Judge Finds Cisco, US Authorities Deceived Canadian Courts

djmurdoch writes "The Vancouver Sun reports that 'The giant computer company Cisco and US prosecutors deceived Canadian authorities and courts in a massive abuse of process to have a former executive thrown in jail, says a B.C. Supreme Court judge.' Peter Adelkeye was arrested last year as he was testifying in a special hearing in Vancouver. It turns out he was there because US authorities would not grant him permission to enter the US to testify in a civil case between him and Cisco. The Canadian judge said that almost nothing in the US Attorney's letter was true, and has overturned his extradition order. Slashdot discussed this case in April."

Comments

Soon to be jailed

[alphatel]

En route to Switzerland, Adelkeye was caught molesting a hotel maid and was turned in by several Good Samaritans.
"He just looked suspicious," commented a white man with shoe polish on his face. "Yeah, we saw him do it. Molesting that horse. I mean maid," quipped a gentleman with large glasses, puffy eyebrows and elongated nose.

Adelkeye is expected to please guilty and spend life in prison. Barack Obama, who received a personal plea from Peter last year, stated that "those Canadians and their judges need to be held accountable for Adelkeye's release."

Re:Soon to be jailed

[poetmatt]

maybe you should have marked this idiocy or sarcasm or something, because it's about as offtopic as it gets. It's pretty disgusting to see such prosecutorial misconduct in the US, and yet the prosecutors aren't even getting a slap on the wrist.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[WrongSizeGlass]

It is conspiratorial. It projects a similar fate as Jullian Assange or Dominique Strauss-Kahn encountered, which some believe to be lies perpetrated by those in the government. This story doesn't make the government sound like they're above such things.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's about time we brought some democracy to Canada.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[circletimessquare]

people who spend their lives seeing a conspiracy around every corner are pretty sad individuals to me. we are all familiar with the folly of being too trusting, too gullible, too prone to believe everything you hear. to me, even more tragic are those who trust nothing they hear, who would rather believe the little voice in their head spinning more and more fanciful stories. that such a voice is superior to saying "you know, maybe osama bin laden brought down the world trade center and not a vast government conspiracy." or "maybe barack obama is a good decent president, and not a kenyan born secret muslim."

a deficit of trust. what a sad stunted life

you know, maybe DSK is a victim of a political character assassination. or you know, maybe he's a pervy old man who has boundary issues. which is the truth? truth, to me, is the most likely thing. sure, conspiracies are real. but exceedingly rare and difficult to keep the lid on with more and more players required to not wilt in the glare of attention, over a long period of time, with changing agendas, priorities, and allegiances. the media is not complicit here. all these french journalists are angling for a big story. there are periforal players who maybe smell something not right in a bit of communication here or there, and who are all too happy, for career advancement, out of their own paranoia of becoming a fall guy, or some other base motivation, to pull a deep throat and leave a trail of breadcrumbs for some journalist to follow. meaning what? meaning real life isn't a b-grade hollywood plot. meaning real conspiracies of many players almost never work. meaning occam's razor: "when you hear hoofbeats, don't think zebras."

minds that believe in conspiracy theories are weak feeble minds that, contrary to their mental deathgrip on their worry that they are being fooled, are the most easily fooled individuals in the world

Re:Soon to be jailed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, go free them. Operation hello Canada!

Re:Soon to be jailed

[GooberToo]

It's pretty disgusting to see such prosecutorial misconduct in the US

Hate to tell you, but stuff like this goes on daily in the US. Yes, daily. Many times per day all over the US. It is not uncommon in the least. Seriously, spend some time on websites which center on police, courts, and protection of constitutional rights. On a daily basis you'll find judges looking the other way, DA's lying and even fabricating evidence, police murdering citizens without prosecution, illegal arrests, so on and so on. Seriously, the ACLU is completely useless. If you're donating to them, you are literally wasting your money. In case you don't know, the US courts have literally legalized bribery of politicians and now even protects the identify of those bribing.

If you're at all shocked to learn Amerika has arrived, honestly, you're not a good citizen. And that's one of the biggest problems which allows these abuses to take place. The simple truth is, no one wants to believe or hear the truth. That's completely why McCain lost the last election. He told the truth and was punished for it. Obama lied and did exactly what McCain said needed to be done. That's the facts. America is almost completely corrupt. Literally the only difference between totalitarian leaders and the US government and courts is in the US, they have legalized means to obscure it from public view. Add to the fact that most US citizens are dumb and even more absolutely do not want to know the truth means they get carte blanch to do almost anything they want.

I sincerely challenge all of you to start investigating. If you think you are disgusted now, you will likely vomit when you finish a half dozen hours of honest research into the state of government, courts, and police in the US. And that's no hyperbole or exaguration.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[Anonymous Coward]

That is one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen on /., when governments and corporations consistently obfuscate, spin, propagandize and outright lie it is not a, "weak feeble mind" that doesn't trust the liars. For example you cherry pick the most ridiculous sounding theories and try to paint everyone with the same brush, that is part of the propaganda ploy to silence all who don't buy the "party line".

The reality is that intelligent people question the facts when they don't add up and learn from experience. When dealing with pathological liars we tend not to trust the things they say. Based on past performance such as Operation Mockingbird, COINTELPRO and so on the government of the US engages in premeditated propaganda techniques to control it's own citizens. Maybe before getting all sanctimonious you should avail yourself of the government commission findings that are freely available. There is also quite a bit of evidence recently of the government conspiring with corporations to help the corporations, even at the expense of the people. It has become so commonplace that they do not even bother to hide it most of the time nowadays. In this instance we have the finding of a court of law that the US DOJ conspired with a corporation, in violation of the normal standards of law in the western world, to silence opposition to shady or outright illegal practices that the company was indulging in for profit. So it takes a really weak mind to blame "conspiracy theorists" when the evidence in sitting there in your face.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[circletimessquare]

we're not talking about people asking intelligent questions. we're talking about lack of intelligence and thought

weak feeble minds- an accurate description, are unable to make an informed choice as to the veracity of a narrative put before them. at that point, these weak minds cut one of two ways:

1. well... they sound nice. i'll just trust them and what they say

2. i don't trust anything these bastards say. i trust my fertile imagination to come up with the fanciful conspiracy theory that explains these events

this is actually the same sort of person, a fool. #1 is fooled by other people. #2 is fooled by himself. both are equally foolish and dangerous to intelligent commentary

there are dumb people. some trust too much. some trust too little. those who are constantly embracing hilarious conspiracy theories are just stupid people, the mirror image of the trusting gullible. the untrusting gullible

and the sad thing is, they are equally dependably manipulated by lies and propaganda just as much as the trusting gullible. you just use reverse psychology on them

Re:Soon to be jailed

[LifesABeach]

I think some names, not faceless groups would be interesting news.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[drinkypoo]

Seriously, the ACLU is completely useless. If you're donating to them, you are literally wasting your money.

That's at least partly because just like we have a war on SOME drugs, the ACLU is only interested in SOME rights. The other part is that not enough people are on board. And I would be, if they were interested in one specific right that I believe must be protected in order to protect the all other rights. I can see why they don't want to be conflated with it, but I disagree with them strongly enough to distrust them as a result.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[HungryHobo]

occams razor doesn't exlude simple conspiracies.
which is all most have to be.

a handful of powerful friends can fuck a lot of people over with very simple conspiracies like the one in the OP.

They can be as simple as
"we don't want him to give evidence? You write an official letter accusing him of something, I'll have an aide make up some bullshit rumors and spread those around and we'll try to make sure the court case is over before he's sorted out the mess"

or even "fuck the law, make up some charge that's hard to defend yourself against then arrest him and throw him in jail"

But those kinds of stories are boring.
massive conspiracies are hard to hold together but a few golf buddies can do fine.

