Tor Developer Detained At US Border, Pressed On Wikileaks 637
suraj.sun writes with this news from CNET: "A security researcher involved with the Wikileaks Web site — Jacob Appelbaum, a Seattle-based programmer for the online privacy protection project called Tor — was detained by US agents at the border for three hours and questioned about the controversial whistleblower project as he entered the country on Thursday to attend a hacker conference. He was also approached by two FBI agents at the Defcon conference after his presentation on Saturday afternoon about the Tor Project. Appelbaum, a US citizen, arrived at the Newark, New Jersey, airport from Holland Thursday morning, was taken into a room, frisked and his bag was searched. Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained. They asked questions about Wikileaks, asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is, but he declined to comment without a lawyer present, according to the sources. He was not permitted to make a phone call, they said." Appelbaum told me that he just spoke at length with The New York Times, and quipped that his Defcon talk about Tor was "just fine, until the FBI showed up"; this post will likely be updated with more details.
Update: 08/02 03:59 GMT by T : Here's the NYT's coverage.
Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's more worrying than the detention etc. But then ground-level grunts never did know the law well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who said anything about it being a crime? What law says that law enforcement officers can't ask questions?
None. They can always ask questions, but you are not required to answer (see 5th).
But once the Customs & Border patrol determined that:
1. This guy is a genuine card-carrying American.
2. This guy is not carrying any illegal contraband on his person or in his belongings.
3. There is no warrant pending for his arrest.
He has therefore committed no crime, he has the right to enter the United States of America, and they have no right to detain him.
I hope he sues the fucks for a few million for violating his constitutional rights.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Insightful)
>Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.
What a crock! If you are detained from going about your business, you are ARRESTED!! This kind of crap really makes me embarrassed to be an American...
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>What law says that law enforcement officers can't ask questions?
They can. But you don't have to answer per the following Supreme Laws: "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." ----- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ----- "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Such as the right to travel freely without impediment.)
Now one could argue that because it's an international border, they can detain you forever, but I don't buy that argument especially when it involves Documented US citizens. Rights are inalienable and you have them even if the government is a Tyrant that does not recognize those rights. Indefinite detainment is a human rights abuse, and makes the US no better than the USSR or China or Cuba or Iraq.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights are inalienable and you have them even if the government is a Tyrant that does not recognize those rights.
Sounds good on paper. If it's you and two G-men in a room, and those two guys decide to beat you to death, writing a letter to your congressman will not solve anything after the fact.
Speaking as a student of law and philosophy, we like to think that morality and duty makes discussions of "rights" more important than children inventing rules on a playground. But it isn't like that out in the real world. Rights only matter if people and governments respect them. Laws only work on people and governments that care about consequences of breaking them.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Funny)
what law says they have the right to detain anyone without a resin? even with the patriot act they STILL need a resin!
Undoubtedly without a resin, nothing would stick.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:4, Funny)
this is true but FISHING for a resin like they were doing ISN'T a resin
I think you're missing something:
Resin: any of various solid or semisolid amorphous fusible flammable natural organic substances that are usually transparent or translucent and yellowish to brown, are formed especially in plant secretions, are soluble in organic solvents (as ether) but not in water, are electrical nonconductors, and are used chiefly in varnishes, printing inks, plastics, and sizes and in medicine
Reason: The word you appear to be looking for.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well see, here's the thing.
Whenever the state does something that would be illegal for a citizen, they have to have a reason. Many of the things that police and other agencies do are "evil"--arrest and imprisonment is effectively kidnapping, execution is murder, seizing property (including money from fines and damages) is theft, etc--and so ideally they must justify that evil by showing that it is to prevent more evil things from happening in the future; otherwise, we wouldn't put up with it.
I would imagine that a lot of police and other agents (many of whom show up as 'corrupt' on most peoples' moral radars) forget that these actions are evil and consider it just another tool or part of the process of law enforcement. However, being arrested is to the suspect as bad as or worse than kidnapping, especially if they are, in fact, innocent. You are put in a terrifying situation, and if you say the wrong thing, even though you are innocent, you might (you fear) disappear for the rest of your life; the people involved make it clear that they don't care about you, but you're supposed to trust in their ability to dispense justice and ONLY justice; they have this kind of power over you but you have to trust the law to reign in their power and prevent them from doing truly evil things; etc.
