Russia Issues Travel Warning To Its Citizens About United States and Extradition 369
mendax writes "The New York Times reports that the Russian government is warning its citizens to not travel to countries that have an extradition treaty with the United States, noting that 'detentions of Russian citizens in various countries, at the request of American law enforcement, have become more frequent.' The article reports the Russian foreign ministry as saying,'Experience shows that the judicial proceedings against those who were in fact kidnapped and taken to the U.S. are of a biased character, based on shaky evidence, and clearly tilted toward conviction.'"
Times have changed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not too long ago that most people in the US would be worried about Russia being the bad guy in such situations.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Times are always changing.
Russian citizens are stealing many millions of dollars, mostly from US banks and citizens. The Russian authorities won't stop them and won't extradite them. Now they are complaining when USA law enforcement issues warrants for their arrest and other countries act on those warrants.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you blame Russia for not extraditing their citizens for offences of only several million dollars thats what, about what 5 MP3s worth of value?
The whole world is sick of this rubbish.
Re:Times have changed. (Score:5, Insightful)
While there are certainly Russians that should be extradited to the US to stand trial, it's the United States that's abused their extradition powers, falsified evidence, and flat out lied to participating countries in order to arrest those whom there is little to no evidence against and are often being persecuted for political reasons. Remember, we have the highest incarceration rate in, not only the world, but all of human history. With that kind of record you have to see how a lot of countries would see our judicial system as a bit suspect as well. The Russians may protect their ultra rich from prosecution but we do exactly the same thing. To this day, not a single executive from the whole 2008 banking mess has even been indited, simply because the justice department didn't want to upset the markets. We are certainly no better than the Russians when it comes to justice, we're probably even worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Russian citizens are stealing many millions of dollars, mostly from US banks and citizens.
As a Russian citizen, I take offense at this claim. The criminals in question are not stealing many millions of dollars from US banks and citizens. They're stealing millions of dollars mostly from Russian citizens, and otherwise screwing our country up. At the same time, they send their children to study and work in US, because they don't want their kids to live in the mess they have themselves created. Denying them the ability to do so is an efficient deterrent, and so I fully support and encourage US to p
Re:Times have changed. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, yes, it does. About 60 have been extradited to Britain in the last 7 years. I presume that the US extradites citizens to other countries also.
Re:Times have changed. (Score:5, Interesting)
yes
Re:Times have changed. (Score:4, Funny)
Which lead us to phrases like "Oh baby, I just love your big throbbing extradition!"
Re:Times have changed. (Score:4, Interesting)
Mind you that song was from about a decade before the Iraq War.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for those nightmares. Eww.
Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Russia still is a bad guy in these situations. This just makes for a good diversion for them.
Re:Times have changed. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you but both nations of the cold war were bad guys and they (or their successors in the case of the Soviet Union) still are. Old trick of using external "foes" for control and limiting dissent and its impact. The meaningful major challenge as always is in creating and implementing reforms and making them stick to prevent backsliding to the bad old days.
Re:Times have changed. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mobster, businessman... a rose by a different name...
It's not like the US went head over heels to prosecute the criminals that caused the current turmoil in our economy.
Biased charges, clearly tilted toward conviction (Score:5, Interesting)
Experience shows that the judicial proceedings against those who were in fact kidnapped and taken to the U.S. are of a biased character, based on shaky evidence, and clearly tilted toward conviction.
Yeah, Russia's the expert on that.
Still, it's amazing that the U.S. has become such a totalitarian police state that Russia can legitimately give them crap.
Re:Biased charges, clearly tilted toward convictio (Score:4, Informative)
Is the US doing things it shouldn't be (Spying on its citizens, TSA, etc.), sure. But that is far from Soviet Union, North Korea, Nazi Germany. You know, actual Totalitarian Police States.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would agree that we live in a police state now. But no one has tested it yet. But everything is in place. Give it some time and we'll all look back and say *oh shit*
Re:Biased charges, clearly tilted toward convictio (Score:5, Interesting)
He has a good point. Not sure why he was modded down to 1. Elliot Spitzer is a good example of someone who posed a direct threat to Wall Street and suddenly its discovered that he visited prostitutes and our establishment media uses it to destroy his career. I wouldn't say everything is in place just yet, however, because at some levels we still have a functioning democracy. The most important thing is to use what's left of it to get the influence of big money out of government as best we can.
