FBI Arrests Neteller Execs 379
Alcibaides writes "In a follow-up to the 2006 law attacking Internet gambling, the FBI arrested two former Neteller executives in 'connection with the creation and operation of an Internet payment services company that facilitated the transfer of billions of dollars of illegal gambling proceeds.' Apparently, the execs were 'ambushed' as they passed through the U.S. on connecting flights. Consequently, Neteller has dropped all gambling-related activity to U.S. customers, a move not expected for several months."
Not US Citizens... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not US Citizens... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not US Citizens... (Score:5, Funny)
Been done before (Score:2)
And nothing came of it. [freesklyarov.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can thank the uninformed, stupid, voters and the even more uniformed, and even more stupid people that don't vote.
PGA
Re:Not US Citizens... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only wrinkle?! That's the difference between not committing a crime and committing one!
Re: (Score:2)
No it is not. US law apparently says that you can be guilty of an offense without ever going there. However not being US citizen and not living in the US what do I care what US law says about me? Of course if I decide to travel to the US like these guys did then I do have to care.
Do I think that this is absurd - yes of course I do. But it is US law and so, as a foreigner, it is none of my business. I am free to
Re:Not US Citizens... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most countries would agree with that stance. Suppose you sat north of the US Canadian border and started launching RPGs into the US? Don't you think that it would pretty reasonable for the US to figure that you have violated US laws by that action even though you have not entered the US?
Or suppose I shipped food into Canada labelled as baby formula when it contained Botulitis toxin? Wouldn't you think that Canada would figure that I had violated Canadian law?
Some of the comments in this thread are utteerly ridiculous in thier views of what a nation regards as its sovereign rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not illegal for Americans to gamble online. What is illegal is for a business to collect money in the US resulting from that activity. This is exactly what Neteller does, i.e. perform financial transactions in the US that are illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure it would be illegal in Canada to fire the RPG. I am not so sure that shipping adulterated food offshore would be illegal. But that is not the point. The point is that it is perfectly reasonable to envision a case where a person who is not physically in country XYZ could violate that country's laws. Food quality requirements vary considerably from one nation to the next.
It is irrelevant
Actually (Score:5, Informative)
Pinochet was charged by Spain for crimes against Spanish citizens living in Chile. Spain tried to have him extradited from the UK but failed. He returned to Chile where he died.
Milosevic was indicted by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for crimes against humanity and charges of violating the laws or customs of war and grave breaches of the Geneva Convention. The trial might have been in the Hague however the Netherlands was not the country prosecuting him.
So both these cases had very little to do with long-arm statutes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
None of that makes the analogy wrong. It was late at night when I posted, so I probably should have picked a better analogy but didnt.
How about some dictator of a country (Country X) killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, as wel
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that, while abroad, they did business with US citizens in the US who were breaking US law. It's the difference between smoking hash in the Netherlands and mailing hash from the Netherlands to the US.
Then why not arrest the American citizens who were gambling online - i.e. doing something that their own government has defined as illegal and doing it in said government's jurisdiction?
Maybe because it is less of PR problem to go after evil foreigners, who are committing no crime in their own country, rather than those honest, but simply misguided, American citizens?
With your analogy I would expect the recipient of the hash in the US to also be prosecuted.
Far be it for me to suggest any kind of conspir
Re:Not US Citizens... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not US Citizens... (Score:4, Interesting)
Everyone inside the sovereign borders of a country should expect to be subject to its laws whether they agree with them or not.
So the US soldiers who raped that Iraqi woman should be subject to Iraqi law and not US military law?
