cop.

I mean, damn, if not for your Internet Tough Guy thing about *outright daring border cops to shoot you* and threatening to fight them, probably most people in this thread would be agreeing with you.

Re:What IS The Law?

[AHuxley]

http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2008/10/aclu-23-of-us-population-lives-in-constitution-free-zone.ars seems to spell out some aspects.

Re:What IS The Law?

[jhylkema]

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.

You're an idiot blowhard. If you ever were actually in the situation you describe, you would wet your pants followed by confessing to being bin Laden if that's what the cop suspected.

Same reading assignment I gave to another pallid /.'er occupant of his parents' basement: Terry v. Ohio . The police have the right to detain you for a reasonable period of time if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that you have been involved in the commission of a crime. And yes, Virginia, they have the right to use force to detain you.

"Am I under arrest?"

"No? Then shoot me, mother f*cker, or get out of the way."

Bzzt, wrong answer. The correct answer is, "officer, am I free to go?" What you're doing is known in the trade as "flunking the attitude test." It is also known as "contempt of cop" and is likely to earn you some "street justice."

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.

By the tone of your post, I'm assuming that you intend to protect yourself with a firearm. Guess what - you've just escalated the situation from nothing to you being clad in a diaper strapped to a gurney saying your last words right before receiving a megadose of animal traquilisers in full of the parents whose basement you live in at the age of 40. All because you're a typical American jackass who thinks he's Rambo and who thinks a gun is the solution to every problem. Hope you enjoyed your last meal.

Re:What IS The Law?

[tehcyder]

"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.

I think you'll find you're the one who ends up being arrested for assaulting a police officer if you so much as push them.

Right, sure: no problem.

[Szechuan Vanilla]

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).

Re:Right, sure: no problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

A hundred thousand Japanese-Americans might want to also tell the the god like FDR to fuck off as well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment

You know what, you can fuck off as well. This shit isn't a right wing/left wing deal. It is the same shit with a different cheerleader (That's right, Obama is just as shitty).

If you are too fucking stupid to see that then you will reap what you deserve.

Re:Right, sure: no problem.

[Szechuan Vanilla]

It was wrong when FDR did it, too, and the US government finally got around to saying so.

This recent PATRIOT etc. crap was put in place by right wing idiots and we've been being told "if you've nothing to hide etc" by apologists for it for years. Now we see what happens when this stuff gets started (political interrogation at the border) and how hard it is to undo.

Obama is trying to figure out how to get out of the mess Bush et alia put us in, with the added fillip that every time he tries to undo some of this crap, the right starts screaming that he's making us weak "You can't close Gitmo!", "You can't try these terrorists in open court!"

So, you see, it IS a right/left thing, and, once again, the left is trying to undo the crap foisted on us by the right.

Re:Right, sure: no problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

So a handful of shitty jap scum were put in apartments with adequate furnishing and provisions? That's more than they should have expected. If I were FDR, I would have just shot them all and burned their corpses. The fact that the nation of jewpan exists today is proof that two bombs weren't enough. The atomic bombing should have been delayed until we had enough nukes built to destroy the entire island and all the fucking gooks.

this is how things work

[OrangeTide]

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.

Bullshit.

[crhylove]

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.

Re:Bullshit.

[_Sprocket_]

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.

At this point, reasonable people will stop listening to you. Our country is not "randomly bombing the shit out of all manner of other people." There are very distinct reasons behind those actions. You may not agree with the reasons given. You may question whether we are given real reasons. You may disagree with the fundamental idea of such a policy. But it would serve your cause to give voice to those grievances instead of resorting to generic exaggerations. Otherwise, you sound like an uninformed raving lunatic. And you might even cause others who CAN voice rational criticism to be overlooked by the general public.

Re:Bullshit.

[HiThere]

He *is* overstating the case. This doesn't mean that he's wrong in principle. A lot of the time every excuse for attacking a country that is given is obviously false. Of course, this doesn't mean that there is no reason, it just means that you can't determine what the reason is, and that it's probably something even more discreditable that you are guessing.

