Slashdot Mirror


Citizenfour Director Sues To Find Out Why She Was Detained Every Time She Flew

An anonymous reader writes: Since the 2006 release of My Country, My Country, Laura Poitras has left and re-entered the U.S. roughly 40 times. Virtually every time during that six-year-period that she has returned to the U.S., her plane has been met by DHS agents who stand at the airplane door or tarmac and inspect the passports of every de-planing passenger until they find her (on the handful of occasions where they did not meet her at the plane, agents were called when she arrived at immigration). Each time, they detain her, and then interrogate her at length about where she went and with whom she met or spoke. They have exhibited a particular interest in finding out for whom she works.

334 comments

  1. Maybe... by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Because she claims to have been involved in the transport or concealment of documents that were removed from the custody of US intelligence organizations

    I am not really all that surprised by the outcome, frankly she seems to be blowing smoke if she is surprised as well

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
    1. Re:Maybe... by close_wait · · Score: 4, Informative

      you do realise that all these detentions happened years before the Snowden leaks?

    2. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So... Don't question the state, or you will be harrassed? Everything is fine just as it is? Great country you have there!

    3. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since the 2006 release of My Country, My Country, Laura Poitras has left and re-entered the U.S. roughly 40 times.

      So you not only didn't RTFA or even TFS, you couldn't even bother to read the FIRST SENTENCE of the summary. And yet you think you're competent to have an opinion on the matter. That takes a special kind of stupid.

    4. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about being surprised, it's about what justice is.

    5. Re:Maybe... by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or it could be this.
      "Poitras has been subject to monitoring by the U.S. Government, which she speculates is because of a wire transfer she sent in 2006 to Iraqi doctor Riyadh al-Adhadh, a suspected Sunni insurgent"

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Maybe... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure she still carries the wire transfer on her every time she boards a plane. ;-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It turns out that keeping the authorities under control is hard to do.

    8. Re: Maybe... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 0

      Question them, but don't expect them to respond. Looking at her "resume" of people and places she goes, I'd be suspicious too. Certainly she willingly associates with people who, for better or worse, are breaking laws. She may very well be innocent of any crime herself, but she associates with people who are not.

      She probably will just have to suck this one up and make it a point of pride, she's clearly touching nerves.

    9. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or parhaps due to the contents of the book referred to in this:

      Since the 2006 release of My Country, My Country

      I'm thinking she said something that got the govs attention in that book?

    10. Re:Maybe... by hibiki_r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not about not being able to make an educated guess she'd bet on, but getting the official reason. At that point, it's possible to make a case that the reason is unconstitutional.

      That's really what all of this is about: Government action without oversight, and it's hard to sue to change that without proof of harm. She has proof of harm right there: All she needs now is a target to use that hammer against.

    11. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pretty sure there's a freedom of association clause in the Constitution.

    12. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to defend the actions of a corporate-fascist state already on its death throes.

    13. Re:Maybe... by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      it's not a book, it's a movie, well a documentary

    14. Re: Maybe... by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By that logic, ever defense attorney - even public defenders, should be treated to equal or greater scrutiny as they primarily associate with people believed to be guilty - and go the extra mile to convince the public and the powers that be that they are NOT guilty.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    15. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It s a matter of common experience that the first sentence is mostly fluff and introductory information that nobody cares about. The last sentence or two is usually just fluff too. The middle bit of a summary is all that's worth skimming.

      And if it is posted on slashdot, then usually that middle bit isn't worth skimming either.

    16. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Pretty sure there's a freedom of association clause in the Constitution.

      It took me forever to find, but there it is, right next to the freedom of the press clause, in a whole section about this, right at the top of the Bill of Rights. Very easy to gloss right over that.

    17. Re: Maybe... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      You gotta make an effort!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    18. Re: Maybe... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is easy to do, de-authorize the authorities. Without authority, they can't abuse it. ;)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    19. Re: Maybe... by dan828 · · Score: 2

      A corporate oligarchy isn't a fascist state. Fascism tightly controls and regulates private businesses, trade organizations, and banking interests, and provides social programs for it's citizens (free medical care, free university level education, public health programs, universal old age pensions, etc.), and that is coupled with strong nationalism, and in the case of the German fascists, virulent racism and aggressive expansion. Not much of that is characteristic of the emerging corporate oligarchies. They both suck, but they aren't the same.

    20. Re:Maybe... by dan828 · · Score: 1

      You must be new here.

    21. Re:Maybe... by geekmux · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's not about not being able to make an educated guess she'd bet on, but getting the official reason. At that point, it's possible to make a case that the reason is unconstitutional.

      Wow, what a laugh, as if this is a reason to get those in authority to respond with answers, or even respond at all.

      In other words, take a number and get in fucking line. Most of the police-state actions our government takes these days is blatantly unconstitutional.

      And there's not a fucking thing you can do about it. Those days are long gone.

    22. Re:Maybe... by maugle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If fewer people had your attitude and pressed for change, things would change. That's the only way they change.

    23. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proitp: The PATRIOT Act did not only grant new powers, it granted retroactive immunity to telecoms companies who were already helping with the illegal warrantless wiretaps.

      So, even without authority to abuse their powers, they will still abuse them.

    24. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't find a single citation for fascism that agrees with your definition. Notably, not a single one mentions corporations or businesses, nor any mention of socialist programs. What they all have in common is promotion of nationalism and strict regulation of persons. Some also mention racism or oppression.

      I'm not saying you are wrong, just suggesting that perhaps your definition of fascism is out of sync with the normal usage. That your notion that it is anti-corporate and socialist is not a view shared by a majority of users of the English language.

    25. Re: Maybe... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The social policies are not a core component of fascism. They're a blend of fascism ans socialism. The Fascists were Italian, not German. The Germans were Nazis.

      But you are right in that in Fascism the government is the dominant party even though working hand-in-glove with the corporations. Also that as time went on the Fascists adopted many of the policies of the Nazis (and, to a lesser extent, conversely).

      That said, Mussolini didn't really like violence, he just considered his ends important enough to justify it.

      Then there's Spain. Spain was also called Fascist, and under Franco and I don't know of any other reasonable term for it, but in effect it appears to have been mainly a dictatorship. I can't really take their claims of Syndicalism seriously. But, again, there the government was the dominant party (or, more precisely, the dictator was the dominant party).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    26. Re: Maybe... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      So how is this person like a defense attorney exactly?

      Scum has the right to be defended in a court of law by a lawyer. That's a bit different than making yourself look like you are participating in their crimes. Although even mob lawyers can run afoul of the law.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    27. Re: Maybe... by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So all former and current members of Congress who served with any of the people on this list should be subject to the same level of scrutiny every single time they travel?

    28. Re: Maybe... by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      The retroactive immunity came much later.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    29. Re: Maybe... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So how is this person like a defense attorney exactly?

      This person is actually a little more important than a defense attorney. It's her job to tell people what their government is doing. And by all accounts (except the government) she's doing an excellent job.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    30. Re: Maybe... by KGIII · · Score: 2

      That does not make it right. I *hope* that is the contention here.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    31. Re: Maybe... by KGIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Additionally, judging by their reaction she must be doing an excellent job.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    32. Re:Maybe... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      This is /. you know. The subject can be anything in the article and the summary. We will devolve into raging about an OS, a terminal, a text editor, or a person. None of which had a greater than 5% chance of actually even being tangentially related to the subject of the article or summary.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    33. Re: Maybe... by Dereck1701 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The press in its various forms (blogs, newspapers and some filmmakers) are the defense attorneys of a free country. The Founding fathers wrote at length how the press and freedom of speech on its own was one of the major impediments to a government sinking into corruption & totalitarianism.

      "The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs."
                  Continental Congress, 1774

      This woman isn't some random person hanging out with "scum", she's an award winning documentary filmmaker. She also helped create the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Unfortunately the press has to hang out with various groups of morally/legally questionable people in order to get to what is important, most of those people reside in our various halls of government.

    34. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of things you can do about it. The first step involves ceasing to play by their rules. Your adversary doesn't so why put yourself at a disadvantage ?

      The second step involves your willingness to cross that red line where the rules say you're not allowed to be.

      If you're willing to take that step, the rest is easy.

    35. Re:Maybe... by digsbo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Might be. I wonder if the CIA/DOD/executive branch folks who helped armed ISIS are also on a list like that.

    36. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is violating the bill of rights "clueless non-lawyer whining"?

    37. Re: Maybe... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      last time I checked the presumption was one of innocence. OK, that's a rose-tinted view but it is the ONLY presumption that is in full conformity to the Constitution of the United States.

      If you have suspicion that someone is breaking the Law, have your evidence ready before publicly airing it, and be absolutely prepared to defend your statement when you do.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    38. Re: Maybe... by dan828 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A simple trip to wikipedia would have give you that definition. Or the nazi's 25 point plan. And yes, I realize that much modern rhetoric paints fascists as ultra-right wing, but what fascists actually did in the 20s-40s where about heavy governmental control and social programs, and a lot of the rhetoric was about the evil international corporate and banking interests (usually with jewish controlled thrown in for good measure). Any corporation that told the fascists to stick it found themselves nationalized in no short time.

    39. Re: Maybe... by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Funny

      if you're not on a Government Watchlist, you're not doing it right.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    40. Re: Maybe... by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mainstream media are dripfed propaganda by the Government with explicit instructions that define their conditions of operation in the jurisdiction: that they print what is given them and nothing more.

      Examples: GMP leaked emails to Channel 5 and the BBC to change their stories regarding the Barton Moss anti-fracking protests. The same Police Authority emailing Channel Four News and the Dispatches programme instructing them not to show raw footage of police activity (including footage of assaults on the public by police officers) at the site. the privately owned quango calling itself ATVOD (the Authority for Television On Demand, formerly the Association~) threatening action against independent journalists including the UKColumn and others for being "unauthorised news media organisations(!)" and "Too television-like", and even going to such lengths as threatening to prosecute under copyright legislation for using common word combinations in broadcasts and in print.

      These examples all follow close on the heels of the complete farce that was the Leveson Inquiry.

      But, don't take my word for it. Take a look at what other (nonlocal mainstream and/or independent sites like RT, the New York Community Media Alliance, Namac, IFP, the UKColumn, and PieNMash Films) outlets have to say on the subject of soft censorship. They've all had to deal with attempted Government influence on their output, to which their unanimous retort: "I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram."

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    41. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got it, I won't play by their rules. I'll just gas up and fly my own jumbo jet..... oh wait.....

    42. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could have written that faster with emacs.

    43. Re: Maybe... by FranTaylor · · Score: 2

      If you have suspicion that someone is breaking the Law, have your evidence ready before publicly airing it, and be absolutely prepared to defend your statement when you do.

      yeah we'd have to disqualify every republican presidential candidate who has accused obama of breaking the law

    44. Re: Maybe... by Dereck1701 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No doubt government is always attempting to co-opt the press to portray only what makes them look good and they have been successful to a degree. But the various leaks, corruption/waste stories and abuse of power pieces over the last decade or so have show that there are some holdouts that scoff at the government line. Also to a degree the internet has taken over for some of the "shaming" of "oppressive officers" that was once predominantly taken care of the press, with blog stories, Debt clocks & internet video/audio.

    45. Re: Maybe... by sabri · · Score: 1

      I'll just gas up and fly my own jumbo jet

      Private aircraft are still subject to governmental inspection.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    46. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. I'm sure the next Republicrat president will fix it.

    47. Re: Maybe... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      $ Yeah? Well your OS is made by a stinky doo-doo head! And I echoed this from the terminal.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    48. Re: Maybe... by rossz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not, it's not easy. De-authorizing usually involves guns and a whole lot of people dying.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    49. Re: Maybe... by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      The solution is to simply say that you can't retroactively immunize someone for violating the constitution, it is by definition as illegal and invalid as the original act.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    50. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And with this post it becomes official: "whining" now exclusively means "I can't point out any logical or factual errors in that position I don't like, but boy howdy I sure can't bring myself to admit that!". Congratulations on being the one to bring it past the tipping point!

    51. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you're not on a Government Watchlist, you're not doing it right.

