Australian Deported From Bahrain Over Facebook Posts

An anonymous reader writes "Australian English instructor Tony Mitchell recently moved to Bahrain where he was offered a job at the state-run Polytechnic University. He described himself as a witness of the various horrifying events in the struggling country (see The Atlantic's four-part series). Mitchell was eventually fired, evicted, and forced to flee because of posts he made on Facebook."

Comments

When in Rome

[hedwards]

It's probably best not to write bad things about the Emperor.

Seriously, when you're in somebody elses country you need to be really mindful about what you say or do that's likely to upset the government.

Re:When in Rome

[MichaelSmith]

He's not in the USA.

Re:When in Rome

[inzy]

on the other hand, some would say he had balls for standing up to the oppressors. he stands up for what he thinks is right, and you say "well, it's your own fault" when he gets deported? perhaps if more people stood up, not less, we wouldn't have these problems, regardless of having crossed some arbitrary boundary like a nation-state border. we're all humans, irrespective of where we are. show some backbone and stop being so subservient to power

Re:When in Rome

[hedwards]

If one feels that strongly about it, one probably shouldn't be taking a job there. Pissing off the government in somebody elses country then accepting deportation as punishment is hardly something that's going to do much for the quality of life of the people living there.

Re:When in Rome

[hedwards]

I'm from the US to, but that doesn't mean that I'd move to Iran and start badmouthing the Iranian authorities. Same goes for any other countries.

Even the US has its standards and if as somebody here on a visa one does something that pisses off the government one shouldn't be surprised if one isn't offered a renewal.

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

At least until someone mutters terrorist and bundles you into a black SUV.

Re:When in Rome

[elrous0]

It's probably best not to write bad things about the Emperor.

And if you do, you had better be the mad Jester in the court. Otherwise don't get too attached to that whole "breathing" thing.

Re:When in Rome

[bigstrat2003]

Nor is he from the USA. I'm inclined to think that the GP is trying some very subtle troll, cause it's obvious from the summary that the dude is Australian.

Re:When in Rome

[Skapare]

It's probably best not to write bad things about the Emperor.

Seriously, when you're in somebody elses country you need to be really mindful about what you say or do that's likely to upset the government.

Or the people that run the government.

Re:When in Rome

[Synerg1y]

True, my point is he was raised different, its not uncommon for people who move to different countries later in life, struggle culturally. In this case, the government controls the culture with fear, so clashing with the culture = clashing w the government, make sense?

While we can make an argument for how arrogant it makes us Americans, but we are used to having the 1st amendment shielding us and having lived w it your whole life, you come to expect it.

Re:When in Rome

[rsilvergun]

Yep, Live and Breath the 1st....

Re:When in Rome

[rtfa-troll]

He's not in the USA.

No; but freedom of speech is not a right which suddenly disappears when you cross the Mexican border. This is a fundamental and ancient right which nobody has the right to take away from you no matter what. This man knew that he was putting himself at risk but when he "saw the government's brutal response to a fledgling revolution, he knew he couldn't stay neutral". The point where you start to criticise him for doing that is the point where you have become supporter of the oppressor.

People who stand up for freedom need our support; they already know that they are putting themselves at risk and don't need the words of a bunch of cowards afraid of their own shadows to tell them that.

Re:When in Rome

[Fjandr]

Point taken, though he's still not American.

Re:When in Rome

[ClioCJS]

And yet, checking the immigration status of people arrested is somehow racist...

Re:When in Rome

[Synerg1y]

Not sure why I thought that, I did read the article for once :P

I guess he's just kinda dumb for doing what he did either way.

Re:When in Rome

[rtfa-troll]

I'm inclined to think that the GP is trying some very subtle troll

I don't think so. American law generally is pretty clear that all of the rights in the constitution apply equally to foreigners and there has been a bunch of case law saying that you can't take away free speech from people just because they aren't citizens. This is a thing which quite a few Americans are rightly proud of. Recently there has been a bunch of outrageous stupidity with things like Guantanamo (indefinite detainment without trial for foreigners) and SOPA (taking away domains from foreigners) but mostly these are outright abuses of the law and the government there still tries to avoid such things getting to court because there is a good chance they would lose.

I think the grandparent was just, as he should pointing out that there are other countries, such as the USA (or Iceland or in fact the whole EU etc.), which are superior to Bahrain in that they support everybody's right to free speech even if they are just visiting.

Re:When in Rome

[MichaelSmith]

In a way this is an example of why third world countries don't improve to first world standards. Their best people leave to first world countries. As a result the third world country is run by third world leaders supported by third world voters. First world guy drops in to get a job, discovers that the place is badly run and follows emigrants from that country back to his own first world country.

So if you want to see improvement in Bahrain, don't allow immigration from that country at all, for at least a generation. People with the ability to change things will be forced to do it on their own turf.

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

Quaint right to free speech? All people should have such a quaint right you idiot.

Re:When in Rome

[element-o.p.]

No; but freedom of speech is not a right which suddenly disappears when you cross the Mexican border. This is a fundamental and ancient right which nobody has the right to take away from you no matter what.

Agreed, although I would go one step further to say that, while this is a fundamental right that nobody has the right to take away from you, that doesn't mean that people with power won't try, nor does it mean that you will not (possibly) suffer for attempting to exercise that right. There is a subtle distinction between "This is the way it should be" and "This is the way it is."

This man knew that he was putting himself at risk but when he "saw the government's brutal response to a fledgling revolution, he knew he couldn't stay neutral". The point where you start to criticise him for doing that is the point where you have become supporter of the oppressor.

People who stand up for freedom need our support; they already know that they are putting themselves at risk and don't need the words of a bunch of cowards afraid of their own shadows to tell them that.

Agreed, without reservations.

Re:When in Rome

[Dhalka226]

on the other hand, some would say he had balls for standing up to the oppressors.

He does.

he stands up for what he thinks is right, and you say "well, it's your own fault" when he gets deported?

It is. They are not mutually exclusive.

I support people standing up for whatever they believe in, and I certainly support this guy's cause. At the same time, I have no idea where this notion that one should be free from consequences if they are doing what they feel is right has come from. It is not a thing to be proud of, but it is a reality. Black people were arrested and beaten constantly standing up for their rights in the civil rights area. I'm sure none of them wanted to be, and but I also don't remember them going on about how they were in disbelief that they were arrested for breaking the law. They expected it. That was their way of standing up and drawing attention to how bad things were.

So yes, he is welcome to stand up to oppressors, but he has to also be willing to accept the consequences of doing so. That's pretty much the crux of the whole "taking a stand" thing; if you're only doing it with the expectation there will never be consequences, you're not exactly going out on a limb are you? Frankly he should be quite happy with the results. Things aren't too bad for him and he has made the news nationally and internationally. That's damn close to a best case scenario for people hoping to effect change.

Re:When in Rome

[rtfa-troll]

I'm from the US to, but that doesn't mean that I'd move to Iran and start badmouthing the Iranian authorities.

That's not the question. The question is:

Your company sends you for a one year contract in Iran; you see your male neighbor rape another female neighbor. Then he reports her to the police. Now she, the rape victim, is going up for trial for adultery and likely to be stoned to death. Do you say it's wrong?

You never intended to badmouth the Iranians; You wanted to support their culture and be open; but now you are faced with the bad side of it. Are you really saying it's a better person who lets the rape victim be stoned to death without a word?

Re:When in Rome

[Nutria]

freedom of speech ... is a ... ancient right

ROTFLMAO.

which nobody has the right to take away from you no matter what

Multiculturalism believes that all cultures are just as valid as "Western Judeo-Christianity", and their culture says, "don't insult the Sultan".

[sarcasm]Multiculturalism FTW!![/sarcasm]

Re:When in Rome

[rsilvergun]

You know I should add, I know I'm trolling, but I'm bitter the movement was shut down so fast. You know they used the %@#$ Patriot Act to crack down on the protestors? I was really hoping it would go somewhere. Change the National Narrative. I wish I could say it was nice while it lasted but it didn't even last that long...

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, when you're in somebody elses country you need to be really mindful about what you say or do that's likely to upset the government.

Ummm, no. Let me fix that for you:

When you're in an Arab country with no human rights, you need to be really mindful about what you say or do that's likely to upset the government.

There are many expatriates who make a lot of money working for a rich Gulf state. But you have no rights. Conduct yourself accordingly.

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but when does USA law apply to Bahrain? Despite what the USA likes to believe, it had borders and its law have limits (which is a "Good Thing"(tm) considering what the USA is trying to ram down everyone's throats of late).

