Slashdot Mirror
Tor Developer Detained At US Border, Pressed On Wikileaks
suraj.sun writes with this news from CNET: "A security researcher involved with the Wikileaks Web site — Jacob Appelbaum, a Seattle-based programmer for the online privacy protection project called Tor — was detained by US agents at the border for three hours and questioned about the controversial whistleblower project as he entered the country on Thursday to attend a hacker conference. He was also approached by two FBI agents at the Defcon conference after his presentation on Saturday afternoon about the Tor Project. Appelbaum, a US citizen, arrived at the Newark, New Jersey, airport from Holland Thursday morning, was taken into a room, frisked and his bag was searched. Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained. They asked questions about Wikileaks, asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is, but he declined to comment without a lawyer present, according to the sources. He was not permitted to make a phone call, they said." Appelbaum told me that he just spoke at length with The New York Times, and quipped that his Defcon talk about Tor was "just fine, until the FBI showed up"; this post will likely be updated with more details.
Update: 08/02 03:59 GMT by T : Here's the NYT's coverage.
That's more worrying than the detention etc. But then ground-level grunts never did know the law well.
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?
Well it seems clear that there was nothing "random" about his detention. And it's bad enough that customs can seize anything going through the borders without warrant or cause. But it's even worse when border crossings get used as an excuse for warrantless interrogations.
Not everyone gets detained and asked about Wikileaks.
I've been randomly searched, but I've never been pulled aside and asked about something I've actually been working on. This guy has been flagged in the system.
Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.
Some of the most horrific words the war on terror has produced.
*shudders*
Curious. Is it just me, or is the whole "you're not arrested, you're detained" just yet another attempt to avoid getting around the limits that the law, constitution etc. set by making up a new word?
Kinda like "enemy combatant" (no Geneva convention for you, Afghanis!), perhaps.
Put another way: if he was not under arrest, was he free to go? If he was not free to go, how was he not under arrest?
He is an American citizen, so there isn't an Immigration issue here. So the only thing left for "detaining" is Customs while they go through his stuff. Well, they can do that.
The article actually does say the "detaining" was him waiting for customs to search his bags, laptop, and cell phones (one of which they "seized").
What does not seem normal is the Army being there. He is not a combatent. He is a US Citizen. I do not see how the Army can tell him he is "detained."
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...
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.
Disclaimer: This is a mostly off-topic rant in reply to an off-topic troll.
It's just like Bush's America, but with a different figurehead. I'll wager $50 that the next guy, regardless of party affiliation, will be minimally different.
The President doesn't really matter. The orientation of Congress doesn't really matter. What matters is the overall opinion of the American population, and changing that takes a much longer time that 4, 8, or even 20 years. Look at the big picture as it's changed over the last few decades. There are a few things our representatives now realize:
The plain and simple fact is that every time the government does something just to "appease the general public", that means they're doing (mostly) what the general public wants. If they're wrong, and are trying to implement something that's proven impossible (like, for example, mandating DRM), then that means that the American public at large probably don't understand why it's not possible. If you oppose a pending bill and it gets passed, that means you didn't do a good enough job of convincing people of your viewpoint. Activists, as annoying as they are sometimes, play a vital role in making the general public aware of the issues at hand.
On topic, I understand why there are interrogations and detainments. Less than a decade ago, America was dealt a serious blow by an enemy that was living right among us. It wasn't so much the number of people that died that was so concerning. It was the fact that we knew almost nothing definite about the attack prior to them happening. Sure, there were reports of something being expected to happen, but thery were no more definite or detailed than the hundreds of similar reports that passed through the White House in the months before. September 11th of 2001 was the day we realized how little we knew about the rest of the world. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out. There are myriad groups out there keeping an eye on any civil rights violations, and I for one commend their work. There is a balance we must strike between absolute security and absolute liberty, and we will not reach that point within the span of one presidential term. I doubt we'll reach it within ten terms. America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years. We are cocky and immature, and so is our intelligence system. Give it time to grow, but make sure it's kept in check by the public activists and watchdogs. We'll grow up just fine.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
No names were revealed, they were blanked out. Unlike what some "journalist" might have said. Link: http://twitter.com/wikileaks/statuses/20070146579
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.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
What law was broken by Wikileaks or the guy in the $subject ?
Hint: None.
