FBI Coerced Confession Deemed "Classified" 456
Steve Bergstein is one of several who have blogged about a recent court ruling that reads like most any bestselling crime novel. Apparently, when the court originally posted their decision (complete with backstory) it detailed how a coerced confession was obtained by the FBI from Abdallah Higazy in relation to the 9/11 attacks. The details, however, were later removed and deemed "classified". "As I read the opinion I realized it was a 44 page epic, too long for me to print out. I blogged about the opinion while I read it online and then posted the blog as I ate lunch. Then something strange happened: a few minutes after I posted the blog, the opinion vanished from the Court of Appeals website! [...] The next day, the Court of Appeals reissued the Higazy opinion. With a redaction. The court simply omitted from the revised decision facts about how the FBI agent extracted the false confession from Higazy. For some reason, this information is classified."
Re:Ha! (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you REALLY think this just started with Bush? Or just this century?
All that's happened recently is it's now harder to hide things, and easier to leak anonymously. Politician hiding information they don't like is far, far older.
Bush didn't teach them shit about corruption - see J. Edgar Hoover.
-- Ravensfire
The reason is obvious... (Score:4, Interesting)
There's lots of historic evidence now that official secrecy in the US (and all other governments) rarely has anything to do with "national security". The primary reason for secrecy has always been to prevent a government's own citizens from knowing about the inner workings of their own government.
Suppression of evidence that would exonerate a defendant in a criminal court case is the most egregious sort of misuse of official secrecy, true, and it's routinely used for things much less important than this. Occasionally, it is actually used to prevent a nation's external enemies to learn something embarrassing. But mostly it's just to keep internal enemies (aka "citizens") from learning things that the government doesn't want you or me (or a judge) to know.
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:2, Interesting)
Long before those photographs were published many US soldiers expected to be tortured if they were captured. During some of the higher level Marine SERE training that was pretty well drilled into our heads. And if it wasn't, those of us on the ground in Somalia, watching video of our captured brothers, figured it out.
So no, I don't think the photos were any kind of deciding factor for anyone.
Google News question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In Defense of Bush (sorta) (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, it is broke. The Constitution is great, but nobody listens to it. It's supposed to be a grant of powers to the government, not an enumeration of rights of the people, so, from the get go, we've lost all of our natural rights without even firing a shot. A number of federal agencies and rules are, essentially, unconstitutional.
We are on a wartime footing, and have been since World War II. We have either armies, spies or federal agents all working in parts of the world we shouldn't even care to about to fight some enemy that I don't even care about. It seems like, any more, all we do is go around the world, looking to pick fights.
Enough already. We can be brave enough to choose peace. Note, that I'm not saying -disarm-. But I do think its time to bring our little empire to a close, as, its mere existence is corroding our national soul.
Besides, I don't think a nation of 300 million gun owners needs to have that much of a government to really protect it. We Americans know how to shoot well enough on our own. Let's get the heck out of NATO and all of these other military alliances, have American troops only on American soil, and start acting like a normal country for a change.
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:2, Interesting)
This blog highlights the effects that our executive branch is having on our Right to confront our own government's behavior.
It is important because it shows a concerted effort to keep secret the systematic and despicable actions of people in our agencies, who act on our behalf, using ineffectual techniques that have yielded injustice. No good comes from protecting incompetence.
If you want to obfuscate or redirect the conversation... too bad!
Re:Confession - the Mother of Evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
- mandatory recording of confessions made while in custody of law enforcement
- corroboration of jailhouse informant testimony
- standards for eyewitness identification procedures
The Commission is made up of law enforcement, prosecutors and defense attorneys. Their recommendations were embodied in three California Senate bills (SB511, SB609, SB756) and were passed by the Senate.
Governor Schwarzenneger vetoed all three bills. About the bill requiring the recording of confessions he said: "This bill would place unnecessary restrictions on police investigators."
Re:Can't Have It Two Ways (Score:5, Interesting)
A completely undeserved reputation. His big plan in '91, for example, was to parachute the 82nd Airborne behind Iraqi lines, capture an Iraqi city and hold for ransom. Schwartzkopf, sane human that he was, didn't think much of it and said so, but Cheney kept insisting on it for weeks.
Bush may be garden variety dumb, but Cheney is truly demented.
Re:In Defense of Bush (sorta) (Score:1, Interesting)
The machine is not broken, the Constitution remains to this day a framework that is viable, and valid.
I maintain that the Constitution IS broken, and is no longer viable, and that the Supreme Court has ruled that it doesn't even apply. An example is the absurd lengths of copyright. The Constitution gives Congress the right to "secure, for limited times", artistic and scientific work, legalizing copyright and patent laws. The court said in its opinion that "limited" meant whatever Congress says it means; a million years is a limited time.
They had to amend the Constitution to outlaw alcohol, so why could they outlaw other drugs without an amendment? If a woman has a right to remove a fetus, why can't she insert cocaine or rat poison? Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the right to restrict drug use?
I wrote a piece a few years ago titled Liberty? What liberty? [kuro5hin.org], listing the bill of rights and how it has been rendered meaningless.
My 4th amendment rights have been violated twice this year, once on Memorial day! On the day we commemorate the deaths of soldiers who died defending our rights, a crazy ex-girlfriend (Chris) [slashdot.org] came by looking for my house, and scared some of the neighbors, who called the cops. The cops opened my garage and had a look around before knocking on my door; I pawned the crazy old bitch of on them, who took her home (her BF had locked her out which is why she came looking for me, wanting a place to sleep).