Re:When in Rome

[0ld_d0g]

Yeah because all the people carrying obama is hitler signs are in prison.. oh wait..

Re:When in Rome

[flaming error]

Some of us walk on eggshells, some of us throw eggs. If the worst that could happen is deportation, I could egg a tyrant.

Re:When in Rome

[Bucc5062]

Wow. That was a face slap of cold water...but well put.

I'll bite on this for a moment and play the "what would I do" game. Given what you said, I would quietly make plans to get out of the country quickly, but with reason. I'd tell my local boss I have family issues that need addressing at home and it wont take long. Before male neighbor or female neighbor truly discover I witnessed this atrocity I am on a plane, back for home. My next stop is to call a recruiter to begin looking for a new job, because no matter what the outcome, I am screwed. I tell the home office it is impossible for me to go back to Iran because I was witness to a crime that was legal in that country, but goes against everything I believe in. If I don't value my life I then go to the press and report my story knowing it may create back lash against me, but brings out the sad tale. If I do I shut up, pray I don't get fired and hope the recruiter can find me a new job.

Personally, I would never take a job in a country like Iran, no matter how beautiful the country may be, how friendly the general population may be. It is not the general population I fear, it is the government and in such a place, I have no protection...period.

You really raised a good point, one people in countries like the US, Australia, England, at el miss. When we provide aid to overt dictators (be they religious or secular) we grant them some level of value, of power they do not deserve. There will always be people who will do anything for money. Given your example, that person in Iran would look the other way, say thank you for the big check and live with no conscious.
   

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no voting... mostly it's dictators, monarchs or military strongmen.

Re:When in Rome

[fusiongyro]

That is, of course, merely curtailing another fundamental human right to resettle. Beyond that, it was tried (and didn't work) for the USSR.

Re:When in Rome

[LunaticTippy]

It's risky. I have family in Saudi Arabia, and they are afraid enough of Saudi courts and the monarchy that they would never criticize anything on the record. People are treated inhumanely, especially women, and few people say anything about it. If I were to ever visit a country like that I would keep my mouth firmly closed while on the record. Even if I left, vowing never to return, I would be scared to openly criticize much.

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

Show no pity or sympathy for the Aussie. Westerners are paid big bucks to work in those oil-rich kingdoms, and this prick did nothing but bite the hand that feeds him. It was his decision to teach there.

If, as is the case here, the hand that feeds you is part of a repressive regime of questionable legitimacy that one, in all good conscience, should be opposing rather than supporting- I don't see anything morally wrong or ungrateful with someone biting that hand. Quite the opposite. I'd rather they f****** bit it right off.

Arguably what the guy did wrong was to overlook the repressive nature of the regime in the first place and work in that country under the leadership's terms in exchange for their "big bucks".

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I travel to the US and make 9/11 jokes at the airport?

Re:When in Rome

[sunderland56]

freedom of speech is not a right which suddenly disappears when you cross the Mexican border. This is a fundamental and ancient right

[citation needed]

Seriously - name a country that had such a right before 1776.

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

Try waving a US flag in Mexico, or saying things against it's government...you could find yourself staring a a brick wall in a mexican cell with no expectations of being free for a long time.

Re:When in Rome

[Fjandr]

I completely agree he should've kept his mouth shut, or at least expected consequences. Bahrain isn't known for its tolerance of dissent.

Re:When in Rome

[icebraining]

or in fact the whole EU

Not quite, while most speech is free here, we still criminalize some at least in part of the countries. For example in Germany, where denying the holocaust is unlawful (and in fact, such laws were first imposed by the US Army when they took control after WWII - apparently, Free Speech only counts back home).

Re:When in Rome

[treeves]

...and if the cultural norm is to shoot people for peacefully protesting, we should just accept that cultural difference and be happy.

Re:When in Rome

[Synerg1y]

Probably, you'd get a bunch of pissed of people looks and some TSA would probably ask you to keep moving and if you didn't, he'd take you to the office on disturbing the peace, let you sit for an hour and tell you to gtfo. Don't expect a black bag and a beating though.

Did you hear the one about American Airlines new deal? They’ll fly you straight from the airport to the office.

Re:When in Rome

[Gadget_Guy]

Actually, it does date back a long time. The concept was not an invention of the US consititution.

Re:When in Rome

[cavreader]

"American law generally is pretty clear that all of the rights in the constitution apply equally to foreigners>
I think there is still a lot grey areas when it comes to dealing with non-resident foreigners.
Guantanamo has always been a half ass and reckless way of handing a problem that doesn't really fit into any existing US judicial system. Those captured on foreign territory engaged in hostilities against the US has caused the problem. The US judicial system is not a real good option. Any terrorist detained in the US do have the right to the same US judicial system and protections that all citizens have. It's those detained in foreign countries that is presenting the problem. Technically they are prisoners of war and the normal process in wartime is to re-patriot them to their home countries after hostilities have ended. This type of system does not really apply either because the hostilities have not ended and I doubt the hostilities will end anytime soon. In addition the International Geneva Conventions allows for the summary execution of those captured during war that bear no insignia or other identification that proves they are agents of the state governments involved in the war. I believe this item was targeted at spy's and grew out of WW2 and the cold war eras. The US has tried to release a majority of the prisoners but no country is willing to accept them. The US has even used bribes to encourage a country to accept the prisoner without much luck. I don't know why the US just doesn't strap parachutes on those being released and air drop them back where they first captured and be done with.

Re:When in Rome

[blackraven14250]

Free speech only counts back home, but only because there was a huge portion of the German populace that refused to believe it happened. Cult-like indoctrination of a country is a long process which Hitler successfully performed, and it takes drastic measures to undo said indoctrination.

Re:When in Rome

[ekgringo]

I did a semester of school in Saudi Arabia in an ASL (Arabic as a Second Language) program. None of the instructors would say anything but glowing praise about the government (if they bothered to mention it at all) except one. He would tow the party line loudly for a minute, get up, close the door, then speak in hushed tones in a slightly less-enthusiastic manner than the usual "rah rah rah King!" After a few minutes of not-quite-praise of the government, he would open the door and move on with the rest of the normal lesson.

Re:When in Rome

[TubeSteak]

In a way this is an example of why third world countries don't improve to first world standards. Their best people leave to first world countries. As a result the third world country is run by third world leaders supported by third world voters.

Ha!
Bahrain is a third world country supported by the US of A.
The same goes for Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE, and Qatar.
(I may have missed a middle eastern country or two, there are a few asian ones I didn't include)

As long as they're with us on Oil, Israel, and the Global War on Terror, we give them free reign to act like assholes to their own citizens.

Re:When in Rome

[icebraining]

And the government of Bahrein is just taking drastic measures to ensure the internal stability. That line justifies just about any governmental abuse.

They did it because they didn't give a fuck about any rights and knew the majority of the US population wouldn't give a fuck either.

Re:When in Rome

[JesseMcDonald]

The idea that it's wrong to harm someone physically or deprive them of their possessions based merely on something they said, especially if it's true, can be traced all the way back to the idea of proportional response, and even to the Golden Rule. These concepts are among the oldest principles of justice around, predating even the concepts of nations and governments, much less political philosophy and formally recognized rights.

Re:When in Rome

[MichaelSmith]

Without the USA the countries you list would just go back to living in tents, riding around on camels and cutting each others heads off. (to paraphrase a line from Syriana). It won't make a difference to their third world status.

Re:When in Rome

[sunderland56]

The concept, no. But in practice, if a slave in e.g. ancient Rome went up to a centurion and spoke his mind, bad things would happen to him.

The US Constitution did not, of course, guarantee freedom of speech either. Black slaves were most certainly not free to speak as they wanted.

Re:When in Rome

[toutankh]

Well in France such a law appeared in 1990. Sorry, it's in French, a very short English translation is available. According to the same page similar laws in Germany date from 1985 and 1994, there's no mention of a post-war law, citation about this anyone?

Anyway, the bottom line is, there is an official History in some European countries, which I believe is not the case in the US.

