4 ms·

Guilty or not, this seems more like a kidnapping than an arrest. Can they really ignore all rights as they see fit?

by maaaats 9y ago

lucaspiller 9y ago
And he is a non-US citizen, being detained by the US, what rights does he actually have?
- pyvpx 9y ago
  the idea is the US is ruled by laws. when you're in US territory, you are subject to those laws. not being a citizen doesn't mean you have no rights. then again this is the same government who says the Constitution doesn't apply 100 miles in from the border (where a significant percentage of the populace lives...)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
tehwebguy 9y ago
Maybe FBI thought it would just be cheaper to lock him up than pay for his research
celticninja 9y ago
If you are not a US citizen you have fewer rights if you are arrested in the US. Even fewer if it's via extraordinary rendition.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  This is simply not true. Everyone on US soil has the same rights when accused of a crime. Incidentally, the rights of the accused are stronger in the US than in any other jurisdiction in the world. He has the unqualified right to remain silent and to a jury trial in which illegally gathered evidence is excluded. He would have neither of those in the UK.
  - gjulianm 9y ago
    What? That is a gigantic lie. IANAL, but just a quick search reveals that illegal evidence is not allowed [1] and there is a right to remain silent [2] (which seems to be held even by the European Court [3]) so I don't know what you are talking about, 1: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/confession_and_breaches_of_police_and_criminal_evidence_act/ http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/confession_and_breaches_o... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an... 3: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1996/3.html#para45 http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1996/3.html#para45
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      You really shouldn't accuse me of telling a "gigantic lie" when you are wrong. In the UK, police can use your silence at time of questioning to cast doubt on future exculpatory claims that you make. In the US, the government can never make that argument in court. So in the US, the best course of action is, without qualification, to remain silent until speaking to a lawyer. In the UK, doing that can be presented as evidence of your guilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an... The United States is the only country to take the position that some police misconduct must automatically result in the suppression of physical evidence. The rule applies whether the misconduct is slight or serious, and without regard to the gravity of the crime or the power of the evidence. “Foreign countries have flatly rejected our approach,” said Craig M. Bradley, an expert in comparative criminal law at Indiana University. “In every other country, it’s up to the trial judge to decide whether police misconduct has risen to the level of requiring the exclusion of evidence.” https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html
      - pja 9y ago
        Sure: The UK moved to a qualified right to silence some time ago. On the flip side, UK police are far more constrained in their actions when interviewing suspects than US police are: @ UK police are not permitted to lie to suspects in interviews @ Interviews must be recorded from start to finish. @ No abusive use of plea bargains: we don’t do the “take this plea bargain or risk being locked up for 60 years” thing at all. I’m sure there are more, but those are the things that spring to mind immediately. I’m not going to pretend that everything in the UK is sweetness and light regarding our police, but the idea that the US is a haven of civil rights compared to the UK is just completely wrong-headed.
- wavefunction 9y ago
  Yeah. You don't have the right to vote in our elections for example. Non-US citizens arrested in the US will potentially face deportation and permanent expulsion if the crimes are serious enough, like rape or murder. Other than that the police will likely treat you just the same as any American, which is not necessarily great but at least it's equitable. Now the federal law enforcement departments are more brutal in their techniques. They're usually only involved in serious crimes though. And extraordinary renditions are illegal kidnappings so I don't think there's any expectation of rights afforded or decency shown in that sort of situation. You're gonna get tortured in Egypt/etc. whether you're an American or not.
  - jdboyd 9y ago
    > face deportation and permanent expulsion if the crimes are serious enough, like rape or murder Any felony is grounds for deportation and permanent expulsion regardless of how "serious" it might be.
evgen 9y ago
Please outline the rights that were denied to him. The article that we are commenting about seems to have a completely deluded sense of what his rights are, but maybe we can start the discussion around his specific rights. Contra the original article, a 23 year-old does not have a fundamental right to talk to mommy and daddy once arrested. Law enforcement is under no obligation to arrest you as you arrive in country so that you can become a cause celebre to the conference you are about to attend. Neither are they under any obligation to tell you ahead of time that they plan to arrest you. While the accused has rights, the friends, family, and casual acquaintances of the accused have none. Law enforcement must give Marcus' lawyer access to him, but need not tell random strangers where he is being detained. In the first day or so it is not at all uncommon for someone who has been arrested to be moved from the initial arrest point to a location in the jurisdiction of the indictment or from a local/county holding facility to a federal facility. What Marcus needs to do is shut his mouth, repeat "I am invoking my right to remain silent and wish to speak to my attorney", and NOT SAY ANYTHING. Oh, he didn't get to communicate immediately with his co-defendant and make sure they have their stories straight? Yeah, major violation of his rights there... I am not sure what fantasy-land the author of the original post lives in, but even someone with only a passing familiarity with the US legal system would know some of this. Yes, he will get to speak to his attorney and such access by his counsel must be allowed, but there are strict limits on how long he can be denied such access and he should expect the feds to go right up to that limit but not beyond. As someone who apparently has an appreciation for the grey areas in law and society, I am sure we will hear from Marcus how much he appreciates law enforcement taking advantage of the differences between MUST and SHOULD in the societal protocol docs that we call laws and legal precedent.
- rileymat2 9y ago
  "there are strict limits on how long he can be denied such access and he should expect the feds to go right up to that limit but not beyond" I disagree, the limits are minimum standards, not what we should expect.
- 65827 9y ago
  I want to hate the FBI but also like this post. Also I'm hungry.

