Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge Finds Cisco, US Authorities Deceived Canadian Courts

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the cisco-kids dept.

Canada 165

djmurdoch writes "The Vancouver Sun reports that 'The giant computer company Cisco and US prosecutors deceived Canadian authorities and courts in a massive abuse of process to have a former executive thrown in jail, says a B.C. Supreme Court judge.' Peter Adelkeye was arrested last year as he was testifying in a special hearing in Vancouver. It turns out he was there because US authorities would not grant him permission to enter the US to testify in a civil case between him and Cisco. The Canadian judge said that almost nothing in the US Attorney's letter was true, and has overturned his extradition order. Slashdot discussed this case in April."

cancel ×

165 comments

Soon to be jailed (4, Funny)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36329816)

En route to Switzerland, Adelkeye was caught molesting a hotel maid and was turned in by several Good Samaritans.
"He just looked suspicious," commented a white man with shoe polish on his face. "Yeah, we saw him do it. Molesting that horse. I mean maid," quipped a gentleman with large glasses, puffy eyebrows and elongated nose.

Adelkeye is expected to please guilty and spend life in prison. Barack Obama, who received a personal plea from Peter last year, stated that "those Canadians and their judges need to be held accountable for Adelkeye's release."

Re:Soon to be jailed (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36329864)

maybe you should have marked this idiocy or sarcasm or something, because it's about as offtopic as it gets. It's pretty disgusting to see such prosecutorial misconduct in the US, and yet the prosecutors aren't even getting a slap on the wrist.

Re:Soon to be jailed (3, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36329894)

It is conspiratorial. It projects a similar fate as Jullian Assange or Dominique Strauss-Kahn encountered, which some believe to be lies perpetrated by those in the government. This story doesn't make the government sound like they're above such things.

Re:Soon to be jailed (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330392)

people who spend their lives seeing a conspiracy around every corner are pretty sad individuals to me. we are all familiar with the folly of being too trusting, too gullible, too prone to believe everything you hear. to me, even more tragic are those who trust nothing they hear, who would rather believe the little voice in their head spinning more and more fanciful stories. that such a voice is superior to saying "you know, maybe osama bin laden brought down the world trade center and not a vast government conspiracy." or "maybe barack obama is a good decent president, and not a kenyan born secret muslim."

a deficit of trust. what a sad stunted life

you know, maybe DSK is a victim of a political character assassination. or you know, maybe he's a pervy old man who has boundary issues. which is the truth? truth, to me, is the most likely thing. sure, conspiracies are real. but exceedingly rare and difficult to keep the lid on with more and more players required to not wilt in the glare of attention, over a long period of time, with changing agendas, priorities, and allegiances. the media is not complicit here. all these french journalists are angling for a big story. there are periforal players who maybe smell something not right in a bit of communication here or there, and who are all too happy, for career advancement, out of their own paranoia of becoming a fall guy, or some other base motivation, to pull a deep throat and leave a trail of breadcrumbs for some journalist to follow. meaning what? meaning real life isn't a b-grade hollywood plot. meaning real conspiracies of many players almost never work. meaning occam's razor: "when you hear hoofbeats, don't think zebras."

minds that believe in conspiracy theories are weak feeble minds that, contrary to their mental deathgrip on their worry that they are being fooled, are the most easily fooled individuals in the world

Re:Soon to be jailed (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330628)

That is one of the dumbest comments I have ever seen on /., when governments and corporations consistently obfuscate, spin, propagandize and outright lie it is not a, "weak feeble mind" that doesn't trust the liars. For example you cherry pick the most ridiculous sounding theories and try to paint everyone with the same brush, that is part of the propaganda ploy to silence all who don't buy the "party line".

The reality is that intelligent people question the facts when they don't add up and learn from experience. When dealing with pathological liars we tend not to trust the things they say. Based on past performance such as Operation Mockingbird, COINTELPRO and so on the government of the US engages in premeditated propaganda techniques to control it's own citizens. Maybe before getting all sanctimonious you should avail yourself of the government commission findings that are freely available. There is also quite a bit of evidence recently of the government conspiring with corporations to help the corporations, even at the expense of the people. It has become so commonplace that they do not even bother to hide it most of the time nowadays. In this instance we have the finding of a court of law that the US DOJ conspired with a corporation, in violation of the normal standards of law in the western world, to silence opposition to shady or outright illegal practices that the company was indulging in for profit. So it takes a really weak mind to blame "conspiracy theorists" when the evidence in sitting there in your face.

