Slashdot Mirror
How the FBI Can Detain, Render and Threaten Without Risk (nytimes.com)
schwit1 writes: Patrick Eddington has a disturbing article in the NY Times about a court decision that seems to give U.S. law enforcement agencies the ability to have an American citizen sent from one foreign country to another for interrogation, to do that interrogation themselves, and to threaten the use of torture to get them to talk. "If this decision stands, it will mean that an American citizen overseas who is unlawfully targeted by the United States government for rendition, interrogation and detention with the help of a local government will have no form of redress in the courts." The case centers around Amir Meshal, a U.S. citizen who lived in New Jersey.
While Meshal was traveling abroad, he got caught up in a wave of refugees leaving Somalia for Kenya. There Kenyan authorities detained him, and FBI agents interrogated him. He was transported back to Somalia, and then to Ethiopia, where he had never visited. In Ethiopia, FBI agents once again quickly got access to Meshal, accusing him of being trained for terrorism in Al-Qaeda camps. They threatened him and denied access to lawyers.
Months later, when he was released, he returned to the U.S. He has never been accused of a terrorism-related offense. He filed a lawsuit based on his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, but U.S. courts have thus far denied his claims. Eddington concludes, "The appellate court decision means that American citizens have no means available to hold the government accountable for violating their constitutional rights, simply because the United States conveniently denied those rights in another country of its choosing."
While Meshal was traveling abroad, he got caught up in a wave of refugees leaving Somalia for Kenya. There Kenyan authorities detained him, and FBI agents interrogated him. He was transported back to Somalia, and then to Ethiopia, where he had never visited. In Ethiopia, FBI agents once again quickly got access to Meshal, accusing him of being trained for terrorism in Al-Qaeda camps. They threatened him and denied access to lawyers.
Months later, when he was released, he returned to the U.S. He has never been accused of a terrorism-related offense. He filed a lawsuit based on his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, but U.S. courts have thus far denied his claims. Eddington concludes, "The appellate court decision means that American citizens have no means available to hold the government accountable for violating their constitutional rights, simply because the United States conveniently denied those rights in another country of its choosing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
C'mon, editors!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11...
Apparently, some articles now "clearly" show the story link in light green font on the dark green of the article header now (in parenthesis no less so we know it is a detail rather than the main point).
I've seen no evidence that the US Government wants Assange for any reason. Just a lot of unsupported claims.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Except that the judges never examined any evidence to that effect. The judges ruled that they did not have the authority to adjudicate the claim, as there is no specific redress for the wrongs alleged. Your claim that there is no evidence is absolute bullshit- we don't know if there's any evidence or not, because the case didn't make it that far.
No US citizen was murdered by a drone, they were killed, legally. The law of war permits that. When you fight with the enemy in an armed conflict against the US you are part of the enemy and can be killed just like any other enemy combatant. That is what those US citizens had done, and it cost them.
Wrong.
Some of the Americans killed were fighting with the enemy. "Some" is not the same as "all".
http://www.motherjones.com/kev...
http://content.time.com/time/w...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.aclu.org/video/acl...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
President Obama pulled the troops according to the schedule that former President Bush negotiated.
The Obama administration tried to negotiate an extension but PM Nouri al-Malaki insisted that US troops be subject to prosecution in Iraqi courts. The Americans quite properly left the table.