Canada aims to block Chelsea Manning from entering country(theglobeandmail.com)
theglobeandmail.com
Canada aims to block Chelsea Manning from entering country
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canada-aims-to-block-chelsea-manning-from-entering-country/
169 comments
Sometimes I think Canada is more interested in portraying itself as a progressive beacon to the world than actually being one.
Its attitude to seals is not very progressive: https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/about-canadian-seal-...
Or the environment: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/alber...
Its attitude to seals is not very progressive: https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/about-canadian-seal-...
Or the environment: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/alber...
Regarding seals, you are stepping into a debate which includes aboriginal rights. There is nothing clear cut about that one.
Now that you bring it up, the residential schools were pretty progressive too: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/world/canada/indigenous-c...
Last one closed in 1996.
Last one closed in 1996.
These two examples are effectively cherry-picking two data points to make an extremely BROAD argument that "Canada is not Progressive".
Canada provided (and still provides) shelter for nazi war criminals (e.g. Helmut Oberlander).
They also paid 8 million dollars and apologized to a known terrorist who brutally murdered an American soldier in Afghanistan. [0]
I wish I was making this up.
[0] https://www.foxnews.com/world/omar-khadr-ex-gitmo-detainee-w...
I wish I was making this up.
[0] https://www.foxnews.com/world/omar-khadr-ex-gitmo-detainee-w...
This bullshit again... He was illegally detained without due process, tortured and confessed to killing an enemy soldier (murder implies civilian circumstances, it was a fight with US soldiers where he was injured and fought back). He recants his confession, and even if it's true, not getting tortured is a human right. (Not getting your country invaded also, but that's a whole different matter). And he was 15 at the time. A kid getting tortured for fighting in a war that was brought to him ( he was taken to Afghanistan by his father, and the US army came to fight them)? What the fuck are you on to consider that appropriate?
I'm glad he sued and won compensation.
I'm glad he sued and won compensation.
> murder implies civilian circumstances
We can play on words, that won't bring back his victims.
> Not getting your country invaded also, but that's a whole different matter
He was rather quick to claim Canada was "his" country despite having brutally murdered an allied soldier. Also, he was fighting "his" country pretty hard until it became convenient not to.
We can play on words, that won't bring back his victims.
> Not getting your country invaded also, but that's a whole different matter
He was rather quick to claim Canada was "his" country despite having brutally murdered an allied soldier. Also, he was fighting "his" country pretty hard until it became convenient not to.
> We can play on words, that won't bring back his victims
I really disagree with calling a soldier on a mission, an agressive overseas mission, getting killed in action "a victim". A casualty, yes. If anyone's a victim, it's the innocent civilians getting blown up by both sides in a conflict they didn't ask for, not the combattants on either side.
> He was rather quick to claim Canada was "his" country despite having brutally murdered an allied soldier. Also, he was fighting "his" country pretty hard until it became convenient not to.
He says he did so to be extradited there so that he actually has some human rights and dignity restored, because, remember, he was tortured for actions he did when he was 15. He's still technically a war criminal if he did indeed kill the US soldier (not being a regular soldier in uniform), but the US had no jurisdiction over him, illegally detained and tortured him for an alleged crime he committed while being a minor.
Anyone involved with this on the US side should rot for life in The Hague ( of course that would never happen).
I really disagree with calling a soldier on a mission, an agressive overseas mission, getting killed in action "a victim". A casualty, yes. If anyone's a victim, it's the innocent civilians getting blown up by both sides in a conflict they didn't ask for, not the combattants on either side.
> He was rather quick to claim Canada was "his" country despite having brutally murdered an allied soldier. Also, he was fighting "his" country pretty hard until it became convenient not to.
He says he did so to be extradited there so that he actually has some human rights and dignity restored, because, remember, he was tortured for actions he did when he was 15. He's still technically a war criminal if he did indeed kill the US soldier (not being a regular soldier in uniform), but the US had no jurisdiction over him, illegally detained and tortured him for an alleged crime he committed while being a minor.
Anyone involved with this on the US side should rot for life in The Hague ( of course that would never happen).
> an agressive overseas mission
A NATO operation. A NATO operation "his country" was very much involved in (and where citizens of "his country" paid the highest price).
Keep in mind he could have surrendered at any time.
> He's still technically a war criminal
Indeed.
A NATO operation. A NATO operation "his country" was very much involved in (and where citizens of "his country" paid the highest price).
Keep in mind he could have surrendered at any time.
> He's still technically a war criminal
Indeed.
So you agree with torturing minors for alleged crimes?
NATO isn't the Red Cross or Doctors without borders. An overseas mission by NATO includes armed soldiers.
NATO isn't the Red Cross or Doctors without borders. An overseas mission by NATO includes armed soldiers.
