Beta
×

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!

Gov't Puts Witness On No Fly List, Then Denies Having Done So

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the you-can-trust-us dept.

Government 462

cathyreisenwitz sends word of a San Francisco trial in which the U.S. government appears to be manipulating the no-fly list to its advantage. The court case involves a Stanford Ph.D. student who was barred from returning to the U.S. after visiting her native Malaysia. She's one of roughly 700,000 people on the no-fly list. Here's the sketchy part: the woman's eldest daughter, who was born in the U.S. and is a U.S. citizen, was called as a witness for the trial. Unfortunately, she mysteriously found herself on the no-fly list as well, and wasn't able to board a plane to come to the trial. Lawyers for the Department of Justice told the court that she simply missed her plane, but she was able to provide documents from the airline explaining that the Department of Homeland Security was not allowing her to fly.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Southwest.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601479)

You are no longer free to move about the country.

Re:Southwest.. (5, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about a year ago | (#45601723)

Of course you're free to move, citizen. You just need to present the proper papers, which you're not eligible for.

Re:Southwest.. (4, Interesting)

psergiu (67614) | about a year ago | (#45601771)

Papers, Please [papersplea.se] .

Re:Southwest.. (4, Insightful)

alexgieg (948359) | about a year ago | (#45601963)

I've once read an article by a guy who managed to escape a dictatorship. He said that no country truly appreciates freedom until it's gone through a few decades of fascism and/or of a dictatorship of the proletariat. It seems it's time for the USA to have such an "enlightening" experience. The good side: afterwards things will improve. The bad thing: a restoration usually happens only two or more generations down the line.

Well, at least your grandchildren will see it.

Let's see what the judge says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601499)

The defense should have a field day with this. If the past is any indicator, the judge is going to tell the DOJ to EABOD.

Re:Let's see what the judge says... (1)

scuzzlebutt (517123) | about a year ago | (#45601893)

Thank you, Louis CK.

Re:Let's see what the judge says... (2)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#45602041)

should but won't. mabey in another decade.

The only diffrence between now, and the 1970s, is that we don't even have a single shred of pretense of freedom left. No one is even going to bother with a new church commission.

Or we might have to wait for a powerful CIA/FBI figure like hover to expire, before they get lax enough to stop threatening senators to keep it quiet, because that is how Hoover stayed in power so long.

Re:Let's see what the judge says... (5, Informative)

wizkid (13692) | about a year ago | (#45602083)

Alsop is the Judge. One of the few good ones left. He'll probably Fillet the DOJ and serve them up for lunch. Unfortunately, the DOJ will appeal when they don't get their way.

Just drive there (4, Funny)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#45601527)

Flying is a privilege, not a right. She can just drive to court.

It's not like we don't have interstate highways in every state in the union [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601537)

Not sure if stupid user or clever troll.

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601615)

Not sure if stupid user or clever troll.

Why not both?

Re:Just drive there (5, Insightful)

Lucky_Pierre (175635) | about a year ago | (#45601543)

If the jackboot fits, wear it.

Re:Just drive there (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601571)

From Malaysia?

Did I just get whooshed, or are you really that dumb?

Re:Just drive there (1)

wizkid (13692) | about a year ago | (#45602167)

Sorry, but You still need to kayak across the Pacific. If you don't believe me, trace the route on google maps. Google never lies.

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601575)

Is it really an interstate in Hawaii?

Re:Just drive there (2)

qbzzt (11136) | about a year ago | (#45601695)

Yes. "Interstate" means the federal government pays for building and maintaining it. The name is a relic from the time people believed the constitution's commerce clause only applies to interstate commerce.

Re:Just drive there (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year ago | (#45601937)

But the feds don't want to pay for bridges on the I5.

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45602069)

The name is a relic from the time people believed the constitution's commerce clause

Funny, the project was justified constitutionally as a road for the post office to use. What with roads being explicitly a federal government power.

