Prosecution of a handful of grunts after an embarrassing public picture fiasco doesn't mean shit. Not one of them was of an officer, all enlisted men. Fire some college kids to make the public say "SEE! We prosecuted them!". Again however, prosecution doesn't support your original position that soldiers can and will refuse those orders. All it says at this point is that if you end up on the 6 o'clock news they'll sacrifice some enlisted scapegoats.
It may come to that later, but unless there's been a recent change I'm unaware of, current standards of military conduct contradict your postulation.
Since you wrote a well thought out reply and included some links yourself; I figured I owed you a reply of some kind. My information on this comes from a friend I've known for at least a decade, a man who leads his unit on a regular basis, Lt. J. Cruz, US Army. From what I'm told, there's alot of pushing to say that kind of "duty to refuse orders" business -- but when you're out there, that's not how it is. Do I really need to provide a link to an Abu Gharib story? What I see supports what I hear -- I see official papers and suits saying one thing, I see your link to a token soldier who once got applauded for it 30 years ago. Then I see the daily reality -- not one soldier has come forward from Guantanamo Bay, no one stood up at Abu Gharib.
And other whistleblowers like Samuel Provance have been demoted for their actions, but continue in service. Tony Lagouranis wasn't demoted for his whistleblowing actions. Joseph Darby was honored by politicians and some military personnel, while other members of the military disparaged him. So it's not nearly as clear cut as you assume.
Samuel Provance had to come all the way home to talk to the media. He obeyed orders while he was there. All he did was come home and talk, AFTER. He still spent time in the brig and still got demoted. It's two years later and all his honesty hasn't landed even one superior in jail. How exactly is this an example of how we can count on our soldiers to turn face and stop a terrible event (the military "herding civilians in to cattle cars", per OP) while it's happening?
Tony Lagouranis talks about how some bad stuff happened before he got there, that he wasn't a part of. He talks about some things that he knew was happening, but did nothing to stop. He also tells about how he of course was only doing "by the book" interrogation, with nothing but harsh questions and mind games. This is the guy you're counting on to turn face to an armed commander?
Joseph Darby, yes I applaud his actions but again, like your previous two examples, he's a guy who felt bad about it and complained months after it occurred. None of these people are relavent -- we're talking about soldiers who will do something immediately, in the field. All three of your examples "ended up in a brig while the action moved on", so to speak.
To sum it up, back up your words with cited sources and examples or else your points, while interesting, hold no more water than those you're arguing against.
All three men are well documented on wikipedia, in fact I double checked each one while writing this post.
That is one of the most ignorant and ill-informed things I have read in this thread. The truth is that from basic training onward US military personnel are taught that it is *their duty* to disobey illegal orders.
Abu Gharib? Iraqi civilian targets? Yes, they're taught to refuse those orders. That's why those in charge will change the target from "Civilians" to "Enemy Combatants" -- now the order is no longer illegal in the eyes of the drone. This is pointed out earlier in my reply, but you couldn't nearly be as rude and objectionable if you took my comment in its entirety. A humble opinion from you, indeed.
The thing is, the US Military is made up of, get this, Americans.
While correct, please realize that when military force is authorized against "Americans"; those that are the target will no longer be considered Americans -- they're now Terrorists/Enemy Combantants/Traitors/etc.
Hopefully, a large portion of them would either refuse or even defend the civilian population.
Yea, good luck with that.
See, the military is already prepared for that answer. If you refuse a direct order in the field -- and make no mistake, when they come for you, it won't be in an office meeting -- you get shot on the spot. What is the likelihood of a significant portion of the military defecting after watching their friend get his head blown off by their commander, with the gun is now pointed directly at them?
Let's say a particular group points their guns at the commander instead. What next? They sure aren't going back to the base to "get more supplies" -- they'll end up in a brig waiting for court martial while the action moves on. Best case, they defect with what they happen to have on them now, and become "enemy combatants". Great! We got a dozen guys and a handful of pea shooters and grenades. Too bad there's a "daisy cutter" on its way to whatever building you rebels are holed up in.
