v. engaged, engaging, engages v. tr. To obtain or contract for the services of; employ: engage a carpenter. To arrange for the use of; reserve: engage a room. See Synonyms at book. To pledge or promise, especially to marry. To attract and hold the attention of; engross: a hobby that engaged her for hours at a time. To win over or attract: His smile engages everyone he meets. To draw into; involve: engage a shy person in conversation. To require the use of; occupy: Studying engages most of my time. To enter or bring into conflict with: We have engaged the enemy. To interlock or cause to interlock; mesh: engage the automobile's clutch. To give or take as security.
v. intr. To involve oneself or become occupied; participate: engage in conversation. To assume an obligation; agree. To enter into conflict or battle: The armies engaged at dawn. To become meshed or interlocked: The gears engaged.
Yes, maybe you could clarify your position then. Given the context of your paragraph it appeared that you were using the intranitive version of the verb.
Actually the "kill infidels" part came way after the Koran was written. I can't remember the guys name (Deobandi I think), but it actually comes out of a sermon given in the 14th century not the Koran itself.
"Jihad" actually similar to the infinitive "to struggle". But this Muslim preacher in the 14th century was arguing that it was the duty of every Muslim to restore an Islamist caliphate similar to the one Muhammad ruled. At the time this ment defeating the Turks, and he argued for a "violent" jihad.
Today Osama bin Laden bases his ideology off of this same sermon. The goal is the same too. He want to restore an Islamist caliphate (ostensibly with him as the caliph).
This is interesting because politically the U.S. is so much like Microsoft - a lumbering dinosaur of stasis that won't engage an evolving world. Instead, it looks to impose it's will by brute force and deceitful stratagems.
Can you explain again how imposing "brute force and deceitful stratgems" is not an example of engaging the world?
We can argue (or agree as the case may be) about the effectiveness of the response, but to say that the U.S. is not engaging the world seems senseless. I'd argue it is one of the few countries engaging the world.
There is a lot of truth to what you say. Both the U.S. and Osama wish to institute political change. Osama's actions did give the U.S. an excuse to impose change on the region. And you are right, it takes a unique set of events to garner the support needed of U.S. citizens for such a lengthy process.
Both Osama and the U.S. also recognize that the current monarchies and autocracies are not providing as they should for their citizens.
Of course the difference lies mainly in their proported aims for that change: the U.S. proports to desire an Arab Peninsula that is composed of democratic governments, but Osama wants a regional Islamic caliphate.
I don't really think this is really any "neocon" agenda we see in motion. The means are definitely theirs, but the desire to see a repesentative government in the Middle East spans much farther than the Bush presidency (think post-WWI Geneva doctrine in regard to Lebanon, Algeria and Palestine). But as you said, the means the Bush Administration used would not have been possible without Osama's actions.
Actually it's more basic than that. Osama wants to be "The" caliph of the Arabian Peninsula (he has openly stated so). However, he chose the U.S. as a target because he was under the notion (now discredited) that another military reaction my the U.S. in the Middle East would stir a popular uprising for "His" caliphate throughout the peninsula. He was hoping for a reaction similar to the Islamist power grab made in Iran.
Unfortunately for Osama it turned out that in general Arabs want economic prosperity more than they want him as their caliph...just like everyone else on the planet. Go figure...
It will be interesting to see how long Osama's campaign lasts after he bleeds to death all the students from the ideologically extreme madrassas on the peninsula.
Corporately, they don't care about $5M revenue streams. If it's not a homerun, billion dollar profit potential, it's not going to be developed.
I believe you are correct in that the board of directors for MCI, in the course of business, would not be overly concerned about losing $5 million a year in business, or even $5 million a month in business. On the other hand, one of the many VPs at MCI in charge of the smaller regional sales units would probably view the loss of $5 million in revenue as possibly the end of his/her employment.
The decision making process for finding and enrolling actual customers is RARELY done at the board level. With few exceptions this type of activity is done at the business unit level, and these are often broken into smaller regionally or line-of-business units.
