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."
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.