Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An American Black Site

typeinvestigations.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 75 posts

Re: An American Black Site

#3

Post by threezero »

The author really glossed over the reasons for the communications ban imposed on the terrorist prisoner - multiple people he spoke with ended up committing terrorist acts. Seems like a good enough reason to completely cut him off. In addition, the author really stretches when she complains that they brought in a gallon of liquid to feed him. If you’ve tried to feed a prisoner multiple times and you know they’re going to deliberately vomit it up, of course you’ll bring extra. There’s enough going on here where the author doesn’t need to add in things that actually seem logical, because now I’m questioning everything she wrote and how much of it was exaggerated.

Re: An American Black Site

#4

Post by roywiggins »

threezero wrote: post #3

The author really glossed over the reasons for the communications ban imposed on the terrorist prisoner - multiple people he spoke with ended up committing terrorist acts. Seems like a good enough reason to completely cut him off. In addition, the author really stretches when she complains that they brought in a gallon of liquid to feed him. If you’ve tried to feed a prisoner multiple times and you know they’re going…

Force feeding is arguably a form of torture.

https://www.apnews.com/e0941d7d1b0d413b9d9a0b792c34dd26

Re: An American Black Site

#8

Post by roywiggins »

> family members and attorneys in touch with SAMs prisoners can be prosecuted and incarcerated for repeating anything the inmate told them

This is interesting and I'd be very curious to know what the courts have made of this kind of prior restraint. I'm not skeptical that threats of this nature have been made, but I am skeptical that such a prosecution could actually be brought- under what statute? Lawyers may be gagged somewhat, as an officer of the court, but a family member seems like a real stretch.

Edit to add: here's a simple explainer on SAMs and what they do: https://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/10/SA...

> Prisoners under SAMs are prohibited from communicating with anyone except a few pre-approved individuals – their attorneys and immediate family members – and SAMs prohibit those individuals from repeating the prisoner’s words to anyone else.

I am still awfully curious as to what possible statutory authority the DoJ could have to regulate the speech of people who aren't actually incarcerated.

Post reply on HN