"A reason to hang him": how mass surveillance, secret courts, confirmation bias and the FBI can ruin your life

Fine, 'Mericuns it shall be ; )
Seriously though, in Alberta americans are often referred to as 'Cucks. Don’t ask why, just a weird local nickname.

I think you can figure it out why USians is increasingly used since 2001 or so.

The USians have alway been at war with the Themnians.


Oh, I like to play dress up.

Being from and living in Alberta my whole life, I’ve never heard the term 'Cucks before. Nor used as a term for an American. Maybe something even more local than the provincial scope? Which general part of Alberta are you from? (Red Deer - Calgary area myself)

I thought I was the one who invented the term “Canuckistan”, good to hear someone else using it.

[edit: I like Canada, I think it’s a funny term, and not meant disparagingly.]

I for one legit cannot, and a quick google search doesn’t provide any help. Why is USian “increasingly used since 2001 or so”?

Hey, wait. Cory wrote a story called “Scroogled” in 2007, years before Microsoft’s anti-Google campaign took wing?
I wonder if he can sue or something.

1 Like

So you ignore the content of the post and attack the writer.

I agree that Cory could have his next career as a headline writer for the supermarket tabloids. But that is somewhat beside the point - which in this case is a miscarriage of justice.

Me, I’m going to focus my attention on the actual event and article we are talking about. You go ahead and focus on trashing the blog(ger).


First time I heard it was Bill O’Reilly, actually, and it wasn’t meant kindly. During the early years of the 'Murkin (my fave term, because it sounds like “merkin” which is a great word) debates on healthcare.

i read lots of arguing back and forth, but i don’t see anyone here asking “what can WE, as citizens, DO about things like this” and? I fear? that’s the biggest problem. most of us feel totally powerless to make ANY change.


First time I heard it was when Pat Buchannan used it to refer to Canada, and he was definitely not using it nicely. Of course, he also preceded it with ‘Soviet’.

See, that just shows how bad Al Jazeera is!

This is an old story, but I think it bears repeating:


Born in Airdrie, went to high school and University in Calgary, lived in Medicine Hat, worked in northern Alberta, and I’ve never heard of this.

How he writes headlines is entirely different from his propensity to fall victim to confirmation bias. And I assume that part of the point is that confirmation bias can be incredibly damaging and lead even those with the best of intentions astray (of course this presumes that not all the FBI agents who participated are raging Constitution-breakers hell-bent on railroading innocent people for shits and giggles, which I understand isn’t a concession that many people here are willing to make).

“…interviewed for a job at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He was asked if he was willing to break the law for his country. He answered “yes”, then explained how he worked to convict people he felt sure were guilty by fabricating evidence. He assumed the CIA would be pleased with his answer…”

Holy crap. Criminals can be stupid, even when they’re working for the law.


There’s two possible explanations - one - the FBI really is so utterly stupid that it wastes resources investigating people they should easily be able to rule out from suspicion - did they even check with him about whether he was in the USA on the day of the bombings? Presumably he meets people, it’d be easy to construct an alibi for the date of the bombings he was ‘suspected’ of if he has never left the USA in the past 10 years.

or two - the FBI realised they likely had the wrong man, but they decided to maintain the fiction that this lawyer might be a terrorism suspect in order to find out his business and to hunt through what would otherwise be legally privileged information about his clients. Even if he’s not a terrorist, they could use the false accusation and the false investigation to get at people who might be criminals.

It reminds me of the way that lawyers representing terrorism suspects were bugged in the UK during conversations with their clients. The police say the word ‘terrorist’ to throw out due process.


You’re forgetting to mention the religious bigotry aspect of the case. The partial fingerprint the Spanish police found matched at least 20 FBI records, but the FBI decided Mayfield was the one because he was a Muslim. (Mayfield had submitted fingerprints as part of a background check.) The FBI’s case to hold him centered around his religion, and the case was constructed around it; he went to a mosque where the imam was once connected to a suspicious character, as a lawyer he once defended a Muslim criminal, etc.

The FBI did apologize, eventually, after it became clear that all their rule breaking didn’t actually get the right person.

Let this go to show you, for every innocent person locked up, it means the real criminal is still on the loose.