Re:Soon to be jailed (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330722)

we're not talking about people asking intelligent questions. we're talking about lack of intelligence and thought

weak feeble minds- an accurate description, are unable to make an informed choice as to the veracity of a narrative put before them. at that point, these weak minds cut one of two ways:

1. well... they sound nice. i'll just trust them and what they say

2. i don't trust anything these bastards say. i trust my fertile imagination to come up with the fanciful conspiracy theory that explains these events

this is actually the same sort of person, a fool. #1 is fooled by other people. #2 is fooled by himself. both are equally foolish and dangerous to intelligent commentary

there are dumb people. some trust too much. some trust too little. those who are constantly embracing hilarious conspiracy theories are just stupid people, the mirror image of the trusting gullible. the untrusting gullible

and the sad thing is, they are equally dependably manipulated by lies and propaganda just as much as the trusting gullible. you just use reverse psychology on them

Re:Soon to be jailed (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330754)

I think some names, not faceless groups would be interesting news.

Re:Soon to be jailed (3, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330820)

occams razor doesn't exlude simple conspiracies.
which is all most have to be.

a handful of powerful friends can fuck a lot of people over with very simple conspiracies like the one in the OP.

They can be as simple as
"we don't want him to give evidence? You write an official letter accusing him of something, I'll have an aide make up some bullshit rumors and spread those around and we'll try to make sure the court case is over before he's sorted out the mess"

or even "fuck the law, make up some charge that's hard to defend yourself against then arrest him and throw him in jail"

But those kinds of stories are boring.
massive conspiracies are hard to hold together but a few golf buddies can do fine.

Conspiracy nuts assume that the world trade centre was some kind of inside job with stupidly complex motives.
In reality there's no need for that when the same ends can be achieved by a far simpler method of politicians simply taking advantage of the situation after the fact to push through whatever horrific measures they've always wanted.

the problem isn't a deficit of trust.
Hell more problems are caused by trusting fools who believe campaign promises and press releases.

Re:Soon to be jailed (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36331112)

untrusting fools

everyone understands and is disdainful of trusting fools

but i am saying not many people see the danger of being an untrusting fool

it is dangerous to intelligent perception to be fooled by someone

i am telling you it is equally dangerous to intelligent perception to be fooled by yourself, to believe what your imagination tells you, conspiracy theories, over what just might be true as presented to you

and untrusting fools are actually just as easily manipulated by lies and propaganda. just in a sort of reverse psychology way

Re:Soon to be jailed (2)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330620)

It's pretty disgusting to see such prosecutorial misconduct in the US

Hate to tell you, but stuff like this goes on daily in the US. Yes, daily. Many times per day all over the US. It is not uncommon in the least. Seriously, spend some time on websites which center on police, courts, and protection of constitutional rights. On a daily basis you'll find judges looking the other way, DA's lying and even fabricating evidence, police murdering citizens without prosecution, illegal arrests, so on and so on. Seriously, the ACLU is completely useless. If you're donating to them, you are literally wasting your money. In case you don't know, the US courts have literally legalized bribery of politicians and now even protects the identify of those bribing.

If you're at all shocked to learn Amerika has arrived, honestly, you're not a good citizen. And that's one of the biggest problems which allows these abuses to take place. The simple truth is, no one wants to believe or hear the truth. That's completely why McCain lost the last election. He told the truth and was punished for it. Obama lied and did exactly what McCain said needed to be done. That's the facts. America is almost completely corrupt. Literally the only difference between totalitarian leaders and the US government and courts is in the US, they have legalized means to obscure it from public view. Add to the fact that most US citizens are dumb and even more absolutely do not want to know the truth means they get carte blanch to do almost anything they want.

I sincerely challenge all of you to start investigating. If you think you are disgusted now, you will likely vomit when you finish a half dozen hours of honest research into the state of government, courts, and police in the US. And that's no hyperbole or exaguration.

Re:Soon to be jailed (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330802)

Seriously, the ACLU is completely useless. If you're donating to them, you are literally wasting your money.

That's at least partly because just like we have a war on SOME drugs, the ACLU is only interested in SOME rights. The other part is that not enough people are on board. And I would be, if they were interested in one specific right that I believe must be protected in order to protect the all other rights. I can see why they don't want to be conflated with it, but I disagree with them strongly enough to distrust them as a result.

Re:Soon to be jailed (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330822)

oh I know it does, I don't even want to live in this country anymore. I'm quite embarrassed to be associated with a country that 75-85% of the people not only are completely ignorant of what goes on day to day, but defend to the death ideals that they believe are religiously inspired or generally inspired by a lack of logic. However, we also push all our idiotic shit to every country in the world with saber rattling and international intimidation.

Nothing short of a violent bloody revolution would save this country, and yet I fear that if we had one we would almost certainly be left with a horrible dictatorship and be even worse off than things exist today. So I think this country is basically screwed.