Re:Just drive there (0)

mythosaz (572040) | about a year ago | (#45601757)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_H-1 [wikipedia.org]

Thanks. I'll be Googlin' all week. Tip your server. Stay for the late show, I work blue.

Re:Just drive there (1)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about a year ago | (#45602073)

You googled the link that was supplied in the parent of the article you replied to?

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601581)

Kind of hard to cross that big old ocean 'tween the U.S. and Malaysia...

IN A CAR!!!

Re:Just drive there (1)

isorox (205688) | about a year ago | (#45601879)

Kind of hard to cross that big old ocean 'tween the U.S. and Malaysia...

IN A CAR!!!

You just have to get a kayak

Re:Just drive there (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#45602067)

Wait for the Bearing Strait to freeze up, and you can make it. It just takes a few weeks (or longer) to make the drice from Malaysia.

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601585)

Yes. Malaysia is a state.

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601597)

...but what did she do to have her priviledge revoked?

Re:Just drive there (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601869)

Dr. Ibrahim was familiar with Jamaah Islamiyah Malaysia. She said she had heard of it only from reading online newspapers, but that from what she had read, it was an un-Muslim terrorist organization. Later in her deposition, Dr. Ibrahim noted that since returning to Malaysia in 2005, she has become active in Jamaah Islah Malaysia, a non-profit professional networking group for Muslims who have returned to Malaysia after post-secondary schooling in the U.S. and Europe. The two groups have names that could easily be confused by non-Malays, and are sometimes referred to by the same acronym, âoeJIMâ. But both are well-known and readily distinguishable to Malaysians. And the FBI agents who visited her in 2004 didnâ(TM)t ask about âoeJamaah Isla Malaysiaâ, the entirely innocent organization with which Dr. Ibrahim is now involved. This potential confusion is the only hint in the public record to date about any possible explanation, legitimate or not, for FBI âoeSpecial Agentâ Kellyâ(TM)s nomination of Dr. Ibrahim for inclusion on the âoeno-flyâ list.

Tuttle, Buttle, what's the difference? The Department of Records doesn't make mistakes!

(Dear NSA: I was going to self-censor, because I know that mentioning terrist organizations reflects poorly on my loyalty score. Let the record show that I'm making a reference to a movie called Brazil, in which... well, let's just say the next time someone streams it over Netflix, you should watch along with them. You'll find a lot that's familiar.)

Re:Just drive there (-1, Flamebait)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#45601959)

Fuck you!

I sure as hell don't to find my best friend wearing a baby mask and working my brain over.

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601599)

Nice to know that Malaysia is a state in the union. Someone should inform them.

Re:Just drive there (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601601)

Driving is a privilege, not a right. You can see where this leads...

Re:Just drive there (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601677)

She should have just WALKED to court.. duh!

Re:Just drive there (1)

alexgieg (948359) | about a year ago | (#45602001)

Walking is a privilege, not a right.

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45602289)

In Ohio, at least, intrastate movement is a constitutional right. All and all, a good thing, but it's caused a bit of wacky case law here and there. (I remember reading one about 'moving bubbles of contact' and balancing a person's right to free movement with a restraining order.)

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45602079)

Not all people have legs. Check your privilege.

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601605)

how exactly are you supposed to drive from Malaysia?

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601623)

Yes, just drive to the court from Malasia.

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601943)

I would be happy to gift this person a telepresence robot to go to court with (or at least, to let her borrow one). I am sure that many people who sell telepresence rigs would feel the same way.

Also, the above applies for a ticket to Canada/Mexico and a ride.

Re:Just drive there (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601629)

Freedom of movement is an important right we have. It's been infringed upon heavily in recent years.
 
  What's next? Free speech zones?... oh.

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601631)

Driving isn't a right either, that's why you need a license.

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601643)

And driving is a privilege, requiring a license by the government.

She can just walk. I hear Hawaii to Washington, DC is a good way to get some brisk exercise.

And if you happen to live in the capital of Alaska... Well. Juneau is not directly accessible by road.