      Obviously, she is. Doofus

    52. Re:Maybe... by Slayer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Riyadh al-Adhadh is not some random raghead insurgent whom Laura suddenly decided to fund. He was the primary focus of her film 'My Country, My Country', so little surprise that she was in contact with him and supported him. He was jailed for months on false terrorism charges, and apparently still served as Baghdad Provincial Council Chairman last year.

      Evidently she knew him better than the whole bunch of all-seing, all-scanning, all-collecting, "we need to listen to your granny or we can't catch the terrorists" three letter agencies together. We should all sit down and weep in despair, if this wire transfer is still the reason for the ongoing harassment Laura on every single flight.

    53. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That takes a special kind of stupid.

      If there were a shortage of those, it would be hard to explain the outcome of primaries and elections in the U.S.

    54. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      if you're not on a Government Watchlist, you're not doing it right.

      In this case she seems to be on a Government Harresslist. And those should not exist in the first place. She is doing U.S. citizens a patriotic service by dragging them out in the open. The sad thing is that nobody will bother enough to make the government stop this.

      But at least she is doing her part of making the U.S. stop and reconsider being such an abomination upon the free world.

    55. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has nothing to do with the government. She's pissed someone off, they in turn have used their position to influence someone else to have her flagged. Job done. She's now being harassed for life. The government merely provides the mechanism for it to happen. You need to work back through the records to see where the flagging came from and who signed it off, and you can bet these'll be blocked from FOI requests due to "national security".

    56. Re:Maybe... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Journalists have a tendency to try to get people to break the law to get the story.
      A lot of the time when there is a "No comment" it isn't because they don't want to give their side it is because they are not allowed to.
      Say a case where a school teacher had injured a student. The teacher or other school employees can't state to the media that the "victim" was a known gang member, or was high on drugs and normal means wouldn't work. If they stated any of that to the media they would be fired.
      Same things she you try to interview a hospital about the status of a patient. They won't give you any details because of HIPAA.
      However journalists will often lie "HIPAA doesn't cover Criminals/public figures" trying to get get the person to give the information.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    57. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you go out of your way to put yourself in view of law enforcement, they will pay attention to you. No amount of clueless non-lawyer whining will change that.

      If law enforcement goes out of their way to make themselves look pathetically ineffective and petty, then there is no reason to believe they pay attention to the right stuff.

      Sorry, no matter what you think this woman might be doing, revealing your hand by harassing her and NOT being able to find some wrong doing is a dumb move.

      And, chances are, if she's doing something wrong with these trips they are too stupid to catch her, or she's moving files and money in other ways now unrelated to the flights.... and they are STILL too stupid to catch her.

      Or, perhaps she's just a writer/filmmaker learning about the subject that interests her.

    58. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how is this person like a defense attorney exactly?

      Scum has the right to be defended in a court of law by a lawyer. That's a bit different than making yourself look like you are participating in their crimes. Although even mob lawyers can run afoul of the law.

      So you are ok with the federal government just deciding to harass someone that so far, is innocent?

      That won't be as fun when the ol-jug-ears is out of office and it's someone else using the IRS to harass political enemies.... a different set this time around.

      If you approve of the government doing this to anybody, you approve of them doing it to YOU.

    59. Re: Maybe... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Made by a stinky doo-doo head ? Aaah, he must be using NetBSD.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    60. Re: Maybe... by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      > Notably, not a single one mentions corporations or businesses, nor any mention of socialist programs

      You must have not searched very far.
      “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.” - Musolini, who was himself quoting Italian philosopher Giovanni Gentile.

      There is some doubt about the exact wording (which libertarians have stretched to "he never said that" in their usual spurious approach to dealing with inconvenient facts) but there is absolutely not doubt that Musolini believed and repeatedly expressed the sentiment. Indeed, anybody sufficiently familiar with the history of Italy during the Musolini years will confirm it.
      It's interesting how few Americans know anything about that, the only part of fascism they learned about was "autocratic rule" with no idea of the mechanisms or economic system it used (indeed, most Americans believe it was socialist which is flat out false - both Hitler and Musolini despised socialism and communism with a hatred that would have made McCarthy look like a liberal - that's WHY Hitler invaded Russia, Hitler used the socialists to get into power and kicked them out in his very first speech after he achieved it).
      Funny story - the LAST time I mentioned this quote and history an incredulous American gave me a very long rant about how it couldn't possibly be true (utterly devoid of any actual facts as rants tend to be) - and then an Italian slashdotter, who obviously learned his own country's history in rather more detail than Americans do (much like most people outside America only know the highlights reel of US history - but without the extra stuff learned from the endless self-glorification of Hollywood movies) replied to confirm what I said. Facism is just another name for corporatism - an ultra-capitalist state known not for it's heavy regulation but rather for massive deregulation of favored industries, and choking regulation only on disfavored competition.

      Frankly the ONLY difference between the US of today and the Italy of 1930 is that Italy in 1930 didn't pretend to have elections.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    61. Re: Maybe... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > I can't really take their claims of Syndicalism seriously

      Spain was never syndicalist but parts of Spain, notably Andalusia was for a long period (roughly 2 decades in the early 20th century). Though their use of syndicalism is the same one Noam Chomsky uses - a synonym for anarcho-socialist or socialist-libertarian. Interestingly Andalusia was despised by Spanish capitalists and communists alike. The former for being socialists and the latter for being anarchists rather than state-socialists.
      As a result most of their 20-year existence was spent in a brutal civil war with BOTH the above (which to an extent they only lasted so long in because their two enemies were equally busy fighting one another).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    62. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Unfortunately the press has to hang out with various groups of morally/legally questionable people in order to get to what is important" because they're too lazy to actually investigate; and the internet made things even easier for this type of journalist, easy access to information as long as you don't question it's origins or veracity.

    63. Re: Maybe... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I'd support that action. Although the list would probably double or triple in size in a matter of weeks.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    64. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Any corporation that told the fascists to stick it found themselves nationalized in no short time.

      Sounds like modern Russia.

    65. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is one

      He has actually confessed to ordering the murder of American citizens.

    66. Re:Maybe... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Combine that with her contacts with Snowden and yea I can see it.
      It is not just one thing.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    67. Re: Maybe... by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      It took me forever to find, but there it is, right next to the freedom of the press clause, in a whole section about this, right at the top of the Bill of Rights. Very easy to gloss right over that.

      In all fairness, the Bill of Rights is hard to read--since it's covered in Dick Cheney's and Barak Obama's shit after they wiped their asses with it for 14 years.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    68. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It might help you be taken a bit more seriously if you refrain from using vague epithets such as "raghead", fyi. There are far more accurate terms which can be used, and which won't taint your message.

    69. Re: Maybe... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I never did get FreeBSD working properly. I did not take any time to bother with it. I installed it and got no desktop. I removed the VM pretty quickly. I am out of patience for that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    70. Re: Maybe... by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      Well, you just said it, so everything should be fine and good from hereon in.

    71. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit America. This is supposed to be insightful, not funny.

    72. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure there's a freedom of association clause in the Constitution.

      It took me forever to find, but there it is, right next to the freedom of the press clause, in a whole section about this, right at the top of the Bill of Rights. Very easy to gloss right over that.

      In particular if you took an oath on the Constitution.

    73. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course back then the press was openly suspicious of government they never imagined the press of today would march in lock step to the wishes of government just by dangling an interview or press corp badge eh? For instance the press feels the 1st amendment is utterly necessary but the 2nd amendment not so much, so use the 1st to attack the 2nd. Considering the tyranny of government we have now I think the founding fathers failed in the checks and balances attempt when all sorts of unheard of tyranny is conducted under the innocuous interstate commerce law.

    74. Re: Maybe... by fuzzy2k · · Score: 1

      In this country, it involves elections and policy and more elections and lobbying and some more elections and discussions with elected officials and more elections and an electorate getting involved and expressing itself and that means learning what is going on which involves being capable of comprehending it and it is simply easier for most people here to make the compromise of sticking their head in the sand and pretending everything is fine because they have not been hauled off to Gitmo or rendered to Bosnia for enhanced interrogation. But the revolution or war you allude to is also popular with some people, mostly right wing congress people.

      --
      --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
  2. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't go on the tour. Russia tour you.

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia by St.Creed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Replace US with USSR and DHS with FSB and I wouldn't have blinked twice at it - par for the course. And increasingly so for the USA, apparently.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    2. Re:In Soviet Russia by dan828 · · Score: 1

      Way to spoil a tradition /. meme

    3. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The tradition which has been spoiled is America being a free country, instead of ran by fascists to ignore the Constitution.

      Face it, America is pretty much fucked at this point.

    4. Re:In Soviet Russia by dan828 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I already face that, but just because the US isn't a functional republic anymore, there's no reason not to have a sense of humor.

    5. Re:In Soviet Russia by Chas · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, USA is starting to be redefined as "Unswervingly Socialist America".

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    6. Re:In Soviet Russia by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Sorry!

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    7. Re:In Soviet Russia by pereric · · Score: 3, Insightful

      With a still amazingly unequal (and inaccessible) health care system, large wealth differences and general lack of social security, I wouldn't call USA "socialist" by any means. Leaning towards totalitarian, certainly. But without the socialist things like equality (seems like the super-rich are more catered for). Note that I mostly compare with the "socialist" North European countries. The USSR sure called themselves "socialist" too, and was a very non-agreeable place to live in ...

      (not a socialist myself)

    8. Re:In Soviet Russia by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Liberal weenies love to crow about Obamacare but all it really did was to provide corporate welfare for the insurance industry. It didn't actually provide care. It didn't even make health insurance terribly affordable. It certainly didn't improve deductibles and other out of pocket expenses.

      Insurance is not "health care". I cheap or free clinic is health care.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I get the privilege of paying extra taxes so I don't have to purchase an affordable insurance policy for my family where the monthly premium is more than my mortgage payment and the deductible if there was a medical need would cause me to go bankrupt. Hope and change baby!

    10. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really have no fucking clue what socialism actually means.

    11. Re:In Soviet Russia by nytes · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, tradition /. meme spoils you!

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    12. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look on the bright side. Yakov Smirnov's act is topical again. He can go back to Russia, take his jokes and switch "Russia" and "America" in them.

    13. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberal weenies love to crow about Obamacare but all it really did was to provide corporate welfare for the insurance industry.

      If that were the case, the ACA would've garnered more Republican votes. A LOT more.

    14. Re:In Soviet Russia by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Liberal weenies love to crow about Obamacare but all it really did was to provide corporate welfare for the insurance industry

      That's because you have an insurance system with a health system as an afterthought. Efforts to change that at the base level from Nixon to Clinton failed so you ended up with a bandaid on top just so you've got something that may work after the leeches in the middle have taken their cut.
      Conservative politics is about not changing much, and it's hard to find someone more conservative than a constitutional lawyer by training.

    15. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look on the bright side. Yakov Smirnov's act is topical again. He can go back to Russia, take his jokes and switch "Russia" and "America" in them.

      Then he can get a salad rich in polonium, courtesy of the US!

      Bottom up, top down, middle inside-out, baby!

    16. Re:In Soviet Russia by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It DID ! When it was still called Romneycare !

      It only became evil when a democrat implemented this republican plan, thought up by the Heartland Institute and first instituted by a republican governor (who would run for president against Obama a few years later) and even then it pretty much only became evil because the democrat who did it turned out to be a black guy.

      It's also exactly why all the REAL liberals are hoping against hope for Sanders to be the surprize swing-vote.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:In Soviet Russia by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      It didn't actually provide care. It didn't... It certainly didn't....

      Sorry I'm not American, but hasn't Obamacare only been in force 2 years? The whole concept of universal healthcare can't be measured in just a few years, this will take a generation before you start to see benefits. Come back in 20 years and then we'll see if it can be called a success or not.

    18. Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already saving us more money than anticipated.

      It was projected to cost $X, which would be a cost-savings.
      In reality, it is only costing 80% of $X, which means *MORE* cost-savings.

    19. Re:In Soviet Russia by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It still is a republic, as the leader is not dynastic. It's close, but there are still elections. I think the word you meant was "democracy", as that is the only part which really matters - the people able to have their say, even if it's for which end of the shit sandwich they want to start at.

