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."

Comments

drones

[ganjadude]

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????

Re:drones

[Scutter]

When increasing numbers of our younger citizens believe that the US Constitution is an out-dated relic with no contemporary relevance, it's no wonder our leaders behave with such contempt of the document.

Re:drones

[AK Marc]

can we please elect someone who can actually fix things????

Nope. Because the American People are more focused on taxes and sex than they are about the government committing murder.

Re:drones

[geekmux]

When increasing numbers of our younger citizens believe that the US Constitution is an out-dated relic with no contemporary relevance, it's no wonder our leaders behave with such contempt of the document.

Well, that's a shitty excuse.

Those relics we vote for who represent us should fucking know better, because they aren't the ignorant youth. Shit, they were probably around for the last half-dozen Amendments to be ratified. Using the attitude of the ignorant is no excuse to understand the law you should be following.

Re:drones

[Scutter]

I didn't say "young kids". I said "our younger citizens". Those "naive young kids", as you refer to them, are also voters.

Re:drones

[rtb61]

Dude grow up, they are called amendments and if the majority want to change the constitution than that is exactly what should happen, it's called democracy. Until a countries constitution is changed of course they should adhere to it. To be clear freedom of speech is freedom of opinion and not freedom to make up facts and perhaps that amendment needs to be made to craft that distinction between freedom of opinion versus freedom to lie, cheat and pay others to kill (money is speech according to the US government, hence paying some one to kill some one is just their right to free speech and only the person who did the killing is guilty of a crime - patently false but you get the idea).

The silliness of freedom to weapons is broken all over the place for example in prison but wait what, 'NO' law shall but wait does not law deny weapons to prisoners. So uh huh, yeah right.

The assertion that you have the right to keep your identity secret in public interactions is also questionable especially in regard to the committing of crimes. Pretty much the state in identifying you as a citizen does share that ownership of identity with you, as it protects you and the rest of us by being able to validate who you are and of course prove it in a court of law. It gets complex around the idea of government being able to deny you as a citizen and you proving you are one and what is the legal default. Does the government have to prove you are not a citizen or do you have to prove that you are a citizen. Especially now with many governments playing with that idea.

Re:drones

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Because the American People are more focused on taxes and sex than they are about the government committing murder.

To be far, far more Americans pay taxes and have sex than are targets for government-sanctioned killing. So it's hardly surprising people will vote on things that affect them more.

Re:drones

[Archangel Michael]

It is a shitty excuse. It is also a shitty outlook by the same people who think that it is Out-Dated, relic without contemporary relevance. These kids have been taught by liberal elites with a twisted SJW attitude.

Re:drones

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as long as you have that "first past the post" voting system that entrenches the two-party system.

Re:drones

[Stephan Schulz]

If someone openly renounces their American citizenship in a propaganda video made by/with/for terrorists, and are only still a citizen because they won't fill out the paperwork to formally renounce it... Yeah, the military can kill 'em and I won't be sorry.

That's called "giving aid and comfort to America's enemies" and his own video is/was prima facie proof of it.

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

Re:drones

[tnk1]

Actually, this case is more concerning to me than the drone strike.

The guy killed by the drone was operating as a military enemy in a foreign country where there was no prospect of him coming into the custody of Federal law enforcement. That sort of action on a US citizen is rare and was approved by the National Security Council.

The person in this article was in custody and being interviewed in a controlled environment by law enforcement. There seems to be no excuse for the FBI not following proper procedure and requesting his return for an appropriate interrogation and investigation.

Of course, it appears that this action was legal, but that feels like something that should be changed by law or at least better regulations.

Re:drones

[davester666]

you are confused over who they represent. hint, it's not who voted for them.

Re:drones

[easyTree]

When increasing numbers of our younger citizens believe that the US Constitution is an out-dated relic with no contemporary relevance, it's no wonder our leaders behave with such contempt of the document.

ProTip: They don't care about you unless you have your own army or a mountain of cash.

Re:drones

[easyTree]

If someone openly renounces their American citizenship in a propaganda video made by/with/for terrorists, and are only still a citizen because they won't fill out the paperwork to formally renounce it... Yeah, the military can kill 'em and I won't be sorry.

That's called "giving aid and comfort to America's enemies" and his own video is/was prima facie proof of it.

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

Phew, lucky for them the law doesn't apply or that would be quite restrictive.

Re:drones

[whit3]

The person in this article was in custody and being interviewed in a controlled environment by law enforcement. There seems to be no excuse for the FBI not following proper procedure and requesting his return for an appropriate interrogation and investigation.

Actually, the FBI is the wrong place to complain. He should instead point out that the State Department (in the person of one or more ambassadors) did not properly aid a US citizen being detained abroad, without any legal charge against hiim. I'm not sure what the FBI did, but simply finding the guy and asking questions seems like normal investigation procedure. Leaving him unaided in a foreign jail, however, is NOT normal diplomatic support for a citizen traveling abroad.

Re:drones

[Bartles]

We did elect someone who can fix things. He just chooses not to, and all the people that voted for him twice choose to look at their feet in shame. If you want a million people marching in protest in Washington DC, you have to elect a Republican.

Re:drones

[nehumanuscrede]

Perhaps.

But I'm pretty sure that the majority of folks who voted for Obama the past two elections, did so on his claims that he was going to fix everything that was evil / corrupt / wrong with government and the previous administration. We all know how that turned out :| He was SUPPOSED to be " THE ONE " to set everything straight. Get America back on track. Make it great again. . . . . . wait . . . any of this stuff sound familiar ? From current candidates perhaps ? :|

Yeah, same rhetoric. Every four years. Same lies. Same outcomes. And nothing ever changes for the better. Hasn't for decades.

  That whole " Definition of Insanity " thing comes to mind here . . . .

So basically, all the Obama administration did ( and while I'm picking on Obama because that was the platform he ran on . . . Hope and Change, this applies to pretty much all administrations past, present and future ) was show voters just how naive it is to believe anything that comes out of a politicians / candidates mouth.

( Most of the older voters have given up on the system long ago, so this mostly applies to the younger, inexperienced voting crowd )

The problem is, the way the system is setup, there is an infinite amount of fresh, first time gullible voters to draw upon.

Re:drones

[UnknownSoldier]

You know what they say ...

  "Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it."

Re:drones

[tnk1]

The State Department apparently complained about him being removed from Kenya to Somalia, to no avail. And in Somalia, there is no US diplomatic presence. However, I admit it is unclear why the State Department didn't help out while he was in Ethiopia, which does have US diplomatic presence. It is possible that they were unaware of his presence at the time.

Still, this is a US citizen being interrogated by a Federal law enforcement agency. If he's safely in custody, he needed to have his Constitutional rights. If the letter of the law does not make that clear, it should be made clear. That is definitely the province of the FBI and their responsibility.

Re:drones

[UnknownSoldier]

I would also add in NippleGate, Sex tapes, Unreality crap such as the Kartrashians, and robbing from Paul to pay Peter.

"Oh noes, we were all born sucking a nipple but heaven forbid little Johnny see one on TV for 1/2 second! Violence? /sarcasm That's ok!"

Re:drones

[ganjadude]

so you are saying its hillarys fault?

Re:drones

[sumdumass]

How does the republican debates fit in there? If you were wise, you would be more concerned with democrats. The only thing they seem to fear is your second amendment ability to defend yourself. And yes, they are behind quite a lot of those zero tolerance policies.

Re:drones

[kheldan]

can we please elect someone who can actually fix things????

I don't think any such person exists within the current system here in the U.S.; I'm really starting to think that POTUS is more like PUPPET, and the corporations and three-letter agencies (NSA, FBI, CIA, etc) are the real wielders of power in this country, and that today it may be mainly brown people and black people who are getting their rights as citizens ignored and basically treated like dogshit, but the day is probably coming where it won't matter what color your skin is, what your ancestry is, whether you were born here or not, because if you aren't the 1%, then you're just more meat for the grinder and basically worthless. I'd like to believe that there's a way to stop it before it happens, and maybe there is, and maybe it won't involve blowing up half the gods-be-damned world to accomplish it, but it's starting to look pretty grim out there -- never-the-less, though, 'it's always darkest before the dawn', and all that..

Re:drones

[sumdumass]

Where did he say that was liberal? He said bullshit is done with impunity because liberals teach generations that the safeguards are bullshit too.

Re:drones

[CanadianMacFan]

It's not whether or not you are a target. The issue is what the government is doing on your behalf. The people elected and those in the public service are to uphold the fundamental principles of the nation in the most efficient manner. If they aren't doing it then there needs to be an mechanism to remove them.