Re:When in Rome

[blackraven14250]

No, they didn't do it out of a "lack of giving a fuck about any rights". Have you ever met a WW2 vet? They were ALL there for a noble cause that they understood, even if they were scared shitless of the prospect of being in the war. Not a single one of them "didn't give a fuck" about rights. These were real heroes; they were there to save the fucking world from the oppression that Hitler represented and actively implemented on the people he didn't exterminate, because the reality was that he was going to take over Europe and eventually get to American soil, after consolidating a European base with his incredibly effective war machine. That was the mindset of every fucking soldier over there, not this paranoid oppression of free speech bullshit. This was the absolute prime example of "They came for the Jews, and I did nothing. They came for the gays, and I did nothing. Then they came for me, and nobody was left to help.", and every person knew it. They were undoing the damage he had done to German society, not trampling over the rights of the German people, and for anyone to say otherwise is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

Re:When in Rome

[mywhitewolf]

blaming the victim if i ever heard. regardless of weather its "custom" to ignore the disgressions of the government, doesn't

Re:When in Rome

[mywhitewolf]

he would also probably be stripped and searched too.

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

Without the USA the countries you list would just go back to living in tents, riding around on camels and cutting each others heads off. (to paraphrase a line from Syriana). It won't make a difference to their third world status.

And eventually maybe they'd manage to fix things, even if it took them a century or so. They need to break from the status quo, only then they have a chance to do it right - if they're lucky maybe women will even be allowed to drive then.

Re:When in Rome

[blackraven14250]

There may not have needed to be a law in Germany post-war, it may have been a different variety of manipulation. Don't forget, significant numbers of American troops were stationed there during the cold war, and could have enforced such a prohibition without the need for an act of the German government. Wikipedia source that confirms that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Nazification#American_zone

Re:When in Rome

[Aighearach]

He didn't stand up to oppressors, he posted video on facebook that got a bunch of protesters arrested and some of his colleges at the University killed (presumably, they've been disappeared)

Re:When in Rome

[Aighearach]

Sorry, "colleagues." I had to go bum a quarter to buy that one and bring it back.

Re:When in Rome

[cavreader]

If Germany was to start adopting the same aggressiveness today against it's neighboring countries the Europeans would do the same thing they did the first time around which is nothing but engage in meaningless diplomatic talks and abandon any of their allies in an effort to appease the German aggressiveness. The US could have stayed out of the European theater in WW2 because there were no US interests particularly endangered. The Germans couldn't successfully cross the Chanel to attack Britain let alone cross the Atlantic with a large enough invasion force to attack the US. By the time they could have did so the US had it's nuclear deterence to prevent any such invasion. When Japan made one of the stupidest military decisions in history in attacking the US the US made the European theater their first priority when they officially declared war. The Americans gained nothing out of WW2 in Europe. Instead the US just ended up providing the European countries with military and economic aid for 40+ years. It's still hard to except that the US would sacrifice so many lives fighting for Europe when it is obvious the Europe would not do the same thing for the US if necessary. The civilian navy merchantmen and ships lost just trying to supply England with everything from food to aircraft is never appreciated. Keeping the USSR in check has never been appreciated. The only country that steps up to help the US today is England because they still remember how close they remember how close they came from losing their country by relying on soft power and diplomacy. They are the only country the US can usually count on for support when necessary. The rest of Europe just stands around naval gazing and complaining. NATO is a useless institution where the majority of members are so far behind US military technology they can not even interface with US battlefield systems. The only thing thing they are good at is holding the US coats and staying out of the way of the US military. The Europeans could not handle the Balkan wars without US assistance. Most of the European countries could not even deploy their troops and equipment to Afghanistan without US help. NATO couldn't take out the Libyan air defense systems in a timely fashion and had to get the US to do it for them. I am glad the US is downsizing the military and hopefully they start the process by removing all troops and equipment from Europe and let them handle their own problems for a change. And as a bonus they should also punt the expense of the missile defense system in Europe. The US is in no danger of missiles from anyone in the the middle eastern countries so why spend US money on the project?

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but his silly actions contradict and makes it look like his from usa.

Re:When in Rome

[Fjandr]

There are many occasions where it is perfectly reasonable to blame the victim. Knowingly doing something that entails risk makes one at least partially responsible for the outcome.

If you walk into a biker bar and start making rude gestures, you bear responsibility for getting the crap kicked out of you. It doesn't excuse the bikers from culpability for assault, but ignoring a likely outcome is just plain stupid.

There are times where blaming the victim is unreasonable. That doesn't negate the fact there are times when objecting to blaming the victim is absolutely moronic.

Re:When in Rome

[will_die]

I am a USA citizen on a work visa in Europe,EU portion, and part of the agreement I am under is that I am not allowed to talk/write against the local government.

Re:When in Rome

[RockDoctor]

American law generally is pretty clear that

... other countries don't have to apply it in their own territory (crotch-groping airport security and copyright infringement excepted).

End of argument.

Most Middle Eastern states are various degrees of not-free speech. You know that before you go in (well, you do if you're not an utter idiot) ; entry is an implicit (and often explicit, in the conditions of your visa, contract or landing card) acceptance that their laws apply to you.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence.

Excuse me for not being terribly outraged about this. Not even surprised.

Re:When in Rome

[Yev000]

I agree with you that US only entered WW2 due to pearl harbour, but I'm curious, would you prefer a Russian or German Europe to what it is now? And if anything Japan showed US that it is not untouchable.

US profited big time from WW2 in various ways, I'd say that European countries (UK included) have more than paid their debt to the US by now.

What I'm trying to say is that the world of politics is a little bit more complicated than "I helped you, be grateful". There are a lot of fingers in the same pie, I'm absolutely sure than the US gets more than their fair share.

I'd also be careful what you wish for. Despite appearances, European economy is a lot larger than US Economy. US needs Europe more than Europe needs US. And we all need China and Russia more than most people realise.

So how about we all try and get along without bickering about who helped who 70 years ago. It's starting to sound almost as bad as complaining about the crusade.

Re:When in Rome

[iserlohn]

The victory of the allies assured US economic dominance for the next 60 years. That would have never happened if Germany conquered all of Europe, and the Japanese all of East-Asia.

If you were around in the 1940's, your isolationist worldview would fit right in with the popular opinion at the time. It was fortuanate that some disagreed with your ilk.

Re:When in Rome

[HopefulIntern]

The rest of Europe just stands around naval gazing and complaining

Naval gazing? Staring at the Navy? At the ocean? Or did you mean navel gazing? And sorry if we don't want to join in your Imperialist genocides but we happen to think that every conflict you have engaged in since WW2 have been unjust, that is why we abstain.

Re:When in Rome

[Grishnakh]

I think the grandparent was just, as he should pointing out that there are other countries, such as the USA (or Iceland or in fact the whole EU etc.), which are superior to Bahrain in that they support everybody's right to free speech even if they are just visiting.

Huh?

I think it's more like "any industrialized country on Earth is superior to Bahrain...". Seriously, expecting free speech in Bahrain is like expecting free speech when you visit North Korea. How is it any surprise when someone gets deported from there for saying something the government doesn't like?

Re:When in Rome

[Grishnakh]

blaming the victim if i ever heard. regardless of weather its "custom" to ignore the disgressions of the government, doesn't

Sorry, but it's entirely appropriate to blame the victim in many circumstances.

Since you mention weather, let's look at some examples with that. Suppose a woman gets mad at her husband, and to make him scared or whatever, she runs outside, where it's nighttime and -40 and there's several feet of snow on the ground. Her frozen body is found behind the house in springtime. (True story; this happened to someone my wife worked with in Minot ND years ago.) Who should we blame for her death? The weather? Or the woman, for being really, really stupid?

Or, how about something that happens frequently here in Phoenix AZ: someone (either new here or visiting from another state) goes hiking on one of the local mountains, ignores all the signs telling them to bring proper footwear and lots of water, hikes up to the top of some mountain and gets heatstroke, and has to be flown out by helicopter (and these days, is charged with the Stupid Hiker law and made to pay for their rescue). Who's to blame? The weather, for being too hot and dry, or the person for being stupid and not taking the weather into account?

Weather is deadly. Ignoring evacuation orders and sitting out a hurricane has gotten many people killed. Is the hurricane to blame?

It's the same way when you visit a country like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, or North Korea. WTF do you expect in a country like this? First world treatment and respect for human rights? If you do, you're an idiot.

Re:When in Rome

[Grishnakh]

I don't see anything morally wrong or ungrateful with someone biting that hand. Quite the opposite. I'd rather they f****** bit it right off.

There's nothing morally wrong with biting that hand, but it's stupid because that hand can crush you like a gnat. He's lucky that Bahrain isn't quite as bad as North Korea or Myanmar, where he would have just been disappeared.

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

USA doesn't have free speech in the literal sense either. Trade secrets have legal status, censorship is a common occurrence, data collected using public funds is not available to the public and what's about to happen to your internet "rights" has stopped being funny.