To be fair, reading wikipedia it really does seem that they are trying to deport him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Oberlander
Yes, after 26 years of attempts to postpone this.
It seems like the government tried, but was limited by process. Revoking citizenship is a touchy and complicated subject up here.
Still - one data point does not prove a trend.
Except they're not trying hard enough.
Wow, that's a pretty lazy and misleading description of the situation.
He was stripped of citizenship and it was instated 3 times by the Canadian court system. Why? "2013 Supreme Court ruling that guilt by association is not sufficient grounds to be considered a war criminal."
What you called "sheltering nazi war criminals" I would call due process. You know, not actually punishing people unless they've been fairly judged as guilty according to the law.
He was stripped of citizenship and it was instated 3 times by the Canadian court system. Why? "2013 Supreme Court ruling that guilt by association is not sufficient grounds to be considered a war criminal."
What you called "sheltering nazi war criminals" I would call due process. You know, not actually punishing people unless they've been fairly judged as guilty according to the law.
He's not the only one. I read about him recently that's why I was able to remember his name. There were/are others like him.
Even more, in Canada there're memorials dedicated to nazi war criminals, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Shukhevych
Even more, in Canada there're memorials dedicated to nazi war criminals, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Shukhevych
I don't know much about this topic, but: Please do not use that guy as an example in your earlier post if he is not a good example. It made it sound to me as if your goal is to convince, not to lead others to truth. Instead, just point to your strongest point (the memorials, I believe).
Regarding the memorials, I could not find this in the link. Could you point me at it?
Regarding the memorials, I could not find this in the link. Could you point me at it?
The article you link does not mention any memorials in Canada for this person - nor did they ever even live in Canada. He was shot by the Soviet security agents in 1950 in Ukraine while fighting for Ukrainian independence. ...and then his entire family was imprisoned to set an example to others.
There is also no evidence that this person committed any war crime at all. The notes in the link document that his military division committed war crimes.
Guilt by association? Collective punishment? Really?
There is also no evidence that this person committed any war crime at all. The notes in the link document that his military division committed war crimes.
Guilt by association? Collective punishment? Really?
He joined the nazi forces, infamous Schutzstaffel (SS) during WW2. He participated in killing tens of thousands of Jews (and Russians, but that doesn't count in the western world anymore).
He isn't guilty by association - he was a leader of death squadron and he is directly responsible for extermination of tens of thousands of non combatants.
He isn't guilty by association - he was a leader of death squadron and he is directly responsible for extermination of tens of thousands of non combatants.
These are all your guesses. The article doesn't say literally anything about him killing anyone or ordering anyone to be killed.
Wikipedia is not 100% reliable and universal source of truth. Besides, he was a leader of the SS battalion and he got Iron Cross for his war crimes from nazies. Does such a person deserve a monument in Canada?
Such a monument exists: https://www.theprogressreport.ca/monuments_to_nazi_collabora...
Wondering if they gave the same due process to Acadians that were savagely deported from their homes? [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians
Canada didn’t exist 270 years ago so this isn’t relevant.
Forgot it materialized out of thin air one morning.
Same crown as today was in charge back then. Same head of state.
Same crown as today was in charge back then. Same head of state.
That's ridiculous.
This is a classic "whataboutism" argument.
The Acadians were deported literally hundreds of years before.
Maybe we should demand Mongolia apologize for Genghis Khan as well?
The Acadians were deported literally hundreds of years before.
Maybe we should demand Mongolia apologize for Genghis Khan as well?
This is why the US makes you sign forms promising you are and were not a Nazi in Germany during the 30s/40s and were never affiliated with various terrorist groups as as part of the customs paperwork. It's unclear what US laws could apply to all those members, but lying on that form is a clear and serious felony.
When I went through my US naturalization process, I was surprised to note that while they still ask whether you were a Communist or a member of a terrorist organization, they no longer explicitly ask if you were ever a Nazi. Then again, this was under Trump.
[deleted]
I mean, the question was specific to the German WWII Nazi party. The youngest person who could check yes is probably 80 if they were a 6 year old in their first year of school right before Germany surrendered, and 90 if they could make an adult decision.
Seems slightly early for it to go away, but the question did have a finite lifetime.
Seems slightly early for it to go away, but the question did have a finite lifetime.
At one point, Chelsea Manning was the core of a progressive movement, with aims for positive change and progress. Now, even as an activist myself, it's hard to see her as anything other than a politically driven rogue who's clearly lost their bearings of right and wrong in relation to their original activism.
Really? What exactly changed? Besides the left being more and more a substitute for GOP-style policies...
Banning entry for a whistle blowing crime when the country where the crime happened wrote off the sentence is more important to me than her movement between progressive hero to outsider.
