
The Government Is Keeping a U.S. Citizen Secretly Locked Up Without Charges - tonyztan
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/detention/trump-administration-keeping-us-citizen-secretly-locked-without
======
c3534l
People who do this, lock up people while subverting the rule of law, are
simply criminals who also have government authority. They should be charged,
after being given access to a lawyer, from the person at the top who made the
decision to soldiers complicit in perpetuating this kidnapping. There can be
no justice if there is no due process, the one depends on the other.

------
lerie82
I believe it, I was once held in a jail called Northern Neck Regional simply
because the officer he could hold me for as long as he wanted, which turned
out to be true. I was held for 9 days beyond my release date.

However, doesn't someone who commits treason give up their rights as a
citizen?

~~~
marcosdumay
Does the right to a trial applies only to citizens in the US?

~~~
megous
There are some international treaties US is part of that mandate certain
behavior from US to non-US citizens in the US. It depends on the particular
citizenship. There's requirement to allow access to consulate, for some
countries of origin there's requirement to notify consulate if a citizen of
that country was detained, etc.

US gov. can violate these at their own peril. It's all based on reciprocity,
assuming US citizens would also get worse treatment elsewhere.

~~~
dboreham
“Citizen” it should be noted doesn’t mean the same thing as “person legally
living in the USA”. There’s another term used: “US Person” to denote someone
living in the US with, as a result, certain rights under law. The media often
say Citizen when they mean US Person.

------
jccalhoun
Sadly, this case is not unique. Jose Padilla was held for years without being
charged.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(prisoner)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_\(prisoner\))

------
ashildr
First they came for ... etc pp.

The US is actively destroying the rule of law their forefathers died building.

------
sandworm101
Who said that person needed to be charged in order to be held? Google
"material witness". Totally innocent people can be held forever without even a
hint of wrongdoing. (There are other examples too.)

~~~
michaelmrose
Indefinite detention would certainly violate at least the spirit of the law.

------
megous
Doesn't seem all that important. It's just one person out of thousands who
have been (and still are) treated this way by USG. Who cares if he is US
citizen or not.

The issue that this is done to anyone, without any public oversight or power
to do anything about it is troubling.

------
yarg
America really needs to stop refusing to call these people Prisoners of War. I
don't care who he is or what he did - an open and reasonable judicial system
can come up with an appropriate punishment.

~~~
maxlybbert
Prisoners of war aren’t supposed to be punished. The basic idea is that
they’re detained to prevent them from returning to the fight. The Geneva
Conventions allow them to send letters, buy things, receive pay, recognize
their own hierarchy, etc. The Geneva Conventions also allow them to be
detained without charge until the end of the war.

If they have committed certain crimes, then they can be convicted and held
after the end of the war, but that’s something of a special case. Many
Confederate soldiers during the Civil War never understood this (remember, the
Union declared that the South couldn’t secede, which would have made all
Confederate POWs US citizens).

~~~
maxlybbert
Just to clarify: the US Civil War pre-dates the Geneva Conventions. So
Confederate soldiers weren’t confused about whether the Conventions applied.

But they sent letters home wondering why they hadn’t been informed of charges
against them, given a bail hearing, or promised a speedy trial. I think it’s a
safe bet they also didn’t have an attorney represent them during any
questioning. They were confused about why they were in a prison even though
they hadn’t been arrested for a crime.

------
jeff6845
Maybe the guy has an ISIS attorney? From what I read, it sounds like joining
ISIS is becoming a citizen of their "country", and one has to denounce their
previous citizenship(s).

~~~
crooked-v
A US citizen who hasn't made a formal renunciation of citizenship before a US
consular or diplomatic officer is still a citizen. Anything else is baseless
conjecture assuming the worst of a person literally not able to defend him or
herself.

------
tomohawk
This guy has made himself an unlawful enemy combatant. His choice. No one
forced him to join ISIS and participate in genocide.

This situation is defined by the Geneva Convention. When someone joins a
fighting force with no flag, then they enter a kind of stateless situation. As
far as the US is concerned, they are now subject to the president's war
powers.

Do we really expect US soldiers to be trying to mirandize people on the battle
field because they might turn out to be US citizens? What about preserving the
chain of evidence and securing the crime scene?

Yes, this dude is now being held somewhere and not on a battle field, but how
would any criminal prosecution have any chance of succeeding? It is absurd to
look at this as some sort of criminal case.