Activists need to find a way to target the individuals who are actually in charge of driving and maintaining relationships with incorporated spam outfits. These are likely to be your average Sales VPs not your board members. Ensuring that board members understand the potential public relations problems associated with these negative associations and the specific presence of them in their own organization has to be one of the better ways to bring about change.
The top decision makers in a corporation are usually much more interested in maintaining their corporate image of being a "good" public citizen because they view the value of a solid public image toward the generation of future business. So when we can, we should bring those "bad" public citizens to the attention of the board of directors for which they work.
Well, since exchanging extreme accusations not founded or relevent to the context of the parent under which you are replying...
Are you saying that the following would be acceptable and appropriate?
Would you leave a 1 year old child alone at home by him/herself for 8 hours while you were at work?
Would you leave a 5 year old child alone at the park to play by him/herself for 4 hours while you take a nap?
Would you leave a 10 year old child alone at the mall for 2 hours while you go see a movie?
Because there are people that do all three of these things on a daily basis, and there are a lot more of them than you would like to believe.
The vast majority of violent offenders in fact were raised in this type of environment. It is often an analog for neglect which usually ensures that the neglected child is not provided any social education.
So it's no real supprise that after being brutalized (and who as a child has never been in a fight?) often the brutalization represents a learned skillset by which the child can use to resolve their own conflicts. This frequently happens in the absence of alternatives.
As with all crimes, the best way to protect society is PREVENTION, not punishment.
If for no other reason, understand that punishment methodology falls prey to the same problems one encounters when dealing with "reported" levels of crime. As illustrated by victimization reporting, the number of "convicted and sentenced" sexual offenders pales in comparisons to the number of likely sexual offenders who are "at large" in society. At best, "punishment" as a means of behavioral correction will always fail to target a majority of sexual offenders.
Better education for children and adults, and a reduction in the unsupervised time for children through social programs will dollar-for-dollar go much farther toward reducing reducing incidences (reported and non-reported) of sexual assault.
From a public policy prospective, the inherent nature of limited funding requires that we institute policies that maximize utility for citizens. While many of us believe that the viral effect sexual assault has on children does make the ultimate sanction of DEATH a JUST and DESERVED punishment for such offenders, it is also the LEAST effective in terms of reducing the pain and suffering incurred by our citizens.
Then I suggest you Google for 'Stefan Kiszko', he spent 16 years in prison for the sexual murder of Lesley Ann Molseed. He suffered from XYY syndrome, an extra Y chromosome, this results in infertility. The semen found on Lesly's body contained sperm. Ooops, it wasn't him. Still think the death penalty is the only option?
Fortunately we now have DNA testing to help ensure that this type of investigatorial mistake is not frequently repeated.
Now if we can just get a law through Congress that makes such a test a requirement prior to sentencing in capital cases...
As someone posted above, it seems like it would be fairly trivial to at least make a "dupe check" program that tells you whether you have linked to the same URL before...
What you have to remember is that once these fighting robots advance enough, huamns will not be involved in wars anymore. The WHOLE war effort will be producing better AI and better materials.
That is the ultimate extension of autonomous weapons systems. At some point autonomous weapon systems will be force to fight other autonomous weapon systems. When this happens, it becomes next to impossible to avoid removing the "human decision making process" from process due to the speed at which theses systems will required to react in order to keep from becoming outmanuevered and disabled by their autonomous enemy.
It is for this reason that I doubt they could be used in anything but the most limited number types of scenarios. Similar to how the U.S. Navy uses it's autonomous anti-missile guns. You only turn them on in dire need, and accept that they will shoot down objects that aren't enemies (hopefully just seagulls).
Music is a finished product and it can't have new "features". Software can.
How does sampling fall into this ideological framework (e.g. rap or other eclectic styles)? Music can be altered with an additive process much like software can be. At least all the remixes I hear these days seem to indicate as much.