Re: (Score:3)
at some levels we still have a functioning democracy
No, you don't.
Allowing you to choose between Kang and Kodos every 4 years does not a functioning democracy make.
Re:Biased charges, clearly tilted toward convictio (Score:5, Insightful)
Forgot GITMO and the number of people detained there without ever having seen a judge, or a lawyer?
A country where you can be taken off the street without any cause, just by labeling you a 'terrorist' sounds just like the Soviet Union, North Korea and Nazi Germany..
Re: (Score:2)
That's little different from the imprisonment refugees suffer in places like Germany and Australia. Australia has even set up extraterritorial detention camps in places like Nauru.
If you are considered a threat to national security, you can be ta
Re: (Score:2)
Not just a country, the US will try to grab you anywhere in the world. It's a scandal, my government should be shooting down CIA jets that enter our airspace to kidnap people.
Re:Biased charges, clearly tilted toward convictio (Score:4, Interesting)
Dude... look up the word RENDITION. Dirty deeds done in the dark of night cheap. A whole lot of innocent people enjoyed the hospitality of middle eastern prisons on Uncle Sam's dime.
Re:Biased charges, clearly tilted toward convictio (Score:4, Insightful)
Do US Citizens need to fear the government knocking on the door at midnight?
Yes, actually (you're just one anonymous tip away from having a SWAT team redecorate your home), but they are more scared of being accused of a crime, put on a ter'rist list, investigated for child porn possession, or sued into bankruptcy.
Different tactics, same result.
Were John Stewart or Stephen Colbert or Glenn Beck or Bill Orielly arrested for their blatant attacks of the government?
Those people do not threaten the regime. At best they are largely ignored; at worst, they may effect a slight shift in voting patterns between the Republicrats and the Demopublicans, depending on the political party they happen to rant against, which serves nicely to distract the population from the real issues.
No? Ohh ok. Then once again, I bring up that while not perfect, the US is far from the Totalitarian state some think it is.
You don't need to beat up your slaves if other methods of control are more effective.
The word totalitarian has a meaning. A country working towards gay rights is not a country that it becoming totalitarian.
Yes, it does. Allow me to use the wording from Wikipedia: "Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a term employed by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible."
How exactly "gay rights" interfere with totalitarianism?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Biased charges, clearly tilted toward convictio (Score:4, Funny)
The department of Homoland Security... it has a nice ring!
Re:Biased charges, clearly tilted toward convictio (Score:5, Insightful)
A totalitarian state is one in which people used to say, "It can't happen here."
Re: (Score:2)
And it is, in fact, not very different from what many other nations are already doing. Modern Germany, France, the UK, and lots of other nations have been spying on their citizens for decades and are still much more intrusive into their citizens' personal lives than even the US under Obama.
Re:Biased charges, clearly tilted toward convictio (Score:4, Insightful)
North Korea and Nazi Germany are/were military dictatorships. In a military dictatorship, there's no pretense of due process. There is one leader and if you cross them, you suffer the consequences. East Germany was very much a police state, but one could argue that it was under the control of the USSR and not that unique an example.
I think categorically denying that the U.S. is a police state is dangerous. Something very unhealthy is happening in the U.S.. People don't even feel free to talk openly about it anymore. Names are being taken down via social media and citizens are being secretly spied upon without due process. The pretense of due process is still there. Guantanamo is considered "different" and the DHS operates in a space which is also "an exception". The government still feels it needs to explain its actions to the media.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that you would call the US a Totalitarian Police State means that you have very little understanding of the a Totalitarian Police State actually is.
Is the US doing things it shouldn't be (Spying on its citizens, TSA, etc.), sure. But that is far from Soviet Union, North Korea, Nazi Germany. You know, actual Totalitarian Police States.
A "Totalitarian State" strives to have total control of its subjects. A "Totalitarian Police State" utilizes the police to achieve that objective.