Conspiracy nuts assume that the world trade centre was some kind of inside job with stupidly complex motives.
In reality there's no need for that when the same ends can be achieved by a far simpler method of politicians simply taking advantage of the situation after the fact to push through whatever horrific measures they've always wanted.

the problem isn't a deficit of trust.
Hell more problems are caused by trusting fools who believe campaign promises and press releases.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[poetmatt]

oh I know it does, I don't even want to live in this country anymore. I'm quite embarrassed to be associated with a country that 75-85% of the people not only are completely ignorant of what goes on day to day, but defend to the death ideals that they believe are religiously inspired or generally inspired by a lack of logic. However, we also push all our idiotic shit to every country in the world with saber rattling and international intimidation.

Nothing short of a violent bloody revolution would save this country, and yet I fear that if we had one we would almost certainly be left with a horrible dictatorship and be even worse off than things exist today. So I think this country is basically screwed.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[circletimessquare]

untrusting fools

everyone understands and is disdainful of trusting fools

but i am saying not many people see the danger of being an untrusting fool

it is dangerous to intelligent perception to be fooled by someone

i am telling you it is equally dangerous to intelligent perception to be fooled by yourself, to believe what your imagination tells you, conspiracy theories, over what just might be true as presented to you

and untrusting fools are actually just as easily manipulated by lies and propaganda. just in a sort of reverse psychology way

Re:Soon to be jailed

[MightyMartian]

The way I'm reading this, it's possible that US prosecutors were probably to some degree duped as well. In a perfect world, the Cisco lawyers who instigates this would be disbarred, but it's pretty obvious from even the Canadian Crown Prosecutor that, at the prosecutorial end of things, nothing wrong was done.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[cavreader]

Well you better hop on the next bus or plane and leave before your head blows up. A bloody revolution is just what we need alright just look how wonderful that strategy works for the rest of the world. It's ridiculous easy to charge the barricades and destroy something but building it back up is not easy and chances are what does get built will be no better or even worse than before. Take some time and study the history of the US and tell me where you find a single year in which someone was not declaring loudly that the country was doomed. Take a good look at all the problems the country has dealt with since it's founding. The religious right in the late 1800's and early 1900's make todays religous right look like look godless heathens. They were able to inact prohibition for god's sake! The left side of the political divide loudly and whole heartily supported leaders like Lenin,Stalin, and Mao while ignoring the millions of people who were purged to create a society of their liking. The disparity of wealth in this country is loopsided but it is still more balanced then it was at the beginning of the industrial age. Look up "Robber Barons" and compare them against today's corporations. Take a look at the civil rights struggles in th 60's and see some really aggregious behavior perpetrated by the police, court systems, and both the federal and state elected governments. This entire country is still very much a work in progress and shouting at the sky and throwing your hands up in the air will not help anything. But maybe we can all just rely on your superior intellect to save the day for the 75-85% of the people you proclaim as ignorant.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[Betaemacs]

Certainly there are both extremes, as there are extremes at both ends of any spectrum. Notice though how you denigrate one of those extremes and simply note the other. We live in the information age and propaganda is king, this technique of dismissing opposing viewpoints by invoking the magic words, "conspiracy theorist" lowers the level of discourse for all. True discussion does not rely on poisoning the well type techniques, but on the give and take of information judged on it's own merits.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah.... no one is buying your story guy. Using superlatives like "sad, stunted" and "weak, feeble" only tells people that you're too closed minded to question things and come to your own logical explanation, which you could explain yourself out of if need be. Such adjectives are only used to make others in the discussion fear speaking out with an opposing view, and it's getting played out to the point where almost everyone can see right through it. I notice how you wrote such a lengthy post, but managed to put nothing of value in it, just "conspiracy theorist" bashing... Glen Beck, is that you??

Come back when you can make a real point.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[circletimessquare]

i denigrate both extremes. i am saying that conventional wisdom only denigrates the gullible. i am saying the conspiracy theorists are the same, and deserve the same denigration

"We live in the information age and propaganda is king, this technique of dismissing opposing viewpoints by invoking the magic words, "conspiracy theorist" lowers the level of discourse for all."

conspiracy theorists are the biggest consumers and creators of propaganda. they have to be. their alternative narrative requires a lot more chatter to maintain momentum. no, we're not talking about official propaganda, we're talking about spontaneous informal fanfiction type propaganda blogs. and now the mainstream, like fox news, is noticing and manipulating and fostering these cottage propaganda hobbyists. information age? welcome to the internet age, friend: the golden age of ideological fiefdoms, self-supported by walls of self-made propaganda and denial, the conspiracy theorist's nirvana

Re:Soon to be jailed

[circletimessquare]

you are a clever meta-troll, well played sir

or... a genuine moron

hard to tell nowadays

Re:Soon to be jailed

[_Sprocket_]

is it A

coincidence that the

sentence structure of posts in this thread

have started to become erratic

or is it just mE

Re:Soon to be jailed

[said213]

more dangerous than the untrusting fool is the absolutist fool who believes that they are correct. one doesn't need to buy into conspiracies to appear foolish, indeed. thanks for clarifying.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[Peristaltic]

...and shouting at the sky and throwing your hands up in the air will not help anything.

Do you have any ideas as to what will?

Re:Soon to be jailed

[Betaemacs]

Well, you claim to denigrate both extremes, but that is not evident. You also seem to be single minded that "conspiracy theorists" are ridiculous due to some certitude that if based on evidence is not noticeable outside of your mind. There is solid proof that the US government as well as other governments and corporations have habitually used propaganda to sway public opinion all the way up to covering illegal misdeeds. Again I point to findings of the US government itself in the Church Committee and the Rockefeller Commission, MKUTLRA being one of the best known examples. Everyone who brought it up was just crazy wacky conspiracy theorist, as a matter of fact people are still accused of being crazy for believing in it 35 years after Congress brought the information out. Somehow though you seem to be trying to force a distinction in, "official propaganda" and "spontaneous informal fanfiction type propaganda blogs" (whatever that is). The only difference that is apparent is that the government has been shown to be lying consistently for decades and the veracity of the "spontaneous" blogs is as yet unproven. So I don't see the logic in your argument, there may be some logic in it, but it is not readily apparent to me. It seems to me that you are simply jumping on the bandwagon of vilifying anyone who questions authority. A case in point is the Osama assassination, anyone who did not accept the official narrative, even though the narrative kept changing was branded a conspiracy theorist, instead of the more apt label of being skeptical of the governments version of events. Lastly many of the crazy wacky conspiracy theories may in fact originate from the government, it was a tactic used in COINTELPRO and Cass Sunstein who is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs co-authored a paper detailing a plan to infiltrate conspiracy sites and groups. It is likely that some of the wackiest theories are proposed by independent individuals, but on the face of it we have proof of past behavior and proof of intent on the part of an agency with billions of dollars at their disposal and little oversight. As well the Army recently requested tenders on astroturfing software to allow a single operative to fake many personas. This demonstrates means, motive and opportunity so the idea that some of the line noise is intentional is not far out at all. Lastly you mention places like fox news, "manipulating and fostering these cottage propaganda hobbyists" which maybe true, but ignores the Operation Mockingbird premise and the Army recently admitting to placing their propaganda specialist in major news stations for, "work experience". Again with the consistent track record of the US government one would be foolish not to suspect ulterior motives in these types of actions. So feel free to denigrate those who have a different viewpoint and use magic words to dismiss them outright, freedom of speech and all that.We're going to have to agree to disagree though as I love truth and don't care if the source is "official" or not. I listen to all types of opinions from many different sources and attempt to come to my own conclusions or at least assign rough probabilities so that I may make the judgments necessary to navigate my way through life.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[circletimessquare]

i am saying that those who embrace conspiracy theories have a deficit of trust and are no more intelligent than those who unwisely trust

i am not entirely sure why that modest point is inspiring such venom

but i have my ideas

Re:Soon to be jailed

[Anonymous Coward]

I assure you McCain did NOT loose that election.
Sarah Palin lost that election.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[poetmatt]

wow, hi ignorant 75-85%. You are it, in a nutshell. Nice troll!

