FBI Accused of Abusing Criminal Database 433
Peace protesters were unable to leave the country to speak in Canada because their names had been added to a database of criminals. There's a serious due-process violation here because a listing in this database is equivalent to an "infamous" conviction. "'The FBI's placing of peace activists on an international criminal database is blatant political intimidation of US citizens opposed to Bush administration policies,' says Colonel Wright, who was also Deputy US Ambassador in four countries. 'The Canadian government should certainly not accept this FBI database as the criteria for entering the country... The list is supposed to be for felony and serious misdemeanor offenses. We don't qualify — it's for sex offenders, foreign fugitives, gang violence and terrorist organizations, people who are on parole...'"
What I don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What I don't get... (Score:5, Interesting)
True. Also consider that there are likely to be legal ramifications - in the current political scene it should be easy enough to get Congress involved in investigating the FBI. And then - not joking here - like the boy who cried "wolf", someone gets eaten.
Let's hope it's the people actually responsible for the names being added.
Re:What I don't get... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What I don't get... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's why I hear they've been trying to mate Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver...
They want to breed the first bulletproof Kennedy!!
Re:What I don't get... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, the peace activists, bold or not, are completely irrelevant. Support for the war has risen and fallen with noble goals and complete failure to deliver, not with anything the antiwar movement has done.
Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Napoleon once said 'never ascribe to ma
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't really understand what a LIE is do you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When you've got hundreds of people in our government, are you telling me that they all had the same motives?
No, but that is completely irrelevant. Bush and his administration decided that we were going to war with Iraq *for their own reasons which are completely divorced from nobility of any sort*.
Do you see how easily distracted you are by irrelevancies? I'm not, and the fact that you are is a big part of your problem. Please try and fix yourself.
If you are not aware of the fact that they had invading Iraq
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you ever compare video footage of the toppling of Saddam's statue in Bagdad with the video footage of the fall of the Berlin Wall, you might understand what I mean: The people watching the Saddam Statue falling could have also been watching the demolition of an old building on a construction site. It was just something to watch, but nothing to cheer about. The overall feeling was bleak, with some apathy and a little bit mocking about the 12 youths who were trying to actually get the statue down, which didn't work until an U.S. tank was gong to help by pulling the statue down.
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally believed there were both noble and ignoble goals behind going to war in Iraq-
Then you're deeply ignorant and painfully naive. Wars do not happen for noble goals. Deal with that fact, and you'll be well on your way to waking up and sounding like you actually live in the real world.
I wasn't dumb enough to believe Saddam was supporting Al-Queda, or that our administration had nothing but good motives behind the invasion,
OK, but...
but I knew Saddam was a horrible monster that had been a serious threat to his neighbors and stability in the region.
So you know that the administration was lying in order to push an agenda that you knew wasn't good (or related) and yet because your enemy is pure evil, they must be pure good since they're opposing him?
Seriously, that's what you just said or close enough.
Since Saddam is an "evil monster", it's ok with you to let some other evil monsters destroy America and rob it blind in order to push their own agenda which you already knew was bullshit?!?!
Dude, you are batshit fucking insane, and you are responsible for what Bush has done to this country due to your idiocy. Grow up, be a mna nad deal with that fact as opposed to whining like a little bitch about how you shouldn't be called stupid for doing stupid things.
I don't think it was unreasonable to assume that our administration was just incompetent instead of malicious.
That just proves how deeply fucking ignorant and naive you are. It is 100% unreasonable to assume something so fucking stupid when you could have just read the writings of the members of this administration, followed the money and paid attention to the hard sell and the lies at the time it was happening. That's what all the good intelligent people did, and that's why none of them supported Bush for a second. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but when you repeatedly do things that stupid, it's perfectly reasonable to call you stupid because you've proven it repeatedly.
Now most people assume our leaders are both incompetent and malicious, but early on everything could have been explained by mere stupidity.
