Following an extradition hearing lasting 10 weeks, today New Zealand District Court Judge Nevin Dawson ruled that Kim Dotcom and his colleagues can indeed be extradited to the United States to face criminal charges. Speaking with TorrentFreak, Dotcom confirmed that an appeal to the High Court would go ahead.
[...] In a blow to the Megaupload founder and his former colleagues, Judge Dawson ruled that the quartet can indeed be sent to the United States to face charges of copyright infringement, conspiracy, money laundering and racketeering. Judge Dawson did not determine guilt or otherwise but found that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) had presented enough evidence for New Zealand to grant a request from the the United States to extradite. Dawson said that Dotcom and his colleagues had not done enough to undermine the case.
The defendants will be allowed to remain out on bail in the meantime. Although the judge acknowledged there was a high risk of flight, he noted that the four had all abided by the terms of their bail since they were arrested.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @05:12PM
This whole thing has been a mess. The US tried to seize millions from him even when no real trial has taken place yet, destroyed evidence, seized servers and prevented users from getting their data, etc. There should be no extradition; this whole thing should be dropped. The government is clearly in the pockets of large corporations.
I don't care how crooked Kimmy is; the corporations and the government are many times worse.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:09PM
A race war is coming. The blacks will win and soon the entire white race will be held in sexual slavery. I am a lowly white boy who already understands his place: on his knees, in complete servitude of the master race. This blog is to help my fellow whites prep for an inevitable future of black cock worship.
Dieter T. Schmitz
Black Cock Worship, Owner
https://blackcockworship.tumblr.com/ [tumblr.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:32PM
On the other hand, he renamed himself "Dotcom." There's got to be a level of douchiness that bypasses due process.
(Score: 2, Touché) by bornagainpenguin on Thursday December 24 2015, @01:21AM
Of course! Prosecution 101--if you steal the defendant's financial resources they can't afford to defend themselves!
Well this is the government of the people, by the people and for the people, it's just that some (corporate) people are more equal than others...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Freeman on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:09PM
He will get screwed, if he ever ends up in the USA. The only reason he isn't sitting in jail now is, because he isn't in the USA. Well, those millions of dollars sure help keep one out of jail too. Reasonably priced items, means that people will buy what you're selling. Most people / kids Like to go to the movies with their friends. Most people Like owning a physical and/or DRM-Free version of their Video / Music / Software. Price things well and don't screw your customers over. That's the way to kill "Piracy" or at least the unauthorized reproductions of infinitely reproducible items.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by isostatic on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:24PM
Of course he'll be screwed. Your uncivilised penitentiary has a celebrated known rape culture where innocent people (and guilty people) are ass raped to the joy of the braindead population.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Freeman on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:28PM
Not quite what I meant . . . .
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Funny) by isostatic on Thursday December 24 2015, @05:15PM
I suspect the framers of some of your most abused constitutional amendments (1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) would have the same thoughts.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by canopic jug on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:32PM
Explain to me the difference between his now defunct service and the likes of Dropbox, Box, Spideroak, Google Drive, and all the others. I initially meant that facetiously but thinking about it for a few seconds, I see that there might be something there that we're not hearing about. What is hollywood really after that it didn't get from Kim and did get from the others?
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:36PM
The difference is he at best paid them lip service (Said he would take things down, and maybe did, maybe didn't.) and at worst just flipped them the finger (Ignored their requests, maybe paid for infringing content to be uploaded.).
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:16PM
I believe the case against Dotcom and co. is based on the staff overstepping the bounds of safe harbor by facilitating infringement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case [wikipedia.org]
The new, apparently Dotcom-unapproved [wikipedia.org] Mega has encryption baked in and makes the content much less visible to the company:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/17/kim-dotcom-mega-vikram-kumar-piracy [theguardian.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:41PM
How is Mega "Dotcom-unapproved"?
You appear to be approaching this from the view that the sole purpose of Megaupload was copyright infringement. As I understand the situation (note Pirate bias), Megaupload made a good-faith effort to follow the DMCA, despite not being based in the US.
I have been told that DMCA requests are valid in Canada as well: insofar that they constitute a cease and desist request (safe-harbour and the DMCA does not apply). I assume the situation in New-Zealand is similar.