Do you want me to factually correct every argument which you made which was completely and factually incorrect or do you want me to simply clarify where I said that a revolution is probably the only way to change things but also probably won't help. You somehow seemed to read that into "lets have a revolution". Your critical reading skills are lacking, fool.

I love how you think society is balanced when it has shown that disparity of wealth is worse *now* than it's ever been. We live better now due to efficiencies of scale and market pressure towards free but we don't live wealthier. Try not to get those mixed up.

We have robber barons today. They are the RIAA, MPAA, Microsoft, Congress, the patent system, the revolving door of corruption within government politics, the oppressive legal system, and unrestricted "free market capitalism", which when referenced isn't usually in that fashion.

Oh and the police aggressiveness? Still exists on a daily basis..

Re:Soon to be jailed

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe you should have marked this idiocy or sarcasm or something, because it's about as offtopic as it gets. It's pretty disgusting to see such prosecutorial misconduct in the US, and yet the prosecutors aren't even getting a slap on the wrist.

And they never will, Prosecutors are graded on the cases they WIN. Even if they are sure they have an innocent man most will still try their best to get him locked up anyway, because not doing so will hurt their record.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't that be "slap" or "chop"? P.S., you're gonna love my nuts.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[cavreader]

Go ahead and correct anything I said. Everything I said was true and I am not going to write a dissertation just to ease your understanding. Your first post brought to mind the picture of a loser who feels so emasculated and fearful that the only thing he can do is rage at the system that has stood in the way of his success in life and calls everyone who doesn't think the same as him an idiot. You lack both the intelligence and honesty to look at the state of the country or world events in context and analyze the differences from the proper perspective. The one overriding element in today's world is the ability for liars, propaganda specialists, and idiots to distribute there idiotic ramblings like a virus across the world using the net. And do you need some help purchasing your plane ticket out of the country you obviously can't stand? Maybe we can take up a collection.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[Anonymous Coward]

And I would be, if they were interested in one specific right that I believe must be protected in order to protect the all other rights. I can see why they don't want to be conflated with it, but I disagree with them strongly enough to distrust them as a result.

I presume you're referring to the Second.
I wonder about that too: the ACLU certainly seem to think they should cherry-pick which rights to defend.
Check out the ACLU page on their position on the Second Amendment.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[denzacar]

However, we also push all our idiotic shit to every country in the world with saber rattling and international intimidation.

Nothing short of a violent bloody revolution would save this country, and yet I fear that if we had one we would almost certainly be left with a horrible dictatorship and be even worse off than things exist today. So I think this country is basically screwed.

You might find the documentaries described here interesting.
Particularly the third part, although parts 1 and 2 are also highly intriguing and the whole series IS connected.
Last I checked they were available on Google Videos.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[hellop2]

You're saying conspiracy theorists are not more intelligent than government trusters.

Extrapolating, your point is that the government cannot be fully trusted and everything is not a conspiracy?

Re:Soon to be jailed

[Internetuser1248]

I hate to break it to you, but the official line on the world trade center is that it was a conspiracy. Perhaps the US government is feeble minded to believe that as you suggest, and that the planes were all flown by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[Internetuser1248]

You should take him up on this. The world outside really is much nicer, I wouldn't go to the US for a million bucks. Someone offering you a free plane ticket out? Take it. I recommend Europe, but if you want an english speaking country New Zealand and Australia are also very nice. Just tell them you are from Canada.

Re:Soon to be jailed

[cavreader]

Have you ever been to the US or just formed your opinion by gathering your information from the www.ihateamerica.com or the www.blametheusforalltheworldproblems.com websites?

Boycott Cisco!

[Dunbal]

Er, wait, er NO CARRIER

Re:Boycott Cisco!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or switch to Linksys

Re:Boycott Cisco!

[Anonymous Coward]

lol... the Cisco subsidiary?

How about Linux or Juniper?

Re:Boycott Cisco!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh

Re:Boycott Cisco!

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, wait, er NO CARRIER

That's the basic problem, when companies get too universal to be boycotted they will abuse the hell out of their position and the governments of the world will happily assist them. Cisco could turn evil in a way that makes Microsoft look all soft and cuddly.

War!

[sgt scrub]

May the Baldwins help us now!

Re:War!

[VortexCortex]

WAR!
May the Baldwins help us now!

::sigh:: I'll begin drafting the "Treaty of Poutine", we can't be at war with everyone forever...

RCMP - Royal Canadian Monopoly Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Our top cops are always eager to serve big corp, especially if they're Uncle Sam's big corp.

Re:RCMP - Royal Canadian Monopoly Police

[Anonymous Coward]

"Our top cops are always eager to serve big corp, especially if they're Uncle Sam's big corp."

Not to mention the people who tell the cops what to do.
Those people known much better what it's about than the cops.

Re:RCMP - Royal Canadian Monopoly Police

[BForrester]

That's simply not the case.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/unhappy-mounties-sick-of-being-private-copyright-cops.ars

Re:RCMP - Royal Canadian Monopoly Police

[Mashiki]

Let's see what's wrong with your post. There's:
19,414 Special Constables (think of these guys as anywhere between civilians sworn in, to guys retired but still working -- you get paid, just not much)
11,834 Constables
3,653 Corporals
2,153 Sgt's
950 Staff Sgt's.

That's your rank and file, these are the total number of officers that are responsible for law and order for 80% of the landmass of Canada(Ontario and Quebec have their own provincial police for this). And Newfoundland gets help from them still. Canada, is a big place, and there's too much of it, and not enough of them. Meaning, they'd rather be out working, pulling some kid out of a swamp in the middle of nowhere, instead of playing with some corp who doesn't have a fucking clue.

Re:RCMP - Royal Canadian Monopoly Police

[alexo]

Actually, our cops are just members of the biggest, meanest and most dangerous gang in the country.
For examples, google Dorian Barton, Stacy Bonds, Robert Dziekanski (and many others).

Anti-trust suit

[oldhack]

What's the suit against Cisco about and its status?

Re:Anti-trust suit

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the article the suit was about Cisco forcing maintainance contracts on customers. Apparently they settled and changed their practices.

Re:Anti-trust suit

[wombatmobile]

From previous articles:

Cisco Systems orchestrated the arrest of Multiven founder Peter Alfred-Adekeye last year in order to force a settlement of Multiven's antitrust lawsuit against Cisco.

Multiven, sued Cisco in December 2008, accusing the company of monopolizing the business of servicing and maintaining Cisco enterprise equipment. Cisco forced owners of gear such as routers, switches and firewalls to buy its SMARTnet service contracts in order to get regular software updates and bug fixes, Multiven said. By providing updates and bug fixes only to SMARTnet customers and not to third parties, Cisco prevented independent companies from servicing its equipment, Multiven alleged.

The SMARTnet service is a hot-button issue with some customers, who feel that Cisco should provide basic bug fixes and software updates free of charge as Microsoft or Apple do.

Re:Anti-trust suit

[GameboyRMH]

On that topic, I don't like what I've heard about Cisco's update services, but there are so many other options out there that's it's really hard to feel bad for Cisco's customers. This isn't like smartphones, printers or telcos where you have to choose between a douche and a turd.

I guess the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" attitude is a big part of it.

Re:Anti-trust suit

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? What other options are there for routers? Besides Juniper???

Re:Anti-trust suit

[GameboyRMH]

Well if you have a problem with Juniper, off the top of my head there's HP.

Re:Anti-trust suit

[mikkelm]

You can be absolutely certain that people have been fired for buying HP.

Re:Anti-trust suit

[cez]

Avaya (previously Nortel), brocade, 3com, extreme, Hp, alcatel-lucent... I actually work at an all Nortel (avaya) shop, converged VOIP / Data network of 20,000 phones 40,000 devices only 2 Cisco routers (internet gateways) in our whole network.

Seriously, though

[Ritchie70]

When will the American populace finally tire of the country being for the corporations, of the corporations, and by the corporations and take it for the people instead?