  3. And when she is questioned by CBP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...does she have the right answers? IE:

    1. I am an American citizen, and I have the right to enter my country.
    2. I plead the fifth.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

    1. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      >1. I am an American citizen, and I have the right to enter my country.

      citation required

    2. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

      1. I am an American citizen, and I have the right to enter my country.

      You do. Just as I, a Canadian citizen, have the right to enter Canada. I do not have the legal right to enter the United States, but can do so with official permission. Which usually amounts to the Customs agent at the border or airport telling me to have a nice day.

      If the government want to be difficult, your citizenship must be verified. Then Customs can give you the once over: yes, you can enter the country, but they want to know what you're bringing with you.

      ...laura

    3. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      ...does she have the right answers? IE:

      1. I am an American citizen, and I have the right to enter my country.
      2. I plead the fifth.

      Lather, rinse, repeat.

      Its on the border. The only people who have any rights are the authorities (DHS et al)

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    4. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's called the "Privileges and Immunities Clause". All citizens have the RIGHT to travel in and through all of the US states, the District, territories and possessions. If you are a citizen of the United States, no one has the authority to bar you from entry into any one of the United States, etc.

      It's just wikipedia - but any intelligent person can read the content, then search out arguments, both pro and con.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Gubbermint says the same thing on this page: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/...

      "Citizens are also allowed to re-enter the U.S. repeatedly without being required to re-establish proof of admissibility."

      If a US citizen IS denied entry into the United States, he has this to fall back on:
      http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us...

      If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
              intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
              Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
              right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of
              the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
              or
                  If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
              premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
              exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
                  They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
              ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
              violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
              attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
              aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
              under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
              or both, or may be sentenced to death.

      Long story short, the gubbermint recognizes that fucking with a citizens rights is serious business, potentially punishable by death.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by green1 · · Score: 1

      Sure, you have the right to enter your country, and the authorities these days have the right to imprison you indefinitely once you are there... Careful how you play that card.

    6. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If you are a citizen of the United States, no one has the authority to bar you from entry into any one of the United States, etc.

      They didn't bar Ms Poitras from entering the country. They just detained her, harassed her for hours, and then let her go because clearly they have no evidence that she ever broke a law.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    7. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case:
      1. Is this place within US borders.
      If answer is Yes, use previous method.
      If answer is No, claim the land and raise a confederate flag or whatever you fancy.

    8. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      1. I am an American citizen, and I have the right to enter my country.

      Wrong! The first and only thing she says is, "I want my lawyer!" Then she waits until the lawyer's there, and follows his or her advice to the letter. At this point, she's not in a court and there's nothing to stop the Immigration agents from assuming that her use of the Fifth Amendment implies that she's got something to hide.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    9. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      When I enter the US I generally just raise my hands (that's what the dozen nice men are yelling at me to do) then lie down, hope they know how to not use those guns they're pointing at me, and wait for them to handcuff and carry me off.

      No, I'm not kidding. Apparently my name, which is one of the most common in the English world, is shared by someone pretty scary.

    10. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I am a citizen of both (US by birth, CA by blood - Micmac tribe) and I have to show my passport at either end. However, I have permission (once IDed) to enter either. No. I am not sure where I was going with that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    11. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just as illegal.

    12. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      detention without lawful cause or informed consent (ie a cogent response to "why are you arresting me?") is kidnap. I'm sure they've got something to get around that, though (not having RTFA'd) such as suspicion that she was carrying restricted documents &c.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    13. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Among other things, a passport is a bond by the issuing Authority - a promise that you'll behave, on financial penalty against the issuing Authority. Money is the only language these people understand. Probably why passports are so damn expensive (and don't say they're not, a hundred sixty quid, all told, is a fuckload of money for someone who hasn't seen that much disposable income for the past seventeen months).

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    14. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Freddy Krueger? Is that you?

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    15. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      In that case:
      1. Is this place within US borders.
      If answer is Yes, use previous method.
      If answer is No, claim the land and raise a confederate flag or whatever you fancy.

      When you are *on* the border you have no rights no matter what your citizenship. Its not within US borders.

      And no, you can't claim it as your own sovereign territory.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    16. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Just to play with them I show the CA when I enter the US and the US passport when I enter the CA. I get detained nearly every time when I go to Canada. Years and years ago they searched me and my car. While they did so I excused myself to go to the bathroom. I walked in and flushed like a few seconds later and then said, "Ha ha!"

      They did not let me in. I was not a citizen then. I am surely on some list though because I get stopped and they root through my stuff almost every time and I cross fairly often as I live right next to the magical line that strips my rights away.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    17. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      > Long story short, the gubbermint recognizes that fucking with a citizens rights is serious business, potentially punishable by death.

      Unless the gubbermint itself does it. In that case, it's perfectly fine.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    18. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by jcr · · Score: 1

      They just detained her, harassed her for hours, and then let her go because clearly they have no evidence that she ever broke a law.

      Which makes it false arrest, kidnapping, and illegal confinement.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    19. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yep - the most horrible cop-out of all time.
      The bit between the customs office and the landing strip is technically NOT inside the USA, so technically US law doesn't apply there - it's a bit like the cop-out Bush used to say it's legal to torture prisoners in Gitmo because Gitmo is not under American jurisdiction.
      At the same time, despite NOT being America, an American government agency somehow has power and jurisdiction in those areas, yet claim to be free of all the checks and ballances.

      In fairness though, this is not unique to America, EVERY country on earth with airports does the same. I was once detained for hours of stupid questioning at an airport simply because my travel history had included a very large number of flights to Nigeria and Brazil respectively (my employer had major contracts in Nigeria and I was dating a Brazilian girl and visiting her whenever I could) - unfortunately those are both major drug routes.
      I was detained, and held for hours, before they declared I could only be released after an x-ray to prove I'm not a drug mule (all without ever being read my rights) - which forced them to take me outside where my boss was waiting to pick me up. While waiting for the ambulance to take me for x-rays (which took hours more) my boss spoke at length with the cop holding me explaining our business, the nature of our work and how that has meant both of us spending lots of time in Nigeria... sufficiently so to ultimately convince them I was innocent and let me go.

      All that, just for visiting the wrong countries a few times too many - never actually comiting any crimes in either or being in any way involved in criminal activity.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    20. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has this explicitly laid out:

      6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

      Whereas the US Constitution doesn't. Historical US Jurisprudence on the subject is, as with most other US Jurisprudence, tricky. Teh Wikis.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    21. Re:And when she is questioned by CBP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget, 'the border' extends 100 miles from the actual line on the map, and from the customs area of any international airport. It's surprising just how much land in the US is considered 'the border'. Entire *states* fall within it on the east coast.

  4. The chances of a judge doing anything... by gweilo8888 · · Score: 2

    ...are pretty much zip, because he knows if he does so, he'll be the next one to find himself mysteriously assigned a 400/400 threat rating.

  5. Re:Because Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How cute that you think only one party is behind this kind of crap. Really cute.

  6. Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Can we get someone to explain how its OK for the IRS to harass people hoping to change policy but it's bad for DHS to harass people hoping to change policy?

    Or do you all still feel that "since they weren't charged, it wasn't really a problem?"

    (If you do, you might want to ask a person of color about traffic stops some time.)

    1. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Easy.

      On group is a bunch of whinging cheapskate libertarian tax dodgers who want all the benefits of tax revenue without paying their part.

      The other has legitimate concerns.

    2. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can we get someone to explain how its OK for the IRS to harass people hoping to change policy but it's bad for DHS to harass people hoping to change policy?

      I'm not sure what you mean. It is not legal for the IRS to "harass people hoping to change policy."

      It is, however, legal for the IRS to ask organizations claiming tax exemption as charities to show that they are not engaging in political lobbying (because political organizations are not tax exempt). If that's what you call "harassing," then, no, not only is it not illegal, it is in fact part of IRS's job.

    3. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      Asked. Received. Was not disappointed.

    4. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's what you call "harassing," then, no, not only is it not illegal, it is in fact part of IRS's job.

      Yes, well, the question is about how they do their job, why lefty propaganda groups like Media Matters for America easily get cushy all-donations-deductible 501(c)(3) status whereas applications for conservative groups like Crossroads only going for 501(c)(4) operations-not-taxable status get the full weight of the bureaucratic deny-and-delay machine thrown at them. As for the answer to that question, suffice it to say there's a reason Lois Lerner pled the 5th.

    5. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody likes to pay taxes, but if you are referring to a situation where people are cheering the IRS on, I bet you're talking about Scientology.

    6. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Note that it's not possible for an honest person to have need of the 5th amendment.

      It's not possible for an honest person to make this claim.

    7. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Asked. Received. Was not disappointed.

      Did you cum?

    8. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by ejasons · · Score: 1

      Note that it's not possible for an honest person to have need of the 5th amendment.

      That really isn't true...

      incriminate: make (someone) appear guilty of a crime or wrongdoing; strongly imply the guilt of (someone).

      Note the word "appear". There was a robbery down on Main Street last night. Where were you last night? If you were to answer that you were on Main Street, you could well be incriminating yourself, even if you were to know nothing about the robbery.

    9. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's not possible for an honest person to have need of the 5th amendment

      Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

      Remember that next time you talk to a cop and they don't feel you were "concerned" enough about the situation and use that fact against you in a court of law: http://reason.com/blog/2014/08...

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    10. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About that,

      They have exhibited a particular interest in finding out for whom she works

      Obviously the DHS didn't think to look for her tax statements. "When in doubt, don't leave the taxman out."

    11. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      easy. One agency is harassing "stinky mexican illegals" who are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their families, who wouldn't be illegals if it weren't for rampant corporatism infiltrating Government, the other agency is harassing cattle (yes, you are PROPERTY, beholden and indentured by coercion to the banking cartels) who are just trying to get on with life notwithstanding the constant barrage of bullshit scaremongering and "Think of the children!" anti-freedom rhetoric pumped out by the same corporatists who are stereotyping hardworking people from the wrong side of an entirely GEOPOLITICAL divide as untermenschen and well, cockroaches.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    12. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it is not legal and hasn't been since 1886. Selective prosecution is a violation of the equal protection clause. You're just plain wrong.

    13. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the scenario you create and the reasoning that you use to "take the 5th". Wholeheartedly.

      However, Lois Lerner was in a legal setting (House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) and had her lawyers to hand. EVERY word she said - and any nuance - was being recorded. She had the opportunity to answer questions in full and the ability to add to her answers, without being taken out of context. She was not being stopped randomly by a cop with a quota to fill. In that setting, I agree with the statement: "it's not possible for an honest person to have need of the 5th amendment".

    14. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      damn, I must be tired. I read "INS".

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    15. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is, however, legal for the IRS to ask organizations claiming tax exemption as charities to show that they are not engaging in political lobbying (because political organizations are not tax exempt). If that's what you call "harassing," then, no, not only is it not illegal, it is in fact part of IRS's job.

      Especially if they're a Conservative group. Never mind any Liberal/"Progressive"/Marxist groups...the political agenda permeating the non-political agency (hah!) won't allow those kinds of single standards to apply to everyone. It's double standards or GTFO!

    16. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in a legal setting (House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) and had her lawyers to hand. EVERY word she said - and any nuance - was being recorded.

      This makes the 5th Amendment MORE important, not less. Any competent lawyer will tell you to plead the 5th any time you can, whether you are guilty or not.

      Regardless of whether Lois Lerner in particular was guilty or not, that statement still isn't true. It's not only possible, but quite likely, for an honest person to have need of the 5th Amendment. That's why we have the damn thing.

    17. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by devman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In all seriousness, If I'm a civil servant (Note not an politically appointed one, just a white collar worker) and the Speaker of the House starts grandstanding about people going to jail, I'm certainly not offering my neck out. If I'm in her position I tell them to go pound sand too. She literally has nothing to gain by testifying even presuming she is innocent and honest people can get tripped up in testimony very easy. If they wanted her testimony that bad they could have easily had it by giving her immunity.