No, it could not, under any circumstances, be explained merely by stupidity. Again, you demonstrate only your deep naivity and you total lack of understanding of either history or human nature.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The way world politics are going, you Americans might want to start another violent revolution before you find that having millions of otherwise innocent foreign born people locked in FEMA Concentration Camps is not much different from having an army on your soil, and there are a lot of angry and wronged nations that will help them when the wh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see...government of dogs...who'll win?
435 House reps plus 100 Senators...for 535 people. That many voices would be quite loud. They could all yell at once, but there would be a finite limit to how many could bite at once on one victim. Even if they passed around the victim, there wouldn't be enough for everyone. They starve and thus are frequently replaced.
1 president. Loud for the single person he is, but ultimately not very effe
Government bloat (Score:4, Interesting)
Congress has some support staff, as do the justices of the Supreme Court. There are roughly two million civilian personnel of the federal government [bls.gov] outside the Postal Service. For 535 people or 9 people to hold responsible two million individuals who are neither elected by nor directly responsible to the people is a bit ludicrous. The sheer size of the Executive branch makes accountability and the notion of checks and balances pretty difficult, even with the 94 federal district courts involved.
The Judiciary simply must be larger or the Executive smaller in order for the people to be properly served by checks and balances. In fact, I'd say the Judiciary really needs to be larger and account for more of the federal budget simply in order to guarantee a speedy trial as the sixth amendment promises while not putting undue strain on the court to shorten previous trials. Perhaps civil cases could be heard by a separate set of judges in each district specializing in civil cases, but I digress.
In any case, I'd think the huge Executive branch, with its apparent penchant for shifting blame and covering things up, is much too large right now for the other branches to balance it enough.
Do we really need 2 million people to provide federal government services to 303 million [census.gov] citizens on top of all the 16 million state [bcnys.org], county, and city personnel providing services as well? In 2000, [census.gov] 19 million or so people were government employees (it doesn't say whether that includes revenue-generating government agencies like the Post Service). That's over 6% of the population living on taxes and borrowed money who are not elected, or over 14% of the total work force. I fail to see how that is sustainable, let alone sufficiently kept in check by state and federal courts and legislatures.
Re:Government bloat (Score:4, Insightful)
Those who don't understand socialism vs. capitalism nor authoritarian vs. representative governments are doomed to reinvent the horrors of past socio-political experiments that have failed. Whether the bulk of wealth is tied in name to the government or to corporations that lobby the government and are in turn propped up by the government makes very little difference in the freedom of the people. It's the lack of wealth and power of the private citizens that leads to abuse of the people. The centralization of power into the hands of a few on a national scale is what makes it easy to abuse the people.
Whether you can argue for or against any particular combination of government and economic systems is irrelevant if you can't even see where big, powerful, restrictive government from one party is the same as big, powerful, restrictive government from the supposedly polar opposite party. The supposed goals of protecting workers or protecting people from crime are irrelevant when it's the government causing the loss of the most important aspects of a free, happy, fulfilling life.
Just because the American media calls the Democrats the "left" and the Republicans the "right" or one "liberal" and the other "conservative" does not make it so. Both major parties are for big government. They both favor lots of social programs and lots of spending on keeping the people in line. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it talks like a liberal and votes like a liberal, it's probably a liberal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What I don't get... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, horseshit. The Democrats could shut the government down, like the Republicans did over minor tax squabbles in the 1990s [wikipedia.org]. They can - and should - say, "We will not pass any funding for the military, for foreign intelligence, or federal law enforcement, until we see reforms."
And of course, they have the power to ITMFA [impeachbushyardsigns.org].
Under the Constitution, the Congress is the most powerful of the three branches of government. (Though Presidents have been trying to usurp that for a long time, and Bush has been the worst - it's time for Congress to issue an ass-whooping to him and to the office.) They could do a lot.
They don't want to, either because they agree with the criminal policies of the Bush administration, or because they think they're more likely to keep their cushy jobs if they take no action. In either case, fuck them.
Re:What I don't get... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Ultimately he had a problem with one line item, regarding benefits for the disabled and seniors (big political win.)
