If you understand statistics you're a data point in my favor. You both work in social science and you understand statistics.
Statistics is important even for ethnographers. It's not the focus of their research, but they do have to use it. Surveys are a tool they use to prove they aren't making shit up in their analyses, which means they have to have some basic understanding of Statistics. This is not true of most branches of mathematics. So while a typical ethnographer would probably be extremely confused by an NIH grant committee asking him how good he was at Cosines, he'd at least pretend to understand why a survey with only 5 respondents is not a good data source.
If you can convince the NIH to fund a case study whose principle researcher admits he can't understand anything the quantitative guys put out, due to his not knowing Stats, you're a better grant-writer then I.
If you don't understand statistics you simply cannot work in the Social Sciences. Ever. You are not allowed to do the experiments necessary to isolate variables properly, and even if some sociopath (for example) traumatized three groups of ten people exactly the same way, and tried three different forms of psychological treatment on them to see what happens you'd run into the fact that all 30 of victims are individuals who will respond to each treatment differently.
Which means RL Psychologists are stuck doing a sophisticated study of people who just happened to get traumatized, and then chose a course of treatment; and the only way to get useful data from that is do lots of statistics. But not too much statistics or you risk over-fitting.
OTOH you can be a perfectly good chemist without understanding the difference between correlation and causation.
She said flat-out "this is a gift for my cousin in Iran." The actual money for the purchase was coming from her Uncle, who is Iranian not American. She was present to translate, not buy the product.
If she'd been a little savvier she would have said "this is a gift for me," and then there probably wouldn't have been a problem.
Just because the law isn't enforced by other retailers it does not follow that the law does not exist.
Moreover you're assuming people go to Best Buy to buy Tablet Computers. They don't. 62% of them can't, because 62% of tablet customers buy iPads, and Best Buy don't sell iPads. More importantly people are a lot more likely to buy Apple products via a retail store then anybody else's. Which means that statistically speaking a single incident from best Buy would indicate best Buy is harder on Iranians then Apple.
As for "racism," I have two points. First Apple does not make the law. If the law is you can't ship iPads to Iran, and you're so dumb you go to an Apple store and tell the guy you're shipping an iPad to Iran, he's not being racist if he refuses to sell you an iPad. He's being smart.
Second is Apple is held to an incredibly high standard. Most retail jobs start at minimum wage or a little higher. So $7.25-$8.00 depending on the state. Apple retail employees start at $11.91, and Apple gets hammered. What do you think would happen if the Islamophobes found out Ahmadinejad's cousin had sent him an iPad, and Apple knew about it?
Heck what makes you think anybody would be so pissed at not buying a Dell that they'd go to the national media about it?
Flooring Employees start at $8.50, so the wage difference is only about $1 an hour. But that buck is probably why Home Depot makes a lot more money then Lowe's. I'm making less then that because I work in the parking lot, and started at $7.60/hr. Then Minimum Wage went up in Ohio so I'm up to $8.
If my store got exactly the right job openings for me to get promoted $11.91 would be reachable in a couple years. But as a starting salary?
In retail $11.91 an hour starting wage is great. Even for skilled employees. H and R Block Tax preparers, for example, are only paid $8.50.
I have had jobs in retail since 1999, and I have never heard of a non-supervisor pulling in $11.91 an hour in base salary before. Yeah with commission the 20-hour a week entry-level dude can sometimes pull in $15/$20, but base salary of almost $12? It just doesn't happen outside of New York City.
Minimum wage is the norm. I work for a pretty good employer (Home Depot), and I get a raise whenever minimum wage goes up. I do not get the opportunity to work inside in air conditioning. I am expected to help people load their cars with their purchases, which more then once have literally weighed a ton (50 40 lb bags). My option for advancement exist, but none would get me to $11.91/hr. I do not get an employee discount of any kind, on anything. I could have benefits, but they require premiums and on $8/hr premiums are impossible.
If you got access to my Huntington account today, at 31, you'd be able to transfer $1,000 to your shady Russian money-laundering operation, and I'd be screwed. If you got access to my account when I was in college you'd be lucky to get $300, and it would have been no skin off my ass because Daddy would have made it better.