It'd be fair to respond to my example by pointing out that civilians aren't equipped to deal with Howitzers and Bunker Busters as it is, so what difference does it make? You'd be right -- we've already let ourselves get in pretty deep. The answer however isn't to make the hole any deeper!
I remember something about Katrina and the national guard refusing to help enforce the gun confiscation ordered by the local police.
The local police had no standing to make ANY order to the National Guard; especially not one of that magnitude. They won't refuse that order when it comes from the President, who actually has that authority. I remember something about a school and fire hoses the last time the armed forces were used against US Citizens.
With games like WoW and SW:G and CoH and GW etc, does ANYBODY think these guys can succeed with a mass-produced MMORPG engine?
Three of the games you named make up less than 3% of the mmorpg market combined. World of Warcraft and Lineage I/II are the only signifigant forces. (source MMOGChart.COM)
So yea, there's plenty of room for more competition and plenty of low marketshare games to cannibalize. Whether it can happen with Firefly, I can't say. Someone can and will, though.
I had no notable injuries from the "fight", so no, those weren't on the chart. You can be hit across the back with a baton and have nothing of value to show for it. Kicking my knee out from behind didn't cause any damage either, at least nothing that was noted by a hospital. Did it hurt? Yea. I fell in the parking lot and got clubbed across the back -- of course it hurt. However, she was obviously well trained, and I have no doubt that her technique was taught to her explicitly so it wouldn't show anything of value if she got in trouble. It probably didn't take a whole lot to subdue me either, as I was already using all of my energy just to stay focused enough to walk.
I look back on that day with the most extreme of hatred. I try and imagine a situation where I had the strength to fight back, could I have defended myself? What if I had brought a gun to school? I would give up every bit of money to a charity for home schooled kids if I could see that rent-a-cop go to jail.
If we can really be honest with ourselves -- I am a product of that prison of a school. Still to this day and probably for the rest of my life, I do not believe that anyone in any position of authority will assist me in any fashion. This may have been an extreme example, but it wasn't isolated. The purpose of high school is to break your spirit and turn you in to a drone who doesn't question authority. No amount of intelligent knowledge or discussion can change the fact that that is how I feel inside now.
No, they took care of me the next few days. They couldn't do anything to help me though, as to the rest of the story there was nothing to say I didn't start that fight. Think on it, I have many times. Just what exactly would they do? As my Dad says "you can't fight city hall on your word alone".
That's a horrible experience, but why the heck didn't you have a hall pass?
Since you asked, actually... I had an "Independent Study" class that hour. They have you sit in the lunchroom unsupervised, and you're supposed to study whatever it is. Most of us figured out by our junior year that independent study was a good way to get an free class. You make up something stupid that you're gonna study and write a report on it and you got a free hour in the middle of the day.
So in short, I didn't have one because there was no teacher to give me one. After being turned away from the nurse, I didn't go hunting for a hall pass -- I tried to go to the hospital.
Catch-all reply for all of those screaming "lawsuit". In essence, nothing happened. I was treated at the hospital and spent several days at home recovering from the kidney stone.
It is easy here on Slashdot for you to believe me, 10 years after the fact. Just the fact I remember it with such vivid detail lends credibility or I am at least a quick creative writer to make up the whole thing so quickly.
At the time however, things were a very different story. I was a high school kid who had left class without a hall pass. The officer said I started the fight, and I was in the process of committing a crime (truancy). It was easy for all the adults at the time to ignore my requests for medical assistance, in their eyes I was just a whiny kid making excuses. There was no room to make a valid case on my word alone.
I was a junior in High School, about 10 years ago. One day I had intense nausea and a sharp pain in my back. I went up to the nurses office to seek assistance. I was promptly denied any assistance, as I did not have a "hall pass".
