The Curious Case of Abdulrahman Zietoun

[Pardalis]

Yes it is. It's the latest case, and a massive extension of the authority that lead to the situation in the OP. It's a clear example of the docrines in action, which is why it's instructive.

But has the Obama administration used the state secret doctrine for Abdulrahman Zeitoun's case? If not then we should be able to find out what exactly went wrong.

 

[TraneWreck]

But has the Obama administration used the state secret doctrine for Abdulrahman Zeitoun's case? If not then we should be able to find out what exactly went wrong.

He was released and it appears he doesn't want to try to bring suit against anyone for his treatment. THus, there's no pending court action to invoke the doctrine.

I believe this exchange began when you said, "There needs to be an inquiry into what happened before you can conclude that the whole system is at fault. But I guess you don't need investigations, you just know the truth, right?"

Because there's doesn't appear to be an investigation into this specific scenario, I referred to others to show the fault of the system.

If Congress tries to hold hearings on the matter, however, watch what happens.

 

[rwguinn]

Holy crud, people.
This New Orleans, Louisiana, USA we are talking about.
Where they give the body (murder) count update on TV Daily, where the cops run drug and burglary rings--where "Stop" signs are merely a suggestion, and a chunk of cardboard with "License apply for" written on it passes for auto registration...
Where the laws are based on Napolionic Code, rather than Common law.
You expected more?

 

[Pardalis]

He was released and it appears he doesn't want to try to bring suit against anyone for his treatment. THus, there's no pending court action to invoke the doctrine.

Then why did you say that Obama did?

The system is at fault because that inquiry cannot happen. Obama just invoked the states secret doctrine to shut down a similar investigation.

It's not a similar investigation.

Because there's doesn't appear to be an investigation into this specific scenario, I referred to others to show the fault of the system.

But there could be an investigation on this one. I'm not talking about the others.

 

[TraneWreck]

Then why did you say that Obama did?



It's not a similar investigation.

But there could be an investigation on this one. I'm not talking about the others.

Poor writing by me.

He shut down investigation on a similar matter. It's a case involving the same set of executive powers and legal doctrines. My apologies for the confusion.

 

[Pardalis]

Poor writing.

He shut down investigation on a similar matter. It's a case involving the same set of executive powers and legal doctrines. My apologies for the confusion.

No problem. I do hope M. Zeitoun gets his day in court. Maybe the success of the book and the upcoming movie well help gather public support.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

He was released and it appears he doesn't want to try to bring suit against anyone for his treatment. THus, there's no pending court action to invoke the doctrine.

I believe this exchange began when you said, "There needs to be an inquiry into what happened before you can conclude that the whole system is at fault. But I guess you don't need investigations, you just know the truth, right?"

Because there's doesn't appear to be an investigation into this specific scenario, I referred to others to show the fault of the system.

If Congress tries to hold hearings on the matter, however, watch what happens.

I did actually read a brief mention (with no details provided) that he had tried to sue the government but his lawsuit was thrown out of court. I am not sure if state secret doctrine applied in his case or not, nor do I know if he attempted his lawsuit under the Bush or Obama administration.

 

[TraneWreck]

I did actually read a brief mention (with no details provided) that he had tried to sue the government but his lawsuit was thrown out of court. I am not sure if state secret doctrine applied in his case or not, nor do I know if he attempted his lawsuit under the Bush or Obama administration.

There are a ton of procedural issues that could get that sort of lawsuit kicked out long before anyone would need to invoke states secrets, so that seems likely.

It's disappointing, nevertheless.

 

[Pardalis]

I can agree with him that it might be best for him no to take it to court, and instead make it public, he's most likely going to waste alot of money and time in court, and he'll probably lose, while making a book and a movie will make his story known, and maybe with time this will change public opinion and eventually policy.

(I mean this with no sarcasm)

 

[Chaos]

I dunno, dim recollection of democracy not always working out so quite the best people are in power. I might be imagining it.