Calling out her crimes and placing them on the same level of rape, murder speaks to a disinformation campaign that gets unleashed but those in power.
I have no clue what her message is but why is it _so dangerous to those in power that they would try to shut her down?
Calling out her crimes and placing them on the same level of rape, murder speaks to a disinformation campaign that gets unleashed but those in power.
I have no clue what her message is but why is it _so dangerous to those in power that they would try to shut her down?
>Calling out her crimes and placing them on the same level of rape, murder speaks to a disinformation campaign that gets unleashed but those in power.
What makes you think she was compared to murderers and rapists? Comments elsewhere in this thread says that people with DWIs get stopped at the border as well.
What makes you think she was compared to murderers and rapists? Comments elsewhere in this thread says that people with DWIs get stopped at the border as well.
Commutation is not a pardon. Canada lines up US charges with Canadian ones, we like the US, regard disclosing classified info as a serious crime that bars one from entry.
It’s not a disinformation campaign it’s the law, you and I may not like it but it’s been this way for a long time. They aren’t singling out Manning.
It’s not a disinformation campaign it’s the law, you and I may not like it but it’s been this way for a long time. They aren’t singling out Manning.
From Canada's perspective, it pisses off our auperpower neighbor.
Doing that doesn't go well for canada
Doing that doesn't go well for canada
If that superpower didn't want Manning in Canada presumably they would have left them in prison.
Despite my comment below critical of Manning's contemporary politics, I agree there is no reason they should be barred from entry to Canada.
Manning is not an outlier. The ACLU, and other organizations ostensibly committed to human freedom, have largely gone the same way.
How so?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920
There are numerous articles that discuss this article in turn. The short version: Many current members of the ACLU are advocating to take up progressively-aligned cases specifically instead of civil liberties causes generally.
HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27414920
There are numerous articles that discuss this article in turn. The short version: Many current members of the ACLU are advocating to take up progressively-aligned cases specifically instead of civil liberties causes generally.
It's pretty iconic of the modern far-left movement. They really do earn the term "regressive".
yunohn(2)
Yup, dig up their pandemic preparedness docs from back before they became pro-life rather than pro-choice.
> The government’s position is that she should be blocked on grounds of serious criminality. Thousands of people are turned away at the Canadian border for similar reasons each year.
Like it aims to block all the other convicted criminals who apply for entry.
Like it aims to block all the other convicted criminals who apply for entry.
Her sentence was commuted and the conviction was more than 10 years ago, so it's possible to apply for rehabilitation. Immigration is seeking to preemptively block this.
Canada doesn't recognize pardons and expungements from other countries. You must wait 5 years to apply for forgiveness after your sentence has ended (which would've been in Jan 2017).
> Her sentence was commuted and the conviction was more than 10 years ago
Neither of these facts are exemptions that apply to anyone else entering Canada.
Neither of these facts are exemptions that apply to anyone else entering Canada.
Did she even break any Canadian laws? Or is it equivalent to blocking Navalny from entry on the grounds that he was convicted and imprisoned (on phony charges).
Canada will acknowledge crimes that you've committed in other countries for denial of entry. As long as there is an equivalent law in Canada that is.
One thing I do know, is that the data sharing arrangement between the US and Canada, shares criminal records.
For both countries, pardons, commuted sentences, do not hide the transfer of information, and are meaningless. This is because each country only cares about the crime, and its own assessment of "should this person, with crime x, be allowed in".
Outside of that, a presidential commuted sentence, by its very nature, is political, not court based.
Lastly, each country puts the safety of its citizens, above the rights of foreigners to visit.
I wanted to reply with these points, before reading the article, as generic, non-case specific logic is important here.
For both countries, pardons, commuted sentences, do not hide the transfer of information, and are meaningless. This is because each country only cares about the crime, and its own assessment of "should this person, with crime x, be allowed in".
Outside of that, a presidential commuted sentence, by its very nature, is political, not court based.
Lastly, each country puts the safety of its citizens, above the rights of foreigners to visit.
I wanted to reply with these points, before reading the article, as generic, non-case specific logic is important here.
True, but I'm at a loss to see how the safety interests of Canadians are threatened by Chelsea Manning. It's not like she's violent or carried out a crime against members of the public. The crime, being against the state, was as much political as the commutation.
Canada wasn't threatened by either of the friends of mine who weren't allowed into the country because of previous criminal convictions. The article isn't wrong when it points out that this occurs routinely. Why is it only wrong when it impacts someone with a cheering section? People will say "it isn't only wrong then!", but they're only angry... situationally.
I'm sure it wasn't, but I know nothing about your friends. I was responding to these specific statements of the GP:
Outside of that, a presidential commuted sentence, by its very nature, is political, not court based.