Realizing my situation required medical attention, I left. I proceeded towards my car in the parking lot, with the intention of going to the hospital to get the care I needed. I was intercepted by campus security. I ignored their pleas for me to return to campus, and continued towards my car. Eventually I was physically stopped by a mid 30s campus cop, a female about 5' 4" with very short hair. I told her I needed to go to the hospital, and that I was leaving.
The officer beat me up (as in a fistfight), kicking my knee out and using her baton. I was incapable of fighting back in my condition, and made no effort to do so. She dragged me back to campus, where I was made to sit in the office until the end of the school day. No one ever spoke to me or the officer regarding the incident, but she did stay nearby to insure I did not leave. No medical care was ever offered, despite my requests that they now call 911.
After school was released several hours later, I went to the hospital and was treated for a kidney stone.
What is wrong with our schools is that this can a) happen and b) get blown off completely; as it is obviously my fault for seeking medical attention and since I was a student, I must have started the fight with the rent-a-cop.
Using a taser to force you do something is borderline torture.
Let's not start the doublespeak here on Slashdot. Using [electric shocks] to force someone to do something is torture.
Fixed that for ya. So when the police are torturing people in the middle of a school in front of everyone; are we a police state yet? Was it some other kind of "worse" that "other countries have" that everyone meant when they blew off those that have said so before?
Yes, people are always whining 'oh we need more customization options and we want land of our own' but really most people don't.
I'm not sure if you're serious, sarcastic, or moronic. Those things are great; if the game has something else to offer. Second Life should sell their staff to a game company, who could make a [Tolkien/Space/Marvel] game that actually had something to play for and let you do all that custom avatar/landowning stuff.
My question is: why hasn't the world flocked [to Second Life]?
There is nothing to DO in Second Life. Second Life isn't a game so much as it is a shared 3D Design Studio. Nothing like a good night of 3D Studio Max, fun for everyone!
Howard Dean's campaign still failed because as you say he "made a fool of himself". The internet didn't save Howard Dean -- even though the informed internet voter you hope for knew he was yelling over a crowd, unaware of the noise cancelling feature in use on his microphone. No, the only news that really got out was how "crazy" he obviously was.
Mark Foley molested underage children and largely got away with it. This man should be in jail, and so should anyone protecting him. I'm normally never a fan of "think of the children" type responses; and I've seen far too many cases involving offended redneck parents and high school seniors (he's 19, she's 17) to want to brand anyone a child molester without some good evidence of an actual crime. The internet and it being so easy to find out available information hasn't even drummed up a serious investigation.
Instead what I've seen is people like Bev Harris getting ignored, despite years of intense work on something that should be of paramount importance. Other than the circular answer of "because she's right" -- why isn't the internet helping Black Box Voting get heard? Her site is well built and is a legitimate charity; but you'd be hard pressed to find a link to her site anywhere except liberal choir-preaching grounds.
I don't really know of any case where the 'tech savvy non elite' have had an impact.
Luckily the rise of the internet, message boards (like slashdot), and social networking has allowed Americans to increase their knowledge of the issues addressed by Congress on a daily basis, which allows us to raise our voices and dissent much earlier... often before poor decisions are made.
It's pretty easy to be to the left of the Bush administration; but that's not evidence that they "want them out of office in a BIG way". Show me where they're promoting the election fraud information, show me the cries for impeachment, something that qualifies as actually trying to get them out of office.
I haven't seen it yet. The simple fact is, the Bush administration is FAR right, much farther to the right than the democrats have ever been to the left. Compared to the rest of the world the democrats are the right. Your reply just sounds like the same old "Clinton News Network" vs "Faux News" party spew.
Imagine for just a moment, that the elections in 2000 and 2004 had been just as they were; but with verifiable voting in place. Yes, all those things you mentioned are reasons we should not allow the process to get tied up in what would surely be an exercise in poor sportsmanship.
What we had were polls that were drastically different for the first time in our countries history. Were votes changed with bogus electronic voting machines, as some say? Were pollsters lied to en masse by voters, claiming to support Gore/Kerry but secretly voting for Bush?