So, though IANAL as well, I agree with the GP; as soon as they're kidnapping (even in effect), they should be under the same or more restrictions as when they're performing an arrest. If they try to sneak past that restriction on a technicality--and especially when that's for their own sakes and not for the suspect's--then they are showing that they can't be entrusted with the law per se. Because the law, and agents of the law, should be working to make less evil in this world; if they're doing evil things because they can get away with it rather than after deliberation, that's creating more evil, not less.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting soldiers and their trusted informants in danger is evil.
Really? Maybe you should think who sent those soldiers to Afghanistan in the first place.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Insightful)
So how exactly did the soldiers end up in the dangerous places which are Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place?
We were in Afghanistan because that's where the people that attacked us were based (at the time anyway). We were in Iraq because... LOOK OVER THERE AT THAT SHINY THING... (*runs off*)
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's an obvious ploy to get him to start talking. More obvious is the line about "human rights being trampled". Once he starts talking the hope is he'll spill some information the FBI doesn't already know. Many people fall for this kind if thing as it appeals to their ego. Appelbaum is obviously smart enough to realize there's really nothing for him to gain by talking to the FBI, and only things to lose.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:4, Informative)
There's nothing to be gain from talking to ANY officer. Name, drivers license, and that's it. (And if you're driving, you don't even need to show an drivers license. "My name is ____," will comply with the law. When I was pulled over by the Homeland Gestapo while traveling across the country, they tried to get me to talk but I refused.
"Why won't you let us search your trunk?"
"You said you don't have a search warrant."
"What do you got in there?"
"....."
"Where are you headed?"
"....."
"Where did you come from?"
"....."
They then made me stand in the hot afternoon sun for an hour, but I refused to comply. Eventually they let me go when they realized they had no other option.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's more worrying than the detention etc.
Why? A crime occured... classified documents were given to unauthorized group, and the government is looking for both who leaked them, and who helped the leaker get the classified documents out. Asking him his opinions on the wars... a prime motivation for the leakers, almost certainly, is no different from investigators asking a suspect opinions like "Do you think the victim deserved it?"... it's all about building a case and establishing motivation. There is absolutely nothing unusual about this. Investigators and prosecuters have been doing it as long as there have been investigators and prosecutors. There's nothing unconstitutional about it all. After all, you DO have the right to remain silent. If you don't, that's your business.
BTW, how is what the leakers did any different than people that gave classified docs to the Soviets and Chinese? Motivation? It's the same motivation. My government is wrong, and the best way to change that is to help their enemies. Here's a bag of classified documents.
Assange is a little different, as he's a foreigner on something of a crusade against "American Imperialism", but Bradley Manning is no different from the couple that were just sentenced to prison for shoveling classified info to Castro for years.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Manning was releasing information to the public about a US military cover-up of several murders and the attempted murder of children. It was his duty as a US citizen to make the public aware of the heinous acts being committed in our name. No damaging classified information was released. No actual harm was done except to the reputation of the US military. Manning was a patriot and a hero as is wikileaks for having the courage to release the information even knowing how angry it would make the US government. Restraining the US military from the callous murder of civilians is of the utmost importance to our country. The problem was the murders themselves, not the leaked information about them. The US military are the bad guys here. Congress should be investigating *them*.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?) keep your yapper shut and let your lawyer do the talking.
There's no such thing as a friendly interrogation. Always, always, always keep your yap shut and let the lawyer talk. It's sad, but that's the USA of today.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Funny)
I wish you people would stop thinking that the US is the best at everything. Our law enforcement in the UK is just as bad.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Funny)
"Thank you for calling 9-1-1. What is the nature of the emergency?" I'd like to speak with my lawyer!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Proper vehicle maintenance avoids #1 and #4 entirely.
#2 - ignore them and continue about your business. You have no obligation to speak with them.
#3 - you should have turned off when you saw them turning everyone else away, or when you saw that they had the road blocked.
There's no reason to invite unnecessary contact with anyone wearing a badge. Unless you like being detained and having your vehicle and/or person searched.
I'll admit I'm very biased against police -- I've spent far too long in areas with s
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?)
That's a great example, some time later in court:
officer: "the defendant as per his own admission was the last person to see the late Mr. Dorm A"
you: "what just happened?!"
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?)
If you had bothered to watch the youtube video, the Law Professor describes a story about a guy getting jailed for answering such "friendly" questions. How? He said he has no idea who the criminal was, was nowhere near the crime, but had no alibis to prove it, so the cops locked him up. Then they found some woman to testify that they saw that guy at the crime scene, and he was found guilty in court.
You should also watch the recent Penn & Teller episode about Criminal Justice. A black man was imprisoned for 35 years for a crime he never committed. He too had made the mistake of cooperating with police, and they rewarded him by taking away half his life. He was released when DNA evidence showed that the "criminal's blood" on the knife did not match his blood.