How often do you travel? I've been pulled aside lots of times and really interrogated. Lots of personal questions: what do I do for a living, why am I traveling to or returning from country x, what do my relatives do for a living, where do they live, and much more. The extensive follow up questions would be even more personal and intrusive. On occasion the questions lasted for more than an hour. I also get chosen for a "random" search nearly every time. Maybe I just look suspicious. I am ghostly white and none of my family comes from the middle east or Southwest Asia. So it is not racial profiling. I can only imagine what it must be like for a foreigner. We don't exactly put our best foot forward at our borders. Much of the world already regards us as vicious, brutish thugs. Or at least our government. It always seems to happen on departure. Maybe because they know they have you over a barrel. They can easily interrogate you long enough to make you miss your flight. On one occasion they only released me just in time. I made the flight, but with only minutes to spare. In fact, it was only when I showed them my ticket and told them that I was about to miss my flight that they finally released me.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
(I am a lawyer but I am not an immigration lawyer)
Immigration law "airside" is complex. You are right to say that you are not yet on USA soil. However, that doesn't mean that the agents are entitled to act without limit. Their actions can still be reviewed by a court, and they cannot act beyond the powers given to them. For example, they are undoubtedly empowered to detain a person where necessary to determine their immigration status (for example, they suspect a US passport may be forged). However, the power to detain is also going to have limits. For example, an agent who detained an individual because they were wearing a hat from a rival baseball team may well be exceeding their powers, and that decision could be found illegal on review.
So, as the above poster mentioned, if they had a "hunch" that the person was entering illegally, then they may well be allowed to detain them. But this hunch seems based on the idea that the person might be involved with a criminal activity. Are the Border Patrol entitled to decline entry/detain a US citizen suspected of crime? I don't know. And what empowered US Army representatives to speak to the man? Again, I'm unclear. If Border Patrol were done with him, and they detained him to enable Army reps to speak to him, they would, possibly be using their powers for a purpose not authorised by the empowering instruments.
I would be very interested to hear exactly what grounds the individual was detained under, and whether it was within the scope of the empowering instrument. I suspect that this may have been pushing the boundaries, but without knowing the laws I can't possibly say for sure.
I look forward to being corrected by anyone with more knowledge than me.
To anyone.
Who the REAL terrorists are!
USA!, USA!, USA!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Your attachment to due process and the constitution makes Henry Kissinger cry.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"A large number of Afghan informants had their names exposed "
Did you even actually read the documents? Names were blacked out.
Jesus christ.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Where I come from to be detained means that you are legally under arrest regardless of whether you have been informed of such or not. This is plain and simple an abuse of power by the US government. Good thing we have groups like wikileaks working towards glasnost.
sudo mount --milk --sugar
It was the fact that we knew almost nothing definite about the attack prior to them happening. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
News flash, that is an impossible mission without grossly destroying the United States and the liberties that have been fought for over the past two centuries. We are not (by inception) a nation of safety but a nation of individual freedoms and collective assistance. Attacks will happen, and the constitution allows for some defense against those attacks, but the rights of the citizenry are paramount to that defense.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out.
I'd have to disagree. We as a nation have let the enemy win as a significant portion of the citizenry and leaders have been terrorized into removing what makes this nation great in the hopes of not being afraid. Let's get this out in the open, if you want a free society then you're going to have to deal with the fear that nothing will be certain. Take something as simple as driving, you are taking a risk that the person on the other side of the road matching your 50 mph isn't going to just drive straight into you. Life is dangerous, deal with it.
America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years.
And England has no better method of detecting impeding attacks. Nor does any other nation.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
Is it good that we even have "a system"?
I debated whether to even bother responding to this for a good 10 minutes but, in the end, decided it needs saying.
Yes, it's a good thing that we even have "a system". There are good, legitimate uses for "a system". What is not good in this case, and in the larger picture lately, is the way the system is being used. This may seem like splitting hairs to some but it is an important distinction.
A nation has the right (and indeed, the obligation) to protect itself from undesirables crossing into the country or, similarly, to allow the authorities to execute arrest warrants as needed. Having a record of who's in the country, for how long, etc, is just a good idea in general for any nation. In addition.
The problem is the use of such systems to harass otherwise law-abiding citizens. It's troublesome to me that this is happening regularly. This doesn't mean I decry the need for the system in general, however.
You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
"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.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
Robert Gates said that the release of the WikiLeaks documents may damage our reputation in Afghanistan.
Perhaps it is rather the fact that we kill people and lie about it that damages our reputation in Afghanistan.
We have a right to be informed, because if the public is misled, democracy itself becomes false.
Those who fear the truth are not fit to lead.
Quit whining and start taking responsibility for your actions
This man didn't post anything. He is a Tor developer.
To put this another way, I am a cryptography researcher. Must I now be careful about what specific research I do? Should I be worried that I might be detained at an airport because of my work?
Palm trees and 8
Many would argue that the fact that there is a system is a promise that it will be misused. I don't know how true that is, but government transparency would do much to solve it.
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
A large number of Afghan informants had their names exposed
No, they did not. Wikileaks took care to remove this sort of information.
Quit whining and start taking responsibility for your actions.
