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."
Sure there is.
It's called "put a bullet into a motherfucker".
Why the hell do you think law enforcement is so hot on gun control in most places?
While some people think I'm being low-brow and barbaric, I'm not.
The threat of PERSONAL reprisal by a segment of the populace has ALWAYS been a check and balance on the abuse of this sort of power.
I'm not saying "armed uprising and governmental overthrow".
I'm saying "ventilate them until they encounter a labor force shortage of able-bodied individuals" and/or a fall-off in enthusiasm for government employment.
Seriously. If our own fucking government wants to ignore the rules, both in letter and spirit, why in the bloody hell should anyone "play fair" with them?
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Iraq was Not illegal and you are inventing this pretense you claim to be false. Death is the usual result of war, everybody knows this happens going in. The rise of ISIS was because we left before the Iraqis could keep the peace on their own and that was on the current president's watch. (Oh and let's not forget, nearly everybody, republican and democrat, supported the use of force in Iraq at the time, many of whom had full access to the same intelligence as the president.)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101