The states you mentioned (Soviet Union, North Korea, Nazi Germany) used violent means on a large scale to achieve such control but the US does not need to. It can use different tactics to achieve its objectives.
Let's try an example:
1) You're in elementary school. Bobby, the schoolyard bully, wants your lunch. If you don't give it to him, he and his friends wil
Re: (Score:2)
Why practice extra-ordinary rendition when you can invite your victim over for some polonium tea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Biased charges, clearly tilted toward convictio (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand how we could legally arrest Bout. He wasn't a citizen of the U.S., he was never in the U.S., and he never committed a crime on U.S. soil.
He was a citizen of a country that often supported the side opposite of ours in conflicts, but that's not a crime.
Kissinger gave material support to regimes that were committing war crimes. If Russia wants to prosecute Kissinger, would we be legally required to turn him over? If Kissinger's airplane was forced to stop in Russia, could the Russians arrest him?
Maybe you don't believe in following international law. Maybe you believe in realpolitik and might makes right. OK, but you no longer have grounds for moral outrage when a militant group sets off a truck full of dynamite outside your embassy. They're just playing by the same rules you are.
Stranger Than Fiction (Score:5, Insightful)
US Allies are starting to turn their backs on them (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that Russia was ever a major ally to the US, but more and more countries are ceasing to put up with the hostile nature of the US's foreign relations policy. The US is failing in all sorts of relations due to its policies on copyrights, "terrorism," worthless wars and drug enforcement, and increasingly, other nations are no longer putting up with it.
Throughout its history, the US has more or less never had any interest in the well-being of other nations they enter relations with. Of course, you could perhaps say this is true of all nations. However, if the US is going to be so self-centered in its relations, then the best thing for the world is for them to have less of an influence in strong-arming other nations into agreeing with them. This influence historically has come largely from dominating economic pressure, but we'll see if it lasts - hopefully it doesn't. The last thing the world needs is to become more like the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bush opened the door to a hostile foreign policy, which Obama and his minions (Clinton, Kerry) have continued.
This is probably crap, but... (Score:3)
Most likely this is crap, just political gamesmanship, but the sad thing is that US actions and policies have given the country such a shady reputation that everyone has to at least give it a good look.
What the hell happened to my country? (Score:5, Insightful)
These are the kinds of warnings WE used to give about RUSSIAN satellite nations.
This is all turning into a bad dream...
Re: (Score:2)
All during the cold war, when somebody would criticize violations of human rights in America, our leaders would point to the USSR and tell us that in Russia it was even worse.
Most of our cold-war propaganda was based on making Russia's lack of freedom a caricature of our own lack of freedom.
For example, our propagandists said that in Russia, people weren't free to travel. (Not true. I've met people who grew up in the Soviet Block and traveled all over the Soviet Block. East Germany was a popular vacation sp
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I did the googling. Looks like US is trying to get to people who are not US citizens, and never broke any US laws on US soil. Doesn't sound right to me. I'm sure I've broken at least your copyright laws, and alcohol laws, and most likely many others. As it happens I don't live in the US, and sure as hell am not planning to come for a visit, which is a pity, because i really wanted to see the statue of liberty, that once stood for well.. liberty. And grand canyon. And las vegas. Luckily the world has many pl
I sure hope so (Score:4, Insightful)
I sure hope that if the US goes through the trouble of extraditing someone, its case is "biased towards conviction".
Warning only for people known to be wanted by U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The Russian Foreign Ministry posted advice of a somewhat different nature on Monday, cautioning people wanted by the United States not to visit nations that have an extradition treaty with it."
Unfortunately, that small omission significantly changes the meaning of the line.
Re: Warning only for people known to be wanted by (Score:2)
However, the original bulletin does not seem to contain such language, judging from the auto translation.
meanwhile, in Russia... (Score:4)
...they arrest gay people simply for being gay, and have threatened to arrest gay athletes [reddit.com].
This man fled Russia because of the reaction to his paintings of Putin in lingerie: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/fearing-retribution-artist-behind-putin-lingerie-painting-leaves-russia/279181/ [theatlantic.com]
It's easy to take this as an opportunity to denigrate the US. The level of corruption is far worse in Russia and the civil rights protections a fraction of what US citizens enjoy.
