It's worth pointing out that while some outlets (Guardian etc) report it as just another NGO, Cage is an Islamist pressure group.
We all hate those laws. We hate the TSA. We hate the border control overkill checks. We hate the "give us the password" bullshit.
We hate it so much when something suspicious may be happening we automatically assume the suspect is the victim.
Somewhere down the road the gov messed up so bad it's guilty by default until proven innocent into the eye of people on HN, a group of usually pretty well educated people.
That is a red flag.
Last time I traveled to the US was in 2013. The TSA were a bother, but didn't really stand out compared to US immigration checks, airline policies, being contained in an airplane for 12 hours, my country fiscal policies on return, finding taxis to go from airport to destination and everything.
Yes, the TSA thing is aggravated by it being useless, but I don't expect any general population to know this.
"Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law."
I think the important point to note is that the 'digital strip search' mentioned is used in an arbitrary way and is a great power in the hands of folks not particularly careful about abusing it.
Alright, so all the Christian pressure groups should get that kind of treatment in your view then?
If not, given CAGE isn't pro-terrorist and is simply pro-Islam, you even pointing that out is...really questionable judgment on your part.
So your argument is torture is OK because they are convicted terrorists?
Or that the US military is pro-Terrorist?
> For example, Cage is animated about the case of Aafia Siddiqui, jailed for 86 years in the US for attempting to murder US officials in Afghanistan and assaulting those who tried to stop her. Siddiqui had wide-ranging links to al-Qaeda and was married to a key plotter behind the 9/11 attacks. At the beginning of her trial she said that jurors should be "subject to genetic testing" to see if they were Zionist or Israeli. She is no terror suspect – her guilt was proved in a court of law. Yet Cage’s profile on Siddiqui – which misses literally all this out – says it has "dedicated itself" to freeing her.
> Aafia Siddiqui and her three children were kidnapped from the streets of Karachi in March 2003. Since then they have been subjected to enforced disappearances, torture and ill-treatment beyond measure. Cageprisoners has dedicated itself to campaigning for Aafia and her family in order to help secure their release and expose those involved in their abuse.
> Others that Cage support include Djamel Beghal, who, following allegations of a plot to blow up the US embassy in Paris, was jailed in France in 2005 for "belonging to a criminal association in relation to preparing an act of terrorism"; and Nizar Trabelsi, convicted in Belgium as part of an al-Qaeda plot to carry out a suicide attack against a military base there holding US soldiers.
> Le Point reported that the Emirati police had been sharing information with the French authorities since the beginning of August 2001. Questions being asked of Beghal confirmed for him that it was the French who were feeding information to the Emirati police during his torture and abuse.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-...
> Anwar Al-Awlaki may be the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, but he was also a lunch guest of military brass at the Pentagon within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Fox News has learned.
No, it is not.
Then your assertion they are pro-terrorist doesn't make any sense.
Helping to free people who were tortured at some point during their captivity isn't the same as being "pro-terrorist".
Being a civil rights group that opposes mistreatment of prisoners is going to lead to you representing or seeking to free unsavory people on the basis of their mistreatment (rather than their innocence).
They've clearly denounced extremist Islam.
It's the difference between me publishing your videos to my YouTube feed and PewDiePie publishing your videos up to his feed.
This is why people worry, with some justification, about YouTube censoring content. And, symmetrically, it's enough for other people to complain, again with some justification, that YouTube isn't censoring enough content and should be punished for that.
Cage denounced his extremist views, and at their events he only spoke about imprisonment.
Note that the imprisonment is probably what radicalised him - he was known as a moderate before he was detained.