
9/11 Suspects Can’t Mention being Tortured during Trial because Classified - sdoering
http://www.allgov.com/news/controversies/911-suspects-cant-mention-being-tortured-during-trial-testimony-because-their-torture-is-classified-131028?news=851498
======
fchollet
But 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.

~~~
ekianjo
In 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.

------
ryanackley
Disturbing 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.

~~~
xradionut
Your naivety and optimism is cute. Reality is that no brunch of the current
government gives a shit. The US isn't a democratic republic anymore.

~~~
sker
_> The US isn't a democratic republic anymore._

I also used to think that my government wasn't a democracy because they don't
represent _me_. But the truth is, they do represent the majority of the
population.

If no branch of your government gives a shit about this issue, that's because
the majority of your society doesn't either. So long as they have McDonald's
and reality TV, who gives a shit about some random terrorists being tortured?

Change the mindset of your society and then, only then, you will see change in
your government, but not before.

~~~
pjc50
Indeed; the US has recently seen the rise of an effective third party - the
Tea Party, who are generally in favour of this kind of evil.

~~~
LanceH
Responsible budgets, limited government, pure evil.

~~~
eropple
Let's get really real here: the Tea Party as constituted doesn't give a single
toss about "responsible budgets, limited government." They are entirely in
favor of bloated workfare military programs and governmental intrusion into
women's reproductive systems. It's their thing.

------
ollysb
Once 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
Information 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.

------
andyjohnson0
_" 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.

~~~
bradleyjg
They 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.

------
Spoom
I 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
The 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.

------
loourr
It'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/)

------
mcv
People need to stop using 1984 and Franz Kafka as instruction manuals.

------
kyllo
Or else what? They'll torture you some more? I don't think these guys have
anything left to lose.

------
jsaxton86
This sounds like an onion headline. Is this story being reported by more
mainstream sources?

------
roboprog2
when does the insanity stop?

~~~
discardorama
When each of us can convince our friends and relatives to vote neither "(R)"
nor "(D)".

~~~
mchannon
Almost half the country's voting-age population already doesn't vote.

The ones who don't vote are hardly part of the solution.

~~~
bergie
The 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)

~~~
Buttons840
The political system will always revert to 2 major parties. That cannot
change, it is the nature of the system.

I believe runoff elections would though. Currently if one party runs multiple
candidates something like this happens:

Democrat 1 receives 33% of the vote. Democrat 2 receives 33% of the vote.
Republican 1 receives 34% of the vote.

Democrats had two strong candidates with some differing views, and decided to
let both candidates run so the people would have more of a choice. The result
is that 66% prefer a Democrat but a Republican ends up in office.

(Spare me the "their both corrupt" speech, I use these parties only as an
obvious example.)

This called the spoiler effect, and a runoff vote would prevent it. Right now
more choices in the vote results in chaos and the candidate most people DON'T
want ending up in office. With a runoff vote, there is no negative with more
choice.

~~~
discardorama
We saw this in action at the last Oakland Mayor's election. Now, if we can
just set aside the qualities of Jean Quan (the mayor elected), it was
interesting to see that the person who got the most first-place votes actually
did not win. He was the "establishment" candidate, and both political parties
were pretty pissed that the election had turned out unexpectedly.[1]

People may say that her election is a mark against IRV or RCV; but that's not
the point! There will always be cases where someone incompetent gets elected.
But the interesting thing in her case was that the groups who control the
elections behind the scenes (PSUs, lobbyists, parties) were completely thrown
off. Her election showed that it is possible for someone who is not beholden
to the existing power structures to have a shot at election.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Quan#2010_Oakland_mayoral_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Quan#2010_Oakland_mayoral_election)

------
nkuttler
Site doesn't seem to load for me, here's a cache
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3...](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)

------
duncan_bayne
I 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.

------
chatman
Why is this on Hacker News?

~~~
fusiongyro
Makes 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
The interesting new phenomenon is more and more hackers becoming aware of
civil liberties issues.

~~~
fusiongyro
That 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
From what I hear, that's what happened to Slashdot.

------
pjbrunet
American Pop music would be more effective than waterboarding, IMO.

------
ekurutepe
How convenient…

------
theorique
No 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.

~~~
comrade_ogilvy
If 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.

~~~
theorique
_If you do not positively believe in open and fair trials for bad people, do
not pretend you believe in trials at all._

Good point, and ultimately I think you're right. It just gets irritating when
the enemy doesn't have to follow the same rules.

~~~
dobbsbob
According to this article you don't follow those rules either

~~~
theorique
I follow only the Subgenius and the ways of slack.