Re:drones

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing [Democrats] seem to fear is your second amendment ability to defend yourself

Yeah, watch out for those Democrats like Ronald Reagan pushing for gun control to disarm the Black Panthers.

At least with the real Democrats, we know exactly what they're planning to do and can be on guard against it. With the Republicans, there's no way to discern when they're actually going to support the Constitution and our freedom, or when they're going to backstab us and twist the knife to give us the "freedom to do what the government tells you to do". From wide stances to the war on drugs to wiretapping to fiscal responsibility, I don't think you can find a bigger batch of two-faced liars and hypocrites as you can find by walking into any Republican debate or party meeting right now.

I've burned my Republican card, straight ticket Libertarian now. If I get poisoned by some corner-cutting corporation thanks to that, at least I can die at peace knowing I didn't support a Republican.

Re:drones

[CanadianMacFan]

The problem is that voters believed the president has much more power than the position really does. The US does a great marketing job to push that line with things such as "the leader of the Free World" and "the most powerful man in the world." But in reality the president has to negotiate for most of what they want to achieve. And when they have to do that with people that don't want to negotiate then not much gets done.

Though some of the things he was saying were over the top and you pretty much expect that from anyone trying to get elected. I don't think he's great. He looks a lot better because of his predecessor. But then you could have put a sack of potatoes in the Oval Office and it would have made a better President than Bush.

Re:drones

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'm pretty sure that the majority of folks who voted for Obama the past two elections, did so on his claims that he was going to fix everything that was evil / corrupt / wrong with government and the previous administration. We all know how that turned out :| He was SUPPOSED to be " THE ONE " to set everything straight. Get America back on track. Make it great again. . . . . . wait . . . any of this stuff sound familiar ? From current candidates perhaps

Obama's first mistake was in thinking that he could unilaterally dictate bipartisanship. He tried, and quickly discovered, that you cannot negotiate with economic terrorists vis a vis the Republican party.

Re:drones

[AK Marc]

I would also add in NippleGate, Sex tapes, Unreality crap such as the Kartrashians,

Sex sex and, well, sex.

and robbing from Paul to pay Peter.

Taxes.

Sure, they dress it all up, and try to make it look like something else, but almost every wedge issue comes back to sex or taxes, and most of the distractions are sex and violence.

Re:drones

[CanadianMacFan]

Uh, you mixed up the order of your presidents there.

Bush illegally invaded a country under false pretenses which lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of people (funny that you never hear that mentioned in the US, just the American casualties) and the rise of ISIS.

Re:drones

[hairyfeet]

Uhh its been going on a LOT longer than that friend, they have killed Americans on American soil and have been doing so since at least the 1960s so the constitution literally isn't worth the paper its written on, at least if you are not rich and part of the ruling class.

Re:drones

[ganjadude]

and obama decided to pull the troops before they were contained and have been arming the same people who are killing us

we can argue the merits of the war (it was a bad idea )but we cant argue that both democrats and republicans voted for it based on the info they had.

bush was a horrible president, i never thought id see a worse president in my lifetime.... until obama took office

Re:drones

[Anonymous Coward]

I've said it before, and it apparently needs repeating. Voting for a candidate that CANNOT win is pretty much a stupid idea in a system where two parties generally are in control. Especially in the case of voting libertarian over republican. By all means, get involved in the primary process and support your favorite candidate, but when it come to the general election, Hold your nose and vote for a candidate that at least has a chance.

As the democrats are so willing to point out, there is a bit of a rift developing in the republican party (Ok.. it's been evident for nearly 10 years now). There is a faction that is, like you, fed up with how the establishment republicans just seem to roll over and play dead. This "fed up" faction seems to be growing within the party and we are starting to see this play out in the nomination process. Jeb is flailing, working on his fifth or sixth reset/restart/rebranding but falling in the polls with money drying up. The anti establishment candidates (Trump, Carson and Cruz) are building support and now I think the establishment is actually beginning to push Rubio forward as an alternative to Bush. So what's this have to do with YOUR vote?

Plenty actually. You see, the way you CHANGE the party is by doing it in the primary. You get candidates you CAN support nominated whenever and wherever you can, and this is what's been happening to the republican party of late. The establishment candidate has been starting to loose their primary fight, and even if they don't win the general election, the establishment candidate doesn't either, which helps push the party in your direction. But if you just choose to head to the libertarian party, your vote has little impact on the establishment and actually pushes us all further from your goals and ideals actually being implemented. You are wasting your vote in the general, which is exactly what the democrats, those folks who are even further away from your libertarian position than the republicans want you to do.

If you won't vote democratic, they want you voting for a third party fringe candidate and not the republican. This is why they are pushing this "the republicans are divided" story and why they whish to play up the infighting and squabbles of the republicans and why they push folks like you off onto other third party choices which have no hope of winning. Don't give the democrats what they want, don't waste your vote... Fight in the primary, but hold your nose and vote for the closest candidate to your views who has a chance to win in the two party system, anything else is stupid IMHO.

Re:drones

[bobbied]

Follow the money.... It usually shows what's really going on...

Re:drones

[bobbied]

You know what they say ...

"Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it."

Further.. Those who know history are condemned to watch while other's repeat it.

Re:drones

[cold fjord]

they have already killed an american overseas with a drone without due process. this seems tame in comparison.

The Americans killed overseas by drones did get the due process they were entitled to. You can see a depiction of similarly appropriate due process here. (Notice that nobody was being read a Miranda rights warning.)

If during time of war you join an enemy and take up arms against the US you are no different than any other enemy, subject to being killed by the same means. That includes bayonet, sword, musket, rifle, canon, mine, rockets, bombs, missiles, grenades, giant rocks, or any other means used. This isn't a question of criminal law due process but of the law of war and the treatment of unsurrendered enemy combatants. Criminal law versus the law of war - different games have different rules. You better be sure you want to play by those rules, or don't go there.

If you want a trial and criminal law due process, then surrender. The local US embassy can probably help you there. Or hop a plane to the US and surrender at customs.

Re:drones

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yaknow, I just don't think anything is ever acceptable to you people, ever. An assassination campaign is about the kindest version of war you can get. It is the best choice in a terrible situation. But that's not enough.

I think what cheeses you off the most is when America kills its enemies rather than all this other crap. Your Chosen One Obama was elected a long time ago, he was going to put a stop to this, remember? And yet you blame the American People. Why? Because we're worried about things that affect our lives. How horrible, right? How dare anyone live like that! What else were we supposed to do other than elect Obama. It's not like we have any other influence over things. And still it's not enough, you blame us instead of the murderer with blood on his hands.

Re:drones

[Geoffrey.landis]

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...

Re:drones

[cold fjord]

Wrong? Not really, no. The point was that they weren't murdered. It's unfortunate that a couple of captives were killed as a consequence of legitimate military operations, but many captives of ISIS or al Qaeda's have wished for death given their treatment. It is reasonable to feel sorry for them. The others were generally there supporting or fighting on behalf of al Qaeda or ISIS and deserve little pity whether they were directly targeted like Anwar al Awlakis, or were accompanying a targeted individual as some of the other Americans were.

Poor Abdul Rahman Awlaki?? Not so much.

Anwar al Awlaki’s son hoped ‘to attain martyrdom as my father attained it’

Anwar al Awlaki’s son said he hoped “to attain martyrdom as my father attained it” just hours before he was killed in a US Predator airstrike in Yemen in mid-October, according to a journalist who sympathizes with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Abdul Rahman al Awlaki, Anwar’s 16-year-old son and an American citizen, made the statement to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s emir of the city of Azzam in Shabwa province. Azzan is one of several Yemeni cities currently under AQAP control. , , ,'

Abdul Rahman was killed in a Predator strike in Shabwa province on Oct. 14. The strike targeted Ibrahim al Bana, AQAP’s media emir.

Re:drones

[cold fjord]

Since the "1960s"?? Nothing from ... say ... the 1860s comes to mind? Maybe the 1770s? I hear there was a commotion or two before the 1960s.

Re:drones

[Jane Q. Public]

Where the fuck were all these freedom loving libertarians when the towers fell and Bush invaded Iraq after already hitting Afghanistan?

I can personally testify that they were all over the place, just like they were under Obama. But nobody paid attention then, either.

Re:drones

[Culture20]

The first safeguard is gridlock. Gridlock was designed into the system to make passing a new law an arduous process that might take a long time unless there was true popular support. Heck, the vice president was originally the runner up in the presidential election, ensuring that ties in the senate get decided by a person the sitting president probably disagrees with. Modern DC folk like to yammer about progress as if the numbers of laws passed is directly related to the utility of congress or the whole of government itself.