Most U.S. citizens believe that the terrorists attacked without provocation. That is not true. The terrorists attacked after many decades of experiencing U.S. government violence. (Violence does not justify more violence, of course, but most people don't believe that, including the leaders of the U.S. Defense Department, and the terrorists.)
The genesis of provocation is a poor way to frame a dicussion on terrorism. In fact I would call it irrelivent within the context of providing direction for public policy.
Catagorically, most terrorists today are using violence in an instrumental manner as a reaction to increasing globalization which they believe is a threat to either their cultural purity, their control over local populations, or both.
The vast majority of these terrorists have never experienced any interaction with the US on any level (although some view the reactions of their own authoritarian governments to being that of US control and influence - in some cases this is correct, but as a whole not the case). The US is a prime target because it represents globalization and global connectivity like no other nation on this planet. But it's not the only frequent target, as you can observe by watching any news servce.
All of these terrorist groups seek to maintain local populations which are disconnected from global influence. This is the only way in which they can maintain the powerbase that allows them to control the local population.
This holds true for both domestic enviromental terrorism and fundementalist terrorism (islamic/jewish and neo-nazi).
We as the more globally connected countries on the planet need to strive to bring connectivity to these lesser included countries. It is the only way to end the cycles of abuse and systemic complacency that makes it easy for the educated elite like Osama Bin Laden to manipulate the typically poor and under educated young men and women who end up following his ilk.
Personally, I still want to see a jelly doughnut serve as president.
Do you have any idea how hard it would be to properly screen President Jelly Doughnut's security force? Particularly difficult since most of the applicants would be current or ex-law enforcement officers... IMPOSSIBLE I tell you!
No, most scientists get education in their own country, and then go to US, usually for a post-doc, where they bring their knowledge, and publish in US teams. They don't take advantage of the system, the US are glad to have them, because basic education in US is crap and expensive. Your knowledge of the research system is very limited apparently.
From what I have seen, most post-graduate work in the space industry is done in the US. Primarly because we have the largest space industry, and consequently it is regularly willing to pay for this type of research. However if you have some actual information to dispute this, I'd love to see it. If you are talking about people from other disciplines entering into the space industry post-doc, you might a point. But in general I doubt most specialists would take this route.
It seems logical that anyone wishing to do post-graduate work in the US would be well serviced to do their undergraduate work here as well. Particularly because they will have longer to identify and exploit any opportunities that may present themselves.
However, I don't think I'd dispute the rather poor quality of primary and secondary education in the US when compared to other specific examples. That said, we still manage to turn out some fairly well-educated students from time to time.
You know why the US can't open the embargo? Because communism worked in Cuba. They're 100% literate, full college level education for 100% of the adult population, people speak 5 languages in most places, no crime, no drug or organized crime.
That's the great thing about having total authority over a country as a dictator. YOU CAN MAKE IT AN ILLEGAL AND JAILABLE OFFENSE TO SAY ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU SAID IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH. Dissenters can and do get jailed for doing just that. And contact with people from outside Cube is especially watched with care.
What you described is actually impossible in any society. To have 100% education (they have no mentally handicapped, or is college in Cuba the equivilant of a primary school?), no crime (their government does not forbid them to do or possess anything because the government provide their members with EVERYTHING they could ever want, and thus their is no need for a blackmarket or a desire to take by force that which you don't have access too?) and no drugs (their is no access to drugs at all?) is patently impossible.
I'm amused you were willing to buy this line from your Cuban governmental minders so readily.
As I understand it, the burden of proof required for the US to conduct enforcement or arrest on the behalf of a foreign power is the same as that needed by a federal law enforcement agency. Namely "reasonable suspicion" that a specific crime was committed and that a specific person is responsible. Foreign governments and the agency responsible for the jurisdiction under which the comparible offence falls are still required to provide a U.S. Magistrate with "reasonable suspicion" before they will be granted a warrent under international criminal law (read: treaties concerning cooperation in criminal procecution between countries...US and Britian for example).