E.g., one plausible reason for the Afghanistan conflict is to test out new weapons. Nobody's going to admit that, but it's the most plausible excuse that I've come up with. (Same for Iran, but with lots more evidence that all the excuses were lies, but another plausible excuse: I've heard someone claim that it started because Iran started to sell it's oil for Euros rather than dollars. Don't know if that's true or not, and by now it doesn't matter. But the excuses that were provided were obvious lies, that were proved false over and over.)

So if you believe that the government isn't lying to you, then it's almost reasonable to claim that they are attacking countries at random. You can tell that the excuses that they offer are such that (from a central position) only a madman would believe them. And we've recently had a president who was clearly "mad", (I'm referring to the latter days of President Reagan), so that's not that implausible a suggestion.

Re:Bullshit.

[_Sprocket_]

He *is* overstating the case. This doesn't mean that he's wrong in principle

No, he is wrong in principle. He obviously doesn't understand the situation and can't be bothered to educate himself on the situation. Furthermore, he can't be bothered to put together a reasonable argument on why he doesn't agree with the situation. So he makes things up. That's a fiction, not a reasonable political view.

E.g., one plausible reason for the Afghanistan conflict is to test out new weapons. Nobody's going to admit that, but it's the most plausible excuse that I've come up with. (Same for Iran, but with lots more evidence that all the excuses were lies, but another plausible excuse: I've heard someone claim that it started because Iran started to sell it's oil for Euros rather than dollars. Don't know if that's true or not, and by now it doesn't matter. But the excuses that were provided were obvious lies, that were proved false over and over.)

Well... yes. Because the US military can't possibly do any testing without a war. Nope. They need to take weapons systems in to a small, inconsequential war to expose the capabilities of those weapons systems to the world. That's the only way to tell if something works. And likewise, Iran is all a conspiracy over markets. There's absolutely no geopolitical history involving Iran in the region.

Seriously - get some education. Again... one might not agree with the party line. But at least the objections can have some basis in reality.

Re:Bullshit.

[crhylove]

Ludicrous. I could not possibly be overstating the situation. If you want a case by case detailed report of all the fallacious chicanery the US has done over the last 50 years, no. Frankly I'm not going to spend the next 100 years attempting to earn that PHD.

My personal favorite though, I will discuss for a moment: Iraq.

At one time Iraq was a sovereign nation, with a long standing border dispute with Iran. They wouldn't sell us oil for as cheap as we'd have liked, so we installed SADDAM HUSSEIN. A genocidal madman who routinely hung living people on large hooks designed for hanging sides of butchered cattle. That's right, WE installed Saddam. This is most clearly in the record books, and no conspiracy theory. Things were going well: for a little while. He was brutally massacring a bunch of towel heads we could care less about, we were getting cheap oil, he was getting new guns. What could be better? Then one day, he realized that Kuwait also had oil, and that we weren't paying enough. Begin operation desert storm. We shatter his whole army literally in one single day. We restore the retarded religious based fascism to Kuwait, start getting oil on the cheap again, and let Saddam go back to killing the Kurds, which is now especially despicable on our part now, because Bush Sr. had told the Kurds via TV broadcast to "Rise up, so we can help you over through this ruthless dictator". Nevermind the fact that WE installed him in the first place, and then couldn't be bothered when the Kurds rose up and he wiped them all out. At this point we completely starve the Iraqi population with a full embargo. No medicine, no food, no anything. Of course, they could really use modern medicine now too, because we used Depleted Uranium in our munitions during gulf storm, and now most of the population is irradiated and popping out retards and other types of heinous and atrocious birth defects. Too bad! We installed Saddam 30 years ago, and all of you can SUCK IT! Then one fine day, a bunch of corporate greed assholes bring down WTC 1, 2, and 7. They do it with thermate after Jeb Bush ran a few obviously bogus security drills on the towers. This of course happened WHILE Dick Cheney was telling the air national defense to STAND DOWN, after repeated protests from the pilots, and other air traffic personnel. Great! Time to start bombing some people again! Off we go to Afghanistan. To educate women? To kill Muslims? Nope: to put in an oil pipeline, and to secure complete control of most of the world's opium supply. Well, that only took a few hundred American troops, let's go back into Iraq! Cue "Shock and Awe". We use illegal munitions (white phosphorus), and literally bomb giant cities of innocent (albeit religious and ignorant) people back into the stone age. Then we start the best part "Operation Iraqi Freedom" which involves setting up tons of military bases and importing our quality corporate goods and services like McDonald's and Pizza Hut.