Re:drones

[AK Marc]

Because some people like them and want them higher, for certain segments.

Re:drones

[Anonymous Coward]

I am going to Godwin this, but there is a point:

When the Nazis took the communists, I kept silent as I was no commuist.
When they locked up the the social democrats, I kept silent as I was no social democrat.
When they took the unionists, I kept silent as I was not in a union.
When they took me there was no one left to protest.
Martin Niemöller (theologian)

Re:drones

[moonlandingchap]

"Can we please elect someone who can actually fix things?" 44 times of asking, so far is appears not. Looking at the next crowd of world haters lining up for the job, the future doesn't look bright.

Re:drones

[N1AK]

I don't expect this to stop when O is finally out of office, but the precedent he's set for future Presidents is scary....unless we actually get one that is interested in trying to go back to a more Constitutional level of authority and power.

I don't think it's accurate to claim he set the precedent, even if he has continued it and perhaps used it for larger things. It's also an outright lie to claim he used the most, he's used less exec orders than Bush or Clinton and F. Roosevelt issued around 15 times as many as Obama has so far.

Re:drones

[N1AK]

For matters of criminal law. That isn't how things work at war, on the battlefield, under the Law of War.

Except you don't seem to appreciate how the laws of war operate. You'd be hard pushed to find a consensus on when they apply (certainly they were originally written to apply when war had been declared) and additionally they are written to apply only uniformed military fighting uniformed military. Additionally if the laws of war apply then ISIS etc are enemy combatants and must be treated as prisoners of war when captured; which the US is clearly not doing (Guantanamo being the most egregious example).

The fact that you think the US is justified in what it did in these cases doesn't mean you can't still have a rational appreciated of the law, and accept that it was in fact illegal.

Re:drones

[thegarbz]

When increasing numbers of our younger citizens believe that the US Constitution is an out-dated relic with no contemporary relevance, it's no wonder our leaders behave with such contempt of the document.

When the governments blatantly ignore it can you blame young people for seeing that the constitution is barely worth the paper it's written on?

Re:drones

[serviscope_minor]

No the problem is foolish SJWs like yourself trying to blame it on some loopy partisan theory. Rah rah my team! My party! You suck! We rock! If you stop your social justice bleating you will see that it's a non partisan issue. People with power in either party want more. The constitution's supposed to limit power, so it's got to go.

So stop your tribalism ans pull your head out of your ass.

Re:drones

[CanadianMacFan]

The US went to the UN looking to make the invasion legitimate like Afghanistan and couldn't provide the proof so they didn't get it. The US came to Canada and asked us to join them in Iraq. Our Prime Minister asked to see the proof of these WMDs and was told no. So our parliament voted to stay out of Iraq.

The original reason for invading Iraq was weapons of mass destruction. I'm not inventing that reason. But the US invented their excuse.

And the rise of ISIS wasn't caused by the US pulling out too early. The direct reason was the disbanding of the Iraqi army which created a large pool of idle people that were trained with weapons and given reason to not like the US. Of course that only happened because of the invasion.

Re:drones

[Big Hairy Ian]

Isn't this more to do with jurisdiction I mean if I'm arrested in another country for committing a crime in that country surely I'm at the mercy of the local equivalent of due process.

Re:drones

[sumdumass]

There is no freedom of anything in the constitution. There is only powers granted to the government and specific hard restrictions on it. This guy is US citizen and amendments should apply to the government in any interaction they are involved in whether he is incarcerated by another country or not.

If it wasn't for generations thinking it is a living document subject to change or interpretation with the times instead of amending it like it says, or is outdated and can be ignored, the courts never would have gotten away with this and neither would the government.

Re:drones

[Archtech]

can we please elect someone who can actually fix things????

You have put your finger accurately on the source of the problem. Unfortunately, the answer is, "No, you cannot".

Consider. US elections, at almost all levels but especially at the federal level, give citizens the chance to cast a vote for any of the official candidates. Aha, but who chooses the candidates? The official parties - namely Republicrats and Demoblicans. And they don't select any official candidates who don't toe the party line. The real party line, that is, not the carefully crafted set of lies published as party platforms or manifestos. (If you doubt that assertion, take a look at the platforms of George W Bush and Barack Obama, and ask yourself how many of those promises they kept). And the key fact is that, in all important respects, the real party lines of both parties are identical.

Clever, eh? In the USSR they had regular elections but we Westerners scoffed at their obvious fraudulence, as there was only one party and one candidate. How ridiculous! In the West today, a small technical tweak has been added: there are two parties, two candidates - but still no choice.

Re:drones

[Archtech]

I've said it before, and it apparently needs repeating. Voting for a candidate that CANNOT win is pretty much a stupid idea in a system where two parties generally are in control.

Yes, that's half of it - and perfectly true so far as it goes.

The other half is that if you vote for either of the two parties that are "generally in control", you will get more of what you have been getting. In particular, please tell me which of the two parties that are "generally in control" would stop the FBI's abuse of power and ill treatment of US citizens?

In case you are in doubt, the answer is, "Neither".

So there you have it. Vote for one of the two main parties, and things go on exactly as before. Vote for anyone else, and your vote is wasted. Ah democracy, how sweet is thy name! How would we get along without it?

Re:drones

[Archtech]

Those relics we vote for who represent us should fucking know better, because they aren't the ignorant youth.

Of course they "know better". They know better than to believe for one single moment that they need to give a rat's ass about the law or the Constitution, because they are in a position to do whatever they like - and nobody can stop them or exact any retribution.

Your mistake (I think) is to believe that, just because someone wins an election or is appointed to public office, they automatically become altruistic and unselfish in some mystical way. Look around you at your fellow men (and, increasingly, women) and ask yourself whether, given a choice, they would act in your interest or their own. Then understand that politicians are just like that.

Re:drones

[Archtech]

What's liberal about kidnapping, imprisonment and abuse?

Is it a left thing or a right thing?

To ask that intelligent question is to see the answer: neither. It's a greedy, selfish, arrogant, cruel thing. You are governed by greedy, selfish, arrogant, cruel people. And they will call themselves "conservative" or "liberal" or anything else that gets them what they want, and fools you into quarreling among yourselves when you should be arresting and trying them. "Divide and conquer". It was known to the Romans, and you can bet it isn't exactly unknown to American politicians.

Re:drones

[Archtech]

Exactly right.

Re:drones

[Triklyn]

bernie sanders actually seems like he's got a privacy streak to him. So I actually think he'd not push for more federal/executive power. He seems more, morally grounded than Hillary.

republican field, forget about it. It's not expected. on the other hand, i'm bothered by it more intellectually than actually. Realistically, it has a vanishingly small chance of impacting me. Out of sight out of mind.

Re:drones

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:drones

[bobbied]

The Original reason for the Iraq war was about terrorism and Iraq harboring and equipping them. I know you lefties want to hammer Bush on the WMD issue, but pretty much everybody at the time believed Sadam's claims that he still had them and would use them should the US invade and clearly Bush expected this and equipped the troops accordingly. The best intelligence we had at the time said he had them. Remember that we KNOW that Sadam had chemical weapons because he had used them in his conflict with Iran, Sadam was clearly saying he still had them. So Bush was not inventing some story to justify a war, although the WMD claim ultimately turned out to be less than accurate because the intelligence was faulty.

So, yes, your side is inventing an issue here, or at least making this issue into more than it was when you call it an illegal war. Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq, the UN authorized the use of force and nearly everybody was on board for this. It wasn't "illegal" or even "illegitimate" but fully authorized BEFORE troops set foot in Iraq by both the UN and Congress. Congress had full access to the same intelligence that Bush had but nobody stood up then to contradict what was being said, NOBODY, and nearly everybody voted in favor of the war.

Re:drones

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'm pretty sure that the majority of folks who voted for Obama the past two elections, did so on his claims that he was going to fix everything that was evil / corrupt / wrong with government and the previous administration. We all know how that turned out :| He was SUPPOSED to be " THE ONE " to set everything straight.

Where did you get that idea? The only person I know who believe that story is Rush Limbaugh and his more gullible listeners.

Re:drones

[NoImNotNineVolt]

(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.)

Bernie Sanders opposed the use of force in Iraq at the time.

"The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good." -- Bernie Sanders (video and transcript)

He also lists five reasons why he was opposed to the use of force, each of which seem nearly clairvoyant in hindsight.

Bernie 2016.

