Slashdot Mirror
How the FBI Can Detain, Render and Threaten Without Risk (nytimes.com)
schwit1 writes: Patrick Eddington has a disturbing article in the NY Times about a court decision that seems to give U.S. law enforcement agencies the ability to have an American citizen sent from one foreign country to another for interrogation, to do that interrogation themselves, and to threaten the use of torture to get them to talk. "If this decision stands, it will mean that an American citizen overseas who is unlawfully targeted by the United States government for rendition, interrogation and detention with the help of a local government will have no form of redress in the courts." The case centers around Amir Meshal, a U.S. citizen who lived in New Jersey.
While Meshal was traveling abroad, he got caught up in a wave of refugees leaving Somalia for Kenya. There Kenyan authorities detained him, and FBI agents interrogated him. He was transported back to Somalia, and then to Ethiopia, where he had never visited. In Ethiopia, FBI agents once again quickly got access to Meshal, accusing him of being trained for terrorism in Al-Qaeda camps. They threatened him and denied access to lawyers.
Months later, when he was released, he returned to the U.S. He has never been accused of a terrorism-related offense. He filed a lawsuit based on his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, but U.S. courts have thus far denied his claims. Eddington concludes, "The appellate court decision means that American citizens have no means available to hold the government accountable for violating their constitutional rights, simply because the United States conveniently denied those rights in another country of its choosing."
While Meshal was traveling abroad, he got caught up in a wave of refugees leaving Somalia for Kenya. There Kenyan authorities detained him, and FBI agents interrogated him. He was transported back to Somalia, and then to Ethiopia, where he had never visited. In Ethiopia, FBI agents once again quickly got access to Meshal, accusing him of being trained for terrorism in Al-Qaeda camps. They threatened him and denied access to lawyers.
Months later, when he was released, he returned to the U.S. He has never been accused of a terrorism-related offense. He filed a lawsuit based on his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, but U.S. courts have thus far denied his claims. Eddington concludes, "The appellate court decision means that American citizens have no means available to hold the government accountable for violating their constitutional rights, simply because the United States conveniently denied those rights in another country of its choosing."
they have already killed an american overseas with a drone without due process. this seems tame in comparison.
can we please elect someone who can actually fix things????
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
cmon editors - where is the link to this so called article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
C'mon, editors!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11...
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.
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.
One simply follows refugees, providing humanitarian aid as they travel. Exactly like a terrorist would.
Learn to love Alaska
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11...
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
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?
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.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
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/...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I'm not saying "If you're pissed at the FBI, go shoot your mailman".
There's an understanding of timeliness and appropriateness involved.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
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.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"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"
Wrong? Not really, no.
The U.S, Constitution-- heard of it?-- demands that the government cannot deprive citizens of life without due process of law.
It is possible that the people hit by the drone strikes have had some legal process applied to who gets targeted... but due to the secrecy, we don't know that. From all the evidence I can see, the "due process" is that one CIA guy says "I think this person should be on the list."
When I was a kid, you could tell which countries were dictatorships: those were the ones who had secret courts and secret police with secret powers with no limits and no oversight. In German, there is even a word for such secret police-- "Geheime Staatspolizei", literally "secret state police." More commonly called the Gestapo.
Now I live in a country with secret courts and secret police. I don't like it.
What is that due process, how is it implemented, and by whom? Without that question answered, we live in a dictatorship, and simply don't know it.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com