If I was an Iraqi, I'd be doing a BIT more than throwing my shoe at the retarded and non elected son of the ex head of the CIA. I'd be out for real blood. Luckily, I live in the winning country, and I can just sit here and snidely smoke bong loads while the religious idiots do what they always do best: Kill each other for profit.

Re:Bullshit.

[Civil_Disobedient]

You know, you're not doing anyone any favors when you start bringing up 9/11 conspiracy theories. Just stick to the stuff you can prove--it's more than damning enough as it is.

The tl;dr of the above:
In February 8, 1963 (yes, under Kennedy), amidst fears of spreading Communist influence with the Qassim government of Iraq (and possibly losing control of the country's oil industry), the CIA and British government aided in the Ba'athist coup that put Saddam in power.

Re:Bullshit.

[sac13]

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 do realize that it's the "system" that created corporations. Without the government creating those artificial entities, there would be no corporations to cause trouble... just people that can be locked up and held accountable.

Re:Bullshit.

[_Sprocket_]

Ludicrous. I could not possibly be overstating the situation. If you want a case by case detailed report of all the fallacious chicanery the US has done over the last 50 years, no. Frankly I'm not going to spend the next 100 years attempting to earn that PHD.

You've gone from claiming US bombings are random to a nice laundry list of conspiracy theories. Yet none of this is an over-statement? In the next breath, you claim understanding the situation will take 100 years of study. Indeed. Perhaps if you held off on the bong a bit, you'd complete your studies a bit faster. At the least, you might be less gullible and less inclined to believe every conspiracy theory you run across on the Internet.

At one time Iraq was a sovereign nation, with a long standing border dispute with Iran. They wouldn't sell us oil for as cheap as we'd have liked, so we installed SADDAM HUSSEIN. A genocidal madman who routinely hung living people on large hooks designed for hanging sides of butchered cattle. That's right, WE installed Saddam. This is most clearly in the record books, and no conspiracy theory.

Unfortunately, there is no clear record books to back this up. There are claims from individuals. There's a lot of inter-linked articles all based on these whispers. But there is very little evidence.

I can understand the inclination to believe this story. After all, the CIA has certainly been involved in the region; most famously in Iran. And at the very least, the US was pleased with the regime change. But support is a far cry from outright engineering the power struggle. And it should be pointed out that the regime change didn't put Saddam in power immediately.

Things were going well: for a little while. He was brutally massacring a bunch of towel heads we could care less about, we were getting cheap oil, he was getting new guns. What could be better?

He was getting new guns from the Soviets and French. The US wanted someone to keep the Iranians busy. Oil might have been involved, but it's very short-sighted to look at it as the end-all and be-all of involvement.

Then one day, he realized that Kuwait also had oil, and that we weren't paying enough. Begin operation desert storm.

One day? All sudden-like. As if years of border disputes (going back before Saddam's time) didn't exist. And that huge war debt financed by the Kuwaitis didn't exist. And the suspicion of Kuwaiti oil market and oil production shenanigans didn't exist. Oh no. It was all because the CIA's check didn't have enough zero's.

We shatter his whole army literally in one single day. We restore the retarded religious based fascism to Kuwait, start getting oil on the cheap again,

Wait a second - wasn't Kuwait a sovereign nation? I suppose that rhetoric only works when critical of the US. As for Kuwaiti oil - well, yes. Of course. That's one of Saddam's big mistakes. We always protected Kuwaiti oil interests as they are major suppliers to entities that are important to our economy. But I'm sure that's all a big revelation for you.

..and let Saddam go back to killing the Kurds, which is now especially despicable on our part now, because Bush Sr. had told the Kurds via TV broadcast to "Rise up, so we can help you over through this ruthless dictator". Nevermind the fact that WE installed him in the first place, and then couldn't be bothered when the Kurds rose up and he wiped them all out.

The US' handling of Kurd and Shia political actions has been sporadic. But then, the situation isn't entirely clear-cut with openly violent in-fighting among factions of each group. That's already a mess without tossing in the Saddam/CIA conspiracy theory. It'd be your first fair point if you hadn't tipped over the conspiracy edge.

