5 ms·

America does this too, the trick they use is holding you indefinitely without having a bail hearing or trial. Kevin Mitnick was imprisoned for five years waitin

America does this too, the trick they use is holding you indefinitely without having a bail hearing or trial. Kevin Mitnick was imprisoned for five years waiting bail, one of the longest cases of this treatment. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/mitnick-released-from-prison/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/mitnick-rele...

throwaway09223 3y ago
No, America doesn't do this. You have a right to a speedy trial and if you demand a speedy trial you will get one. Mitnick did not request a speedy trial, in fact he moved to delay the trial.
- okwubodu 3y ago
  > Since 2002, 779 Muslim men and boys have been held at Guantánamo, nearly all of them without charge or trial. Today, 39 men remain indefinitely detained there, and 27 of them have never even been charged with any crime. Fourteen of those 27 have been cleared for transfer or release, some for years. https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/20-years-later-guantanamo-remains-a-disgraceful-stain-on-our-nation-it-needs-to-end https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/20-years-later-guanta...
  - lIl-IIIl 3y ago
    This is not a good example of what happens in America in general, since the position of the Bush administration was that Guantanamo Bay was outside of US legal jurisdiction. It was considered a alternative to the US court system.
    - okwubodu 3y ago
      > In the Bronx, DiMango’s job was to review cases and clear them: by getting weak cases dismissed, extracting guilty pleas from defendants, or referring cases to trial in another courtroom. At the start of 2013, there were nine hundred and fifty-two felony cases in the Bronx, including Browder’s, that were more than two years old. In the next twelve months, DiMango disposed of a thousand cases, some as old as five years. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law
    - vasco 3y ago
      So all they have to do is to fly you there? How is "in this special place we do whatever we want" a justification?
      - hkt 3y ago
        Because terrorism! As I understand it the basis legally is about Guantanamo bay not being formally part of the US, and therefore not subject to the constitution or regular law. Military law probably applies, although I'm not 100% on this.
      - polski-g 3y ago
        Non US citizens, outside US territory are not protected by the US constitution.
    - hulitu 3y ago
      > This is not a good example of what happens in America in general, since the position of the Bush administration was that Guantanamo Bay was outside of US legal jurisdiction Then the next logical step is to declare Detroit outside of US legal jurisdiction. This will solve a lot problems. /s
      - masklinn 3y ago
        Like every other major city it's halfway there thanks to the "border zone" system (as it's literally on the border), much of the 4th is effectively curtailed already.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - yunohn 3y ago
      > the position of And that’s the problem. The government “deciding” that Guantanamo is a special jurisdiction to do whatever they want. Not sure why your innocent framing justifies it?
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    Isn't the issue for those cleared is that there is no country who will accept them
    - arcticbull 3y ago
      It is therefore incumbent on America to take them in, and release them in the US, free and clear. You reap what you sow. You don't get to just scoop people up and hold them indefinitely on the basis of 'whoopsiedoodle, nobody will take them back.'
      - Pigalowda 3y ago
        Release them in US? Is that something a non-citizen says to just stir up responses/troll? These people are unofficial POW of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from what I understand. They should be returned to the governments of both.
        arcticbull 3y ago
        And if they can’t be returned then they should be released. The US determined they did nothing wrong. Indefinite detention after a not guilty verdict is not an option. Unofficial POW isn’t a status; that’s just a detainee.
- nitwit005 3y ago
  > You have a right to a speedy trial The Supreme Court has essentially ruled there is no particular deadline (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barker_v._Wingo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barker_v._Wingo). Individual states do have rules, but it varies based on the type of crime, and tend not to match a normal person's definition of speedy.
- realjhol 3y ago
  [flagged]
- BLanen 3y ago
  Slogans don't make reality
- soraminazuki 3y ago
  I guess that's why John Oliver has no segments on the American justice system. Oh wait ... /s Just look at any article that comes up on this site that covers the justice system. It's a hot mess everywhere, to a varying degree. Japan is no exception, and there are countless number of injustices. But at the very least, the police there don't get to shoot people and walk scott free.
  - BrotherBisquick 3y ago
    John Oliver is an outrage-peddler with no particular qualifications.
    - soraminazuki 3y ago
      His show does proper research and points to numerous actual cases of harm before making a claim. Detaining suspects for long periods of time and forcing confessions is a topic that comes up repeatedly, each time with different examples. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that this isn't anything of substance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCNQ0xksZ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCNQ0xksZ4
      - tacitusarc 3y ago
        He does also tend to leave out facts or stories that would add nuance.
  - fendir 3y ago
    [flagged]
- ttfkam 3y ago
  Kalief Browder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder
- lazyant 3y ago
  https://gothamist.com/news/detainees-spend-an-average-of-115-days-at-rikers-4-times-the-national-average https://gothamist.com/news/detainees-spend-an-average-of-115... but I think the "trick" is a DA getting a guilty plea under the threat of a very long sentence in trial (like 10 or 20 years in the case of Mitnik, Cunninghaming this).
- yunohn 3y ago
  > Mitnick did not request a speedy trial, in fact he moved to delay the trial. The prosecution repeatedly (1) refused to provide their evidence in discovery - Mitnick wanted proof to prepare his defence. My reading is that the government was hoping he would just fold, instead of fighting back. (1) https://www.zdnet.com/article/more-delays-for-mitnick-trial/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/more-delays-for-mitnick-trial/

throwaway09223 3y ago

No, America doesn't do this. You have a right to a speedy trial and if you demand a speedy trial you will get one. Mitnick did not request a speedy trial, in fact he moved to delay the trial.

