DHS Detains Mayor of Stockton, CA, Forces Him To Hand Over His Passwords 399
schwit1 writes: Anthony Silva, the mayor of Stockton, California, recently went to China for a mayor's conference. On his return to San Francisco airport he was detained by Homeland Security, and then had his two laptops and his mobile phone confiscated. They refused to show him any sort of warrant (of course) and then refused to let him leave until he agreed to hand over his password.
America (Score:4, Insightful)
still has not won the *real* war on terror. The terror on 9/11 still inspires fear on the mind of Americans. So the real war is yet to be won.
Re:America (Score:5, Insightful)
the real war of terror is waged by the United States Government, against the citizens. It is a success, fear being the motivator for giving up rights, privacy, freedom.
Re:America (Score:5, Insightful)
the war is psychological and the weapons are not physical, nor would the solution be
Re:America (Score:5, Insightful)
You got that right. The solution is to stop voting for psychopaths and sociopaths because this is what they do when they are in charge. Bernie is sounding better all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Only psychopaths want to be president, just like how most ceos are psychopaths.
You have to be a heartless psychopath to even get the job.
Re: (Score:3)
Bernie is sounding better all the time.
What is Bernie's plan for the TSA?
Re: America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: America (Score:5, Insightful)
Well yeah. Because he is actually consistent on his positions. What he is saying today is the same thing he has been saying for 40 years.
Indeed. Bernie voted against the Patriot Act, against the DMCA, against the Iraq War, etc. He has taken principled stands against the legislation that has led to the erosion of civil liberties. Hillary was on the opposite side on all these issues, and only flip-flopped after it became clear that her earlier stance was unpopular.
I don't plan to vote for Bernie, because I think he would lead the economy off a cliff, but nonetheless, I admire his integrity.
Re: America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I also admire that he's managed to rise so high despite his principled stands.
I can't point to a lot of truly honest politicians in my lifetime and almost none who've risen to the Senate.
Re: America (Score:5, Informative)
> IMHO I think "Star Wars" was actually more for defense from an invasion than to knock down missiles. I doubt it would have worked to do either goal; it's only now that we are developing lasers powerful enough to do anything to a distant flying object.
I worked on the Strategic Defense Initiative (the proper name for the project) in the 1980's. It was most certainly for knocking down missiles, all the math depended on it. As far as working or not, very few people understand the concept of "layered defense". SDI had 7 layers: two Boost Phase intercepts, three Midcourse intercepts, and High and Low terminal intercepts. Each layer only has to deal with what the previous layer missed. Assume, because the actual numbers were classified and I don't remember them after 30 years, that each layer is 60% effective, meaning 40% of warheads get through to the next layer. With 7 layers, only one in 610 warheads hits their targets. That kind of number is "survivable". Japan survived two warheads, and the US could survive about 15 or 20, due to being a larger country. This breaks the "Mutually Assured Destruction" concept, because the US would have plenty of undamaged assets to shoot back with.
But you don't need a fully functioning missile defense to apply leverage to the Russians. If you have only two functioning layers, and they are only 40% effective each, only 36% of Russian warheads get through. They have to build 2.78 times as many warheads to destroy their priority target list. The more functioning layers, and the higher their effectiveness, the worse their targeting problem gets, rapidly. The Russians may be deficient in some ways, but they had plenty of good mathematicians. They could see the threat of a layered defense, and they could not afford to build enough missiles to counter it. They could also not build their own SDI system, because Western technology was generally more advanced. So coming to the negotiating table to reduce missile counts was the only viable option, which is exactly what they did in 1991. In that sense, the SDI program helped win the Cold War.
Whether Reagan himself had a technical understanding of the project was irrelevant. That was between DARPA, Congress, and the defense contractors. As a former actor who did westerns, his job was making speeches other people wrote, and looking tough to the Russians. He was a figurehead for the nation. Tons of smart people did the real work.
Getting back to your lasers, we had two kinds as *advanced options* in SDI, airborne and space-based. Airborne were a boost phase system, designed to shoot at ICBMs while the rocket was still firing. That makes them an easy target, rockets have huge thermal signatures for targeting. But also they are fragile. Heat the nozzle of a rocket a few hundred degrees while operating, and it can easily fail, same for shock heating part of the fuel tanks. You don't have to melt them, just cause a gas explosion as the fuel boils, it does the rest. Space-based lasers were upper boost phase or early midcourse. They could get a clearer shot when the rocket was in the upper atmosphere, or starting on the ballistic trajectory. Physically the rocket was approaching the same altitude as the laser, so the distance was smaller. Both involved megawatt class lasers based on chemical combustion energy.