The problem is it manages to get the cool story flashy elements right but doesn't have much time to spare for the Utopia Sci-Fi world Roddenberry created. For example the whole point of the movie is that Kirk is the best man to run the Enterprise even tho he hasn't technically graduated college yet, because he's Kirk. His innate Kirkness is much more important to his command of the Enterprise then anything he may have learned serving as a Junior officer.
In other words ST2009 is a set in a universe where talent doesn't need to be trained. It exists, and if you dont happen to have it (ie: you aren't Kirk)there's nothing you can do to succeed (ie: deserve the Enterprise).
Most instructive is Abram's insistance that his Enterprise be bigger then Battlestar Galactica: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm#size Abrams is more interested in having a bigger ship then Battlestar Galactica then learning what the words "Heavy Cruiser" mean.
They're really dated. In my head I know that only two of the principle characters are white, red-blooded, American males; and that Roddenberry was performing miracles in getting an Asian guy, a Russian, a Scot, and an actual black woman on ship that was clearly supposed to be a spiritual descendent of the USS Enterprise in 1968. But it's still really weird to watch a cast I know is 100% American, overwhelmingly male, and all-white except for the token black chick and Sulu, and then say "It's the best they could do." It doesn't help if you watch season two's Omega Glory, which happens on a planet inhabited by Chinese Communist City-folk in a genocidal war with the White American Capitalists. Then you watch "Paradise Syndrome" three or four episodes later, and the least racist thing is that the Indian Princess is played by an obvious white chick in redface.
So keep to the episodes that are good, and clearly not racist.
Depends on whether Apple's still a force to be reckoned with. If Apple's dominating the electronics-implanted-directly-into-your-eyeball trade the way it dominates phones a working Apple I assembled by none other the Woz's sister is gonna be pretty damn valuable.
Heck even if it isn't a force to be reckoned with if Apple is recognized as a pivotal and important company it's products will be valuable as antiques. Stradivarius violins ain't cheap.
Therefore they make a super-advanced hearing aid that costs $3k, and you really want it for your mom; and if they could cram some more features into that would double the price you'd want that.
OTOH the kind of features you'd use in a $3k cell phone don't exist, and most of the cost is in monthly contracts anyway, so it's uncommon to spend more then a couple hundred bucks on cell phones. I don't even know how you'd make a cell phone costing that much money. Possible lots of software, without a contract?
You can easily spend $3k on a computer, but almost nobody does because almost nobody has any desire to run the software you actually need a $3k computer to run.
Keep in mind that historically in the US increased state power, especially when held by the central government (read: the Feds), has led to decreased oppression. Especially oppression of US Citizens (remember Indians don't count as Citizens until 1924).
The Civil War ended the most oppressive regime in US History and greatly expanded Federal power. Reconstruction protected the former oppressees, until a reduction in Federal power ended it. The situation was created by private citizens forming their own self-protective associations, who managed to defeat the official State Militias and anti-oppression private militias in the few open battles that were fought. The situation could not be fixed until the New Deal greatly expanded Federal power.
That's the problem with Libertarians claiming to be pro-freedom in the US. Technically they are, but in practical terms the second Libertarians control all three branches of government the KKK's gonna re-start it's terror campaign against black people, and the whole point of libertarianism is that the government should not have the power to stop them.
American conservatives are very selective in who they think should have economic freedom. If employers form a cartel, and start price-fixing it's the free market, and the anti-monopoly investigation is an evil. If the employees do it (via the AFL)...
Some of those card numbers belonged to people. If I'd gotten a real job right out of college I woulda been one of the first to buy their service. It was $99 a year, and I was too poor/cheap to swing it.
I doubt many of those people were actually screwed by the hack. Contesting charges is not hard. The last analysis I saw actually indicated that the charities Anon "gasve" money to actually lost out on the deal because they had to process both the payment and cancelling the payments.
The confused people are the ones who titled the article LulzSec. Jeremy Hammond may be LulzSec, but he's being charged with the Stratfor hack, and that was done by Anonymous.
Spoken like someone who never used their services.
StratFor is completely different from HuffPo. StratFor staff aren't unpaid people looking for exposure, they're full-time employees. They don't have more access then anybody else, but they do tend to know stuff in their narrow specialties. They don't have an ideological axe to grind, and they won't be beaten up by party thugs under any circumstances.