I think I'm going to go try to find a non crazy group that's working on this. Are there any?

Or should i just join the ACLU and hope for the best?

Re:Seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

Russ Feingold started a new organization that is targeted against corporations and the Citizen's United ruling. Quote from the website: 'Progressives United is dedicated to opposing corporate dominance over our elections. We will work every day to ensure Abraham Lincoln’s words that we are "government of the people, by the people, for the people" remain true.'

Here's the link: www.progressivesunited.org

Re:Seriously, though

[PJ6]

Yeah, like they're going to pass legislation to change that, from the people that are all bought and paid for.

Any real change must come without their permission. That means "a big to-do". People are lazy though, so it would take a total crisis to get the ball rolling. That's not going to happen over something like this.

Re:Seriously, though

[Maximum Prophet]

Go ahead and create a large group that can counter the power of the corporations. Call it a Conglomeration, or something. Watch it rise to power, supplanting the corporations, unions, churches, etc. Watch it get corrupted, and the country become for the Conglomeration, of the Conglomeration and by the Conglomeration.

Name a large group of people that had power that didn't abuse that power.

Re:Seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with people like you is you eat the crap our Corporate Media feed you and you call every group trying to enact real change for the better 'crazy.' You are part of the problem until you become part of the solution. There are tons of groups that work to restore the Constitution - including the ACLU.

I like this one:
http://www.libertypac.com/

When Republicans are in power, Democrats represent no change. When Democrats are in power, Republicans are only an illusion of change. Once you see that we've been going back and forth between Republicans and Democrats for generations while our civil liberties get eroded and corporations and government take over all aspects of our lives regardless of either party, you realize that the only thing not crazy is doing something different.

Re:Seriously, though

[dkleinsc]

The ACLU isn't remotely crazy. They are focused on the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments rather than the Second or Tenth, to be sure, and they take the absolute position on what "Congress shall make no law" is. That doesn't make them crazy. However, those who would like to get rid of those freedoms frequently portray them as crazy because they're a roadblock to their cause. For anyone who believes they're crazy, please present evidence of it, and I mean that absolutely seriously.

As far as government by, for, and of the corporations, that's been going on for at least 150 years now, and there's no reason to think it would stop anytime soon. If you want some idea of the history, I highly recommend A People's History of the United States.

Re:Seriously, though

[DoofusOfDeath]

When will the American populace finally tire of the country being for the corporations, of the corporations, and by the corporations and take it for the people instead?

Perhaps when overthrowing the corporations wouldn't lead to massive, immediate shortages in food, fuel, and medicine that would kill 20% of us in the first year?

I'm all for ending corporatism, but I think anything but a gradual approach would lead to massive death (see above) or a dictatorship (see Hugo Chavez).

Re:Seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they should bring in capital punishment for corporate "people" that act this way. If they had a corporate capital punishment act corporations would act in the best interest of their shareholders and not do evil shit that would get them dissolved.

Re:Seriously, though

[Dunbal]

You are part of the problem until you become part of the solution.

Black or white thinking detected, please take your meds. Ahh no, it's an anonymous coward. Fair enough, carry on.

Re:Seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

There will be no awakening. As most people let me shout this so you get it *DO NOT CARE* .

Even the EFF/ACLU and others do some good. They however are missing the real point of why they even have to exist in the first place. They are too busy trying to fix the symptoms and not the root cause.

The root cause is money. The US gov is swimming in it. At least they were. A 'we vs they' attitude has taken hold of the country and will not let go. 'Whatever the other side says is just wrong'. Instead of 'is this actually good for the country and not just a small subset of people' should be prevalent in the congress. It isnt.

Simple things are being overlooked for the possibility that someone might loose a job. Such as sane copyright terms, campaign finance limits, lobbyist limits, setting aside of party politics and actually doing their jobs. Hell they cant even balance a budget (overspending is ok once and awhile but not continuously for 40 years). Even the small 'balanced' we had a few years ago was a trick of the books.

If you see a vote that is right down party lines I can assure you neither side really cares. They are playing to the audience. They are looking to their party leaders on how to vote. Not on what is really right or wrong. Even if you see a 90% vote be very scared. As it means that the properly lobbyist pressure worked on both groups.

Never mind the lobbyist pandering that is going on which makes it even worse. I have seen on the state level state congressmen not even answering the phones and letting their lobbyist do it for them.

Until money is taken out of the game. Everyone will be out to game the system. The well is dry and they are pumping dirt and calling it water.

I dont think most people realize how stunningly bad it is.

Its funny as it really comes down to instead of "I am an American". People say "I am a republican/democrat".

Do not let your politicians play those games. If they play them they have a good shot at just jamming thru whatever pet project they have kicking around. These are like children who have been given a toy and have started hitting each other with it. Take the toy away.

Re:Seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the ACLU. They are actively trying, and they are large enough that they can hit smaller issues as well as the larger. EX: I got an email talking about Prom night and how people should know their rights (something about cops doing blanket searches and how that's illegal). But I also got an email when congress attempted to pass a bill that would give the POTUS authority to declare war on anyone at anytime, without the intervention/input of congress. I don't care so much about the former, but I damn well wrote my congress person about the latter.

Re:Seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

absolute power corrupts absolutely!

Re:Seriously, though

[Nadaka]

The only problem with the ACLU is that they not only do not focus on the second amendment, they officially do not consider it to be a civil liberty.

It would be fine if they focused only on their specific issues, as there are other organizations dedicated to defending the second, but to deny that infringement on the second amendment is not a violation of civil liberties is wrong.

Re:Seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously know little to nothing about the ACLU.

Re:Seriously, though

[Nadaka]

I know plenty and I support all of what it does, except this. You can find the statement right on their own website.

Re:Seriously, though

[Svartalf]

My "chief aversion" is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. I am opposed to the new deal [sic] because it strives to strengthen and prolong production for private profit. At bottom I am for conserving the full powers of every person on earth by expanding them to their individual limits. Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of the system dog-eat-dog under which we live, and the substitution by the most effective non-violence possible of a system of cooperative ownership and use of all wealth.

- Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the ACLU.

Do you HONESTLY believe that they're really on about the things you think they are?

Re:Seriously, though

[Svartalf]

That's because the Second gives arms to the people...if you put this in the perspective of the quote I put in my comment to the parent, it makes a bit more sense.

Re:Seriously, though

[Khyber]

No, it's called realistic thinking.

Or you can keep thinking that while I work towards controlling the world food supply.

Then you'll simply cease to be anything, much less a problem.

Re:Seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it has happened, but... people whose powers were actually kept in check by others, who themselves were kept in check. Doing this properly would likely be against the wishes of those currently in power, though.

Re:Seriously, though

[Sentrion]

You seriously underestimate the power of the modern global conglomerate. The US government only controls the land mass between Mexico and Canada, the State of Alaska, and a few isolated military bases and islands. It has some marginal influence with the international community through the Diplomatic Corps, but the international conglomerates have major business operations in every country on the planet. They virtually control all of the economic assets of the entire world. Every nation is dependent on them and these nations continuously adjust their laws at the mere suggestion by a lobbyist to remove the traditional rights and protections of common citizens. In just a few decades these conglomerates have even turned the world's largest communist nation into a fascist factory-state (do I need to name names?).

There is a reason that NATO is bombing Libya and not Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, or other Arab dictatorships suppressing the Arab Spring with tanks and bombs. Look at the history of Gadhafi with the international business community. Then look at the relationship between these other states and the global conglomerates. Certainly Gadhafi is an evil tyrant, but that is not the reason for the European intervention. The present day people of the United States are no more able to free themselves any more than the American slaves could free themselves prior to the Civil War.

Re:Seriously, though

[StormReaver]

When will the American populace finally tire of the country being for the corporations, of the corporations, and by the corporations and take it for the people instead?