SOFA (Score:5, Informative)
When U.S. forces are stationed in foreign countries, they are usually subject to a Status Of Forces Agreement, which states which country has jurisdiction for which crimes. I don't know if we have a SOFA with the new Iraqi government, but if I had to guess, I would guess that we do, and any military member raping an Iraqi woman would be subject to the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrg a nizations/bg1830.cfm [heritage.org]
"Both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration concluded that the ICC is a seriously flawed institution that the U.S. should not join. Regrettably, the Rome Statute establishing the ICC broke with long-standing international legal precedent by asserting ICC jurisdiction over nationals and military personnel from states that are not party to the treaty. This forced the U.S. to take unusu
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
This also serves to point out another problem with US laws--they are so damn imprecise, broad, so encompassing, that it's simply up to the prosecution to pick and choose who they want to send to prison. Prosecutorial discretion, usually leveraged wisely, has now just become another tool to further political goals and new types of discrimination.
This is like an American posting on an internet site hosted in Germany something that flies against hate speech laws in Germany from his home computer. Then, while traveling in Germany on a connecting flight to Italy, getting arrested. Ridiculous...and dangerous--this sets up the possibility of backlash as precedent for US citizens traveling to foreign countries to be arrested for "crimes" that were not illegal and performed in the US but flies in the face of foreign laws.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the Kazaa defense. The Allofmp3.com defense.
It doesn't matter where the casino is based. It matters that the casino was being marketed to customers in the U.S. It matters that the casino was accepting payments from U.S. accounts.
If you have assets in the states that can be seized, they will be seized. If you have people in the states who can be arrested, they will be arrested.
These are the ground rules when you set up shop off-shore.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Neteller is not a casino. It's an eWallet company that (as far as I understand) was not breaking any laws before the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act [masteryofpoker.com] (UIGEA) passed. It is listed in the London Stock Exchange.
The current issue (arrests of Neteller founders) is not really about gambling, they are not charged under the UIGEA. The charges are for money laundering. A quote from the press release [masteryofpoker.com]:
I think the charges are bull, but at least they weren't stupid enough to go with the UIGEA charges. Also I think parent poster has his head up his ass. According to everyone but the US, Neteller was doing legitimate business (unlike Kazaa or AllOfMp3).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious to see if anybody will provide a straight answer to this, rather than just grumbling.
I don't know the answer, but there must be a lot of caveats for shareholder immunity. Otherwise, instead of hiring a hitman, you'd just buy shares in Hitman, Inc. Anything from funding al-quada to replenishing your online poker account could be handled by "buying shares."
Re: (Score:2)
Not entirely.
If what the corporation was doing was against the law, and you can be proven to have knowledge of it, then you can be held liable.
It's also possible to "pierce the corporate veil" in civil matters, if an officer can be proven to be negligent, though that's really hard to prove and the corporation generally has more money than any of the individuals involved, so usually
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The shareholder is not immunized from criminal charges stemming from his own actions. You can be a stakeholder. You can also be the CEO.
Re: (Score:2)
Worrying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't ever take a flight that stops over in the US if I've done something that the US might not like, even if it's perfectly legal in my country.
Re:Worrying... (Score:5, Informative)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=he
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone explain under what pretense the US gets to arrest noncitizens for violating US law?
Re:Worrying... (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously, that's all I got...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Worrying... (Score:4, Interesting)
Can anyone explain under what pretense the US gets to arrest noncitizens for violating US law?
If a person has violated US law and is located in the US, regardless of his citizenship he is certainly subject to arrest and prosecution. This is true the world over. If you are on the soil of country XYZ you are subject to their laws. If I were to break a Canadian law by electronic means (say stealing funds by hacking into a Canadian Bank) from the US, don't you think that I would be arrested by Canadian Police if they later found me travelling in Canada? Of course I would.
Now of course there is a question as to whether these two actually violated US law, but that will be determined in court soon enough. I am sure that the Canadian Ambassador is twisting arms to get to the root of this.
Re:Worrying... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I understand that since September 11th, everyone going through the U.S. must pass customs and immigration, even if they are in transit o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But are we talking about crime here? No, the executives in question apparently didn't even work for Netteller any more. And of course, Netteller isn't actually being accused of commiting a crime. Further, government has no business interfering with gambling. The only justification I've heard is some vague notion that gambling causes crime and lures people into friviously wasting their money. Those are costs of having humans in your society. I note that gambling in the US hasn't become scarce merely because
Fun while it lasted. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see why the federal government is making such a huge deal out of online gambling, aside from the fact that it is currently not taxed. I don't really think the government deserves any more money, but I'd rather pay a small tax on my gaming than have it outlawed as some mysteriously corrupt moral issue. Other than taxation, how is this any different from the government endorsed lottery or allowed casinos in Atlantic City and Vegas?