Re:Soon to be jailed (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 3 years ago | (#36331152)

Well you better hop on the next bus or plane and leave before your head blows up. A bloody revolution is just what we need alright just look how wonderful that strategy works for the rest of the world. It's ridiculous easy to charge the barricades and destroy something but building it back up is not easy and chances are what does get built will be no better or even worse than before. Take some time and study the history of the US and tell me where you find a single year in which someone was not declaring loudly that the country was doomed. Take a good look at all the problems the country has dealt with since it's founding. The religious right in the late 1800's and early 1900's make todays religous right look like look godless heathens. They were able to inact prohibition for god's sake! The left side of the political divide loudly and whole heartily supported leaders like Lenin,Stalin, and Mao while ignoring the millions of people who were purged to create a society of their liking. The disparity of wealth in this country is loopsided but it is still more balanced then it was at the beginning of the industrial age. Look up "Robber Barons" and compare them against today's corporations. Take a look at the civil rights struggles in th 60's and see some really aggregious behavior perpetrated by the police, court systems, and both the federal and state elected governments. This entire country is still very much a work in progress and shouting at the sky and throwing your hands up in the air will not help anything. But maybe we can all just rely on your superior intellect to save the day for the 75-85% of the people you proclaim as ignorant.

Re:Soon to be jailed (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36331146)

The way I'm reading this, it's possible that US prosecutors were probably to some degree duped as well. In a perfect world, the Cisco lawyers who instigates this would be disbarred, but it's pretty obvious from even the Canadian Crown Prosecutor that, at the prosecutorial end of things, nothing wrong was done.

Re:Soon to be jailed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330264)

I think it's about time we brought some democracy to Canada.

Re:Soon to be jailed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330544)

Yes, go free them. Operation hello Canada!

Boycott Cisco! (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36329822)

Er, wait, er NO CARRIER

Re:Boycott Cisco! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36329838)

Or switch to Linksys

Re:Boycott Cisco! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36329988)

lol... the Cisco subsidiary?

How about Linux [ibm.com] or Juniper [juniper.net] ?

Re:Boycott Cisco! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330012)

Whoosh

Re:Boycott Cisco! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330122)

Er, wait, er NO CARRIER

That's the basic problem, when companies get too universal to be boycotted they will abuse the hell out of their position and the governments of the world will happily assist them. Cisco could turn evil in a way that makes Microsoft look all soft and cuddly.

War! (2)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 3 years ago | (#36329842)

May the Baldwins help us now!

Re:War! (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36329878)

WAR!
May the Baldwins help us now!

::sigh:: I'll begin drafting the "Treaty of Poutine", we can't be at war with everyone forever...

RCMP - Royal Canadian Monopoly Police (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36329890)

Our top cops are always eager to serve big corp, especially if they're Uncle Sam's big corp.

Re:RCMP - Royal Canadian Monopoly Police (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330252)

"Our top cops are always eager to serve big corp, especially if they're Uncle Sam's big corp."

Not to mention the people who tell the cops what to do.
Those people known much better what it's about than the cops.

Anti-trust suit (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36329896)

What's the suit against Cisco about and its status?

Re:Anti-trust suit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36329934)

According to the article the suit was about Cisco forcing maintainance contracts on customers. Apparently they settled and changed their practices.

Re:Anti-trust suit (4, Informative)

wombatmobile (623057) | more than 3 years ago | (#36329966)

From previous articles:

Cisco Systems orchestrated the arrest of Multiven founder Peter Alfred-Adekeye last year in order to force a settlement of Multiven's antitrust lawsuit against Cisco.

Multiven, sued Cisco in December 2008, accusing the company of monopolizing the business of servicing and maintaining Cisco enterprise equipment. Cisco forced owners of gear such as routers, switches and firewalls to buy its SMARTnet service contracts in order to get regular software updates and bug fixes, Multiven said. By providing updates and bug fixes only to SMARTnet customers and not to third parties, Cisco prevented independent companies from servicing its equipment, Multiven alleged.

The SMARTnet service is a hot-button issue with some customers, who feel that Cisco should provide basic bug fixes and software updates free of charge as Microsoft or Apple do.

Re:Anti-trust suit (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330152)

On that topic, I don't like what I've heard about Cisco's update services, but there are so many other options out there that's it's really hard to feel bad for Cisco's customers. This isn't like smartphones, printers or telcos where you have to choose between a douche and a turd.

I guess the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" attitude is a big part of it.

Re:Anti-trust suit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330758)

Really? What other options are there for routers? Besides Juniper???

