6 ms·

Actually, if you could find a person directly responsible, it would probably be best if that person were killed. This is not an isolated incident for the US gov

Actually, if you could find a person directly responsible, it would probably be best if that person were killed. This is not an isolated incident for the US government, where due process has broken down completely, and if naked power is the only law left it would be better if it cut both ways.

sspencer 15y ago
I'm not at all advocating Cisco's behavior (it's very unethical and likely criminal as well) but I think suggesting someone murder a Cisco exec over this is, um, a tad harsh.
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  I don't know that it would be a Cisco exec, but someone has seriously tarnished the reputation of two nations, one of which is already on pretty shaky ground, and ruined a man's life. Honestly, only losing a year I think he got off light. And just to be clear, I wouldn't say this if I thought there was a reason to have any faith in the justice system of the US. I compare it to some local political boss in China getting the death penalty after pushing things a bit too far and embarrassing his superiors in the party such that they had to send him to his death in order to save face. Live by the sword and all that.
  - diolpah 15y ago
    If the national reputations have been damaged, it is the fault of the nations in question, not that of the nameless executive. Nobody forced the prosecutorial abuses explicated in this article. Be assured, however, that the thin blue line will continue to protect them just as much as Cisco will protect its executives.
    - danudey 15y ago
      Well the issue came about because lawyers (who are implicitly trusted in the legal system) lied openly about the circumstances. Unfortunately this trust is necessary for the legal system to operate, and it seems as though some lawyers have decided to take advantage of that. I can only hope that the lawyers involved are disbarred for life, and (in the case of American lawyers operating in Canada), charged with a crime and prevented from entering the country again (without facing prosecution).
- Daniel_Newby 15y ago
  ... suggesting someone murder a Cisco exec over this is, um, a tad harsh. No. A coalition of execs conducted a violent kidnapping in broad daylight to make a political statement. It would not be out of line to whack one of them in front of their family. Tit-for-tat ain't just for game theory papers. Illegality isn't much of an argument, since by corrupting the process of law they have placed themselves outside it. We can reasonably consider even more than that. The execs corrupted many levels of government, but were so inept that the government itself caught them at it. The Feds don't quite use Roman penalties for corruption (crucifixion), but they are harsh and unforgiving. Even a $100 bribe can get you sent to prison for years.
  - Daniel_Newby 15y ago
    Why the downvotes? If you disagree with an element of fact, then say it. The simple fact is the Cisco conducted a Russian mob-style kidnapping, to send a political message to the victim and his family. It would easily have turned into a full on mob hit if the victim had put a hand in his pocket and it had been "misinterpreted". And how is Cisco's next victim to seek redress? Certainly not by crossing a border: they own customs and immigration. Certainly not by working with a foreign court: Cisco's armed agents travel freely anywhere and do as they please. Certainly not by making a complaint to the FBI: who will just turn the complaint over to prosecutors who are Cisco's tame lapdogs. This is not lost on their prospective victims. With cooperation off the table, they know the choice is to submit or strike first. It is a statistical certainty that one of their prospective victims will choose to strike. It is also a certainty that, given the opaque nature of Cisco's management, that the strike will be broadly targeted. This sort of game-theoretic logic is exactly why corporate disputes in Moscow are so often resolved by bombings. Cisco has sown the wind, and will reap the whirlwind if they do not clean up their act.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - antiterra 15y ago
      The simple fact is the Cisco conducted a Russian mob-style kidnapping Re-reading this, I'm now convinced you're trolling. Regardless of whatever inappropriate influence Cisco may have exerted on US authorities, it was the RCMP that arrested Adekeye, and it appears to have been done in a very polite manner.
patrickgzill 15y ago
Actually the appropriate response would be to have the Secretary of State in the appropriate US state or Canadian province, yank the corporate charter of Cisco; thereby denying them the ability to operate at all, in that jurisdiction. Given Cisco's reliance on support contracts this would mean a huge hit to their profits, as well as giving competitors a lowered barrier to entry for government and midsize to large business in that state.
monochromatic 15y ago
Actually, whenever anyone does something I don't like, it would probably be best if that person were killed. /s
- danilocampos 15y ago
  You know, the remark was over-the-top, but let's also not trivialize the corruption of two governments for the purposes of destroying one man's life by comparing these acts to, say, someone cutting you off in traffic. The fact is that Cisco appears now to exist outside – above? – the law. I don't have a good, clean answer for how you deal with that. Bloodshed doesn't seem the right answer but it's not like you can trust a civil action to go anywhere when the puppet master has his hand so far up the assholes of so many bureaucrats.
  - monochromatic 15y ago
    I'm sure his lawyers have lots of good ideas. But we're not in the third world here... legal remedies exist, and there's no call for murder.
    - danilocampos 15y ago
      > But we're not in the third world here... legal remedies exist Tell that to the guy who was legally fucked over for a year. At least in the third world, corruption is acknowledged. Here, despite three pages of detail, you maintain a belief that the same legal mechanisms that allowed this guy to be nearly disappeared will also bring the appropriate wrongdoers to justice. That strikes me as a little unrealistic. So while I don't agree with murder as a remedy here, I can sympathize with the sense of defeat that inspires it.
      - monochromatic 15y ago
        I do have faith in the legal system as a whole. Corruption like this should be exposed and eliminated, within the context of that system. Not by murder.
chc 15y ago
Regardless of how outraged you might feel, I would suggest not voicing such opinions on the Web. If somebody decided to go through with such a plan, guess who now ranks highly on Google for relevant keywords. You don't want to SEO yourself into a murder investigation.
- eric-hu 15y ago
  > You don't want to SEO yourself into a murder investigation. I think this will be the most brilliant thing I read today
CamperBob 15y ago
This is a case where existing laws were not followed properly. You're proposing to add a new law, namely, that those guilty of offense X should be killed. What makes you think your law will be followed properly?
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  This is more about an appropriate response to the absence of laws. If a government arbitrarily enforces the laws and refuses to consistently follow them itself, the result isn't quite anarchy but it's getting warmer. I'm not proposing a law, because I'm not suggesting that due process ought to be followed in meting out the punishment. Due process need not be followed because if you can't provide a reasonable guarantee that it will be observed in any given case, there isn't much reason to have it at all, and in fact it starts to work against the public interest if it will be followed only when necessary to protect the powerful but disregarded in order to pursue and oppress the weak. There is a narrow but growing range of offenses in the US for which, if accused, you can forget about the courts. What we see here is another has been added to the list. As an aside, my original comment has sparked quite a large discussion, for having so many downvotes.
  - jtheory 15y ago
    Unfortunately, the discussion sparked is not very interesting. I'm not sure you're an intentional troll, but many responses (particularly if they're all trying to say "no, that's a horrible idea because...") don't indicate a worthwhile comment so much as a successful troll. In this case, if the powers-that-be were as powerful as you claim, we wouldn't even be having this conversation; Peter Adekeye would not be free and back with his family considering legal action, the Canadian judge would not be lambasting the US and Canadian prosecutors who were involved, etc. etc.. Am I just another sucker for the troll, though? This seems obvious, which means it's probably boring for most readers.
    - bluedanieru 15y ago
      I see an interesting discussion about the merits of mob justice and vigilantism if they serve as a check against corruption, i.e. if the specter of such would compel the ruling class to curtail the worst abuses before enough group delusions are shattered that the society can no longer sustain itself and all hell breaks loose. Sorry if you don't find it interesting. Especially sorry if you perceive everything you don't like/care about as a troll.