But remember, these were not the baseline, they were advanced options. And the US was making credible progress in laser technology. So it was not a matter of having them ready to use. It was a matter of the Russians believing the nation that beat them to the Moon could develop high powered laser weapons if they put their minds to it. After the Strategic Arms treaties were signed, the push to develop SDI technologies ended, so they have piddled along for the last few decades, and battlefield lasers and railguns are now entering field use. There was no rush because there was no enemy threatening enough.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I want them to already have values which align with my own.
What you're advocating is a politician who's corrupt and votes for legislation that's against my own interests (like the DMCA, Iraq War, etc.), and then only changes course somewhat after he/she finds out that position is too unpopular, so they change their rhetoric somewhat to try to appeal to the voters and keep getting re-elected. Meanwhile, the shitty legislation has already been passed, and they're not doing anything to repeal it.
The point
Re: America (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, one of these days, it will. A mayor isn't important enough, but a nominee for a Justice of the Supreme Court Justice. The Video Privacy Protection Act [wikipedia.org] specifically protects video tape rental/sale records at a higher level of confidentiality than other rental records. The sole reason it exists is that when Robert Bork [wikipedia.org]'s totally boring video rental history was leaked during his 1987 nomination hearings, Congress realized that by extension, its porn habits, VHS being pretty much the only way porn could be accessed at the time, could also be just as easily bought and sold.
The surest way to gain privacy protections is to wait for the privacy of a high-ranking politician to be invaded. When it becomes a problem that makes our rulers' careers more difficult to manage, it becomes worthy of protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Socalim is organized psychopathy (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's based on making sure the many other people who labored to create those things get their fair share. Otherwise you'll have libertarian pseudo-heroes acting as if their 'great works' were accomplished single handed.
Re: (Score:3)
The laborer agrees to a wage under the gun though. They can't afford to just withdraw from the job market nor can they import new employers from overseas if they don't like the jobs on offer. The playing field is consistently slanted through political manipulation.
Fundamentally, money attracts money, it's an unstable system that without correction tends to leave a few holding the bulk of it while the rest starve. The next step, of course is all the money loses it's value and the whole thing starts over. Rea
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And corporations aren't "peaceful" in their actions by any means. They start wars to get to resources, have "accidents" all the time that kill hundreds (if not t
Re: (Score:3)
But I know a few high-functioning psychopaths
No you don't. You've never encountered a psychopath or you would never make such a suggestion. They were probably Narcissists, the only one's self-absorbed enough to make such a boast and they are probably only competent in convincing you of what they wanted you to believe.
There is nothing about the lack of empathy in a person that makes them in any way, shape or, form fit for any position where they have *any* authority higher than a parking officer.
Any slight detection of this form of mental dis-functio
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for setting Barny straight on this. As a neuroscientist I can guarantee that no one in their right mind wants a psychopath or sociopath in charge of anything. Unfortunately they are attracted to positions of power from where they can do whatever they want to the rest of us.
Like I said in the beginning, Bernie is sounding better every time one of the other candidates opens their mouth.
Re: (Score:3)
I assume you are rich and paranoid of losing some of your control over others, and you fear being taxed at a more equitable rate. Otherwise, if you are a working person, you are delusional. Is Norway a slavery state? You're comment is absurd in the extreme. It is absurd statements like yours that will help those sitting on the fence to realize that the people in charge in many countries now are irrational, greedy, indifferent and belligerent.
Bernie Sanders opposes private property? You are either lying, or
Hearts and minds (Score:2)
Hearts and minds, baby - that's where you win a war. And they've got us right where they want us.
Re:America (Score:5, Insightful)
The war is over. The terrorists won.
Re: (Score:3)
still has not won the *real* war on terror. The terror on 9/11 still inspires fear on the mind of Americans. So the real war is yet to be won.
Whoever modded parent off-topic is an idiot and has completely failed to grasp why this is such a huge issue. To AC, well said sir. You have summed it up nicely. We have allowed the actions of a few thugs, fourteen years ago, to change our way of life and compromise some of our nation's core principles. The terrorists are winning.
Re:America (Score:5, Insightful)
Posting as an AC here, because I know some will view this as troll bait, but it is relevant:
With $100,000 in costs, a few men willing to lose their lives, and some planning, bin Laden managed to bring down the most successful and respected nation on the planet. Self-hatred, fear, paranoid, witch hunts, and general lunacy have taken the US from its pinnacle to a country that is a laughingstock among nations.