This is my long winded way of attempting to explain that the Patriot Act doesn't even have much of an influence on this type of government action. The Patriot Act has a lot of potentual for misuse, but the extended powers granted by it are simply not needed for the procecution of such a case. Any DOJ offical that recommends using the largely untested powers of the Patriot Act when there is a fully court-tested legal basis would be a fool.
I don't disagree with you at all that Turkish PKK policy stinks of Stalinism. Having been raised in the US, even Germany's insistance on prohibiting discussions of Nazism and the Holocaust by it's citizens rings of Stalinism to me as well. Particularly because I don't see such restrictions in free speech has having a net positive effect greater than the negative chilling effect it has on general free speech.
I also agree with you that Turkey seemingly is becoming more progressive. It wasn't all too long ago that such a person might have just disappeared if he was considered a threat to the establishment.
Actually this doesn't have much to do with the Patriot Act at all.
Specific treaties with foreign powers which date back to the 80s have allowed for similar enforcement actions against people in the US when they violate the laws of such treatied foreign powers. Assuming of course that there exists a comparible law in the US (i.e. the charged action would have been illegal in the US had it occured here rather than in the foreign country). Extradition treaties function in a similar manner.
The truth is, most if not all countries do not limit unteathered free speech (read: yelling fire in a crowded theater). However, the degree to which free speech is limited can be quantified. In Turkey it is illegal to support the PKK. In Germany it is illegal to say the Holocaust never happened. In reality this is not a particularly unique situation, only the amount and subjetivity changes in other countries.
How is this any different than German laws concerning neo-Nazis supporters and Holocaust deniers?
While I agree that such individuals are morons in need of a reality check, both Germany and Turkey enforce fundimentally similar laws limiting self-expression and free-speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are all the AC troll also members of the spelling police?
v. engaged, engaging, engages
v. tr.
To obtain or contract for the services of; employ: engage a carpenter.
To arrange for the use of; reserve: engage a room. See Synonyms at book.
To pledge or promise, especially to marry.
To attract and hold the attention of; engross: a hobby that engaged her for hours at a time.
To win over or attract: His smile engages everyone he meets.
To draw into; involve: engage a shy person in conversation.
To require the use of; occupy: Studying engages most of my time.
To enter or bring into conflict with: We have engaged the enemy.
To interlock or cause to interlock; mesh: engage the automobile's clutch.
To give or take as security.
v. intr.
To involve oneself or become occupied; participate: engage in conversation.
To assume an obligation; agree.
To enter into conflict or battle: The armies engaged at dawn.
To become meshed or interlocked: The gears engaged.
Yes, maybe you could clarify your position then. Given the context of your paragraph it appeared that you were using the intranitive version of the verb.
Actually the "kill infidels" part came way after the Koran was written. I can't remember the guys name (Deobandi I think), but it actually comes out of a sermon given in the 14th century not the Koran itself.
"Jihad" actually similar to the infinitive "to struggle". But this Muslim preacher in the 14th century was arguing that it was the duty of every Muslim to restore an Islamist caliphate similar to the one Muhammad ruled. At the time this ment defeating the Turks, and he argued for a "violent" jihad.
Today Osama bin Laden bases his ideology off of this same sermon. The goal is the same too. He want to restore an Islamist caliphate (ostensibly with him as the caliph).
This is interesting because politically the U.S. is so much like Microsoft - a lumbering dinosaur of stasis that won't engage an evolving world. Instead, it looks to impose it's will by brute force and deceitful stratagems.
Can you explain again how imposing "brute force and deceitful stratgems" is not an example of engaging the world?
We can argue (or agree as the case may be) about the effectiveness of the response, but to say that the U.S. is not engaging the world seems senseless. I'd argue it is one of the few countries engaging the world.
There is a lot of truth to what you say. Both the U.S. and Osama wish to institute political change. Osama's actions did give the U.S. an excuse to impose change on the region. And you are right, it takes a unique set of events to garner the support needed of U.S. citizens for such a lengthy process.
Both Osama and the U.S. also recognize that the current monarchies and autocracies are not providing as they should for their citizens.