sspencer 15y ago

I'm not at all advocating Cisco's behavior (it's very unethical and likely criminal as well) but I think suggesting someone murder a Cisco exec over this is, um, a tad harsh.

bluedanieru 15y ago
I don't know that it would be a Cisco exec, but someone has seriously tarnished the reputation of two nations, one of which is already on pretty shaky ground, and ruined a man's life. Honestly, only losing a year I think he got off light. And just to be clear, I wouldn't say this if I thought there was a reason to have any faith in the justice system of the US. I compare it to some local political boss in China getting the death penalty after pushing things a bit too far and embarrassing his superiors in the party such that they had to send him to his death in order to save face. Live by the sword and all that.
- diolpah 15y ago
  If the national reputations have been damaged, it is the fault of the nations in question, not that of the nameless executive. Nobody forced the prosecutorial abuses explicated in this article. Be assured, however, that the thin blue line will continue to protect them just as much as Cisco will protect its executives.
  - danudey 15y ago
    Well the issue came about because lawyers (who are implicitly trusted in the legal system) lied openly about the circumstances. Unfortunately this trust is necessary for the legal system to operate, and it seems as though some lawyers have decided to take advantage of that. I can only hope that the lawyers involved are disbarred for life, and (in the case of American lawyers operating in Canada), charged with a crime and prevented from entering the country again (without facing prosecution).
Daniel_Newby 15y ago
... suggesting someone murder a Cisco exec over this is, um, a tad harsh. No. A coalition of execs conducted a violent kidnapping in broad daylight to make a political statement. It would not be out of line to whack one of them in front of their family. Tit-for-tat ain't just for game theory papers. Illegality isn't much of an argument, since by corrupting the process of law they have placed themselves outside it. We can reasonably consider even more than that. The execs corrupted many levels of government, but were so inept that the government itself caught them at it. The Feds don't quite use Roman penalties for corruption (crucifixion), but they are harsh and unforgiving. Even a $100 bribe can get you sent to prison for years.
- Daniel_Newby 15y ago
  Why the downvotes? If you disagree with an element of fact, then say it. The simple fact is the Cisco conducted a Russian mob-style kidnapping, to send a political message to the victim and his family. It would easily have turned into a full on mob hit if the victim had put a hand in his pocket and it had been "misinterpreted". And how is Cisco's next victim to seek redress? Certainly not by crossing a border: they own customs and immigration. Certainly not by working with a foreign court: Cisco's armed agents travel freely anywhere and do as they please. Certainly not by making a complaint to the FBI: who will just turn the complaint over to prosecutors who are Cisco's tame lapdogs. This is not lost on their prospective victims. With cooperation off the table, they know the choice is to submit or strike first. It is a statistical certainty that one of their prospective victims will choose to strike. It is also a certainty that, given the opaque nature of Cisco's management, that the strike will be broadly targeted. This sort of game-theoretic logic is exactly why corporate disputes in Moscow are so often resolved by bombings. Cisco has sown the wind, and will reap the whirlwind if they do not clean up their act.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - antiterra 15y ago
    The simple fact is the Cisco conducted a Russian mob-style kidnapping Re-reading this, I'm now convinced you're trolling. Regardless of whatever inappropriate influence Cisco may have exerted on US authorities, it was the RCMP that arrested Adekeye, and it appears to have been done in a very polite manner.