Re:Fun while it lasted. (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, as you say, tax is part of it. There is a large budget deficit, and outlawing online gambling before raising taxes on casino gambling would go part of the way towards filling the hole in the government's finances.
ummmm. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
=)
Re: (Score:2)
I think taxation alone would be enough for the govt to care... Besides that, international gambling becomes a type of "trade" that cannot be controlled very easily (e.g. subsidies/taxes)... Seems like it has the potential to become an unrestricted flow of money in/out of the country with little accounting behind it.
Also, isn't gambling useful for doing something
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be stupid for them to cheat. All that matters to them is that people are playing. Once they have that it's a license to print money. The real risk of online poker is cheating from other players. And they take that seriously. I've written software for one to help them analyze playing patterns and detect collusion. They *want* the games to be as fair as possible. It's their best strategy.
Re:Fun while it lasted. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have the same level of trust of online gaming for real money, as I have for proprietary electronic voting machines, and for the same reasons. Only the people who work there know how fair or unfair the dealing is, and if you have gathered enough statistical information to verify the randomness of the shuffling, you're have enough information to cheat anyway.
Off topic, So you modded me down, replied as an AC and modded your own reply up?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Antigua regulates them very strictly. It's ~30% of their GDP right now so they have a vested interest in ensuring that they are well behaved companies. So are they all safe, no more so than the back room poker g
Re:Fun while it lasted. (Score:5, Insightful)
The house has no interest in stacking the deck. They are making a crapload. The people who say this are generally people who lost a bunch of money playing online poker, probably because (GASP) they aren't very good.
Those executives should've gotten into warmaking. (Score:5, Insightful)
US is trying to enforce its law on the whole world (Score:5, Insightful)
Many companies/people operate fully within the law of the land they live in. If this is breaking a US law, then the US should work with that government to harmonize the laws.
This is similar to how Muslim courts found danish cartoonist guilty of depicting mohammed, and condemned them to death.
Re:US is trying to enforce its law on the whole wo (Score:2, Insightful)
Respectfully, I have to call bullshit. It's not the US trying to enforce its law on the whole world. Its the US trying to enforce its laws within their borders. Gambling businesses are making money from people living within US borders where that business is illegal. If you violate US law, don't step foot within their borders. They may arrest you. Having said that, the US would do a whole lot better working with these folks fo
Re: (Score:2)
Why doesn't the US just be a bit more honest with its citizens and setup a Chinese style firewall around the entire country?
Much more honest for Americans to see a "The Bush administrat
Re: (Score:2)
Much more honest for Americans to see a "The Bush administration is preventing you from gambling for your own good" page then to have the US attempting to enforce it's laws across the entire internet."
I can't argue with that in the least. But, everyone knows the US government is not exactly honest with their citizens, much less the world.
Re:US is trying to enforce its law on the whole wo (Score:4, Insightful)
If I have to consider the laws of all nations in the world, I pretty much have to hire attorneys from each of the contries to review my website.
And I can not:
1. Enjoy fredom of expression (Illegal all over, including china)
2. Critizise leaders (putin, il-jung-sum, most communists and others)
3. Advertize alcoholic beverages (Illegal in many arab countires)
4. Have any sexual material (again illegal in many countires)
5. Have any religious material worshipping any other gods than allah
6. Have any religious material worshipping any other gods than jhave
7. Have any religious material worshipping any other gods than
8. Download music(illegal in USA)
An in many cases illegal means "To be stoned to death"
Is this what you advocate?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately life is a little more complicated than that. This is a case of a company putting up a web page that results in people making illegal financial transactions in another country. The web page content per se is not a problem. It is the financial transactions that are. No country is going to give up it's power to regulate commerce. That is one of the most fundamental aspects of nati
Re: (Score:2)
The real issue is the US enforcing laws made after the act.