There are a growing number of people who feel there is enough evidence to conduct an investigation even without verified voting. If we had had verified voting, one way or another, we would not be having this discussion today -- either we'd have a solid answer supporting the Bush presidency, or we'd be having a revolution. That is your safeguard against abuse -- if the discrepancy isn't worth a revolution, then it has no value.
Unfortunately here, we don't have any ability to accomplish what you suggest. Doing so would either require the honest cooperation of Diebold or a court order permitting investigators to aquire that information by force. Since we can safely assume Diebold will continue its refusal to cooperate; that leaves only the judicial/execute branches to acquire that information.
So lets say you take a look at the news section on black box voting, and see the near daily articles; some extreme, some not so extreme on the subject. Admittedly, not every single one of them is a big 'smoking gun' -- but some of them are pretty close, and there's tons of mid range stories to choose from. This is where you have to ask yourself -- is all of this cause enough for an investigation? I think so, and judging from your reply I think you think so too.
Our society has shown that we are willing to lower the barrier to investigation when the potential crime is serious enough -- such as child porn or presidential assassinations. Should a 51% popular majority be required for an investigation to something that could without exaggeration undermine the entire foundation of law? The threshold as you presented it is unattainable without the investigation in the first place. What would the threshold be to simply merit an investigation? If that point is met, at what point does it become valid to request outside assistance to achieve the investigation?
Find some way to prove that the elections you hold are rigged...
What would qualify as sufficient 'proof' in this case? Could you provide some examples of what would be acceptable and not dismissed as 'hearsay' or 'moonie conspiracy theories'?
What "personal freedom" have you lost since the 70's?
I'm not the original AC, but I will answer this. I am not allowed to work within the United States anymore. I'm not a criminal, my most severe crime is a traffic violation. I'm not a leper, or carrying any contagious diseases. I am not physically disabled, and fully capable of performing all normal activities. I am a natural born citizen, born from a white, christian family of financial respect.
I have a legal dispute with the Social Security Administration; one that I have already settled once in court and the SSA continues to refuse to honor the court order to fix up my records. Long story jammed in to a slashpost here: SSA's records on me are screwy. I didn't find out until I left the job I had pre-9/11 and went to get a new one later. I've since been to court, where everyone of merit spoke on my behalf, doctors, friends, relatives, even my bank manager. The court agreed with me and issued an order to repair the records. SSA is refusing to comply, citing un-named legal restrictions "ever since 9/11". The ultimate effect on this is that anyone who does a now required "employment eligibility verification" (or something to that effect) gets told that my ID doesn't match the records they have and thus I am a fraud and am not eligible.
I haven't worked since 2002. I've lost the "personal freedom" to have a job. Before you tell me to get an attorney or go to some organization for free help -- realize I've been doing these things for 4 years now, and its mighty difficult with no income. The ACLU doesn't want my case (not high profile enough) and no attorney wants to do anything that involves security changes after 9/11 pro bono.
I'm not sure if you will know the answer to this, but if you do or know where I could ask; I'd appreciate it. I've been considering France within the next 5 years, and I have at least a bad-french-101 classroom level of the language.
Anyway, do you know if I were self-employed with a proven record for making a sufficient amount (how much?); could I dodge that employment requirement? Assume that my self employment is largely unaware of wherever I happen to be living.
Slashdot Mirror
Prosecution of a handful of grunts after an embarrassing public picture fiasco doesn't mean shit. Not one of them was of an officer, all enlisted men. Fire some college kids to make the public say "SEE! We prosecuted them!". Again however, prosecution doesn't support your original position that soldiers can and will refuse those orders. All it says at this point is that if you end up on the 6 o'clock news they'll sacrifice some enlisted scapegoats.
~Rebecca
Samuel Provance had to come all the way home to talk to the media. He obeyed orders while he was there. All he did was come home and talk, AFTER. He still spent time in the brig and still got demoted. It's two years later and all his honesty hasn't landed even one superior in jail. How exactly is this an example of how we can count on our soldiers to turn face and stop a terrible event (the military "herding civilians in to cattle cars", per OP) while it's happening?