If Snowdon has been Russian and escaped with FSB documents, he wouldn't be alive right now. In case nobody noticed, Russia assassinates inconvenient people.
Re: (Score:3)
in Putin's Russia, you can be arrested for voicing political dissent, especially with regard to the state-controlled media. That's not exactly the freedom we know and love here in America, where the major news shows refuse to promote true and open dissent, and would rather feature the FUCKING KARDASHIANS ON A "NEWS" SHOW.
Re: (Score:3)
...they arrest gay people simply for being gay, and have threatened to arrest gay athletes [reddit.com].
This man fled Russia because of the reaction to his paintings of Putin in lingerie: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/fearing-retribution-artist-behind-putin-lingerie-painting-leaves-russia/279181/ [theatlantic.com]
It's easy to take this as an opportunity to denigrate the US. The level of corruption is far worse in Russia and the civil rights protections a fraction of what US citizens enjoy.
If Snowdon has been Russian and escaped with FSB documents, he wouldn't be alive right now. In case nobody noticed, Russia assassinates inconvenient people.
It's just a shame that the U.S. with it's anti-freedom policies is no longer the obvious opposite to the dictatorship. There's enough doubt in the mind of U.S. supporters to subconsciously equate both countries as being against the people, despite the fact Russia is so much worse.
America used to be land of the free, home of the brave. A place to aspire to, a place to look up to.
That all changed because of an old man living in a cave who killed fewer people in September 2001 (3000) than died on america's roa
Why they try so hard to keep their criminals in? (Score:3)
Why not let US have them?
Pot calling kettle (Score:3)
however, all of the signs of psychological projection, in the more precise dialect.
*aside* even considering that, it's still safer to do business in the USA, for the most part. At least the illegal detentions, seizures, etc actually are well enough documented that folks who are at risk can usually avoid entering. Russia's still not very much into the concept of "free speech".
The sad part about all of this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In Post-Soviet Russia.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Soviet Russia.. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a joke, but it's hardly funny. The joke is that the Russians are warning their people about America in the same way that America warned it's citizens about Russia in the 70's and 80's.
The American government has a very low level of support from everyone. Also, I'm sure that in many countries, the government has been noted to shit-talk America. Why is their so much more hype suddenly since the Snowden leak(s), and Syria's civil war? Everyone's worried about war. I know people of sane mind and body, that are preparing by stocking up on canned goods. And it's the American government that they're scared of, and it's mutated mentality of destruction of anything that it deems "bad" in the light of the moment only. Who wouldn't be afraid of such a government?
It's totally sane of any country to warn it's people about not having basic human rights in America. It used to be a kick-ass place to visit. Now, not so much.
Re: In Soviet Russia.. (Score:5, Informative)
There is a joke, but it's hardly funny. The joke is that the Russians are warning their people about America in the same way that America warned it's citizens about Russia in the 70's and 80's.
Or alternatively, Russians are warning their people about America in the same way that Soviets warned their people about America in the 70's and 80's. The exact same bullshit about the boogiemen over there has been flung both ways for centuries. These days we have the Internet to open our eyes, but the lies are pretty much the same as those that started the Punic wars 2200 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
the irony, of course, is that nobody warns travelers about visiting Russia because we already know that Putin, who's been running the country for years and years, is an "elected president" in name only, and pretty much serves as an unelected, KGB-sponsored dictator. There is little evidence to suggest that Russia would give anyone a fair trial. ex. Pussy Riot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot [wikipedia.org]
Re:In Soviet Russia.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The article cited Victor Bout. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Bout [wikipedia.org]
Bout was an arms dealer who sold to both sides, as arms dealers, including Americans, often do.
I don't like arms dealers, but they're in a legal and sometimes necessary business.
They arrested somebody who couldn't break American law because he was never in America and wasn't a citizen.
I don't like Dick Cheney or Eric Prince either, and they've broken the law just as much as Bout did.