Look at it this way. Is there an ITAR-TASS article that tells you that the Rwandan-backed Congolese Militia is winning the war because the Rwandan regular Army is capable of coordinating long-distance flanking attacks with satellite phones? Did Xinhua even bother publishing a single story on that war, that didn't focus on Chinese economic performance and/or human interesty crap like how much it sucks to run from said Rwandan Army? I'm not saying that stuff doesn't have it's place, or that it wasn't really important that the Rwandans were causing a massive refugee crisis that probably killed more people then the genocide. I'm just saying that if you wanted a clear view of what was happening on the ground, without distractions intended to suck in viewers who don't understand/care about the difficulties of coordinating flanking movements in the African bush; Stratfor was a godsend.
Or another example. Which ITAR TASS story tells the Somali faction is associated with the Marehan sub-clan of Clan Darod? Did it include a handy map, allowing you to see which areas of the country said faction controlled? Did it mention whether enough Red Berets survived the fall of the Barre regime to stiffen that organization?
I'll be the first to admit that Stratfor is a shitty intelligence agency. It's probably inferior to the Danes, Mozambicans, or any country bigger then Iceland. But it's also the only one available to ordinary Americans who are interested in intelligence.
Platoons are 40+. Three squads of 13, plus the Lt., plus whatever staff/repair guys/medics the Army has chosen to send out. And that's only the ground service definition of Lieutenant. In the navy a Lieutenant is at least one step above Platoon-command, and frequently is equivalent to an Army Captain, who would command 120-130 men in a company.
In a colloquial sense a Lieutenant is anyone who is part of the organization but not the big boss. That's what the FBI means here.
The problem is that circumstantial evidence is still convictable. For example all a fingerprint can do in most cases is place you at the crime scene. But if the crime scene is a stranger's house, you have no plausible reason to have been there, and you've got a criminal record already you are screwed. In this case the only way the Feds could get evidence of this guy's IP being used in the forums, except for the five minutes he "happened to pop off to the shop" would be if the actual hacker was watching his door. Which would be difficult to pull off without getting caught because a) he'd have to be close enough to use this guy's wireless node, which means he's probably closer to the door then the cops, without being noticed by either guy or cops and b) the guy has publicly claimed to be a hacktivist which means there's no way a jury's gonna believe he didn't know his wi-fi was being stolen.
In other words if the cops have the time logs mentioned this guy is screwed.
That's not an argument for the MPAA, it's an argument for te Movie Studios. The MPAA are the Studio's lobbyists.
As for why the Studio's get hate, it's largely because they do a lot of stuff to "fight piracy" that has the side effect of screwing with their customer's right to watch films the purchased. For example DVD Region Codes make business sense for the studios, but reduce your right to watch a movie you've paid for by making it impossible for your French cousins to show you this really cool French film they bought in France, and physically brought to the US because they thought you'd love it, on your American DVD player.
Then you have encrypting DVDs, suing websites which posted the number allowing you to break that encryption, aiding the RIAA in it's shenanigans, etc.
If you're a male between the ages of 17 and 45 every President has had the power to send you to a Siberian Salt Mine.
Why? Because you're in the Unorganized Militia, and the President is your Commander-in-Chief. It's in the Constitution, in black-and-white. The Courts and Congress would probably bitch if the President pulled names out of a hat, declared them the Regiment of Siberian Salt Miners, and ordered them to buy a boat capable of sailing to Siberia with their own money. After all, the entire point of a militia is that it's free.
As for your current complaints, they're exaggerated for precisely the same reason my Militia example is exaggerated: there are loads of regulations governing that shit. In the case of the militia any attempt for him to use his miltia powers in a way Congress didn't authorize would royally piss off the Courts, and they'd put a stop to it. The president can only do the GitMo thing after following a lengthy procedure.
The procedure involves experts in terrorism agreeing that the target is a terrorist. This takes time, and while it could theoretically be abused (just like draft boards could theoretically be abused), so far Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann are fine. Even if the President forced his underlings to declare Beck a terrorist and send him to GitMo, there's an entire Court System set up there. The procedures are less favorable to the defendant then the procedures in the US Courts, but they exist and people do manage prove their innocence.
Slashdot Mirror
If you understand statistics you're a data point in my favor. You both work in social science and you understand statistics.