Of course the difference lies mainly in their proported aims for that change: the U.S. proports to desire an Arab Peninsula that is composed of democratic governments, but Osama wants a regional Islamic caliphate.
I don't really think this is really any "neocon" agenda we see in motion. The means are definitely theirs, but the desire to see a repesentative government in the Middle East spans much farther than the Bush presidency (think post-WWI Geneva doctrine in regard to Lebanon, Algeria and Palestine). But as you said, the means the Bush Administration used would not have been possible without Osama's actions.
Actually it's more basic than that. Osama wants to be "The" caliph of the Arabian Peninsula (he has openly stated so). However, he chose the U.S. as a target because he was under the notion (now discredited) that another military reaction my the U.S. in the Middle East would stir a popular uprising for "His" caliphate throughout the peninsula. He was hoping for a reaction similar to the Islamist power grab made in Iran.
Unfortunately for Osama it turned out that in general Arabs want economic prosperity more than they want him as their caliph...just like everyone else on the planet. Go figure...
It will be interesting to see how long Osama's campaign lasts after he bleeds to death all the students from the ideologically extreme madrassas on the peninsula.
Corporately, they don't care about $5M revenue streams. If it's not a homerun, billion dollar profit potential, it's not going to be developed.
I believe you are correct in that the board of directors for MCI, in the course of business, would not be overly concerned about losing $5 million a year in business, or even $5 million a month in business. On the other hand, one of the many VPs at MCI in charge of the smaller regional sales units would probably view the loss of $5 million in revenue as possibly the end of his/her employment.
The decision making process for finding and enrolling actual customers is RARELY done at the board level. With few exceptions this type of activity is done at the business unit level, and these are often broken into smaller regionally or line-of-business units.
Activists need to find a way to target the individuals who are actually in charge of driving and maintaining relationships with incorporated spam outfits. These are likely to be your average Sales VPs not your board members. Ensuring that board members understand the potential public relations problems associated with these negative associations and the specific presence of them in their own organization has to be one of the better ways to bring about change.
The top decision makers in a corporation are usually much more interested in maintaining their corporate image of being a "good" public citizen because they view the value of a solid public image toward the generation of future business. So when we can, we should bring those "bad" public citizens to the attention of the board of directors for which they work.
The People's Republic of Wal-mart. Your home for cheap plastic crap.
Well, since exchanging extreme accusations not founded or relevent to the context of the parent under which you are replying...
Are you saying that the following would be acceptable and appropriate?
Would you leave a 1 year old child alone at home by him/herself for 8 hours while you were at work?
Would you leave a 5 year old child alone at the park to play by him/herself for 4 hours while you take a nap?
Would you leave a 10 year old child alone at the mall for 2 hours while you go see a movie?
Because there are people that do all three of these things on a daily basis, and there are a lot more of them than you would like to believe.
The vast majority of violent offenders in fact were raised in this type of environment. It is often an analog for neglect which usually ensures that the neglected child is not provided any social education.
So it's no real supprise that after being brutalized (and who as a child has never been in a fight?) often the brutalization represents a learned skillset by which the child can use to resolve their own conflicts. This frequently happens in the absence of alternatives.
Guessing you didn't know that Paris Hilton was 100lbs overweight and that Michael Jordon had an impulse control problem either did ya?
As with all crimes, the best way to protect society is PREVENTION, not punishment.
If for no other reason, understand that punishment methodology falls prey to the same problems one encounters when dealing with "reported" levels of crime. As illustrated by victimization reporting, the number of "convicted and sentenced" sexual offenders pales in comparisons to the number of likely sexual offenders who are "at large" in society. At best, "punishment" as a means of behavioral correction will always fail to target a majority of sexual offenders.
Better education for children and adults, and a reduction in the unsupervised time for children through social programs will dollar-for-dollar go much farther toward reducing reducing incidences (reported and non-reported) of sexual assault.