The U.S. never extradited Luis Posada, who bombed a Cuban civilian airliner and killed everybody on board, including a soccer team, despite many requests, and the U.S. never prosecuted Posada itself.
Let's follow the law and put them all in jail. Or ignore the law and don't put anybody in jail. But don't just enforce (dubious extraterritorial) laws against a Russian and not against Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
> They arrested somebody who couldn't break American law because he was never in America and wasn't a citizen.
According to the Wikipedia page you quote, he was arrested for smuggling arms to FARC for use by rebels in Columbia against US troops.
Perhaps you wish to quibble whether he should be treated as a war criminal, or perhaps assassinated as a war criminal?
Re:In Soviet Russia.. (Score:5, Interesting)
> They arrested somebody who couldn't break American law because he was never in America and wasn't a citizen.
According to the Wikipedia page you quote, he was arrested for smuggling arms to FARC for use by rebels in Columbia against US troops.
Assuming he did supply arms to the enemy of an ally, that still doesn't break US law, nor does it make him a war criminal. The arms supplier of your enemy isn't a war criminal, and someone who does something out of your jurisdiction is, like it or not, free from your prosecutors.
TLDR; US forces has no legal standing to arrest, convict or detain their enemies arms suppliers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:In Soviet Russia.. (Score:5, Insightful)
As I recall, the US now basically holds the position that anyone can break American law anywhere in the world and may be prosecuted for such as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
I'm certain someone else can come up with chapter and verse ...
Re: (Score:2)
I know people of sane mind and body, that are preparing by stocking up on canned goods. And it's the American government that they're scared of,
No you don't.
Even if you're crazy enough to imagine the feds are out to get you stocking up canned goods cannot be regarded as a sane response.
So those people aren't "of sane mind and body".
Re: (Score:3)
Those people aren't stocking up because the Government is out to get them specifically. What they are typically afraid of is that the Government will push the public to far and that all hell will break loose. They want to be able to hole up at home or in some safe place with their canned food and shotguns and wait it out. If they decide to come after you specifically you are toast. Other than have top notch lawyers on retainer there isn't much you can do in that situation. So what those people are preparing
Re:In Soviet Russia.. (Score:5, Funny)
The American government has a very low level of support from everyone.
Our Aussie politicians and Defence Signals Directorate would beg (snivel, grovel, plead and generally be a toady) to differ ;)
Re: (Score:3)
It must be horribly painful for you these days then, surfing the intarwebs, reading them bad grammars'stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
It must be horribly painful for you these days then, surfing the intarwebs, reading them bad grammars'stuff.
Oh it is. They just have free reign these days. It's enough to make you loose your mind. I wish they'd learn to tow the line.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, we only have the punchline... "Rectum, hell it killed him!!!", let us know if you can come up with a joke...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Is "shaky" a precise legal term?
Yes, since today it also has the samiliar meaning of "nokia", meaning "shaky" as in shaky future -
Usage 1: He used to be good but now he has a nokia future.
Usage 2: Windows 8 sucks, no wonder it has a nokia future.
Re: (Score:2)
Only when speaking of cheap pizza or Parkinsons...
Re:Shaky? (Score:5, Insightful)
"No, but is an excellent propaganda phrase."
Hmmm...
prop a gan da noun
information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
How is this harmful? It appears to be simple truth.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But OK. So you just didn't understand how implying that the US is issuing warrants on "shaky evidence" is attempt to bring into question the quality of the evidence that the US is using to issue warrants for Russian Citizens and how that might be harmful to US interests. But you do understand enough about the situation to make the determination that the evidence being used is indeed "shaky"
Re:Shaky? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would argue that this provides an opportunity for our government to either show the warrants are not "shaky" but the result of good police procedure with sound probable cause arguments, or if they are not get rid of the bad agents and impeach the bad judges. This would enhance our people's faith in good just law enforcement and strengthen our society.