Re:Just drive there (5, Insightful)

Huntr (951770) | about a year ago | (#45601683)

I'll tell you what's a right: due process. The govt appears to be denying that to a witness in a trial for their own benefit. Let that sink in a sec and decide if the issue here is whether or not she can drive to court.

Re:Just drive there (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45602129)

It's okay, it's already sunk deep enough, there's no chance you'll be hit by that fast moving object high above.

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601685)

Driving, ALSO a privilege, moron!

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601687)

Flying is in many ways cheaper and easier. If you are on a no fly list, it's not like they just shake your hand and let you go on your way. They likely detained her. Then she was likely not able to make the trial due to distance and time. Hence the flight. I don't know anyone who flies when driving is convenient. Also, maybe she doesn't have a reliable car to drive there. So many rebuttals. The point is that she wasn't aware she was on the no fly list and the govt lawyers lied about it.

Re:Just drive there (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601737)

Awwww... you didn't RTFA where it says she's in Malaysia. You're stupid... cute.... but stupid.

Re:Just drive there (1)

Notabadguy (961343) | about a year ago | (#45601765)

Yes; she can hop on her submersible car and drive from MALAYSIA to SAN FRANCISCO.

Guys... chill! (4, Funny)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#45601767)

Flying is a privilege, not a right. She can just drive to court.

It's not like we don't have interstate highways in every state in the union [wikipedia.org] .

For those who hadn't noticed, I'm referring to an INTERstate road on an island, while also parodying a government legal rationalization and general ignorance of geography and logic by the US.

For those who still can't figure it out... yes, it's humor.

For those who did figure it out... check out all the people here who couldn't figure this out!

Re:Guys... chill! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601849)

Malaysia's not part of the U.S.

Re:Guys... chill! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601935)

We know they're among us. Or is it that we're among them? I'm still not clear on that point.

Re:Just drive there (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601795)

Flying is a privilege, not a right. She can just drive to court.

It's not like we don't have interstate highways in every state in the union [wikipedia.org] .

I wasn't aware Malaysia was in the "union"

It's always helpful to read the pieces before commenting.

Re:Just drive there (1)

drainbramage (588291) | about a year ago | (#45601847)

You can keep your flight plan, you can keep your insurance, you can leave your hat on.
Trust us.

Re:Just drive there (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#45602019)

Right, it's like we have Joe Isuzu running the gov now, "Would I lie?".

Re:Just drive there (1)

Mistakill (965922) | about a year ago | (#45601853)

Flying is a privilege, not a right. She can just drive to court.

It's not like we don't have interstate highways in every state in the union [wikipedia.org] .

Maybe should could have driven there, or taken a bus/train, except she wasn't informed until she was trying to board the plane... lets say you had a court date in NY and were in Cali... you get told at the ticket counter you cant fly... think you will make it via driving/bus/train? And they lied about it, in court...

Re:Just drive there (1)

james_shoemaker (12459) | about a year ago | (#45601881)

hard to drive to SFO from Malaysia.

Fuck you asshole! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601949)

Flying is a privilege, not a right.

Fuck you and die asshole!

Fuck you.

just ... fuck you.

Re:Just drive there (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601983)

... is a privilege, not a right.

What laws decide which elite few have this 'privilege'? What laws decide when this 'privilege' is revoked?

But most of all: Who decided that paying money to sit in an aluminum can with 10 tonnes of fuel was a privilege?

... She can just drive to court

Now, operating a motor vehicle definitely is a privilege. Why is she allowed one transportation privilege but not the other?

Re:Just drive there (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#45602029)

Where's Alaska's?

Re:Just drive there (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year ago | (#45602233)

Interstate Highways A1, A2, A3 and A4. Although they aren't named as such by their signage.

Hawaii has three. And so does Puerto Rico, even though it's not even a state.