Megaupload was not able to remove infringing material due to the technical design of their service; which leveraged deduplication. Mega client-side encrypting everything so that the server can no longer de-duplicate is a logical response to legal trouble resulting from deduplication.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:45PM
Found it on second reading:
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:07PM
Actually consumers are moving on from this aspiration. They now want truly instant gratification. Streaming any song on their phones, any movie available for streaming (torrent streaming/downloading and ripped videos online on YouTube/etc. help fill the catalog gaps). DRM? No problem. Movie theaters will persist simply because going to the movie theater is a social experience and it has large screens. Maaayybe that could change with the arrival of VR (put on decently high resolution headsets and good headphones with a few friends, emulate the movie theater experience, and of course DRM will be involved).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday December 24 2015, @05:11PM
There are certain up-trends in streaming and illegal downloading. Though, I would disagree with the lack of interest in DRM-Free options. Gog.com is a poster child for DRM-Free done right. Tor (book publishing) have gone DRM-Free for a while now and they seem to be doing just fine. Even iTunes has gone Mostly DRM-Free. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/2015/01/18/itunes-drm/21964513/ [usatoday.com] I for one use Steam, Netflix, and YouTube. Though, I also purchase the films I like most (Physical Copy) and purchase games I love that have made it to Gog (Usually a second or subsequent purchase). Perhaps I don't model most consumers, but there's bound to be a lot like me.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:43PM
Most people Like owning a physical and/or DRM-Free version of their Video / Music / Software.
Clearly as evidences by the fact that no one uses streaming music or video services. /sarcasm
(Score: 4, Funny) by isostatic on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:21PM
Of course there's a high risk of flight, how else will he get to the u.s for his fair trial by a jury of his peers?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Freeman on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:32PM
You mean a jury of peers who aren't actually his peers? You know, since he isn't a citizen of the United States of America.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2, Troll) by isostatic on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:19PM
Well he should have thought about that before he went to the us and committed some heinous crimes while a guest of that country.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:30PM
Guest? Did he commit the "crimes" while in the United States?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by isostatic on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:46PM
Of course, he then fled the country escaping justice. Why else would New Zealand extradite him?
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:59PM
He was a German-Finnish national living in New Zealand since 2010 and charged in 2012. How about you stop making shit up?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday December 24 2015, @10:45AM
But it makes no sense for the NZ government to extradite him for a crime unless he commutes that crime in the country he is being executed to. It would be like the us extraditing someone to their good friends and fellow human rights supporters Saudi Arabia, solely because they committed blasphemy.
As it doesn't make sense (like a wookie on endor) it's clear the socialist view that he didn't do anything worthy of extradition is wrong.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday December 24 2015, @04:33PM
I thought to agree with your first statement there, but that isn't the case. The US does have an extradition treaty with the New Zealand Government. What isn't in that treaty is anything to do with Copyright Infringement. So, unless the US can bend the law to their liking, there is No reason for the New Zealand Government to extradite him. Though, apparently the US is doing whatever they can to get him extradited.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1, Troll) by Freeman on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:31PM
He didn't go to the US and commit some heinous crimes. He hosted a site that was available from the US. Your version of heinous and my version of heinous apparently differ vastly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Criminal_penalties [wikipedia.org] He shouldn't get more than 10 years in prison or more than a One Million dollar fine. Though, they usually throw in all kinds of other charges to get the possibility of the sentence up to some heinous number such as life in prison, and / or hundreds of millions of dollars.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:27PM
Not quite - that's up to $1M and 10 years in prison *per infraction* after the first. How many infractions do you suppose he committed? These laws were after all put in place to stop the rampant commercial copyright infringement being done by the likes of Hollywood (which got its start with the wholesale infringement of east coast material)
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday December 23 2015, @10:40PM
Ah, I read "A fine of not more than $1 million and imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, for repeated offenses." As repeating offenses were lumped into the one as opposed to $1million + 10 years per infraction.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:47PM
Is sarcasm a crime in the US too? Slightly concerned I might be renditioned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:45PM
They are no less his "peers" than a jury full of white people for a criminal case against a black person. Or do you believe that only ghetto thugs can be on the jury for the trial of another ghetto thug?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Freeman on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:50PM
They aren't his peers, because he isn't a Citizen of the United States of America. "Now, however, "a jury of peers" more accurately means "a jury of fellow citizens." ..." - Popped up on Google. Source http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/what-is-a-jury-of-peers.html [findlaw.com]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:54PM
They aren't his peers, because he isn't a Citizen of the United States of America.
This guy [wikipedia.org] also was not a US citizen and yet was tried by a jury of US citizens. Or do you believe they should have brought in Saudis to be on his trial?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday December 24 2015, @04:39PM
That Guy wasn't a US Citizen, but he did commit an actual Crime. As opposed to just copy infringement. Which while it is a crime in the US, it isn't part of the Extradition Treaty the US has with New Zealand. Assuming Kim Dotcom had been running the Silk Road, New Zealand would have dumped him in a heartbeat. Since, the Silk Road was designed for Criminal Activities that are covered in the Extradition Treaty that New Zealand has with the US.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:58PM
But if he's not a citizen of the US he doesn't get that right. Or have you also been upset at the countless other federal trials against foreign nationals that only had US citizens in the jury? If not, why are you only complaining here?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:14PM
How do you know he is only complaining here? Why make that assumption?