Don't Talk To Cops. Ever.
You'll just framed, even if you're innocent.
"You have the right to remain silent..." - US Supreme Court
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unless it's a friendly interrogation (hey did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?) keep your yapper shut and let your lawyer do the talking.
- buddy, stop giving stupid advices.
Don't talk to cops or any other 'agencies' ever about anything, you may get seriously hurt.
There is no such concept as 'friendly interrogation', what's wrong with you?
-Hey, did you ever see that guy in Dorm A who went missing last month?
The correct answer is: -Am I under arrest? No? Bye.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Informative)
Terrorist attacks happened in Spain, March 11, 2004. That's EU. No "patriot" acts so far. Spain also has a long story of terrorist attacks in Basque province.
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa! Are we now the first and best example of international terrorism? Is that what you're saying? Look up the history of the IRA, dude. A campaign that had successful attacks over decades, and a much higher cost in lives and property. Then tell me we haven't gone a little, a smidge, crazy.
Patriotic landmarkism bugs me too. We should still be talking about the firemen, not the Trade Center. The lives are what matters, not the property, nor the notoriety of that property.
--
Toro
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:5, Interesting)
The first terrorist bombing in NYC occurred on September 16, 1920 on the corner of Wall Street and Broad Street. It was a "horse drawn wagon bomb" which instantly killed 38 people and seriously wounded 400 more (which given it was 1920 probably meant they just died slower). If you go to the JP Morgan building you can still see the holes the dynamite propelled metal shrapnel tore in the building, they never repaired it.
At the time they handled it as a crime, nothing more, despite the fact that political pamphlets calling for the release of political prisoners were found nearby and the bombing was believed to have been tied to a group which had been distributing letter bombs to politicians for at least a year prior. They didn't go to "war on terror". They didn't use the incident to justify flagrantly violating the constitution. Imagine if they had though. What sort of country would we live in now if they had?
Re:Opinions are a crime now? (Score:4, Insightful)
blown to the ground by terrorists. As happened to us on 9/11.
EU has had countless bombings and hijackings from IRA, ETA, Baader Meinhof, PLO, Red Brigades, etc over decades. ...
The US has just one attack and runs around screaming like it's WWIII
UFFSA (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the United Federal Fascist State of America. Please enjoy your stay...
This kinda stuff is totally unacceptable. What law did he break? What was he accused of? Why was he detained? What right do they have to ask such questions? On what planet is a 3 hour detention reasonable?
Re:UFFSA (Score:5, Informative)
The biggest news here is that the government is serious about finding who leaked those documents. For some reason that really annoyed someone high up.
The biggest problem with what happened is something that wasn't even mentioned in the summary: they kept three of his cell phones for no apparent reason. The article only presents one side of the story, but assuming it is accurate, this is unjust. They shouldn't keep objects without a reason.
Re:UFFSA (Score:5, Insightful)
[...] Days would be unreasonable, hours is not.
Idiot.
And soon it will be "weeks would be unreasonable, days are not.", then that would be reasonable, etc.
Idiot.
No not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Believe it or not, the law is not an absolute, it allows for some flexibility, some common sense. While overly pedantic geeks want everything spelled out in a completely explicit manner, you come to discover that is impossible. You think the laws are complex now, you can't believe how complex they'd have to be then, no person could understand them, and there'd be all sorts of inadvertent loopholes. So you find that the law is flexible in various areas. You have definitions like "reasonable" that are not pre
Re:UFFSA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:UFFSA (Score:5, Interesting)
But how many countries *routinely* detain people for that amount of time for no reason at all? I have traveled to something like 50 or 60 countries, including some of the last remaining communist ones and I never experienced anything like what I have experienced trying to enter or leave my own country: The People's Republic of North America.
Re:UFFSA (Score:5, Interesting)
3 minutes isn't reasonable if there is no evidence of a crime. And what the hell is "detained"? If they don't arrest you should be able to go your own way.
You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your rights from them; you give them permission rule, only so long as they follow the rules: laws and constitution.
And name calling never made an argument more persuasive.
Re:UFFSA (Score:5, Informative)
The general idea as far as I know is that if you suspect someone has performed a crime, but you do not yet have evidence, then you can detain them for a short while as you gather your evidence preventing him from for instance running as you start to search his backpack.
Police seem to like exploiting their right to detain for frivolous reasons though.
Re:UFFSA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait.. WHAT??
