As per him being untraceable, if he was not read his rights then the FBI just jeopardized their own case. If no one knows where he is, it's more likely that it's what Marcus wants at the moment rather than what the FBI wants.
Oh come on...
How many people traveling to the US from the UK, just to attend a conference, have an attorney they can call in the US?
Moreover, most public defenders are overworked. They will do their job (hopefully), but they are not your secretary. (I'm sure most will make those phone calls, out of being a decent human being, not because it's their job)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
>Khalid El-Masri (born June 29, 1963) is a German and Lebanese citizen who was mistakenly abducted by the Macedonian police in 2003, and handed over to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). While in CIA custody, he was flown to Afghanistan, where he was held at a black site and routinely interrogated, beaten, strip-searched, sodomized, and subjected to other cruel forms of inhumane and degrading treatment and torture. After El-Masri held hunger strikes, and was detained for four months in the "Salt Pit," the CIA finally admitted his arrest and torture were a mistake and released him
Because they've seen the same movie time and again...
Because US law enforcement have consciously chosen, over the past couple of decades, to engage in activities that make them "the bad guy". It's just abductive inference and a simple bayesian prior at this point. Nobody is reaching any absolute conclusions yet, but a highly plausible explanation, until such time as other facts become available, is over-reach / malicious behavior by the FBI and their cronies.
"US law enforcement is the bad guy, therefore any given choice they make is probably evil" is fiction-logic. It works in movies, not in real life.
Sure, but we're not talking about a randomly selected item here. Looking at US arrests w/r/t "cybercrime" and given the history of overly broad interpretations of the CFAA and what-not, I think it's a lot less clear than you are suggesting.
"US law enforcement is the bad guy, therefore any given choice they make is probably evil" is fiction-logic. It works in movies, not in real life.
We're not talking about "logic" (as in "deductive logic") here... w're talking about the kind of fuzzy reasoning, based on abduction and bayesian inference, that human beings use in the face of limited information... and with an understanding that you revise your position as new information is acquired.
Rights? Which rights?