Re:Anti-trust suit (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330790)

Well if you have a problem with Juniper, off the top of my head there's HP.

Seriously, though (4, Insightful)

Ritchie70 (860516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36329916)

When will the American populace finally tire of the country being for the corporations, of the corporations, and by the corporations and take it for the people instead?

I think I'm going to go try to find a non crazy group that's working on this. Are there any?

Or should i just join the ACLU and hope for the best?

Re:Seriously, though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36329980)

Russ Feingold started a new organization that is targeted against corporations and the Citizen's United ruling. Quote from the website: 'Progressives United is dedicated to opposing corporate dominance over our elections. We will work every day to ensure Abraham Lincoln’s words that we are "government of the people, by the people, for the people" remain true.'

Here's the link: www.progressivesunited.org

Re:Seriously, though (2)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330014)

Yeah, like they're going to pass legislation to change that, from the people that are all bought and paid for.

Any real change must come without their permission. That means "a big to-do". People are lazy though, so it would take a total crisis to get the ball rolling. That's not going to happen over something like this.

Re:Seriously, though (1)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330100)

Go ahead and create a large group that can counter the power of the corporations. Call it a Conglomeration, or something. Watch it rise to power, supplanting the corporations, unions, churches, etc. Watch it get corrupted, and the country become for the Conglomeration, of the Conglomeration and by the Conglomeration.

Name a large group of people that had power that didn't abuse that power.

Re:Seriously, though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330346)

absolute power corrupts absolutely!

Re:Seriously, though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330954)

I don't think it has happened, but... people whose powers were actually kept in check by others, who themselves were kept in check. Doing this properly would likely be against the wishes of those currently in power, though.

Re:Seriously, though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330158)

The problem with people like you is you eat the crap our Corporate Media feed you and you call every group trying to enact real change for the better 'crazy.' You are part of the problem until you become part of the solution. There are tons of groups that work to restore the Constitution - including the ACLU.

I like this one:
http://www.libertypac.com/

When Republicans are in power, Democrats represent no change. When Democrats are in power, Republicans are only an illusion of change. Once you see that we've been going back and forth between Republicans and Democrats for generations while our civil liberties get eroded and corporations and government take over all aspects of our lives regardless of either party, you realize that the only thing not crazy is doing something different.

Re:Seriously, though (2)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330240)

You are part of the problem until you become part of the solution.

Black or white thinking detected, please take your meds. Ahh no, it's an anonymous coward. Fair enough, carry on.

Re:Seriously, though (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330850)

No, it's called realistic thinking.

Or you can keep thinking that while I work towards controlling the world food supply.

Then you'll simply cease to be anything, much less a problem.

Re:Seriously, though (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330182)

The ACLU isn't remotely crazy. They are focused on the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments rather than the Second or Tenth, to be sure, and they take the absolute position on what "Congress shall make no law" is. That doesn't make them crazy. However, those who would like to get rid of those freedoms frequently portray them as crazy because they're a roadblock to their cause. For anyone who believes they're crazy, please present evidence of it, and I mean that absolutely seriously.

As far as government by, for, and of the corporations, that's been going on for at least 150 years now, and there's no reason to think it would stop anytime soon. If you want some idea of the history, I highly recommend A People's History of the United States [historyisaweapon.com] .

Re:Seriously, though (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330424)

The only problem with the ACLU is that they not only do not focus on the second amendment, they officially do not consider it to be a civil liberty.

It would be fine if they focused only on their specific issues, as there are other organizations dedicated to defending the second, but to deny that infringement on the second amendment is not a violation of civil liberties is wrong.

Re:Seriously, though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330526)

You obviously know little to nothing about the ACLU.

Re:Seriously, though (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330588)

I know plenty and I support all of what it does, except this. You can find the statement right on their own website.

Re:Seriously, though (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330736)

That's because the Second gives arms to the people...if you put this in the perspective of the quote I put in my comment to the parent, it makes a bit more sense.

Re:Seriously, though (3, Informative)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#36331202)

The only problem with the ACLU is that they not only do not focus on the second amendment, they officially do not consider it to be a civil liberty.

It would be fine if they focused only on their specific issues, as there are other organizations dedicated to defending the second, but to deny that infringement on the second amendment is not a violation of civil liberties is wrong.

I don't see it as a huge deal considering the NRA & CCRKBA both dwarf the ACLU in membership.

NRA = 4.3 million members
CCRKBA = 650000 members

ACLU = 500000 members

*using the numbers from each groups website.

Yeah it would be nice if the ACLU was for liberty across the board, but the way I figure it the more groups we have working towards these goals in total, the better off we are.