That won't be possible until we abolish political parties, especially the two-party bastardization that currently rules our politics. Right now, Democrat and Republican voters only vote to keep the other party's candidates out of office, and each party manages to focus its followers' vitriol on vapid inconsequentials. The party system is the linchpin that holds together our country's political corruption, and that holds voters in a drug-induced, hysterial hatred that prevents them from seeing the evil being perpetrated on their behalf. Distracted by those vapid inconsequentials, voters have allowed corporations to insinuate themselves into the lawmaking process largely unseen by the general populace -- despite operating in plain sight.

Get rid of political parties, and we will have moved one step closer to eliminating the political corruption that corporations have leveraged for their own gain.

Re:Seriously, though

[ewieling]

When food prices get high enough. The populace will put up with a lot of stuff, but not being hungry.

Re:Seriously, though

[Jaysyn]

The only problem with the ACLU is that they not only do not focus on the second amendment, they officially do not consider it to be a civil liberty.

It would be fine if they focused only on their specific issues, as there are other organizations dedicated to defending the second, but to deny that infringement on the second amendment is not a violation of civil liberties is wrong.

I don't see it as a huge deal considering the NRA & CCRKBA both dwarf the ACLU in membership.

NRA = 4.3 million members
CCRKBA = 650000 members

ACLU = 500000 members

*using the numbers from each groups website.

Yeah it would be nice if the ACLU was for liberty across the board, but the way I figure it the more groups we have working towards these goals in total, the better off we are.

Re:Seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Supreme Court recently ruled that corporatins could donate $$ in unlimited quantities to political activities.

This used to be a democarcy - one person, one vote.

It is now a capitalist-ocracy - one dollar, one vote.

Re:Seriously, though

[dkleinsc]

Yeah, I'm totally fine with an organization that started with that kind of talk, for a lot of reasons:
1. I recognize that capitalist economics can and is used as a tool of oppression. I'm not as radical as Baldwin - I'm ok with a democratically elected government and the use of increase of wealth as a motivator for people to work. But like him, I'm not willing to allow pure capitalism to create a situation where workers are choosing between working at whatever rich people will pay, and dying of starvation, disease, or exposure to the elements.

2. He sees the US government as a tool of the megacorps of his day. He was generally right - this was at a time when people talking about forming trade unions were routinely attacked by police or arrested for saying that things would be much better if workers got together and demanded a 40 hour work week, safer working conditions, and enough pay to be able to feed their families.

3. Baldwin was talking in those terms when communists' primary goals were combating fascism in Europe and developing trade unions here in the US. He later revised his views on communism, notably in a 1953 article entitled "A new slavery; forced labor: the communist betrayal of human rights." which was largely about how Stalin in particular had undermined and betrayed everything communism was supposed to stand for.

4. Organizations change over time. To say the modern-day ACLU is mostly about Baldwin's socialism makes about as much sense as saying that the modern-day IBM is mostly about selling equipment to classify prisoners to the Nazis.

Re:Seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

"...socialism...communism..."
- Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the ACLU.

Do you HONESTLY believe that they're really on about the things you think they are?"

Baldwin has not been with the ACLU since 1950 (died in 1981)

There's nothing in ACLU's stated goals that comes close to what Baldwin has once said about -his- goals.

Re:Seriously, though

[tnk1]

I think you are underestimating the importance of some of the hot-ticket items that you are calling inconsequentials. While I agree that bullshit like Birthers and petty scandals are for entertainment value only, taxation, services, and social issues are at the heart of politics and are very important, even if the two sides seem to be acting childish about the whole thing.

Re:Seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

My "chief aversion" is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. I am opposed to the new deal [sic] because it strives to strengthen and prolong production for private profit. At bottom I am for conserving the full powers of every person on earth by expanding them to their individual limits. Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of the system dog-eat-dog under which we live, and the substitution by the most effective non-violence possible of a system of cooperative ownership and use of all wealth.

- Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the ACLU.

Do you HONESTLY believe that they're really on about the things you think they are?

I can selectively quote, too...Only this time we'll focus on something that happened after 1928:

Baldwin became increasingly disturbed by events in the Soviet Union, where purge trials were being undertaken, and by politically troublesome accusations leveled at the ACLU by the House Committee on un-American Activities.

Baldwin became less happy with the Popular Front approach and concerned about the very existence of the ACLU after the announcement of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in August 1939. The following spring, in an effort to stave off criticisms of the organization and the cause he had devoted much of his adulthood to, Baldwin orchestrated a campaign to revise the ACLU charter. Henceforth, those affiliated with totalitarian organizations would not be allowed to serve on the ACLU board. The immediate target was the former-Wobbly and present Communist Party member, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. An organizational "trial" of Flynn ensued, resulting in her ouster and establishing a pattern for anti-communist policies and programs that flourished during the Cold War.

And I have a a URL to back it up:
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin.html

Wikipedia says:

In 1927, he had visited the Soviet Union and wrote a book, Liberty Under the Soviets. Originally, at the beginning of the ACLU, he had said, "Communism, of course, is the goal." Later, however, as more and more information came out about Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, Baldwin became more and more disillusioned with Soviet-style communism and called it "A NEW SLAVERY" (capitalized in the original). He condemned "the inhuman communist police state tyranny". In the 1940s, Baldwin led the campaign to purge the ACLU of Communist Party members...

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nash_Baldwin

And by the way, just because an organization isn't walking already well trodden ground (hello NRA! hello Gun Owners of America!) and attempting to forestall the necessity for people getting killed doesn't mean it's worthless.
 

Re:Seriously, though

[StikyPad]

Is it just a coincidence that CCRKBA looks like an abbreviation of Cracker Barrel?

Re:Seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

- Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the ACLU

Do you HONESTLY believe that they're really on about the things you think they are?

Roger Nash Baldwin was born in 1884, retired from the ACLU in 1950, and died in 1981. Do you HONESTLY believe that someone who retired 61 years ago and died 20 years ago has any influence whatsoever on the current board of directors?

I love my country

[cpu6502]

but hate my government. "If it were possible, we would have no government. It is only for the protection of our rights that we resort to government at all." - Jefferson. Nowadays it seems the government is more interested in protecting the Non-human Corporations rather than the People.

Perhaps it is time to call a Constitutional Convention and revert to the Articles of Confederation again - a Union of States, rather than an out-of-control central authority that acts as if it has unbounded power.

Re:I love my country

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to get too political. Mitt Romney mentioned this as one of his goals in his interview with Sean Hannity last night - to return the power to the states, "true federalism".

Re:I love my country

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, would not like to see such a move. The reason we have an out-of-control central authority is not because of a constitutional deficiency but because the current constitution is neglected. If there were a return to the Articles, they would be as ignored as the constitution is now. And, the Articles did not provide a very solid union of states - there was a reason why they were rejected in the first ten years. See the debacle of the whiskey rebellion, etc.

Re:I love my country

[iserlohn]

Corporations are the center of power now. What makes you think that state governments can withstand pressure from corporations any better than the federal government?

Re:I love my country

[Black Parrot]

Perhaps it is time to call a Constitutional Convention and revert to the Articles of Confederation again - a Union of States, rather than an out-of-control central authority that acts as if it has unbounded power.

I want to write novels set in a dystopian future where corporations and drug gangs fight over the scraps of what's left worth having in the USA.

Re:I love my country

[cpu6502]

State governments are surrounded by the People they govern. If a state government misbehaves, it only takes a short while to rally your neighbors and drive the 1-2 hours from your home to the capitol & remind the leaders that they can be deposed if they don't obey the citizens.

It is wiser to put most of the governmental power close to home, where the leaders are surrounded by their neighbors, rather than thousands of miles away in the Cone of Silence we call Washington. (Example: Three-quarter of the people opposed the Banker Bailout Bill, but it passed anyway, because congress doesn't care what we think.)

Re:I love my country

[Dunbal]

Returning power to the people usually happens just before an emperor is created. Historically I mean. Caveat emptor.