Stop reading right-wing neoconservative blogs and think for yourself for a change.
So you're buying the spin, no questions asked.
What about the behavior that the documents expose? The people that have been killed and those that will continue to be killed due to cover-ups of unethical, corrupt, and outright murderous action?
Reminds me a bit when some Germans tried to help Jews to escape or hid them from Nazis. This was also some kind of treason and endangered to the whole Germany, their perfect race and their war moral. If you helped the wrong people... you got visited by Gestapo and this meant trouble.
You, my American friends, should also be aware that you should not disturb your country to spread their pro-war propaganda. You should also try to be calm, follow your leader and help drive war against people who have a different religion. It's better than being arrested by Gestapo... I mean... FBI...
"We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Fuck your war.
you had me at #!
Indeed. The US officials were quite happy to pat him on the back when his software enabled pro-democracy Iranians to leak details of protests there.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
I gotta stop getting my news from the Internet. I totally missed Congress' declaration of war. I was under the impression that we were allied with the government of Afghanistan. BTW, Mr. high and mighty, why did you capitalize Afghanistan and not United States? Are you some kind of treason supporter?
We don't need a flawless answer to know "what's going on". Instead, we just need to reestablish the base level of intelligence that we held for many years. From the 50s to 70s, things were pretty clear overall. The USSR was trying to surpass our technology. Soviet spies were coming to the US through various channels, but often with detectable ties. The middle east was dealing with its own problems, and its own issues with the Soviets, too. Korea was so screwed up from war that they weren't much of a threat. Between Russia and us, the nukes kept everyone else pretty quiet.
We need to get that simple level of understanding again. Some parts are clear already:
What's not clear (to my knowledge) is how the various factions are operating, where they're located, or what will appease everyone enough to stop fighting. This isn't the oppose-us-and-disappear world of 1984. It's a plea for understanding, backed up by enforcement.
We as a nation have let the enemy win as a significant portion of the citizenry and leaders have been terrorized into removing what makes this nation great in the hopes of not being afraid.
Like what, exactly? The right to state your opinion without being imprisoned for it? Sure, you might be investigated, just like you would if you walked down the street shouting "I killed five children!" but you won't face anything too serious. Certainly nothing like the forced suicide you'd meet after insulting the North Korean government.
We had temporary safety from about 1985 until 2001. We obtained it by being the strongest (and most stable) military power in the world. Now that guerilla/terrorist warfare is recognized to be stronger, we have lost all security.
To regain our security, we must start investigating again. As I said originally, it falls to the various activists and watchdog groups to voice concerns over the cost. Consider what good ol' Ben Franklin said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I am not suggesting we give up essential liberty. I suggest we be a bit more accommodating of the agencies trying to secure our country. When things get out of hand, let the activists complain. I'll consider the issue and sign a petition if I agree. In the mean time, I will simply wait.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Can someone (who knows what the hell they're talking about, and can give cites) please tell us what the actual Federal law is that controls this situation.
Because I tell ya what, folks: some son of a bitch detains ME and they got some 'splainin' to do!
"Am I under arrest?"
"No? Then shoot me, mother f*cker, or get out of the way."
And I'm headed for the door. And ANYONE who lays a hand on me is guilty of assault, and I plan to protect myself.
Screw it; my retirement pay comes in whether I'm in jail or not.
Toad
Were they US carrier phones or European carrier phones because that is all they really need in order to take them... ICE has an absurd amount of power and leeway at the border before a person passes through customs. It also probably didn't help that he had 3 phones.
We the People of the United States, in Order to... insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, ...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We need to keep America safe and tranquil. Overall, that's worked pretty well. There's been the American Civil War, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the World Trade Center attacks. Not bad for two hundred years.
We also must keep liberty, and ensure it passes to future generations. The attack on Pearl Harbor might have been stopped if we'd had mandatory military service, but that's been determined as encroaching too far on our freedom.
What rights have been violated here? The right to commit treason without interference? The right to carry any potential weapon you want anywhere you want?
Given that Mr. Appelbaum was released, probably with a verbal apology and thanks for his time, it seems he and his technology were determined to not be a threat.
The reason we were in the middle east 30 years ago was to counter the threat of the USSR. The USSR had nuclear weaponry, and was expanding its influence over more natural resources, in an effort that appeared to be fueling its war machine. The USSR had suffered embarrassment in World War II, and seemed poised to take over where Germany had failed. We know now that the USSR was collapsing already, but at the time, intervening in the middle east looked like the best option to prevent World War III.
Now, we're faced with a situation remarkably similar to Vietnam. If we leave, we've utterly ruined a nation and a culture. If we stay, we at least have a chance to help rebuild once things settle down.