Statistics is important even for ethnographers. It's not the focus of their research, but they do have to use it. Surveys are a tool they use to prove they aren't making shit up in their analyses, which means they have to have some basic understanding of Statistics. This is not true of most branches of mathematics. So while a typical ethnographer would probably be extremely confused by an NIH grant committee asking him how good he was at Cosines, he'd at least pretend to understand why a survey with only 5 respondents is not a good data source.
If you can convince the NIH to fund a case study whose principle researcher admits he can't understand anything the quantitative guys put out, due to his not knowing Stats, you're a better grant-writer then I.
If you don't understand statistics you simply cannot work in the Social Sciences. Ever. You are not allowed to do the experiments necessary to isolate variables properly, and even if some sociopath (for example) traumatized three groups of ten people exactly the same way, and tried three different forms of psychological treatment on them to see what happens you'd run into the fact that all 30 of victims are individuals who will respond to each treatment differently.
Which means RL Psychologists are stuck doing a sophisticated study of people who just happened to get traumatized, and then chose a course of treatment; and the only way to get useful data from that is do lots of statistics. But not too much statistics or you risk over-fitting.
OTOH you can be a perfectly good chemist without understanding the difference between correlation and causation.
You should read the story.
She said flat-out "this is a gift for my cousin in Iran." The actual money for the purchase was coming from her Uncle, who is Iranian not American. She was present to translate, not buy the product.
If she'd been a little savvier she would have said "this is a gift for me," and then there probably wouldn't have been a problem.
Apple would have been selling to the embargoes country directly in this case. Remember Uncle from Iran was the one with the checkbook.
Just because the law isn't enforced by other retailers it does not follow that the law does not exist.
Moreover you're assuming people go to Best Buy to buy Tablet Computers. They don't. 62% of them can't, because 62% of tablet customers buy iPads, and Best Buy don't sell iPads. More importantly people are a lot more likely to buy Apple products via a retail store then anybody else's. Which means that statistically speaking a single incident from best Buy would indicate best Buy is harder on Iranians then Apple.
As for "racism," I have two points. First Apple does not make the law. If the law is you can't ship iPads to Iran, and you're so dumb you go to an Apple store and tell the guy you're shipping an iPad to Iran, he's not being racist if he refuses to sell you an iPad. He's being smart.
Second is Apple is held to an incredibly high standard. Most retail jobs start at minimum wage or a little higher. So $7.25-$8.00 depending on the state. Apple retail employees start at $11.91, and Apple gets hammered. What do you think would happen if the Islamophobes found out Ahmadinejad's cousin had sent him an iPad, and Apple knew about it?
Heck what makes you think anybody would be so pissed at not buying a Dell that they'd go to the national media about it?
Flooring Employees start at $8.50, so the wage difference is only about $1 an hour. But that buck is probably why Home Depot makes a lot more money then Lowe's. I'm making less then that because I work in the parking lot, and started at $7.60/hr. Then Minimum Wage went up in Ohio so I'm up to $8.
If my store got exactly the right job openings for me to get promoted $11.91 would be reachable in a couple years. But as a starting salary?
In retail $11.91 an hour starting wage is great. Even for skilled employees. H and R Block Tax preparers, for example, are only paid $8.50.
I have had jobs in retail since 1999, and I have never heard of a non-supervisor pulling in $11.91 an hour in base salary before. Yeah with commission the 20-hour a week entry-level dude can sometimes pull in $15/$20, but base salary of almost $12? It just doesn't happen outside of New York City.
Minimum wage is the norm. I work for a pretty good employer (Home Depot), and I get a raise whenever minimum wage goes up. I do not get the opportunity to work inside in air conditioning. I am expected to help people load their cars with their purchases, which more then once have literally weighed a ton (50 40 lb bags). My option for advancement exist, but none would get me to $11.91/hr. I do not get an employee discount of any kind, on anything. I could have benefits, but they require premiums and on $8/hr premiums are impossible.
I was actually referring to bank accounts.
If you got access to my Huntington account today, at 31, you'd be able to transfer $1,000 to your shady Russian money-laundering operation, and I'd be screwed. If you got access to my account when I was in college you'd be lucky to get $300, and it would have been no skin off my ass because Daddy would have made it better.
18-25 year olds don't think bad things could happen to them.
On the bright side an 18-25 year old probably doesn't have much worth stealing.
ST2009 really isn't very Star Trekky.