The 1st Amendment is, and always has been, a crock. The right of peaceably assembly!

Re:When in Rome

[rtfa-troll]

Citation needed please. Not that I don't believe you, but it's probably an illegal agreement and I would like to follow up and/or at least use it as an example in later arguments.

Re:When in Rome

[icebraining]

The soldiers didn't decide the censorship policy. The fact that you're assuming that I'm criticizing them is absurd. I'm criticizing the decision makers.

And I'm not even so much criticizing the decision, as the hypocrisy of claiming moral superiority as one of the only countries with real free speech, when the US has shown it means squat when shit hits the fans.

the reality was that he was going to take over Europe and eventually get to American soil, after consolidating a European base with his incredibly effective war machine.

That's why the joined the war, and I'm extremely glad they did. But don't come and bullshit me telling me that was the mindset after Germany was taken over, Hitler was dead and the Berlin in flames. The censorship was imposed after the war was over.

They were undoing the damage he had done to German society, not trampling over the rights of the German people, and for anyone to say otherwise is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

Again, that justifies any abuse.

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

oh no dont upset the government...

Re:When in Rome

[Dabido]

Why did I just have flashbacks of the 'Stand Up Philosopher' bit from Mel Brooks 'History of the World Part 1' ???

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

following the status quo wont do anything either...

Re:When in Rome

[CrackedButter]

Not entirely true, the UK and France did declare war eventually on Germany when their excuses dried up over taking back what was supposedly theirs (taken away from them in the treaty of Versaillies.

The US gained an economy from WW2 in Europe, it brought them out of the great depression.

Don't use 'England' when you mean the UK. That'll be four countries technically speaking.

In any case, you need somebody to take the cautious approach. Had the US listened more to world opinion they wouldn't have illegally invaded Iraq. The US had an attitude where they shoot first and maybe bother asking questions later, whereas European nations are more likely to ask themselves whether they should shoot. I like being on the side that thinks at least first before doing something.

Also Afghanistan? Let's not forget who created that mess to begin with; the US.

Re:When in Rome

[Arancaytar]

It's the first word in the headline, even.

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

For a fitting reference, see Gandhi's salt march.

Re:When in Rome

[Alioth]

Hold on - you say the US supplying Britain was never appreciated, then in the very next sentence say that Britain is the only country that steps up to help the US is the UK? Seems like Britain appreciates it. Indeed you'll find a significant number of Brits would like to be the 51st state.

In any case, the US did gain a lot out of Europe, it stopped the USSR controlling Europe. This was done out of self-interest; had the US not done this they would have faced (probably with the exception of Britain, given that the US was already committed to supporting Britain) the entire of continental Europe being communist soviet satellite states, and it was in the US's interest that this did not happen.

Re:When in Rome

[arse maker]

So staying away, saying nothing and passing judgement on /. is the way to go? Go it.

Re:When in Rome

[elrous0]

But in practice, if a slave in e.g. ancient Rome went up to a centurion and spoke his mind, bad things would happen to him.

Try going up to a cop alone in the U.S. sometime and tell him you hate cops and see what happens.

Re:When in Rome

[GameboyRMH]

And could wave goodbye to any computers he's carrying.

Re:When in Rome

[Ihmhi]

Really, you want to say we gained nothing out of the war in Europe?

Forgetting the goodwill that we are still to this day banking on, what about all of the military technology? The things developed for D-Day alone, not to mention the strategies involved...

Re:When in Rome

[AlanS2002]

Not in the USA (where he's from), we live and breath the 1st.

Is that the one which allows you to yell "fire" in a crowded cinema?

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad med survive only when good men fail to act.

Re:When in Rome

[tehcyder]

And what has any of this US flag-waving got to do with an Australian in Bahrain?

At least the Bahrain authorities didn't decide he was a terrorist and lock him up in their equivalent of Guantanamo Bay

Re:When in Rome

[tehcyder]

For example in Germany, where denying the holocaust is unlawful

Gosh, I wonder why?

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

You forget, Israel is the 51st state.

Re:When in Rome

[icebraining]

Well, I mentioned Germany because of the trivia fact, but many other countries do, including semi-neutral parties in the war like Switzerland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Re:When in Rome

[icebraining]

The US leaders thought well before invading Iraq and where perfectly aware of the expected result.

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we're going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

Sound familiar? That was Dick Cheney in '91.

Re:When in Rome

[gknoy]

Exposing the behavior of a repressive regime to the world is something that many of us would feel is part of standing up to an oppressor. Heck, the government of Bahrain felt the same way, or they wouldn't have treated him the way they did in the first place.

I completely agree with Dhalka: The man was both immensely courageous, and in some ways very foolish. One might argue that a willful disregard for one's safety is a big part of courage, but a less-foolish actor would have posted the videos anonymously, and not talked about them on Facebook. That, and take them from some place where people don't know you. Either way, posting the videos in the first place (and being seen filming) were tremendously risky.

I would never have found the courage to do that.

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

Best post I've seen here in months!

Re:When in Rome

[dcw3]

Exactly how did the US profit? Did we gain territory, loot riches, or what? And don't forget, we lost over 400000 lives, and 670000 wounded.

I don't know the financial figures, and a quick google didn't come up with any, but I'd love to hear about the Euro countries paying back their debt...do you have any citations? In all honesty, I don't believe that as a nation, the US was/is looking for any payback...entering the war was the right thing to do. I know that my own grandparents were sending care packages over there for years after.

As for gratitude...Unfortunately, we've had more than our share of fuckups. And, as one of my old bosses told me, it takes 50 "atta-boys" to make up for one "aw-shit" I'd be happy if our leaders would just stop screwing the pooch.

Re:When in Rome

[dcw3]

Including Korea, the first Gulf War, and Bosnia? Seriously? I can understand objections to some of the others, but these all were necessary evils.

Re:When in Rome

[Aighearach]

It was not himself that he got killed, but the very people willing to oppose the oppressor. Without his actions, many of them would remain unknown to the oppressor, and would still be opposing them.

Re:When in Rome

[mjwalshe]

That was because he was a male white first world citizen - there are may poor people imported to do the menial jobs (navvying etc) who are treated very badly.

Re:When in Rome

[Anonymous Coward]

The concept, no. But in practice, if a slave in e.g. ancient Rome went up to a centurion and spoke his mind, bad things would happen to him.

Free speach in Ancient Rome only applied to free Romans.

On the other hand, in Scandinavia, there was something called "tingsfrid" that dates back to at least the 8th century (it was considered as an "ancient" right in the first written accounts from that time). This meant that nobody was allowed, on penalty of death, to hinder anybody from going to the Thing (a cross between a national/local assembly and a court of law (where also the king was elected or dethroned), that occurred 2-4 times a year) and speak their mind. This protection also applied to thralls (which is not exactly the same thing as slaves, but similar, the thrall system was kind of a cross between the later feudal systems of continental Europe and the later Indian cast system, as well as a mean of punishment, because even high bornes could be deemed to serve as thralls, at least for a limited period, if they had broken the law or failed to pay back debts (think Heracles and Eurystheus to get the idea), the thrall system was outlawed, in all areas in which it applied, during the 9th and 10th century (before Scandinavia became Christianised, Christian propaganda a few hundred years late, would claim that it disappeared because of the Christianisation of Scandinavia)). What happened after the Thing is another matter, since there was no law enforcement, the person that spook his/her mind had to persuade enough powerful people, in addition to the law speaker, at the Thing that he was worthy of protection or terrible things could happen to him/her after the Thing. All the judgments from the Thing was carried out privately, usually by either the victim or the criminals family (it was seen as the honorable thing to do), or some allied to the victim. The criminals family and friends usually respected the judgment, even if they not always was the ones that carried it out (and they would be prosecuted at the next Thing if they didn't respected the judgment).

Re:When in Rome

[Yev000]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm

I can come up with more, but I'm lazy and its Saturday.

As for "The right thing to do". It was, but that was not the reason the US Government at the time (not the people so much as always) had gone to war.

"It is a popular misconception among Americans that the US voluntarily entered WW2, at least against the Germans. In fact, the US didn't. The US entered the general war as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the US entered against Japan and did not, repeat not, declare war on Germany." http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_become_involved_in_World_War_2

That was my "quick Google" attempt.

Don't get me wrong, Americans are a good people in my book, but they blow their own trumpet a bit too much. All governments on earth are screwed up to some degree, America is one of the better ones.

Re:When in Rome

[dcw3]

Thanks for the link. Okay, I'm going to nitpick a bit here...