With this in mind, as a general, bin Laden can be argued to be the best general in two centuries. Russia couldn't drive wedges between the US and Europe, even when the Bear had troops on every continent. Germany couldn't do this during WWII, even though for a few years, they actually brought peace to the Middle East. bin Laden broke the spirit of the US people, and now they are cowed and bickering with politicians taking advantage of their fears.
The sad thing? Now, because the paths are in place to disseminate propaganda of fear, this mechanism is still in place. Bad guys are after you, the US people suck and don't deserve jobs, day after day. In reality, we have a impotent President, a Congress that needs the pope to not just give a blessing, but an exorcism, and absolutely no solutions for any issues other than "blame the left/right, blame the gun-grabbers/ammosexuals, vote dem/rep next time." Blame doesn't solve jack shit, and pissing contests like this only leave both sides smelling horrifically.
I pray that the US gets a Churchill next election and not another Chamberlain.
Re:America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:America (Score:4, Interesting)
Nice try. No cigar.
The elites, formerly known in Europe as the Aristocracy, are reasserting their dominance over society. Your Bin Laden story is but a diversion, one of many, the story is Globilization. The American, Russian, South American, European and Asian elites are becoming one World elite. Nations, like religions, have become only useful for controlling little people. Free trade agreements have removed borders for money. TTIP is supposed to be the next step in putting the nation states out of power, and corporate tribunals (and their overlords) into power.
You're focusing on the wrong game.
The Gestapo would be proud (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to go, murica.
Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that this is a good thing. Not the idea of people being searched without warrants. I think it's good that a government official, even a lowly one like the mayor of Stockton, suffered this. It is only when government officials are subjected to this outrageous breach of The Constitution, that there is any real hope of it being changed.
So long as it's only the sheeple complaining, illegal searches will continue to be "permissible". When congress critters start getting inconvenienced and their predilection for gay porn starts being made public, then things will change, for our safety.
I hope that many more government officials will be forced to endure these absurd detainments and searches.
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Stuff like this makes me nervous about my rights and about my family's right. someone once said something like this, " Then they came after me and because I did not defend the others they we gone and no one was their to help me when I needed help "
Re: (Score:2)
I hope they get to "endure" a little 1790's France.
Well now, not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
A US citizen has an absolute right to re-enter the country.
Re:Well now, not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
A sovereign country has an absolute right to defend its borders. I'm pretty sure the contradiction that arises from these two conflicting statements ends up in a loss for the citizen.
Them: "You're not leaving here until you give us your passwords."
Me: "go to hell. and while you're there, tell my lawyer to get over here pronto."
Re:Well now, not surprising (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well now, not surprising (Score:4, Informative)
Silva was under separate investigations in 2012 and 2013 for sexual battery. He was also alleged to have secretly taped female juveniles changing clothes at his residence. However, no charges were brought due to the prosecutor's decision that there wasn't hard evidence of the allege crimes. My guess is that the authorities are looking for evidence of those crimes as well as any crimes committed while in China.
Re: (Score:2)
Silva was under separate investigations in 2012 and 2013 for sexual battery. He was also alleged to have secretly taped female juveniles changing clothes at his residence. However, no charges were brought due to the prosecutor's decision that there wasn't hard evidence of the allege crimes. My guess is that the authorities are looking for evidence of those crimes as well as any crimes committed while in China.
What is the point of looking for evidence on a crime which has already been tried? They can't put him on trial again. That would be illegal. So the search for evidence was "because we can".
Re: (Score:2)
He was never on trial. But even if he had been, that would only apply to the specific crime he was tried for: They might hope to find recording of another female juvenile changing, not the specific individual he was charged over.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't suspect him of espionage or trade secret theft do they? My father sure as hell didn't get held up at customs when returning from Russia or China, despite taking a laptop and cellphone with him.
Re: (Score:2)
He is definitely guilty of going to a Chinese-government-sponsored Mayor's conference, bringing his actual every-day electronics and not some super-special throw-away ones that will be expected to be bugged, and despite the recent bullshit accord that has got to sound some alarms.
It could get creepy. He has also been accused [kcra.com] of using his position on the school board to get little girls into a bathroom where he had video equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
Been to China? Then his computers are probably full of Chinese spyware and keyloggers that he doesn't even suspect. So a thorough check and disinfection is probably justified.