Lastly, each country puts the safety of its citizens, above the rights of foreigners to visit.
I am not a cheerleader for Chelsea Manning, who I have sympathy for in some respects but dislike in others.
Outside of that, a presidential commuted sentence, by its very nature, is political, not court based.
Lastly, each country puts the safety of its citizens, above the rights of foreigners to visit.
I am not a cheerleader for Chelsea Manning, who I have sympathy for in some respects but dislike in others.
It may be that I'm just using your comment as a convenient coat rack for my own frustration with the framing here. Canada is doing something that it has done consistently for decades without any comment from this community (or really many other communites). But then they do it to Chelsea Manning, and now we're discussing a headline "Canada aims to block Chelsea Manning".
Actually, Chelsea Manning has better odds of being let into Canada than a lot of "boring" people with felony convictions. And that's kind of a problem.
Actually, Chelsea Manning has better odds of being let into Canada than a lot of "boring" people with felony convictions. And that's kind of a problem.
I read HN first page almost daily, for international news I read BBC, I am from Romania, Eastern Europe sand I had no idea that this happened to your friends or for other people.
Canada does not popup that much in the international news. Maybe I missed a similar article on HN were the majority had the exact oposite reaction like in this one?
Canada does not popup that much in the international news. Maybe I missed a similar article on HN were the majority had the exact oposite reaction like in this one?
>they're only angry... situationally.
You don't know, though! I mean, not everybody gets angry that easy, but many are aware that you don't have to commit a crime or do something wrong to be barred from crossing an international border.
I remember an article by a woman who was turned back from Canada because she had antidepressant medication with her.
You don't know, though! I mean, not everybody gets angry that easy, but many are aware that you don't have to commit a crime or do something wrong to be barred from crossing an international border.
I remember an article by a woman who was turned back from Canada because she had antidepressant medication with her.
I spent a couple years working for a company in Calgary, with a staff mostly from the US, and this was a recurring concern. It's not a thing that just started for Chelsea Manning.
What was a recurring concern? Politics? Psych meds? Commuted or expunged convictions?
That it was not a given that members of our team would be allowed past immigration control at the airport in Calgary.
A co-worker of mine went to Pakistan and unexpectedly couldn't get readmitted to the US for years. At least the company kept him on, working remotely.
Canadians living in the US on work visas have the same worries when reentering the US.
No doubt! Absolutely true! We were ultimately acquired by an American company, and American immigration rules caused problems for the Canadians. My point isn't that Canada is distinctively bad; it's that this story has nothing the hell to do with Chelsea Manning.
>this story has nothing the hell to do with Chelsea Manning
I mean, no need to debate it, who knows, but I think you're exaggerating your certainty. It's possible that this has an additional political dimension, even though similar things can happen without it.
I mean, no need to debate it, who knows, but I think you're exaggerating your certainty. It's possible that this has an additional political dimension, even though similar things can happen without it.
Friend of mine was denied entry for six months because she was born in Iran. Her family fled to Britain when she was 2. At the time she'd been living and working in the US for 10 years.
I’d think that it’s not about her safety. It’s about a policy of saying “we don’t allow people with felony convictions in”. Which seems sensible to me.
There’s not an immigration service in the world who wants to choose which felonies should be enforced on a case by case basis and generally not a populace who believes that fame should get you a golden ticket.
Would I personally let her in? Sure! If I ran an immigration department? Nope.
There’s not an immigration service in the world who wants to choose which felonies should be enforced on a case by case basis and generally not a populace who believes that fame should get you a golden ticket.
Would I personally let her in? Sure! If I ran an immigration department? Nope.
>> the rights of foreigners to visit.
Which is not actually a right. Americans have no more a right to travel to Canada than Canadians have a right to come to the US. I venture that more canadians are probably denied entry to the US than Americans are denied by Canada.
Which is not actually a right. Americans have no more a right to travel to Canada than Canadians have a right to come to the US. I venture that more canadians are probably denied entry to the US than Americans are denied by Canada.
How quickly people forget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Travel_Init...
>Which is not actually a right.
It very much depends on who you ask. Some libertarians will say that it hasn't been that long the modern system has been in place. I think since roughly WWI?
The lack of a "right" to enter a country could be compared with the modern lack of a right for pedestrians to walk in middle of most streets. Now and then some people get quite bitter about that.
It very much depends on who you ask. Some libertarians will say that it hasn't been that long the modern system has been in place. I think since roughly WWI?
The lack of a "right" to enter a country could be compared with the modern lack of a right for pedestrians to walk in middle of most streets. Now and then some people get quite bitter about that.
> One thing I do know, is that the data sharing arrangement between the US and Canada, shares criminal records.