Tony Lagouranis talks about how some bad stuff happened before he got there, that he wasn't a part of. He talks about some things that he knew was happening, but did nothing to stop. He also tells about how he of course was only doing "by the book" interrogation, with nothing but harsh questions and mind games. This is the guy you're counting on to turn face to an armed commander?
Joseph Darby, yes I applaud his actions but again, like your previous two examples, he's a guy who felt bad about it and complained months after it occurred. None of these people are relavent -- we're talking about soldiers who will do something immediately, in the field. All three of your examples "ended up in a brig while the action moved on", so to speak.
All three men are well documented on wikipedia, in fact I double checked each one while writing this post.
~Rebecca
~Rebecca
While correct, please realize that when military force is authorized against "Americans"; those that are the target will no longer be considered Americans -- they're now Terrorists/Enemy Combantants/Traitors/etc.
Yea, good luck with that.
See, the military is already prepared for that answer. If you refuse a direct order in the field -- and make no mistake, when they come for you, it won't be in an office meeting -- you get shot on the spot. What is the likelihood of a significant portion of the military defecting after watching their friend get his head blown off by their commander, with the gun is now pointed directly at them?
Let's say a particular group points their guns at the commander instead. What next? They sure aren't going back to the base to "get more supplies" -- they'll end up in a brig waiting for court martial while the action moves on. Best case, they defect with what they happen to have on them now, and become "enemy combatants". Great! We got a dozen guys and a handful of pea shooters and grenades. Too bad there's a "daisy cutter" on its way to whatever building you rebels are holed up in.
It'd be fair to respond to my example by pointing out that civilians aren't equipped to deal with Howitzers and Bunker Busters as it is, so what difference does it make? You'd be right -- we've already let ourselves get in pretty deep. The answer however isn't to make the hole any deeper!
The local police had no standing to make ANY order to the National Guard; especially not one of that magnitude. They won't refuse that order when it comes from the President, who actually has that authority. I remember something about a school and fire hoses the last time the armed forces were used against US Citizens.
~Rebecca
Three of the games you named make up less than 3% of the mmorpg market combined. World of Warcraft and Lineage I/II are the only signifigant forces. (source MMOGChart.COM)
So yea, there's plenty of room for more competition and plenty of low marketshare games to cannibalize. Whether it can happen with Firefly, I can't say. Someone can and will, though.
~Rebecca
I guess its a good thing Best Buy isn't a development environment then, huh?
~Rebecca
Seriously, why is this modded down?
~Rebecca
I had no notable injuries from the "fight", so no, those weren't on the chart. You can be hit across the back with a baton and have nothing of value to show for it. Kicking my knee out from behind didn't cause any damage either, at least nothing that was noted by a hospital. Did it hurt? Yea. I fell in the parking lot and got clubbed across the back -- of course it hurt. However, she was obviously well trained, and I have no doubt that her technique was taught to her explicitly so it wouldn't show anything of value if she got in trouble. It probably didn't take a whole lot to subdue me either, as I was already using all of my energy just to stay focused enough to walk.
I look back on that day with the most extreme of hatred. I try and imagine a situation where I had the strength to fight back, could I have defended myself? What if I had brought a gun to school? I would give up every bit of money to a charity for home schooled kids if I could see that rent-a-cop go to jail.
If we can really be honest with ourselves -- I am a product of that prison of a school. Still to this day and probably for the rest of my life, I do not believe that anyone in any position of authority will assist me in any fashion. This may have been an extreme example, but it wasn't isolated. The purpose of high school is to break your spirit and turn you in to a drone who doesn't question authority. No amount of intelligent knowledge or discussion can change the fact that that is how I feel inside now.
~R
No, they took care of me the next few days. They couldn't do anything to help me though, as to the rest of the story there was nothing to say I didn't start that fight. Think on it, I have many times. Just what exactly would they do? As my Dad says "you can't fight city hall on your word alone".