      Brings to mind the the quote "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

    18. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking moron we are paying our part. We're tired of getting jacked up for deadbeat dickheads like you that don't pay shit in taxes but live off people that work for a living and hating them for bitching about your freeloading ass. Fuck you!

    19. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you believe that political organizations should be allowed to lobby politicians and also claim to be tax exempt?

    20. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      deadbeat dickheads like you that don't pay shit in taxes but live off people that work for a living and hating them for bitching about your freeloading ass.

      Provide concrete evidence that the GP is such a person, or admit that you're even more full of shit than he is. Those are your only possible choices.

    21. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that it's not possible for an honest person to have need of the 5th amendment.

      Because no honest person has ever been the victim of a literal or figurtive witchhunt?

      I suppose she could've taken the Alberto Gonzales way and suddenly developed profound situation-specific Alzheimer's.

    22. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll do that as soon as you provide evidence that you are no longer raping your neighbor's goats.

    23. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      No it is not legal and hasn't been since 1886. Selective prosecution is a violation of the equal protection clause. You're just plain wrong.

      Sorry, you are the one who is badly mistaken.

      See, government is good because government provides civilization.

      Ergo, people who try to damage government, and by extension civilization, by exposing things the government wishes concealed from the public are evil.

      Since these people are evil, any means & methods used to silence them, thwart them, and punish them are justified.

      Without the government monitoring, tracking, and controlling everything and everyone, civilization would collapse.

      Why do you hate civilization, you barbarian!?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    24. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're implying that I'm begging the question, which is not the case and you know it.

      The GGP, on the other hand, made a specific claim that carries a burden of proof. If he cannot meet that burden, then the only possible alternative is that he's pulling assumptions out of his ass.

    25. Re:Can we hear from an IRS apologist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that it's not possible for an honest person to have need of the 5th amendment.

      That's completely delusional. It's like saying, when the Gestapo comes to the door, you must confess that you are hiding Jews. You are effectively saying an honest person has no need to lie to the Gestapo, or even to try to mislead them.

      The reality of the US legal system is that the nature, shape, and form of the law are massively influenced by corruption in politics and by ethical conflict of interest on the part of the US legal profession. This is a point that has been discussed on a seemingly endless basis in prior Slashdot discussion. It's also something you would understand thoroughly had you bothered to get a good education is US history (something that goes beyond the sanitized standard curriculum). Go do your research. There are a wide variety of books that discuss the corruption and ethics problems, some of them bestsellers.

      This problem is the reason slavery lasted so long, it is the reason the highly illegal Jim Crow laws lasted so long, it is the reason the USA is the law of the lawsuit, it is the reason there are so many loopholes in the tax law, it is the reason for a wide variety of abuses crossing every major area, including abuses at the federal, state, and local levels. There are huge problems in US law, including ethics problems that go all the way back to English Common Law.

      In such a legal climate, you can get utterly and completely screwed by the enforcement of illegal laws, something that the legal profession has shown it is perfectly willing to do. The probability of this happening is quite high, since large portions of the law in the USA are in fact illegal: if nothing else, there are massive violations of the 9th Amendment rights to ethical government and ethical practice of law. Again, this has come up over and over again: go do your research.

  7. Remember, we're not like those other countries... by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    Oh...I would like to hear the other side. One that will defend this action. One that will say it's no where near those other nation states, that harass their citizens.

    Waiting.

  8. Just in case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just in case she's a he as in Snowden.

    Take a walk on the wild side!

    And the colored girls go...dup, dedup,

    1. Re:Just in case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot, we don't tolerate any dedup here...

  9. Who could figure differently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She has said and done things that They did not like - so she is now An Interesting Person.
    As such, They'll do anything They legally (as They interpret it) can to remind her of what she's done.
    And as many tax-dollars as are necessary will be spent for that purpose.

  10. Re:Remember, we're not like those other countries. by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 0

    Oh...I would like to hear the other side. One that will defend this action. One that will say it's no where near those other nation states, that harass their citizens.

    Waiting.

    Never fear, cold fjord is here! With Astroturf Superpower!

  11. I get this too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I get the same treatment every time I cross international borders into the US. As I'm a permanent resident, they threaten to take my visa and deport me. I get interrogated, questioned about everything and anything, delayed, miss flights, miss connecting flights and then have to fend for myself - and I'll tell ya, it's pretty creepy when you realize basic questioning has turned into an interrogation when they start using cyclical questioning and questions intended to trick you up. You have no idea when they'll let you go - they don't have to tell you - you just land in a lawless zone - I called my consulate from my mobile phone as I was walking with ICE once and they told me that even for British Nationals - really the only ally the US has these days (five eyes be damned) - things are pretty bad once you're "in the system" and that all you can do is limit the amount of travel you do and to always, if possible because you aren't guaranteed any outside communication, but if you can, let someone on the outside know what's happened in case you drop off the radar - because that happens too.

    I'm just thankful I'm white - not to be racist - but because if I was brown and worshiped the wrong god I'd be totally f'd!

    1. Re:I get this too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BTW, I've been living in the States since I was seven - so 35 years now - I can pass for American. The only way anyone knows i'm not born here is when they see my papers. I was once stopped on a Greyhound bus just outside Tucson AZ by border patrol and they said for any green card holder to come to the front of the bus and show their ID, so I did.

      The guy looked at me and, I kid you not, said "not you ya idiot".

    2. Re:I get this too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They were looking for mexicans... so they could give them free food, lodging, education, welfare, medical, and social security. Because you were white, you didn't qualify.

    3. Re:I get this too by ksheff · · Score: 1

      All my bags are opened and searched everytime I come back to the US. I guess the TSA is suspicious of anyone with queso menonita and carne seca.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    4. Re:I get this too by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Naw Customs will just confiscate it anyway.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:I get this too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Travel is a matter of hours, rather than weeks in this fantastic modern world. Packing foodstuffs in ones luggage is neither typical nor expected. So yes, they're gonna look at you funny when you pack cheese.

    6. Re:I get this too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go rob a bank, whitey, and you'll get years of free free food, lodging, education, medical, and social security yourself. I guess welfare too if you count the free TV, gym, basketball court, etc.

    7. Re:I get this too by CrashPoint · · Score: 1

      Packing foodstuffs in ones luggage is neither typical nor expected. So yes, they're gonna look at you funny when you pack cheese.

      You misspelled "illegally search your property for no good reason".

  12. Re:Because Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And how is your Democrat President working out?

      * Guantanamo (Still open).
      * Afghan (Still going).
      * Iraq (Complete disaster with the war "ended" when all the military leaders said don't).
      * Prisoner swap (One Deserter for multiple enemy Leaders).
      * Racism (Fires stoked daily to keep the miscreants mad at each other instead of facing the real issues... but #BlacklivesMatter(Unless killed by other blacks) and #RacistFlagsMustGo(except for Black Power flags)).
      * Economy (out of recession... with record # on welfare, foodstamps, out of the working pool, stagnant wages).
      * War on Women (Pays his female staff less than male counterparts... same as 'Liary.)
      * Illegal Immigration (Who cares about some white woman dead? lets go visit a jail where another criminal can become The Presidents Son)
    But sure... blame it on the Republicans. That dam Bush. He'll still kill us all.

  13. Re: From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because living in Berlin is such an obvious sign of dissent.

    Jesus, USA, pull your nutjob isolationists into line. They're making less sense than ever.

  14. If you have nothing to hide... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 0

    you have everything to fear about your rights being taken away. It's pathetic the harassment she's going through by our government because of a wire she sent to a "suspected Sunni."

    1. Re:If you have nothing to hide... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replying as anon to explain why I modded you Overrated. It's because of this:

      It's pathetic the harassment she's going through by our government because of a wire she sent to a "suspected Sunni."

      The full quote there is "suspected Sunni insurgent." And that would have been a fine thing to complain about. But you had to mangle it for some reason, as a deliberate act. Who are you trying to fool here, yourself?

  15. American Citizen by Dredd13 · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's simple: She's an American citizen. Don't answer a goddamned question. They can't deny her entry into the country, since she's a US citizen.

    If she's saying so much as "hello" to these chuckleheads at this point, she's an idiot.

    1. Re:American Citizen by blue9steel · · Score: 0

      They can't deny her entry into the country, since she's a US citizen.

      You'd think that and yet I can't point to any specific right or law that would make that true.

    2. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never dealt with an eager agent in an airport. There was a time when I was selected for "extra screening" every time I flew. Then, when a relative of a neighbor moved in next door, and he was a TSA bigwig, I mentioned it to him. Haven't been selected for extra screening since!

    3. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're naive if you believe those in power can't do whatever they want. They just have to chat the magic words, "National Security" and all those pesky rights and laws just fade to the background.

    4. Re:American Citizen by Dredd13 · · Score: 1

      It's a common topic in other forums. There's some very edge cases where it's permissible (dual-citizen, intoxication if you can believe that) but otherwise, your passport entitles you to entry.

      Your *stuff* on the other hand is a whole different thing (importing of goods, etc., etc.), but you, yourself, have a near-absolute right to entry.

    5. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being denied entry as an American citizen without a trial would be a violation of due process.

    6. Re:American Citizen by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't point to any specific right or law that would make that true.

      You don't need a law to make that true - The constitution makes that the truth by default.

      In the absence of a constitutional amendment giving them the power to deny a legal US citizen entry to the US, they can't deny a legal US citizen entry to the US. Simple as that, really.

      That said, they can basically make her return with none of her possessions ("Sorry, you might have... uh... fruit fly eggs on your clothes, take 'em off"), and only after enjoying a nice deep cavity search, so...

    7. Re:American Citizen by Dredd13 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Aha,... it's part of a UN Treaty.

      Article 12, section 4 of the ICCPR (a treaty ratified by and binding on the US) provides that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.”

    8. Re:American Citizen by jbmartin6 · · Score: 0

      The Constitution doesn't apply at the borders.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    9. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He moved next door so they could keep track of you easier...

    10. Re:American Citizen by green1 · · Score: 0

      They have to let her in to the country, but they don't have to make it pleasant, and they can make sure that she gets detained indefinitely once she's there.

    11. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's some very edge cases where it's permissible (dual-citizen,...

      It's not an edge case. There are many people that are "dual-citizen"... which is not technically a legal status. It is basically a situation which exists because the vast majority of the time there is no forum for either country to object to claiming citizenship elsewhere.

    12. Re:American Citizen by blue9steel · · Score: 2

      The word "arbitrarily" leaves a pretty big loop hole.

    13. Re:American Citizen by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      You don't need a law to make that true - The constitution makes that the truth by default. In the absence of a constitutional amendment giving them the power to deny a legal US citizen entry to the US, they can't deny a legal US citizen entry to the US. Simple as that, really.

      Sure, but there are a variety of vague clauses that could easily be extended to cover that situation.

    14. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like you would get very far trying not to answer them yourself. They are as you say chuckheads. You can't avoid them and its like arguing with the Russian mafia. Good luck. So much for "American Freedom".

    15. Re:American Citizen by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      In the absence of a constitutional amendment giving them the power to deny a legal US citizen entry to the US, they can't deny a legal US citizen entry to the US. Simple as that, really.

      Hmm. I'm reading this and... nope, nothing about not pooping on the neighbours' cars.

      I'll be right back.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    16. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Constitution is what defines the country and gives government officials their authority.
      If the Constitution doesn't apply, they are out of their jurisdiction.

    17. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or within' 100 miles of it on the US side. Despite SCOTUS US v. Martinez-Fuerte.

    18. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That one won't fly then been as how it is her country not his country.

    19. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      in the "Top This" genre...

      About 3 months after 9/11, I was returning from a business trip to Germany (during the trip, also visited Switzerland and Italy) . Went through immigration at Kennedy and on to my final destination via Dallas.

      No problems in Germany. No problem at immigration. Entered the domestic terminal and went through security where apparently I set off the "too white" alarm. After my baggage went through (this was before people were getting "pre-selected for extra screening"). I was given a security guard and his trainee who decided that it was time to show the trainee how to completely search luggage, up to and including holding up ever sock to see if anything was dropped inside of them. The entirety of my carry-ons was opened up and laid out while they inspected the lining of my luggage and computer backpack (which did have a few "hidden" compartments, true). Damn good thing I had a 6 hour layover, got to the gate with 4 hours remaining.