If they want answers to such trivial things they can start by giving him a call or write an e-mail (or try google...) - detaining someone against their will for 3 hours to "learn" is by no means acceptable.
Re:UFFSA (Score:5, Informative)
Tor was originally developed and funded by the U.S. Navy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
5) He was allowed to leave the country after his conference, not exactly what police states do.
They do if they have reason to do so, e.g. protecting their image when the publicity would be worse than harassing the target.
Mr. Applebaum doesn't act like an innocent victim of human rights abuses. He acts like an uncooperative witness who flees at the first sign of oppurtunity.
Not hanging around waiting to become a statistic doesn't make you a coward, or a criminal, but it is a sign of intelligence.
It sounds like the FBI agents were genuinely trying to hear his side of the story about his rights being trampled having been at the conference for other reasons.
You sound hilarious.
Re:We are at war (Score:4, Insightful)
Show me the declaration according to the UN charter. Fittingly the US in Afghanistan was like this detainment of this programmer. IE they are pressing an authoritarian mantra.
2) Wikileaks leaked secret documents about the war in afghanistan in a reckless manner that possibly endangered lives of our allies and soldiers on the battlefield.
Copy pasted from a US millitary speech? Arguably everything could contribute. Protesting against the Mai Lai Massacre killed US soldiers indirectly. Moral lowered by poor opinion back home caused battle errors?
3) A 3 hour border detention is less than someone would be detained for unpaid parking tickets. They did not arrest him. They could have easily arrested him as a material witness.
It was 3 hours too many
5) He was allowed to leave the country after his conference, not exactly what police states do
Well no, police states do let people go, under agreements of refugee discussions. Not all refugees arrive on a 12" dinghy or scramble over barbed wire walls.
Furthermore... (Score:3, Insightful)
"We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Fuck your war.
No We're Not (Score:5, Insightful)
I gotta stop getting my news from the Internet. I totally missed Congress' declaration of war. I was under the impression that we were allied with the government of Afghanistan. BTW, Mr. high and mighty, why did you capitalize Afghanistan and not United States? Are you some kind of treason supporter?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't arrest someone for being a witness. You can question them and subpoena them, but you only arrest suspects, not witnesses.
The horror (Score:5, Interesting)
Officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Army then told him he was not under arrest but was being detained.
Some of the most horrific words the war on terror has produced.
*shudders*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if he had said. "I think the United states should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.", what happens then?
Yet as far as I know it is still legal to hold the belief that we should get out of there.
arrested/detained? (Score:5, Insightful)
Curious. Is it just me, or is the whole "you're not arrested, you're detained" just yet another attempt to avoid getting around the limits that the law, constitution etc. set by making up a new word?
Kinda like "enemy combatant" (no Geneva convention for you, Afghanis!), perhaps.
Put another way: if he was not under arrest, was he free to go? If he was not free to go, how was he not under arrest?
Re:arrested/detained? (Score:5, Informative)
The rules are different at the border. Until you pass the border, they can detain you without arresting you, and they can do so on a mere hunch. You aren't "in the United States" yet, and you do not have your constitutional rights until you are.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So which constitutional rights do you have? Which laws apply? It was said he came from Holland, do Dutch laws apply?
It seems weird that having just landed, you do not benefit from any protection, and they are free to do as they will. How come that US law applies to a plane that flies around the planet, having departed the US, until it hits the ground in another country, but the other way around doesn't work?
So effectively, until the plane lands in the US, it is still under Dutch law, but not yet under US la
IAAL but IANAIL (Score:5, Interesting)
(I am a lawyer but I am not an immigration lawyer)
Immigration law "airside" is complex. You are right to say that you are not yet on USA soil. However, that doesn't mean that the agents are entitled to act without limit. Their actions can still be reviewed by a court, and they cannot act beyond the powers given to them. For example, they are undoubtedly empowered to detain a person where necessary to determine their immigration status (for example, they suspect a US passport may be forged). However, the power to detain is also going to have limits. For example, an agent who detained an individual because they were wearing a hat from a rival baseball team may well be exceeding their powers, and that decision could be found illegal on review.
So, as the above poster mentioned, if they had a "hunch" that the person was entering illegally, then they may well be allowed to detain them. But this hunch seems based on the idea that the person might be involved with a criminal activity. Are the Border Patrol entitled to decline entry/detain a US citizen suspected of crime? I don't know. And what empowered US Army representatives to speak to the man? Again, I'm unclear. If Border Patrol were done with him, and they detained him to enable Army reps to speak to him, they would, possibly be using their powers for a purpose not authorised by the empowering instruments.