Re:Seriously, though (3, Informative)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330728)

My "chief aversion" is the system of greed, private profit, privilege, and violence which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment. I am opposed to the new deal [sic] because it strives to strengthen and prolong production for private profit. At bottom I am for conserving the full powers of every person on earth by expanding them to their individual limits. Therefore, I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of the system dog-eat-dog under which we live, and the substitution by the most effective non-violence possible of a system of cooperative ownership and use of all wealth.

- Roger Nash Baldwin, founder of the ACLU.

Do you HONESTLY believe that they're really on about the things you think they are?

Re:Seriously, though (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330224)

When will the American populace finally tire of the country being for the corporations, of the corporations, and by the corporations and take it for the people instead?

Perhaps when overthrowing the corporations wouldn't lead to massive, immediate shortages in food, fuel, and medicine that would kill 20% of us in the first year?

I'm all for ending corporatism, but I think anything but a gradual approach would lead to massive death (see above) or a dictatorship (see Hugo Chavez).

Uhm, you're alread in a dictatorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330428)

Uhm, you're alread in a dictatorship. The only difference is you change the dictator for a new face every 4-12 years. You can get the same effect with much less expense by assasination.

What? You thought there was democracy in the USA??? Really, go look at the Supreme Court saying Ashcroft is immune to prosecution for an obvious pretext that is intended to circumvent the constitution.

Now tell me how your country is any different from a dictatorship.

Re:Uhm, you're alread in a dictatorship (2)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 3 years ago | (#36331190)

You clearly have no concept of what an actual dictatorship is if you believe that.

Yes, the US government falls short of its ideals. That doesn't mean it's a dictatorship. That's pure hyperbole.

Re:Seriously, though (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330234)

I think they should bring in capital punishment for corporate "people" that act this way. If they had a corporate capital punishment act corporations would act in the best interest of their shareholders and not do evil shit that would get them dissolved.

Re:Seriously, though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330244)

There will be no awakening. As most people let me shout this so you get it *DO NOT CARE* .

Even the EFF/ACLU and others do some good. They however are missing the real point of why they even have to exist in the first place. They are too busy trying to fix the symptoms and not the root cause.

The root cause is money. The US gov is swimming in it. At least they were. A 'we vs they' attitude has taken hold of the country and will not let go. 'Whatever the other side says is just wrong'. Instead of 'is this actually good for the country and not just a small subset of people' should be prevalent in the congress. It isnt.

Simple things are being overlooked for the possibility that someone might loose a job. Such as sane copyright terms, campaign finance limits, lobbyist limits, setting aside of party politics and actually doing their jobs. Hell they cant even balance a budget (overspending is ok once and awhile but not continuously for 40 years). Even the small 'balanced' we had a few years ago was a trick of the books.

If you see a vote that is right down party lines I can assure you neither side really cares. They are playing to the audience. They are looking to their party leaders on how to vote. Not on what is really right or wrong. Even if you see a 90% vote be very scared. As it means that the properly lobbyist pressure worked on both groups.

Never mind the lobbyist pandering that is going on which makes it even worse. I have seen on the state level state congressmen not even answering the phones and letting their lobbyist do it for them.

Until money is taken out of the game. Everyone will be out to game the system. The well is dry and they are pumping dirt and calling it water.

I dont think most people realize how stunningly bad it is.

Its funny as it really comes down to instead of "I am an American". People say "I am a republican/democrat".

Do not let your politicians play those games. If they play them they have a good shot at just jamming thru whatever pet project they have kicking around. These are like children who have been given a toy and have started hitting each other with it. Take the toy away.

Re:Seriously, though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330310)

I like the ACLU. They are actively trying, and they are large enough that they can hit smaller issues as well as the larger. EX: I got an email talking about Prom night and how people should know their rights (something about cops doing blanket searches and how that's illegal). But I also got an email when congress attempted to pass a bill that would give the POTUS authority to declare war on anyone at anytime, without the intervention/input of congress. I don't care so much about the former, but I damn well wrote my congress person about the latter.

Re:Seriously, though (1)

Sentrion (964745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36331032)

You seriously underestimate the power of the modern global conglomerate. The US government only controls the land mass between Mexico and Canada, the State of Alaska, and a few isolated military bases and islands. It has some marginal influence with the international community through the Diplomatic Corps, but the international conglomerates have major business operations in every country on the planet. They virtually control all of the economic assets of the entire world. Every nation is dependent on them and these nations continuously adjust their laws at the mere suggestion by a lobbyist to remove the traditional rights and protections of common citizens. In just a few decades these conglomerates have even turned the world's largest communist nation into a fascist factory-state (do I need to name names?).

