Slashdot Mirror
The US Border Patrol Is Checking Detainees' Facebook Profiles (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader quotes CNET:
Border patrol agents are checking the Facebook accounts of people who are being held in limbo for approval to enter the U.S., according to a Saturday tweet by immigration lawyer Mana Yegani that was spotted by The Independent... Yegani, who is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told CNET that checking phones has been reported by other lawyers as part of the vetting process. "[G]oing through passengers phones from the seven banned countries happens when the individual is interrogated (put under extreme vetting)," Yegani said.
Yegani told The Independent that she and other lawyers have been fielding calls from people who are already cleared to live in America, but are getting stuck at the border regardless. "These are people that are coming in legally. They have jobs here and they have vehicles here," Yegani said in the report.
The EFF warns that "Fourth Amendment protection is not as strong at the border as it is in your home or office. This means that law enforcement can inspect your computer or electronic equipment, even if they have no reason to suspect there is anything illegal on it. An international airport, even if many miles from the actual border, is considered the functional equivalent of a border."
Yegani told The Independent that she and other lawyers have been fielding calls from people who are already cleared to live in America, but are getting stuck at the border regardless. "These are people that are coming in legally. They have jobs here and they have vehicles here," Yegani said in the report.
The EFF warns that "Fourth Amendment protection is not as strong at the border as it is in your home or office. This means that law enforcement can inspect your computer or electronic equipment, even if they have no reason to suspect there is anything illegal on it. An international airport, even if many miles from the actual border, is considered the functional equivalent of a border."
As if I needed more reason not to share my personal life with the world (and TSA)
Are the agents also permitted to provide alternative facts when they don't find what they are looking for under this administration?
Trump is doing exactly what he said he would. He promised this during the campaign. Many on the right said there was hope Trump would do the right thing and, despite criticizing him, cast their votes for him. Trump is keeping his campaign promises and doing so with rapid pace. Many Republicans in Congress sharply criticized him, but most have fallen in line. Even McCain, Graham, and Sasse (who's criticism was incredibly weak) have yet to do anything substantive. Trump gets to appoint a Supreme Court Justice to support his executive actions because last Congress' Senate didn't do their jobs. This is what the far right wanted and they've justified it with alternative facts, which is a euphemism for outright lies and fake news. So many on the right said Trump didn't support their values. So many Christians said Trump's positions were contrary to their beliefs. They voted for him because he called himself a Republican and claimed to be pro-life. So many religious leaders backed Trump on the principles of the GOP platform, but now aren't happy that he kept his promises. Meanwhile, much of the far right continues to live in their own alternate reality with alternative facts and fake news. And this is how tyranny escalates. Trump told all of you he was a tyrant, but too many of you ignored him. And now he has four years (because the Senate will likely stay under Republican control after the 2018 election) to do as much damage as he can, with a handpicked Supreme Court Justice to help prevent his policies from being struck down as unconstitutional.
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
Sig ?
The Visa Waiver Program was improved in 2015.
"Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country)."
Just because it has been ignored by our previous administration, doesn't make entry lawful. It's far past time for enforcement agencies to follow legal mandates. Right or wrong, law is legislated. Instructing agencies not to follow laws created by legislature by defunding or other political means circumvents mandates created by legislature.
We are a democracy. If the law doesn't fit what the majority of the citizens want, change it. Effecting change without legislature is just wrong.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Aliens of any type have NEARLY ZERO rights at the border. Consular nonreviewability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... US Citizens have a reduced set of rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Apparently we've forgotten the folks (San Bernardino, etc) who had "clear evidence of ISIS sympathies" on their Facebook profiles and other public social media that we then asked why hadn't been caught when they were entering the country.
As the SCOTUS has repeatedly stated, aliens have no Right of Entry to the US, and non-citizens have reduced guarantees (and certainly reduced privileges). Even a US citizen may be searched on entry if anything unusual is suspected, and is legally obligated to declare possessions in a way that basically happens nowhere else domestically (except agricultural goods going into California).
This is a Good Thing. How is this not a Good Thing? That's what customs/border inspection is supposed to be doing.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
N.c.
Care to clarify that? All this technology we have was done with little legislative involvement. You seem to be somewhat limiting your scope of change by mentioning law, but your meaning is still unclear. Are you saying that everyone who illegally helped escaped slaves were wrong?
And that will sahlved the problem.