Apparently they share way more than criminal records.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadian-woman-refuse...
Apparently they share way more than criminal records.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/canadian-woman-refuse...
Replying to myself here, after reading.
I have no idea, after reading. I wish I knew if the delays were standard (eg, backlog), and so on.
I also wish I knew how others in this situation fare. As a Canuck, I want no special treatment for anyone, pro or against, but just the job done correctly, and that means fair, compared to how others are treated / the law.
Is her lawyer using the media / spinning things, to try to help the case? Maybe.
Not enough info for me to know wtf.
I have no idea, after reading. I wish I knew if the delays were standard (eg, backlog), and so on.
I also wish I knew how others in this situation fare. As a Canuck, I want no special treatment for anyone, pro or against, but just the job done correctly, and that means fair, compared to how others are treated / the law.
Is her lawyer using the media / spinning things, to try to help the case? Maybe.
Not enough info for me to know wtf.
Is there a gofundme for her? This is the kind of thing that wins wars and we should support her.
There was a crowdfund for legal fees for an earlier thing, but it's gone now. She has a Patreon (xychelsea), and she already has lawyers working on the issue. https://mobile.twitter.com/lex_is/status/1435255042261635072
they are seeking to block an entry waiver pre-emptively?
I suppose that saves the application for a waiver, and she can just appeal right away via federal courts?
I suppose that saves the application for a waiver, and she can just appeal right away via federal courts?
Here's the timeline of events (AFAIK):
1. On 2017-09-22, Ms. Manning attempted to enter Canada but was denied by the border guards. [0]
2. On or about On 2017-09-25, Ms. Manning received a letter from the Canadian government detailing why she was previously denied entry.
3. Ms. Manning and her lawyers files an appeal to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. A tribunal hearing is scheduled for 2021-10-07. Let's call this hearing "Hearing A".
4. While Hearing A was still pending, the Canadian government allowed Ms. Manning entry for a few days into Canada in 2018.
5. Both sides (the Canadian border official side and Ms. Manning's side) are able to argue their case before Hearing A. The title of this news story refers to the fact that the border official side plans to put forth an argument in Hearing A.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41391072
1. On 2017-09-22, Ms. Manning attempted to enter Canada but was denied by the border guards. [0]
2. On or about On 2017-09-25, Ms. Manning received a letter from the Canadian government detailing why she was previously denied entry.
3. Ms. Manning and her lawyers files an appeal to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board. A tribunal hearing is scheduled for 2021-10-07. Let's call this hearing "Hearing A".
4. While Hearing A was still pending, the Canadian government allowed Ms. Manning entry for a few days into Canada in 2018.
5. Both sides (the Canadian border official side and Ms. Manning's side) are able to argue their case before Hearing A. The title of this news story refers to the fact that the border official side plans to put forth an argument in Hearing A.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41391072
This seems rather standard.
The fact that she was allowed despite rather well known criminal charges and jail time points to rather high likelyhood of her appeal being successful. I think that is highly unusual.
This is probably just a campaign to generate some favourable publicity.
The fact that she was allowed despite rather well known criminal charges and jail time points to rather high likelyhood of her appeal being successful. I think that is highly unusual.
This is probably just a campaign to generate some favourable publicity.
As someone who is neither in Canada, nor a Canadian citizen, would she even have jurisdiction to appeal to a Canadian court?
Can anyone in the world file a case with the Canadian Supreme court and be heard? They would need to have some sort of legal standing to appear before the court.
Can anyone in the world file a case with the Canadian Supreme court and be heard? They would need to have some sort of legal standing to appear before the court.
She applied for entry and was rejected. That's enough standing.
The point is, she is not an ordinary criminal, but a high-profile political one. You'd expect someone should know better.
I didn't even know that Manning was released from the federal supermax. When did that happen?
Edit:
> The decision, made in the last days of Obama's presidency, means that Manning can be freed May 17 [2017], seven years into a prison term that has been marked by two suicide attempts and a hunger strike aimed at obtaining sex reassignment surgery.
Looks like it was 2017. I had no idea. Is Canada going to take her?
Edit:
> The decision, made in the last days of Obama's presidency, means that Manning can be freed May 17 [2017], seven years into a prison term that has been marked by two suicide attempts and a hunger strike aimed at obtaining sex reassignment surgery.
Looks like it was 2017. I had no idea. Is Canada going to take her?
She can stay here legally. Maybe she wants to move to Canada though. After what she went through here, I wouldn't blame her.
I don't think many Americans have much sympathy for Chelsea Manning. Only a very tiny bit of the trove of data that she dumped was really "whistle blower" material. Most of it was actually strategic military data during an on-going conflict. She was not in any way careful about what she was dumping. At least Snowden was careful to only release certain things.