Re:drones

[dywolf]

no document is timeless, and the USC is no exception.

many parts of it -ARE- outdated.
some have already been changed.
its why the amendment process even exists.

one of the things that comes with that is the potential to change not just outdated sections like the 3/5 Compromise, but also others some of still find useful such as the 4th.

that isn't a bug.
it's a feature.

and advocating it's use is not contempt of the document, merely realistic appreciation that our society now is very different from that of the Founders, and is best served by a document suited to its own needs. hence the amendment process. if you would preserve those sections then must needs engage in debate and discussion with those who disagree, and sway them to your side. one of key requirements of a self governing democracy is the willingness to engage the other side in the marketplace of ideas.

Re:drones

[dywolf]

because Ben "I would keep the torture and drone programs secret from the American People" Carson.
and Donald "Lets deport legal citizens and residents" Trump (and he's not the only one to say that)

Re:drones

[david_thornley]

If it comes down to Tweedledee vs. Tweedledum in the general election, it doesn't matter. However, the choice of President has typically been significant.

If you want to make a difference in a democracy, you have to rely on something other than the fact that you have a vote in the general election, just like hundreds of millions of others who have the same vote. You have to get involved in the party machinery. It's much easier to change a political party than to create a new major party.

Re:drones

[david_thornley]

I'm pretty sure that a lot of Obama voters were voting against McCain and Romney. I usually vote against Presidential candidates. The ones I've actually voted for have been disappointments.

Re:drones

[dywolf]

funny you mention not looking at things in a vacuum.

"when Reagan first switched from the democrat party to the republican party, he still had some stupid ideas" ??

buddy, he supported the Brady Bill, in 1991, some 30 years after he switched.

and you also make the false assumption that he actually changed views when he changed parties. to be clear: he was a lifelong conservative, holding mostly and consistently conservative stances much of his adult life, long before he switched parties. only on a few topics did he diverge from mainstream conservatism, such as when he supported unions early in his life, at a time when -everyone- supported unions (which he later changed stances one), nuclear disarmament, and gun control.

ideology and party affiliation weren't are clearly delineated as they are now.

Re:drones

[dywolf]

it used to be a bipartisanly unAmerican thing, but ever since the GOP came out in favor of it, it's a right wing thing.

Re:drones

[david_thornley]

The war was sold on WMDs, but they weren't there. It would be nice to not invade a country, kill hundreds of thousands of people, and destabilize the area because we goofed. We had UN inspectors saying Iraq had no WMD programs, and we disregarded them. It looked to me like the intelligence community was telling the politicians what they wanted to hear. The Secretary of State was upset at the lack of real intelligence. (Read Colin Powell, "It Worked For Me" - although the audio version also gives you his voice tones, which are pretty much neutral except in that part.)

It is not clear to me that the UN authorized the invasion. UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was close to it, but I did not see any part of it that allowed a breaking of the UNSC-imposed cease-fire.

Re:drones

[dywolf]

Yep, its right there in the Imaginary Amendment: "These rights enumerated herein only exist when you're popular with your government".

Re:drones

[dywolf]

which part of the constitution specifically details the exemptions for war?
oh right.
it doesn't.

Re:drones

[bobbied]

Yes, Sanders was nearly alone in his objection. He's opposed to ANY interference in foreign affairs so this is not a surprise. Of course your CURRENT commander and chief voted FOR the war, as did Kerry, who voted for it and later changed his mind about it... Wonder what he thinks now?

Re:drones

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

When you say "illegally invaded", what laws, specifically, were broken? US law was followed for the invasion - every time Congress voted on whether or not to pull the troops (which was as often or more so than they were required to do), they voted to keep them there. False pretenses, sure (although I'm not sure whether Bush himself knew that), but the invasion itself wasn't illegal by US laws. You could argue the invasion was illegal by Iraqi laws, but that's a silly argument, because by that logic, every invasion ever was illegal.

Was the invasion a good idea? Almost certainly not, at least as it was carried out. Saddam, while a terrible human being, did keep the region mostly stable. Going in to remove him for his crimes against his people could have been justified, but it should have been done in a much smarter fashion, if it was to be done at all.

Re:drones

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

You know the US hasn't been at war, officially, since WWII, right?

Re:drones

[Archangel Michael]

Trust me when I say this, both Liberals and Conservative Republicans have the same problem with Libertarians, because both are statists. They are just statits for different causes.

The SJWs lament the Constitution not because of what it says, but who built it. They are all for the 1st amendment, until it no longer suits them (see Political Correctness). They are all for guns, as long as it is the government has them, and the people don't, while in the very next breath complain about cops shooting unarmed blacks. And so on down the line. Trust me when I say, we were complaining about War on Terror / Patriot Act was going on, we were saying "Hold on a second", while the (D) and (R) were conspiring to remove liberties in the name of security.

The problem is, that unlike some in the (R) party, there is nobody on the left that is really wanting reforms that limit government power. In fact, most of the powers collected by the Federal Government are actually reserved to the states or the people. The current legal status of the Commerce Clause has nullified all the enumerated restrictions elsewhere in the Constitution. But nobody is really talking about revoking that clause or Amending it to reflect the original intentions of the Framers of the Constitution.

Knowing where the problem is, isn't helping. Too many people, both (D) and (R) like the status quo. You can tell me I am wrong when Bernie wins the (D) primaries, and Donald or Ben win the (R). My gut tells me that it will be Clinton v Bush round 2, which will prove my point.

Re:drones

[Archangel Michael]

I would go one step further. I would suggest that the US constitution is a framework for ALL government activities, regardless of border. I see no reason why the Constitution's restrictions end at our border.

Re:drones

[Archangel Michael]

What is liberal about it isn't that it happens. What is liberal about it is that we have people saying the very document that prohibits it is old and antiquated, giving tacit approval to violating it for governmental convenience (in the name of Security or the Children)

Re:drones

[Archangel Michael]

I wouldn't call it Tribalism, but that works too. I would call it Group Politics. Which is why, fundamentally, rights are ascribed to individuals and not groups. The very idea is that a group cannot violate an individual's right, simply because they are more numerous.

Re:drones

[micahraleigh]

Maybe 5 years ago. This economy cooked interest in sex. Examples: I hear there's no nudity in playboy and less or none in GoT. There's always been a strong correlation between DJIA and dress length (which got VERY long immediately following the 1929 crash).

It's not that people are going to church. They aren't. It's that US citizens are thinking more about whether they can pay bills than sex.

Re:drones

[micahraleigh]

I suppose if you believe labeling a political party as terrorists and other ad hominems will not lend itself to the perception of a thin argument and a loss of trust for people reading it, then you should go with that. On the other side of the issue, I'm going with a different strategy.

Re:drones

[sumdumass]

Nothing racist or lies in there. It is all fact and verifiable at many separate sources- some of which were authored and published by the people themselves.

Close your eyes and cry that reality doesn't equal what you think it should but don't venture into the real world with real people who will actually know the truth and where to find it.

Re:drones

[AK Marc]

But there's been a spike in interest in gay marriage and other things sex related. Gay marriage, planned parenthood, and all that. Segregate and divide the voters on taxes (schools, progressive vs regressive) and sex. Wars and such are mentioned, but not key issues to the general voter. Too abstract.

Re:drones

[pnutjam]

Thanks for that commentary Rush.

Re:drones

[bobbied]

The war may have been marked using the WMD issue, but the REASON for it was clearly terrorism and the prevention of another 9/11 like attack. Of course, there are those who, for political reasons, want to change that so they can bash Bush.

So, I don't accept your view. The war was authorized and legal and the majority of the democrats voting for it said as much at the time. IMHO - Now they just want to revise history so they can bludgeon Bush/republicans with the thing and play politics over principle. Personally, I'd rather support the principled over the politicians who stick their fingers in the air to figure out what way to vote, but to each their own.

Re:drones

[beastofburdon]

Agreed, I will also add that the protections to the "people" were not intended to apply only to legal citizens. They were to protect all people from our government. That way a politician could not revoke someone's citizenship then send them to the torture chamber without as much as a farce trial.

Re:drones

[micahraleigh]

Wow. You posted that on /. !! I guess this place isn't such an echo chamber after all.

Re:drones

[beastofburdon]

You seem to have failed to understand that temporarily removing your freedoms is the purpose of prison. Also, by the Constitution, you were still allowed to own your guns while you were in prison, you just didn't have the freedom to use them because you were in prison. You still had the right to those weapons, just not the freedom to access them. As soon as you got out you could happily and legally go straight home use your guns in any way that was not criminal. The shit we deal with now is entirely unconstitutional. You lose your rights to own a gun for life if convicted of any federal crime or any type of domestic violence.