I would be very interested to hear exactly what grounds the individual was detained under, and whether it was within the scope of the empowering instrument. I suspect that this may have been pushing the boundaries, but without knowing the laws I can't possibly say for sure.
I look forward to being corrected by anyone with more knowledge than me.
Re:arrested/detained? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually you can be detained and searched up to 100 Miles [aclu.org] from the Border.... It's the Constitution free zone... Roughly 2/3rd of the US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.
Re:arrested/detained? (Score:5, Interesting)
They're both wrong, so we should abolish it. FDR used it in a case against 8 men (Ex parte Quirin). Bush used it against some 775 detainees at Guantanamo and unknown others. So, we can say that Bush is approximately 100-fold more in the wrong than FDR was.
Also, Bush expanded the meaning and use of the term (to automatically include anyone in the Taliban or al Qaida, regardless of actions) in his November 13, 2001 Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism".
So again: We should abolish it. As has been indicated under the Obama administration in a statement by Attorney General Eric Holder on March 13, 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant [wikipedia.org]
"Detained" (Score:5, Interesting)
He is an American citizen, so there isn't an Immigration issue here. So the only thing left for "detaining" is Customs while they go through his stuff. Well, they can do that.
The article actually does say the "detaining" was him waiting for customs to search his bags, laptop, and cell phones (one of which they "seized").
What does not seem normal is the Army being there. He is not a combatent. He is a US Citizen. I do not see how the Army can tell him he is "detained."
Re:"Detained" (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop quoting laws to us. We carry swords.
-- Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus
Goes with the job (Score:3, Interesting)
Our reputation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Robert Gates said that the release of the WikiLeaks documents may damage our reputation in Afghanistan.
Perhaps it is rather the fact that we kill people and lie about it that damages our reputation in Afghanistan.
We have a right to be informed, because if the public is misled, democracy itself becomes false.
Those who fear the truth are not fit to lead.
What IS The Law? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can someone (who knows what the hell they're talking about, and can give cites) please tell us what the actual Federal law is that controls this situation.
Because I tell ya what, folks: some son of a bitch detains ME and they got some 'splainin' to do!
"Am I under arrest?"
"No? Then shoot me, mother f*cker, or get out of the way."
And I'm headed for the door. And ANYONE who lays a hand on me is guilty of assault, and I plan to protect myself.
Screw it; my retirement pay comes in whether I'm in jail or not.
Toad
You can be detained for reasonable amounts of time (Score:3, Informative)
So let's say a crime has happened, or the police expect one has. They got a 911 call to that effect. There's a bunch of people around, and it looks like something might have happened. When they come up, you say "I'm leaving." They can detain you. They don't arrest you yet, since it isn't clear you've done anything wrong, but they can tell you that you can't leave. Reason is that they don't want you running off, should it be that they need to arrest you. So for how long? Isn't precisely defined. Like many th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you get a passport and do some international travelling, you are going to have to lose your attitude.
Do a little research about the authority of the Customs. It's not very difficult. [wikipedia.org]
Any country's port of entry has the right to search your stuff, including your own country. You will wait for that process to be complete if they choose to do this.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well it seems clear that there was nothing "random" about his detention. And it's bad enough that customs can seize anything going through the borders without warrant or cause. But it's even worse when border crossings get used as an excuse for warrantless interrogations.
Detained but not under arrest? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have a look at the Oscar-winning documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" and get back to me.
Have you ever heard of the "PATRIOT Act"?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure have, in fact I wrote the Wikipedia article on it. Where does it state that you can indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen?
Re:Well in the U.S it doesn't mean that (Score:4, Insightful)
Read section 412. It permits indefinite detention of immigrants and non-citizens. There is no requirement that they be held on terrorism grounds. It could be done simply based on an immigration violation.
Specifically, section 412 of the PATRIOT Act adds a section 236A(a)(3) and (a)(6) to the immigration law allowing this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, if the U.S. wasn't the best country by default in the minds of brainwashed morons^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H loyal patriots such as yourself, it probably wouldn't suck so much.
Re:Far less scary (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless I'm being charged, how I feel about the War in Iraq or the price of tea in China ain't any of their business. Detain me, ask me questions, refuse me a call to get legal representation, and I don't think that's an example of these guys "doing their jobs". It's abuse of process, illegal detention, deprivation of constitutional rights, and a sign that these guys are evil immoral monsters.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everyone gets detained and asked about Wikileaks.