And also the part where she tried to starve herself to force USA taxpayers to pay for her gender transfer surgery while she was serving a 35 year prison sentence for betraying them...
And also the part where she tried to starve herself to force USA taxpayers to pay for her gender transfer surgery while she was serving a 35 year prison sentence for betraying them...
Chelsea Manning never betrayed me. And if we stick somebody in a cage and take away their ability to fend for themselves, we have to take responsibility for their health care.
[deleted]
Yep fair enough. But you get why nobody in USA cares about Chelsea Manning or whether or not she's allowed into Canada.
It has never been demonstrated scientifically that gender modification surgeries are medically necessary, or beneficial in the long term. I wonder if proponents of considering it a medical necessity feel the same way about breast augmentation?
They aren't covered by most insurance programs, either in the US nor in most other countries.
Denying it is not the same as denying someone antibiotics when they have an infection.
They aren't covered by most insurance programs, either in the US nor in most other countries.
Denying it is not the same as denying someone antibiotics when they have an infection.
Well, what about breast reconstruction after cancer?
Or what about breast reduction after medication induced growth (on men or women)?
Do you think those should be covered by insurance or other responsible parties?
Or what about breast reduction after medication induced growth (on men or women)?
Do you think those should be covered by insurance or other responsible parties?
I have sympathy for her, Obama seems to have had it as well. I don't understand her case well enough to judge her though.
[deleted]
It wasn't a Supermax prison, fwiw. A couple of different military prisons, but not Supermax. Though it did start with almost a year of solitary confinement.
Idk how isolated you were march-april-may 2020, but I was seeing a few friends and had ample access to zoom hangs and it still had a pretty big impact on my mental health. A year of solitary? Nobody deserves that. It’s torture.
I wasn't saying it was fine. Supermax, though, would mean solitary the entire time as well as some other differences.
Sorry, I see now that what I intended as a generalized “you” really made that seem like I was attacking you. Apologies! I just wanted to highlight to anyone reading how awful solitary is as a practice by relating it to a recent shared experience.
My buddy wasn't allowed into Canada for an intl transfer because he had a DUI a decade earlier...
Not surprised heh.
Not surprised heh.
The Canadian customs/border authority is somewhat famously strict about DUI convictions. IIRC, George W. Bush had to be granted a special waiver.
Conversely, any Canadian who admits to smoking pot (now legal in Canada) will be barred from entering the US for life.
> any Canadian who admits to smoking pot (now legal in Canada)
Also completely legal, for recreational use, in 6 of the 10 US states that border Canada, and legal for medicinal use in 9 of the 10 states, Idaho being the only hold-out.
This is getting pretty silly now, no?
Also completely legal, for recreational use, in 6 of the 10 US states that border Canada, and legal for medicinal use in 9 of the 10 states, Idaho being the only hold-out.
This is getting pretty silly now, no?
People seem to forget that at a federal level, marijuana is still a Schedule I drug and is illegal to possess; if the feds decided suddenly to remember that, all hell could break loose at any moment. The guys guarding the border don't get their paychecks from Madison or St. Paul or Olympia or Albany, they get them from Washington, DC.
That doesn't quite justify it. Even Schedule I drugs are still legal to possess with a proper prescription from a doctor. There's prescription methamphetamine (Desoxyn), for example.
As such, would the US object if I took THC under prescription in an in-patient medical context in another country, and then attempted to enter?
And if they wouldn't object, then why would they suddenly object if I didn't get prescribed the THC, but rather purchased it over the counter, under advisement of a doctor? (After all, this is how most legal, OTC medications work. Doctors in outpatient settings don't prescribe you e.g. aspirin; they just tell you to "take two aspirin and call me if it doesn't feel better." They assume you can get your own aspirin without their help.)
As such, would the US object if I took THC under prescription in an in-patient medical context in another country, and then attempted to enter?
And if they wouldn't object, then why would they suddenly object if I didn't get prescribed the THC, but rather purchased it over the counter, under advisement of a doctor? (After all, this is how most legal, OTC medications work. Doctors in outpatient settings don't prescribe you e.g. aspirin; they just tell you to "take two aspirin and call me if it doesn't feel better." They assume you can get your own aspirin without their help.)
That's not correct under current federal law. Doctors can't write prescriptions for Schedule I drugs. They can only legally be used with special permission for research.
https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling
(I don't agree with this, just explaining the law.)
https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling
(I don't agree with this, just explaining the law.)
Alright, so does that mean that if you’re a foreign citizen; and while you’re in the US, you volunteer to be a test subject for a pharmacological research program; and they give you a Schedule I drug as part of that research; then you can be deported for taking it?