2. He lied about what the line-item said (it was a reduction in the percentage increase in medicare, he said it was a cut in medicare benefits. Even after the reduction the percentage exceeded inflation by a large margin.)
3. When he was running for president he proposed almost the same exact thing, but actually a larger reduction. So why veto over it?
The reason was it was absolutely imperative that Clinton do everything in his power to undermine the new Republican majority Congress' "Contract With America," as it would have been highly embarrassing to the Democrats if they succeeded. One of the Republican planks was a balanced budget, Clinton didn't take this on until the Republicans tried to actually do it. So he proposed his own budget, substantively the same as the Republicans and picked out a politically viable attack point ("Republicans want to cut senior citizen benefits!!!") to differ on.
Question: if it was such a minor issue, then why didn't Clinton just sign the budget, which by the way it's Congresses' job to write and not his?
Now look at today, the exact same thing would happen. Congress would shut down government, Bush would say "troops daily are not getting the supplies they need to fight, because the Democrats shut down the government." And he would be more or less right, and he would win. Because his message "sounds" better ("Democrats are putting the troops in danger",) he has the bully-pulpit, and his strategy team is still better than the Democrats'. There is no way that Congress could win that fight, and it probably would in fact prevent some troops from getting supplies they otherwise would have gotten.
Re:What I don't get... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably what people thought when Microsoft started blacklisting mailservers indiscriminately. Instead, lots of mailserver admins are being forced to jump through MS's hoops.
Re: (Score:2)
There are laws against slander, and the government has deep pockets.
-mcgrew
PS- We have the best government money can buy. I split my vote between the Greens and the Libertarians. The foreign owned multinational corporations bribe the Republicrats, why waste my vote on a candidate whose interests are diametrica
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Link, please. Seriously, I want to know the details of these various crimes, not just an unsubstantiated throwaway sentence. And I don't see it in TFA, which is clearly from a site which believes Bush == Satan and wouldn't give those details because it might make their side look not so good.
Re:What I don't get... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's just blown out of proportion (and has a stench of pure malice, at that).
Hmm (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And the spirit of Maccarthy rose upon the land... And hand in hand with him flew the spirit of Edgar Hoover...
So who is surprised ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
'Cans to the right
Stuck in the middle, see
Keep that chin bright:
Burma Shave
"Censorship"? (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's really depressing to note that even now, the majority of Americans see no problem with ripping up or ignoring international law and treaties, so long as they're told it's being done to "terrorists". On the contrary, Republican candidates are competing [latimes.com] to make the most outraegously statement of support for the blatantly criminal action that is Guantanamo. Very, very sad (speaking as a non-American.)
That could explain... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that Australia just found out who the guy was and decided they didn't need imported anarchists that bad. Maybe they just Googled "Scott Parkin".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And to think... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Decisions by career law enforcement officials, on a case-by-case basis, about which person that's been arrested to put on which list may - but certainly not must - be influenced by whatever administration is in office at the time. But one thing is certain: the part that very loudly scolds, opposes, and certainly (if you listen to their press conferences) loathes Bush as a person and as C-in-C are running both houses of congress, and have al
s/freedom/security/g (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't vote in presidential elections. It's not worth doing; it's an absolute waste of my time. Do you even know how the electoral college works? Do you understand that, since I live in Rhode Island, my state is going to vote for the 'Democrat' the media displays the most of regardless of how many people vote against him/her? A shit ton of st
Re: (Score:2)
I'm doubtful that the results would have been different if the people who didn't vote had gotten off their asses, found out a bit about the candidates and voted.
Or are you guessing that, in 2004, most of the potential voters who stayed home would have voted for Gore?
Self Rightous BS (Score:3, Interesting)
1) The were denied entry on Aug 19 cause they have a criminal conviction.
2) They tried again 2 weeks later (without filling the paperwork), and were denied entry.
3) American Citizens are trying to tell the Canadian Government what their criteria for entry should be?
If there is a problem with the FBI, focus on that. Do not (under any circumstances) tell my government how to run our border - it is none of your damn business.
Yes I'm pro-peace - but I don't respect stupid political stunts with bs conclusions.