I was searched for drugs this summer. No arrest, no warrant, just pounced on and searched, because I'd given a woman a ride to what turned out to be a dope house (I sure can pick 'em, can't I?)
From the GP (this is responding to the guy you are responding to):
For all of the bashing the left does about Bush
I got some news for you, skippy - "the left" aren't the only ones bashing Bush. He has a lower approval rating than even Herbert Hover did after the economy collapsed. The only ones NOT bashing him are the droolers who are too damned stupid to realise what an incredibly awful, offal job Bush is doing by any measure.
-mcgrew [mcgrew.info]
(linked text is titled "Outlaw the American Secret Police")
PS- my voting record in Presidential races:
Nixon (R)
Carter (D)
Reagan (R)
Reagan (R)
Bush (R)
Clinton (D)
Clinton (D)
Gore (D)
Badnarik (L)
I'm hardly a leftie. My take on government is that it's supposed to protect me from you, and provide basic infrastructure (roads, schools, etc). Since 40,000 people die every year on our highways, the terrorist I'm scared of is in an SUV. I want to see some of that Homeland Security money going to improve our roadways, instead of wasting it on Bush's stupid Iraq war.
Re:Can't Have It Two Ways (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not like the thing responds to perceived lies with more pressure, or that the reactions it's measuring are painful. That would completely throw off what little good the polygraph is actually able to do.
So I have no idea why the guy would say that, unless he's not operating the polygraph properly and has no conception of how it's supposed to be used.
Or perhaps he's just trying to throw a scare into the guy. The thing can be set to the point of pain, especially if you put it on wrong with something digging in. I suppose the guy could be threatening to turn it up to 11, which really would hurt a lot, but that would certainly be deliberate torture.
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of people like to make this comparison because Nixon often came off as a unilateral dick, he was in many ways. However, he at least was a functional president. Hell, he was more than a functional president; he even had several net positives like repairing relations with China. If I had the chance to go back and magically make it so we had Nixon as president for the last 7 years, I think I would literally jump for joy.
Re:For those who have had no counter-terrorism exp (Score:4, Interesting)
If we pay attention to the legitimate grievances of the local population, and behave ourselves, the local population, who fear and despise the Jihadist movements as a rule, will turn the Jihadists in (those that remain Jihadist in outlook).
Even a bare minimum regard for the economic well-being of the general population nips these movements in the bud, which is why they are absent in Turkey (which has religious conservatives, but they are not at all the same) and Libya (hardly a paradigm example in other respects) but so prevalent in Algeria and Egypt.
In fact, in the wake of 9/11, this is what began to happen. The Jihadist movements were on the run and would have been destroyed.
Except that we invaded Iraq, religitimizing these movements in the eyes of the general population to a significant extent, and saving them from destruction at the hands of their own populations, who are also their primary victims. So while Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the invasion of Iraq contributed immensely the possibility that we'll see further attacks.
As for nuking Saudi Arabia - we'd see a similar effect. The rest of the world would see attacks against the US as legitimate, and they'd unite against us. US-friendly regimes in Turkey, the Balkans and Indonesia would become unviable. It would be an absolute disaster.
There are two basic things that we could do to reduce the threat of terror, and they would work:
1) Police work, as you say.
and
2) Basic honor and decency.
Re:Ha! (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, one word from FBI to the Egyptian police, and the family will be taken in for questioning. And by questioning I mean full-body-contact questioning.
Re:For those who have had no counter-terrorism exp (Score:2, Interesting)
(un)secret US torture prisons (Score:5, Interesting)
Templeton later admitted that he knew how the Egyptian security forces operated: "that they had a security service, that their laws are different than ours, that they are probably allowed to do things in that country where they don't advise people of their rights, they don't - yeah, probably about torture, sure."
Don't let this pawn distract you. The US perceives Egypt as rank amateurs in their torture methodology. America's secret prison rendition system sends lower-ranking captives to Egypt for torturing, while using the CIA-operated secret prisons for higher-level suspects.
From the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]:
Ten years ago, we used to talk about the existence of Black Helicopters [wikipedia.org] and people would laugh at these conspiracy theories. Now people wonder why we're making such a big deal about them.
Seth
I'd disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Torture doesn't work. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they'll be just as bad because of the systematic structure of the US electorial system. It's a system where if you don't vote for the most popular candidate, you vote is worthless, so you need to guess which of the two bastard promulgated as the top two is least offensive...or you might just as well not vote.
I'm getting closer and closer to not bothering, since I can't really tell which is worse. I probably will, though, when push comes to shove, take some dramamine & some anti-acid and vote for one or the other of them. But the thought of being told how I've "given them a mandate" may make me vote for a third party. At least that way I'll be able to claim "it's not my fault, I voted for Kodos".
Re:Even-handed coverage... (Score:3, Interesting)
I am aware of that, the Abu Graihb photographs look pretty much like the SAS course Resistance to Interrogation (R2I).
The point I was making however is that before the photographs that was pretty much the worst that captured servicemen could expect. Now it is the best.
Its even worse than that as the whole point of R2I is that everyone talks and what they say is complete garbage.
Re:Ha! (Score:3, Interesting)