From a public policy prospective, the inherent nature of limited funding requires that we institute policies that maximize utility for citizens. While many of us believe that the viral effect sexual assault has on children does make the ultimate sanction of DEATH a JUST and DESERVED punishment for such offenders, it is also the LEAST effective in terms of reducing the pain and suffering incurred by our citizens.
Then I suggest you Google for 'Stefan Kiszko', he spent 16 years in prison for the sexual murder of Lesley Ann Molseed. He suffered from XYY syndrome, an extra Y chromosome, this results in infertility. The semen found on Lesly's body contained sperm. Ooops, it wasn't him. Still think the death penalty is the only option?
Fortunately we now have DNA testing to help ensure that this type of investigatorial mistake is not frequently repeated.
Now if we can just get a law through Congress that makes such a test a requirement prior to sentencing in capital cases...
...when you don't read your own news site. :/
As someone posted above, it seems like it would be fairly trivial to at least make a "dupe check" program that tells you whether you have linked to the same URL before...
What you have to remember is that once these fighting robots advance enough, huamns will not be involved in wars anymore. The WHOLE war effort will be producing better AI and better materials.
That is the ultimate extension of autonomous weapons systems. At some point autonomous weapon systems will be force to fight other autonomous weapon systems. When this happens, it becomes next to impossible to avoid removing the "human decision making process" from process due to the speed at which theses systems will required to react in order to keep from becoming outmanuevered and disabled by their autonomous enemy.
It is for this reason that I doubt they could be used in anything but the most limited number types of scenarios. Similar to how the U.S. Navy uses it's autonomous anti-missile guns. You only turn them on in dire need, and accept that they will shoot down objects that aren't enemies (hopefully just seagulls).
Sure you can. How many musicians have recorded the same song, but with suttle and not-so-suttle stylistic differences?
Music is a finished product and it can't have new "features". Software can.
How does sampling fall into this ideological framework (e.g. rap or other eclectic styles)? Music can be altered with an additive process much like software can be. At least all the remixes I hear these days seem to indicate as much.
Most U.S. citizens believe that the terrorists attacked without provocation. That is not true. The terrorists attacked after many decades of experiencing U.S. government violence. (Violence does not justify more violence, of course, but most people don't believe that, including the leaders of the U.S. Defense Department, and the terrorists.)
The genesis of provocation is a poor way to frame a dicussion on terrorism. In fact I would call it irrelivent within the context of providing direction for public policy.
Catagorically, most terrorists today are using violence in an instrumental manner as a reaction to increasing globalization which they believe is a threat to either their cultural purity, their control over local populations, or both.
The vast majority of these terrorists have never experienced any interaction with the US on any level (although some view the reactions of their own authoritarian governments to being that of US control and influence - in some cases this is correct, but as a whole not the case). The US is a prime target because it represents globalization and global connectivity like no other nation on this planet. But it's not the only frequent target, as you can observe by watching any news servce.
All of these terrorist groups seek to maintain local populations which are disconnected from global influence. This is the only way in which they can maintain the powerbase that allows them to control the local population.
This holds true for both domestic enviromental terrorism and fundementalist terrorism (islamic/jewish and neo-nazi).
We as the more globally connected countries on the planet need to strive to bring connectivity to these lesser included countries. It is the only way to end the cycles of abuse and systemic complacency that makes it easy for the educated elite like Osama Bin Laden to manipulate the typically poor and under educated young men and women who end up following his ilk.
Personally, I still want to see a jelly doughnut serve as president.
Do you have any idea how hard it would be to properly screen President Jelly Doughnut's security force? Particularly difficult since most of the applicants would be current or ex-law enforcement officers... IMPOSSIBLE I tell you!
No, most scientists get education in their own country, and then go to US, usually for a post-doc, where they bring their knowledge, and publish in US teams. They don't take advantage of the system, the US are glad to have them, because basic education in US is crap and expensive. Your knowledge of the research system is very limited apparently.