As mentioned in the article, the terms of Lend Lease were very generous (see the Wikipedia quote below), so these payments were really only 10% of the value. Which goes back to my original question of how you believe the US profited, while this clearly indicates the contrary.

My statement "The right thing to do" was related to payback (same sentence), not the reason for entry.

Not sure why you believe there's a "popular misconception among Americans..."...this fact is taught in every US history class.

Regarding trumpeting our own horns. Yes, there are plenty of braggarts here, and having lived overseas for a dozen years (Cold War vet), I didn't see any shortage of them in any of the 50+ countries I've been to. The ones I found most annoying (and embarrassing) were "Ugly Americans" around our military bases. But that's the nature of pumped up young 20-somethings...very full of themselves.

There was no charge for the Lend Lease aid delivered during the war, but the Americans did expect the return of some durable goods such as ships. Congress had not authorized the gift of supplies after the war, so the administration charged for them, usually at a 90% discount. Large quantities of undelivered goods were in Britain or in transit when Lend-Lease terminated on 2 September 1945. Britain wished to retain some of this equipment in the immediate post war period. In 1946, the post-war Anglo-American loan further indebted Britain to the U.S. Lend-lease items retained were sold to Britain at 10% of nominal value, giving an initial loan value of £1.075 billion for the Lend Lease portion of the post-war loans. Payment was to be stretched out over 50 annual payments, starting in 1951 and with five years of deferred payments, at 2% interest.[27] The final payment of $83.3 million (£42.5 million), due on 31 December 2006 (repayment having been deferred in the allowed five years), was made on 29 December 2006 (the last working day of the year). After this final payment Britain's Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Ed Balls, formally thanked the U.S. for its wartime support.

Re:When in Rome

[cavreader]

The US was already starting to recover from the depression before the war started. The war did accelerate the process since most of the countries involved in the war were nothing but piles of rubble both during and after the war.
International opinions are nothing but background noise when it comes to any country actually making decisions that directly effect them. With the "world opinion" so fractured today how could anyone agree on any course of action that doesn't end up pissing off all those who disagree?
"Also Afghanistan? Let's not forget who created that mess to begin with; the US." Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UK are the ones who first created the mess in Afghanistan in the late 70's. The US role was less than any of those other countries and most of the US money went to supporting the Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan.
In todays world the US should have never committed any ground forces in Afghanistan in the first place. They should have limited their involvement to spec ops and drone warfare when necessary. The US should have also not gone into Iraq. There is not a single objective in either of those countries worth even one American life.
The US problem is not that they fire first it's that it doesn't fire enough when the war actually starts. All the nation building bullshit is not a military function. The military role is to kill and destroy the enemy as fast as they can using the tools they have available. If you are going to commit the military they should be allowed to finish their job without a bunch of diplomats breathing down their neck. It's often said the US military lost in Iraq and Afghanistan but that is non-sense. The military was tasked at taking out the Iraqi and Taliban leadership to give the citizens of those countries the opportunity to build something better and they accomplished that goal in a relatively short amount of time. Iraq and Afghanistan have wasted their opportunity. In Iraq a civil war started breaking out the day after the US military left. The same thing will happen when the US leaves Afghanistan. And there is no way in hell the US is ever going to re-commit military resources to those countries after they leave. The best we can hope for is that the warring factions in that region will be too busy killing each other and wont have time to engage in any international mischief. The only thing the various middle eastern countries ever agree on is that the US is the source of all their troubles. With the US gone they can get back to killing one another without any interruptions.

Re:When in Rome

[mywhitewolf]

Unless that risk is entirely at the disgression of a 3rd party.

Re:When in Rome

[Fjandr]

The existence of caveats does nothing to invalidate my statement.

Re:When in Rome

[HopefulIntern]

All filed under "none of your fucking business" in my book. And I do not believe for a second that the Serbs in Bosnia were doing anything but right, kicking violent islamists out of their country (the surviving extremists from that war went on to commit 9/11, so well done for intervening, you reap what you sow). And do not give me the Srebrenica line. Ask someone who was there before you decide you know what happened.

Re:When in Rome

[dcw3]

So, by your logic, if I see someone being raped or murdered, it's "none of your fucking business".

Remember not to ask for help when it happens to you...and we all need help sometimes because there are plenty of jackasses that just want to dominate others.

Re:When in Rome

[HopefulIntern]

Eh, I was in a shitty mood yesterday morning, went a bit OTT. My point was that the US has no leg to stand on calling Europeans cowardly and afraid of conflict, because they themselves are such an aggressive force. And the US were not the only ones involved in the first Gulf War, nor Bosnia, regardless of the morality and legality of those conflicts.

Get out of fail free card.

[Anonymous Coward]

When a tyrannical government buys you a ticket out of their country, you take it.

Re:Get out of fail free card.

[elrous0]

Government: Here's your plane ticket. Get out.

Dissenter: Screw you, man! I'm standing up for FREEDOM!!

Government: We could shock your balls instead.

Dissenter: Which flight was that again?

He is lucky

[stanlyb]

Under the new NDAA bill, he would simply "disappear" without due process. God bless democratic Bahrain.

Re:He is lucky

[Pecisk]

For a love of.... We are talking about Bahrain, not US. It is getting old. Push your message about evil NDAA and POSA in other forums. This one already knows that.

Re:He is lucky

[fusiongyro]

Why do you think all his friends and co-expatriates nervously suggested he leave sooner rather than later?

Re:He is lucky

[icebraining]

Whoosh. NDAA is an US bill; see Section 1021: Indefinite Detention without trial.

Re:He is lucky

[Anonymous Coward]

Woosh...?

GP knows he's talking about Bahrain - NDAA is a US bill. The joke was in the comparison that if he had done the same thing in the US... oh forget it.

Re:He is lucky

[fusiongyro]

Oh, I'm sorry, did I venture on-topic? Here, let me help you back onto your soapbox.

Re:He is lucky

[Aighearach]

sung to the tune of Hampsterdance by Hampton the Hamster

Re:He is lucky

[Pecisk]

What forget it? If he had done the same thing in the US, he would be mentioned several times in the media, he's propably famous, alive and no one would arrest him (shocking!). And now please go panic about something else.

Re:He is lucky

[stanlyb]

Here is how: http://www.businessinsider.com/language-of-ndaa-legal-to-imprison-americans-2012-1
Section 1021 of the NDAA allows the U.S. military to indefinitely detain, without due process, any person engaged in "hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners ... without trial until the end of hostilities."
Section 1022 expressly states that the military will imprison anyone who is a member of al-Qaeda or "an associated force" that acts like al-Qaeda; and anyone who planned or carried out an attack, or attempted attack, against the U.S.
Section 1022 continues that detaining American citizens is not required. "UNITED STATES CITIZENS — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
The bottom line is the government can imprison anyone suspected of or even associated with terrorism. This power is open to wide interpretation and could certainly be abused.

Derp?

[Tyr07]

I'm not saying what happened to him is right. There's a lot of wrong in this world, but a lot of this wrong is fact.

If you go to a country, with a government who performs these acts, while in a public position that's easily identified and, well, damn it's public man.

You're out there easy to see, you're visiting on the basis of the job, and you draw attention to yourself in a country where police damage property and people disappear all the time?

Did you think your justice shield would protect you? It doesn't matter if you're right, it's still not in your best interest to do it.

Wait until you leave the country and don't ever plan / intend to go back (They might be waiting for you) before you start commenting and throwing around any ego (Specifically his comment about wait till after the 30th and I'll tell you)

When you say something like that, it's a slap in the face to the people you're protesting. They told you they want you out, and you know they're watching facebook, so you tell them even tho I promised not to say anything, I'm going to do it as soon as I leave?

Bad idea to show your cards there.

I'm just glad you took the chance to get out and your family is safe. Places like that can get scary very, very fast.

Re:Derp?

[Synerg1y]

Yep, from the article sounds like they black hood people over there, v for vendetta type shit. Dunno, not much we can do, the people over there have to take action somehow. The government is trying its best to prevent this by going as far as monitoring social media.

Re:Derp?

[tsiene]

Did you think your justice shield would protect you? It doesn't matter if you're right, it's still not in your best interest to do it.

Perhaps this is the line that he chooses to cross, in the name of truth and love, that so many others fear to. His best interests are not yours and you should respect his decision.

I'm just glad you took the chance to get out and your family is safe. Places like that can get scary very, very fast.

There is much evil in the world, but when someone threatens those you love, don't ever think that their innocent suffering for your good actions is your fault. It is that of the evil devising and carrying out such terrible threats. This is what true terrorism is all about: Using fear to control others.