Re:I love my country

[Nadaka]

If national politics is a cesspool of corruption, graft and corporate kowtowing (and it is), then the states themselves are the water filling that cesspool. What do you think the weaker state governments will do? Corporations play hardball with states all the time. They ask for special laws, exceptions and tax breaks on the threat of crippling state economy by moving elsewhere. There is quite a bit of evidence that the recent "financial emergency powers" law in Michigan was written and pushed by a single corporation in order to bypass the local governments suit against a multi billion dollar development deal.

Re:I love my country

[iserlohn]

Oh please! The abuse of power by local government is as much as, or even more astounding. You just don't see this because most of it is isn't big enough to make the evening news nationwide.

The real solution is to make corporations accountable when they screw the little guys - it's got nothing to do with where government is.

Re:I love my country

[Builder]

Already been done. See Metrophage by Richard Kadrey.

Re:I love my country

[idontgno]

Or anything in William Gibson's "Sprawl" works.

Re:I love my country

[Requiem18th]

Which is why I advocate sortition, actually I'll just paste my old post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2189040&cid=36258788

Re:I love my country

[UnknownSoldier]

Nice Jefferson quote! I believe this is the "official" quote :-)

"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795. FE 7:4

Re:I love my country

[triffid_98]

What do I want? I want what they
                    want...
                                    (indicates P.O.W.'s)
                    And what every other guy who came
                    over here and spilled his guts and
                    gave everything he had wants... for
                    our country to love us as much as we
                    love it... That's what I want. And
                    that's what they wanted.

Re:I love my country

[tnk1]

However, abuse of power by local governments is also limited in scale by nature of what they control. They can't ship off billions of dollars to some other place without a second thought because they don't have billions of dollars to begin with. They certainly can't do it without anyone noticing.

The US Federal Budget is massive, not just in the amount of money spent, but also in sheer verbiage. It's literally thousands of pages. There is no way I can review any part of that as a whole as a simple citizen. On the other hand, I can review a local budget myself and as a citizen, have a better handle on what is in there. Sure, it still won't be simple, but it will be at least possible.

The problem with the Federal Government is that as it gets bigger, it gets more power while each citizen gets progressively less power. With local governments, the rate of growth is less, and you could subdivide local areas to keep each voter's relative power fairly high. The Federal Government, however, will never stop covering more and more people, and every new citizen dilutes every other citizen's relative power. That's why parties form to begin with and why they control everything at the national level.

Re:I love my country

[Anonymous Coward]

State governments are surrounded by the People they govern. If a state government misbehaves, it only takes a short while to rally your neighbors and drive the 1-2 hours from your home to the capitol & remind the leaders that they can be deposed if they don't obey the citizens.

And that works so, so well in the case of cable companies who pass laws in state legislatures telling counties that they can't build their own networks even if people in those counties want to pay for and even if the cable companies have no desire to serve those counties.

It is wiser to put most of the governmental power close to home, where the leaders are surrounded by their neighbors, rather than thousands of miles away in the Cone of Silence we call Washington. (Example: Three-quarter of the people opposed the Banker Bailout Bill, but it passed anyway, because congress doesn't care what we think.)

So, by extension, local (city/county) government would be the best, right? Except for the case after case after case where city and county governments have refused to listen to public - even after they lost elections, during lame duck sessions - and rammed things through without the thought of taxpayers (the stadium in Charlotte, NC is one example, have some fun and find some in your own town).

Re:I love my country

[sjames]

You better hurry! The whole idea is well on it's way to being a quaint historical fiction set in better days!

Re:I love my country

[grahamwest]

The way to look at the federal budget is the Monthly Treasury Reports - http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html . They are much more concise and don't have all that useless airy-fairy language. They show the current month and the year to date. I don't think state budgets in general are less complicated. All budgets are hierarchical so it's just a question of how far down you want to drill. I bet even Wyoming's budget has more than an individual can wrap their head around if you break it down enough. Did that office in that town's annex of that county's branch of that subgroup of that sub-department of that department really need 3 new toner cartridges?

I would say what really matters is the big picture, the top 2 or maybe 3 layers of any budget. It'll be a few top-level areas that make up the bulk of the money.

Re:I love my country

[Bob9113]

> The abuse of power by local government is as much as, or even more astounding. You just don't see this because most of it is isn't big enough to make the evening news nationwide.

Just noodling on this. Blue sky.

The problem at any level of government ultimately boils down to avarice for power and corruption. Adam Smith came up with an economic system which exploits the harmful characteristic "greed" to induce production. Perhaps the same principle could be applied to government. Instead of pretending we can have non-corrupt federal, state, or local government, we put them in competition.

Have local and state governments operate as they do now, and give them most of the civil authority (abortion, guns, collection of taxes, etc). Then, you set the federal government up with avarice for power as their motive to eliminate corruption at the state and local level. Make it so the federal government can only act as the civil authority in cases where they put a corrupt local or state politician in jail -- they get 6 months to run that guy's office.

So if you're a federal official and you want power, you've got to go put some of the most dangerous criminals in our society (corrupt public officials) in jail. Local and state politicians would be extremely incentivized to keep their noses clean, and the breeding ground of national politicians would be a cleaner place, reducing the flow rate of explicitly for-sale politicians to D.C.

Obviously totally unrealistic -- just noodling.

Re:I love my country

[randyleepublic]

I say this in all seriousness: your plan is our only hope.

misquote in the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

From the summary:
" The Canadian judge said that almost nothing in the US Attorney's letter was true"

According to the article, it was Adekeye's lawyer that said this, not the Canadian Judge:
“Almost nothing in the U.S. attorney’s letter was true,” Adekeye’s lawyer Marilyn Sandford said Thursday.

Re:misquote in the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really a quote you know, No little quotation marks around it. "Justice McKinnon said little of what the Americans told Ottawa was true." Feel free to quibble as to whether or not 'almost nothing' is the same as 'little', but then that wasn't a quote either so it doesn't use the judge's exact words. Perhaps they were 'almost nothing' too.

Re:misquote in the summary

[grizdog]

You're right, but shortly after that it says this:

"Justice McKinnon said little of what the Americans told Ottawa was true "

Either way, the judge didn't have a very constructive view of US Attorney. It would be nice to see some follow-up, on the US Attorney's "no comment", but I doubt we will.

how much was actually done by the US gov't?

[yincrash]

In the article, it's extremely hard to parse whether the US attorney in question is Cisco's US based attorney or a US gov't attorney. Who am I supposed to be mad at?

Re:how much was actually done by the US gov't?

[Rich0]

I would imagine that an extradition request for a criminal complaint would have to come from the US Justice Department, perhaps even routed through the State Department. Random individuals can't ask governments to arrest people and ship them overseas. Random individuals can file suit in the other country and then that country can take steps as needed to keep the person there if warranted. In many countries however this would be inconvenient to a multinational - since they would be subject to loser-pays, security of costs, and all kinds of other things that they don't have to deal with in the US. And, of course, they have to convince the other country that they have jurisdiction.

Re:how much was actually done by the US gov't?

[corbettw]

Seeing as how "US Attorney" is an actual title for Federal prosecutors, I think that narrows a bit whom you should be most peeved at.

Re:how much was actually done by the US gov't?

[Effexor]

Let me help you.

'U.S. prosecutors acted outrageously'...
'The U.S. claimed'...
'U.S. prosecutors falsely portrayed'...
'left the U.S. in 2008 and was denied re-entry when he attempted to return to participate in the litigation'

So yes, I guess they really were Cisco's attorneys.

Happening yet again

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of Adobe, Dmitry Sklyaro, and ElcomSoft, where a commercial company uses the force of the U.S. Government & Justice system to go after someone who blows the whistle on them, exposes a flaw in their product, or makes them look bad. How many times will this need to happen, before the system is changed?

Re:Happening yet again

[wonkavader]

You imply that the system will ever be changed.

Re:Happening yet again

[AHuxley]

You imply that the system will ever be changed.: "We know what you did in Canada" is a bit like "Dmitry" or "rootkit" or "Room 641A" or "Costas Tsalikidis" or "Adamo Bove", Mr "national security issue" ect. people will recall for years and years.