But if he's not a citizen of the US he doesn't get that right.
I don't even think the US government has the legitimate legal authority to extradite him for this. Right now, it is acting in defiance of the US constitution, the very document which describes all of the powers it is allowed to have. This makes it a very powerful group of thugs at best.
(Score: 1) by Desler on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:16PM
I don't even think the US government has the legitimate legal authority to extradite him for this.
The extradition treaty says otherwise. What you think means all of jack and shit to anyone.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:22PM
You may not care about what I think, but what the US constitution says is another matter. I am simply speaking the truth. The purpose of copyright, according to the highest law of the land, is to spur innovation, and the insane and draconian copyright laws we have currently fail to do that, so they are not constitutional.
Now, you may only care about how the government currently interprets the US constitution, but that would just indicate that you can't think for yourself. Authority figures should not go unquestioned; when they make mistakes or abuse their powers, they should be punished severely.
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:34PM
You may not care about what I think, but what the US constitution says is another matter.
No, my statement is baesd directly from the part of the US constitution that gives the power to the president to enter into treaties, such as the extradition treaty at the heart of the matter here.
The purpose of copyright, according to the highest law of the land, is to spur innovation, and the insane and draconian copyright laws we have currently fail to do that, so they are not constitutional.
Not consitutional in your opinion which again means very little.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:45PM
No, my statement is baesd directly from the part of the US constitution that gives the power to the president to enter into treaties, such as the extradition treaty at the heart of the matter here.
The government only has certain powers. It can't make something a crime that it has no constitutional power over. The existence of extradition isn't what is under debate, but the specific laws that they are using here are.
Not consitutional in your opinion which again means very little.
So if the courts started interpreting the first amendment to mean that the government has the power to assassinate anyone for any reason, you would have the same opinion as you do now? You do not debate the merits of my points; you only say that my opinion means very little. The government disagrees with me and wants to give itself more power than the constitution gives it? The government is very powerful? That is obvious; you don't need to inform me. But none of that means the government is not in the wrong.
But the document itself confirms what I say: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Copyright as it is now does not promote innovation and is de facto unlimited. Do you object to this, or will you just mindlessly cite authority figures?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday December 24 2015, @04:52PM
The extradition treaty doesn't mention Copyright Infringement. What the US is trying to do is make up enough charges that will get him extradited, so he can be charged with Copyright Infringement along with the rest of the made up charges in the US.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:18PM
How do you know he is only complaining here? Why make that assumption?
It's merely a hunch, but I seriously doubt he's gonna say that he thinks that Saudi terrorists, for example, who have faced trials in the US should have been tried by a jury of other Saudis.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday December 24 2015, @04:50PM
The whole premise of the case is that he did something illegal in the United States that would be cause for the New Zealand government to extradite him. That simply isn't the case as Copyright Infringement isn't in the Extradition Treaty with the US. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement will probably address that, but that doesn't make what he did an extraditable offense. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2015/october/summary-trans-pacific-partnership [ustr.gov] What the US is currently trying to do and possibly succeeding at doing is stretching the charges against him, so that he can legally be extradited.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1) by Desler on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:10PM
Cool story, but your own link states that "jury of peers" comes from the Magna Carta not the US Constitution.
To quote the Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
So the entire crux of your argument is moot to begin with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:57PM
If he's not a citizen of the US then he doesn't get that right. So you have no actual valid complaint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:05PM
The Bill of Rights only applies to US citizens so your entire premise is flawed to begin with. Or are you dumb enough to think that extradition trials actually involve juries composed of foreign nationals?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:16PM
The Bill of Rights only applies to US citizens
Try reading the Bill of Rights sometime. You'll find few mentions of the word "citizen".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:19PM
And you'll find zero use of the phrase "jury of peers".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:24PM
You're changing the topic. Here is the specific claim I responded to: "The Bill of Rights only applies to US citizens"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:25PM
Cool, now prove to me using James Madison's own words that it applied to anyone but US citizens.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:29PM
We're not talking about James Madison. We're talking about what the constitution actually says. Some of the founders violated the very constitution they created or claimed to support, so I extremely skeptical of the notion that we should be debating what they did or didn't say. We should more concerned with what made it into the document itself.
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:32PM
We're not talking about James Madison.
We are taking about the Bill of Rights but not the guy who wrote the thing? LOL ok.
We're talking about what the constitution actually says.
And nowhere does it state that the Bill of Rights applies to foreigners.
Some of the founders violated the very constitution they created or claimed to support, so I extremely skeptical of the notion that we should be debating what they did or didn't say. We should more concerned with what made it into the document itself.