patrickgzill 15y ago

Actually the appropriate response would be to have the Secretary of State in the appropriate US state or Canadian province, yank the corporate charter of Cisco; thereby denying them the ability to operate at all, in that jurisdiction. Given Cisco's reliance on support contracts this would mean a huge hit to their profits, as well as giving competitors a lowered barrier to entry for government and midsize to large business in that state.

monochromatic 15y ago

Actually, whenever anyone does something I don't like, it would probably be best if that person were killed. /s

danilocampos 15y ago
You know, the remark was over-the-top, but let's also not trivialize the corruption of two governments for the purposes of destroying one man's life by comparing these acts to, say, someone cutting you off in traffic. The fact is that Cisco appears now to exist outside – above? – the law. I don't have a good, clean answer for how you deal with that. Bloodshed doesn't seem the right answer but it's not like you can trust a civil action to go anywhere when the puppet master has his hand so far up the assholes of so many bureaucrats.
- monochromatic 15y ago
  I'm sure his lawyers have lots of good ideas. But we're not in the third world here... legal remedies exist, and there's no call for murder.
  - danilocampos 15y ago
    > But we're not in the third world here... legal remedies exist Tell that to the guy who was legally fucked over for a year. At least in the third world, corruption is acknowledged. Here, despite three pages of detail, you maintain a belief that the same legal mechanisms that allowed this guy to be nearly disappeared will also bring the appropriate wrongdoers to justice. That strikes me as a little unrealistic. So while I don't agree with murder as a remedy here, I can sympathize with the sense of defeat that inspires it.
    - monochromatic 15y ago
      I do have faith in the legal system as a whole. Corruption like this should be exposed and eliminated, within the context of that system. Not by murder.

chc 15y ago

Regardless of how outraged you might feel, I would suggest not voicing such opinions on the Web. If somebody decided to go through with such a plan, guess who now ranks highly on Google for relevant keywords. You don't want to SEO yourself into a murder investigation.

eric-hu 15y ago
> You don't want to SEO yourself into a murder investigation. I think this will be the most brilliant thing I read today

CamperBob 15y ago

This is a case where existing laws were not followed properly. You're proposing to add a new law, namely, that those guilty of offense X should be killed. What makes you think your law will be followed properly?

bluedanieru 15y ago
This is more about an appropriate response to the absence of laws. If a government arbitrarily enforces the laws and refuses to consistently follow them itself, the result isn't quite anarchy but it's getting warmer. I'm not proposing a law, because I'm not suggesting that due process ought to be followed in meting out the punishment. Due process need not be followed because if you can't provide a reasonable guarantee that it will be observed in any given case, there isn't much reason to have it at all, and in fact it starts to work against the public interest if it will be followed only when necessary to protect the powerful but disregarded in order to pursue and oppress the weak. There is a narrow but growing range of offenses in the US for which, if accused, you can forget about the courts. What we see here is another has been added to the list. As an aside, my original comment has sparked quite a large discussion, for having so many downvotes.
- jtheory 15y ago
  Unfortunately, the discussion sparked is not very interesting. I'm not sure you're an intentional troll, but many responses (particularly if they're all trying to say "no, that's a horrible idea because...") don't indicate a worthwhile comment so much as a successful troll. In this case, if the powers-that-be were as powerful as you claim, we wouldn't even be having this conversation; Peter Adekeye would not be free and back with his family considering legal action, the Canadian judge would not be lambasting the US and Canadian prosecutors who were involved, etc. etc.. Am I just another sucker for the troll, though? This seems obvious, which means it's probably boring for most readers.
  - bluedanieru 15y ago
    I see an interesting discussion about the merits of mob justice and vigilantism if they serve as a check against corruption, i.e. if the specter of such would compel the ruling class to curtail the worst abuses before enough group delusions are shattered that the society can no longer sustain itself and all hell breaks loose. Sorry if you don't find it interesting. Especially sorry if you perceive everything you don't like/care about as a troll.