14 ms·
9/11 Suspects Can’t Mention being Tortured during Trial because Classified
- chatman 13y agoWhy is this on Hacker News?
- xutopia 13y agoIt's a bit off topic according to guidelines: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- fusiongyro 13y agoMakes no sense to me. The guidelines are clear: "Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." The NSA stuff seems to have given us a critical mass of political whiners. Can't wait to see a Show HN for "HN minus politics."
- Apocryphon 13y agoThe interesting new phenomenon is more and more hackers becoming aware of civil liberties issues.
- fusiongyro 13y agoThat was never something we were at a loss for. The new phenomenon is the systematic conversion of this technical forum into a political one. It's a shame that the process is irreversible.
- Apocryphon 13y agoFrom what I hear, that's what happened to Slashdot.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- pjbrunet 13y agoAmerican Pop music would be more effective than waterboarding, IMO.
- duncan_bayne 13y agoI see a number of posters suggesting various tweaks to democracy in order to prevent this sort of thing. Here's a suggestion: do away with voting altogether, and select representatives randomly from the citizenry.
- roboprog2 13y agowhen does the insanity stop?
- frank_boyd 13y agoWhen the current cycle is complete. It takes time, but it will happen, it always does. Just maybe not in our lifetimes anymore.
- discardorama 13y agoWhen each of us can convince our friends and relatives to vote neither "(R)" nor "(D)".
- ultramundane828 13y agoThis point can't be sung enough. It always seems so absurdly obvious to me, but everyone is sold by their favorite media outlet, their upbringing, or whatever motivates the two-party voting base. Sometimes I think people just like to debate when they have neat little debating packages lined up for them.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mchannon 13y agoAlmost half the country's voting-age population already doesn't vote. The ones who don't vote are hardly part of the solution.
- bergie 13y agoThe point is not abstaining from voting, but instead to vote for other parties. If enough people would do that, US would eventually get a healthy democracy. (disclaimer: not US citizen. My country has government ministers from six different parties, including both conservative [religious and fiscal, two different parties], left, and the greens)
- 13y ago
- andyjohnson0 13y ago"But prosecutor Clay Trivett argued that if detainees felt they were “mistreated in U.S. custody” they could file a complaint in federal court, and that should be sufficient." Could they file a complaint? I thought the whole point of detaining them at Guantanamo was that they are outside the jurisdiction of the US courts.
- ceejayoz 13y agoThere's probably some procedure in place that requires them to show up in person at a court in DC. "Sure, they could file a complaint..."
- MrZongle2 13y agoDoD Lawyer: "Your honor, let the record note Exhibit A: the Guantánamo Bay Suggestion Box. It is made available to facility guests every third Thursday of the month, between 8 and 8:07am."
- bradleyjg 13y agoThey can file a complaint called a Bivens action seeking damages for violations of their Constitutional rights. However, even the analogous statute for when state police violate your rights (42 USC § 1983) is very difficult to win because, among other reasons, of a doctrine known as qualified immunity. A Bivens action is even harder to win, and under circumstances like these, I'd feel comfortable saying impossible. Maher Arar lost, José Padilla lost, Shafiq Rasul lost, Arkan Ali lost, Abdul Al-Janko will lose. It's a remedy that exists only in theory. Similarly other courts have suggested that the torturers could be criminally tried. If you believe that will ever happen, I have a very nice bridge to sell you.
- ollysb 13y agoOnce upon a time information was classified to hide it from enemies. In the case of torture, where it's possibly an advantage for your enemies to know you'll torture them, it's clearly intended to hide the information from citizens.
- ansgri 13y agoInformation is still classified to hide it from enemies, as it requires an effort. Immediately follows though, that the system now considers citizens its enemies, which is reasonable: if they knew everything it does, they would actively attack it.
- Spoom 13y agoI was under the impression that the only people who had a duty not to talk about classified materials are those with a current or previous security clearance.
- leephillips 13y agoThe lawyers may have been given clearances so that they could see classified evidence. Also, in court, the judge decides what you may and may not talk about.
- nkuttler 13y agoSite doesn't seem to load for me, here's a cache http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.allgov.com%2Fnews%2Fcontroversies%2F911-suspects-cant-mention-being-tortured-during-trial-testimony-because-their-torture-is-classified-131028%3Fnews%3D851498 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3...
- fchollet 13y agoBut of course they're not allowed to. If a thug beats you up, they don't "allow" you to talk about it either. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't go to the police --or in this case, to independent, foreign media outlets.