As I said earlier, if you don't like something speak up. You have the right to petition the government. You have the right to express your opinions in public channels. Go for it. We the People of the United States voted for those "assholes" who are running things. If you want a government that supports non-interventionism, go vote for it. Convince enough people that it's the right policy, and we'll get the chance to see how it works.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The plain and simple fact is that every time the government does something just to "appease the general public", that means they're doing (mostly) what the general public wants.
A completely false way to frame the situation. A few problems with how you've framed this:
The general public does not want one thing, it wants a multitude of different, conflicting things.
Even when the general public wants the same thing, they want it in vastly different ways.
The general public can be convinced of a LOT given enough nonsense. (Most people somehow got convinced to attack Iraq as a result of 9/11 and many are still somehow convinced the two are linked).
There is no "general public". There's just what you can get away with.
September 11th of 2001 was the day we realized how little we knew about the rest of the world. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
Who the fuck is this "we" you speak of? Do you perhaps mean you?
The U.S. government is many things, but ignorant of the rest of the world is NOT one of them.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out.
This is nothing but unbridled optimism and blind faith. Why will this eventually be worked out, and not the far more likely case, completely forgotten about?
There is a balance we must strike between absolute security and absolute liberty, and we will not reach that point within the span of one presidential term.
Why are security and liberty things that are necessarily at odds as if less liberty means more security and vice versa? Isn't it just possible that many of the things we do for "added security" (like say for instance this bullshit about bringing liquids on an airplane) only serve to destroy our liberties and give us zero security? Isn't it possible that some security measures like re-enforcing the cockpit doors on airplanes added a lot of security, but cost us zero in liberties?
Your dichotomy is utterly false, and it's not too hard to see that.
AccountKiller
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.
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...
Have a look at the Oscar-winning documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" and get back to me.
Have you ever heard of the "PATRIOT Act"?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Funny, I don't see an "except for the border" clause in the Bill of Rights.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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
He would have been disappeared in a jail somewhere in Poland or Romania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States
No sig for the moment.
I largely disagree with your drastic oversimplifications of very complicated world events and turning them into neat little bullet points while ignoring hundreds of other trends and events. I could go on, but there's something more disturbing. This is the statement I don't understand at all:
We had temporary safety from about 1985 until 2001. We obtained it by being the strongest (and most stable) military power in the world. Now that guerilla/terrorist warfare is recognized to be stronger, we have lost all security.
What's the threat that YOU PERSONALLY face from "guerilla/terrorists" warfare? Are you really and truly afraid of Al-Queda? Why is safety supposed to be the big goal we're all trying to obtain? What really makes you think we've lost it? How is this such a large threat to the country as a whole?
Frankly I'm far more threatened by the economies dependence on cheap oil imports, the increasing gap between the rich and poor, the increasing polarity of political parties, our ever increasing "fear culture", and pissing away billions of dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan than I am of those Al-Queda fuckheads.
AccountKiller
we have lost all security.
Please. That is ridiculous hyperbole. We lost 3000 people in the last 10 years to terrorism. We lose that many to food poisoning every year. We've lost more people to rampant militarism (6700 between Iraq and Afghanistan) in the same time frame. You fear mongers are more dangerous than the fucking terrorists. Your pathetic cowering is pathetic.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
heck, was not the concept of onion routing created by the us military?
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
If our country wasn't randomly bombing the shit out of all manner of other people, and actually keeping an informed and healthy electorate whose votes were actually counted, we wouldn't need a system.
This country has been sliding deeper into fascism since JFK was shot in the face. We need a system now because the evil corporations who control everything (news, transport, government, education, food) are doing evil things that honest and decent people are definitely considering fighting with violence.
You may call George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin terrorists, but they were fighting tyranny, and as such were heroes. Just as anyone currently fighting the US government and it's corporate oligarchy is also a hero. I myself will fight any maniacal fascism with such a "system". I would do that because I believe in the Bill of Rights. I believe that all men are created equally, and I believe that the rights of individual people supersede the rights of corporations to continue to profit while murdering as many living things (people included) as possible.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
At the border, and before you cross through customs - you are not yet in the US
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.
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.
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?
Sure have, in fact I wrote the Wikipedia article on it. Where does it state that you can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
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.
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
News flash: This is the Obama administration we're in.
Sush. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
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.
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).
Wonder what the public key field is for?
So the name on the desk changed. The calamitous policies, the wars, the complete disregard for human rights continue.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
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
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You left out a word, SuperKendall: "suspected".
Section 412 covers detention of suspected terrorists. And what does it take to be a suspected terrorist?
There's a big difference between an "enemy combatant" and a suspected terrorist.
You started this all by saying "around here we don't have indefinite detentions" and now we're down to indefinitely detaining suspects for god's sake (not to mention sex offenders who have completed their sentences).
You are welcome on my lawn.