~R
So in short, I didn't have one because there was no teacher to give me one. After being turned away from the nurse, I didn't go hunting for a hall pass -- I tried to go to the hospital.
~Rebecca
It is easy here on Slashdot for you to believe me, 10 years after the fact. Just the fact I remember it with such vivid detail lends credibility or I am at least a quick creative writer to make up the whole thing so quickly.
At the time however, things were a very different story. I was a high school kid who had left class without a hall pass. The officer said I started the fight, and I was in the process of committing a crime (truancy). It was easy for all the adults at the time to ignore my requests for medical assistance, in their eyes I was just a whiny kid making excuses. There was no room to make a valid case on my word alone.
~Rebecca
My Story.
I was a junior in High School, about 10 years ago. One day I had intense nausea and a sharp pain in my back. I went up to the nurses office to seek assistance. I was promptly denied any assistance, as I did not have a "hall pass".
Realizing my situation required medical attention, I left. I proceeded towards my car in the parking lot, with the intention of going to the hospital to get the care I needed. I was intercepted by campus security. I ignored their pleas for me to return to campus, and continued towards my car. Eventually I was physically stopped by a mid 30s campus cop, a female about 5' 4" with very short hair. I told her I needed to go to the hospital, and that I was leaving.
The officer beat me up (as in a fistfight), kicking my knee out and using her baton. I was incapable of fighting back in my condition, and made no effort to do so. She dragged me back to campus, where I was made to sit in the office until the end of the school day. No one ever spoke to me or the officer regarding the incident, but she did stay nearby to insure I did not leave. No medical care was ever offered, despite my requests that they now call 911.
After school was released several hours later, I went to the hospital and was treated for a kidney stone.
What is wrong with our schools is that this can a) happen and b) get blown off completely; as it is obviously my fault for seeking medical attention and since I was a student, I must have started the fight with the rent-a-cop.
~Rebecca
Fixed that for ya. So when the police are torturing people in the middle of a school in front of everyone; are we a police state yet? Was it some other kind of "worse" that "other countries have" that everyone meant when they blew off those that have said so before?
~Rebecca
I'm not sure if you're serious, sarcastic, or moronic. Those things are great; if the game has something else to offer. Second Life should sell their staff to a game company, who could make a [Tolkien/Space/Marvel] game that actually had something to play for and let you do all that custom avatar/landowning stuff.
~Rebecca
~Rebecca
Howard Dean's campaign still failed because as you say he "made a fool of himself". The internet didn't save Howard Dean -- even though the informed internet voter you hope for knew he was yelling over a crowd, unaware of the noise cancelling feature in use on his microphone. No, the only news that really got out was how "crazy" he obviously was.
Mark Foley molested underage children and largely got away with it. This man should be in jail, and so should anyone protecting him. I'm normally never a fan of "think of the children" type responses; and I've seen far too many cases involving offended redneck parents and high school seniors (he's 19, she's 17) to want to brand anyone a child molester without some good evidence of an actual crime. The internet and it being so easy to find out available information hasn't even drummed up a serious investigation.
Instead what I've seen is people like Bev Harris getting ignored, despite years of intense work on something that should be of paramount importance. Other than the circular answer of "because she's right" -- why isn't the internet helping Black Box Voting get heard? Her site is well built and is a legitimate charity; but you'd be hard pressed to find a link to her site anywhere except liberal choir-preaching grounds.
I don't really know of any case where the 'tech savvy non elite' have had an impact.
~Rebecca
ROFL
~Rebecca
It's pretty easy to be to the left of the Bush administration; but that's not evidence that they "want them out of office in a BIG way". Show me where they're promoting the election fraud information, show me the cries for impeachment, something that qualifies as actually trying to get them out of office.
I haven't seen it yet. The simple fact is, the Bush administration is FAR right, much farther to the right than the democrats have ever been to the left. Compared to the rest of the world the democrats are the right. Your reply just sounds like the same old "Clinton News Network" vs "Faux News" party spew.