Ok, so please quote me the part of the Bill of Rights proclaiming that it applied to foreigners.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:39PM
We are taking about the Bill of Rights but not the guy who wrote the thing? LOL ok.
Yes. We're talking about what actually made it into the Bill of Rights.
And nowhere does it state that the Bill of Rights applies to foreigners.
Nowhere does it say it doesn't. It does, however, speak generally of some rights that people have, and it doesn't specifically mention citizens. That kind of disproves your point.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Leebert on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:32PM
The Constitution enumerates the powers of the government, and the Bill of Rights specifically lays out rights reserved for the people and the states. As such, people already had those rights, the bill of rights just enshrined them. Unless the Constitution somehow revokes those rights for non citizens, they have them as well.
Do you think that a visitor to the country doesn't enjoy the right to remain silent when arrested? Or a right to free speech? They certainly don't have the right to not be deported, but while they're here they have all of the same basic rights as any other citizen, including the right to due process.
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:27PM
The Bill of Rights didn't apply to large swaths of people who lived in the US such as Native Americans, Blacks, etc. but you believe that the intent of James Madison was that it would apply to foreigners? That's a major [citation needed].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:32PM
It's not that the bill of rights didn't apply, but that the government has been violating the constitution from the very beginning. Don't mindlessly accept tradition as good or true; think for yourself and decide whether or not the traditions should be kept around.
I said nothing about intent because I do not care.
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:39PM
It's not that the bill of rights didn't apply, but that the government has been violating the constitution from the very beginning.
No, they were following the Constitution as written at the time. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment that blacks, for example, even got citizenship.
Don't mindlessly accept tradition as good or true; think for yourself and decide whether or not the traditions should be kept around.
I'm not mindlessly accepting anything. I'm simply stating matters of fact that have basis in both statutory and case law.
I said nothing about intent because I do not care.
So as I said, quote me the section that backs up your claims that the Bill of Rights applies to foreigners. I'm still waiting.
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:23PM
Why would it need to? Or do you think James Madison was under the delusion that the US Government could, for example, impose a state religion on citizens of other countries?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:26PM
I care about what the constitution actually says. If the founders failed to explain themselves properly, that is no one's fault but their own.
(Score: 2) by Lunix Nutcase on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:30PM
I care about what the constitution actually says.
So quote me the part where it says the Bill of Rights applies to foreigners. I obviously won't hold my breath.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:35PM
If the constitution speaks generally, then it applies to everyone. For instance, the first amendment speaks about a right to free speech, but it does not specifically limit that to citizens or mention any other such thing. If you make the claim that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens, you've made a claim that you need to justify. Where in the constitution does it say that no part of the Bill of Rights applies to non-citizens?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:27PM
If the Bill of Rights doesn't apply, why the hell should copyright?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday December 24 2015, @06:21AM
I care about what the constitution actually says.
So quote me the part where it says the Bill of Rights applies to foreigners. I obviously won't hold my breath.
IIRC, foreign nationals on US soil are, for the most part, entitled to the same constitutional protections as U.S. citizens under the U.S. Constitution (and its amendments).
A [georgetown.edu] few [slate.com] people [quora.com], notably [findlaw.com] the U.S. Supreme Court [findlaw.com], agree [ricochet.com] with [thehill.com] me [aclu.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by Desler on Wednesday December 23 2015, @08:12PM
Nothing in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights mentions anything about a jury of one's peers. That is a phrase borrowed from the Magna Carta.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday December 24 2015, @02:24AM
It does, however, say the jury must be from the state or district where the crime occurred, which I would say is far *more* specific than "jury of one's peers":
(Score: 5, Funny) by isostatic on Wednesday December 23 2015, @06:29PM
Can't he retweet a couple of ISIS posts and get on the no-fly-list. Good luck extraditing him across the Pacific then.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:00PM
I wouldn't be so sure of that. It might give the powers that be an excuse to send him to GITMO or some shady CIA blacksite.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:50PM
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
No shit, Sherlock? Why would you assume it would work?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:09PM
I believe the U.S. bureaucracy will find it in their hearts to welcome Kim Dotcom onto our shores, even as they don't allow a Muslim family to go to Disneyland. [theguardian.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:39PM
The US has the right to refuse entry to anyone for any reason.
Just like the UK will routinely refuse entry for anyone that holds political beliefs they believe to be subversive/offensive.
I believe it is likely that someone in that family has ties to something or some group. I also know for a fact that many Muslims visit the US with no issues, so obviously this has nothing to do with race, which begs the question why did you bring it up?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @11:24PM
The US has the right to refuse entry to anyone for any reason.
Governments do not have rights; they have powers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:46PM
Hurr hurr hurr. Oh my god this was so funny. You sure got the US government with that one!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:58PM
Go back to 4chan.