      Using my pre-9/11 habit, I went to the gate where my plane would leave from later, which was empty, and sat down in the seat closest to the gate entrance (it had an electrical outlet to charge my Motorola StarTac SCORE!), and because I guess that was perceived by TPTB as non-normal behavior, I was selected again for "random" inspection. Not as complete as what was done at security, but my underwear was once again for everyone walking by to view.

      Finally, boarding time. Exec platinum with a first class upgrade, I was first at the door. MISTAKE! Selected once again, so attempting to be first on the plane had me boarding absolutely last while everyone else boarding the plane got to see each of the Deutchmark and Lira notes I had brought back with me laid out individually (the Euro wasn't introduced until a couple of months later, and Gauss on a currency note was a keeper for me, easy gift for similarly minded friends).

      Thank god that was over, enjoyed my orange juice and warm nuts (the almonds were good, too) on my way home. Just a quick change of planes in Dallas. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!!!!! I don't know if they had my name, my picture, or were once again just going for the person they could most easily access again (was first at the door again- I skipped straight to "3 times is enemy action" at this point as far as being first to board), but I was once again picked for enhanced luggage perusal and the plane had to be held up to wait for me while my dirty tighty whiteys were held up for all to see.

      Four ad-hoc inspections in one day. All I can figure is they were using me either as a practice dummy or to provide statistical evidence that "We hassle white people, too!".

      Lessons learned:
      1) never sit in the seat closest to the jet bridge;
      2) never be the first person to board the plane;
      3) never sit in a quiet part of the airport alone, no matter how much you want quiet to talk to your family after being away for 3 weeks.

      It wasn't quite that bad for the next 6 months, but every time I flew I was picked for enhanced inspections at least once (that Exec Platinum card was a ticket to hell at that time). By the end of 2002, I gave up on travel in the USA, accepting only international contracts and almost completely left consulting that required travel in 2003.

    20. Re:American Citizen by rossz · · Score: 1

      Just because the Federal government is denied the power over where you poop, it doesn't deny your state or local government that power.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    21. Re:American Citizen by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If she's saying so much as "hello" to these chuckleheads at this point, she's an idiot.

      It doesn't matter if she talks or not, the point is the petty harrassment of delays etc.

    22. Re:American Citizen by dbIII · · Score: 1

      No re-education camp for you citizen.
      That other guy who has the law books - take them away from him quick so he can't contradict!

      Nobody is above or below the law.

    23. Re:American Citizen by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      Distributing fertilizer could affect interstate commerce. So it's totally under federal jurisdiction. ...what? Why are you looking at me like that?

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    24. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were true, by extension no law would apply either, with the possible exception of a handful of international treaties.

      Could it also mean that US law enforcement would have ZERO jurisdiction there, since they have no authority under Law?

    25. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the word "his" when the summary uses the word "her."

      Only men need to be allowed in the country.

    26. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Constitution doesn't apply at the borders.

      That's not true; the government is always bound by the Constitution. Would anyone accept the claim that DHS had no authority in the screening area where they work, because it's "not American soil"? (It's always the dirt with these types!)

    27. Re:American Citizen by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

      Birds do it all the time without problems. I don't see why the blokes can't have a go too.

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    28. Re:American Citizen by t_ban · · Score: 1

      The word "arbitrarily" leaves a pretty big loop hole.

      And 'his'. Don't forget 'his'.

      --
      First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
    29. Re:American Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, ha, yeah. If she does that a few thousand times, they'll stop detaining her! Problem solved! Whining bitch!

  16. DHS Detentions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hell, I get detained every time I fly because I had the audacity to ask for a damage report form when one of their "professionals" broke my glasses while inspecting them.

    It doesn't take much to get you on the "mess with this person" list.

  17. Re:Because Republicans by dan828 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't be daft. This is the unelected bureaucracy. The statist government drones with little to no oversite from elected officials. If you vote for democrats, you're voting for this just as much as if you voted republican. The D vs R thing is a dog a pony show that keeps people like you distracted.

  18. This was how Bush/Cheney silenced dissent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who protested too loudly or made their objections to political policy too visible was a potential security threat. While the criteria for applying threat levels and additional detainment to political dissenters remains undisclosed (or classified), anyone who actually participated in protests was witness to the feeling that we could be self-selecting into second-class citizenship for the rest of our lives.

    This was especially effective at motivating self-censorship, as it was clear that the majority who were unaffected (because they remained silent, if not supportive of Bush-era policy) were also generally unsympathetic to those subject to additional security checks/detainment.

  19. Another translation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Translation: Bad things are great when they happen to people I don't like.

    1. Re:Another translation... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Nope. I am sure he would feel the same way about Democrat tax dodgers too. I do.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Another translation... by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      but you're OK with Republican tax dodgers? That's the implication I picked up...

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  20. Re:Remember, we're not like those other countries. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One that will say it's no where near those other nation states, that harass their citizens.

    Okay, sure. The US is nowhere near those other nation states that harass their citizens. It's a matter of degree, and the degree is pretty significant. It's easy to find an interested group and then compare and contrast the complaints against various repressive regimes.

  21. Re:Because Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This place was singing a much different tune for the last two presidential election. Amazing how quickly that changes.

    If you liked these two terms, elect Hillary and you can get two more!

  22. "Since they weren't charged..." by Pollux · · Score: 2

    Sorry for not answering your question, but your statement, "Since they weren't charged, it wasn't really a problem" actually gets to the heart of what's happening here and was worth commenting on.

    There is a legal gray area here, though one of a different sort. Cops cannot legally stop and detain "suspicious people" just because they look suspicious. But they do it all the time, because no one will take the time to sue for an unlawful Terry Stop. It's unpractical; the unlawful action may be a demoralizing inconvenience, but that's better than getting yourself involved in a lawsuit.

    But in this circumstance, the DHS can detain anyone they want. The gray area here is that the individual is being detained in an international zone. Until one passes through customs, he/she is not legally on U.S. soil and U.S. law does not apply. The DHS is technically welcome to detain her, you, and any other U.S. Citizen for as long as they want. My wife personally went through it on one occasion and sat in a locked room for about two hours before they mysteriously just let her go. She asked why she was held and got the "We're not at liberty to say" line in return.

    1. Re:"Since they weren't charged..." by hesiod · · Score: 1

      "We're not at liberty to say"

      AKA, "fuck your liberty."

    2. Re:"Since they weren't charged..." by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Until one passes through customs, he/she is not legally on U.S. soil and U.S. law does not apply. The DHS is technically welcome to detain her, you, and any other U.S. Citizen for as long as they want.

      In practice, of course, they can do whatever they want any time or place they want, since they're the ones with the big guns.

      They may also be granted special powers to control the borders, over and above the usual powers granted to them as law enforcement agents within the borders.

      But Constitutional restrictions on US government agents apply to US government agents everywhere in the universe, not just within US borders. Those restrictions also protect all people, not just US citizens.

    3. Re:"Since they weren't charged..." by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      But in this circumstance, the DHS can detain anyone they want.

      Did you miss the part where the DHS also harrassed her when getting on domestic flights? I know courts have said the TSA can search people because "terrorists", but if the searches are not truly related to terrorists then they are unconsitutional and illegal.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    4. Re:"Since they weren't charged..." by sjames · · Score: 2

      The gray area here is that the individual is being detained in an international zone

      That is the claim, but note, the Constitution is a document that says what the government may or may not do. It says nothing about where. None of the Bill of Rights have the phrase "unless in an international zone".

    5. Re:"Since they weren't charged..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In practice, of course, they can do whatever they want any time or place they want, since they're the ones with the big guns.

      The above is not the case in Iraq or Afghanistan, nor was it the case in Viet Nam or in Cuba.

      A people can only be subjugated if they agree to it.

    6. Re:"Since they weren't charged..." by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is no legal grey area, you have been sucked in by a lie. A countries law only ceases to fully apply within a country at foreign diplomatic sites, no where else does it occur. It is a policy lie, a purposeful abuse of the law, enforced by criminal application of the law, using high cost and the courts to prevent the end of the abuse of law. Show where in the constitution laws and citizens rights are abridged at particular locations, outside of having been prosecuted for a crime.

      The mistake as a citizen was answering questions in the first place. Do it once and they will demand it every time, refuse to talk and eventually they give up, does not stop them from trying again but again they eventually give up. Keep falling for the lie, that you are a slave and must obey whenever they tell you that you are a slave and must obey and you become that slave.

      Likely the best response is the funny Star Trek one, "That's a stupid question" and stick with it, I am certain you will find it and their reaction a whole lot more humorous than they will.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    7. Re:"Since they weren't charged..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet oddly many people get upset when violations happen to US citizens only, even though that is also a distinction missing from most of its clauses.

    8. Re:"Since they weren't charged..." by sjames · · Score: 1

      That really shouldn't be. I can understand being MORE upset when it is a citizen since it is supposed to be their (possessive) government, but any instance should be cause for anger.

    9. Re:"Since they weren't charged..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Claiming that it is an international zone has a lot more consequences than claiming that the constitution doesn't apply for whatever reason.
      In an international zone any country has the rights to move troops for example. Would they be OK with a Russian tank showing up there?

  23. Re:From the TFA by TheGavster · · Score: 1

    So, what hypothetical threat are the DHS agents protecting America from? I would note that, in all 40 instances, she was eventually allowed into the country, and in none of those instances did she commit a crime before leaving again. Perhaps the first time, her associations overseas might raise questions. But hopefully, somewhere in those multiple hours, they worked out that she is a journalist, and that communicating with people is part of her professional work.

    --
    "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
  24. Re:From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She's an American journalist who exposes governments breaking the law. How does living in Berlin diminish any of her rights as an American citizen? Furthermore, she exposes governments doing illegal and immoral things and you suggest that she should be subjected to humiliating sexual assault? Sounds like you would have a great time being a part of the Gestapo or SS you fascist.

  25. Re:Because Republicans by dan828 · · Score: 2

    Who cares what other people posted at some other time? Respond to what I said, not some mythical personified slashdot. You're making a false category error in your thinking.

  26. Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by bhlowe · · Score: 4, Interesting
    James O'Keefe, a right-wing investigative journalist gets detained at every opportunity.

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/06...

    Another blatant case of government employees trying to get even with people they don't agree with.

    1. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by Senior+Frac · · Score: 1

      That may be, but I'm suspecting the immigration workers aren't really that organized.

      It find it far more likely that he behaves like the conspiratorial ass that he is, instantly either pissing them off or setting off their "this guy ain't normal" alarm, which then causes a deeper questioning. Lots of the conspiracy nuts are walking self-fulfilling prophecies.

    2. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      That may be, but I'm suspecting the immigration workers aren't really that organized.

      It find it far more likely that he behaves like the conspiratorial ass that he is, instantly either pissing them off or setting off their "this guy ain't normal" alarm, which then causes a deeper questioning. Lots of the conspiracy nuts are walking self-fulfilling prophecies.

      I've yet to see anything from O'Keefe that would suggest he's a conspiracy nut. Unfortunately.

    3. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I'm a TSA bureaucrat then I would double check O'Keefe every time. Make sure he wasn't trying to get something past my guys or was making some video to embarrass them. It's really just common sense with that guy.

    4. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling James O'Keefe an "investigative journalist" slanders the entire journalistic profession.

    5. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by MP*Birdman · · Score: 2

      It probably doesn't help that O'Keefe has a known record of filming himself crossing the US border illegally, and then bragging about it publicly - the fact that he's done it while dressed up as Bin Ladin may be an additional factor.

      If you have someone who publicly brags that they cross your border illegally, it may make sense to make sure they aren't trying to break any other border related laws, such as smuggling.

    6. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      James O'Keefe, a right-wing investigative journalist gets detained at every opportunity.

      Their's, or his?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by bhlowe · · Score: 2

      Exactly. And he is a member of the press who the government is trying to harass for pointing out the obvious flaws on the Mexican and Canadian borders. This is a pretty clear violation of the first amendment.