Your computer is just as likely be filled with Chinese spyware and keyloggers while sitting comfortably in your living room as it is in China.
Re: (Score:2)
"refused to let him leave" (Score:2, Informative)
The only three lines you need to learn:
"Am I being detained?"
"I would like my lawyer present."
"No comment."
Re: (Score:2)
That's all well and good, if you're prepared to spend a night in jail to make your point! Authorities can and do detain people without cause for up to a day, in some cases longer, when people try to assert their rights.
Re: "refused to let him leave" (Score:2)
A night in jail isn't much, come back when you have a year or more in jail.
Spending a night in jail (Score:4, Interesting)
if you're prepared to spend a night in jail to make your point!
My hope is that every American who loves our Constitution would be prepared to do just that.
My fear is that I, myself, am not.
Within 100 miles of a border... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Within 100 miles of a border... (Score:5, Informative)
Ask and you shall receive, about 200 Million people, including several entire states.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your... [aclu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't their some law that gives border agents essentially unlimited rights to search and confiscate (no warrant required) so long as they are within 100 miles of any US border?
Founding legal theory is that as long as you're on the other side of the line, "outside" the USA, normal restrictions on government agents do not apply wrt to searches and so on.
BUT, my understanding is also that NO ONE, not any agent of any law enforcement branch, ever, under any circumstances, can deny entry to a US citizen. They may be able to legally (in theory at least) tell you that if you don't hand over your passwords you cannot enter with your stuff, but if you're willing to tell them, "yeah, OK, h
I understand (Score:5, Funny)
I understand (Score:2)
Re:I understand (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot the "Despite my general distaste for the tactics of the TSA, I understand;"
not very bright is he? (Score:2)
people would have missed a mayor. job blow of course not but when a day or 2 passes and the mayor hasnt made contact people will start searching. FBI most likely would have been called. Fox"News" would have reported it and it would have shed some light on the practice. he should have just sit still.
Why did they need his passwords? (Score:2)
If the phone was encrypted, I can see why they might need a password for it. But PCs aren't difficult to access without the password, for example, by using the built-in administrator account (which by default has no password), or by physically removing the hard drive.
Constitutional issues aside, this seems pretty inept. to me.
Re:Why did they need his passwords? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Relatively easy although encryption isn't that hard on Mac's either.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple products are used by government agencies only on TV. In real life, it's all Windows, mostly Windows XP.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple products are used by government agencies only on TV. In real life, it's all Windows, mostly Windows XP.
Really? They say otherwise. [macworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Your article explains that Macs are only used at FBI headquarters.
In the field, however, they don't have as much money to spend, so they have to stretch their dollars by buying WinTel-based hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Your article explains that Macs are only used at FBI headquarters.
You post claimed that only the fictionalized G-men used Macs, my reply disputes that. Try again on your goal-post moving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't know what that mayor was using, so we can't really say. Of course, he could have an encrypted HD, and a bios password. That'll make most would be digital intruders go home, including the NSA, because unless that sucker has nuclear codes or something super important like that on it, it's just not worth the time, money, and hassle to try and crack it.
Re: (Score:2)
meanwhile (Score:4, Insightful)
The rest of us keep being treated routinely like criminals without the media getting interested, because we aren't the mayor of Stockton.
Why should this guy get special treatment (by the TSA or by the press) just because he's a minor elected politico?
Re: (Score:2)
You're looking at this the wrong way. When lawyers think about litigating (say: civil-rights or class-action cases), they know it's strategic to look for a good "test case", that is, someone who short-cuts people's biases and generally looks above approach. This is your leverage to get the law changed for everyone; basically shaming the offenders with the most absurd abuse of their power. We should be thankful when there's a case that allows us to get any media attention to these issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Edit: "above approach" -> "above reproach"
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, he's getting special treatment. Yes, that's bad. Responding with the suggestion that he should be brought down to your level makes the problem worse, not better. The constructive response is: "They should not have done that to him, or to anyone else."
Any influential person who takes devices to China, (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If they had probable cause that he was working with or spying for China, they should have arrested and charged him openly; not detained him without telling him what he is suspected of and denying him access to legal council. If they didn't have probable cause, they should fuck off and leave him alone.
That goes for everyone, not just mayors of third-tier cities.
Re: (Score:2)
None of which has anything to do with border security and customs. Do you really think that anyone cares enough to spy on the mayor of a small town in rural California?
What he should have done ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If he surrenders the laptop, what right does immigration have to prevent a US citizen from entering the country? Surely, he has a presumtive right to entry when he is at the border.