While checking their phones is disturbing, facebook is public folks. That shits posted straight there and it sure as hell isn't the posters anymore when it hits faceboooks servers.
We can whine all we want about lack of privacy, but not after willingly abdicating it...
Facebook is evil for many reasons, this is one...
Oh! Well then that changes things doesn't it! Right this way, Ahmed! Please accept our sincere apologies for checking to see if you have malicious intentions towards our country, we didn't realize at the time that you HAVE A VEHICLE HERE and therefore are clearly above reproach.
For many years the left have shut down any discussion about immigration by screaming "racist", "bigoted", "xenophobic". Instead of listening to people's concerns about high levels of immigration and rapidly changing demographies, the left brushed those concerns aside and ploughed on with bringing anyone and everyone into the country. Then finally, after many years, a presidential candidate appeared who took their concerns of the people seriously and the public jumped at the chance to elect him.
So now, after years of the left steamrollering over the views of those of us on the right, we're now the ones in the driving seat of the steamroller. We'll show as much regard for your concerns and opinions as you showed for ours. Had you listened to the voices of those on the right, and taken a more measured approach, we might not be in this situation where the left and right are so divided. But hey, you created this situation and now you'll have to watch the results, with more to come over in Europe.
One thing surely even the left can agree on about Trump is that he's probably the first politician in history to deliver so thoroughly on his campaign promises. Obama couldn't do a simple thing like close Guantanamo Bay, and he certainly didn't deliver the transparent government he promised. Trump is doing exactly what he said he'd do. He's doing a fantastic job.
I do like that Slashdot chose a story with a tech angle to cover this event, instead of just throwing the first piece of red meat that came along. Also, posting about it the day after it happened gives time to get the facts right, instead of the first tweet that is inevitably wrong.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Watch Border Security.
This is standard operating procedure for everyone goign through the border in Canada, Australia, and America. They will look thorough your texts, your emails, your social media. It's quite funny when after waiting for a few minutes for the security screening to be completed, the security guards go up to the smuck and ask him about the pictures of drugs he took 5 years ago, and the text message he sent 20 minutes ago saying he was looking forwards to getting "toasted" after the plane lands.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
But the media didn't seem to have an issue with that.
They aren't just checking for ISIS recruiting videos, they are checking for pro or anti Trump sympathies. How do I know this? Because I'm not in denial or an apologist. I know green card holders from the UK - white people - who have travel plans and are now terrified. *Chances are* the white if scruffy males shouldn't have a problem, right?
They can search my Facebook profile. If they're barring Jimi Hendrix and Stevie Ray Vaughn fans or opinionated coders I'm gonna have problems.
I know people have been asked to volunteer Facebook and other social network information upon entry into the US, this has been the case for at least 2 if not 4 years and started under the Obama administration. Even Twitter held back their outrage about the DHS using their information for border controls until AFTER it was clear that Trump had won but even that story is now several months old.
All these 'new things' including the stopping of people at the border from certain nations has been done and legislated under the Obama administration, to quote another user here on Slashdot when Obama seized public lands from use by Indians and other members of the public: "Obama is just implementing what was legislated before, these orders are just telling particular agencies how they should implement the legislation".
Well, at least now you know why such laws should never be allowed, most of you here on Slashdot didn't care or realize the gravity of the issues when Obama, Bush or Clinton signed off on these exact laws. Next up: how Trump uses the DMCA, Patriot Act, NAFTA, TPP etc. to do whatever the fuck he wants - and you (the American public) gave it to them because you either didn't feel safe, didn't care or didn't believe that someone could rise up that would abuse those legislations. Too late now.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
When you try and enter another nation and your not a citizen a nation can ask a lot of and any background questions it wants.
The good news is biometrics will remove a lot of the past issues with people moving around with papers that are shared, limited, lost or fake.
Some people enter a third nation and have been granted total new legal travel documents in a third nation with no vetting.
Other nations sell citizenship with few questions asked.
As for social media, a nation can ask for that during an interview. Entering any nation can see a lot of questions, searches, work details and even digital data requests.
Some nations ask for bank details to see if a person can even afford to support their stay, if they have been a criminal, health questions. At entry into another nation that is all fine and normal practice globally.
The other great aspect about the social media question is the deception aspect.
If a person shows their social media and is in support of groups banned in the USA that can be discovered and entry revoked.
If a person hides their social media accounts when asked directly on entry to the USA and such accounts are then found later, that can revoke documents.