From what I have seen, most post-graduate work in the space industry is done in the US. Primarly because we have the largest space industry, and consequently it is regularly willing to pay for this type of research. However if you have some actual information to dispute this, I'd love to see it. If you are talking about people from other disciplines entering into the space industry post-doc, you might a point. But in general I doubt most specialists would take this route.
It seems logical that anyone wishing to do post-graduate work in the US would be well serviced to do their undergraduate work here as well. Particularly because they will have longer to identify and exploit any opportunities that may present themselves.
However, I don't think I'd dispute the rather poor quality of primary and secondary education in the US when compared to other specific examples. That said, we still manage to turn out some fairly well-educated students from time to time.
You know why the US can't open the embargo? Because communism worked in Cuba. They're 100% literate, full college level education for 100% of the adult population, people speak 5 languages in most places, no crime, no drug or organized crime.
That's the great thing about having total authority over a country as a dictator. YOU CAN MAKE IT AN ILLEGAL AND JAILABLE OFFENSE TO SAY ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU SAID IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH. Dissenters can and do get jailed for doing just that. And contact with people from outside Cube is especially watched with care.
What you described is actually impossible in any society. To have 100% education (they have no mentally handicapped, or is college in Cuba the equivilant of a primary school?), no crime (their government does not forbid them to do or possess anything because the government provide their members with EVERYTHING they could ever want, and thus their is no need for a blackmarket or a desire to take by force that which you don't have access too?) and no drugs (their is no access to drugs at all?) is patently impossible.
I'm amused you were willing to buy this line from your Cuban governmental minders so readily.
To reinforce this point, by percentage, France actually has more state owned businesses than China does this year.
And after China's banking industry is privatized later next year, you can expect this trend to continue.
Or at least not applicable to the US. Actually, the majority of people on welfare are white, not hispanic.
As I understand it, the burden of proof required for the US to conduct enforcement or arrest on the behalf of a foreign power is the same as that needed by a federal law enforcement agency. Namely "reasonable suspicion" that a specific crime was committed and that a specific person is responsible. Foreign governments and the agency responsible for the jurisdiction under which the comparible offence falls are still required to provide a U.S. Magistrate with "reasonable suspicion" before they will be granted a warrent under international criminal law (read: treaties concerning cooperation in criminal procecution between countries...US and Britian for example).
This is my long winded way of attempting to explain that the Patriot Act doesn't even have much of an influence on this type of government action. The Patriot Act has a lot of potentual for misuse, but the extended powers granted by it are simply not needed for the procecution of such a case. Any DOJ offical that recommends using the largely untested powers of the Patriot Act when there is a fully court-tested legal basis would be a fool.
I don't disagree with you at all that Turkish PKK policy stinks of Stalinism. Having been raised in the US, even Germany's insistance on prohibiting discussions of Nazism and the Holocaust by it's citizens rings of Stalinism to me as well. Particularly because I don't see such restrictions in free speech has having a net positive effect greater than the negative chilling effect it has on general free speech.
I also agree with you that Turkey seemingly is becoming more progressive. It wasn't all too long ago that such a person might have just disappeared if he was considered a threat to the establishment.
Actually this doesn't have much to do with the Patriot Act at all.
Specific treaties with foreign powers which date back to the 80s have allowed for similar enforcement actions against people in the US when they violate the laws of such treatied foreign powers. Assuming of course that there exists a comparible law in the US (i.e. the charged action would have been illegal in the US had it occured here rather than in the foreign country). Extradition treaties function in a similar manner.
The truth is, most if not all countries do not limit unteathered free speech (read: yelling fire in a crowded theater). However, the degree to which free speech is limited can be quantified. In Turkey it is illegal to support the PKK. In Germany it is illegal to say the Holocaust never happened. In reality this is not a particularly unique situation, only the amount and subjetivity changes in other countries.
How is this any different than German laws concerning neo-Nazis supporters and Holocaust deniers?
While I agree that such individuals are morons in need of a reality check, both Germany and Turkey enforce fundimentally similar laws limiting self-expression and free-speech.