Anon
Canadian Border Control Role Reversal. (Score:3, Insightful)
If there is a problem with the FBI, focus on that. Do not (under any circumstances) tell my government how to run our border - it is none of your damn business.
I agree, your border patrol people should not subscribe to a US generated list of who may cross your border. I have a feeling that's about to change and you will, once again, be in full control. As it is now [freemarketnews.com]:
" The border agents at the Rainbow Bridge at Niagara Falls who barred Medea and Ann said the mere fact that they were listed on the NCIC
No, I simply cannot believe it (Score:2)
Complaining about Canadian rules? (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's outrageous that Canada is turning away peacemakers
Fix your own government and your own government database before you complain about someones else's government.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't notice it saying they were refused the ability to take a flight.
The "government database" in question doesn't do anything on its own, the problem is all in how it is used, and it appears Canada may be using it quite strictly.
If Canada was refusing entry to everyone that ever got ticketed while driving, would you blame the US' traffic laws?
These protesters may need to go an extra step... (Score:5, Informative)
...if they want to have their names removed from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, which appears to be what the Canadian officials pulled [google.com]. The NCIC "is provided by the FBI, federal, state, local and foreign criminal justice agencies, and authorized courts." Thus, the NCIC is made up of FBI data and data provided to the FBI by other government organizations. To correct a record in this database, "the subject of the requested record shall request the appropriate arresting agency, court, or correctional agency to initiate action necessary to correct any stated inaccuracy in subject's record or provide the information needed to make the record complete." Unfortunately, accessing the record in the first place can be a challenge; it looks like it requires being fingerprinted and making the request through a law enforcement agency that has access to the record. More information is available here [fas.org].
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm [fas.org]Re: (Score:2)
That would mean that the listings are correct. They'd have to go through the work of getting their records expunged, sealed, or pardoned. All unlikely to happen as long as their position is:
Re:These protesters may need to go an extra step.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, accessing the record in the first place can be a challenge; it looks like it requires being fingerprinted and making the request through a law enforcement agency that has access to the record.
Which is interesting, since one of the categories on the list is
(same source as parent)
So in order to access the list to find out how to get on it, you give them another excuse to put you on it?
-Lars
five years without trial. (Score:3, Informative)
Without changes in Canadian law, it will be five years before they can apply for entry.
Thanks for the link, it shows they never should have been on this list which is supposed to be for:
Ahem. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, we do have access to NCIC the FBI criminal database and we do use it as supporting evidence when we're determining if someone is inadmissible to Canada based on criminality. However, I never seen anything in the database that is not: (a) an arrest record, (b) a record of court proceedings, or (c) a warrrent/lookout/restraining order.
I can tell you that "listing in this database" is only equivalent to "a conviction" when it says exactly what you were charged and convicted of. For example, it will show you were arrested for Assault on such and such date. The next record will show that you appeared in court on such and such a date. It will then show the judge's opinion, followed by a sentence if you were found guilty.
The only ambiguity arises when the offence is not a serious misdemeanor. The problem occurs because it is up to the individual state court's to file the necessary paperwork with NCIC to have the information put into the database. Sometimes these clerks are busy and backlogged and never get around to inputting the judgement of the court into the database. In that instance, it will show you were arrested for "driving while intoxicated" but will not show if you were found guilty or not guilty. In this case, the onus is on the individual entering Canada to prove that they are not inadmissible based on criminality. The reason is that we officers are making a decision on the balance of probabilities and having evidence of possible criminal activity usually outweighs the individual's word.
I have never had someone's criminal record simply say "Peace Activist" or something equally silly. Unless you were convicted of a criminal offence, or it's reasonable for me to believe you have, then you are not going to be refused entry for criminality.
The above may contain some errors or it may be unclear. I don't have time to proofread it before work.