~Rebecca (yea, I got trolled)
I don't know this, and I would like to. Could you provide a link to any information on this?
~Rebecca
Imagine for just a moment, that the elections in 2000 and 2004 had been just as they were; but with verifiable voting in place. Yes, all those things you mentioned are reasons we should not allow the process to get tied up in what would surely be an exercise in poor sportsmanship.
What we had were polls that were drastically different for the first time in our countries history. Were votes changed with bogus electronic voting machines, as some say? Were pollsters lied to en masse by voters, claiming to support Gore/Kerry but secretly voting for Bush?
There are a growing number of people who feel there is enough evidence to conduct an investigation even without verified voting. If we had had verified voting, one way or another, we would not be having this discussion today -- either we'd have a solid answer supporting the Bush presidency, or we'd be having a revolution. That is your safeguard against abuse -- if the discrepancy isn't worth a revolution, then it has no value.
~Rebecca
~Rebecca
Unfortunately here, we don't have any ability to accomplish what you suggest. Doing so would either require the honest cooperation of Diebold or a court order permitting investigators to aquire that information by force. Since we can safely assume Diebold will continue its refusal to cooperate; that leaves only the judicial/execute branches to acquire that information.
So lets say you take a look at the news section on black box voting, and see the near daily articles; some extreme, some not so extreme on the subject. Admittedly, not every single one of them is a big 'smoking gun' -- but some of them are pretty close, and there's tons of mid range stories to choose from. This is where you have to ask yourself -- is all of this cause enough for an investigation? I think so, and judging from your reply I think you think so too.
Our society has shown that we are willing to lower the barrier to investigation when the potential crime is serious enough -- such as child porn or presidential assassinations. Should a 51% popular majority be required for an investigation to something that could without exaggeration undermine the entire foundation of law? The threshold as you presented it is unattainable without the investigation in the first place. What would the threshold be to simply merit an investigation? If that point is met, at what point does it become valid to request outside assistance to achieve the investigation?
~Rebecca
What would qualify as sufficient 'proof' in this case? Could you provide some examples of what would be acceptable and not dismissed as 'hearsay' or 'moonie conspiracy theories'?
~Rebecca
I'm not the original AC, but I will answer this. I am not allowed to work within the United States anymore. I'm not a criminal, my most severe crime is a traffic violation. I'm not a leper, or carrying any contagious diseases. I am not physically disabled, and fully capable of performing all normal activities. I am a natural born citizen, born from a white, christian family of financial respect.
I have a legal dispute with the Social Security Administration; one that I have already settled once in court and the SSA continues to refuse to honor the court order to fix up my records. Long story jammed in to a slashpost here: SSA's records on me are screwy. I didn't find out until I left the job I had pre-9/11 and went to get a new one later. I've since been to court, where everyone of merit spoke on my behalf, doctors, friends, relatives, even my bank manager. The court agreed with me and issued an order to repair the records. SSA is refusing to comply, citing un-named legal restrictions "ever since 9/11". The ultimate effect on this is that anyone who does a now required "employment eligibility verification" (or something to that effect) gets told that my ID doesn't match the records they have and thus I am a fraud and am not eligible.
I haven't worked since 2002. I've lost the "personal freedom" to have a job. Before you tell me to get an attorney or go to some organization for free help -- realize I've been doing these things for 4 years now, and its mighty difficult with no income. The ACLU doesn't want my case (not high profile enough) and no attorney wants to do anything that involves security changes after 9/11 pro bono.
~Rebecca
I'm not sure if you will know the answer to this, but if you do or know where I could ask; I'd appreciate it. I've been considering France within the next 5 years, and I have at least a bad-french-101 classroom level of the language.
Anyway, do you know if I were self-employed with a proven record for making a sufficient amount (how much?); could I dodge that employment requirement? Assume that my self employment is largely unaware of wherever I happen to be living.
~Rebecca