Re:drones

[beastofburdon]

You've hit it on the nose.
And apparently also only when on US soil. Scratch that, not too long ago they declared they had those powers right here at home. They can legally grab a random person off the street anywhere in the US imprison them until they feel like releasing them, torture them, kill them, and never even have to go through the formality of charging them with a crime, or even admitting that the person existed in the first place.

Re:drones

[Bartles]

Yes, the president is supposed to have limited powers. One power he does have is total executive power over the executive branch of government. All of these abuses have been perpetrated by the executive branch. He could stop any one of them with a simple phone call if he wished to.

Re:drones

[sumdumass]

The drone programs should be secret from the American people, we do not need to know how many people the government killed, only that those killings are justified and constitutional.

As for Trump, I have never heard him say anything about deporting legal citizens. You got a cite for that? As far as I know it is all been illegal aliens he wants to deport.

Re:drones

[sumdumass]

Well, first, here is Reagan's official reasoning for supporting it.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03...

Second, you are bringing something up after the "i don't know" Iran-Contra hearings in which it was obvious his mind was going and citing a year 1991 in which the law is not the same law passed by congress in 1993. It had been changed a bit and included different languages and provisions like the assault weapon's ban.

By the way, the final and passed version of the brady bill was voted on and passed into law in 1993, less than one year before Reagan's official diagnosis of Alzheimer was made public.

So once again, a statement was made in a vacuum hoping others were not smart enough to know the difference. That or you are just not capable of looking at the entire picture.

Re:drones

[ToddInSF]

He didn't join Al Queda, you asshole.

Re:drones

[CanadianMacFan]

The UN did NOT authorize the use of force in Iraq. It did with Afghanistan. When the US came to Canada asking for our help in Iraq we specifically asked for proof of the claims of WMDs which were the reason for the invasion and were told that it was secret because it would put lives in danger. It was a completely BS reply. The party leaders could have been safely told of any intelligence and they would have then told their party members whether or not they believed we should join. And danger to the informants would have been contained. But it showed that the WMDs was a BS excuse.

Just because Congress says it was okay to invade another country doesn't make it right. Putin got his government's okay to invade the Ukraine so I guess that makes it okay too.

Re:drones

[kmoser]

they have already killed an american overseas with a drone without due process. this seems tame in comparison.

The police kill more US citizens before 9 am than overseas agents do all day.

Re:drones

[dave420]

Considering it was intended to be updated every generation instead of worshiped like some immutable holy text, one can't really blame them.

Re:drones

[dave420]

You abject fucking child.

Re:drones

[cold fjord]

You do know that the US Congress has authorized military action, right? That authorization is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.

I would have thought that you might have heard a thing or two about since it has been in force for 14 years.

Re:drones

[RockDoctor]

Further.. Those who know history are condemned to watch while other's repeat it.

There is an implicit "but they really should take some action to stop it happening again, instead of just watching."

The SWAT team should be arriving shortly to take you out.

Re:drones

[cold fjord]

The part you didn't read that provides context?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger ; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note that we aren't even considering Article II here, just the sections of Amendment V that you "skipped over."

Why don't you follow the link to Cornell Law School and get that firmed up for you?

Re:drones

[N1AK]

Many things that aren't true can be considered true if you change the definition ;) and it still wouldn't show that he set a precedent of using a lot of them as many presidents before him have used them extensively.

Re:drones

[cold fjord]

You seem to have difficulties following the flow of discussion in a thread. Try rereading it and see if you can follow it this time. And yes, a person matching the description at the head of the tread did join al Qaeda. Should I be calling you a name at this point and mocking your lack of comprehension?

Re:drones

[cold fjord]

He didn't "hit it on the nose," he has it completely wrong. Try reading this at Cornell law school and see if it cuts through the fog for you. I've already corrected him in another place. We're 14 years into this at this point, I would hope that people still aren't clueless after all this time. And while you're at it, read this. Legally is it equivalent to a declaration of war. And the rest of your statement is rubbish too. Good grief. (I suppose I should mention this final clue: LAW OF WAR vs CRIMINAL LAW - different things, different standards.)

Re:drones

[bobbied]

From the prospective of the USA's legal system, the use of force was 100% legal, having been approved by Congress. The president has broad powers to enter into conflicts WITHOUT congress approving it, but must report to congress within 90 days of doing so and seek their approval to continue. Bush got approval BEFORE the fighting started.

The UN does not decide for the USA what's legal any more than it decides for Russia so it's of little consequence what the UN authorizes. Multiple countries have participated in this use of force, the USA did not act on it's own, even if it was the leading player in Iraq. Significant contributions of men, equipment and expertise where made from a number of other countries who supported this.

So, the statement that the war was "illegal" is patently false. The claim that it is "illegitimate" (i.e. not justified) is also not true and can be easily debated, even with the WMD question.

However, the moral question will forever remain a matter of personal prospective and conviction. There are those who oppose war regardless and for them, Iraq was NOT moral, nor was WW1, WW2 or any other conflict for any reason. Then there are folks who seem all too willing to bomb the (blank) out of any country that dares to say disrespectful things about the USA. And there are most of us who fall in between the two extremes. Arguing about your moral positions verses mine is really not profitable or useful so I'm not going to do it.

Re:drones

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Of course I know that. However, Congressional authorization of military action does not (4th paragraph specifically) give the President or military the same powers as a declaration of war would.

Re:drones

[david_thornley]

Iraq was not involved in serious terrorism, and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. Saddam and Osama were enemies. To cut down on international terrorism, the correct thing to do would have been to leave Iraq alone.

It doesn't matter that people thought the war was justified on the basis of things they were lied to on. The Bush administration was not particularly honest in making arguments for the war.

It would appear from what you said that the Bush administration was dishonest, selling the war to Congress on the basis of WMDs, and going to war on another basis entirely.

Re:drones

[micahraleigh]

You have made a very common equivocation: what shows up in the headlines is basically the same thing as what ordinary people are interested in.

It isn't.

Other confirmations: highschoolers are having A LOT less sex than they were 10 years ago. You see 10 - 30% of characters on TV being gay, but that is not how people are getting lured into watching the shows. It's just the script writers wanting to be trendy (believing it isn't going to cost them in the ratings game). See the gap there?

Planned parenthood is only showing up in the headlines because of the recent expose. I don't see that really continuing, and I would bet against any legislation relating to that in the slightest way.

Re:drones

[AK Marc]

Other confirmations: highschoolers are having A LOT less sex than they were 10 years ago.

You are confusing personal issues and political ones. Students are having less sex because abstinence is being taught less. It's that "paradox" that's making political waves.

You see 10 - 30% of characters on TV being gay, but that is not how people are getting lured into watching the shows. It's just the script writers wanting to be trendy (believing it isn't going to cost them in the ratings game). See the gap there?

The numbers of gay characters still being smaller than "real life" but those who are gay are often out of the closet, unlike real life. But it's not about people, or the media, but the politics.

How many politicians ran on a "family values" campaign in the 1950s? Unless that was code for anti-commie, I'd bet it was pretty low, if at all. But these days, "family values" is an important political platform.

Planned parenthood is only showing up in the headlines because of the recent expose. I don't see that really continuing, and I would bet against any legislation relating to that in the slightest way.

If the Republicans didn't think it an important political issue, why did Congress spend more time investigating Planned Parenthood than they spent investigating 9/11?

Re:drones

[bobbied]

There you go again... Inventing stuff and then arguing your moral position based on your invented things. The WND statements where not made up, they where bad intelligence. Actually Iraq DID have WMD's, and had used them in the past on Iran. We found them and evidence of them, just not in sufficient numbers to make this whole argument go away in made up minds like yours. We found a few largely junk and unserviceable chemical weapons. This whole idea wasn't made up out of whole cloth like the "It was the video that caused a riot in Benghazi" farce pulled by the current administration.

And your side wishes to claim the moral high ground here? Shesh.. What's worse, saying something you KNOW is untrue or saying something you believe to be true that later proves to be inaccurate?

Shall we just stop now and agree that we don't agree on this? I get the feeling we won't come to any agreements here...

Re:drones

[hairyfeet]

If you can provide links showing the FBI killing Americans in the 1770s or 1860s go right ahead, but I bet you will find it rather difficult as the FBI didn't exist at those points in time.

Re:drones

[Bartles]

I guess you can't.