As it is today, given everything else that has come out recently and all the lies Uncle Sam has been caught in on these subjects; I am more incline to take the Russians at there word. Consequently it makes it a tougher environment for law enforcement when they can't count on cooperation form their fellow cotizens
Re:Shaky? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shaky? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since we learned to cover it with so much bull and feelgood words that it doesn't matter anymore. We don't invade countries anymore, we join a peacekeeping mission, and after we won (sorry, after we reestablished peace) we don't occupy it, we establish a military presence in the area. There we don't infiltrate enemy groups and commit worse atrocities against the civilians than they do to convince them we're also some of the "bad guys", so we can ferret out their leaders for assassination, we engage in covert operations where we have to regretfully accept inevitable but necessary drawbacks for the local population, to enable us to identify top terrorists to neutralize them. And we don't do that with carpet bombing from unmanned drones where we fire at the least hunch that there might be someone we want to hit in the area, we launch preemptive strikes against the terrorist strongholds using top of the line equipment to protect the lives of our men and women serving in our military...
Need I go on or do you simply want to watch the News for more drivel like that?
Re: (Score:2)
Truth harms. Even simple truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shaky? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is misdirection. Point the citizenry at a different country and warn them about it, so that the citizenry overlook the problems at home. Classic propaganda is to create an external enemy.
Re:Shaky? (Score:4, Insightful)
Point the citizenry at a different country and warn them about it, so that the citizenry overlook the problems at home. Classic propaganda is to create an external enemy.
This is true, as it speaks to the reason behind the statement. Sadly, this doesn't really speak to the potential truth of the statement itself. Truth can be propaganda, as well as lies.
Judging from my experience with American law enforcement, and "justice", and everything else I've read, this smells a wee bit truthful. It still serves Russia nicely (them being, perhaps, bigger dicks than us), but I still think they might have a valid point. We're not the good guys, by any stretch. We only look out for our own interests, and by "our", I of course mean only our governments, not "our" as in "we the people".
Re:Shaky? (Score:5, Insightful)
Propaganda works best where you have at least an element of truth. The conviction rates, sentences and so on for the poor and rich in the US legal system are extremely different (look also at black vs white). Imagine how much worse it is for a poor (relative to the USA - he could be pretty rich at home) Russian who doesn't properly speak English and has the huge psychological pressure of having nobody nearby he knows at all.
Simple fact: the US legal system is deeply scary; there is a huge false conviction rate. Remember what we are always told, death sentences are the ones that are most investigated and are 100% sure. The innocence project shows the US has a minimum of a 12% false conviction rate [caught.net] for death sentences; other crimes must be much worse. Unlike people convicted before DNA evidence, nothing new will show up after the fact to save you.
Most convictions in the US are "shaky" and many are simply wrong. I'm sure it's even worse in most of Russia, but if you are having to compare yourself with Russia then you have already gone mad.
Re:Shaky? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with false conviction actually involves a variety of issues, incredibly poor handling of eye witnesses, prosecuting attorneys counting coup towards political advancement and the punishment proffered on innocent defendants who refuse to plea out because of their innocence (and conversely innocent defendants that choose to plea out rather that face draconian sentences.)
All off this is weighted heavily against poor. Public defense is a joke in most states, and nonexistent in the very places it's most needed. Our system has slowly been reworked to criminalize poverty, mental illness and public protest. I can understand the informed of other nations wondering what the hell happened to the USA. I know I do.
Re:Shaky? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shaky? (Score:5, Insightful)
cost cutting is part of the reason, but increasing the conviction rate is a much bigger part, it justifies the system because there's quantifiable "proof" that it's working - they must have been guilty, if they confessed or plead guilty.
it's also useful politically, to make people or organisations seem "tough on crime".
IMO, plea bargaining should be illegal with severe penalties for prosecutors who offer it.
at the very least, the fact that a deal was offered should be enough to reduce all charges and potential sentencing to the offer as a *maximum* - the cops/prosecutor wouldn't have offered it if they thought it was too lenient for the crime.
FWIW, I live in a country where such evil shit either doesn't happen or isn't common enough to be a noticable problem - although cops here (as everywhere) always pile on resist arrest/assault police charges just because they can - it's your word against theirs, and they are presumed to be honest by the courts.