The very aspect of hiding such details when asked is a great way to cancel papers.
Thats why the USA had that list of very classic questions surrounding a persons role in persecution, wars, party membership.
If a person tries to hide some of their social media accounts and its later discovered they did not tell the truth, entry can be revoked.
Any social media questions on entry to the USA are just a natural extension of this policy to find if a person has links to groups or individuals of interest to the USA and then tries to hide such connections.
Other nations will ask for all and any passwords and then read/search emails, social media during an interview on entry.
A green card, other issued travel documents or citizenship is not some diplomatic immunity like protection from questions, searches or now social media requests.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Reports are also coming in that a federal courts freeze on the Trump Nazis ban, border patrol agents continue to detain people. That's right people they are ignoring the law. Will they suffer any repercussions for not following the law? Where are all the white nationalists screaming obey the law? Oh wait it only applies to other people. Bunch of hypocrites. This should be a warning sign to all of us. The Nazis following the lead of Bannon are trying to take over the US. Are we just going to keep sitting by and watching it?
Another reason to add to the list as to why I don't have a facebook.
If he meant to stop muslims he should stop muslims, not stop christians from Iraq instead of salafists from Saudi Arabia.
I guess that even Trump believe that you can't descriminate based on religion, but you can based on nationality. For the individual, however, the second criteria is as arbitrary as the first.
Why wouldn't we want to make sure the people coming to live here aren't subversive or going to hurt Americans? Go ahead, correct the record but our citizens have spoken, you cannot downvote reality and you cannot downvote our voice. WE HAVE YOUR EMAILS PODESTA.
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
Funny thing about that...
Trumps actual order has an exception for immigrants who are already in transit, viz section (e): "[...] when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States."
So holding people up at US airports just some ICE pricks trying to make a false narrative to paint Trump in a bad light.
And other than Syria, which was specifically referenced in the order, Trump is using Obama's list of Muslim countries, viz: "Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries."
So this is just lefties not caring about the actual issue. When they do it it's OK, but thay have to paint Trump in a bad light when he does it.
(Speaking of which, has Hillary been seen in a black church or black community since November? Or was that just an election thing?)
Also, Obama banned Iraq refugees for 6 months and we didn't hear a peep out of the lefties. Once again, they don't care about the issue, only which side does it.
And no, he didn't ban Muslim immigration. Muslims from Turkey and Saudi Arabia (for example) are not affected by this.
There's a fuckton of people on social media who are actually in favor of this, and who see this as a temporary measure intended to create common-sense rules intended to keep us safe. People are also noting that this was one of his campaign promises, and it's both surprising and refreshing to see someone actually keeping those promises.
You guys have 6 1/2 years to groom a replacement, and you'd better get started real soon now. Your campaign strategy of being the "lesser of two evils" won't work the next time around.
If Jared Kushner or Donald Jr. decides to run for president, the current of actually kept promises will be almost impossible to swim against.
1 - Does not apply to non-nationals
2 - Barely applies at the borders even for nationals.
In this day and age is using his/her real identity on Facebook is a fool, and this is yet another proof in the time of Donald the unfailable.
The list of nations Trump was working from was "previously identified by the Obama administration as posing extraordinary risks."
So I guess Obama had business dealings there to? Or was he working for Trump?
The rest of you can fuck off.
I have 5 FB accounts.
Problem solved.
How many people with relatives from the 7 "banned from America" countries went from "I have no reason to hurt America" to "I'm determined to hurt America" as a direct result of Trump's actions last week?
How many wouldn't have been "radicalized" if only Trump had grandfathered in everyone who already had permission to enter the United States?
It's not just radical "Islamic" Trump-created terrorists we need to worry about:
How many law-abiding but on-the-fringe radical-Constitutionalist-family-fought-in-the-revolution Americans decided "Trump has betrayed the Constitution, that gives me license to attack government interests"?
I'm hoping both numbers are zero, but I'm not that naive. I can only hope that any Trump-created terrorists are caught before they can do my country harm.
All hail Mein Furher Trump. I can hardly wait to see the reports on his concentration camps, errr, I mean "temporary involuntary visitor centers".
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Sincerely, Mohammad "Mark" Zuckerbergimani.