I've been randomly searched, but I've never been pulled aside and asked about something I've actually been working on. This guy has been flagged in the system.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
How often do you travel? I've been pulled aside lots of times and really interrogated. Lots of personal questions: what do I do for a living, why am I traveling to or returning from country x, what do my relatives do for a living, where do they live, and much more. The extensive follow up questions would be even more personal and intrusive. On occasion the questions lasted for more than an hour. I also get chosen for a "random" search nearly every time. Maybe I just look suspicious. I am ghostly white and none of my family comes from the middle east or Southwest Asia. So it is not racial profiling. I can only imagine what it must be like for a foreigner. We don't exactly put our best foot forward at our borders. Much of the world already regards us as vicious, brutish thugs. Or at least our government. It always seems to happen on departure. Maybe because they know they have you over a barrel. They can easily interrogate you long enough to make you miss your flight. On one occasion they only released me just in time. I made the flight, but with only minutes to spare. In fact, it was only when I showed them my ticket and told them that I was about to miss my flight that they finally released me.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it good that we even have "a system"?
I debated whether to even bother responding to this for a good 10 minutes but, in the end, decided it needs saying.
Yes, it's a good thing that we even have "a system". There are good, legitimate uses for "a system". What is not good in this case, and in the larger picture lately, is the way the system is being used. This may seem like splitting hairs to some but it is an important distinction.
A nation has the right (and indeed, the obligation) to protect itself from undesirables crossing into the country or, similarly, to allow the authorities to execute arrest warrants as needed. Having a record of who's in the country, for how long, etc, is just a good idea in general for any nation. In addition.
The problem is the use of such systems to harass otherwise law-abiding citizens. It's troublesome to me that this is happening regularly. This doesn't mean I decry the need for the system in general, however.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. (Score:4, Interesting)
If our country wasn't randomly bombing the shit out of all manner of other people, and actually keeping an informed and healthy electorate whose votes were actually counted, we wouldn't need a system.
This country has been sliding deeper into fascism since JFK was shot in the face. We need a system now because the evil corporations who control everything (news, transport, government, education, food) are doing evil things that honest and decent people are definitely considering fighting with violence.
You may call George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin terrorists, but they were fighting tyranny, and as such were heroes. Just as anyone currently fighting the US government and it's corporate oligarchy is also a hero. I myself will fight any maniacal fascism with such a "system". I would do that because I believe in the Bill of Rights. I believe that all men are created equally, and I believe that the rights of individual people supersede the rights of corporations to continue to profit while murdering as many living things (people included) as possible.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
If our country wasn't randomly bombing the shit out of all manner of other people, and actually keeping an informed and healthy electorate whose votes were actually counted, we wouldn't need a system.
At this point, reasonable people will stop listening to you. Our country is not "randomly bombing the shit out of all manner of other people." There are very distinct reasons behind those actions. You may not agree with the reasons given. You may question whether we are given real reasons. You may disagree with the fundamental idea of such a policy. But it would serve your cause to give voice to those grievances instead of resorting to generic exaggerations. Otherwise, you sound like an uninformed raving lunatic. And you might even cause others who CAN voice rational criticism to be overlooked by the general public.
Re:Welcome to Obama's America (Score:4, Insightful)
Disclaimer: This is a mostly off-topic rant in reply to an off-topic troll.
It's just like Bush's America, but with a different figurehead. I'll wager $50 that the next guy, regardless of party affiliation, will be minimally different.
The President doesn't really matter. The orientation of Congress doesn't really matter. What matters is the overall opinion of the American population, and changing that takes a much longer time that 4, 8, or even 20 years. Look at the big picture as it's changed over the last few decades. There are a few things our representatives now realize:
The plain and simple fact is that every time the government does something just to "appease the general public", that means they're doing (mostly) what the general public wants. If they're wrong, and are trying to implement something that's proven impossible (like, for example, mandating DRM), then that means that the American public at large probably don't understand why it's not possible. If you oppose a pending bill and it gets passed, that means you didn't do a good enough job of convincing people of your viewpoint. Activists, as annoying as they are sometimes, play a vital role in making the general public aware of the issues at hand.
On topic, I understand why there are interrogations and detainments. Less than a decade ago, America was dealt a serious blow by an enemy that was living right among us. It wasn't so much the number of people that died that was so concerning. It was the fact that we knew almost nothing definite about the attack prior to them happening. Sure, there were reports of something being expected to happen, but thery were no more definite or detailed than the hundreds of similar reports that passed through the White House in the months before. September 11th of 2001 was the day we realized how little we knew about the rest of the world. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out. There are myriad groups out there keeping an eye on any civil rights violations, and I for one commend their work. There is a balance we must strike between absolute security and absolute liberty, and we will not reach that point within the span of one presidential term. I doubt we'll reach it within ten terms. America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years. We are cocky and immature, and so is our intelligence system. Give it time to grow, but make sure it's kept in check by the public activists and watchdogs. We'll grow up just fine.