The very thought of a "justice" system where it is considered *normal* to use the threat of insanely harsh penalties to coerce a guilty plea fills me with horror.
but then, our legal system isn't politicised - deliberately so, with clear and jealously guarded separation of powers - and we don't do stupid things like elect senior cops or judges. ours are professionals that work their way up through the ranks, not demagogues - which has problems of its own, but IMO they're nowhere near as bad as the problem of illiterate, incompent, prejudiced morons being elected just because they're popular or good at lying in public.
I remember all the american anti-russian, anti-soviet, anti-communist propaganda from when i was growing up in the 70s and 80s - there isn't a single shitful thing that the evil russians were accused of then that you americans aren't doing - or exceeding - now, and with far greater efficiency due to modern computers and technology.
Re:Absolutely the case (Score:5, Insightful)
Please do not make this about "Right" vs "Left". Both parties love power, and don't really care about the citizens. When people bicker about "Right" vs "Left" it distracts from the real issues.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Absolutely the case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely the case (Score:4, Insightful)
That is exactly his point. Both sides of politics are at fault.
Re: (Score:2)
And you best believe there are a nation of lefties howling like banshees about it. Nobody who believes in human rights, personal liberty, or due process thinks the Patriot Act is anything less than a Neo-Fascist Nightmare come true... I'd be happy to introduce you to communities of Dems looking to impeach Obama.
Re:Absolutely the case (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure what the vegans and homosexuals have to do with this, but if i remember, a lot of this started under bush and has been embraced wholeheartedly by the present administration. If you think this is about left vs. right, you don't understand american politics.
With appologies to Mr Adams (Score:4, Funny)
I'm not sure what the vegans and homosexuals have to do with this, but if i remember, a lot of this started under bush and has been embraced wholeheartedly by the present administration. If you think this is about left vs. right, you don't understand american politics.
I dont think anyone understands 'Murican politics and if anyone did understand 'Murican politics it would be instantaneously replaced with something even more unexplainable and convoluted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately this is the world we in the US now live in. Courtesy of the extreme Left we are now living effectively in a police state.
Yeah, the "left". Maybe you are looking upside down at times. Both "left" and "right" are advancing it relentlessly. You know, to "protect the children" and other such diversions and lies used to impose totalitarian laws.
Police state doesn't give a fuck if it is left or right. It only cares to gain more control and maintain status quo.
Re:Absolutely the case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Holy shit, you quit taking your meds again, didn't you? There isn't, and hasn't been an "extreme left" in this country in almost 40 years. It's that the extreme right keeps moving more extremely right that makes people who used to be described as "moderate Republicans" (like Barak Obama) look like lefties. These days, idiots like you, who use sentences like the above quoted, wouldn't have allowed Ronald Reagan to run as a Repu
Re: (Score:2)
Make him tune into Canadian election coverage for a few hours and he'll figure out what left really means.
Re: (Score:2)
And here I thought McCarthy was dead, and McCarthyism with him. Seems people like to be paranoid.
These days it ain't the "extreme left" you should worry about son.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a complicated problem. We're just getting out long drawn out wars, that have bled our economy dry. The rebels aren't exactly a bowl of cherries and picking the lesser of the two evils is quick becoming a full time job. Our closest bar fight partner just begged off. How big a barbeque do you have? Pin pricks, or ground the entire Syrian air Force? Boots on the ground? What are the repercussions in the region for any of the choices we make?
The US just marching into people's countries to whip a little
Re: Absolutely the case (Score:5, Insightful)
Where was all this outrage and demand to bomb when the rebels used nerve gas back in May?
Both sides in the Syrian conflict are baddies. It's a bit hypocritical to bomb the Syrian government for using chemical weapons when we ignored the rebels doing the same.
Re: Absolutely the case (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
:)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe Russia.
RUSSIA.
It may be bad form for one to comment upon his own posting but Russia's position is, more or less, correct on this issue. American courts leave much to be desired in terms of fairness or actual justice. But Russia's are worse. American prisons are generally pretty awful compared to those of Western Europe. But Russia's are worse. The only thing I can see going for Russia is that it doesn't have a death penalty, which may be worse in that life in a Russian prison could easily make a person wish for deat