    8. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by Macdude · · Score: 1

      James O'Keefe illegally crossed the border, filmed it and distributed the video. Of course the Border Patrol is going to keep a closer eye on him... It's got nothing to do with "getting even".

      --
      "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
    9. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Given the number of "undocumented" entries to the country, maybe they are just trying to make up for lost opportunities?

    10. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by bhlowe · · Score: 1

      He is a journalist illustrating a point. His traveling legally after exposing obvious flaws in our border security is no reason to detain him. It is simple harassment designed to intimidate him and others like him.

    11. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by bhlowe · · Score: 1

      Really.. Name some who have done more... in this decade.

    12. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      It probably doesn't help that O'Keefe has a known record of filming himself crossing the US border illegally, and then bragging about it publicly - the fact that he's done it while dressed up as Bin Ladin may be an additional factor.

      LOLOL. That's awesome. He's got balls, you got to give him that!

      He's also lucky he wasn't shot. Still: balls.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    13. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that fine upstanding journalist James O'Keefe. The one that heavily edited most of his videos to make it look like organizations and people were saying things they weren't. The one that tried to pretend to be a phone repairman to set up illegal wiretaps on a victim. lol.

    14. Re:Same thing happening to James O'Keefe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it's for pointing out the flaws, which are kind of well known (you can walk across the Canada-US border with no barrier along most of its length), it's the fact that he actually did cross the border illegally multiple times.

  27. Re:Remember, we're not like those other countries. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you go bringing facts into this argument. All that matters is that it is a US bashfest, and bringing actual facts like what happens when people tick off China and wind up having their organs sold off to the highest bidder is just beside the point.

    By definition, the US is the worst country, the most repressive in the world, and in history. Can't have facts refuting that, shall we, as anyone who tries will just get a valid insulting reply back...and because this is about the US sucking, ad hominem and tu quoque are perfectly acceptable as extensions of argument.

  28. Guilt by association! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    Works for me. How many criminals are you associated with, through family relationships, work, sports/hobbies, education, church, etc?

    Please step through the red door, Comrade, where my freinds and I can get acquainted with you.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    1. Re:Guilt by association! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Works for me. How many criminals are you associated with, through family relationships, work, sports/hobbies, education, church, etc?

      Yet another reason NOT to be on Facebook.

      ;)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Guilt by association! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      How many criminals are you associated with, through family relationships, work, sports/hobbies, education, church, etc?

      And please break that down into before/after you worked in/for/with (circle all that apply):
      (a) Congress, [city, state, federal]:
      (b) A large corporation [domestic, international, multi-national]:
      (c) Reddit:
      (d) "The Mob":
      (e) Other: ___________________

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Guilt by association! by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      None of the criminals among my circle of family or acquaintences were active or under investigation when I interacted with them.

      Avoiding the active criminals is a good way to avoid being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Never mind being hassled by customs.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Guilt by association! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Avoiding the active criminals is a good way to avoid being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      Laura Poitras was detained by the US every time she flew. How is a journalist, traveling by herself, in the "wrong place at the wrong time"?

      Remember, every time she was detained, she was just detained and then eventually let go after being hassled. If the government has evidence that she's committed a crime, they would have charged her. Instead, they're just harassing a journalist who has embarrassed them.

      If you want to say that embarrassing the government should be a crime, then that's a whole different discussion.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Guilt by association! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the government is being subtle and hopes the hassles will make her stop returning to the US. I am surprised that she ever returns to the US and risks being arrested for aiding and abetting the theft of US government property. People such as her walk a fine line. On one hand they claim they are working for the public good. On the other hand they tailor the release of the information to support their political ideology. Even the Snowden data has been mis-represented in some cases. One example would be the spying on the German Chancellor. The only evidence to support this claim was a cell phone number a database. There were no call records or any other evidence to support the accusation. What is funny is that back before the Ukraine upheaval someone wiretapped and released the calls of US diplomats from within the embassy and I am pretty sure it was not the work of the NSA. This took place at the same time people were decrying NSA spying. It's ironic that Snowden ended up in the country most likely responsible for wiretapping the US Embassy.

    6. Re:Guilt by association! by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      This. Although for some odd reason there are, I've heard, some employers (a nonzero number and increasing) that insist on not only having access to your Facebook account ""so they can get hold of you at any time", but for some even weirder reason they want your personal, established Facebook account and not some throwaway.

      I'd rather not work than have to let a client have access to my entire fucking life story. Apart from that, if I did write an autobiography, I'd have to shoot anyone that actually bothered to read it.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    7. Re:Guilt by association! by FranTaylor · · Score: 2

      None of the criminals among my circle of family or acquaintences were active or under investigation when I interacted with them.

      how do you know this?

    8. Re:Guilt by association! by hjf · · Score: 1

      your personal, established Facebook account and not some throwaway.

      You're not trying to imply that people should violate an EULA or TOS, right? Because Facebook's TOS explicitly state that every account MUST represent a single person, and a single person SHALL NOT HAVE MORE THAN ONE ACCOUNT.
      Soon the FBI will be arriving at your location to determine wether you're in a violation of TOS, a crime worse than murder, rape, genocide or treason.

    9. Re:Guilt by association! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I am surprised that she ever returns to the US and risks being arrested for aiding and abetting the theft of US government property.

      So, you know the evidence against her better than the authorities? You think if there was enough to charge her they'd let her go every single fucking time?

      People such as her walk a fine line.

      And thank god that they do, otherwise we wouldn't know what kind of sleazy bullshit our country's doing.

      You might be OK living in a country with ubiquitous surveillance and no Fourth Amendment, but there are still a significant number of Americans who are not.

      It's ironic that Snowden ended up in the country most likely responsible for wiretapping the US Embassy.

      You don't know as much about the entire Snowden saga if you think the reason he ended up in Russia was anything but the United States pulling his passport while he was on a layover in Russia on his way to Bolivia. If you don't have the initiative to find these things out for yourself, you should keep your obeisance to a regime that no longer recognizes your rights to yourself.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:Guilt by association! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the government is being subtle and hopes the hassles will make her stop returning to the US.

      Why would she need to be kept outside the US? If anything, you would want her to feel comfortable returning periodically so that you could arrest her if she were actually suspected of wrongdoing.

      I am surprised that she ever returns to the US and risks being arrested for aiding and abetting the theft of US government property.

      I'm surprised you ever return to the US. Or perhaps I'm being presumptive, and just making up conjectures about your motives and desires.

      People such as her walk a fine line. On one hand they claim they are working for the public good. On the other hand they tailor the release of the information to support their political ideology. Even the Snowden data has been mis-represented in some cases. One example would be the spying on the German Chancellor. The only evidence to support this claim was a cell phone number a database. There were no call records or any other evidence to support the accusation.

      A simple google search shows that this is now true. There is much more evidence.

      What is funny is that back before the Ukraine upheaval someone wiretapped and released the calls of US diplomats from within the embassy and I am pretty sure it was not the work of the NSA. This took place at the same time people were decrying NSA spying. It's ironic that Snowden ended up in the country most likely responsible for wiretapping the US Embassy.

      Russia is expected to wiretap a US embassy. Russia does not take the diplomatic moral high ground. The US is not expected to wiretap the embassies of its allies. The US claims to cherish freedom of association and privacy against unwarranted searches as a universal right. The irony is that Snowden can enjoy more freedom in Russia than in the US, and that says more about the US than about Russia or Snowden.

    11. Re:Guilt by association! by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      define a person?

      In Law, a person is a commercial entity with rights and obligations under the Law. Ergo, you have individual legal personalities and you have collective corporate legal personalities. The individual human being with a soul has no voice in commercial Law - which depends on contract. You can't contract with a soul, you can only contract with a PERSON.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    12. Re:Guilt by association! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      This. Although for some odd reason there are, I've heard, some employers (a nonzero number and increasing) that insist on not only having access to your Facebook account ""so they can get hold of you at any time", but for some even weirder reason they want your personal, established Facebook account and not some throwaway.

      Actually, I've found NOT having a FB account, or other social media helps with jobs...especially those requiring a security clearance.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Guilt by association! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the government has evidence that she's committed a crime, they would have charged her.

      Which is why the whole No-Fly List was insane from day one. If the government already knows of a long list of people who should be arrested for crimes, they should have long ago issued warrants for their arrest and went the already extant procedure to try to locate such people--obviously, that'd be one of the things those flying/crossing into the country would be checked for. Of course the real problem is that terrorists often don't commit crimes any more heinous than guilty by association or providing "material aid" to groups that may secondarily commit terrorism. That, though, doesn't get you a "big" arrest or much jail time (well, compared to an execution). The Fed just doesn't want to have to do the leg work of actually going after all the little people, getting tons of minor convictions, and possibly there every once in a while still being terrorist attacks. They want to act big and THEN still have terrorist attacks. The same MO applies with drugs as well, but they're more into the minor convictions because there's money involved (although the states get heavy into that to for the same reason). Little wonder they don't want to legalize it all; the black drug market would likely disappear and then where would they be?

    14. Re:Guilt by association! by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

      This. Although for some odd reason there are, I've heard, some employers (a nonzero number and increasing) that insist on not only having access to your Facebook account ""so they can get hold of you at any time"

      There...there are people that believe this?

      That's like saying you should hand over the keys to your house. Disregarding the miserable lack of privacy, it also makes the unreasonable assumption you'll be home all the time.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    15. Re:Guilt by association! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      This reminds me that I need to post a new selfie to Facebook and update my location since I recently moved to Donetsk.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    16. Re:Guilt by association! by coofercat · · Score: 1

      ...sounds to me like time to set up a kickstarter or whatever to fund her flying repeatedly in and out of the country, preferably along with a few other journos to document how many people she gets met with (preferably with photos to try to keep tabs on who is doing what). Time how long she's detained for each time, and get identities of as many agents as possible.

    17. Re:Guilt by association! by BVis · · Score: 1

      "Give us your Facebook account credentials or you are fired / won't get the job."

      I think most people would give them what they wanted if it was framed like that. It's probably not legal, but since when have employers given a shit about laws that tend to curtail their ability to monitor their employees' activities at all times?

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    18. Re:Guilt by association! by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

      Well, sure, while I don't support this rationale, I have no trouble believing that happens.

      I'm having trouble believing the GP's assertion that the rationale given is for emergency contact purposes.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    19. Re:Guilt by association! by BVis · · Score: 1

      Is it so hard to believe that one's employer would give a bullshit reason for doing something that is really intended to control you further?

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  29. Willkommen by wonderboss · · Score: 1

    Willkommen auf er neuen nationalsozialistischen USA

    --
    more cowbell
  30. Re: From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, we're trying. The job got a lot harder when we lost half of the Bill of Rights in 20 years.

  31. Re:Because Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you had posted that comment during the run-up to either election, you would have been down-modded into oblivion. That's my point. It's surprising how quickly the shine faded, he's not even out of office yet.

  32. Give them something to do! by HuskyDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you can be reasonably certain that your laptop will be seized and searched then you might as well have some fun.

    1) Get a brand new hard disk.
    2) Load OS and common software.
    3) Apply full disk encryption if possible supported by hardware TPM.
    4) Fill disk with pointless and uninteresting files (kitten videos, boring sales brochures for catering equipment, vast datasheets for common microprocessors etc etc).
    5) Generate a little script which goes through and encrypts each file with a different randomly generated key (obviously run scipt from external media which you don't take with you).
    6) For added fun, install a publicly available unencrypted movie (perhaps one you have made if you happen to be a film maker, otherwise something like Dumbo) and then use steganography to hide something inoccuous in it (e.g. the complete works of Shakespear).
    7) Don't expect to ever get the laptop back.

    Obviously this will take a fair bit of work, but that will be nothing compared with the huge effort expended by your tormentors in trying to work out what it all means!!

    1. Re:Give them something to do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, cannot currently afford to go buy a laptop just to donate it to tormenters. I'm sure the government can afford the minimal resources needed to simply to take my laptop away from me. (Complete the low-priority investigation quickly, on the other hand, might not be something that is currently budgeted.)

      Now, if you want to finance the purchase of such a laptop, then...

      I, for one, cannot currently afford to go buy a second laptop just to donate a second one to tormenters. I'm sure the government can afford to take a second laptop.