I have been saying for a long time,

[Grand Facade]

That once we granted corporations "individuals rights" everything went straight to hell in a handbasket.

Re:I have been saying for a long time,

[Ice Tiger]

If only they had the same rights as an individual and not more! ;)

Re:I have been saying for a long time,

[Black Parrot]

If only they had the same rights as an individual and not more! ;)

They've merely been endowed by their creators with inalienable rights.

Re:I have been saying for a long time,

[Rubinstien]

Not only do they have more rights, but they have more money, are held to lower moral standards (if any), and can achieve far greater longevity than other "corporeal" beings if managed correctly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies) .

Re:I have been saying for a long time,

[mspohr]

We've really gone to a "one dollar, one vote" system rather than one person, one vote. Of course, the rich and corporations win this hands down (and they keep "improving" the laws to increase their wealth)... I don't see any way for people to take back power.

Re:I have been saying for a long time,

[Rennt]

Allowing these individuals to contribute to political campaigns weren't exactly too smart either.

Re:I have been saying for a long time,

[Anonymous Coward]

Make the corporations(individuals) pay income tax like regular human beings and also should go and vote in every election as do the human beings.

not on msnbc

[Anonymous Coward]

or any other american news outlet. Imagine that..

Take five minutes

[wonkavader]

It'll only take you five minutes. Get the email address for the other big ISP you don't use. (In Chicago, for example, if you use Comcast, email AT&T, if you use AT&T, email Comcast.) Tell them the reason you don't use them is that they use Cisco gear and that you don't support the supporters of corporate malfeasance. Tell them to email you when they've eliminated Cisco gear from their network.

You can protest to Cisco to change their ways all you like, and they won't give a crap. But if AT&T tells them to clean up their act, or QWEST, or Comcast or COX, etc, they'll listen.

Re:Take five minutes

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume that we have more than one choice aside from satellite or dialup.

Re:Take five minutes

[pseudorand]

Uh, so in my small-to-medium size business I won't touch overpriced cisco crap with a 10 foot pole. But compared to the telcos, I really don't have much traffic (or distance). Perhaps Juniper and F5 and Brocade have alternatives that match performance, but Cisco has huge market share and I doubt the three of those companies could take Cisco's place quickly if telcos started dumping Cisco stuff.

Plus, if you tell AT&T that you use Comcast because AT&T uses Cisco, I'd bet AT&T is well aware that Comcast uses a lot of Cisco equipment too. So your argument seems a bit unpersuasive.

Oh no...

[vvaduva]

..a multinational corporation lied and the US government lied to protect it! What a huge surprise!

Re:Oh no...

[Black Parrot]

..a multinational corporation lied and the US government lied to protect it! What a huge surprise!

I was kinda surprised that there weren't any cruise missiles involved.

Re:Oh no...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the US can't really accuse Canada of hoarding weapons of mass destruction.

Re:Oh no...

[trevelyon]

Yep, not like this has been done before:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/820758.stm

Shocking, just shocking. Next thing we'll hear that there is no Santa Clause and all those letters are answered by the USPS!
http://www.usps.com/communications/newsroom/2009/holiday/santa.htm

Re:Oh no...

[Anonymous Coward]

why not?

Re:Oh no...

[vvaduva]

Cisco-made cruise missiles? Now that's a good way to stop war and violence! Inflate the price of the end product even more until wars everywhere crash and burn

Different expectations of Govt

[redelm]

No surprise at the ruling -- why _wouldn't_ Cisco have a US govt Attorney in its' pocket? Why would a Fed respect the some foreign court any more than a US State court?

Having lived for multiple adult decades on both sides of the Canada-US border, I can say they might look alike and speak close to the same language, but the two nations are really very different:

The US is run by elected officals who are basically empowered uniquely by their election and feel they can do whatever they want, with highly variable respect for the US Constitution (some think it should be pushed, a few are very strict).

Canada is an elected dictatorship, basically devoid of checks and balances, with legislatures totally dependant on the executive, and highly subordinate courts. But they don't run the country, the civil service does and they are loyal to The Crown, not
elected office-holders. There, something to offend everyone.

Of course there's lots of cross-over -- mostly by Canada picking up US institutions, like the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, and a Supreme Court that sometimes enforces it, "notwithstanding". The US Civil Service has also grown tremendously, and it rather tired of all the switching political appointees, so becomes more rule-bound and apolitical, where the armed services have led.

Re:Different expectations of Govt

[AHuxley]

Enjoy that border while it lasts http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Canada+perimeter+security+agreement+crucial+diplomats/4886235/story.html
Soon it will be a security "perimeter" around Canada.

Re:Different expectations of Govt

[ceoyoyo]

I can't comment on the accuracy of your statements about the US, but you've really lived in Canada? Are you sure? Did you actually study anything about our government or are you just making things up? Maybe you watched, read or listened to a particularly irritated political pundit?

Re:Different expectations of Govt

[Anonymous Coward]

The Canadian Government is certainly not a dictatorship. It's electoral system and system of government may reside further down the continuum from direct democracy that you may prefer (only a guess here), but that a dictatorship does not make. There are fair, free and regular elections, an entrenched system of rights and freedoms and a judicial system empowered to ensure the laws are kept and reflect those rights and freedoms.

Re:Different expectations of Govt

[redelm]

Yes, lived there! I realize "elected dictatorship" is inflammatory, but there really is no other term applicable: Look at the _tremendous_ popular opposition to a number of measures (however logical and well-intentioned) to things like Joe Clarks Gasoline Tax and Brian Mulroney's GST (two decades apart). Sure, in both cases the electorate soundly thrashed the perps, but _note_: they were unrepealed when the opposition took power.

And do not tell me spectacles like UK's Tony Blair dragging the Labour MPs kicking-and-screaming into Iraq are unlikely in Canada. Overwhipped MPs. You might not like the US Reps/Sens and their [corrupt] campaign finance, but at least they have their own independence [money] and have to be bought one-at-a-time.

Re:Different expectations of Govt

[tnk1]

Actually, by dint of being a parliamentary system modeled on the Westminster System, Canada really is much like an Executive-heavy government with almost no actual checks on it. While your Legislative branch controls the taxation, the Legislature is controlled by its party leadership to an extent that makes US party loyalty seem almost mercenary. And since the Executive comes from the Legislature, there is no other body that can threaten it with actual substantial actions, like refusing money for programs. In order to be in charge of the Executive, you need to control the majority of the Legislatures votes to begin with, so that is already covered.

Further, as a legacy of being a monarchy where the government technically still is all invested in the monarch, the Executive has recourse to ancient powers that have not been constrained by Legislative statutes. That means that in addition to controlling the Legislative, the Executive, as ministers and Privy Councilors, have certain powers that do not fall under Legislative supervision, but instead fall under Royal Prerogative. The fact that the actual monarch no longer exercises them personally does not mean that the actual powers are any more based on popular sovereignty than in the past.

Of course, the Prime Minister is democratically elected, if indirectly, and is responsible to someone besides themselves, again indirectly, so calling it a dictatorship is really stretching it, but there is definitely a lack of strong checks and balances as in the US.

I saw this one a mile away

[erroneus]

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2094166&cid=35892994
Did Cisco "fabricate evidence"? In other words, did they make claims that were later repeated by the US government's law enforcement people?

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2094166&cid=35893892
And at the time of the article, the evidence hadn't even been presented to Canadian officials.

And now, when claims were finally presented, they turned out to not have any merit. I am not surprised that they could not produce the evidence they claimed to have had. This is more of the same "government interference at the request of business" that we have been seeing a LOT of lately. Most of the time it has been the oil, GM foods, pharmaceutical and entertainment industries that pushed government into interfering with governments and affairs of other nations. Now it's Cisco... next, I suspect, it will be Microsoft. (After all, the EU is not quite done with Microsoft's legal cases...)