No that wouldn't be grounds for a criminal conviction and thus wouldn't trigger deportation proceedings. Note that for clinical trials of controlled substances the researchers generally directly administer the drug in a secure facility. So legally the test subjects are never technically in possession of a controlled substance.
> Even Schedule I drugs are still legal to possess with a proper prescription from a doctor. There's prescription methamphetamine (Desoxyn), for example.
No they're not. Desoxyn is only legal with a prescription because methamphetamine is a schedule II drug, not a schedule I drug.
No they're not. Desoxyn is only legal with a prescription because methamphetamine is a schedule II drug, not a schedule I drug.
Primarily so soldiers and pilots can take it.
Nah, they just take regular dextroampehetamine - methamphetamine is particularly neurotoxic.
There probably is some shadowy special-forces division that gets the cool stuff but I gather that even amongst the USAF's endurance fighter squadrons you won't see much stimulant use: it's too much of a liability, and the services really don't want human-liabilities piloting hundred-million-dollar supersonic death-machines.
Fun-fact: the Nazis used meth, then known as "Pervatin" - but then they also mixed it with cocaine and oxycodone and called it "D-IX" - sounds like quite the party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-IX
There probably is some shadowy special-forces division that gets the cool stuff but I gather that even amongst the USAF's endurance fighter squadrons you won't see much stimulant use: it's too much of a liability, and the services really don't want human-liabilities piloting hundred-million-dollar supersonic death-machines.
Fun-fact: the Nazis used meth, then known as "Pervatin" - but then they also mixed it with cocaine and oxycodone and called it "D-IX" - sounds like quite the party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-IX
As the kids say, "Dude, this is America." Why would merely having a prescription and a reasonable excuse help you with the border patrol? Maybe you'd get a sympathetic guy that day and maybe you wouldn't.
Because I'm pretty sure you can bring pretty much any prescribed drug in its labelled dispensed container — even the Desoxyn! — with you over the border into the US. So it'd be weird if THC was an exception to that; and doubly weird if just having ever been prescribed THC was worse for you than literally carrying a pill bottle full of meth in your bag.
>you can bring pretty much any prescribed drug in its labelled dispensed container — even the Desoxyn! — with you over the border into the US.
>So it'd be weird if THC was an exception to that
As others in the thread have already mentioned, Desoxyn is schedule 2, while Cannabis is federally schedule 1 (with lower schedule number being more restricted).
So no, THC isn't an exception, it is a part of the same rule system. The one in which schedule 2 drugs have more legal privileges than schedule 1 drugs.
>So it'd be weird if THC was an exception to that
As others in the thread have already mentioned, Desoxyn is schedule 2, while Cannabis is federally schedule 1 (with lower schedule number being more restricted).
So no, THC isn't an exception, it is a part of the same rule system. The one in which schedule 2 drugs have more legal privileges than schedule 1 drugs.
the active ingredient of desoxyn, methamphetamine is schedule 1.
Plenty of substances are dual scheduled, desoxyn is just most prominent example.
Plenty of substances are dual scheduled, desoxyn is just most prominent example.
This is where you are wrong, methamphetamine is schedule 2 in the US[0][1].
0. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs5/5049/5049p.pdf
1. https://www.goodrx.com/methamphetamine/what-is
0. https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs5/5049/5049p.pdf
1. https://www.goodrx.com/methamphetamine/what-is
This doesn't appear to be true: https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/orangebook/c_cs...
Are you sure you're not getting it mixed up with MDMA or something?
Are you sure you're not getting it mixed up with MDMA or something?
Last I checked both meth and heroin were schedule II - which sort of has always been one of the craziest things about US drug policy. It’s almost entirely a political control thing
-
As I pointed out in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28466243, this doesn't appear to be true.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Nobody is forgetting it; they think it's stupid and wrong.
This happened to a friend of mine. However he was eventually able to reverse the situation through a cumbersome legal process.
[deleted]
I know a guy who had two DUI arrests, but still has no trouble getting into BC. His trick was to get a lawyer to argue them down to reckless driving convictions. Proof that single digit millionaires actually do have access to the legal system I suppose.
The standard court appointed lawyer will do this too - but you often have to push them to fight for you.
...and some paid lawyers suck and will roll-over.
Price of your lawyer is a poor predictor of results in the legal system.
The best advice is to know a good lawyer before you need one - rich or poor.
...and some paid lawyers suck and will roll-over.
Price of your lawyer is a poor predictor of results in the legal system.
The best advice is to know a good lawyer before you need one - rich or poor.
My (at the time, future) brother-in-law caused us to be held up at the border in Blaine, WA heading into Canada about 10 years ago. A few years prior to that, he had been busted for using a fake ID at a bar to buy booze when he was a minor. Canadian customs were apparently aware of this, and after about an hour of waiting, the border agent said - and this is verbatim - "I'm trying to see if there's a reason this won't let us allow him in, but I'm not finding anything yet."