      This "battle plan" really does not scale well for me.

    2. Re:Give them something to do! by FrozenGeek · · Score: 2

      That's certainly an option. But keep in mind that if you upset them, they do have the ability to make your life very unpleasant every time you cross their path. I'm not saying not to do it, just that you should do a cost-benefit analysis on the concept before you do it.

      --
      linquendum tondere
    3. Re:Give them something to do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7) Don't expect to ever get the laptop back.

      8) Expect to be considered a security risk until the laptop has been properly analyzed.

    4. Re:Give them something to do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You don't have to help us decrypt this, but we can't release you until we're done."

    5. Re:Give them something to do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7) Don't expect to ever get the laptop back.

      8) Expect to be considered a security risk until the laptop has been properly analyzed.

      And detained until such time as you can prove that you are not a security risk to the nation.

    6. Re:Give them something to do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can be reasonably certain that your laptop will be seized and searched then you might as well have some fun...

      And I'll tell you exactly what will happen. They will turn it over to the FBI "crime" labs who will uncover pornographic videos of children and "classified" schematics of nuclear devices they will claim you were "obviously" trying to sell to ISIS. Don't go out of your way to aggravate government organizations that have no morals, scruples, or any hint of honesty.

    7. Re:Give them something to do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      otherwise something like Dumbo

      Better have a receipt of that, or the Disney Holdings Security get you for being a horrible pirate, and not nearly as handsome as Blackbeard.
      --
      Tinkerbell, you own me!

    8. Re:Give them something to do! by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      You forgot step 8: install spyware so you can watch whoever is using your computer after they take it from you.

    9. Re:Give them something to do! by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The problem with his idea is that the government will spend millions of dollars of taxpayer's money trying to decrypt all the terrorist files on the laptop. It wont come out of their pocket and it provides job security by making it seem like they have something important to do. In short, it's a bad idea.

    10. Re:Give them something to do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make it even more interesting, include in the laptop bag a thumbdrive that's infected with cryptolocker.

    11. Re:Give them something to do! by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      Find or record a video of two cats having sex. Encrypt the video and name it "hot_kitty_porn.mkv.gpg". Use a password short enough that they'll be able to brute force it EVENTUALLY, but only after wasting lots of time (probably you don't want them to have to spend more than a day or so, because you will be in jail while this is happening). The look on their faces when they let you go will be priceless.

      Note: maybe don't actually do this because you will go to jail, and they might be able to come up with some random thing like "interfering with an investigation" or something to charge you with out of spite. In general it's fun to think about these things, but not smart to do them.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    12. Re:Give them something to do! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Good advice, which makes me wonder why Laura Poitras bothers going back to the US at all. To see family perhaps... But it seems like emigrating somewhere else and giving up US citizen ship would be financially quite good for her, and save her a lot of hassle.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Give them something to do! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      why not save the money and instead just get some cheap SD cards and fille them with a dump of wikipedia that you encrypted and put in an encrypted container (truecrypt like) and then enabled full disk encryption. For $6 you can get a 16GB micro SD card (includes adapter), or if you wanted to cheap out you could spend $4 for a 4GB one. Just donate those to the TSA and let them sort it out.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    14. Re:Give them something to do! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can be reasonably certain that your laptop will be seized and searched then you might as well have some fun.

      Why not just dump some /dev/random on the drive and a bunch of scat videos?

  33. Re:From the TFA by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    By that logic, TSA agents should expect to be shot in the face for spending all day molesting strangers.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  34. Re:Because Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you willing to bet money that anything of that will change under a Republican?

    I suspect that the list only will grow longer.

  35. Re:From the TFA by Virtucon · · Score: 2

    I make sure I fart every time a TSA agent has to hand check me. It's my little way of protesting. It's a stupid system.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  36. Re:Remember, we're not like those other countries. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in other news, US-based organization says USA #1

  37. Re:From the TFA by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    I don't know since the Patriot Act makes that largely a black hole. I don't agree with the DHS or government policy but I'm sure she clicks quite a few of the check marks. Also remember law enforcement does and can harass you, this also includes Customs agents and unfortunately for all of us the Supreme Court has upheld this premise multiple times. It doesn't make it right but I still stand by the fact that regardless of your profession, your associations may make your activities suspicious.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  38. Absolutely by frovingslosh · · Score: 0

    The administration is still not sure if Snowden got the N.S.A. files on Obama's birth and those clumsy Hawaiian "documents". (Ask yourself for any good reason that the leader of the country would black out the number on a supposed birth certificate. The only thing that makes sense is he doesn't want it matching thecertificate of anyone else, or coming after someone born in the last minutes of the year. And after the "this is the only certificate there is" nonsense, there was the second, different, birth certificate. Don't even respond about that unless you looked at it on the whitehouse.gov website and saw how obviously (and poorly) it was Photoshopped.) They sure don't want those N.S.A. documents snuck back in the country and would like to have any information to track down the patriot who got them and the files. As far as anyone knows the files are not on Snowden's person but rather hidden where someone like this person can access them if the administration manages to assassinate Snowden.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Absolutely by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The administration is still not sure if Snowden got the N.S.A. files on Obama's birth and those clumsy Hawaiian "documents".

      I'm not convinced it's even "the administration" doing these things to Ms Poitras. More likely, it's our Military/Intelligence apparatus that has existed outside of civilian government oversight.

      When President Trump takes over, we'll see if journalists stop getting hassled. What do you think?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Absolutely by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >When President Trump takes over, we'll see if journalists stop getting hassled. What do you think?

      Talk about the Joker being the Trump card...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    3. Re:Absolutely by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      So why aren't you birthers all over fucking Cruz? If this is truly important to you, and you truly believe what you are saying. Why does Ted Cruz get a pass?

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    4. Re:Absolutely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because to them:

      Latino > Black
      Republican > Democrat

      Simple.

  39. Re:From the TFA by Gizan · · Score: 1

    Like her, I am that Randomly chosen to be searched person every time i go through tsa. im white, 26, and 5'7".... 13 out of the last 15 times ive flown (DFW-LAX) in either direction from 2002-current...

  40. What if she is in fact suspicious? by dorpus · · Score: 1

    It's well known that Putin funds both far-right and far-left extremists to increase social divisions in the West. Cuba has also funded or blackmailed American activists before. Anyone notice how Alex Jones hates the US military, for someone who calls himself a conservative patriot?

    1. Re:What if she is in fact suspicious? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      so what if she is Putin funded?
      last time I checked, RT still operates in USA.

      and there's nothing actually conservative about using the military to poke into every cesspot on earth.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:What if she is in fact suspicious? by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Didn't the Soviets do the same thing, ie funding pro hippie/green movements in an attempt to try and pacify the US from within? Can't recall where I heard that, but vaguely remember some documentary about post cold-war intel showing the Soviets had their fingers in a lot of political pies at the time.

    3. Re:What if she is in fact suspicious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? If the "suspicion" does not rise to the level of an indiction, she retains all her rights. Rights are not just for the people the government likes. If they were, they wouldn't be rights.

  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. Laura Poitras needs to smarten up by shubus · · Score: 1

    40 detentions by DHS and Laura still travels with her camera full of pictures, her notebooks full of notes and likely a cellphone full of contacts. Please! Someone tell Laura about the Cloud.

    1. Re: Laura Poitras needs to smarten up by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Certainly. It'd make the jobs of the government agents much easier, or have you forgotten about the NSA's shenanigans?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re: Laura Poitras needs to smarten up by shubus · · Score: 1

      I encrypt my cloud content, bet Laura could, too.

    3. Re: Laura Poitras needs to smarten up by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      Umm, if Citizenfour is any indication, Snowden taught her how to use full disk encryption and stuff. Did she still uses an encrypted computer for her work, or are you just assuming? (No I didn't read the article.)

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    4. Re: Laura Poitras needs to smarten up by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      wow

      Should be "Does she still use an unencrypted computer for her work, or are you just assuming."

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    5. Re: Laura Poitras needs to smarten up by shubus · · Score: 1

      I'm suggesting that she shouldn't travel to the US with a camera, laptop, phone or notebook or any other electronic goodies. Pretty much wherever she's going she can obtain the equipment there then dump her encrypted data in the Cloud and then dump the equipment before returning to the US so DHS will end up with nothing to physically search.

  43. Terrible summary (text is 3 years old) by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Y'know, you could've sprinkled a few extra facts into the summary, such as the connection to Snowden.

    But I guess that's what you get when you accept submissions wihch are just copy-pasted partial paragraphs from the article - and the paragraph itself is a quote, within the article, from 2012.

    Keep up the shitty work, editors!

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  44. Re:Because Republicans by Layzej · · Score: 4, Interesting

    #RacistFlagsMustGo(except for Black Power flags)

    For the record, there actually was never a civil war where one side fought for the right to own white people under the banner of a "black power" flag. Also, there is not to this day (nor was there ever) a state that still flies that flag of white oppression.

  45. Re:Remember, we're not like those other countries. by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    Come on, folks, let's cheer with the AC "We're number one better than China! We're number one better than China!"

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  46. Re:From the TFA by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    I was searched five times once while changing planes. Two of them were in sight of each other (either end of a hallway). Every time they said it was a "random check."

  47. That guy by PraiseBob · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've yet to see anything from O'Keefe that would suggest he's a conspiracy nut.

    The guy who got famous by dressing up as a pimp to fabricate proof that a housing organization for the poor was involved in a conspiracy to promote underage prostitution?
    The same guy who broke into a senators office, to wiretap her phones, to prove that she wasn't "listening" to her constituents?
    And the same guy who recently lost a libel lawsuit against that same senator, claiming that she implied he committed a felony. (His plea bargain reduced the charges to a misdemeanor instead of being a felony)
    The same guy who filmed himself illegally entering the country, smuggling people and material, to prove that ISIS terrorists are also sneaking across? And then after publishing video of himself smuggling, is outraged that Customs agents see him as a potential smuggler?

    Everything he does suggests he's a conspiracy nut..

    1. Re:That guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've yet to see anything from O'Keefe that would suggest he's a conspiracy nut.

      The guy who got famous by dressing up as a pimp to fabricate proof that a housing organization for the poor was involved in a conspiracy to promote underage prostitution?

      The same guy who broke into a senators office, to wiretap her phones, to prove that she wasn't "listening" to her constituents?

      And the same guy who recently lost a libel lawsuit against that same senator, claiming that she implied he committed a felony. (His plea bargain reduced the charges to a misdemeanor instead of being a felony)

      The same guy who filmed himself illegally entering the country, smuggling people and material, to prove that ISIS terrorists are also sneaking across? And then after publishing video of himself smuggling, is outraged that Customs agents see him as a potential smuggler?

      Everything he does suggests he's a conspiracy nut..

      Its also possible that he's baiting the officials to get detailed so he can complain about getting detained; if indeed he really is getting detained.

    2. Re:That guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Knowing his history, he probably got a job with immigration so he could detain himself and then publish an 'expose' about it.

  48. Re:From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless a quantum computer is doing the selecting, it's not random.

  49. the question isn't why was she detained by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    but why she kept coming back?

  50. Re:Remember, we're not like those other countries. by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    [placeholder for linkage to evidence that the UK is harassing not only its own citizens by abducting the children and selling them for profit on a seller's market, they're doing it to citizens of other countries as well].

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  51. I would have put her on the No Fly list. by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Hassling her a few hours is just an inconvenience. But the No Fly list is a real weapon. How is she going to make her unpatriotic films if she cannot go anywhere! There ain't no getting off the No Fly list, even if you were put on by mistake. That would teach her and her ilk.

    Think about what it is like to be a DHS agent. You have attended countless meetings detailing just how much threat we are under. You *know* it is true. You work hard to keep Americans safe. And then someone like Poitras comes along. Scum of the earth.

    1. Re:I would have put her on the No Fly list. by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Yep, pathetic sycophants to authority like you are the scum of the earth.

  52. Re:From the TFA by dbIII · · Score: 1

    So, what hypothetical threat are the DHS agents protecting America from?