Re:Just drive there (2)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | about a year ago | (#45602113)

Yes, I got the parody, but the horrible thing is that I've seen the same sentiment for real. A major newspaper editorialized that people who didn't want to go through the TSA porn scanners could just take the bus or the train. The notion that there are places unreachable by bus or train completely escaped them.

Re:Just drive there (3, Interesting)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about a year ago | (#45602131)

I really have to congratulate you. Reading the long string of replies from idiots who didn't follow the link and/or get the joke is hilarious.

Re:Just drive there (2, Insightful)

mi (197448) | about a year ago | (#45602173)

It is even worse than that. Not just flying and driving are considered a privilege, even the things explicitly enumerated in the Constitution as rights are being treated as privileges. Gun-ownership is the most obvious example — even in the "gun-friendly" locales (like Texas), keeping and bearing requires a license. And even if the Executive branch "shall issue" such licenses, it can also withdraw (or not renew) them — without bothering with the Judiciary.

Heck, even "performing in costume" requires a license in New York City [nymag.com] ...

IAL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601531)

Clear substantive and procedural due process violations at work here. Hope she has the ACLU on speed dial!

I'm readying popcorn (5, Informative)

MiKom (866143) | about a year ago | (#45601553)

Judge presiding over this case - William Alsup. The one who threw away Oracle Java APIs lawsuit agains Google.

No popcorn yet (5, Informative)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#45601635)

Don't get out your popcorn just yet. From the article:

But Judge Alsup noted that the document with the DHS instructions to the airline was not supported by any sworn testimony or evidence of its authenticity. “You have to have a sworn record before I can do something dramatic.” Judge Alsup said he would consider the document if and when Ms. Mustafa Kamal arrives in San Francisco and can testify as to its authenticity.

Ms. Pipkin said that Ms. Mustafa Kamal was reluctant to spend the money on another airline ticket to San Francisco without some assurance that this time she would be allowed to board her flight.

“Get her on an airplane and get her here,” Judge Alsup responded. “She’s a U.S. citizen. She doesn’t need a visa. I’m not going to believe that she can’t get on a plane until she tries again. ” And Mr Freeborne, with disingenuous faux-solicitude, claimed that the government is “willing to do whatever we can to facilitate” Ms. Mustafa Kamal’s ability to board a flight to the U.S.

Re:No popcorn yet (2)

jandrese (485) | about a year ago | (#45601785)

“Get her on an airplane and get her here,” Judge Alsup responded. “She’s a U.S. citizen. She doesn’t need a visa. I’m not going to believe that she can’t get on a plane until she tries again. ”

Um, isn't this kind of the point of a No-Fly list? It doesn't matter if you are a US Citizen, if you're on the list you don't get to fly. The alternatives are either finding a boat or chartering a private flight I think. I suspect that she will be able to board the plane if she tries again however, I can't imagine the government attorneys are going to let that much egg hit them right in the face.

Re:No popcorn yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601889)

That's just it. The government is arguing that she ISN'T on the no-fly list and just isn't showing up. If she can actually prove that she IS on the list then they're fucking toast.

Re:No popcorn yet (5, Insightful)

chris_mahan (256577) | about a year ago | (#45602013)

How can she prove she is on the list when the airlines are instructed not to let the passenger know the reason why the passenger is denied boarding...

Re:No popcorn yet (5, Informative)

jfengel (409917) | about a year ago | (#45602033)

He's saying that he doesn't believe the contention that she is on the no-fly list. The government denies that she's on a no-fly list. The document that claims she was comes from an airline, not from the DHS itself, so it's possible that the reason she was denied boarding comes from further down the line.

She's reluctant to try again, since the flight isn't cheap (and they didn't refund her money). The airline is blaming DHS, and that's the part I'm not sure how they'd go about proving. They'd need to prove that the order they claim came from the DHS actually came from the DHS. I don't know what channel the message was delivered to them, so I don't know how they'd authenticate it, and the fact that DHS usually operates in secrecy makes it that much harder.

If I read it correctly, she doesn't have to try again, she simply needs to get Malaysia Airlines to cough up their source for the document they provided. I've got no idea how easy that would be.

