How the FBI Can Detain, Render and Threaten Without Risk (nytimes.com) 318
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."
drones (Score:5, Insightful)
can we please elect someone who can actually fix things????
Re:drones (Score:4, Insightful)
When increasing numbers of our younger citizens believe that the US Constitution is an out-dated [caffeinatedthoughts.com] relic with no [townhall.com] contemporary relevance [abajournal.com], it's no wonder our leaders behave with such contempt of the document.
Re: (Score:2)
When increasing numbers of our younger citizens believe that the US Constitution is an out-dated [caffeinatedthoughts.com] relic with no [townhall.com] contemporary relevance [abajournal.com], 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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Exactly right.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 bla
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
you are confused over who they represent. hint, it's not who voted for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Follow the money.... It usually shows what's really going on...
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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 gover
Re: (Score:2)
You know what they say ...
"Those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it."
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
When increasing numbers of our younger citizens believe that the US Constitution is an out-dated [caffeinatedthoughts.com] relic with no [townhall.com] contemporary relevance [abajournal.com], 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: (Score:2)
I didn't say "young kids". I said "our younger citizens". Those "naive young kids", as you refer to them, are also voters.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 d
Re:drones (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 fo
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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... [motherjones.com]
http://content.time.com/time/w... [time.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.aclu.org/video/acl... [aclu.org]
Geheime Staatspolizei [Re:drones] (Score:3, Insightful)
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 c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 proced
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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, whethe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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". [wikipedia.org]
It's not just a good idea, it's the law.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:drones (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
where is the link to this so called article? (Score:3)
cmon editors - where is the link to this so called article?
Re:where is the link to this so called article? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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, a
Links (Score:3)
The article linked is actually an editorial in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11... [nytimes.com]
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... [bostonglobe.com]
Link to the decision:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/... [uscourts.gov]
RTFA? (Score:2)
No link, which is too bad. I'm curious how one gets caught up in a wave of refugees sneaking into Kenya.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11... [nytimes.com]
9th amendment (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Article Link (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I've seen no evidence that the US Government wants Assange for any reason. Just a lot of unsupported claims.
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
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 pro
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
FTFY (Score:3)
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
It makes plenty of sense (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm kinda bitter. My kid is a senior in high school and went to scho
They can have both side (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
two faced coin (Score:2)
FBI didn't detain him (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Just traveling abroad... (Score:2, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:2)
You would not believe what Russian soldiers do when they go on holiday.
Judicial appeal is too slow (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 avera
Not really (Score:2)
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. A
fuck you slashdot (Score:2)
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?
Threaten to kill? I think you mean kill (Score:4, Interesting)
WOAH! Not Okay. (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, I'm not talking about violent government overthrow.
I'm talking about agency-specific attrition of said agency's workforce.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're merely advocating targeted mass murder? Sounds totally legit. Much better than insurrection.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said murder?
A bullet in the foot rarely kills anyone.
Yet that person is no longer field-ready.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying "If you're pissed at the FBI, go shoot your mailman".
There's an understanding of timeliness and appropriateness involved.