Always remember, if you bow to the demands of evil, you bow to your fear, and that evil will never hesitate to feed that fear again.

Re:Derp?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if America wanted to express displeasure with Bahrain, it could start by finding somewhere else to base the Fifth Fleet.

That's why you don't hear nearly as much from the media about Bahrain as you do about Syria or Iran: because Bahrain is a US military ally. That means they can do pretty much whatever they like in their own country.

Re:Derp?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is your responsibility to claim your rights. If they can convince you not to use your rights, its just as wrong.

It is your responsibility to break unjust laws and resist violations of your rights at every opportunity. If you can, you have an obligation to do it for those who can not.

Re:Derp?

[icebraining]

It's not in anyone best interest, because even if it's an act against an oppressive government, it's a piss poor way of doing it. It's like trying to stop a war buy running unarmed in the middle of the battlefield yelling "Stop!". It may be brave, but it's also stupid.

Re:Derp?

[Tyr07]

It's not like in the movies. The world isn't black and white.

Yeah, I agree there's a lot of evil and corruption in the world, but not being in your best interest to do something doesn't imply it's your fault.

It's the fault of the person who commits the action, I never implied otherwise. If someone "makes you angry" and /you/ decide to beat them with a rock. It's /your. fault/ for beating them with a rock. Not theirs for making you angry.

I saw another reply to this which was a perfect example. Running into a war unarmed does nothing but get you killed, no matter how noble or brave it is. No one cares, and people aren't going to suddenly go "Hey this guy is right, we should all stop and put our guns down." No, they'll just question your intelligence and shoot you.

I don't recommend people give in to evil, but if you're going to "fight evil" do it intelligently. Don't broadcast yourself in the open so that evil knows it's target and can act swiftly.

Re:Derp?

[tehcyder]

Why don't the feedom loving peoples of the US and NATO unite to wage war against these cruel tyrants, and dispose them a la Sadaam Hussein and Gadaffi?

Re:Derp?

[Synerg1y]

Simple: Bahrain is a US military ally.

You'd think...

[owlnation]

...that, as an Australian, he'd be used to censorship on the internet.

If you are willing to go to an oppressive country. And in so doing contribute to their economy and success, then... it's just crocodile tears when you find out that that oppressive country is oppressive to you too.

Re:You'd think...

[SpazmodeusG]

To be fair we never allowed that censorship law to pass. There are still forces at work to get the internet censored but currently it's uncensored here in Australia.

Re:You'd think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the country is oppressive to the US Fifth Fleet.

Re:You'd think...

[Anonymous Coward]

"And in so doing contribute to their economy and success"

Like the entire US 5th fleet? We are in the lap of one sadistic regime (Bahrain) to protect the world from another sadistic regime (Iran). The point of all this is?

Re:You'd think...

[icebraining]

What do you mean "we", white man? Not everyone here's from the US, you know?

Re:You'd think...

[mywhitewolf]

not as unsenosred as you think

Labor Senator Kate Lundy said in January 2010 that she is lobbying within the party for an "opt-out" filter, describing it as the "least worst" option.[41] In February 2010 she said she would propose the opt-out option when the filtering legislation goes before caucus.[42]
Stephen Conroy has stated that 85% of Internet Service Providers, including Telstra, Optus, iPrimus and iiNet, welcome the Internet filter.[43] In response, Steve Dalby, iiNet's chief regulatory officer, stated that iiNet as a company does not support the Internet filter, and never has.[44]
On 9 July 2010, Stephen Conroy announced that any mandatory filtering would be delayed until at least 2011.[45]
In June 2011 two Australian ISPs, Telstra and Optus, confirmed they would voluntary block access to a list of child abuse websites provided by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and more websites on a list compiled by unnamed international organizations from mid-year.[46]

there is some minor filtering at the moment, but that won't last long, major filtering will be implemented soon.

Re:You'd think...

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean "we", white man? Not everyone here's from the US, you know?

What makes you think Australians are automatically white?

Re:You'd think...

[arse maker]

The religious conservative movement in australian politics of late is very worrying. I can't remember it being like this in the past.

This is unfortunate.

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

This is unfortunate--there is a great deal that is quite wrong in the world, that is in effect only available on a pull-basis. I met a guy at a panel discussion a few months ago who had been personally tortured by Kaderov, the governor of Chechneya for Moscow. Why the hell do we waste so much time on what they put on the news, when you could actually be reporting that kind of thing on the news? Five to ten minutes a week that isn't a sound-byte, but is someone talking about an issue, would be a massive increase to the information most Americans receive.

Re:This is unfortunate.

[Ltap]

Because that would be too reasonable. One thing I've noticed about modern journalism is that, when dealing with a controversial story, the actual text is almost all paraphrased or written by the journalist, with any involved parties being quotemined for a simple black-white answer: agreement or disagreement. Uncontroversial stories tend to be press releases which are published verbatim. The fundamental idea is that in "important" stories, the journalist needs to "craft" the "narrative" of what happens -- and someone (mis)using literary terminology when dealing with the real-world news should scare you. Essentially, their goal is to "report the news", with the important caveat of it being "as [they] see it." This requires control, which means putting the primary sources, the actual people involved, in a subsidiary position: people merely to be quoted. Allowing people to speak their mind in their own words, free from editing (censorship) and interruption, means journalists become news carriers, the people who help the news spread, not the people who determine what the news will be.

This is why social media is so unimportant, yet undervalued -- it (and the Internet in general) are a powerful tool for uncontrolled self-expression. It is a boon to dissenters and a threat to established regimes (or at least regimes which will compromise enough to allow it at all, or which have the infrastructure to allow it). Despotic regimes are only ever stable in societies which are primitive technologically, limiting their social capacity. Countries which don't want to be too backwards must allow modern technology, but with modern technology comes modern society and dictators become obsolete.

Re:This is unfortunate.

[whm]

Five to ten minutes a week that isn't a sound-byte, but is someone talking about an issue, would be a massive increase to the information most Americans receive.

We have that, it's called NPR.

The Real Name Policy: Partially to Blame

[Midnight_Falcon]

I was a college student in 2002, and my university was one of the first to be offered the ability for students with an @xxx.edu email address to sign up for Facebook.

I signed up for it, looked at it, and saw what it did to my friends in the same dorm -- making them sit in front of the computer for hours at night, scrolling through pictures and comments posted by friends ..all without communicating with them. I also had some serious concerns about privacy, as I started to see various little dramas emerge on campus as a result of information gleaned on Facebook. Also, since you have to use your real, legal name , this becomes very easily googlable and archivable for the future -- so something that seems "cool" in college could later become an embarrassing footnote during a future job search,

I have always used various pseduonyms online, and I use Google+ today for the reason it lets me do this. In such a way, I can contribute comments with more impartiality, and without fear that someone can google it and gain information about my personality, and political preferences.

However, since this person did indeed "friend" folks on Facebook that provided this information, the issue becomes more -- maybe he needs a second facebook or other social networking account so he can air his opinions more honestly?

It seems to me like Facebook's strategy is to make all this information easy to access, and accountable to an individual person -- and they want it to be searchable, indexed, accessible to anyone. The long web of political associations, viewpoints and other issues expressed on Facebook is a treasure trove for investigators and extremely worrisome in totalitarian societies.

How easy would it have been for the FBI to dismantle the Weather Underground in the 70s if all its members were on Facebook using their real names!?!

Re:The Real Name Policy: Partially to Blame

[Anonymous Coward]

How easy would it have been for the FBI to dismantle the Weather Underground in the 70s if all its members were on Facebook using their real names!?!

If only!!!

Oh, I see, you are a fan of terrorists blowing things up.

***Walks away slowly***

Re:The Real Name Policy: Partially to Blame

[Midnight_Falcon]

Replace "Weather Underground" with "Occupy Wall Street", or anything else ..I just intended it as a metasynthatic variable for any radical political group.

It's people who read things like my quote and assume I'm a fan of terrorists that scares me about Facebook postings being taken out of context and hurting people's careers....

Re:The Real Name Policy: Partially to Blame

[CanHasDIY]

It's people who read things like my quote and assume I'm a fan of terrorists that scares me about Facebook postings being taken out of context and hurting people's careers....

No shit.

Here's a better example to use in the future, to avoid idiotic trolling:

How easy would it have been for the British Empire to dismantle the Sons of Liberty in the 1770s if all its members were on Facebook using their real names!?!

Well, avoid trolls who don't hate America, anyway.