- BHSPitMonkey 13y agoI wonder what would happen if, during the trial, they used testimony such as "And, if I had been tortured and brutalized, and had my family's lives been threatened to gain my compliance, I would not be at liberty to disclose such information."
- AsymetricCom 13y agoI wonder what would happen if US had a respectable judicial system.
- ekianjo 13y agoIn that case you'll be officially labeled as an "enemy of the State" and qualified for a little, short, painless drone strike when you cross the street.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- loourr 13y agoIt's also worth noting that the only evidence tying these guys to 9/11 in the first place is their torture testimony http://911inacademia.com/ http://911inacademia.com/
- ryanackley 13y agoDisturbing but not surprising. If you're a US citizen and outraged enough to spend a few minutes posting a comment here, why not write your local representative and express your feelings to them.
- discardorama 13y agoMy senator is Feinstein. She probably lights cigars with the complaints of Gitmo detainees.
- davidw 13y agoThey pay attention when people call them up. A whole hell of a lot more attention than they pay to HN, in any event.
- xradionut 13y agoWrong, they pay attention when people pay them or threaten their pay.
- davidw 13y agoIf enough people vote against them, that pretty much cuts them out of the picture. I know, actually picking up the phone and making a call is much more difficult than making snarky, cynical comments on HN, but it's more likely to accomplish something. If you care enough, you could even get out there and do something like work on the campaign of a primary challenger, or donate money to Amnesty, or anything else out there in the real world that requires time/money/effort.
- sobkas 13y ago>If enough people vote against them, that pretty much cuts them out of the picture. No, they will become the lobbyists, consultants etc. There are so many openings for former congresspersons that they don't need to fear unemployment. So it's not like there is a strong fear of being voted out, if you can grab even better paid job(for most, not fore all).
- ekurutepe 13y agoHow convenient…
- kyllo 13y agoOr else what? They'll torture you some more? I don't think these guys have anything left to lose.
- mcv 13y agoPeople need to stop using 1984 and Franz Kafka as instruction manuals.
- jsaxton86 13y agoThis sounds like an onion headline. Is this story being reported by more mainstream sources?
- theorique 13y agoNo one seems to be mentioning the reason why these people were actually in Guantanamo in the first place - because they are dangerous terrorists who represent a threat to freedom and democracy. Giving these crazed Islamist terrorist criminals the same rights as the rest of us is like spitting in the face of every victim of 9/11.
- dobbsbob 13y agoSince they haven't had a trial you have no idea if they were rounded up cab drivers or terrorists. Since their trials will now be show trials and not allow lawyers to question coeced statements they made under torture we probably won't even know after either.
- darkarmani 13y ago> Giving these crazed Islamist terrorist criminals the same rights as the rest of us is like spitting in the face of every victim of 9/11. Isn't that the whole point of the trial? To determine if they are terrorist criminals? If it is a certain as you think it is, why would they need to suppress information? Surely, you aren't opposed to a trial where the outcome is certain? Executing the accused without a trial is actually spitting in the face of every victim and tarnishing their memory. That would mean that we've destroyed the foundation of the United States using their deaths as an excuse.
- ssalenik 13y ago> NOT giving these ALLEGEDLY crazed Islamist terrorist criminals the same rights as the rest of us is like spitting in the face of every victim of 9/11. FTFY
- comrade_ogilvy 13y agoIf the case is so clear, then they will be convicted with the full rights as the rest of us, won't they? Once upon a time, I was waiting in the Illinois state supreme court room for my then SO to be sworn in as a new member of the bar. Behind me, two little old ladies were chatting. "What they did to those babies, they do not deserve a trial." The topic was the (alleged, at the time) Oklahoma City bombing perpetrators. That is an interesting line of thought, isn't it? Bad people do not deserve good trials. Obviously only good people deserve good trials. Wouldn't it be wonderfully efficient to simply dispense with the trials for all those bad people? In fact, why have trials at all? Good people do not need trials. We just let a cop or judge decide who is good or bad. The good people deserve trials, but since they are good, we can just set them free. The bad people, right to jail for you. Done! The trial system as a tool of justice rests on the assumption that even very very bad people deserve fair trials so that society can make a sober assessment of whether and to what degree they should be accountable for the particular crimes. Otherwise it is all theater. If you do not positively believe in open and fair trials for bad people, do not pretend you believe in trials at all.