There is a reason that NATO is bombing Libya and not Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, or other Arab dictatorships suppressing the Arab Spring with tanks and bombs. Look at the history of Gadhafi with the international business community. Then look at the relationship between these other states and the global conglomerates. Certainly Gadhafi is an evil tyrant, but that is not the reason for the European intervention. The present day people of the United States are no more able to free themselves any more than the American slaves could free themselves prior to the Civil War.

Re:Seriously, though (1)

StormReaver (59959) | more than 3 years ago | (#36331068)

When will the American populace finally tire of the country being for the corporations, of the corporations, and by the corporations and take it for the people instead?

That won't be possible until we abolish political parties, especially the two-party bastardization that currently rules our politics. Right now, Democrat and Republican voters only vote to keep the other party's candidates out of office, and each party manages to focus its followers' vitriol on vapid inconsequentials. The party system is the linchpin that holds together our country's political corruption, and that holds voters in a drug-induced, hysterial hatred that prevents them from seeing the evil being perpetrated on their behalf. Distracted by those vapid inconsequentials, voters have allowed corporations to insinuate themselves into the lawmaking process largely unseen by the general populace -- despite operating in plain sight.

Get rid of political parties, and we will have moved one step closer to eliminating the political corruption that corporations have leveraged for their own gain.

Re:Seriously, though (1)

ewieling (90662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36331162)

When food prices get high enough. The populace will put up with a lot of stuff, but not being hungry.

I love my country (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36329918)

but hate my government. "If it were possible, we would have no government. It is only for the protection of our rights that we resort to government at all." - Jefferson. Nowadays it seems the government is more interested in protecting the Non-human Corporations rather than the People.

Perhaps it is time to call a Constitutional Convention and revert to the Articles of Confederation again - a Union of States, rather than an out-of-control central authority that acts as if it has unbounded power.

Re:I love my country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330042)

Not to get too political. Mitt Romney mentioned this as one of his goals in his interview with Sean Hannity last night - to return the power to the states, "true federalism".

Re:I love my country (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330272)

Returning power to the people usually happens just before an emperor is created. Historically I mean. Caveat emptor.

Re:I love my country (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330060)

I, for one, would not like to see such a move. The reason we have an out-of-control central authority is not because of a constitutional deficiency but because the current constitution is neglected. If there were a return to the Articles, they would be as ignored as the constitution is now. And, the Articles did not provide a very solid union of states - there was a reason why they were rejected in the first ten years. See the debacle of the whiskey rebellion, etc.

Re:I love my country (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330082)

Corporations are the center of power now. What makes you think that state governments can withstand pressure from corporations any better than the federal government?

Re:I love my country (1, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330140)

State governments are surrounded by the People they govern. If a state government misbehaves, it only takes a short while to rally your neighbors and drive the 1-2 hours from your home to the capitol & remind the leaders that they can be deposed if they don't obey the citizens.

It is wiser to put most of the governmental power close to home, where the leaders are surrounded by their neighbors, rather than thousands of miles away in the Cone of Silence we call Washington. (Example: Three-quarter of the people opposed the Banker Bailout Bill, but it passed anyway, because congress doesn't care what we think.)

Re:I love my country (3, Informative)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 3 years ago | (#36331004)

Oh please! The abuse of power by local government is as much as, or even more astounding. You just don't see this because most of it is isn't big enough to make the evening news nationwide.

The real solution is to make corporations accountable when they screw the little guys - it's got nothing to do with where government is.

Re:I love my country (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330136)

Perhaps it is time to call a Constitutional Convention and revert to the Articles of Confederation again - a Union of States, rather than an out-of-control central authority that acts as if it has unbounded power.

I want to write novels set in a dystopian future where corporations and drug gangs fight over the scraps of what's left worth having in the USA.

Re:I love my country (1)

Builder (103701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36331060)

Already been done. See Metrophage by Richard Kadrey.

Re:I love my country (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330542)

If national politics is a cesspool of corruption, graft and corporate kowtowing (and it is), then the states themselves are the water filling that cesspool. What do you think the weaker state governments will do? Corporations play hardball with states all the time. They ask for special laws, exceptions and tax breaks on the threat of crippling state economy by moving elsewhere. There is quite a bit of evidence that the recent "financial emergency powers" law in Michigan was written and pushed by a single corporation in order to bypass the local governments suit against a multi billion dollar development deal.

misquote in the summary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36329960)

From the summary:
" The Canadian judge said that almost nothing in the US Attorney's letter was true"

According to the article, it was Adekeye's lawyer that said this, not the Canadian Judge:
“Almost nothing in the U.S. attorney’s letter was true,” Adekeye’s lawyer Marilyn Sandford said Thursday.

