Tuesday, November 3, 2015
New Ruling Allows The F.B.I. To Ignore A Citizen's Rights, Simlpy Because It Occurred Overseas
In 2007, Amir Mohamed Meshal, a U.S. citizen from New Jersey, travelled to Egypt to visit family. After that, he decided to provide humanitarian relief for rebel groups in Somalia, where, during that work, he along with many others were forced out of Somalia and into Kenya (and in Meshal's case, eventually Ethiopia) to be interrogated by many people, including F.B.I officials. According to Meshal, while he was interrogated he was denied both Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and was also told by the officials that he would "disappear" if he did not cooperate. Eventually, Mr. Meshal was released and returned to the U.S., where he appealed for monetary compensation for the way he was treated. However, the court ruled in favor of the F.B.I., saying that it was overseas, and also pertained to a matter of national security. This ties in almost directly with our reading from the Cigler book not too long ago. Does the U.S. have the right to treat people as Meshal was treated in order to "preserve national security", or does it vary from situation to situation? If you think that latter, what draws the line to determine if it is justified? Furthermore, does the U.S.'s right to act this way change whether it is physically in the U.S. or another country? If so, how? Finally, should we be willing to still provide monetary compensation for mistakes made in the war on terrorism, or should we not have to because the breaches of their rights were "justified"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is absurd. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to ensure that the government does not encroach upon the rights of the citizens. I see no reason that the location of these events should play a role in whether or not these rights are protected. We sometimes go to war to defend these rights for the citizens of other countries; it is ridiculous that we cannot do the same for our own citizens. Even if it was "necessary" to detain Meshal and question him, the least that the government could do is admit that it made a mistake and give him some monetary compensation. If the FBI's claim is upheld, the U.S. could ship "suspicious" citizens off to another country and interrogate them without fear of justice. This goes way too far in the claims of national security. What is the point of so faithfully preserving our country if we cannot even live our lives without constantly fearing ridiculous treatment from the government?
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree with Rachel. The point of the war on terror is to protect our way of life. The way it is being fought now, the war on terror is destroying our rights, tearing the constitution and the bill of rights to shreds. No U.S. citizen should be treated as Meshal was treated. Period. He should definitely be compensated for the crimes that have been committed against him and a serious probe into those responsible must be undertaken.
ReplyDeleteRachel put it perfectly, geography or no the Bill of Rights unbiasedly should act in favor of citizens' protection. It is completely irrelevant wherever the location is, and these actions are mere excuses. The government should just admit their rather obvious usurpation of the man's rights, and in these situations give the compensation to the person violated. But it should not get to that point. The fact that it has is totally out-of-bounds, and the possibility that it could continue to do so is horrifying, wrong, and should call into question our fundamental ideas of justice.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Rachel. Overseas or not, as a U.S. citizen, the FBI had no right to interrogate Meshal in that way. Not only was he denied his rights but when he appealed for compensation, he was denied that as well because the courts ruled that the FBI had a right as it was a matter of national security. If our own security organizations treat us badly and refuse to compensate us, how can we expect them to protect us from others? As for matters of national security... did they have any reasonable cause for interrogating him? Or was it simply because of his ethnicity (name and heritage - he went to Egypt to visit family) that he was interrogated?
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Rachel. No government, especially one that claims to give so much freedom and equality to its citizens, should be allowed to simply move its citizens into foreign countries so that they lose their freedom and rights. Monetary compensation should always be provided if there is an error, since issues of national security usually involves violation of the basic rights that we are supposedly guaranteed. Violation of these rights contradicts the fundamental beliefs that America was founded upon.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Rachel. I think the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to always be given to every U.S. citizen whether it's overseas or not. It's totally absurd to me how the government can pick and choose what they believe should be done, but there's already laws and rights put into place to do this. The FBI had absolutely no right to interrogate Meshal and not only was he denied his rights, he was denied compensation for the wrong doing of the FBI as well. This is completely insane to me becasue he shouldn't have been interrogated like that in the first place, he had his rights as a U.S. citizen and was denied both his Fourth and Fifth Amendments. No one should ever be treated like Mershal was, he should have recieved compensation because he was denied his rights as a U.S. citizen and that should've never happened. That was not necesary at all and now if the FBI's claim is upheld, the U.S. could now ship any suspicious people overseas to interrogate and question them. This is so horrifying and wrong I don't believe what our country has come to. Something needs to be done about this becasue no one should have their rights taken from them as a U.S. citizen everyone is equal no matter who you are. The monetary compensation should always be provided if there's error because there's a lot of violations in the national security with these basic rights that are supposed to be guaranteed to every U.S. citizen. It really doesn't matter what country your in, if you're a U.S. citizen you have these rights and they shouldn't be taken away even if your overseas. That doesn't make sense to me and I believe something needs to be done so we all feel safe. No one should be treated like Meshal so therefore it doesn't vary from situation to situation. If you are a U.S. citizen you have these rights and that will never change.