Arresting someone for something that was legal at the time it was done is not reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a person, IN the US, is violating US law by accessing the site based outside of the US, then the person enabling that violation of US law will certainly be considered to also be violating US law. The primary violation is being committed in the US by the person accessing the site. The secondary violation is by the person outside of the country providing the content, at least as a co
Re:US is trying to enforce its law on the whole wo (Score:4, Interesting)
Murder is unlawful in most contries/states, but the juristicion to prosecute and punish rests solely with the county/state.
If you commit murder in Idaho, a California court can not convict you of that crime.
If you commit murder in Denmark, the US can not convict you of that crime.
This is part of international treaties that all memebers of the UN are signatories to.
however, over the last years, the US are in many areas violating this, and treat the entire world as US juristicion.
This includes areas like
1. Actions aganinst people/companies living/based in tax havens
2. Underage sex tourism
3. Online gambling
and other
(1) is mostly to get more tax revenue, (2) is beacause local juristicions is lax, and (3) is to protect national casinos that donate a lot of money to candidates.
Re:US is trying to enforce its law on the whole wo (Score:2)
Not in this case. The violations in US law are alleged to have occurred within the US. I am afraid that if you are going to do business with people living in the US you are subject to US law. If you do this business illegally from a foriegn country and then travel to the US you are subject to prosecution within the US.
The US is not telling the Canadian government or Canadian citizens how to act in Canada. In fact all this protest is
Re:US is trying to enforce its law on the whole wo (Score:2)
Harmonizing laws is a really bad plan. That way, every time the law is wrong *everyone* is screwed. If the law is different in two different places, you have a chance you're in the place where you agree with the law; even if you're not, you can move.
No... the world is a much better place with other countries *not* harmonized with US law.
Re:US is trying to enforce its law on the whole wo (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think everyone else is a little annoyed at that prospect too. But I don't really see what WW2 has to do with the US arresting noncitizens for violating US law.
Re: (Score:2)
Though it won't help them now... (Score:4, Informative)
What a sad state of affairs.
Tourist Mecca (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can rant all you want, but the whole point is that these guys are the primary money behind a company that was doing financial business in the US contrary to US law. It's not exactly a mystery.
Re: (Score:2)
if the US was seriouis about internet gambling they would confiscate all incoming transfers of money from the casinos while doing nothing to attack the sites themselves.
when word gets out that uncle sam won't let you keep your winnin
Out of Curiosity... (Score:5, Interesting)
FTA (Score:2)
Just too strange for words (Score:5, Insightful)
Leaving aside for a moment the ridiculous two faced nature of American anti-gambling laws, this is just beyond a joke. As I understand it, the two former execs in question had left the company before the SAFE Port Act was passed. So they've been arrested for setting up a company that is 100% legal in their country of origin, and was legal at the time in the USA as well (in fact, it's still legal for non-gambling related payments), and they no longer have anything to do with the company in question, aside from still holding shares.
"Land of the free", huh? I'm lost for words. The American legal system is just a joke.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
br>One might suspect not.
How about those Wall Street investors who have invested in these same companies?
I doubt it.
Again this is an example of the good ol' US of A throwing it's weight around to increase the bank balances of a few of it's blessed citizens. The fact that the US is goin after companies that trade (legally) in one of
Re:Just too strange for words (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Trade means Me Trade (Score:5, Informative)
The U.S. Internet Gambling laws were only passed because British companies were dominating the market. If it the law was passed for moral reasons as its proponents (and much of the press) reported, then why not shut down Las Vegas too?
It shows how one sided the U.S. is when it comes to trade. Britain is a loyal (sickeningly loyal) friend of the U.S., and look how they get treated. With friends and enemies alike, the U.S. like thugs and wonders why it's become so unpopular.