Canada now had additional reason not to trust in and support the US government or the US companies that influence Canadian law. I hope Canada and other countries wake up to this and stop bowing to US demands the way they have.

Re:I saw this one a mile away

[MikeBabcock]

As a proud Canadian, I'd like to point out that we don't bow to American interests very often.

We're allies and good business partners, but we fight a lot over issues from softwood lumber to water usage to arctic ownership. On a diplomatic level, the US and Canada try to get along because its good for both our countries' interests, but on a nit-picking level, we certainly do not agree on everything.

Re:I saw this one a mile away

[erroneus]

And yet you're taking it up the pooper at the behest of the US entertainment industry... which happens to have offices in Canada...

Re:I saw this one a mile away

[Effexor]

As slightly less proud Canadian I'd like to point out -

"Canadian Justice Department lawyer Diba Majzub argued that it didn’t matter U.S. prosecutors falsely portrayed Adekeye as a Nigerian scofflaw who was a flight risk. He filed three thick volumes of legal precedent and emphasized that only five times since the current Extradition Act was enacted in 1999 has a judge sought to stay proceedings because of abuse of process. A stay required extraordinary misconduct, he said."

So it seems our governments do in fact agree that what's good for Cisco is good for the nation(s).

Re:I saw this one a mile away

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid Mike, that you haven't kept up on your reading.

Take a look at the Wikileaks articles that Micheal Geist has posted. Here is just one:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5765/125/

This is clearly bowing to US interests.

Re:I saw this one a mile away

[MikeBabcock]

Do tell me how you figure.

We still have legal music sharing and copying.

Our judges threw out music industry lawsuits seeking ISP data on file sharers, comparing file sharing applications to photocopiers in libraries.

We pay a levy on blank media that gives us the right to make our own copies of music, etc. without any threat of being sued.

We have the legal right to rebroadcast any broadcast media free of charge or otherwise so long as its not modified (you may retransmit OTA signals to others).

We have not passed any digital circumvention bills such as the DMCA that would prevent us from exerting our rights.

We do however have one stupid piece of legislation making it illegal to bring a recording device (including a smart phone) into a movie theatre. Its never enforced at any theatre I go to however.

How much jail time will the US attorney's do?

[fredrated]

How about 'none at all' because rule of law now only apply's to those that have no pull or can't afford to buy their way out.

Re:How much jail time will the US attorney's do?

[Maximum Prophet]

I'm sure they'll never be allowed to practice law in Canada. (or Zimbabwe, or certain parts of Lichtenstein)

Defendant is the winner

[toby]

He gets to live in beautiful, functional Switzerland instead of the shithole that is the USA today. :) Justice DONE.

Not the first time we've lied to Canada

[Quila]

Remember the Leonard Peltier extradition?

Re:Not the first time we've lied to Canada

[Skuld-Chan]

Or Mark Emery:

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

Who they did extradite and is serving time in a federal pound me in the ass prison.

Re:Not the first time we've lied to Canada

[Cigarra]

How about the "extraordinary rendition" of a canadian citizen to be tortured in Syria?

Re:Not the first time we've lied to Canada

[formfeed]

Except for a few ex-AIM, nobody does.

Uhm, you're alread in a dictatorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, you're alread in a dictatorship. The only difference is you change the dictator for a new face every 4-12 years. You can get the same effect with much less expense by assasination.

What? You thought there was democracy in the USA??? Really, go look at the Supreme Court saying Ashcroft is immune to prosecution for an obvious pretext that is intended to circumvent the constitution.

Now tell me how your country is any different from a dictatorship.

Jefferson once said.

[gubers33]

The government is becoming big business's puppet. If there is a law exists that pervents big business CEO from making bank, the law is changed or removed for them. *cough* Financial controls in the stock market *cough* Reminds me of Jefferson's quote before the Revolutionary War... "And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

Re:Uhm, you're alread in a dictatorship

[tnk1]

You clearly have no concept of what an actual dictatorship is if you believe that.

Yes, the US government falls short of its ideals. That doesn't mean it's a dictatorship. That's pure hyperbole.

Charge them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lying to a court is perjury. Canada needs to charge the US attorneys and all Cisco representatives involved with perjury and demand that they be extradited for prosecution.

This is news?!

[Ora*DBA]

Prosecutors and police routinely lie - to judges, suspects, people they want information from - with no sanctions whatsoever. Someone, somewhere has to enforce the notion that the end does not justify the means in our legal process. Go ACLU! (btw, I consider myself conservative) While they're at it, perhaps they could bring a constitutional lawsuit against NJ, Illinois, Virginia et al. for trying to make an end run around Sixth Amendment protections in domestic violence cases.

Our government is an inch from outright socialism, our justice system an inch from outright fascism. I own guns for a reason.

Re:Uhm, you're alread in a dictatorship

[Lemmy Caution]

The US is too big to be a democracy in any meaningful sense. If the level of representation we have now was in effect during the early years of the country, they would have had a total of two representatives.

Its ideals are simply unreachable given the scale and nature of what this country has become. It may be possible to create new ideals, but we are still a bit too comfortable. And that is why corporations are able to pull the kind of nonsense that the story describes above: because as long people can buy shiny things using their inflated purchasing power at a Walmart, they'll give it all a pass. They give Gitmo a pass, they give the war on drugs a pass. Really, the government can do anything it wants to a minority of people as long as the majority are fat and happy, without answering for it.

Hah! Nice try, Cisco,

[Seizurebleak]

But the only people allowed to pull a fast one on us Canadians are our politicians and our telecom companies.

Democracy in Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

> it's about time we brought some democracy to Canada.

Canada doesn't believe in Democracy. Well, they sort of do. But some people are more equal than others. The French-speaking (Government workers above a certain pay-grade are all forced to know french if they don't, but not forced to know English) for example.

Unhappy Judge

[Anonymous Coward]

By the sounds of it the good judge was not happy. Good to hear some plain speaking though.

Corporation RPG

[sesshomaru]

There will come a time when the nations of the world will cease to exist. When the anachronisms of state and country are finally crushed by the inexorable juggernaut of total corporate domination. When five monolithic Corporations are the new world powers. When the lives of billions are the sole property of the companies that employ them. .

-- http://www.ccgarmory.com/corporationrpg.html

...Tick...

The CSI effect

[sjames]

Prosecutors lament the CSI effect where juries are increasingly demanding physical forensic evidence before they will convict. They blame this entirely on the show, but it seems they need to also look in the mirror.

It seems we see more and more news stories where prosecutors, the DoJ, and police are caught purjuring themselves (but practically never being penalized for it). It seems likely that citizen jurors want more than their "good word" these days and CSI did nothing more than suggest to them what that more might be. When prosecutors lament the "CSI effect" they really are complaining that citizens will no longer send people to prison just because they say so. They might, God forbid, have to do their damned job.

They used to have that level of respect and trust, but years of shameful behavior and violation of trust have tarnished their reputations.

That was US/Canadian cooperation

[Quila]

They did the Canadian side such as getting us evidence in Canada (like lying about his relationship with a known terrorist's brother), and we caught him and shipped him off to Syria.

Lyrics time!

[JThundley]

Welcome To The Future by Left Spine Down

I love my country but I fear my government
I love my country but I fear they're watching me
All the time
Isn't that a crime?

I see them fighting all their wars on the TV screen
Mindless corruption with no accountability
Can't you see

Every time I try to fight it they deny it
Every time I try to show it they control it
All the time
They have cameras
They have guns
They've got big atomic bombs
And they'll do everything they can
To frighten me/you

They try to tell me that everything's okay
They will distract me in every bloody way
It's so insane to live this way

They spy on me using everything they got
They'll try to change me and control
My every thought
All the time
Yes it's a crime

Don't wanna live in constant fear
Don't wanna live on a TV show
Don't wanna live through a microscope
I wanna feel like I'm in control

I wanna live in a fearless state
I wanna live without the hate
I wanna be able to decide my fate
I wanna break out of this cage

Take it back
(Welcome to the future)