At this point we completely starve the

Re:Bullshit.

[crhylove]

I appreciate your candor, but I was joking about the bong loads. My larger point was that most Americans are on drugs, either prescription or recreational.

You made some good points that I already knew, however they were not especially relevant to the topic at hand so I left them out.

I don't go for conspiracy theories. I read as much as possible. I watch documentaries. Sometimes, as in the case of 9/11, I do some elementary math and basic engineering. Then I determine the most likely cause of events.

Sadly, it has been my opinion that when we captured many German scientists and propagandists after WWII in Project Paperclip, the fascist ideologies and inter-govermental structures began infecting OUR country. In particular the precursor to the CIA, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc..

Since that time, and particularly without checks or even an accounting for after the murder of JFK, our country has been the bad guy in every conflict. Except of course when we are attempting to remove the fascist WE put in, as is the case with Saddam and Noriega. Then we were the good guys, sort of, but only because we had initially caused all of the trouble anyway.

Education is actually what I do for a living. Not something I need to go get. I do however enjoy being educated, and my primary hobbies are reading and watching documentaries.

There was nothing outlandish about my 9/11 facts as told. This is a subject I've researched more than most (with the possible exception of the murder of JFK), and it most certainly was an inside job perpetrated my monetary interests connected with George Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney. There are TONS of financial records to back this up, and ultimately, you get what you paid for, and they most certainly paid for it. Whether they filtered funds through Pakistan or not is almost completely irrelevant, except of course that that also damns their Pakistani associates.

Re:Bullshit.

[Optic7]

Exactly. I was following along to find out about the US installing Saddam, because I knew about us installing the Shah in Iran, but had not heard about us doing the same with Saddam. Then BAM! 9/11 conspiracy theory. Thanks for the actual relevant info link.

Re:Bullshit.

[_Sprocket_]

Since that time, and particularly without checks or even an accounting for after the murder of JFK, our country has been the bad guy in every conflict.

To be sure, the US has been involved in a lot of nasty dealings. We've done bad things - intentionally and unintentionally. But then, since WWII, the US became a lot more involved in world politics. And the world is full of pretty vicious people. You don't go wading in to that without getting dirty.

The biggest issue I have with this mind-set is that it ignores other players in that arena. The US hasn't acted alone. In fact, a lot of the more questionable activities the US has been involved with has also involved the Soviets. Never-mind that a lot of these situations involve entities that tend to have plenty of history on their own without US involvement. There's nothing wrong with being critical of US policy. But missing from so many of those criticisms is perspective.

Re:Bullshit.

[crhylove]

I couldn't agree with you more! I agree 100% that us wading through the muck has dirtied our reputation and moral standing. In fact, the soviets would be as guilty as we are on every level, and for largely the same reasons. They were a fascism masquerading as a communism. We are a fascism masquerading as a democracy. If this wasn't the cause of so much deplorable human misery, the whole farce might even be funny.

Re:Bullshit.

[gizmod]

Damn how I wish I had more mod points left. On the face of it you sound like a hippy or possibly a conspiracy nut, but nothing could be closer to the truth. The world is broken and one day I'll have to stand before my children with just the shards of it all and try to explain to them what the whole use to look like.

Re:Bullshit.

[dcw3]

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.

Welcome to Fantasyland. I defy you to name a country in the history of the world where that's worked w/o exploitation.

Re:Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, it is not that governments are evil. it is just that capitalism suffers from an eminent collapse and the capitalist state has to resort to these methods (war, surveillance) to prop capitalism up for a bit.

bring an interpreter!

[garompeta]

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!

Tor must be REALLY good...

[stevegee58]

...if they're this scared of it. I'm recommending it to everyone now, not just a select few.

Re:THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME

[Erikderzweite]

Simple solution -- don't be a patriot.

Re:THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME

[AlamedaStone]

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.

Sounded like...

[Gi0]

..the begging of Swordfish to me.Hope he doesnt have the same..treatment as the hacker in the movie.

No not really

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

But twice in the same thread? [TRIGGER]

[Anonymous Coward]

"Uhnnuuh... pick me, Mr Keating, pick me. Mr Keating, pick me!"
"Yes, Splab, what is it?"
"I wanted to say the same thing!"