BTW U.S. = government and big business. Not talking about your average Joe, who is as much a victim as everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
dangerous world (Score:5, Informative)
Neteller wasn't a sketchy operation being run in some warehouse. It employed over 500 people in Canada and paid taxes to the government here.
The company had a lot of dealings with various state governments in the US and had agreed to several restrictions long before the recent bill passed that made online gambling in the US completely illegal.
The firm employed nearly 100 software developers, many were consultants and contractors that were flown in from california. I'm sure that I'm not the only ex-employee now concerned about having to deal with the US government in the future.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why all gambling is illegal? (Score:4, Interesting)
Though the fact that executive staff were not employed by the company anymore. What can they do? Put them into a jail? I smell political agenda there, not justice for preservation of liberty and freedom of the peoples of the country.
2c
Passing through. (Score:2, Insightful)
As regards Internet gambling in general (Score:4, Funny)
The Why of this (Score:2)
So, a large part of this is the assumption that people are being cheated because there is
Send the message (Score:4, Interesting)
The president's email address is: comments@whitehouse.gov
Subject: Release Neteller Execs
Two former NETELLER executives were detained while traveling separately through the United States yesterday (Jan. 15) in "connection with the creation and operation of an Internet payment services company that facilitated the transfer of billions of dollars of illegal gambling proceeds from United States citizens to the owners of various Internet gambling companies located overseas," according to the U.S. Attorney General's office of Southern New York.
The two executives are: Stephen Eric Lawrence and John David Lefebvre.
I don't know all the facts yet about these men--the full story will come out in time, but arrests like these men, Maher Arar, and Sklyarov make the United States look VERY bad. This is hurting our economy, our public image, and our relations with the rest of the world. This is encouraging (although not the cause of) people to oppose the United States on many levels, and I believe it is making the current terrorist situation worse.
These two men are Canadian citizens, and they have been arrested for performing an activity against a law which was not passed at that time, for a company which perfomed a legitimate service which was and still is legal under Canadian law. It is not the US's prerogative to enforce our view of the law against people in other nations.
Canada is one of our closest allies. By alienating them we are hurting ourselves.
We have to stop arresting businessmen who are traveling through the United States and performing legal legitimate services in other countries -- as long as they are not threatening our national security. It is an offense to those other countries' law and it will damage our Economy and public image. I only want what is best for the United States and Justice. I want to see the freedom for all that you so often preach.
I call for a quick release of all facts, and if necessary a presidential pardon of the two people involved. Show the world that the United States truly is the home of the free.
Message to the Republicans instead (Score:3, Interesting)
The bills and the work that this centers around is supported by both parties. That the Dems support this is not strange, the Democratic Party is about the government protecting and supporting the poor stupid population against them selves and others. As such the Dems are for limitations on individual freedoms, high taxes (to fund their government programs) etc.
The traditional platform for the Republican Party is the opposite. The individual is responsible for his own actions, has the ability to think for
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Folding Your Opponent's Hand (Score:5, Insightful)
John Lefebvre is a philanthopist (Score:2, Informative)
Similar topic: helping censored people abroad. (Score:2)
I want to set up a proxy for people in China to use so they can avoid censorship. If I did this, and I ever visited China (which I hope to do some day), is there a chance I would be arrested if the Chinese government became aware of this hypothetical service and my identity? My assumption would be an affirmative “yes”, but what do any of you think? I am sure there are some international travelers on Slashdot who may do something similar.
Nooooooooo (Score:2)
Not Paypal!!!
Oh wait, not this time...
How does this help us at all? (Score:4, Insightful)
So really, is there any reason for this law? I mean, not a reason for the government, but for the people, you know... who the goverment should be making laws for.
Why does the US Government feel that they are entitled to get a cut of every single thing that we do? We payed taxes on the money we play poker with, AND if you make enough playing poker, you have to pay taxes on that! So what the hell do they want? Do they want to take a tax on every single hand played?
This is really just a disgusting show by our goverment where they are not even trying to be subtle in showing us that they can fuck with us whenever they want to.