The problem is it manages to get the cool story flashy elements right but doesn't have much time to spare for the Utopia Sci-Fi world Roddenberry created. For example the whole point of the movie is that Kirk is the best man to run the Enterprise even tho he hasn't technically graduated college yet, because he's Kirk. His innate Kirkness is much more important to his command of the Enterprise then anything he may have learned serving as a Junior officer.
In other words ST2009 is a set in a universe where talent doesn't need to be trained. It exists, and if you dont happen to have it (ie: you aren't Kirk)there's nothing you can do to succeed (ie: deserve the Enterprise).
Most instructive is Abram's insistance that his Enterprise be bigger then Battlestar Galactica:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/new_enterprise_comment.htm#size
Abrams is more interested in having a bigger ship then Battlestar Galactica then learning what the words "Heavy Cruiser" mean.
They're really dated. In my head I know that only two of the principle characters are white, red-blooded, American males; and that Roddenberry was performing miracles in getting an Asian guy, a Russian, a Scot, and an actual black woman on ship that was clearly supposed to be a spiritual descendent of the USS Enterprise in 1968. But it's still really weird to watch a cast I know is 100% American, overwhelmingly male, and all-white except for the token black chick and Sulu, and then say "It's the best they could do." It doesn't help if you watch season two's Omega Glory, which happens on a planet inhabited by Chinese Communist City-folk in a genocidal war with the White American Capitalists. Then you watch "Paradise Syndrome" three or four episodes later, and the least racist thing is that the Indian Princess is played by an obvious white chick in redface.
So keep to the episodes that are good, and clearly not racist.
Depends on whether Apple's still a force to be reckoned with. If Apple's dominating the electronics-implanted-directly-into-your-eyeball trade the way it dominates phones a working Apple I assembled by none other the Woz's sister is gonna be pretty damn valuable.
Heck even if it isn't a force to be reckoned with if Apple is recognized as a pivotal and important company it's products will be valuable as antiques. Stradivarius violins ain't cheap.
Therefore they make a super-advanced hearing aid that costs $3k, and you really want it for your mom; and if they could cram some more features into that would double the price you'd want that.
OTOH the kind of features you'd use in a $3k cell phone don't exist, and most of the cost is in monthly contracts anyway, so it's uncommon to spend more then a couple hundred bucks on cell phones. I don't even know how you'd make a cell phone costing that much money. Possible lots of software, without a contract?
You can easily spend $3k on a computer, but almost nobody does because almost nobody has any desire to run the software you actually need a $3k computer to run.
Keep in mind that historically in the US increased state power, especially when held by the central government (read: the Feds), has led to decreased oppression. Especially oppression of US Citizens (remember Indians don't count as Citizens until 1924).
The Civil War ended the most oppressive regime in US History and greatly expanded Federal power. Reconstruction protected the former oppressees, until a reduction in Federal power ended it. The situation was created by private citizens forming their own self-protective associations, who managed to defeat the official State Militias and anti-oppression private militias in the few open battles that were fought. The situation could not be fixed until the New Deal greatly expanded Federal power.
That's the problem with Libertarians claiming to be pro-freedom in the US. Technically they are, but in practical terms the second Libertarians control all three branches of government the KKK's gonna re-start it's terror campaign against black people, and the whole point of libertarianism is that the government should not have the power to stop them.
American conservatives are very selective in who they think should have economic freedom. If employers form a cartel, and start price-fixing it's the free market, and the anti-monopoly investigation is an evil. If the employees do it (via the AFL)...
'cause the dude I'm responding too specifically mentioned it and Xinhua as the "real news organizations" that Stratfor steals from.
Some of those card numbers belonged to people. If I'd gotten a real job right out of college I woulda been one of the first to buy their service. It was $99 a year, and I was too poor/cheap to swing it.
I doubt many of those people were actually screwed by the hack. Contesting charges is not hard. The last analysis I saw actually indicated that the charities Anon "gasve" money to actually lost out on the deal because they had to process both the payment and cancelling the payments.
nimbius is fine.
The confused people are the ones who titled the article LulzSec. Jeremy Hammond may be LulzSec, but he's being charged with the Stratfor hack, and that was done by Anonymous.
Spoken like someone who never used their services.
StratFor is completely different from HuffPo. StratFor staff aren't unpaid people looking for exposure, they're full-time employees. They don't have more access then anybody else, but they do tend to know stuff in their narrow specialties. They don't have an ideological axe to grind, and they won't be beaten up by party thugs under any circumstances.