ReplyDeleteI think that's horrible what happened to Meshal and I agree with everybody else that the US government cannot ignore peoples rights, even if it is occurring over seas. What they did to him was inexcusable and I don't think there is any justification for it. Maybe the situation was urgent and Meshal seemed like an absolute threat would their actions of been justified. But denying his rights because it was international is absurd. He is a US citizen and it's the US government so he should have gotten the same rights he would have hopefully of gotten in the US. And to believe that all of this happens and Meshal and others in his situation amazes me. The government can't just be like "oops our bad". They have to be accountable for their mistakes.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think 99.99% of the time it is never okay to do what they did to Meshal. There was no evidence and no plot of terrorism linked or suspected of him, and his detainment and interrogation was deeply wrong and ridiculous. In the .0000001% chance that I'd ever condone this is if there is a proven terrorist, say in charge of a 9/11-like event that needs to be interrogated. But even then I'm not sure I'd condone this. It's hard to draw the line to justify this because every time you make an exception then the line gets pushed just a little bit more until you can't control it any longer. I think the hard line should be very strong evidence and accurate data that brands someone a terrorist without a doubt. I feel like the US's right to act shouldn't change no matter where you are. You still represent America, and you should uphold those rules. I think compensation should be doled out. If there's no punishment or rebuke to those who've made mistakes during the war on terrorism then what's going to make them more careful the next time?
I agree with everyone that Meshal shouldn’t have been treated as poorly as he was. They denied him of his rights and freedoms as a US citizen, and it shouldn’t have mattered that he was overseas. There was also no real evidence of terrorism to justify the interrogation or way he was treated. He should be compensated and the people responsible should be punished. If there aren’t any actions made to punish the interrogators, there’s nothing stopping them from doing the same thing to some other innocent person.
ReplyDeleteThe main goal of tighter national security was to protect our citizens right and freedoms, but in this case they were taken away.
To put it simply, a U.S. citizen is a U.S. citizen no matter where he or she is. The war on terror has created what is essentially an excuse for the encroachment upon the civil liberties of American nationals. While it is easier for officials to carry out their jobs in this manner, it is by no means safe- for citizens or government agencies. If actions such as the ones taken against Meshal continue to occur, public distrust of agencies like the FBI could cause severe limits on what actions such agencies can take. If this should go too far, it could mean a major hit to national security protocols in the future, which could end up being a dangerous thing. In short, if national security agencies do not dial back their measures for "securing" our nation, then they will have to face consequences that could end up harming everyone.
ReplyDeleteMeshal was helping a Somalian rebel group opposed to the current pro-American "government." I will say that Somalia is an incredibly unstable country and I was actually unaware it has a functioning government. Last time I checked, it didn't. What I honestly don't understand is why Meshal was helping a group that opposed what America supported. I honestly don't blame the FBI for questioning his affiliation. His treatment, on the other hand, is a different story. As an FBI operative in this situation, I would certainly be puzzled as to why Meshal was providing humanitarian aid to what is, in theory, an enemy. But, the extent they went in denying his rights as a US citizen was too far. In this situation I would raise an eyebrow at Meshal. I am in no way accusing this man of being a terrorist, but I believe the FBI was just in questioning him as a threat to national security. But, he is an American citizen and needs to be treated as one. The monetary compensation he received was just as well. The government realized it was wrong and tried to make up for it. That being said, the issues surrounding national security are still very fresh and need incredibly strict outlining and regulation to prevent future problems like this.
ReplyDeleteThe US does not have the right to treat its own citizens as Meshal was treated. The Bill of Rights is a document whose conditions are explicitly stated - if a citizen were not guaranteed these rights if he was not on US soil, that would be stated in the document. Therefore, Meshal deserved all the rights he would be awarded if he were arrested in his hometown. US citizens are citizens of this country regardless of their location. Soldiers are still US soldiers on foreign soil and US diplomats retain their citizenship as they conduct their business on behalf of our government. So why should it be any different for a private citizen? Meshal deserves compensation and would deserve it regardless of whether or not he actually did anything wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe war on terror has brought forth a seemingly wave of restrictions upon U.S. citizens. Things like the patriot act were made to protect us but in turn also limit our freedom. The government and armed forces are narrow minded in the sense that they value victory at “almost” any cost. Mr. Meshal is a victim of this mentality. Even being a U.S. citizen he was harassed and held captive like they would a war criminal. This should not happen even if there is a potential threat against our home land security. Mr. Meshal should have been brought to the U.S. and treated as we do normal crime suspects, not like a POW. I understand the concern for our safety and that’s why I do understand our presence overseas but I believe one of our own should be treated as such and compensated for the mistake made by the F.B.I.
ReplyDeleteWe have heard of the US government doing some pretty sketchy things post 9/11 to protect US citizens from the war on terror. Do not get me wrong; I am all for fighting terrorists anyway we can but Meshal was and is not a terrorist. He was there for an aid project and to visit family, not receive AL-queda training. The fact he was interrogated 30+ times and denied access to a lawyer or even just top let his family know he was alive. Another general question? Has the US government always brought suspected people to other countries for questioning so our state side rules do not apply there? Also it boggles my mind how this man was never even charged for anything. Just held for long periods of time. The worst part is no one will be held responsible for this, because it is our government. Who will punish them and should they be punished. I dont know but yes they should be held accountable for their actions.
ReplyDelete