Pointing out a couple details here... (Score:5, Informative)
As a result of trying to maintain state harmony, US federal laws have long held the position that gambling by wire is Illegal. This current law is just an extension of that long historic policy (existing since the days of the telegraph). Not only is this to appease the states and localities that don't allow gambling but it's also because gambling draws organized crime, and without heavy regulation (and even with it in some cases) cheating by the casinos becomes the norm.
So contrary to what you may think, if online gambling were legal in the US it would be absolutely dominated by the large corporations that run the casinos in Vegas. These casinos would JUMP at the chance to be involved in online gambling if they could (as 10 years ago they tried quite extensively to lobby congress to allow it), so any lobbying by the industry now is simply to allow a fair playground of enforcement of the US gambling by wire laws that already exist. Regulation of an enterprise historically and currently used as the single largest source of illegal money laundering isn't a bad thing, and you will have trouble getting sympathy from any significant percentage of US citizens who are bombarded by stories of lives destroyed by gambling addictions. And really, much like any crime, if you market your crime to citizens of another country and knowingly break that countries laws you need to be careful where you travel. For example, if I was going to go to China I wouldn't want to have ever been tied to anti-china activity as it would likely get me arrested. As another example, lets consider the south American drug lords, they don't bring drugs into the US personally nor do they in some cases do anything illegal in their own countries (at least that they are willing to prosecute them for), but many are sought for extradition to the US because they engage in an activity that creates crime in the US. In reality this is no different, as gambling online is unequivocally illegal in the US, but there are corporations and casinos engaged in actively breaking US law. Much like the drug lords they will pursue them for creating the market to violate US law although I doubt they will seek extradition of anyone.
Lets just be clear, it had nothing to do with Britain dominating the industry, it had everything to do with preserving the current laws by adapting them to the internet. The industry is a victim of it's own success, had it remained small there might have never been action by the US congress, and the FBI wouldn't be trying to make an example of someone to try to scare the rest of the industry into not being active participants in the breaking of US law.
Finally, it's apparent whoever arrested them didn't really know what was going on. They couldn't bring a case against the men simply for the fact that it would violate habeas corpus. With no current active role in the company (if true) their case won't go past the preliminary hearing.
No kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that's "contrary" at all to what most people think. I think it's obvious that the major casinos salivate at the idea of running online gambling sites. Why wouldn't they
What's really interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
These two gentlemen founded what was a perfectly legal business in the Isle of Man, Neteller PLC, in 1999. Mr Lawrence resigned as a non-executive director of the Company on 13 October 2006 having stepped down as non-executive chairman of the Company on 11 May 2006. Mr Lefebvre resigned as a non-executive director of the Company on 15 December 2005.
With the passage of the "Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006" the activities of Neteller PLC in regard to transferring funds of US citizens for the purpose of gambling became illegal.
Think it through. If you founded, or are an 'owner' by virtue of stock holdings, of a company whose activities are declared illegal somewhere in the world, and you happen to pass through a territory of that country, you could be held, your passport take away, without recourse. Before you hop on that next international flight, is every company in your retirement plan's mutual funds squeaky clean in all places you might touch down?
Australia don't pay tax (Score:3, Informative)
It makes it trival to do this in Australia.
Our recent poker champion took home $1 million AUD and didn't pay a cent in tax - World Series 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Hachem [wikipedia.org]
I'm not sure about his current status, he probably pays tax now given his elevated income and career changes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And then people ask why I don't fly through US (Score:4, Interesting)
- US collecting data from people flying there, for who knows which nefarious purposes.
- Track history of US government aprehending innocent people in airports.
- Kidnappings (euphemistically called "renditions") in order to let brutish governments do some bit of interrogation.
- Secrecy about charges or laws if you are unlucky to be indicted or held for something nasty.
- Guantanamo.
I think my visits to all those wonderful places in the US I wanted to see may need to be postponed for a while. I have not been to NY for goodness sakes...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All of it. On Red. Repeat until there isn't any more there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)