You can be detained for reasonable amounts of time

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Tor != Wikileaks

[PPH]

Or if that's excuse enough to get stopped, life must really be a bitch for Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf.

He Was Kidnapped

[Doc Ruby]

Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.

That's kidnapping. Charge someone with something on evidence, or release them. Or admit it's tyranny.

Re:He Was Kidnapped

[tehcyder]

If you ever come to the UK don't fuck around with Immigration/Customs people, they are not allowed to have a sense of humour at work, and have extremely wide powers of detention, intimate body searches, and so on.

Re:He Was Kidnapped

[Doc Ruby]

I'm from NYC. I assure you our border guards are as ruthless and idiotic as yours are. Though in the USA we supposedly have a Constitution with specific instructions to our government to protect our privacy rights, not abuse them.

Very chilling for developers

[AHuxley]

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.

Conference in Derby Line?

[BBCWatcher]

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.

The Border

[jmactacular]

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.

Re:The Border

[Runaway1956]

Uhhhh - yes. And, those spheres with lines in them are located about twelve miles out from the New Jersey shore, deep in salt water. When you come into the US via Newark, you've already BEEN in the United States for at least a few minutes before you land at the airport. If traveling by sea, you've been in the US more than just a few minutes before you dock anywhere.

Sand People need FUD to be stronger in you.

[Anonymous Coward]

They can. But you don't have to answer per the following Supreme Laws: "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." ----- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ----- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Such as the right to travel freely without impediment.)

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.

Now one could argue that because it's an international border, they can detain you forever, but I don't buy that argument especially when it involves Documented US citizens. Rights are inalienable and you have them even if the government is a Tyrant that does not recognize those rights. Indefinite detainment is a human rights abuse, and makes the US no better than the USSR or China or Cuba or Iraq.

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'

So everything!

[Anonymous Coward]

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"?

Re:THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME

[mjwx]

TIME WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOT actS

There, fixed that for you.

as long as the blood in question isn't mine I don't actually have a problem with that

Sigh, how can you expect others to defend rights you will not defend yourself. Not all revolutionary acts need be violent.

Pentagon Papers - Older Slashdotters Chime In

[dr_dank]

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?

Re:Pentagon Papers - Older Slashdotters Chime In

[grikdog]

Well, yeah! If you supported Ellsberg, you were a hippie-commie-freak, you wore peace signs on your t-shirt, and you voted for George McGovern even though you knew he'd lose.

If you took the treason side of the argument, you were a Neanderthal-baby-killer-hawk and you voted for Nixon by definition.

It turned out that My Lai was real.

Four photos won that war for Ho Chi Minh. The monk who set himself on fire. The general executing a VC prisoner. The naked girl screaming from napalm burns as she ran down the road. And the horrified coed at Kent State with a dead American college student at her knees.

When America declared war on its own children, the left got righteous and the right was damned. Damn right nobody cheered the troops when they finally came home, even though we had the draft, and knew it wasn't their fault.

The football game in M*A*S*H showed players-soldiers-draftees smoking marijuana. There was a reason for that.

Obama ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... The 1984 President!

Obama's Operation Mind Crime is in full swing.

Be advised.

Make him speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Attach electric wires to its balls and send the shots until he speak. He will speak I guarantee...

Welcome to Soviet America

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you like a beating with your interrogation?

Paper kill, gun kill?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Not accurate, 412 covers detention of terrorists

[SuperKendall]

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.

Far less scary

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Far less scary

[Runaway1956]

There's a commercial I hear from time to time, I believe it's broadcast from Shreveport. A lawyer warns, the moment a police officer notices you, and turns on his blue lights, he is actively seeking to build a criminal case against you. SAY NOTHING, except to ask for a lawyer. Provide your documents, and cooperate with the cop, but SAY NOTHING, and keep asking for your lawyer.

That commercial is designed to make you paranoid, and it's meant to drum up business for a lawyer, but there is truth in it. Cops don't just "detain" you for a friendly chat. If you've come to a cop's attention, you are potentially in a heap of shit.

Personally, I respect the way Applebaum reportedly handled himself. Keep asking for a lawyer, and don't answer any questions.