Re:Ahem. (Score:4, Interesting)
Look it up in IRPA if you're interested http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/I-2.5//20071030/en?command=home&caller=SI&fragment=immigration&search_type=all&day=30&month=10&year=2007&search_domain=cs&showall=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50 [justice.gc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've had many people with a record on NCIC that have said, no no I wasn't convicted of that. That doesn't bother me; you'd be amazed how many people lie about their criminal record. Usually they admit to it after
Re: (Score:2)
They're even nice enough to have an appeals process.
Context of charges. (Score:2, Interesting)
A friend of mine was a non-violent peace protester from the 60s (he had many police abuse stories) and whenever there was an arrest, it was never for "peace protester". It would be for "disturbing the peace", "assaulting a police officer", failure to follow
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Context of charges. (Score:4, Insightful)
Did abuse happen? On both sides.
Still, by my understanding, if a conviction for an old reformed hippy showed up from back in the '60s, it'd be up to the Canadian authorities as to whether they allow entry or kick it back to the appeal/reform process.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. In this case it seems to be some trivial misdemeanors related to a peaceful protest that has lumped these two in with serious criminals.
Re:Ahem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, keep in mind that we don't have a one-size-fits-all criminal category. There are three degrees of seriousness for criminal offences that deal with: summary, indictable 5 years imprisonment, and indictable 10 years imprisonment. If you're simply charged with a single misdemeanor from a long time ago and it doesn't fall into a higher category, it is unlikely that you'll be inadmissible for that single offence.
Also, if thesse protestors have numerous criminal convictions why should they have special priveledges just because they're protestors? How am I supposed to know, right at the border, whether or not they were unfairly convicted of breaking the peace? In theory, the court in which they were tried was supposed to make findings of fact and law. If these people who had all the evidence thought the protestor was guilty, then how am I, someone who has no access to the events, supposed to say whether or not it's unfair?
I'm not attacking you personally, you just brought up the point of "peaceful protests".
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there's lots of people who are inadmissible to Canada. I'm not going to decide for you whether a large group of people is inadmissible, simply based on the possibility they were unjustly
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And you looking at different definitions of serious too. You have the state's definition and then you have the feds definition as well as the other countries definition. Crime statistics between two separate countries are never directly comparable for this reason alone. Take suicide for one, it is perfectly legal in most European countries but considered murder in America and get reported as one in the cri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone we refuse entry into Canada is not a Canadian citizen nor a permanent resident of Canada. They don't have a right to enter the country. If they're seeking entry into Canada, they must prove they're not inadmissible.
Re: (Score:2)
I used crown because that's what I'm used to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The blanket denial is to keep trouble makers out. You can apply in several ways to get around this. It usually involves signing a statement to the effect that you won't commit a crime while in the country.
So while I am not a Canadian, I have had to get this a couple of times to visit friends and an in-law from up the
This makes sense? (Score:4, Insightful)
What does this sentence mean?
I'm pretty sure the rules are that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. Liberty doesn't extend to cross-border travel in general because nations have the inherent authority to control their borders. No life or property was involved.
So what is the author talking about? It's completely unclear. I could guess it's just generic whining, but I'd really rather know the answer to the question: What is the author talking about?
The Canadian government should certainly not accept this FBI database as the criteria for entering the country
Yeah. Why wouldn't Canada want huge numbers of protesters in their country causing trouble? They're really missing out on all that valuable, constructive protesting that these paragons of civilization would be engaging in.
Canada is no different than anywhere else. Almost any government would shut out these protesters if they could. In a practical sense, they are a useless pain in the ass. Canada figured out a legal way to solve part of their problem.
It's not hard to understand. (Score:2)
These people were labled and punished for being dangerous criminals without due process. They wanted to go to Canada but were not able to do so without being "criminally rehabilitated."
The Canadian government was tricked. They agreed to use a US database of dangerous criminals and were told that it contained lists of people who had committed or were facing charges for eight violent crimes. The FBI added these people to the list for something else.
If I were a Canadian, I'd say the list was no longer dep
Re:It's not hard to understand. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a punishment. Canada has no obligation to let people in the country. If they grant you entry, it's essentially a privilege.
If I were a Canadian, I'd say the list was no longer dependable and demand my government quit using it.
