3 ms·

> To me, it (unfortunately) makes sense that the laws of a country only apply once you've entered it, So, are you saying that a US citizen, before entering the

> To me, it (unfortunately) makes sense that the laws of a country only apply once you've entered it, So, are you saying that a US citizen, before entering the US, would be allowed to kill a customs officer without any consequences? Or are you saying that customs officers could torture citizens as long as they are outside the US without any consequences for them?

user982 10y ago
> Or are you saying that customs officers could torture citizens as long as they are outside the US without any consequences for them? The US government and its courts have ruled that yes, that is exactly the case.[1][2] Eight years after Mr. Meshal’s rendition, his case ended up before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The questions hanging over the proceeding were: can the United States government allow, or even facilitate, the rendition of an American citizen to another country for interrogation? And can United States officials themselves conduct rendition and interrogations of American citizens, including threats of torture, on foreign soil? According to a decision handed down last week, the answers appear to be yes. 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. Obama administration lawyers argued that Bivens did not apply to Mr. Meshal’s case because the incident took place overseas and involved unspecified “national security” concerns. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/opinion/how-the-fbi-can-detain-render-and-threaten-without-risk.html?_r=2 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/opinion/how-the-fbi-can-de... [2]: https://www.aclu.org/cases/meshal-v-higgenbotham https://www.aclu.org/cases/meshal-v-higgenbotham

user982 10y ago

> Or are you saying that customs officers could torture citizens as long as they are outside the US without any consequences for them? The US government and its courts have ruled that yes, that is exactly the case.[1][2] Eight years after Mr. Meshal’s rendition, his case ended up before a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The questions hanging over the proceeding were: can the United States government allow, or even facilitate, the rendition of an American citizen to another country for interrogation? And can United States officials themselves conduct rendition and interrogations of American citizens, including threats of torture, on foreign soil? According to a decision handed down last week, the answers appear to be yes. 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. Obama administration lawyers argued that Bivens did not apply to Mr. Meshal’s case because the incident took place overseas and involved unspecified “national security” concerns. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/opinion/how-the-fbi-can-detain-render-and-threaten-without-risk.html?_r=2 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/opinion/how-the-fbi-can-de... [2]: https://www.aclu.org/cases/meshal-v-higgenbotham https://www.aclu.org/cases/meshal-v-higgenbotham