I'd be interested in knowing what questions were asked, and whether the agents were qualified to understand the answers. Much has been made of court cases where neither the lawyers nor the judge understood the technology that was being discussed. SOME Customs agents might understand what Applebaum does, while others are completely clueless, and 6 months of interrogation wouldn't make them any more knowlegable. But, no matter which type of agent was doing the questioning, he was looking for something, anything, with which to charge Applebaum.

Re:Far less scary

[MightyMartian]

Unless I'm being charged, how I feel about the War in Iraq or the price of tea in China ain't any of their business. Detain me, ask me questions, refuse me a call to get legal representation, and I don't think that's an example of these guys "doing their jobs". It's abuse of process, illegal detention, deprivation of constitutional rights, and a sign that these guys are evil immoral monsters.

Re:Far less scary

[SuperKendall]

But, no matter which type of agent was doing the questioning, he was looking for something, anything, with which to charge Applebaum.

I really doubt that, the agent was just trying to gather intelligence (and as you say, not even qualified to understood what was said - they were just recording the answers (if any). But as you say the simple response is just to keep asking for your lawyer or say nothing. That's why I simply cannot see the situation as scary in the slightest - it's more a monty python script than a perilous situation.

"Do you have an answer for me?"

"Sorry, fresh out. We're offering a special on I'd Like My Lawyer though".

Pretty much the same thing when police stop you in a car, why should you offer an opinion as to why you were stopped? If you are at least friendly though you may well get out of a ticket. The cop is bored, he can find lots of other cars to give tickets to if you are even half decent to him (or her).

Re:Far less scary

[0111 1110]

If you are at least friendly though you may well get out of a ticket. The cop is bored, he can find lots of other cars to give tickets to if you are even half decent to him (or her).

What world do you live in? Have you ever even been to the US? Cops here have ticket quotas they have to meet. And they are assholes. Cops become cops because they want to control and intimidate. They are nearly all ex schoolyard bullies. They like the power of legally walking around with a gun and being able to get away with fucking with people all they want. They are also the only people in the US who can get away with killing people. You gotta love that if you are into it. They get off on giving people tickets. It makes them feel powerful. The only time I have heard of people getting out of tickets was with young pretty girls, and even then, unless they are really hot, they usually have to cry.

Also, LEOs are *not* your friend. They do *not* think nicely of you or respect you. It's their job to arrest people and get convictions. So assuming that they are out to get you is a correct assumption.

Re:Far less scary

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a fine example of binary thinking there. Must be a very simple world of black and white that you live in.

Re:Far less scary

[dcw3]

What world do you live in?

I live in one where I've driven for 36 years, and been pulled over probably 20-25 times. Of those times, I was released roughly half the time ticket free.

Be polite, keep your hands in sight, and don't try to bullshit them. Take that chip off your shoulder, and you'll be much less likely to get ticketed. An yes, I'm well aware of the quotas...I'm writing this from a jurisdiction where the chief of police openly admitted to it in the Washington Post.

Who said the anything about the U.S. only?

[SuperKendall]

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?

An idea for a Hacker Project

[eee_eff]

....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

Same shit, different pile

[Rocketship Underpant]

So the name on the desk changed. The calamitous policies, the wars, the complete disregard for human rights continue.

Just answer reasonable questions

[MasaMuneCyrus]

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.

You go out the door much?

[Otis_INF]

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.

Re:You go out the door much?

[0100010001010011]

So they asked you WHAT you were working on, but they didn't know specifics.

They took this guy aside and asked him directed questions about Wikileaks.

I'd also like to know where you flew into. Only people at customs seemed to be over weight cops that couldn't do a single thing. India, now that's a country that has airports run efficiently. And they have military that looks like they could actually do something.

Re:You go out the door much?

[Anzya]

I tend to agree with you. Travelling to USA is on my "do not fly"-list. Your story reminds me of the story my father told about when he and his school class where leaving East-germany. A nervous passing considering he and his family had escaped East-germany just a couple of years prior.

Why a Swedish school class were in East-Germany and why my father thought it was a good idea to go along I'll probably never understand :)

It's a Soviet Union all other again

[Anonymous Coward]

Soviet Union understanding of law as an instrument of politics and human rights as rights of society(that is state), not of an individual.