Re:The Real Name Policy: Partially to Blame

[Midnight_Falcon]

That's certainly a more diplomatic and just as effective example.

I have to point out that had we been forced to use our "Real Names" on Slashdot, now data-miners have dirt on the both of us: Apparently, according to anonymous coward, I'm pro-terrorists, and you're racist against trolls and the type of person who enjoys calling people idiots.

Of course, that's not actually what happened, but my point is that with real names these little things can be taken out of context and made into something that it's not -- or affect peoples lives and careers. Not cool.

Re:The Real Name Policy: Partially to Blame

[Mashiki]

Except that the weather underground really were terrorists. And the OWS folks really have had no shortage of people who have had murders, rapes, arson's, thefts, destruction of public and private property, tied to them either. The difference between then and now though is that people in the past who were private in say the US weren't looked at with suspicion. Today people who are private in the US are. Though in pretty much anywhere else in the world, the opposite hold true still.

You probably picked a poor example to make your point with, which is your own fault. But a name of an event, tied to a real name will tar you with the same brush all the same. The media does it whenever it feels like it. You just got it because some AC felt like it too. I just pointed out the facts that both the WU and OWS were both like they were. It doesn't matter if you think it was correct or not, or how you did or don't want it to affect or effect someones careers. If you live somewhere, where affiliating your name with something will have verifiable impact on your name, don't use your name.

Re:The Real Name Policy: Partially to Blame

[Midnight_Falcon]

You're right about it being a poor example -- I think "Civil Rights Movement" would be a far better example, and I agree with your sentiment about not using your real name. It's just that Facebook's real name policy has made it easier for people to slip up, I suppose.

But how can it be?

[The Creator]

The lovely lovely democratic freedom loving state of Bahrain is on the US good guy list! (Along with Saudi Arabia)

The US even has troops in these countries so that their own troops can focus on upholding liberty and justice for all!

That Australian chap must have said something really really nasty! Nasty nasty! Must have deserved what he got!

Re:But how can it be?

[Nutria]

The US even has troops in these countries so that their own troops can focus on upholding liberty and justice for all!

Don't be stupid. The only reason we give a rat's ass about them is that precious fluid which powers the world's economy.

Re:But how can it be?

[operagost]

So you want the USA to invade Saudi Arabia and Bahrain?

Re:But how can it be?

[The Creator]

Wow, are you sure there are no other choices than support or invade?

Re:But how can it be?

[mywhitewolf]

I checked, there isn't.. don't verify that though, you don't need to. I double checked.

Look it's not a problem. They are our allies.

[Colin Smith]

The navy needs them, so they can do what they like.

As a general rule ...

[MacTO]

As a general rule, you do NOT criticize a foreign nation while you are in it. This is even true if you are visiting a country with a strong respect for freedom and due process. The reason is simple enough: even though you are expected to obey their laws, you are almost never given the same legal protection as a citizen.

So yes, bring your issues up. Yet you should demonstrate enough patience to protect yourself and the people who you associated with in that country.

Re:As a general rule ...

[Mashiki]

Well...this is pretty much true, unless you're in a western country. Then it's perfectly okay. Try it sometime and see what happens, because in a "western nation" you'll be treated with kid gloves. Anywhere else, they'll put the kid gloves on you before they take a hand, or start lashing you, then deport you.

Nuke Bahrain

[Anonymous Coward]

End fascism

And how is this news?

[MalleusEBHC]

Bahrain beat and killed its own citizens because they dared to demand rights. The rulers are evil tyrants along the lines of Gaddafi, Assad, et al. Kicking an Australian out of the country for what he posted on Facebook is nothing compared to the far more vile atrocities they have committed.

Re:And how is this news?

[icebraining]

Both are news. This involves FACEBOOK! therefore it's considered /. worthy, while the other isn't.

Re:And how is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

"along the lines of Gaddafi and Assad"? As in, he has brown skin? While not meeting the western standard of good, you can just as easily lump Obama in the same category for failing to veto NDAA. Let's use a tiny bit of perspective.

Re:And how is this news?

[MalleusEBHC]

"along the lines of Gaddafi and Assad"? As in, he has brown skin? While not meeting the western standard of good, you can just as easily lump Obama in the same category for failing to veto NDAA. Let's use a tiny bit of perspective.

As in they are all part of the larger Arab Spring movement.

And yes, Obama's signing of NDAA, assassination of al-Awlaki, and litany of other civil rights violations are unequivocally reprehensible. However, until he rolls tanks into a Republican campaign event, it's absurd to put him on the same level as Arab despots.

Re:And how is this news?

[gknoy]

For one, I had not know anything about what was going on in Bahrain (and has been for almost a year, or more) until I read this article and the journalist's other articles at the Atlantic.

Ladies and Gentlemen

[thewils]

Welcome to Bahrain International Airport. Please set your watches back Five Hundred Years.

Re:Ladies and Gentlemen

[couchslug]

Welcome to Islamic governments.

Yet more sensationistic articles

[jklovanc]

Mr. Mitchell was not;
1. "deported" His job ended so he probably no longer had a valid work visa
2. "forced to flee". He was advides by his ex-boss to leave as soon as possible. He could have refused and stayed until he something happened.

How about a little truth in reporting. The issue is bad enough as it is without throwing falsehoods on top.

Re:Yet more sensationistic articles

[idontgno]

"Reading between the lines" and "recognizing subtext" isn't quite the same as "throwing falsehoods."

A threat's a threat, even if they don't wave the electrodes in your face.

Re:Yet more sensationistic articles

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true, most of these cases that I see (living in SA) it's like that, there is a mutual disdain between expat and government, and the facts of the case get mis-reported. But as one of those people living as the guest of another country, I tend to keep my mouth shut in regards to politics or religion. My blog is published in a local newspaper before going online, and I am as respectful as I can be. i have no problem with that...

Re:Yet more sensationistic articles

[stephanruby]

Mr. Mitchell was not;
1. "deported" His job ended so he probably no longer had a valid work visa

His job didn't just end. He was fired (and wasn't allowed to finish the month).

And yes, that's what "deported" means, that your visa suddenly gets invalidated and that your'e no longer welcome in the country. I'm not sure why your'e even bringing up this circular argument.

And yes, you can still be "deported", even if you have to drive yourself unescored to the airport. Just like you can still go to a prison you were sentenced to, even if you have to drive yourself (or have a friend drive you) unescorted to that prison. Coercive force doesn't have to be direct. It only needs to be implied.

2. "forced to flee" [...] He could have refused and stayed until he something happened.

The guy had just videotaped a police man shoot a peaceful protester in the back (unless you don't believe that part either). This is not to mention what happened to some of the non-teaching staff members who were rounded up at the school and then taken to an undisclosed location that following day (and who the hell knows what happened to them after that).

For such a guy who's just been fired and advised to leave the country as soon as possible, and seen some of his colleagues disappear already, it really doesn't get more coercive than that. This isn't Hollywood, you do not play lawyer with a country who doesn't have due process and you do not try to play chicken with people who do not value human lives.

How about a little truth in reporting. The issue is bad enough as it is without throwing falsehoods on top.

That's your interpretation, not mine. Is that the only two falsehoods you've detected so far?

Re:Yet more sensationistic articles

[jklovanc]

"deported"
By this logic anyone who's visa has run out and left any country had been "deported". Someone higher up than the head of the State run University decided that they did not want an activist working for the Government and had him fired. His visa was no longer valid so he left the country. No member of the security apparatus, read police office, immigration officer, soldier, etc, told him to leave; that would have been deportation. I was not aware that the head of a University was part of the security apparatus.

"forced to flee"
For someone to be "forced to flee" required "force" to be applied directly to that person to induce them to "flee". Had a member of the security apparatus told him "Leave or bed things will happen" I would see that as force. I do not consider the head of a university advising he leave as soon as possible as "force"; advice? sure but force? no.

Had the article been posted as "Australian's visa revoked in Bahrain over Facebook Posts" and the line in the summary changed to " Mitchell was eventually fired, evicted, and advised to flee because of posts he made on Facebook." Those are both accurate statements without exaggerating the situation.

Let them eat cake

[lucm]

He's not in the USA.

No; but freedom of speech is not a right which suddenly disappears when you cross the Mexican border. This is a fundamental and ancient right which nobody has the right to take away from you no matter what.

Of course freedom of speech allows you to say something that is so blatantly wrong, but it also allows me to correct you... In some countries there is some degree of freedom of speech but nothing like in the USA.