Re:Welcome to Obama's America (Score:5, Insightful)
It was the fact that we knew almost nothing definite about the attack prior to them happening. Since then, our investigative agencies have been scrambling to figure out a good answer to the question of "what's going on?" since our previous methods were so obviously incomplete.
News flash, that is an impossible mission without grossly destroying the United States and the liberties that have been fought for over the past two centuries. We are not (by inception) a nation of safety but a nation of individual freedoms and collective assistance. Attacks will happen, and the constitution allows for some defense against those attacks, but the rights of the citizenry are paramount to that defense.
It's a good thing, overall. Yes, there are some innocent folks getting detained, deported, and denied entry, but in time those will work out.
I'd have to disagree. We as a nation have let the enemy win as a significant portion of the citizenry and leaders have been terrorized into removing what makes this nation great in the hopes of not being afraid. Let's get this out in the open, if you want a free society then you're going to have to deal with the fear that nothing will be certain. Take something as simple as driving, you are taking a risk that the person on the other side of the road matching your 50 mph isn't going to just drive straight into you. Life is dangerous, deal with it.
America as a nation is only 234 years old, compared to other nations that have been in roughly the same state for a thousand years.
And England has no better method of detecting impeding attacks. Nor does any other nation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We don't need a flawless answer to know "what's going on". Instead, we just need to reestablish the base level of intelligence that we held for many years. From the 50s to 70s, things were pretty clear overall. The USSR was trying to surpass our technology. Soviet spies were coming to the US through various channels, but often with detectable ties. The middle east was dealing with its own problems, and its own issues with the Soviets, too. Korea was so screwed up from war that they weren't much of a threat.
Re:Welcome to Obama's America (Score:5, Insightful)
I largely disagree with your drastic oversimplifications of very complicated world events and turning them into neat little bullet points while ignoring hundreds of other trends and events. I could go on, but there's something more disturbing. This is the statement I don't understand at all:
We had temporary safety from about 1985 until 2001. We obtained it by being the strongest (and most stable) military power in the world. Now that guerilla/terrorist warfare is recognized to be stronger, we have lost all security.
What's the threat that YOU PERSONALLY face from "guerilla/terrorists" warfare? Are you really and truly afraid of Al-Queda? Why is safety supposed to be the big goal we're all trying to obtain? What really makes you think we've lost it? How is this such a large threat to the country as a whole?
Frankly I'm far more threatened by the economies dependence on cheap oil imports, the increasing gap between the rich and poor, the increasing polarity of political parties, our ever increasing "fear culture", and pissing away billions of dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan than I am of those Al-Queda fuckheads.
Re:Welcome to Obama's America (Score:5, Insightful)
we have lost all security.
Please. That is ridiculous hyperbole. We lost 3000 people in the last 10 years to terrorism. We lose that many to food poisoning every year. We've lost more people to rampant militarism (6700 between Iraq and Afghanistan) in the same time frame. You fear mongers are more dangerous than the fucking terrorists. Your pathetic cowering is pathetic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The plain and simple fact is that every time the government does something just to "appease the general public", that means they're doing (mostly) what the general public wants.
A completely false way to frame the situation. A few problems with how you've framed this:
The general public does not want one thing, it wants a multitude of different, conflicting things.
Even when the general public wants the same thing, they want it in vastly different ways.
The general public can be convinced of a LOT given enough
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We the People of the United States, in Order to... insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, ...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We need to keep America safe and tranquil. Overall, that's worked pretty well. There's been the American Civil War, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the World Trade Center attacks. Not bad for two hundred years.
We also must keep liberty, and ensure it passes to future generations. The attack on Pearl Harbor might have been stopped if we'd had mandatory military service, but that's been determined as encroaching too far on our freedom.
What rights have been violated here? The right to commit treason without i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please come back and play Mr. Self Righteous after your own government stops violating human rights at the drop of a hat, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Greece [wikipedia.org]
Re:Well, good (Score:5, Informative)
No names were revealed, they were blanked out. Unlike what some "journalist" might have said. Link: http://twitter.com/wikileaks/statuses/20070146579
Re:Well, good (Score:4, Informative)
"A large number of Afghan informants had their names exposed "
Did you even actually read the documents? Names were blacked out.