At least try to stay on topic when repeating talking points, because what you said makes no sense. The Obama administration recommended banning immigration from the 7 countries Trump just did, but President Obama ignored the recommendation. President Obama was quite frankly out of touch with reality, claiming that there were no terrorist attacks during his administration and that importing tens of thousands of refugees had no risk. The first has to ignore the Boston Marathon, Ft. Hood, San Bernadino, Orlando, and you can search and find many more. The second ignores what has happened in Germany, Switzerland, France, the UK, and every other country who has mass imported people from the Middle East without allowing, or even caring, that they adopt the cultures of their country.
That is not a "Muslim" thing, it's a thing where people lack respect for the country they live in and even actively work to subvert the Government in the same Country. We have a good number of Mexican immigrants in the US who want California and Texas to be parts of Mexico and they don't respect or care about the US.
The people who are limiting their scope are the people who cherry pick talking points like "we are immigrants" without actually checking on whether or not that's true. For example: Prior to having State Welfare we were open to all immigration, but if you failed you went back to your home country. Plenty of people did just that. After Welfare systems were established the rules changed a bit, and should have changed more. Welfare is supposed to go to current citizens, and not help people who have not contributed to the system. You want to give all your money and property away, that's on you. State Welfare requires the Government to take money from _everyone_, so it's not charity.
If you have interest in actually improving your state of mind, I'd recommend Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. I won't hold my breath though, because chanting what someone tells you to is much easier than learning..
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I am more interested in the notion of the legitimacy of democracy, the power of the rule of law... On what evidence do you base the notion that slavery violated then established fundamental human rights?
"The EFF warns that "Fourth Amendment protection is not as strong at the border as it is in your home or office."
It's not "not as strong." It doesn't exist. Not just at the border, but for 100 miles inland from the border.
What happens when you tell a CBP agent that you don't have any social media accounts? I legitimately have none. I read Reddit, but I don't have a Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. account. Are they going to believe me and let me through, or are they going to assume I'm lying and deny me entry?
I have a vacation planned to visit my fiance in the US in March. I'm very worried about going now ....
Whatever gave you the idea that anything I typed had anything to do with talking points?
After 15 years, I feel safe at last. As Benjamin Franklin so wisely said, "Those who would not give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It's an alternative fact. Look it up.
The Department of Homeland Security states years ago that a person without a Facebook/social media account is a likely terrorist (wording from the article). When I read that in the Main Stream Media, I immediately closed my Facebook account. Every business, law enforcement agency, head hunter, credit reporter checks social media. The fact that the USA Governments do this is neither surprising nor news. The Obama Regime did this and probably the Bush Regime before that.
So if it is determined in the future that something you support is such a violation, you are wrong here and now?
None of this is happening. This is all just CNN and MSNBC makig up shit to hurt Trump.
No.
Any other questions I can help you with?
So what makes slavery different?
Nothing makes slavery different. Under today's standards, slavery is morally wrong while immigration restrictions are not.
A home grown "lone wolf" is just as relevant as any card carrying international terrorist. The evaluation is "How many deaths?"
The Orange Toad's current Royal Decree isn't about stopping deaths, it's about him fucking over people he doesn't like. That's all.
But I asked whether opposing slavery was wrong given laws that were in effect in a time when slaverery were not such a violation. You changed tenses on me. You may have failed to realize that i was referring to actual laws, which may have made you fail to realize I meant ones at that time period.
Could of sworn a certain anonymous coward warned people about this...hmmmm...
Having a job and a car does not mean you're not a terrorist.
Having a job and a car and no house suggests you work for Uber and spend your nights in the 7/11 parking lot.
If it were just job, and no house or car, then you probably work at Amazon and live in a tent behind the building.
No, I didn't change tenses on you. The question of whether something "was" morally wrong is still a question about a moral judgment we make today, not how the people at the time judged it to be. (If you were trying to ask the latter question, you were changing tenses on me, since I clearly had given my original justification in terms of a modern concept, namely that of human rights.) However, it turns out that the majority of Americans at the time probably also judged slavery to be morally wrong, and hence would have judged opposition to slavery to be morally justified; so it's not the case that views changed on this subject.
Unlike slavery, which was always widely considered immoral in the US, immigration restrictions have never been considered immoral except by a small minority. And there is no reason to believe that that is ever going to change. Immigration restrictions will only disappear when progressive nation states disappear.
You know the fun part, it's that it's the incompetence of US foreign policy makers that made the rise of ISIL possible.