okwubodu 3y ago
> Since 2002, 779 Muslim men and boys have been held at Guantánamo, nearly all of them without charge or trial. Today, 39 men remain indefinitely detained there, and 27 of them have never even been charged with any crime. Fourteen of those 27 have been cleared for transfer or release, some for years. https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/20-years-later-guantanamo-remains-a-disgraceful-stain-on-our-nation-it-needs-to-end https://www.aclu.org/news/human-rights/20-years-later-guanta...
- lIl-IIIl 3y ago
  This is not a good example of what happens in America in general, since the position of the Bush administration was that Guantanamo Bay was outside of US legal jurisdiction. It was considered a alternative to the US court system.
  - okwubodu 3y ago
    > In the Bronx, DiMango’s job was to review cases and clear them: by getting weak cases dismissed, extracting guilty pleas from defendants, or referring cases to trial in another courtroom. At the start of 2013, there were nine hundred and fifty-two felony cases in the Bronx, including Browder’s, that were more than two years old. In the next twelve months, DiMango disposed of a thousand cases, some as old as five years. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law
  - vasco 3y ago
    So all they have to do is to fly you there? How is "in this special place we do whatever we want" a justification?
    - hkt 3y ago
      Because terrorism! As I understand it the basis legally is about Guantanamo bay not being formally part of the US, and therefore not subject to the constitution or regular law. Military law probably applies, although I'm not 100% on this.
    - polski-g 3y ago
      Non US citizens, outside US territory are not protected by the US constitution.
  - hulitu 3y ago
    > This is not a good example of what happens in America in general, since the position of the Bush administration was that Guantanamo Bay was outside of US legal jurisdiction Then the next logical step is to declare Detroit outside of US legal jurisdiction. This will solve a lot problems. /s
    - masklinn 3y ago
      Like every other major city it's halfway there thanks to the "border zone" system (as it's literally on the border), much of the 4th is effectively curtailed already.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - yunohn 3y ago
    > the position of And that’s the problem. The government “deciding” that Guantanamo is a special jurisdiction to do whatever they want. Not sure why your innocent framing justifies it?
- ipaddr 3y ago
  Isn't the issue for those cleared is that there is no country who will accept them
  - arcticbull 3y ago
    It is therefore incumbent on America to take them in, and release them in the US, free and clear. You reap what you sow. You don't get to just scoop people up and hold them indefinitely on the basis of 'whoopsiedoodle, nobody will take them back.'
    - Pigalowda 3y ago
      Release them in US? Is that something a non-citizen says to just stir up responses/troll? These people are unofficial POW of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from what I understand. They should be returned to the governments of both.
      - arcticbull 3y ago
        And if they can’t be returned then they should be released. The US determined they did nothing wrong. Indefinite detention after a not guilty verdict is not an option. Unofficial POW isn’t a status; that’s just a detainee.
nitwit005 3y ago
> You have a right to a speedy trial The Supreme Court has essentially ruled there is no particular deadline (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barker_v._Wingo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barker_v._Wingo). Individual states do have rules, but it varies based on the type of crime, and tend not to match a normal person's definition of speedy.
realjhol 3y ago
[flagged]
BLanen 3y ago
Slogans don't make reality
soraminazuki 3y ago
I guess that's why John Oliver has no segments on the American justice system. Oh wait ... /s Just look at any article that comes up on this site that covers the justice system. It's a hot mess everywhere, to a varying degree. Japan is no exception, and there are countless number of injustices. But at the very least, the police there don't get to shoot people and walk scott free.
- BrotherBisquick 3y ago
  John Oliver is an outrage-peddler with no particular qualifications.
  - soraminazuki 3y ago
    His show does proper research and points to numerous actual cases of harm before making a claim. Detaining suspects for long periods of time and forcing confessions is a topic that comes up repeatedly, each time with different examples. I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face that this isn't anything of substance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCNQ0xksZ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCNQ0xksZ4
    - tacitusarc 3y ago
      He does also tend to leave out facts or stories that would add nuance.
- fendir 3y ago
  [flagged]
ttfkam 3y ago
Kalief Browder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder
lazyant 3y ago
https://gothamist.com/news/detainees-spend-an-average-of-115-days-at-rikers-4-times-the-national-average https://gothamist.com/news/detainees-spend-an-average-of-115... but I think the "trick" is a DA getting a guilty plea under the threat of a very long sentence in trial (like 10 or 20 years in the case of Mitnik, Cunninghaming this).
yunohn 3y ago
> Mitnick did not request a speedy trial, in fact he moved to delay the trial. The prosecution repeatedly (1) refused to provide their evidence in discovery - Mitnick wanted proof to prepare his defence. My reading is that the government was hoping he would just fold, instead of fighting back. (1) https://www.zdnet.com/article/more-delays-for-mitnick-trial/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/more-delays-for-mitnick-trial/