Lose lose situation... (Score:2)
I'm very disappointed that he capitulated. What about the privacy of everyone who's corresponded with him? Business plans for land use? Negotiations on zoning or leniency granted to companies for failure to comply with ordinances? Political strategies and information on opponents? Resumes, performance reviews, salary information of staff?
On the other hand, it looks bad if a politician can't be "clean enough" to hand over his computers to authorities. Even if those authorities are underpaid, undertr
Re: (Score:2)
They put him in a very, very awkward position.
He can do a lot more from his office than he can from an interrogation room, so he surely made the right decision. It's disappointing, but fairly logical.
Re: (Score:2)
> There are devious and not so devious
> ways to do this, and mostly it isn't difficult.
So how do you do it?
Good, kinda. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a good thing when high profile and medium profile people get caught in these stupid things.
When celebrities, including political celebrities, get caught by government aggression it draws a spotlight on the programs that are harassing millions. With the spotlight on them, they tend to withdraw or become legally curtailed.
Sadly many of the abuses committed by government are against the dregs of society, the people already in trouble with the law, the despicable criminals, drug dealers, child abusers, rapists, murderers, and more. Most of society doesn't care when government abuses these people, which is why so many lawsuits are filed against agencies and officers that people dismiss as just another attempt to get out of being caught. If those same abuses were publicly made against people of celebrity status the programs would be quickly curtailed, or pushed further into the darkness of secrecy.
Good job DHS, keep targeting popular people. Best thing you can do for the country.
Seize it, but don't ask for the passwords (Score:2)
Coercing passwords where the law says you can't require the person to give up the passwords is un-American and may even be illegal (I am not a lawyer).
Coercing them instead of getting a court order requiring the owner to divulge the password when the law says you can get a court order is also un-American - use the courts, that's what they are there for (recent court rulings make me wonder if this sentence even applies anymore if the owner is an US citizen and the request is on US soil or made by US official
Welcome to the Stazi States of America (Score:2)
Welcome to the Stazi States of America. All your possessions are belong to us.
Land of the free, home of the brave... (Score:2)
Sad... we have become what we fought against...
This is no longer the land of the free, home of the brave...
R.I.P USA
All your rights are belong to us (Score:2)
from SFGate article:
Silva was also told he had “no right for a lawyer to be present” and that being a U.S. citizen did not “entitle me to rights that I probably thought.”
I Love This Sort of Thing (Score:2)
"Unfortunately, they were not willing or able to produce a search warrant or any court documents suggesting they had a legal right to take my property. In addition, they were persistent about requiring my passwords for all devices,” Silva said.
I always get a big kick out of hearing the reactions of middle-class people when they run into law enforcement, and aren't treated like middle-class people. They're never prepared for the reality, because they were taught in school that they had "rights", and all that other baloney.
"Silva was also told he had “no right for a lawyer to be present” and that being a U.S. citizen did not “entitle me to rights that I probably thought.”
Yep. I tell ya, if middle-class people always got the same treatment as poor folk, it'd be a different country pretty quickly.
Is he fired now? (Score:2)
As long as Obama has to do the same thing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
that doesnt contradict the summary
Re: (Score:3)
Not in literal terms.
But the summary specifically mentions no warrant, which means that the first reaction upon reading it is "What the fuck? That is so unconstitutional," when it should be "Why would they need a warrant at the border?" Silva does not seem to understand that searches at the border are, by definition, reasonable and therefore exempt from the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
What's interesting is the passwords bit. Mayor Silva can't be forced to testify against himself in Court, so no d
Re: (Score:3)
Or he (and many here) disagree with the Supreme court on that.
Re:Summary is flat out WRONG (Score:5, Interesting)
Silva does not seem to understand that searches at the border are, by definition, reasonable and therefore exempt from the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
What kind of totalitarian fascist drivel are you spouting there, man? Reasonable? Are you insane? The US Constitution as Amended is perfectly clear that you need a specific reason that a specific person might be guilty of something, as reviewed by a judge, before you can search them. There's no "unless we're scared" exception in there. I checked. Twice.
* Border checks are usually an unconstitutional search.
* TSA searches are clearly unconstitutional
* Searches required before entering a courthouse: blatantly unconstitutional
The only argument for any of these obviously unconstitutional searches is "but we're scared!" Tough shit: no such exception.
But there I go again, pretending the UC Constitution is somehow relevant to the 21st century US. Silly me.