Re:misquote in the summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330126)

Not really a quote you know, No little quotation marks around it. "Justice McKinnon said little of what the Americans told Ottawa was true." Feel free to quibble as to whether or not 'almost nothing' is the same as 'little', but then that wasn't a quote either so it doesn't use the judge's exact words. Perhaps they were 'almost nothing' too.

Re:misquote in the summary (1)

grizdog (1224414) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330260)

You're right, but shortly after that it says this:

"Justice McKinnon said little of what the Americans told Ottawa was true "

Either way, the judge didn't have a very constructive view of US Attorney. It would be nice to see some follow-up, on the US Attorney's "no comment", but I doubt we will.

how much was actually done by the US gov't? (3, Interesting)

yincrash (854885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36329970)

In the article, it's extremely hard to parse whether the US attorney in question is Cisco's US based attorney or a US gov't attorney. Who am I supposed to be mad at?

Re:how much was actually done by the US gov't? (3, Insightful)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330008)

I would imagine that an extradition request for a criminal complaint would have to come from the US Justice Department, perhaps even routed through the State Department. Random individuals can't ask governments to arrest people and ship them overseas. Random individuals can file suit in the other country and then that country can take steps as needed to keep the person there if warranted. In many countries however this would be inconvenient to a multinational - since they would be subject to loser-pays, security of costs, and all kinds of other things that they don't have to deal with in the US. And, of course, they have to convince the other country that they have jurisdiction.

Re:how much was actually done by the US gov't? (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330090)

Seeing as how "US Attorney" is an actual title for Federal prosecutors, I think that narrows a bit whom you should be most peeved at.

Re:how much was actually done by the US gov't? (4, Informative)

Effexor (544430) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330330)

Let me help you.

'U.S. prosecutors acted outrageously'...
'The U.S. claimed'...
'U.S. prosecutors falsely portrayed'...
'left the U.S. in 2008 and was denied re-entry when he attempted to return to participate in the litigation'

So yes, I guess they really were Cisco's attorneys.

Happening yet again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36329976)

This reminds me of Adobe, Dmitry Sklyaro, and ElcomSoft, where a commercial company uses the force of the U.S. Government & Justice system to go after someone who blows the whistle on them, exposes a flaw in their product, or makes them look bad. How many times will this need to happen, before the system is changed?

Re:Happening yet again (1)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330006)

You imply that the system will ever be changed.

Re:Happening yet again (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330476)

You imply that the system will ever be changed.: "We know what you did in Canada" is a bit like "Dmitry" or "rootkit" or "Room 641A" or "Costas Tsalikidis" or "Adamo Bove", Mr "national security issue" ect. people will recall for years and years.

I have been saying for a long time, (2)

Grand Facade (35180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330024)

That once we granted corporations "individuals rights" everything went straight to hell in a handbasket.

Re:I have been saying for a long time, (1)

Ice Tiger (10883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330048)

If only they had the same rights as an individual and not more! ;)

Re:I have been saying for a long time, (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330160)

If only they had the same rights as an individual and not more! ;)

They've merely been endowed by their creators with inalienable rights.

not on msnbc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330028)

or any other american news outlet. Imagine that..

Take five minutes (3, Interesting)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330044)

It'll only take you five minutes. Get the email address for the other big ISP you don't use. (In Chicago, for example, if you use Comcast, email AT&T, if you use AT&T, email Comcast.) Tell them the reason you don't use them is that they use Cisco gear and that you don't support the supporters of corporate malfeasance. Tell them to email you when they've eliminated Cisco gear from their network.

You can protest to Cisco to change their ways all you like, and they won't give a crap. But if AT&T tells them to clean up their act, or QWEST, or Comcast or COX, etc, they'll listen.

Oh no... (3, Insightful)

vvaduva (859950) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330072)

..a multinational corporation lied and the US government lied to protect it! What a huge surprise!

Re:Oh no... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330186)

..a multinational corporation lied and the US government lied to protect it! What a huge surprise!

I was kinda surprised that there weren't any cruise missiles involved.

Re:Oh no... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36330354)

That's because the US can't really accuse Canada of hoarding weapons of mass destruction.

Different expectations of Govt (3, Interesting)

redelm (54142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330104)

No surprise at the ruling -- why _wouldn't_ Cisco have a US govt Attorney in its' pocket? Why would a Fed respect the some foreign court any more than a US State court?

Having lived for multiple adult decades on both sides of the Canada-US border, I can say they might look alike and speak close to the same language, but the two nations are really very different:

The US is run by elected officals who are basically empowered uniquely by their election and feel they can do whatever they want, with highly variable respect for the US Constitution (some think it should be pushed, a few are very strict).