Re:drones

[david_thornley]

We know Iraq had chemical weapons. We kept the invoices. The question was if Iraq had significant WMDs or programs to produce them, and the answer in 2003 was "No". The intelligence supplied to the American Congress and people was wrong. Exactly where it went wrong is an interesting question, and we're unlikely to learn the answer. Colin Powell complained that his address to the UN had been prepared by Cheney, and he had way insufficient time to evaluate the evidence himself.

Because of this wrong intelligence, we started an expensive war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and destabilized the area. ISIS is a fairly direct result of what we did. Saddam would have stopped it. He wouldn't have been nice about it, but the radical Islamists don't look any better.

The above is mostly factual. The statement that Saddam would have stopped ISIS is the exception, but I think it extremely likely.

I have indeed opinions on the reasons why the intelligence was bad, which you disagree with.

BTW, the Benghazi attack was about the same time as multiple protests, after that particular movie was released and Muslims protested against it. It wasn't a factor in the Benghazi attack, but the idea that that attack was a reaction wasn't made up out of whole cloth either.

Re:drones

[micahraleigh]

"If the Republicans didn't think it an important political issue, why did Congress spend more time investigating Planned Parenthood than they spent investigating 9/11?"

A powerful question, to be sure, but I don't think it addresses your claim. The republicans aren't tapping into sexual attraction to get votes. When I think of planned parenthood the last thing I think of is 'oh exciting! sexuality!'. If anything they're tapping into "hey, there's something to be said for responsibility".

"The numbers of gay characters still being smaller than "real life" but those who are gay are often out of the closet"

Practicing homosexuals is 2% of the population. That was in a mainstream media newspaper. The number of gay characters on TV vastly exceeds that. Pierce Brosnan (not a Sunday School teacher) was attacked because he said he didn't see how a gay Bond would work. James Bond is probably the last character that would make sense as a homosexual.

Re:drones

[AK Marc]

sexual attraction

I never said "attraction". It's about sex. Planned parenthood is about sex (or the consequences thereof).

Practicing homosexuals is 2% of the population. That was in a mainstream media newspaper. The number of gay characters on TV vastly exceeds that.

Only when you look at the number of gay characters in gay TV shows. How many gay characters are on the Simpsons? 1? Of a cast of hundreds or more? And he's not even officially out of the closet, just strongly indicated. How about on The Walking dead? 0 gay relationships right? Name any show that isn't deliberately casting and promoting a gay character (queer as folk, OITNB, Glee) and Modern Family is the only show I can think of that's running with a gay relationship that isn't used solely for comic relief. Total sum of all TV characters being gay? I'd guess it to be still well under the national average. Same as all the other minorities. TV works best pandering to the middle, and they are upper-lower class working families.

But the fact you are getting so worked up about it is why sex is used as a political wedge issue.

Re:drones

[sumdumass]

Oh, i never brought up the Chicago bs because it was largely BS. The democrats had to hang someone for disrupting their get together. If that was all there was to the story i never would have brought it up.

If it was really about those killing you, it wouldn't be an issue. Yes, advocating the deaths of catagories of people is where the line is drawn. And that is a bullshit cop out about the war as every one was being sent off. Drugs is just plain stupid as it takes a willing participant.

Oh, and bobby's advocacy of murder stems from the murder of a black panther (read young black man here) who was suspected of being a law enforcement informant. There was no need for media propaganda, seale wrote it down himself and distributed it. Most all bad things about them are at their own hands.

Re:drones

[bobbied]

Oh for Pete's sake... I can produce chemical weapons in my kitchen, and not because I'm a horrible cook... Mustard gas is *easy* to produce, and accidentally gets made quite often by people mixing the wrong cleaners in the bathroom, just read the labels on that cleaner stuff. It's not like all this is secret or hard to do, nor does it take much in the way of equipment.

So I don't know what you *expected* to see in Iraq based on Bush's statements.

And YES the Benghazi video thing WAS a lie, told by people who knew it to be a lie. Didn't you pay attention to Hillary's statements and E-mails in the last hearing where she testified? No? Oh that's right, the media really didn't care about the fact that she was telling the American people it was a video, but sent her daughter an E-mail clearly saying otherwise AT THE SAME TIME.

But what difference does it make now? None, really, except to contrast what Hillary said to what Bush said. You want to call Bush a liar, but you don't mind giving Hillary a pass? Bush was saying something it *thought* was true, that everybody thought was true at the time, Hillary was saying stuff she KNEW wasn't true. I think you have multiple standards here, and those standards are politically motivated, but I digress..

Re:drones

[david_thornley]

You can't make mustard gas accidentally with household cleaners. That's (IIRC) chlorine, produced if you mix ammonia and bleach.

If the Bush administration statements had been correct, I would have expected to see some WMD produced fairly recently, and facilities for their manufacture. Centrifuges buried in a rose garden do not constitute an active weapons program. Neither do occasional small stockpiles of decade-old unmaintained ordnance.

Re:drones

[bobbied]

And you side step the moral argument I made about known liars from your side and betray your true motives. How partisan of you...

Re:drones

[david_thornley]

Recent Democrat lies haven't killed hundreds of thousands of people. The false statements of the Bush administration did.

Re:drones

[bobbied]

Hundreds of thousands? Just a bit of hyperbolae on that number. Your partisan underwear is showing.

Re:drones

[david_thornley]

That's the best estimate I got of Iraqi civilian deaths due to the 2003 invasion. We disrupted a lot of infrastructure in that operation. So, if you look at the Wikipedia article, you'll find that the deaths of 174,000 people were reported in the newspapers, primarily Iraqi civilians. Given the disruption, there were probably a lot of Iraqi deaths, and there are reasonable-seeming estimates of half a million.

I will concede that it isn't hundreds of thousands if you go only by individual deaths recorded in newspapers, but it's not that far from it, and there were more deaths than that.

where is the link to this so called article?

[Ionized]

cmon editors - where is the link to this so called article?

Re:where is the link to this so called article?

[sjames]

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).

Re:where is the link to this so called article?

[LazyBoot]

A feature that is missing from the mobile version of the site.

Re:where is the link to this so called article?

[sims 2]

Is there a newsletter I can sign up for or a changelog I can read so I don't have to guess where things have moved every few weeks?

Re:where is the link to this so called article?

[erice]

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).

It is actually worst than that. The text is merely the host name of the site where the article comes from. There is nothing to suggest a link pointing to the article rather than the main page or an advertisement for the New York Times. So, it is really just a button whose behavior is only learned by trial and error and which may very well change in the future. That is what a lack of context gives you: no guaranty or even suggestion that future behavior will be consistent with current response.

The web, and especially this site, is based on contextual hyperlinks. Replacing them with something new that is meant to be an improvement would probably be a bad idea. Replacing contextual hyperlinks with hip minimalist design that doesn't even attempt to replicate their utility is beyond stupid. I am baffled that such a change could actually make it to the production side of a web site used by more than two people.

RTFA?

[kamapuaa]

No link, which is too bad. I'm curious how one gets caught up in a wave of refugees sneaking into Kenya.

Re:RTFA?

[AK Marc]

One simply follows refugees, providing humanitarian aid as they travel. Exactly like a terrorist would.

Re:RTFA?

[ganjadude]

can i get a surfboard?

Re:RTFA?

[zlives]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11...

9th amendment

[gcnaddict]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:9th amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Federal govt is supposed to do certain things and only those things, outlined in the Constitution. The things it does are enumerated.

No where in the Constitution does it say "only valid on US soil." The United States has a border, certainly, but the Constitution does not. Whomever thought they were being clever with the law by allowing civil violations outside of the US has an interpretation of the Constitution without legal merit. And it was unnecessary to attempt these shananigans, because time and again the courts rule that national security trumps civil rights. So why the bullshit, FBI? If its for national security, you need not comply with the Constitution. Should have interrogated him in Jersey, you pussies.

Re:9th amendment

[bobbied]

AND the tenth.... Boy we might as well burn these two these days. Actually, most of the Bill of Rights get's trampled by today's system.

Article Link

[mtxmorph]

C'mon, editors!

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11...

Re:Article Link

[Coren22]

It is in the title line. They are trying out this new thing about not putting the links in the summary and instead listing the source up near the title.

Re:Article Link

[LazyBoot]

That's fine and all, if they had bothered to put it there on the mobile version of the site as well.

Re:Article Link

[Coren22]

I don't know, maybe they felt that no one clicks the link anyways, and mobile would make it even harder to RTFA.

Two sides of the coin?