Re:Summary is flat out WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Expect an adjustment to include a 100-mile radius around any airport that has a Passport Control or customs facility.
Actually you are flat out WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
The recent rulings have been that laptop searches are unconstitutional. The courts have said this is so because a ) laptops and phones contain highly personal information, much more so that suitcases normally do, and b) customs is to be searching for things like products being smuggled in, or drugs. Hard drives can't contain drugs and wouldn't contain smuggled products. Two recent examples include:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru... [pbs.org]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
The Obama administration has argued that they don't need a warrant, but the courts have ruled against them.
Re: (Score:3)
Reread your first source.
In the Ninth Circuit they can search electronic devices with "reasonable suspicion" at the border. The Ninth has not explained precisely what that means.
Which means that as long as the Obama Administration can articulate some suspicion of somebody involved in the Mayor's conference he went to they've got a case.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They can, but what kind of idiot would be bringing those things into the US that way? We have this thing called the internet that can bring things like that into the US a virtually undetectable way. They might occasionally catch somebody, but is it really worth invading the privacy of thousands more to do it?
Re: Summary is flat out WRONG (Score:4, Interesting)
SCOTUS ruled against Dred Scott, Japanese Americans and all motorists too (/Sitz/). They're still wrong and defending illegal actions. Remember, the People hold the supreme power and give the government limited powers through the Constitution. That government may claim exceptions to those limits, but that's no different than a five-year-old claiming he has no bed time. It's only true if you let him get away with it. Where theory and practice diverge is when the five year old has no problem shooting you in the face to enable his My Little Pony marathon.
Re: Summary is flat out WRONG (Score:3, Insightful)
The funny part of that is if they did actually push a christian agenda (Christ's agenda), then it wouldn't be terrible. We'd be fighting wars against starvation and poverty and mental illness. They'd accept people as the come and love them regardless of religion or sexual orientation or other beliefs.
Instead they want to use their "Christian" beliefs to hate on others and push a decidedly not Christ like agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the cop really is out to get you personally
Mayor of Stockton, CA goes to China and talks with a bunch of Chinese government and business leaders. What do you suppose he might be bringing back? Perhaps some notes on proposals for joint business deals involving his city. DHS gets their hands on it and hand it over to some developer buddies of theirs. Suddenly, commercial lots get scooped up and prices are bid higher. The Chinese look at the market and figure, "Fuck it. Stockton is too damned expensive. We're going elsewhere."
What do you think DHS is
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying if they plead guilty you don't have take off work to sit in the courthouse lobby for 3 hours just to find out they have plead guilty? That's not been my experience.
Re:An example (Score:4, Informative)
As you say, your case has flaws. The glaring one is:
> Also, assume the cops have a reputation for being
> professionals who act professionally
That's a pretty massive assumption. And I don't see how anybody paying attention to the news could miss the rampant police abuse and misconduct. Perhaps twenty years ago, before cellphone cameras, dash cameras, and body cams; you might be able to make that assumption, simply out of ignorance. But now? You'd be pretty daft to do so. And in your example, I'd operate under the assumption that any questioning of me is an attempt to railroad me into a false charge of drunk & disorderly or disturbing the peace or some such. It's just safer that way. My employer gives paid time off for jury duty or to bear witness in court; so doing so would be no inconvenience to me. And being arrested on a fabricated charge, even if it is minor and quickly dismissed, would be a bigger problem than missing out on a couple hours of sleep.
Best to treat them like poisonous snakes: Avoid them when possible. Keep any interaction as brief and minimal as possible. And don't try to handle them yourself... leave it to the trained professionals (ie. your lawyer).
Re: (Score:2)
According to the stories we have, he was never charged with a crime or told he was a suspect in criminal activity. And so we must proceed as if he is not a criminal and, from my casual knowledge of law and the situation, grant him his full rights and privileges as a citizen of the USA.
The thinking that "it's possible he's a suspect" just reeks of Bush43 thinking, excuses, and bad leadership decisions that got us unto this heavy-handed, unneeded, and counterproductive security state that we now have.
Re: (Score:2)
The power and respect of the corporation can be invoked by announcing your loyalty, but should corporate fealty be needed to counteract invasive country laws?
Re:What's the mayor of Stockton doing in China? (Score:5, Informative)
Stockton has a port. Getting cargo shipped to said port generates revenue from dock fees, import fees, transship fees, fees for trucks coming into the port not to mention all the working types. China is one of the worlds largest exporters - so yes, the mayor of Stockton has a reason to be in China, drumming up business.