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."
they have already killed an american overseas with a drone without due process. this seems tame in comparison.
can we please elect someone who can actually fix things????
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Wrong? Not really, no.
The U.S, Constitution-- heard of it?-- demands that the government cannot deprive citizens of life without due process of law.
It is possible that the people hit by the drone strikes have had some legal process applied to who gets targeted... but due to the secrecy, we don't know that. From all the evidence I can see, the "due process" is that one CIA guy says "I think this person should be on the list."
When I was a kid, you could tell which countries were dictatorships: those were the ones who had secret courts and secret police with secret powers with no limits and no oversight. In German, there is even a word for such secret police-- "Geheime Staatspolizei", literally "secret state police." More commonly called the Gestapo.
Now I live in a country with secret courts and secret police. I don't like it.
What is that due process, how is it implemented, and by whom? Without that question answered, we live in a dictatorship, and simply don't know it.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com