An guess what... they suffered the consequences of what, and nobody except a bunch of Nazi apologist whackos claims it wasn´t their own fault.

Whereas, as demonstrated very neatly by you and Pardalis, nothing bad that happens in the US is ever so bad as the dastardly crime of pointing out that something bad is happening in the US.

 

[TragicMonkey]

An guess what... they suffered the consequences of what, and nobody except a bunch of Nazi apologist whackos claims it wasn´t their own fault.

Whereas, as demonstrated very neatly by you and Pardalis, nothing bad that happens in the US is ever so bad as the dastardly crime of pointing out that something bad is happening in the US.

Really? Is that what I said? I thought I pointed out that not all Americans were racist against this guy, as demonstrated by his neighbors trusting him with their stuff. How does that translate to saying "bad that happens in the US is ever so bad as the dastardly crime of pointing out that something bad is happening in the US"?

 

[kerikiwi]

What do you mean by that?

This has nothing at all to do with Islam. All that muslims have done in this story is existing, and trying to help other people.

All that the great, incomparable United States of America and its wonderful, tolerant, just and open-minded citizens have done in this story is being moronic racist jackasses.

Give me just one reason, one teeny-tiny reason, to be upset with Muslims because of this story, or NOT to be upset with the nation who lets this happen.

You clearly missed the point.
Whenever bad things are done by Muslims, we get the sarcastic 'ah, the religion of peace'.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

You clearly missed the point.
Whenever bad things are done by Muslims, we get the sarcastic 'ah, the religion of peace'.

Well, yes. The point of his post was that he missed your point, that's why he said "What do you mean by that?"

And I did to, I have to confess. What did a Muslim do that was bad in the story that would make someone make that comment?

Or do you just mean that some people are so bigoted they'll see any story involving a Muslim as reflecting negatively upon then, and will make a sarcastic comment like "ah, religion of peace" even if the Muslim in the story didn't actually do anything bad?

I don't think you're trying to be offensive or anything, I'm just not quite sure what you're driving at.

 

[Vic Vega]

Not all Americans are moronic racist jackasses--his neighbors trusted him with their keys and to look after their homes and pets and possessions.

Thanks so much for blaming the people for the all the worst actions of their authorities. I trust you are willing to accept responsibility for everything your police and government do?

C'mon! We're Americans. We all think and act exacty the same and all have the same opinions about everything and all support everything our government does.

You've been around here long enough to know that.

 

[kerikiwi]

Well, yes. The point of his post was that he missed your point, that's why he said "What do you mean by that?"

And I did to, I have to confess. What did a Muslim do that was bad in the story that would make someone make that comment?

Or do you just mean that some people are so bigoted they'll see any story involving a Muslim as reflecting negatively upon then, and will make a sarcastic comment like "ah, religion of peace" even if the Muslim in the story didn't actually do anything bad?

I don't think you're trying to be offensive or anything, I'm just not quite sure what you're driving at.

My (too subtle) point was that whenever we hear of an atrocity committed by islamic extremists, we get someone saying sarcastically, 'ah, the religion of peace', because they cannot see that people can be muslim and not subscribe to the extremist version.
When we hear of an non-extremist muslim doing something really good --which he himself would quite possibly attribute to his own version of islam as, in fact, a religion of peace-- it is all quietly ignored by the anti-muslim bigots.

 

[Pardalis]

In short, a strawman.

 

[TraneWreck]

I can agree with him that it might be best for him no to take it to court, and instead make it public, he's most likely going to waste alot of money and time in court, and he'll probably lose, while making a book and a movie will make his story known, and maybe with time this will change public opinion and eventually policy.

(I mean this with no sarcasm)

I agree. The courts have proven ineffective at dealing with these issues.

 

[kerikiwi]

In short, a strawman.

In the immortal words of Pauline Hanson, please explain.