If I were Canadian, I'd cheer the result.
Maybe the list isn't supposed to be used for this particular result. So perhaps create another, even better list -- "Troublemakers who have nothing to offer" -- to keep protesters and activists out.
I'm sure there are dangerous criminals on that FBI list in addition to the annoying protesters though. I'm guessing Canadians don't want to start importing sex offenders and armed robbers so they may want to think twice before they oppose using that FBI list.
As a citizen of the USA, I hope Canada does start importing our protesters and sex offenders and gives them generous social benefits to try to get them to stay in Canada.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. I don't think anybody is accusing Canada of punishing these people. However, if these people were unjustly added to a list of criminals by US authorities, and if US authorities knew that adding names to this list will prevent these people from being admitted to Canada (none of which, in my opinion, was actually proved), then the US authorities are effectively punishin
More Information to Counter Bullshit. (Score:4, Informative)
But my point is, the NCIC isn't some secretive blacklist like the infamous no-fly list. The NCIC is detailed, you can view your record and correct it, if it's incorrect.
Here's what I find when I look further, unvarnished outrage:
The NCIC may not be as bad as no-fly lists but that makes it's abuse more shocking. The three arrests were for protesting and it is clear than the activists are not the violent felons the laws were designed to keep out of Canada. This is an evil political abuse that will keep these protesters legally out of Canada for five years.
Hmm (Score:2)
Remember, they had actually been arrested, and who is to say what an infamous crime is? Like almost all of the American constitution it is extremely ill defined, if at all. (i.e. "UnAmerican [wikipedia.org]")
p.s. I think that the Bush administration does abuse it's power and adding these people to the international criminal database is stretching the law (to say the least). The point I am trying to make is tighten up your constitution or things like this will keep happening.
How long must we endure this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another bad thing is that it seems that these people can't actually run the government well, they only they are capable of doing correctly is character assassination, whether that be republican political opponents or civil rights activists. They're fucking incompetent in doing everything else. How long must we endure this? Oh yeah, it's right here [backwardsbush.com].
Now I wonder if the next president will reverse this trend? If you listen to the Republican candidates, all they seem to care about perpetuating the policies that are ruining our government. The democrats seem like they're more level-headed, but I wonder if they have the courage to change the status quo, because they haven't done a damn thing since gaining congress. Where's Roosevelt when you need him?
FBI = political secret police (Score:4, Informative)
Insofar as King, the memo regarding COINTELPRO against blacks said "The Counterintelligence Program is now being expanded to include 41 offices... For maximum effectiveness of the Counterintelligence Program, and to prevent wasted effort, long range goals are being set...Prevent the rise of a 'messiah' who could unify, and electrify, the militant black nationalist movement...King could be a very real contender for this position should he abandon his supposed 'obedience' to 'white, liberal doctrines'". This is simply a secret police, a political police, trying to undermine the democratic process in this country. I know old-timer activists from the 1960s who found out due to FOIAs that the FBI had tried to get them fired from their jobs by sending anonymous letters to their employers.
Then on Fox News they whine how the liberals shackled the CIA and FBI in the 1970s - they neglect to mention how Nixon's White House staff, including old CIA hands like Hunt, were doing things like breaking into the Democratic Party campaign headquarters at the Watergate hotel however. The CIA was undermining democratic governments not only in places like Chile, but in Australia (Whitlam affair) and Italy (P2, Gladio). Even after the FBI was supposedly cleaned up in the 1970s, Reagan had them trying to seduce nuns (who were unhappy about nuns being raped and hacked up in El Salvador, as well as the archbishop being assassinated) involved in CISPES. Now with the Patriot Act etc., all of the constraints and watchdog functions over these organizations have disappeared.
Years ago, a russian reporter said (Score:5, Interesting)
Years ago, I think it was during the first Clinton campaign, a russian reporter commented that with the two candidates, the requirement that questions be submitted in advance, the carefully screened events etc etc, it was becoming more and more like the USSR elections he used to "report" on before the collapse.