First they supported the Sunni in Afghanistan in their war against the Soviets, helping Al-Qaeda gain traction in the process. They also supported Saddam Hussein and the Sunni minority in Iraq.
Then of course Iran became the real enemy and Washington figured that after getting rid of Saddam Hussein it would be a good idea to remove the Sunni minority from power in Iraq and let the Shia majority take over. Which was not such a good idea, especially with the Sunni majority in Syria already suffering under the brutal dictatorship of a Shia minority. So before anyone could do a thing about it, a large chunk of Iraq and Syria is a bloodbath opposing Sunnis (al-Qaeda, aka ISIL or al-nusra) and Shia (including Hezbollah), with various foreign powers involved in a complex game of thrones.
So what now? What should be the US foreign policy? Fight ISIL and Al-Qaeda while implicitly siding with Iran, the Syrian dictator and the Hezbollah - which would irritate Israel? Or support the Sunni majority in Syria against the Shia dictator, and anger Russia in the process?
That's why Trump was a better option than Clinton. The only sane thing to do at this point is pull out and stop meddling into other countries affairs. There's no fixing it - just gtfo and focus on rebuilding roads for a while.
lucm, indeed.
President Obama neither wrote nor signed the order - President Trump did. President Trump chose those countries.
What I'm interested in is the notion that it is immoral to do something that is against the law or contrary to the legislative branch, or to straight up ignore democracy entirely. Do you consider the matter settled and it is definitely immoral, or are people like anarchists sufficient enough to have the matter still be in the unresolved category?
We will see how long this will last, but so far I am pretty optimistic.
Legality and morality are two separate concepts. Furthermore, democracies frequently produce laws that don't represent the preferences of the people. So, why would it be automatically immoral to violate laws?
Do I consider what matter settled? The question of how immigration should function in progressive welfare states and democratic nation states? I think that matter is pretty much settled: nobody has a right to immigrate into a progressive welfare state. That's pretty much universally recognized.
That's a different question. Under an anarchical, minarchical, or libertarian form of government, restrictions on immigration are unacceptable, immoral, and unnecessary; that's because under those forms of government, I can choose personally not to associate with people I judge to be hostile to me, to discriminate against them in housing and employment. In a democratic nation state, I don't have those choices, but I do have the choice to vote against letting such people immigrate. If you deprive me of both the personal choice and the political choice, then the society has ceased to be free in any meaningful sense and become authoritarian.
It's fine when democrats do it, because reasons.
the clue is in the name. The word "Extreme" literally means "beyond the pale" and "too much", "unacceptable", "excessive". There is absolutely no scenario where "government action" and "extreme" in the same sentence is ever a good thing.
If Trump wanted to convince Americans that this was an appropriate response to a threat (as incredibly small as the threat is)... then he would not have called it "extreme" - the message is pretty clear, this is an act of war against the world - especially America's fellow signatories of the refugee convention - who are now having to pick up the slack as their partner shirks it's agreed responsibilities. Has our dear fascist emperor asked himself what happens is they follow suite (who could blame them ?) The few who are open and likely to stay so (Canada right now, Germany says so but that could change if the election doesn't go Merkels way) wouldn't be able to take everybody.... and the refugees won't stop fleeing the horrors that drove them from their homes in the first place.
I've got a hint for the president - if you close your borders to refugees, they STILL come - only now they come as illegal immigrants. The only possible outcome of extreme vetting... is ZERO vetting. Nobody vets illegal immigrants.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
As a white-skinned citizen of a US-friendly European country, who needs to transit the US in a few weeks time on the way to another country (waiting in a US airport for only a few hours), even I'm thinking it might be a good idea to remove a post from my FB expressing disquiet (in the mildest terms) over the events that have taken place in the US over the last couple of weeks. Don't want to give any US officials any excuse to harass me.
Maybe I should remove posts commenting on Brexit too. I don't want to reveal my political left-leanings as that might be enough to attract extra scrutiny in Trump's USA.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2015/12/18/obama-on-monitoring-social-media-two-years-ago-debate-was-whether-government-was-becoming-too-much-like-big-brother/
Obama Administration.
You are an oligarchy. Effecting change without legislature is your only resort.
those of us who voted against it, or the people who put it forward/voted affirmatively to it, whose voices weren't heard because we weren't a large enough majority.
Plenty of people in America disagree. The problem is they are so spread out across the country they cannot either enact change, or even just ensure lax enforcement in the region they are in.