[neonedge]

This really makes no sense. If an American citizen isn't protected by the U.S. Constitution when travelling overseas then they can't be bound by it either. This negates the whole concept of extradition. If a user breaks a U.S. law in another country then they aren't subject to extradition. This would therefore mean that Julian Assange would not be able to be extradited as he isn't beholding to U.S. laws while overseas. The opposite side of that coin would indicate that if persons *are* subject to U.S. laws while overseas then those responsible for the rendition of Amir Meshal are in fact beholding to those laws. They can't have it both ways.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary my deluded friend, it makes a lot of sense. Wasn't it our courts that decided that the Constitution wasn't valid in the border area of the US ? If it isn't valid inside the US (becasue the border is still US land) what in the world makes you think the Constitution would apply when you're out of the country ?

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[david_thornley]

I've seen no evidence that the US Government wants Assange for any reason. Just a lot of unsupported claims.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[Coren22]

Julian Assange hasn't broken any laws in the US. He hasn't had any extradition proceedings brought against him by the US. That is pure conspiracy theory territory.

As he isn't a US citizen, even treason can't be used against him.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[Mr.Intel]

Edward Snowden on the other hand is a US Citizen who is wanted for breaking US laws (albeit, he did so while in the country). Outside of terrorist sympathizers who defected to Middle Eastern countries to participate in terrorist plotting, I can't think of very many US citizens who committed crimes outside the US and were extradited back to the US for trial.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[PPH]

if persons *are* subject to U.S. laws while overseas

Depends on the law. If it involves extraordinary rendition or torture of detainees, it appears to be 'game on' for US law enforcement. On the other hand, if it's hiring a couple of Columbian prostitutes*, no way.

I'm beginning to think our government is populated by a bunch of perverts. A little restraint, light whipping and humiliation is OK. But straight sex? Not on our watch!

*BTW, no US law was broken in this instance. There are no federal laws against prostitution, only state. The only laws broken were Columbian, refusing to pay for service. Listening to the GOP legislators get their panties in a twist over the hiring of hookers had me ROTFLMAO.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[SvnLyrBrto]

A fair assortment of government officials in the US, including multiple current presidential candidates and at least one former vice-presidential candidate, are on record as having stated (quite publicly) that the US should concoct a way to seize and execute Assange. Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed in the executive branch's leadership... so far. But it's still anybody's guess as to who wins the election. And it is quite possible that part of the "kidnap and murder him" wing will be sitting in the Oval Office in a year and a quarter.

I'd like to believe that, though possible, it's very unlikely. But I thought the 2000 election had a snowball's chance in Florida of going into the crapper either.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[fustakrakich]

They can't have it both ways.

Yes they can. Nobody is putting up any significant resistance. They will get whatever they want... The voters hand it to them on a silver platter every cycle.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[rsborg]

I've seen no evidence that the US Government wants Assange for any reason. Just a lot of unsupported claims.

Right up until he disappears in a black site. Of course, no one could have predicted or foreseen...

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[tnk1]

That's politician hot air speaking. Candidates say whatever someone wants to hear.

Just like when Obama was going to definitely close the internment camp at Gitmo. It didn't happen because reality and the Republicans got in the way.

You could argue that there is a case to extradite Assange, but no one in the US Government has really done a thing to try and even charge him. The only legal cases against him are Britain for him jumping his bail and Sweden for rape. Both of which are more or less entirely proper procedure for the offenses that he is alleged to have committed.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[david_thornley]

He could also be captured by elves and cut up for unicorn food. I've seen the same amount of evidence for both possibilities.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[Bing Tsher E]

But I thought the 2000 election had a snowball's chance in Florida of going into the crapper either.

You just got lucky on that one. The Democrats nearly electioneered that one.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[serviscope_minor]

That is pure conspiracy theory territory.

So those two guys kidnapped from Sweden by the CIA and then tortured, would you mind reminding me which laws they broke in the US and whether extradition proceedings were brought against them?

It's a bit silly calling something "conspiracy theory territory" when there's a non disputed public record of such things actually happening.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[JigJag]

If an American citizen isn't protected by the U.S. Constitution when travelling overseas then they can't be bound by it either. [...] This would therefore mean that Julian Assange would not be able to be extradited as he isn't beholding to U.S. laws while overseas.

You also know that Julian Assange has never been a U.S citizen, right?

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[Coren22]

The idea that it would be easier to extradite Assange to Sweden, then to the US rather than extraditing directly from a Five Eyes ally is naive.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[Coren22]

Links? Those two guys I chatted with on the street doesn't count.

Would these people be people who perhaps were engaged in terrorism, and decided to fly into Sweden and perform an attack?

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[david_thornley]

That incident was some years ago, and provoked a popular protest in Sweden. I don't think the Swedish government is going to allow that again.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[serviscope_minor]

Links? Those two guys I chatted with on the street doesn't count.

I'm kinda shocked that you're posting in this thread and don't already know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Wikipedia has plenty of links, but google "extraordinary rendition sweden" if you want to know more.

Would these people be people who perhaps were engaged in terrorism, and decided to fly into Sweden and perform an attack?

Oh yeah it's totally OK to torture people like that because we're the *good* guys, so our torture is justified and righteous. Also, no. The only crime they were guilty of was illegal entry into Sweden. They were eventually awarded large damages against the Swedish governemnt.

Re:Two sides of the coin?

[serviscope_minor]

Sure, Sweden probably won't. But it evoked no protest or apology in the US. The powers that authorised such activities are still there and still apparently completely willing ot authorise such things in future.

FBI didn't detain him

[tomhath]

Per the article, Mr. Meshal was detained by Kenya, who turned him over to Somalia, who turned him over to Ethiopia.

FTFA:

In my mind, that raised the very real prospect that either the F.B.I. or another element of the United States intelligence community asked its Kenyan counterparts to ship Mr. Meshal to Ethiopia for further questioning.

In other words, there's really no evidence that the FBI ever had control of him, just that they were able to interrogate him. Maybe Kenya and Somalia did what the US requested, maybe not. The court ruled that no evidence was provided by him that the FBI had control.

Re:FBI didn't detain him

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:FBI didn't detain him

[Garfong]

Exactly this. It seems to me to be an unbelievably bad idea to decide that it doesn't matter if someone's rights were violated because there's nothing the courts can do about it, but that's (as far as I could tell, IANAL, etc.) what the court decided.

Re:FBI didn't detain him

[delt0r]

Then what the fuck is their job? Seriously AC. What is the FBIs job.

Re:FBI didn't detain him

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Their job, you lazy fuck.

Also, note that their mission is to "protect the United States", not to protect the citizens of the United States.

Re:FBI didn't detain him

[delt0r]

So the United States of America is, by your definition, *not US citizens*? Did you say that out loud to yourself, or where you just dropped as a baby?

So what the fuck is the USA? Dirt? Shit? Syphilis? Have you read your own founding documents.

Re:FBI didn't detain him

[NoImNotNineVolt]

The USA is "is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions." (citation)

A federal republic is "federation of states with a democratic form of government." (citation)

A state is a political entity.

I think the problem you're running into is your conflation of a state with the population that lives under it. It's this type of unfortunate ignorance that causes the Ayatollah to explicitly clarify the distinction, in the context of the "Death to America" chants. This distinction may be lost on you, but it's not lost on those of use who are precise with our language.

Re:FBI didn't detain him

[Agripa]

The court ruled that no evidence was provided by him that the FBI had control.

The court never considered any evidence because it decided that Bivens actions (suing for violation of rights) do not apply abroad. He could have video and sound of FBI agents using pliers and a blowtorch on him while raping his wife and daughter and it would not matter:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Just traveling abroad...

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA: "Mr. Meshal had originally traveled to Egypt in 2005 to visit family members, but subsequently went to Somalia, ostensibly to provide humanitarian aid to what was then known as the Islamic Courts Union, the Islamist rebels opposed to the existing pro-United States Somali government. After the Ethiopian government helped drive the I.C.U. into retreat, Mr. Meshal was caught up in a wave of refugees who fled to neighboring Kenya, and was detained by Kenyan authorities in early January 2007."

Just a totally ordinary American, helping the Islamic rebels in Somalia. /sarc

Re:Just traveling abroad...

[rastos1]

Just a totally ordinary American, helping the Islamic rebels in Somalia. /sarc

You would not believe what Russian soldiers do when they go on holiday.

Judicial appeal is too slow

[RandCraw]

Traditionally, gov't misconduct are redressed through lawsuits and repeated judicial decisions and appeals, until a high court ends the cycle. In the slow motion days of horses and buggies this process used to work reasonably well. But today, with the high speed prosecutorial activism of modern US presidents (from both parties), and the rapid rise of new police technology, this sort of crap has spun out of control. The appeals process simply takes much too long (years or decade). By that time a whole new round of activism and spy tech has arrived and been abused, and The Rule of Law falls even further behind.