As an example, in France making a sexist or racist joke can lead to jail time. And France is not Myanmar. Canada has also strong laws regarding "hate propaganda" and antisemitism.

When you say that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, you remind me of a child that does not understand that their poor neighbor can't afford a Xbox like they do.

Re:Let them eat cake

[rtfa-troll]

Of course freedom of speech allows you to say something that is so blatantly wrong, but it also allows me to correct you... In some countries there is some degree of freedom of speech but nothing like in the USA.

As an example, in France making a sexist or racist joke can lead to jail time. And France is not Myanmar. Canada has also strong laws regarding "hate propaganda" and antisemitism.

The thing about rights is that, even if they are fundamental, they can never be absolute. You have the "right" to live, but if a supernova destroys planet earth not even the supreme court of the USA will be able to enforce that right for you.

The right to free speech is impacted by a bunch of different things. In particular, following the experience of the second world war it was realised in a number of countries that the right to spread Nazi propaganda directly impacts on the right of people like Jews to life. For this reason many countries which stil recognise the right to freedom of speech end up with some limits on it. The classic example is that it is illegal to shout "fire" in a theatre in the USA unless there really is a fire.

In the USA the compromises are different from elsewhere, but they still exist. In fact, the USA is one of the worst countries in the world for the ability to access mainstream media with non standard political viewpoints. The speech which is recognised as most protected by the supreme court (political) is the one which just isn't available to poor people. Other countries, such as France, are far superior in this regard since they have laws which ensure that it is impossible to have the same concentration of media ownership and since they control the use of money in the political process.

That's not to say that the Nazi thing is right. It's just to say that it's not sufficient to say that those countries are worse than the USA in this regard.

When you say that freedom of speech is a fundamental right, you remind me of a child that does not understand that their poor neighbor can't afford a Xbox like they do.

Actually, it just strikes me that I know the meaning of certain words ("fundamental right") and you don't yet. A fundamental right is a very specific moral / legal / philosophical concept. The meaning is a right which comes from your existence as a human being. The idea is that this is a right that you have anyway, which can be protected by law, but which is not given to you by the law. A specific contrast is between freedom of speech, which is a fundamental right and copyright, which is a created right. A change of the law could take away your copyrights, but a change of the law to take away your freedom of speech would be a crime.

Re:Let them eat cake

[cavreader]

"the USA is one of the worst countries in the world for the ability to access mainstream media with non standard political viewpoints"
First off how many countries have you actually visited to test your hypothesis. Do you think US citizens do not have access to the Internet?

What I think

[marketingwarrior1141]

People should be careful of what they post now a days online. It could cost people their jobs.

Hey, we do that too. Worse, really

[rbrander]

All that US prosecutors have to do now is torture the facts until they reveal that your unpopular opinions constitute "material support for terrorism":

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/i-guess-posting-videos-online-can-make-you-terrorist ...you can easily see the Bahrain prosecutors turning "activism" into "terrorism" with a stroke of the pen and a few sad stories of injured policemen at the protests, and the "value of the advertising" of the Facebook page turned into "material support", the way the Bostonian's "free translation for Al-Qaeda" became material support for them.

It's becoming really difficult to find anything these countries do, that we used to be able to look down upon, that they can't now throw into our face.

Re:Hey, we do that too. Worse, really

[eulernet]

a few sad stories of injured policemen at the protests

In Lybia, the goverment says that a lot of soldiers were killed during the protests, but in fact, they were killed by other soldiers because they refused to shoot people.

Being a soldier does not automatically make you a brainless killer.

An Austrailian teaching English?

[Maow]

Perish the thought, I think I'm gonna faint.

I've been there; they barely even speak English.

(joking, just joking)

Re:An Austrailian teaching English?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least they can spell....

Re:An Austrailian teaching English?

[Maow]

At least they can spell....

Austrailian is phonetically accurate, as pronounced in Australia.

Plus "Preview" is suspiciously Australian in appearance, and there isn't an accurate version of that word in English.

Re:An Austrailian teaching English?

[Whiteox]

They speak Australian English and no UK English or US English etc. There is a distinction. I am very surprised at why the Baa-rhainians want to speak Australian English? Must be because of the sheep.

Don't friend people you can't trust

[Quick Reply]

Good that he got out of there OK, honestly I would have left on my own accord after seeing some of that going on, but you would also think that after the first warning that some of his "friends" were monitoring him, that he would have removed all of his Bahrain "friends" or at least put on profile restrictions to restrict his Bahrain "friends" from seeing his wall or profile.

I cant believe some of the rules countries have

[Anonymous Coward]

Im glad I live in america, where I can run my business. www.newcheapmagazines.com would not exist without my rights

What a load of smoke

[Anonymous Coward]

Protests start against the government, and students are being expelled from the *government* schools for taking part in the protests.. .. An ex-pat Australian teacher employed by the government at the government school gets on-line and criticizes the government for their actions .. His employer sits him aside and says "You know, thankyou for your work but we're not going to renew your contract. If you can refrain from criticizing us until the end of the month, we'll be happy to keep you employed until your contract expires" .. The teacher agrees .. Then goes straight back on-line and criticizes his employer again, and again .. The employer decides to terminate him immediately .. But STILL pays for his flight home

In any supposedly free western democracy, this can, has and does occur. If you worked for a corporation in the US and took these actions, not only would you be fired but you'd probably be sued for defamation and breach of contract. If you worked for the US government and took these actions, you would definitely be fired from your job, probably have an FBI file raised against you and would certainly have your background investigated. If you were a sponsored expat and lost your job for these actions, you'd have your working VISA pulled and you would similarly be deported.

The principal difference in other countries is that the host employer (be they government or private) would NOT pay for the return flight.

Everyone seems to be of the opinion that because they live in a 'democratic' state that they're better than the people in Bahrain. Here's some news for you, *the US behaves far worse than Bahrain* .. the fundamental difference is that the students aren't educated well enough to notice!

Use common sense people.

[Lord Kano]

Not all of the world is run like a European/American-style Democracy. Just because you can get away with this sort of thing in a western-style Democracy doesn't mean that you should think you can get away with it anywhere.

Not that I think Bahrain's government is right here, but he had to know that these guys play by these rules.

LK

He is lucky He's Australian

[cmholm]

Bahraini officials gave Mr. Mitchell a ticket out of the country because he is a professional from an Anglophone nation. He could have disappeared into the Bahrani justice system as easily as a Bahrani citizen, but dealing with the cleanup would have been more a PITA than the responsible officials thought it was worth. Being a First World passport holder frequently has its benefits.

Re:He is lucky He's Australian

[arse maker]

Its not just that, they want this university to have good teachers from around the world. If you start locking up people who you hire you are going to have a huge problem getting people to come work for you.

Rules For Bahrain...

[IonOtter]

1. Make huge gobs of money.
2. If you are not there to make money yourself, you better be making money for someone else. (Spending it or being a slave.)
3. If you do ANYTHING that is not 1 or 2, you will soon be dead, deported, or being exploited as a slave to make someone else money.

Bahrain is a cross between "Brave New World", "Atlas Shrugged" and "Lord of the Flies".

Act accordingly.

Sweden

[SgtChaireBourne]

[citation needed]

Seriously - name a country that had such a right before 1776.

Sweden had Freedom of the press in 1766 (tryckfrihetsfÃrordning) and a hardcore freedom of information clause actually in the nation's constitution.

Spare us the sob story...

[Anonymous Coward]

For everyone of these type of guys, there are thousands of other "Western" Expats enjoying a handsome salary, free accomodation, transportation and holiday allowances to work for the Government or Private sector (all guranteed as per Bahrain's Work Regulations) - did I mention - "Tax free"? Im not saying whats wrong or right but even in places like Dubai or China, you figure out very very fast whats a faux pas and as a Government employed teacher, he was naive or taking sides by posting videos.

Now, for someone who has lived here as a Western expat for decades, Bahrain is not a Banana Republic where people just vanish so all those people above thinking up those scenarios are being misinformed. Also it was indeed one of the most open Arab countries before all this happened. Granted there was initially heavy handed action originally to evict the people off the roundabout but after they were asked back, it was a 2 day event when *some* of the extreme protestors went on rampage closing down the nearby financial capital , killing foreign civilians and cops. What do you expect a government to do when theres anarchy? Mitchell was enjoying a little bit of Thai when he seemed "confounded" why the army had taken over. Please give me a break Mitchell - when theres a Post Katrina New Orleans type of situation - I expect the government to come and help!

couchdouche runs away like usual?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38588550