Look at it this way. Is there an ITAR-TASS article that tells you that the Rwandan-backed Congolese Militia is winning the war because the Rwandan regular Army is capable of coordinating long-distance flanking attacks with satellite phones? Did Xinhua even bother publishing a single story on that war, that didn't focus on Chinese economic performance and/or human interesty crap like how much it sucks to run from said Rwandan Army? I'm not saying that stuff doesn't have it's place, or that it wasn't really important that the Rwandans were causing a massive refugee crisis that probably killed more people then the genocide. I'm just saying that if you wanted a clear view of what was happening on the ground, without distractions intended to suck in viewers who don't understand/care about the difficulties of coordinating flanking movements in the African bush; Stratfor was a godsend.
Or another example. Which ITAR TASS story tells the Somali faction is associated with the Marehan sub-clan of Clan Darod? Did it include a handy map, allowing you to see which areas of the country said faction controlled? Did it mention whether enough Red Berets survived the fall of the Barre regime to stiffen that organization?
I'll be the first to admit that Stratfor is a shitty intelligence agency. It's probably inferior to the Danes, Mozambicans, or any country bigger then Iceland. But it's also the only one available to ordinary Americans who are interested in intelligence.
Platoons are 40+. Three squads of 13, plus the Lt., plus whatever staff/repair guys/medics the Army has chosen to send out. And that's only the ground service definition of Lieutenant. In the navy a Lieutenant is at least one step above Platoon-command, and frequently is equivalent to an Army Captain, who would command 120-130 men in a company.
In a colloquial sense a Lieutenant is anyone who is part of the organization but not the big boss. That's what the FBI means here.
The problem is that circumstantial evidence is still convictable. For example all a fingerprint can do in most cases is place you at the crime scene. But if the crime scene is a stranger's house, you have no plausible reason to have been there, and you've got a criminal record already you are screwed.
In this case the only way the Feds could get evidence of this guy's IP being used in the forums, except for the five minutes he "happened to pop off to the shop" would be if the actual hacker was watching his door. Which would be difficult to pull off without getting caught because a) he'd have to be close enough to use this guy's wireless node, which means he's probably closer to the door then the cops, without being noticed by either guy or cops and b) the guy has publicly claimed to be a hacktivist which means there's no way a jury's gonna believe he didn't know his wi-fi was being stolen.
In other words if the cops have the time logs mentioned this guy is screwed.
That's not an argument for the MPAA, it's an argument for te Movie Studios. The MPAA are the Studio's lobbyists.
As for why the Studio's get hate, it's largely because they do a lot of stuff to "fight piracy" that has the side effect of screwing with their customer's right to watch films the purchased. For example DVD Region Codes make business sense for the studios, but reduce your right to watch a movie you've paid for by making it impossible for your French cousins to show you this really cool French film they bought in France, and physically brought to the US because they thought you'd love it, on your American DVD player.
Then you have encrypting DVDs, suing websites which posted the number allowing you to break that encryption, aiding the RIAA in it's shenanigans, etc.
If you're a male between the ages of 17 and 45 every President has had the power to send you to a Siberian Salt Mine.
Why? Because you're in the Unorganized Militia, and the President is your Commander-in-Chief. It's in the Constitution, in black-and-white. The Courts and Congress would probably bitch if the President pulled names out of a hat, declared them the Regiment of Siberian Salt Miners, and ordered them to buy a boat capable of sailing to Siberia with their own money. After all, the entire point of a militia is that it's free.
As for your current complaints, they're exaggerated for precisely the same reason my Militia example is exaggerated: there are loads of regulations governing that shit. In the case of the militia any attempt for him to use his miltia powers in a way Congress didn't authorize would royally piss off the Courts, and they'd put a stop to it. The president can only do the GitMo thing after following a lengthy procedure.
The procedure involves experts in terrorism agreeing that the target is a terrorist. This takes time, and while it could theoretically be abused (just like draft boards could theoretically be abused), so far Glenn Beck and Keith Olbermann are fine. Even if the President forced his underlings to declare Beck a terrorist and send him to GitMo, there's an entire Court System set up there. The procedures are less favorable to the defendant then the procedures in the US Courts, but they exist and people do manage prove their innocence.