Obviously adding more kangaroo courts like FISA to deter presidential/police abuses before they arise doesn't work. So what will?

Re:Judicial appeal is too slow

[Garfong]

In this case the courts found there wasn't even a judicial redress, because Congress hadn't specifically created one, and this case didn't fall into a number of traditional categories. Which strikes me as very backward -- one of the main purposes of the constitution should be to act as a brake on the power of Congress, yet here the court has decided it's only effective if Congress on certain classes of laws if Congress decides it is.

But really the government will only stop this kind of stuff when the average voter decides Congress is more of a threat than Terrorists, and starts voting for civil rights.

Re:Fishy

[Aereus]

Unless they had reasonable suspicion he was rendering aid to terrorists or prior proof he was involved in terrorism, how would it be shady at all? Even if they did have suspicion—that doesn't preclude denying a citizen due process and their constitutional rights. Especially based on a 'hunch' without any supporting evidence. We still gave due process and a trial for the theater murders in Aurora,CO and the Boston bombing. Yet this person wasn't given that or even charged with anything.

Re:No way to hold the government accountable.

[kamapuaa]

Right. 8 years ago the FBI probably interviewed a guy in another country. That is the reason for gun control laws, but also a rationalization for violent government overthrow. Thank you crazy Slashdot person.

fuck you slashdot

[dissy]

Comon FBI, if you're going to stoop to being just as bad as the bad guys, what the fuck are you even bothering fighting the bad guys for?

Links

[Geoffrey.landis]

The article linked is actually an editorial in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11...

Links to the actual case, from the Associated Press, on the Boston Globe site:
"American can't sue FBI over abuse claims, federal appeals court says", https://www.bostonglobe.com/ne...

Link to the decision:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/...

Re:No way to hold the government accountable.

[Chas]

I'm not saying "If you're pissed at the FBI, go shoot your mailman".

There's an understanding of timeliness and appropriateness involved.

Re:No way to hold the government accountable.

[Chas]

Again, I'm not talking about violent government overthrow.

I'm talking about agency-specific attrition of said agency's workforce.

FTFY

[s.petry]

This really makes no sense. If an American citizen isn't protected by the U.S. Constitution when anywhere then they can't be bound by it either.

This has been the case for quite some time but people are slow to figure things out. Assuming you have enough power in the US, you can break a whole lot of laws and never be brought up on charges. With no power, you are jailed for carrying a small amount of marijuana for personal consumption. In rare cases you might be killed for selling loose cigarettes.

While my comment may seem very broad, it is intentionally worded that way. The FBI is fine breaking the Constitution, as is the NSA, as is DHS and the TSA, as is the CIA, as is some State and Local Police, as is some Sheriffs. Even when they are caught they lie and business tends to go back to the way it just was. More and more people are figuring this out and questioning the double standard, and it helps that the abuse has been increasing as well.

Re:Fishy

[tnk1]

I agree that he should not have been interrogated in this method. That needs to be remedied.

That said, if he was rendering "humanitarian aid" to the Islamic Courts regime, I'd say there would at least have been some reason to suspect him of something other than purely humanitarian motives.

I think they were right to investigate him, I just think they need to follow the rules.

Re:No way to hold the government accountable.

[tnk1]

So you're merely advocating targeted mass murder? Sounds totally legit. Much better than insurrection.

two faced coin

[harvey the nerd]

Part of the problem is a Kenyan in the White House....

Re:two faced coin

[Bing Tsher E]

No matter where President Obama was born, to call him a 'Kenyan' is a serious misnomer. He was born somewhere, but as to his nationality, he is a metrosexual world citizen. A modern Liberal. He's definitely not a Kenyan.

Threaten to kill? I think you mean kill

[triffid_98]

"Former CIA agent Robert Baer described the policy to the New Statesman: "If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear â" never to see them again â" you send them to Egypt"

It makes plenty of sense

[rsilvergun]

whatever's good for our corporate masters is what stands. See, you're making the mistake of having principles, ideas, and believing in the law. Our ruling class does none of that. They have one and only one agenda: expanding their wealth and power. So while you're bound by all these rules and ideas and you try your best to fit your beliefs and worldview into the US Constitution they're just doing whatever makes them the most $$$...

Yeah, I'm kinda bitter. My kid is a senior in high school and went to school sick because she was afraid of missing a day. With the way they do class all she'd have missed was a bunch of indoctrination about the wonders of supply side economics in her Econ 101 class and a bunch of crap about how wonderful our two party system is (that conveniently glosses over how the entire system was thought up to keep wealthy landowners from losing their land to the people who actually worked it)...

Not really

[rsilvergun]

We all like to looks back on some mythical glory days when everything was fine. It wasn't. Life was nasty, brutish and short. We tortured people all the time. Shit, the stuff we did in South America is the stuff of nightmares. Don't spend too much time thinking about it, you won't be able to sleep at nights.

I really wish people would stop pining for some idealized past that never existed. If we'd acknowledge just how fucked up things were, have been, and still are we could start attacking the problem. As it is the sentiment you express just gives more ammo to the Radical Regressives who pass themselves off as 'Conservative' these days. It's counterproductive and plays into the hands of the same people you'd like to see stopped...

Re:No way to hold the government accountable.

[Chas]

Who said murder?

A bullet in the foot rarely kills anyone.

Yet that person is no longer field-ready.

Double-standard!

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans who live abroad are required to pay taxes to the USA, in addition to taxes for the country they're living in. This despite owning no property in the USA, not doing business with the USA, or having any ties with the USA besides the misfortune of having been born there. The only other country in the world to make this requirement is Somalia!

Pay the taxes but receive none of the protections.

Fund the courts

[Etherwalk]

Traditionally, gov't misconduct are redressed through lawsuits and repeated judicial decisions and appeals, until a high court ends the cycle. In the slow motion days of horses and buggies this process used to work reasonably well. But today, with the high speed prosecutorial activism of modern US presidents (from both parties), and the rapid rise of new police technology, this sort of crap has spun out of control. The appeals process simply takes much too long (years or decade). By that time a whole new round of activism and spy tech has arrived and been abused, and The Rule of Law falls even further behind.

Obviously adding more kangaroo courts like FISA to deter presidential/police abuses before they arise doesn't work. So what will?

Actually funding the regular courts enough to clear up their backlog and preside over the speedy execution of justice. Federal Courts, by-and-large, are fairly competent places run by fairly competent people who have too many cases. Not nearly as bad as state courts, but still overburdened. If your complaint is the time it takes to get things through them, you have to fund them better. Personally I suspect they should be funded by some kind of system that looks at percentage fees for large dollar value cases, but regardless of where you find the money, the answer is find the money. Specialty courts like FISA rarely work well. They get a bit too parochial.

Re:Fund the courts

[david_thornley]

Allowing government officials, elected or not, to affect their own budgets leads to corruption. We don't want Federal judges thinking that, if they just shade outcomes a bit, they'll have enough budget to hire another clerk.

They can have both side

[aepervius]

They can just say "stuff you" to the average citizen and coat it under a glaze of legalize. As long as it does not come to the SC, or the SC does not take it up, they have free reign to do that.

WOAH! Not Okay.

[sabbede]

Absolutely ridiculous! It doesn't matter where an American citizen is, the Federal government is still bound by the Constitution to respect and uphold their rights.

The FBI can threaten to torture so long as they don't actually do so (the police are allowed to lie in interrogation), but they can't violate habeus corpus. Where did they find a judge with his head so far up his own ass that there isn't enough light to read the Constitution?

Wow

[oh_my_080980980]

So the FBI is taking a page out of Pinochet's book. Nice.

Geheime Staatspolizei [Re:drones]

[Geoffrey.landis]

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.

Re:Coren22 please forgive me

[apk got an account]

I am a very sad, lonely person. Please forgive me for lashing out against you.

Re:Coren22 please forgive me

[KGIII]

Hmm... Not sure if serious. ;-)

Re:Coren22 please forgive me

[apk got an account]

You too, KGIII, please forgive the times I have lashed out against you. I blame sexual frustration, not that this excuses my behaviour.

Re:Coren22 please forgive me

[KGIII]

Well, then I hope you do well. No forgiveness needed from me, however. I'm okay with you. I think you could work on your soft-skills but, if it's really med related (or even not) and you need to get shit off your chest of vent then my email actually works and is read. I even reply. I've got big shoulders, I can handle it. If you need someone objective to email then, by all means, there it is.