    They are protecting America from all those unspent tax dollars! I wonder what the wages bills from those 40 stops would add up to? Would it buy a Mercedes? Two? More?

  53. Material support of terrorism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that hard to figure out this one: Material support of terrorism. She can stay trapped in Germany. Belongs in Gitmo.

  54. USA, the new nazi germany by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nsa/cia/fbi behave like gestapo, human rights are ignored, opinion is ignored, muslims are prosecuted or put into concentration camps like guantanamo or will be immediately killed by drones, including civillians, "the world is us" , "we are right", " no us-americans are affected" etc etc.

    and this is just the stuff everybody can already see and notice.

  55. That's not what the Civil War was about, either. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    For the record, there actually was never a civil war where one side fought for the right to own white people under the banner of a "black power" flag. Also, there is not to this day (nor was there ever) a state that still flies that flag of white oppression.

    For the record. the Civil War was not about one side fighting for the right to own black people under the banner of a "white power" flag, either.

    The slavery issue was used in recruiting, convincing normally anti-war religious factions to drop their opposition (or even support it) under the "just war" doctrine, and eventually as a tactic near the end of the war to try to promote a slave revolt in the Confederacy. But the original fight (like the American Revolution, the "occupy" movement, and the RIAA/MPAA inspired draconian copyright regime) was about a crony capitalists / government axis using tariffs and laws to keep a large segment of the population as captive customers for overpriced monopoly products, suppressing both their trade with suppliers in other countries and their ability to make their own, lower-priced, replacement products.

    It was the north's "1%" against the south-as-ghetto.

    (Note that I say this as a descendant of a number of people who fought on the Union side.)

    Unfortunately, the actual history of the conflict has been largely suppressed. IMHO the current anti-confederate-battle-flag move is both an attempt to finish off the suppression of the history of the conflict and to pre-emptively propagandize against any move by southern border states to take their own measures against what they perceive as a massive invasion across the southern border.

    "Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it." applies here - even if the history isn't studied because books about it are suppressed (e.g. removed from book stores and libraries because they contain the "evil racist flag").

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  56. DHS agent who knows what's going on by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    "in at least one instance she was denied the use of a pen to take notes after being told she might use it as a weapon"

    Haha, spot on, Sherlock. She IS using her pen as a weapon. She is a journalist.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  57. Re: Because Republicans by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

    Actually: there was. And just like the Confederacy, it was crushed by the power of the US federal government. You never heard of it? Where do you think the DoJ lawyers who invaded Ferguson got their training? They defended these violent separatists in court. I wonder why this has been supressed. Try to guess why. Use critical thinking! :D

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  58. Re:Because Republicans by jcr · · Score: 2

    he's entirely too much like his Republican Predecessor.

    Congratulations on admitting the obvious. Anyone who claims to hate GWB, but still supported Obama after he signed his first extension of the PATRIOT act, is and idiot or a goddamned hypocrite.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  59. Re:Because Republicans by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    You know, the biggest mistake the Republican party ever made was to dump all this hatred on Obama. Obama was the greatest gift the democrats ever gave the republicans ! A black DINO of first order. A republican in blue clothing through and through.

    And all this hatred, all these attempts to paint him as the liberal he never was - all it did was to show all the liberals in the country how NOT a liberal he actually turned out to be. The only real outcome out of 6 years of republican obstructionism and bold-faced lies was to make the truth so apparent that liberals took a sour taste of Obama.
    And what that means is NOT in fact good for republicans or conservatives, what it means is that Bernie Sanders is going to do a LOT better than he otherwise would have - the one guy running who has an actual solid liberal track record and has not once voted on the wrong side (read - the conservative side) of any issue. Not once.
    I don't know if Sanders can win - his odds are actually far better than they looked at first, and a LOT better than Ron Paul ever had, but it may still not be enough, but even if he doesn't -his presence is forcing Hillary Clinton to actually remember who her base is supposed to be. She can't possibly get the nomination now without actually moving way to the left.
    She'll probably move back closer to the middle after the primaries if she gets it, but she won't be able to move all the way back to where she is now - and lets face it, the republicans have spent so much time badmouthing her that trying to appeal to conservatives will be a wasted effort.

    The one thing Republicans and Fox news have achieved in the past 6 years - is to actually create the possibility of the first REAL liberal US president since FDR. It is still just a possibility of course, but that possibility didn't even exist for the past 40 years.

    So er... thanks Fox News ?

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  60. Re:Because Republicans by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    Oh, you didn't hear ?
    Normal citizens and the GOVERNMENT should be subject to the same restrictions and held to the same standards... You know because rights like freedom of speech was created for government and only shared with citizens out of kindness !

    In the real world of course - no such equal standard have ever or should ever exist as it would be the most illiberal idea you could possibly imagine. It's exactly why the burden of proof is so much heaver in criminal than in civil courts - because in criminal courts, one party is the government and are supposed to be held to a higher standard.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  61. Re:That's not what the Civil War was about, either by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Informative

    >For the record. the Civil War was not about one side fighting for the right to own black people under the banner of a "white power" flag, either.

    That's complete bullshit, that's been spread way too widely but utterly fails to match the facts.

    1) The confederates were NOT fighting for states' rights, exactly the opposite in fact, they wanted to get RID of states' rights. 3 of the declarations of secession state that a fundamental reason for their secession was their anger at states like Maine for refusing to return runaway slaves or allow slave transit. In other words - they opposed the right of Maine and New York to NOT support the slave trade.
    2) The confederacy was formed by a declaration which all the confederate states had to sign - much like the US was originally formed by the declaration of independence. The very FIRST article in that declaration bound all the member states to a promise to never, under any circumstances, now or in the future, ban slavery or inhibit it in any way.
    3) The various declarations of secession ALL discussed slavery at length and repeatedly stated that the single most important reason for the secession was that the abolitionists in northern states threatened what they saw as the proper and natural state of the world: one where whites could own blacks as slaves.
    4) Non-slave owning whites in the South did NOT in fact support the war or the secessions - that vast majority very vocally and visibly opposed it. So severe was the opposition that on multiple occasions General Lee had to threaten to burn towns to the ground before they would allow him to feed his horses or buy food for his soldiers there ! In Tennessee this happened twice !
    The real heroes of the South are those citizens, who supported abolition - who despised the slave owning minority (a ruling class that tended to mistreat poorer whites pretty badly as well) and actively opposed the war to the extent that the confederate army had to threaten their lives just to buy supplies !

    In fact, there isn't a single official contemporary document by any of the Southern states governments, the confederate government or any of their leaders or generals that does not repeatedly say that the war is about preserving the right to own slaves.
    EVERY claim to the contrary appeared AFTER the war, in a desperate attempt to white-wash the history of why that war happened.

    Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  62. IMDB by jittles · · Score: 1

    Anyone else try to look up the documentary "My Country, My Country" on IMDB? You can quite literally put in the full movie title and the only auto-complete search it finds for you is "My Cousin, Vinny". I've never seen that with any other movie on IMDB, no matter how obscure. Even foreign films. But if you actually force it to execute the search, you'll see that the title is on IMDB. I wonder if I am on the watch list, now? :P

    1. Re:IMDB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to lookup German movie "Doppelpack" (a totally harmless buddy movie) and you will get the same result - does not show in autocomplete.

      So you are just paranoid.

  63. Re:Remember, we're not like those other countries. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine Bogaboga will thank you, at some point, for doing just what he asked.

    You've lost the game already!

  64. Re:From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My brother gets randomly stopped every time he enters the country (New Zealand). Every time.

    It's funny, because I mentioned it to someone and he started shouting that he wanted me to prove that random searches like that didn't work, because I couldn't do it. Something about olive skinned arabs or something (my brother, fully of european descent, is white, with slightly dark skin).

    Of course, he didn't like it when I asked about the IRA, or the French terrorists who bombed a boat back in '86... but they probably don't count. They aren't evil sand niggers out to deprive us all of our freedoms and make us worship their god.

  65. Amerika by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole story would only matter if America were still a democracy. You're all waaaay past that now, but willfully ignorant of the reality, and the need to fight for a dying dream.

  66. Re:From the TFA by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the wages bills from those 40 stops would add up to? Would it buy a Mercedes? Two? More?

    No:
    7.25/hr * 40 stops * 4hours per stop=$1160
    Or what is probably around 1-2 months of payments on a Mercedes.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  67. Government Opinion Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must have the same opinion as your government. 1st amendment is dead.

    This is the message the government sends.

  68. sounds prettry dense if she cant figure that out by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The feds view Snowdon as one of the biggest cases of treason in modern times and she was a link.

  69. Re:Because Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guantanamo - Republican controlled congress passed a law requiring that the President get their permission to release *ANY* prisoners from Guantanamo.

    Iraq (Complete disaster with the war "ended' when all the military leaders said don't) - Ended according to the timetable negotiated and signed off on under Bush. Obama's options were to violate that agreement, or withdraw troops as promised. Even *BUSH* says we should live up to our agreements.

    Prisoner swap - What ever happened to the Marine ideal of 'Leave no man behind'? He may be a deserter, but that means he should be tried (and, if found guilty, punished according to the law, not abandoned to enemies)

    Economy - Out of recession. We actually *don't* have "record # on welfare, foodstamps, out of the working pool". In fact, all of those have fallen *dramatically since he took office. Stagnant wages? Yes, but the President doesn't actually control the wages offered by private industry. That's on the CEOs and such who take their record profits as bonuses while claiming the economy just can't/won't/doesn't support raises for the people who actually enable the company to *make* said profits.

    War on Women - Got a citation for that claim?

    Illegal Immigration - Has deported *more* illegal immigrants than any President in the last 3 decades. Additionally, the President is not in charge of the *STATE* which released the criminal rather turning him over to Immigration.

    But don't let the facts get in the way of your rhetoric.

  70. Re: From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you won't fight back, you get what you deserve.

  71. Only one person involved? Get real by dbIII · · Score: 1

    When someone is stopped a number of people spread over a range of pay grades are involved. Try adding a couple of orders of magnitude.

  72. Remember the good ol' days? by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

    Remember back when travel to the US didn't include this level of harassment?

    We've come a long way, brother! Today, it is common practice to have your property stolen with no legal recourse. Today, you're smart if you're scared to complain. And think about it: Laptops are harmless. Data isn't going to jump out and eat anybody while you're in flight.

    The desire to know everything about you is indicative of an obsessive, sick need to control. The only thing more pathetic are those who welcome it; the folks beaten as kids for not being obedient enough or for thinking without permission.

  73. Re:Because Republicans by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

    Yep, I have frequently used the line "Obama is the best Republican President we have had in a long time."

    I never understood the hatred. He continued nearly every conservative law, continued most Republican tax policies, enacted a conservative health care plan that had been defeated before, he seems to be the perfect Republican.

    I am surprised and pleased to see Bernie making such a splash, my dream election: Donald Trump/Bernie Sanders. I might even begin to believe in God........

    No flip flopping and I love that he calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Heads exploding everywhere. This may be a very entertaining election.

    Don't forget to stock up on popcorn!

    --
    Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  74. Re:From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, what hypothetical threat are the DHS agents protecting America from? I would note that, in all 40 instances, she was eventually allowed into the country, and in none of those instances did she commit a crime before leaving again.

    Well, after the first two dozen times she obviously has a motive to throw a bomb on the Department of Homeland "Security". The price for fscking up is eternal vigilance.

  75. Re:From the TFA by TheGavster · · Score: 1

    It's not right, but you stand by it? They say you meet some reprehensible people on the Internet, but holy cow. What other evil acts to you stand by?

    Imagine how this would work out in your neighborhood: The guy down at #5 finds some dog poop on his step. He's seen you with dogs a lot, so he asks if it was your dog. You respond that you don't actually have a dog, but that as a veterinarian, you often see dogs. The situation here is the same as if your neighbor came and accused you of letting your dog defecate on his steps every time it happened, even though he knows that it couldn't have been you.

    In the real world, all societies need defenders who will protect them from the wild. A free society is predicated on those defenders being able to differentiate that which is suspicious from that which is actually hostile or criminal.

    --
    "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
  76. Re: From the TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From what's transpired in the past 24 hours you don't know shit.