This is NOT a slam against the US, most countries are going through this at the moment. It isn't even about any polical leaning, Labour in Great Britian is supposed to be left. It just seems as if we seem destined to go to more and more restrictions on our freedoms, in the name of protecting us. Except that it never seems to be about us, but rather the people already in power.
That is not what has me worried. What worries me is how little the comman man cares about it all. Bread and Circusses, it really seems true. Give them reality tv, and the masses will keep queit. Move people vote on Idol then on elections. Starlets get more news coverage then the war.
What I think has happened is that we have led the press become too commercial, they were supposed to be the watchdog of the goverment, instead we allowed them to become slaves to the dollar, worried about ever increasing viewing figures/profits instead of reporting the news.
Paranoids don't help, sometimes I think they are a plot in themselves, by coming up with insane theories while the simplest is simply that the fast majority of news outlets are owned by just a handfull of people.
And who is going to report on the press going bad? The press? It is all a simply slippery slope. Where does it end? The rush to have scoop first, leads news outlet after news ooutlet to report stories that later turn out to be false. Some people even put scams up in order to prove this and NEVER FAIL. Does the media do anything with it? Holland has had one recently, how many reporters/editors were fired? None.
The first time a reporter agreed not to ask a question duing a press conference that led to now questions having to be asked in advance all the way to staged FEMA press-conference.
But hey, there is good news, in the 2008 elections, old USSR reporters can relive the old times.
The dutch news is a prime example, the intros have gotten longer and flashier, total airtime has shrunk, what time remains is now wasted on pre-views and recaps of things that are in that same news program, more time is spend on weather and sports. It was during gulf war 1 that the dutch news had a 5 minute segment of the queen opening some art exhibit. The US got Britney Spears, we got Maxima, no dear news editor, a new royal being born is NOT headline news, it is at best a human interest story, worth no more then a 20 second segment at the end of the news.
If you want to see why democracy is failing, watch the news. It will become painfully clear when you realize that the actuall NEWS content is starting to approach zero.
opinionpiece (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it's an opinion piece. The opinions based on solid facts, held together with solid logic, especially the ones offering compassion with people like you who got screwed (so you could be next), those opinion pieces are important. The Constitution is an opinion piece.
Some opinion pieces, that aren't derived from rigorous and fair thinking, are indeed worthless. But when you ignore an explanation of how the FBI is framing innocent activists with crimes that shut down their rights, you're helping destroy those rights. When you push the "ignore the opinion piece" line, you're leading the destruction.
Yeah, everyone's got one. But like asses, some are better than others, some should never see the light of day, and some should be prized by anyone who can get a look.
Re:Wait one minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait one minute... (Score:4, Informative)
There are many people on the NCIC just because they have a single misdemeanor arrest. However, a record of an arrest usually won't make you inadmissible to Canada on it's own, though it certainly doesn't help. See the other thread for way more information.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wanna bet, do ya huh, not only is everyone who is arrested of a felony or a serious misdemeanor on the list, but even being fingerprinted gets you on the list, being kidnapped or even sometimes being missing gets you on the list; go check the website they list what's in the database and what isn't. These ladies are habitual, career criminals, of course they are on the list, I admire those ladies, they at least put their asses on the
Re: (Score:2)
Those RAT bastards! How dare they smoke good cigars.
Re:Wait one minute... (Score:5, Informative)
As a sidenote, yes, Canada has recently been getting extremely picky about letting people with criminal records into the country, even petty crimes and decades old DUIs.
From Article:Huh? What? When did we annex Canada? I'm sure there's some Canadians that this statement would piss off - they're quite capable of running their own country, they don't need Bush's help. Besides, why would Bush be working to make it more difficult for US Citizens to enter Canada?IE you're troublemakers, therefore the border agents were quite right to deny you entry.It looks like it's proper for you to be listed:
1. Individuals who have been fingerprinted and whose criminal history
record information has been obtained.
Any arrest is generally for at least a 'serious misdemeanor'. Minor misdemeanors get a ticket and a court date.
