@15, 18

Um, the USA has no national "Stop Knife Crime" campaign, unlike, say, the UK, where a "serious knife crime" occurs every 22 minutes.

So my thought is: this knife would be a huge hit in the UK, but is probably illegal there. Which is sad, as I think it could really give "knife crime" a badly needed boost. The UK's knife crime statistics are within spitting distance of the USA's gun crime statistics. A sweet belt buckle knife could give the UK the lead!

(Of course more people die from gun crime, but that's just the nature of guns, isn't it? It's a lot harder to stab someone to death.)

@#8

By incident I mean the court's redaction, not the FBI's actions.

Reading more, it turns out the radio did not belong to Higazy at all. He's suing the FBI and the agent involved for it's method of extracting a false conviction. He "confessed" to protect his family in Egypt. It sounds like he has a case against the FBI to me, and the court is allowing his case to proceed. Which seems like the right result.

So why the redaction?

Actually, I believe the court. I think that the "mild" redacted version of the threats might indeed make Higazy and his family safer in Egypt. The court itself already considered the unredacted version in making its decision. Higazy has gotten the benefit of his actual unredacted testimony. I would imagine the unredacted version would also be available for his further proceedings, probably under seal.

I honestly think the court decided that changing the wording might not incite the inhumane legal authorities in Egypt to do something to Higazy's family because they were embarassed, or annoyed, or in case others the Egyptian government felt embarassed and ordered harrassment and torture. What other use is the redaction?

Who is being protected by the redacted version? The FBI? Not really. The fact that the FBI used such threats to elict a confession is the problem. "Torture" or "hellish life" are problematic for them in this case, either way.

Torture is explicit, the other is implied, but any knowledge of Egypt would lead one to understand what was being threatened anyway. Such information can be introduced at trial with or without the word "torture". The "torture" aspect really goes only to the credibility of Higazy's belief. And the court considered that exact word.

The torture committed by Egyptian security forces is well known. We don't need this testimony to prove it.

We had an FBI agent immediately post 9/11 using unscrupulous and likely unlawful, threats to elicit a confession when he thought he had found a material link to the attacks on the USA. The threats were so effective that a false confession was obtained.

Now the victim is seeking redress for this unlawful act against him and the court is allowing him to do so. Again, this seems like the right result, and I'm not seeing how the redaction is all that nefarious in light of the possible harm the unredacted version might cause to Higazy and his family. The FBI will not escape consequences on account of the redaction.

And think about this, an Egyptian national is suing a national US law enforcement agency in the USA for redress of a wrong. His case is proceeding. Can you imagine the opposite - a US citizen suing an Egyptian police agency, in Egypt, for making threats?

Despite many many problems in the USA right now this incident does not really seem like one of them to me.