Guilty or not, this seems more like a kidnapping than an arrest. Can they really ignore all rights as they see fit?

lucaspiller 9y ago

And he is a non-US citizen, being detained by the US, what rights does he actually have?

pyvpx 9y ago
the idea is the US is ruled by laws. when you're in US territory, you are subject to those laws. not being a citizen doesn't mean you have no rights. then again this is the same government who says the Constitution doesn't apply 100 miles in from the border (where a significant percentage of the populace lives...)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

tehwebguy 9y ago

Maybe FBI thought it would just be cheaper to lock him up than pay for his research

celticninja 9y ago

If you are not a US citizen you have fewer rights if you are arrested in the US. Even fewer if it's via extraordinary rendition.

marcoperaza 9y ago
This is simply not true. Everyone on US soil has the same rights when accused of a crime. Incidentally, the rights of the accused are stronger in the US than in any other jurisdiction in the world. He has the unqualified right to remain silent and to a jury trial in which illegally gathered evidence is excluded. He would have neither of those in the UK.
- gjulianm 9y ago
  What? That is a gigantic lie. IANAL, but just a quick search reveals that illegal evidence is not allowed [1] and there is a right to remain silent [2] (which seems to be held even by the European Court [3]) so I don't know what you are talking about, 1: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/confession_and_breaches_of_police_and_criminal_evidence_act/ http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/confession_and_breaches_o... 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an... 3: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1996/3.html#para45 http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1996/3.html#para45
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    You really shouldn't accuse me of telling a "gigantic lie" when you are wrong. In the UK, police can use your silence at time of questioning to cast doubt on future exculpatory claims that you make. In the US, the government can never make that argument in court. So in the US, the best course of action is, without qualification, to remain silent until speaking to a lawyer. In the UK, doing that can be presented as evidence of your guilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales#Adverse_inferences_from_silence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_an... The United States is the only country to take the position that some police misconduct must automatically result in the suppression of physical evidence. The rule applies whether the misconduct is slight or serious, and without regard to the gravity of the crime or the power of the evidence. “Foreign countries have flatly rejected our approach,” said Craig M. Bradley, an expert in comparative criminal law at Indiana University. “In every other country, it’s up to the trial judge to decide whether police misconduct has risen to the level of requiring the exclusion of evidence.” https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html
    - pja 9y ago
      Sure: The UK moved to a qualified right to silence some time ago. On the flip side, UK police are far more constrained in their actions when interviewing suspects than US police are: @ UK police are not permitted to lie to suspects in interviews @ Interviews must be recorded from start to finish. @ No abusive use of plea bargains: we don’t do the “take this plea bargain or risk being locked up for 60 years” thing at all. I’m sure there are more, but those are the things that spring to mind immediately. I’m not going to pretend that everything in the UK is sweetness and light regarding our police, but the idea that the US is a haven of civil rights compared to the UK is just completely wrong-headed.
wavefunction 9y ago
Yeah. You don't have the right to vote in our elections for example. Non-US citizens arrested in the US will potentially face deportation and permanent expulsion if the crimes are serious enough, like rape or murder. Other than that the police will likely treat you just the same as any American, which is not necessarily great but at least it's equitable. Now the federal law enforcement departments are more brutal in their techniques. They're usually only involved in serious crimes though. And extraordinary renditions are illegal kidnappings so I don't think there's any expectation of rights afforded or decency shown in that sort of situation. You're gonna get tortured in Egypt/etc. whether you're an American or not.
- jdboyd 9y ago
  > face deportation and permanent expulsion if the crimes are serious enough, like rape or murder Any felony is grounds for deportation and permanent expulsion regardless of how "serious" it might be.

evgen 9y ago

Please outline the rights that were denied to him. The article that we are commenting about seems to have a completely deluded sense of what his rights are, but maybe we can start the discussion around his specific rights. Contra the original article, a 23 year-old does not have a fundamental right to talk to mommy and daddy once arrested. Law enforcement is under no obligation to arrest you as you arrive in country so that you can become a cause celebre to the conference you are about to attend. Neither are they under any obligation to tell you ahead of time that they plan to arrest you. While the accused has rights, the friends, family, and casual acquaintances of the accused have none. Law enforcement must give Marcus' lawyer access to him, but need not tell random strangers where he is being detained. In the first day or so it is not at all uncommon for someone who has been arrested to be moved from the initial arrest point to a location in the jurisdiction of the indictment or from a local/county holding facility to a federal facility. What Marcus needs to do is shut his mouth, repeat "I am invoking my right to remain silent and wish to speak to my attorney", and NOT SAY ANYTHING. Oh, he didn't get to communicate immediately with his co-defendant and make sure they have their stories straight? Yeah, major violation of his rights there... I am not sure what fantasy-land the author of the original post lives in, but even someone with only a passing familiarity with the US legal system would know some of this. Yes, he will get to speak to his attorney and such access by his counsel must be allowed, but there are strict limits on how long he can be denied such access and he should expect the feds to go right up to that limit but not beyond. As someone who apparently has an appreciation for the grey areas in law and society, I am sure we will hear from Marcus how much he appreciates law enforcement taking advantage of the differences between MUST and SHOULD in the societal protocol docs that we call laws and legal precedent.

rileymat2 9y ago
"there are strict limits on how long he can be denied such access and he should expect the feds to go right up to that limit but not beyond" I disagree, the limits are minimum standards, not what we should expect.
65827 9y ago
I want to hate the FBI but also like this post. Also I'm hungry.