Re:Wait one minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you even know any of your country's history? If your founding fathers hadn't protested your country would never have been born. Sometimes people have to make a stand based on their morals, and if they have the balls to do it non-violently then they deserve your respect.
It's quite simple - any country that treats dissenters as criminals is in danger of becoming a totalitarian state.
And personally - I don't think a DUI can EVER be considered petty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More like Protesters with multiple arrests and convictions for various 'disturbing the peace' offenses == troublemakers. Wave signs, hire billboards, hand out pamplets, fine and dandy. Vandalize property, block traffic, disrupt meetings, not so fine.
Do you even know any of your country's history? If your founding fathers hadn't protested your country would never have been born. Sometimes people have to make a stand based on their morals, and if they have the balls to do it
Re:Wait one minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bingo, you just found the way to supress all discent. For example, someone has the gall to wear an anti-bush shirt to a public event? Arrest them, and they will always be treated as a criminal in the future, making their voice that much harder to be heard! Just what we want!
"why would Bush be working to make it more difficult for US Citizens to enter Canada?" Remember free speech zones? Anything that makes it harder for Bush to hear those opposed to him is good in his eyes.
"IE you're troublemakers, therefore the border agents were quite right to deny you entry."
So in your puny world, anyone that tries to exercise their freedom and hold the government accountable is a troublemaker and deserves to have his activities surpressed? Karl is that you? You are such a tool. By the way, do you work for the White House, and just plant this comment?
being arrested does not make you a criminal (Score:3, Insightful)
remember the little bit about "innocent until proven guilty"?
Re: (Score:2)
TFA may have come from opednews.com, but it did read as an actual article and not as an Op-Ed piece.
Just because a story is shown on FooNews doesn't mean it's actually news, and just because it's on opednews.com ...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The funnies or comic strips, people seeking people and help wanted ads appear in the news papers, it don't make them news either.
Re:An arrest gets you into the DB (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, do shut the fuck up. Terrorists? Man, let's just throw that label on anyone whose speech we don't like. Disorderly conduct? "Oh bloody hell guvnah! Those people's conduct, it's disorderly!"
Do you just conveniently forget that the great moments of this nation's history were acts of resisting arrest, vandalism, and disorderly conduct".
Do you remember those damn Boston Tea Party Terrorists? [wikipedia.org]
Do you remember when that pesky negro wouldn't learn her place? [wikipedia.org]
What a sad day when I have to remind someone that not only was this country founded in protest, protests were still needed 200 years later because this nation still wasn't as great as it needed to be. You have zero concept of your nation's history, yet you have the nerve to suggest that resisting arrest is itself bad behavior?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:An arrest gets you into the DB (Score:4, Insightful)
[In best Spanish accent]: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You can debate whether violent protest is right or wrong, but it's generally not terrorism by any reasonable definition, most directly because the aim is not asymmetrical conflict to incite terror but direct conflict with authorities to register displeasure. Calling it "terrorism" is not only foolish but is offensive in that it trivializes actual terrorism by grouping it together with these much more innocuous things.
Finally, you seem to dismiss violent protest out of hand as invalid, but that's essentially absurd on its face, since this is just an intermediate level of force, between non-violent protest and outright rebellion, used by the populous to maintain control. I certainly think that violent protests are used in many situations where they are uncalled for, counter-productive, and wrong, but there can also be times they are necessary to show the will of the people (and hopefully avoid all out civil war). Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes a single arrest can get you in the NCIC. That usually won't make you inadmissible to Canada on its own though.
Re:Codepink clowns.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Destination Canada (Score:2)
We have a winner! (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you for buying into party lines. When will you see people as people and not a party member? As long as you keep buying into this ridiculous two-party culture nothing is going to really change.
And if that is too much to ask of you, what are *you* going to do if the Democrats take office and the abuse does
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In case you are talking about Iran then it is rather obvious not even they would be insane enough to use one. They don't want the bomb in order to attack the US ( that would only get them blown off the face of the earth ), they want it in order to be able to continue running the state as a theocratic dictatorship without risking external intervention. There is lit