Jesus christ.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you actually read them?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/publication-of-afghan-informant-details-worth-the-risk-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange/story-e6frg6so-1225898273552 [theaustralian.com.au]
The sanitized version in papers had names blacked out, but the actual leaked docs were basically unedited. The Taliban has already announced they're using it to compile a list of people to kill.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/taliban-says-it-will-target-names-exposed-by-wikileaks.html [newsweek.com]
Re:Well, good (Score:5, Informative)
Just no. There is no link anywhere to non-sanitized version. Leaked docs that are posted on wikileaks are sanitized. Taleban is doing what it was doing since 1970s - scaring the shit out of informants though any means necessary, which includes lying. I'm sorry, but you're clueless.
Re:Well, good (Score:4, Informative)
uh, there are names in the wikileaks postings. Several news outlets, including the Washington Post, have searched the released docs and found names that weren't redacted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072904900.html [washingtonpost.com]
wikileaks didn't scrub the docs thoroughly, even the founder of wikileaks is basically saying "hey, not our problem!" He's not denying it, I find it interesting you are.
Re:Well, good (Score:5, Insightful)
Quit whining and start taking responsibility for your actions
This man didn't post anything. He is a Tor developer.
To put this another way, I am a cryptography researcher. Must I now be careful about what specific research I do? Should I be worried that I might be detained at an airport because of my work?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. The US officials were quite happy to pat him on the back when his software enabled pro-democracy Iranians to leak details of protests there.
Phillip.
Re:Well, good (Score:4, Insightful)
heck, was not the concept of onion routing created by the us military?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're buying the spin, no questions asked.
What about the behavior that the documents expose? The people that have been killed and those that will continue to be killed due to cover-ups of unethical, corrupt, and outright murderous action?
Re:of course (Score:5, Insightful)
What did he expect? A Boy Scout merit badge?
As a citizen of the United States? Probably that one phone call to his lawyer and the right from unlawful detainment, to name a few.
Re:of course (Score:4, Funny)
Your attachment to due process and the constitution makes Henry Kissinger cry.
Re:of course (Score:4, Informative)
Since he wasn't under arrest he had no right to a phone call. Last time I checked, US Customs didn't need a reason to detain anyone crossing the border.
Re:of course (Score:5, Informative)
Funny, I don't see an "except for the border" clause in the Bill of Rights.
Re:of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Sush. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
Re:of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, you are in the United States and the agents of the United States are required to do their job according to the U.S. Constitution, judicial precedent, and U.S. Federal Law. A U.S. Citizen that is entering the United States and is detained once landing in the U.S. is protected by all laws and the U.S. Constitution.
I know that the U.S. Government tries to tell itself this is not the case, but it is. This guy did the right thing by not talking, which is what I would have done. He is under no obligation to give the U.S. Government any information.
It seems like J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is still going strong. It use to be that the FBI worked hard to have U.S. Citizens see "Red" in their soup with communist witch hunts, and now they are changing over to having us(U.S. Citizens) see terrorist in our soup.
People believe that the U.S. Government has gotten bad, or turned into a "police state", but the fact is that this sort of stuff has been going on for a long time. This situation will continue until those that are governed decide to change this and demand real change.
To save a lot of discussion...that will never happen. People will continue to keep their head in the sand, until they are targeted. At that point, it will be too late.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"... federal statute 8 CFR 287.1 (a)(1-3) defines the border zone for enforcement purposes as encompassing an area within 100 miles of the actual border"
They can get to you at any "random" internal checkpoint they like
http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA [youtube.com] some vids of the stops.
Re:of course (Score:4, Interesting)
As a citizen of the United States?
Wow, I can't imagine what would have happened if he hadn't been a citizen of the United States...
Re:of course (Score:5, Informative)
He would have been disappeared in a jail somewhere in Poland or Romania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re:of course (Score:4, Informative)
Keep in mind it's not the "one phone call" that you are entitled to as a detained or arrested individual. Take it from someone who worked as a booking officer early in life: Cops are only *required* to let you phone someone if you specifically say you want to call your lawyer. Anyone else -- Mom, Dad, best friend, etc. -- is entirely up to how gracious the detaining officers are.
Speaking of unlawful detainment, didn't you know there is no such thing anymore, at least if the federal government is the entity detaining you? Georgie Bush wiped his ass with the Due Process and Habeas Corpus parts of the law, remember?
Re:of course (Score:5, Insightful)
News flash: This is the Obama administration we're in.