And the RAF in Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

"He was not permitted to make a phone call"

[Arancaytar]

What the story doesn't mention is that his mouth spontaneously disappeared and he was then implanted with a robotic insect-like tracking device.

Re:"He was not permitted to make a phone call"

[Narcocide]

And how would you make a phone call... if you have no phones, Mr. Anderson?

Spot the Feds

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we all know who won.

Asking a Tor developer about Wikileaks

[Arancaytar]

... why not get a Wikileaks member for that?

(Oh, right, they're pretty elusive.)

Re:Not accurate, 412 covers detention of terrorist

[Anzya]

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.

Re:Not accurate, 412 covers detention of terrorist

[PopeRatzo]

Not accurate, 412 covers detention of terrorists

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).

Find them all and lock 'em up

[Anonymous Coward]

... 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.

Re:Find them all and lock 'em up

[tehcyder]

At last, the voice of reason.

However

[ThatsNotPudding]

one can imagine the interrogation techniques of the law enforcment officers involved were probably not legally pristine, even for the time.

Not a temporary problem

[metacell]

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.

asked where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is

[smchris]

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.

What border?

[severn2j]

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?

Re:What border?

[rhook]

Both of which are international airports, with entry to the United States. And then there's this.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

Troll is not a substitute for "I disagree a lot"

[voss]

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".

Actually, it's worse in the UK

[celtic_hackr]

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.

Well, unless US law has changed, you're wrong

[celtic_hackr]

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.
 
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 ...ohh ... during WWII. Not that you'll read about that in any high school history books.

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.

Re:Well, unless US law has changed, you're wrong

[0111 1110]

Obviously detaining people indefinitely is a "useful tool" for law enforcement. That doesn't make it right. It may even be a human rights violation according to international law. Where are you getting this 24 hour thing? Can you cite it? My understanding is that an LEO can detain you for as long as he deems necessary to gather evidence of a crime etc. The standard is something vague like a "reasonable" amount of time. In the US there is no hard limit. Maybe you are thinking of the UK. They they have a 24 hour limit on how long a regular police officer can detain you. A higher ranked officer can extend that to 36 hours and a magistrate can extend it to up to 96 hours. That makes sense of course because as you say detainment without enough evidence for an actual arrest is a "useful tool" for police.

Know the law...

[GooberToo]

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?!

I hope

[das3cr]

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.

I did construction.

[crhylove]

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.

Re:I did construction.

[Civil_Disobedient]

Bullshit. If you had any proof you'd be a best-selling author and you'd be featured on so many talk shows you wouldn't have time to comment on slashdot.

No, what you have are theories. Like tons of other people.

The problem is, plenty of the stuff you mention has real proof. But when you start mixing in 9/11 shit you come off like a nut-job. So anyone reading what you've written will discount everything you wrote, even the stuff that's actually verifiable.

The technical term for this is shooting yourself in the foot. Like I said: you're not doing anyone any favors. Stick to the provable stuff, it's more than powerful enough.

Re:Troll is not a substitute for "I disagree a lot

[0111 1110]

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.

What if

[damitr]

What if he was not a US citizen?

be honest

[Anonymous Coward]

you cannot undue 9/11. even if you eradicate all constitutional rights and universal human rights;
invade ALL countries AND start the third world war.
maybe it's just time to admit .. that .. maybe ..
they (the 9/11 masterminds) were smarter(*)?
(*) disclaimer: I don't think it's smart to kill innocent people.

This is most disturbing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Troll is not a substitute for "I disagree a lot

[AK Marc]

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.

Shooting one's own foot.

[crhylove]

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.

Re:Shooting one's own foot.

[Civil_Disobedient]

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.

See? This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. You don't know one single thing about my opinions about 9/11. You just assumed, like a fucking idiot , that I think all of the conspiracy theories are bunk. On what basis do you make that claim? Because I'm trying to fucking help your sorry ass.

I don't believe the official 9/11 story, either. It looks far too much like a controlled demolition for my liking. But understand, there's stuff I can prove based on evidence, and stuff I believe based on reason. And if you expect anyone to listen to your stupid ass, you better get on fucking board and realize you're ostracizing and alienating people that fucking support you.

Sorry for being so harsh, but if you keep going down this path you are going to quickly find that no one will take you seriously.