~~~
baddox
Why wouldn’t a criminal prosecution have any chance of succeeding?

~~~
tomohawk
The chain of evidence is tainted and inadmissible in court. Can't trust what
you find at the crime scene because it wasn't protected. The guy wasn't read
his rights. Good luck finding people willing to testify. He and his buddies
probably killed them all.

This isn't a criminal situation. It's a war situation.

~~~
anarazel
The habeas relief talked about here is _not_ about a criminal prosecution, so
your predicate doesn't seem to hold in the first place. Secondly, there's an
established protocol for interviewing people detained in a war zone and
mirandizing etc (See e.g. the current prosecution of Abu Khattala
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Abu_Khattala](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Abu_Khattala)
, who got mirandized only after intelligence interviews etc., by a clean
team.). Simplifying you can interview people before mirandizing, you just
can't use it in front of court.

FWIW, so far the civil courts have a way higher success ratio than the absurd
military courts system. It's not that hard to convict people on the basis of
material support charges etc.

~~~
maxlybbert
The earlier comment was a response to someone asking about how criminal laws
apply. You’re right that it isn’t necessarily a criminal question, but I think
the original commenter was confused, not the person you replied to.

~~~
anarazel
I don't think so. Note that tomohawk, who I responded to, is also the
originator of this whole thread. And the first post started talking about
mirandizing, which is a criminal law concept, no?

~~~
maxlybbert
You convinced me.

------
oldandtired
Let me put this as pragmatically as possible.

There are many who are currently in some form prison on US soil, who have no
access to legal counsel, who have not been charged with any crime (though they
have been accused), who will not get out out because no-one outside the system
even knows they are there.

This is a fundamental right of the US government - it does not have to follow
any clause of the US Constitution it does not want to. That is, the rights of
the US government trump the rights of the citizens of the US.

You citizens are just irrelevant and just there to do as you are told. When
you do get a little upset, you'll get a small useless dirty bone thrown to you
to gnaw on. So shut up, do as you are told and we'll keep you safe and sound,
because we are the "good guys" and you are nothing.

~~~
dang
Maybe, but on a much smaller scale, would you please not rant like this on HN?
We're trying for a higher quality of discussion here, and the combination of
sweeping claims and high indignation points leads lower.

~~~
oldandtired
Maybe I should have put in the sarc notes.

If you took time to understand the psychology of what is happening worldwide
to all governments and nations, you would recognise that, in general, the
citizens of every nation are being ignored by those who are supposed to be
responsible to them.

It is unfortunate that the citizenry of the US has lost sight of the
incredible freedoms, privileges and responsibilities inherent within the US
constitution. The fact that there is now publicised the above situation and
the courts and government will not take the proper action and the citizens are
not out protesting to all of their respective representatives is highly
indicative of how far the US has fallen.

I may live in a country that has no such constitutional protections, but we
appear to have a few more actual protections than the citizenry of the US. My
own country has endemic problems and in many ways we are following the dark
path of the US.

If a population cannot stand up and say no to their government then any
actions by that government is then acceptable to and condoned by the citizens.

It is lamentable that governments and even courts push the idea of "rule of
law", when so many laws are either plain stupid or are just downright wrong.
"Rule of Law" means that it applies to everyone including the government. If
any group is beyond or above the law then you no longer have the situation of
"rule of law" applying.

In the US, you have a provision of Jury Nullification that is extremely
powerful, yet you are not taught about this, nor is it legitimate to discuss
the subject in public.

The imprisonment of anyone without due process and not sticking the the
principle of "not guilty until proven beyond a reasonable doubt" has ensured
that the government and its associated LEO's, spy agencies and defence forces
can get away with whatever they want.

I personally do not like nor consider the ACLU to be an honourable group, but
they do go to bat for various people that need help in these kinds of
situations, especially when the government exceeds it privileges.

On final note, my original comment was intended to stimulate discussion on the
limits on what is allowed under the US constitution for all the parties
involved. Maybe my point was lost due to not being a US citizen and the
interesting fact that many in the US think American is English and so fail to
understand such subtle comments.