Our vehicle was searched during that time as well, and about 30 minutes later they finally let all of us enter. Nice to hear we aren't the only folk who have dealt with a similar issue.
Our vehicle was searched during that time as well, and about 30 minutes later they finally let all of us enter. Nice to hear we aren't the only folk who have dealt with a similar issue.
I just went to Canada on Saturday. First time.
I was interrogated for 3 hours. Apparently it looks bad if you travel 12 hours to cross the border to go on a date.
I was interrogated for 3 hours. Apparently it looks bad if you travel 12 hours to cross the border to go on a date.
Ahhh, the ol' "I have a girlfriend, she lives in Canada!" gambit!
>and this is verbatim - "I'm trying to see if there's a reason this won't let us allow him in, but I'm not finding anything yet."
This is very confusingly worded. Was the border agent trying to let your brother in law in or not?
This is very confusingly worded. Was the border agent trying to let your brother in law in or not?
It seems very clearly worded. They agent was attempting to determine if the action would restrict entry (not let us allow him him), but it was still be investigated (I'm not finding anything yet).
Correct. It seemed that the agent thought that that issue was grounds to prevent entry but wasn't positive, and was doing their due diligence to confirm as much.
I read that quote in exactly the opposite way, with "this" being the computer system and that the agent was trying to find a way to LET the person into the country.
I wonder how they get access to this information.
It didn't even seem like the US govt is coordinated enough between the different states to reliably catch this.
It didn't even seem like the US govt is coordinated enough between the different states to reliably catch this.
They ask you.
If you lie about it they will likely ban you for even longer.
If you lie about it they will likely ban you for even longer.
I responded to the initial comment in this particular thread with my own anecdotal experience[0]. At no point were we asked about anything related to his fake ID charge, prior convictions, etc.
They simply ID'd us, asked us where we were heading and why, then told us to pull aside. They knew already.
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28465851
They simply ID'd us, asked us where we were heading and why, then told us to pull aside. They knew already.
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28465851
Has he been fingerprinted during the fake ID incident?
Fingerprint records will come up at the border.
Fingerprint records will come up at the border.
From original comment:
> he had been busted for using a fake ID at a bar to buy booze when he was a minor.
> he had been busted for using a fake ID at a bar to buy booze when he was a minor.
Do they ask you if you lied immediately after the first question?
You’re being snarky, but the reason they just ask you is so that if you’re caught lying they can deport you for the lie, rather than having to try to deport you for whatever you did.
Is that an output problem or an input problem?
It may be that the states are terrible at gathering information rather than reporting it.
It may be that the states are terrible at gathering information rather than reporting it.
There isn't a great system for inter-state reporting in the USA. That may be good, or bad.. But states operate largely independently.
[deleted]
The PM is losing an election, the last thing he needs right now is to be seen supporting another Omar Khadr after taking massive heat on Afghanistan.
Give it a few months and if re-elected will roll out the red carpet for her.
Give it a few months and if re-elected will roll out the red carpet for her.
Of course Canada won't allow Manning in.
Canada is a Five Eyes member and works to undermine the privacy and digital freedoms of billions globally.
Can't have an opponent to the surveillance state around, after all.
Canada is a Five Eyes member and works to undermine the privacy and digital freedoms of billions globally.
Can't have an opponent to the surveillance state around, after all.
I think this is a pretty standard case of a person with a criminal conviction being denied entry to a foreign country.
It happens tens of thousands of times per year to other people.
It happens tens of thousands of times per year to other people.
That was a sad read. I have always respected Glenn because he fights for the truth. She should not have said something so exaggerated and vague just because he associates with people she dislikes, especially since he hasn't spoken to her in many years while her statement sounds like he is a monster that has been attacking her. Very manipulative. Politics has melted the brains of so many.
[deleted]
"Federal officials are preparing to argue that Ms. Manning’s past crimes render her too dangerous to be allowed entry into the country. The government’s position is that she should be blocked on grounds of serious criminality."
Whistleblowing war crimes and embarrassing the US on the world stage = "serious criminality"
Whistleblowing war crimes and embarrassing the US on the world stage = "serious criminality"
In a literal sense, she committed and was convicted of serious crimes.
Ethically, I understand some debate that - but legally - it is not in debate.
Ethically, I understand some debate that - but legally - it is not in debate.
As a Brit, I think it’s pretty petty as she was fine to move to the UK and work there. We now live in the US where she works for a large employer and has passed numerous background checks.
Sometimes I think Canada is more interested in portraying itself as a progressive beacon to the world than actually being one.