Re:No popcorn yet (2)

chris_mahan (256577) | about a year ago | (#45601793)

Did the airline refund her the price of the ticket and all associated transportation costs (hotel, etc?) No? Nice. If she paid for the ticket, and she's on a no-fly list, who reimburses her for the services not rendered?

Re:No popcorn yet (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year ago | (#45602015)

Why should the airline? It's not their fault that they weren't able to provide the service.

Re:No popcorn yet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601931)

Or she could fly to Canada and take a bus...

Re:No popcorn yet (5, Interesting)

StinkiePhish (891084) | about a year ago | (#45602119)

He has to do this in order to allow the document into evidence. Once it is authenticated and otherwise admissible, he can rely on it for any decision he will make. If he decided to go rogue and not follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, then the government could easily prevail on any appeal. In other words, the judge isn't being difficult to be difficult; he is doing it because he does not want to be overturned.

Ah yes... (0, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#45601579)

Evidence provided by a blog. The most reliable kind.

I suspect this could be true, but a random blog post really is not "evidence".

Re:Ah yes... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601885)

The blog was not evidence the DHS document provided by the Malaysian airline was. And it still wasn't fully accepted without her sworn testimony (that SHE COULD NOT GIVE AS SHE COULD NOT FLY TO APPEAR IN COURT.)

This is the US government basically refusing entry to a US citizen. Sorry but there is no law that allows the US government to refuse a citizen's entry. They do have a right to freely travel within our borders.

Re:Ah yes... (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#45601965)

Please provide a reference to your screed.

There is *NO* other evidence that this event took place *except* the blog post.

I can write a blog TODAY that says anything I want/

Re:Ah yes... (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#45601987)

If you believed in your words, you would not have posted them as Anonymous Coward.

Re:Ah yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45602165)

1 + 1 = 2

Re:Ah yes... (4, Informative)

Sique (173459) | about a year ago | (#45601953)

You could dig through the links and actually find the evidence [recapthelaw.org] .

Re:Ah yes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601989)

You have a point in that anybody can write a blog and write whatever they want.

But on the flipside when mainstream journalism's budgets are slashed year after year and their reporting is more gossip based focusing on catching people in verbal gaffes, where are we going to get this information if not from a random blog?

Re:Ah yes... (5, Insightful)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year ago | (#45602263)

Without blogs this kind of event will be completely ignored. It's not like we have a functioning independent press any more, so blogs pick up some of the slack. Although this is an important instance of how the legal system has been rendered non-functional, it's not the kind of stupid mindless drama that passes as "news". The lack of attention is one of the mechanisms that is used to erode basic rights and let the government get away with this crap.

I'm SHOCKED! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601591)

//queue scene from Casablanca
I'm SHOCKED! There's gambling going on here!
//end scene

Seems the left hand does, or does not know, what the right hand is doing in this case.

Anyone else getting really tired of the US Gov. in general? Wah wah at least it didn't happen to me... right?

In all seriousness, I'd like to do something about it, more than write my congressman and senator. But what's left? It's not apathy I'm feeling anymore. It's disgust and resentment.

Oh. I know. WAIT, WAIT!!! Isolated incident.... /sorry, venting... just had a job interview

Re:I'm SHOCKED! (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#45602097)

Yeah I feel that way.

three times is enemy action (5, Insightful)

Thud457 (234763) | about a year ago | (#45601595)

Too much of this BS going on these days to be merely negligence , ignorance and incompetence.
Yeah, the NSA would never abuse all that personal data it's hovering up.

Re:three times is enemy action (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#45601871)

Coming to the US is a privilege, not a right. As well, a "blog" post, when there is no other substantiation, is not a reliable source.

It is not surprising that the current set of /. bloggists, who live at Dad's house or at the least soak of dad's American Express, hype up unsubstantiated shit like this.

Re:three times is enemy action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601985)

Coming to the US is a privilege, not a right.