Canada is an elected dictatorship, basically devoid of checks and balances, with legislatures totally dependant on the executive, and highly subordinate courts. But they don't run the country, the civil service does and they are loyal to The Crown, not
elected office-holders. There, something to offend everyone.

Of course there's lots of cross-over -- mostly by Canada picking up US institutions, like the Charter of Rights & Freedoms, and a Supreme Court that sometimes enforces it, "notwithstanding". The US Civil Service has also grown tremendously, and it rather tired of all the switching political appointees, so becomes more rule-bound and apolitical, where the armed services have led.

Re:Different expectations of Govt (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330724)

I can't comment on the accuracy of your statements about the US, but you've really lived in Canada? Are you sure? Did you actually study anything about our government or are you just making things up? Maybe you watched, read or listened to a particularly irritated political pundit?

Re:Different expectations of Govt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36331240)

The Canadian Government is certainly not a dictatorship. It's electoral system and system of government may reside further down the continuum from direct democracy that you may prefer (only a guess here), but that a dictatorship does not make. There are fair, free and regular elections, an entrenched system of rights and freedoms and a judicial system empowered to ensure the laws are kept and reflect those rights and freedoms.

I saw this one a mile away (3, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330108)

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2094166&cid=35892994 [slashdot.org]
Did Cisco "fabricate evidence"? In other words, did they make claims that were later repeated by the US government's law enforcement people?

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2094166&cid=35893892 [slashdot.org]
And at the time of the article, the evidence hadn't even been presented to Canadian officials.

And now, when claims were finally presented, they turned out to not have any merit. I am not surprised that they could not produce the evidence they claimed to have had. This is more of the same "government interference at the request of business" that we have been seeing a LOT of lately. Most of the time it has been the oil, GM foods, pharmaceutical and entertainment industries that pushed government into interfering with governments and affairs of other nations. Now it's Cisco... next, I suspect, it will be Microsoft. (After all, the EU is not quite done with Microsoft's legal cases...)

Canada now had additional reason not to trust in and support the US government or the US companies that influence Canadian law. I hope Canada and other countries wake up to this and stop bowing to US demands the way they have.

Re:I saw this one a mile away (2)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330296)

As a proud Canadian, I'd like to point out that we don't bow to American interests very often.

We're allies and good business partners, but we fight a lot over issues from softwood lumber to water usage to arctic ownership. On a diplomatic level, the US and Canada try to get along because its good for both our countries' interests, but on a nit-picking level, we certainly do not agree on everything.

Re:I saw this one a mile away (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330488)

And yet you're taking it up the pooper at the behest of the US entertainment industry... which happens to have offices in Canada...

Re:I saw this one a mile away (2)

Effexor (544430) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330554)

As slightly less proud Canadian I'd like to point out -

"Canadian Justice Department lawyer Diba Majzub argued that it didn’t matter U.S. prosecutors falsely portrayed Adekeye as a Nigerian scofflaw who was a flight risk. He filed three thick volumes of legal precedent and emphasized that only five times since the current Extradition Act was enacted in 1999 has a judge sought to stay proceedings because of abuse of process. A stay required extraordinary misconduct, he said."

So it seems our governments do in fact agree that what's good for Cisco is good for the nation(s).

Re:I saw this one a mile away (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36331184)

I'm afraid Mike, that you haven't kept up on your reading.

Take a look at the Wikileaks articles that Micheal Geist has posted. Here is just one:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5765/125/

This is clearly bowing to US interests.

How much jail time will the US attorney's do? (2)

fredrated (639554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330220)

How about 'none at all' because rule of law now only apply's to those that have no pull or can't afford to buy their way out.

Re:How much jail time will the US attorney's do? (2)

Maximum Prophet (716608) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330282)

I'm sure they'll never be allowed to practice law in Canada. (or Zimbabwe, or certain parts of Lichtenstein)

Defendant is the winner (1, Insightful)

toby (759) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330290)

He gets to live in beautiful, functional Switzerland instead of the shithole that is the USA today. :) Justice DONE.

Not the first time we've lied to Canada (2)

Quila (201335) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330368)

Remember the Leonard Peltier extradition?

Re:Not the first time we've lied to Canada (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36331244)

Or Mark Emery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Emery [wikipedia.org]

Who they did extradite and is serving time in a federal pound me in the ass prison.

Jefferson once said. (2)

gubers33 (1302099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36330770)

The government is becoming big business's puppet. If there is a law exists that pervents big business CEO from making bank, the law is changed or removed for them. *cough* Financial controls in the stock market *cough* Reminds me of Jefferson's quote before the Revolutionary War... "And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...