If you're looking at this Twitter/Facebook page you're a moron/evil douchebag!
See what the droid thinks of that page.
Trump supporters were supposed to take him "seriously but not literally," suggesting that people who voted for him didn't actually believe he meant any of his promises, but would magically make things better
Trump opponents were supposed to take him "literally but not seriously," suggesting that they believed his promises represented objectives that he could never achieve because he's a clown with no experience.
Now it looks like they're both wrong. The people who voted for him, hoping that his awful promises weren't to be taken literally, turn out to be mistaken. The people who believed he couldn't possibly uproot decades of governmental stability are watching superpower-status circle the drain.
Wait on line!!!!
... he signed a bill written by Congress after weighing whether it did more good than harm. It's "Obama's list" only if he did it through executive order.
Knowing this is how foreigners are going to be treated entering the US, the workarounds seem pretty simple:
Back up your phone to a secure server, reset it to a factory install, then once through customs, connect to your secure server and reload your old phone settings.
If border agents think that this is going to stop terrorists from getting into the country, they *woefully* underestimate their adversary...We've all seen what hapens when you do that.
Parallel construction :
You're grey hat hacker.
You burst into the mail of someone who happens to be a criminal and who plans to rob a bank.
You would like to have the police know it (so they can prevent the robbing),
but you cannot admit that you got the information by hacking into mail servers (that would be illegal, give you trouble, and not necessarily be receivable as proof).
So instead you manage to invent a different reason for the police to "happen to be there by chance" (ask a friend working at the police if they couldn't make a pause with their coworker to come into the bank to retreive money. Or make a false alarm go off somewhere that will cause the police to arrive, etc.)
The basic fact is exactly the same (the criminal XyZ want to rob a bank).
You keep the truth, you just try to hide how you got it and try to invent another way by which this truth can be discovered.
It looks as if method B uncovered the truth (by chance, etc.) whereas in fact it was method A, and method B was setup purposefully knowing that it will also be able to uncover the truth that you knew already in advance.
But the basic information is truth.
In short : Parallel construction is "hide the actual source of the info, come up with a believable way for the info to be discovered elsewhere 'by chance', but the info is legit".
Alternative fact :
You're a politician, A. You don't like politician B.
So you start spreading rumours that politician B is actually a former criminal who got caught while trying to rob a bank.
Newspaper might be doubting your information. So they start digging into record and discover... that politician B never caught for a bank robbery or anything else, and in fact has never been discovered to be a criminal at all.
When they come back to you trying to get you admit that you lied,
you answer that your informations are simply "alternative facts". That you were "having the impression that politician B could have been a criminal" and that impressions aren't objective but personal, you're entitled to have your own impression and the journalist can't come criticising you for your impressions because these are hard to judge objectively and it's hard to give a definitive answer that politician B has never been and will never be a criminal.
The basic information (politician B == bank robber) is complete bullshit, but you come up with a weird reasoning of why the things you said can be considered as facts, and why those facts differ from that fact that other people pretend can be objectively judged.
In short : It's insane troll logic trying to justify why you want your lies to be believed as facts.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
On them.
It doesn't matter if they were arbitrary or not. President Obama's role is completely irrelevant.
The choice to create a ban was entirely President Trump's. The choice of countries to ban was President Trump's.
(It you want to try and apologize for that fascist lump of shit, you'll find little sympathy from me.)
Haha.....Border Patrol can try all they want to look at my FB account but will never succeed.
Fucking idiots.
Don't ruin the snowflake thing by using it when it doesn't apply
lucm, indeed.
Trump has kicked the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence off the National Security Council and installed Steve Bannon in their place.
Wrong. CJCS and DNI will no longer attend all meetings of the Principals Committee, which is a subset of the full National Security Council, but
- they will sit on the Principals Committee when matters pertaining to them arise
- they are still members of the NSC.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
if follows Trump on twitter.
In case of parallel construction, law enforcement need to construct. They need to have an actually credible explanation of how they got the evidence.
Get evidence through illegal mean A.
Then invent a new mean B, that will give the same information (that you know in advance thanks to A), but that would appear to have worked without you knowing the information and could realistically happen even if A didn't happen.
Do B, then get the same information, but this time legally.
When asked by a judge, say you used method B and that's how you got the information (completely ignore the fact that you did A first, and that's how you got the idea to actually do B).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]