For a U.S. citizen? Besides, it says she wasn't allowed to fly, not that she wasn't allowed to enter the country.

Re:three times is enemy action (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601997)

So even for US citizens, born in the US traveling to their native country is not a right? Or is that only for non-WASP citizens? WTF?

Re:three times is enemy action (3, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about a year ago | (#45602075)

Coming to the U.S. is a right for an U.S. citizen. And being able to appear in court where you are called as a witness is your duty.

Re:three times is enemy action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45602163)

Show me in the constitution where a citizen is allowed entry into the country.
Traveling outside the country is a privilege, not a right.

Re:three times is enemy action (1)

orgelspieler (865795) | about a year ago | (#45602117)

WTF? Since when does a US citizen not have a right to come back to the US?!

Re:three times is enemy action (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45602159)

And you believe everything you read in the Intertubes...

It's a fucking BLOG POST.

Re:three times is enemy action (2)

korbulon (2792438) | about a year ago | (#45602181)

Well with each passing year it's become less and less of a privilege. Unfortunately, this would hardly be a precedent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List#False_positives_and_other_controversial_cases [wikipedia.org]

And why don't you think a little before you start ranting? Think a bit, then rant.

Re:three times is enemy action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45601991)

Too much of this BS going on these days to be merely negligence , ignorance and incompetence.
Yeah, the NSA would never abuse all that personal data it's hovering up.

So go do something about it.

*sigh* No, I mean something OTHER than cry on an internet forum. That's not going to work against an adversary that legitimately and without joy or emotion reads "crying" as "victory against evil, carry on". No, they're not sitting in a darkened room adorned with Evil Runes(tm) cackling gleefully over every tear you shed and every voice on the internet screaming "that's not faaaaaaaair!". They're sitting with cold, calculated formulas telling them that tears do not threaten their operations (as evidenced by decades of case studies), nor does whining, and they therefore conclude that there is no reason to change course. No joy, no thrill, no sadistic glee, just raw, impersonal numbers and logic.

So, like I said: Go do something about it. If it matters that much to you, stop being a number and start being a person.

Rule of Law (3, Insightful)

Phoenix666 (184391) | about a year ago | (#45601839)

We have all learned to our chagrin that this is what has become of the rule of law in our day and age. There is no law, there are no rules. The Constitution no longer applies. There is only rule by fiat. That's a very shaky basis for a society. It will not end well for those promulgating this state of affairs. There are hundreds of millions more of us than there are of them, and we are heavily armed and educated. Everything we need to track down and hang the 1%.

Chew and digest.

Re:Rule of Law (1)

fru1tcake (1152595) | about a year ago | (#45601929)

The revolution will not be...pretty.

Re:Rule of Law (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about a year ago | (#45602133)

I'm getting very hungry and I'm ready to start chewing.

Moral of story: Big government too powerful (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#45601917)

As if we needed yet another reminder, this shows us in all sorts of ways how bad big government really is. Either they abused the list to keep a witness out, or they really COULDN'T tell she was on the list which means the list is an utter unmanageable clusterfuck.

Either way this is the result when government is allowed to grow too large and too powerful, abuse and mismanagement grow exponentially. Remember this come any election, always vote for the guy that wants to give you less, not more.

No one watches the watchers (3, Interesting)

korbulon (2792438) | about a year ago | (#45601981)

What are laws but the playthings of the rich and powerful to be used and discarded at will? They're like a blanket in a blizzard: designed to keep you warm, but when the storm strikes, utterly useless.

Just wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45602055)

until a "reactionary" Replublican Administration gets the White House.

The things they will do will make Obama look like the practice squad.

2 years ago ... (4, Insightful)

micahraleigh (2600457) | about a year ago | (#45602109)

... I would have called this a fringe conspiracy theory.

Now I call it the new normal.

William Alsup for Supreme Court! (2)

reve_etrange (2377702) | about a year ago | (#45602277)

He's easily one of the (if not THE) best sitting judge in the country.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?