Post #15,711
10/30/01 10:29:24 AM
|
I'm going to disagree for the block.
First, people being detained are not detained because they are Arabs. They are being asked very specific questions. There are specific suspicions against them.
I don't think you're aware of what's going on.
They're detaining people as "material witnesses". Denying them legal representation, and contact with the outside.
So lets take you as an example. The FBI busts in your door, in front of your family, takes you away in handcuffs. But you're not "under arrest". Your family calls and tries to find out where you are, and nobody will answer them. They hire a lawyer - who is told he cannot see you, won't be told what you're supposed to be accused of, or accused of knowing something about. So now you sit in some jail, unable to talk to your family, anyone outside, likely in solitary.
And you'll stay there until somebody gets around to letting you go.
That's *wrong*. That's everything against what our system is built for and stands for. I can understand secrecy, but what we're doing is illegal and wrong.
Second, this is war. It was not legally declared as such by our side, which is regrettable, but it is war nonetheless.
In that case, "prisoners" must be put in a POW camp, and fed and clothed. We can't kill them, and we must turn them over at the cessation of hostilities.
Are you *sure* you want to use a War analogy?
The mere fact that newspapers write about those people and they are represented by lawers is a huge credit to our law enforcement system.
Bull, its a crying shame that they're not getting more attention. They're "represented" by lawyers who can't talk to them, can't confer ...... In other words.. they're getting the same treatment that Communist China gives their "criminals".
Detaining *suspects* is one thing. Going after *material witnesses* like this, and not filing charges is wrong, and shows that the feds don't have *any* compunction about breaking the law - they know *They* won't get prosecuted. (or treated the exact same way).
Addison
|
Post #15,713
10/30/01 11:00:58 AM
|
Re: I'm going to disagree for the block.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
So lets take you as an example. The FBI busts in your door, in front of your family, takes you away in handcuffs. But you're not "under arrest". Your family calls and tries to find out where you are, and nobody will answer them. They hire a lawyer - who is told he cannot see you, won't be told what you're supposed to be accused of, or accused of knowing something about. So now you sit in some jail, unable to talk to your family, anyone outside, likely in
solitary.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
That is a shame. Still, it's much better than what we did in WW2. We were doing the above to people because of national origin. At least now we are doing it to people because of investigation going on. I wish the targeting were more precise, but spending a few weeks in jail, even in solitary, may not be a huge price for security during war. As long as there are people who keep trying to get them out, as long as the attitude is not "grabbed - must be guilty" - we are OK. Personally, I think at least 80% of them are not guilty of anything. They should be relased with apologies. Holding them is wrong. But that's what you have during a war. Killing civilians in Afganistan is much worse.
If I were in that situation, I would try to relax and wait till it blows over. But then again, I don't mind telling them all I know 'cause I don't know much.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In that case, "prisoners" must be put in a POW camp, and fed and clothed. We can't kill them, and we must turn them over at the cessation of hostilities.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
They are not prisoners. They are suspected spies and saboteurs. If suspicions prove well-founded, such people are hanged.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bull, its a crying shame that they're not getting more attention. They're "represented" by lawyers who can't talk to them, can't confer ...... In other words.. they're getting the same treatment that Communist China gives their "criminals".
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I don't know about China, but in Soviet Union, slightest suspicion of anything less than total hate for enemy in war time was a guranteed "tenner" (10 years of camps).
I think the country is more watchful than you give it credit for. The issue is on people's mind. It's just not viewed as a very urgent one for now. That may change as more data comes out.
|
Post #15,716
10/30/01 11:03:27 AM
|
Yeah, don't worry about it.
At least it ain't happenin' to you, right?
Sheesh.
Thank God that we passed that USPATRIOT bill, so now Ashcroft can have even more fun at the expense of... whoever he feels like.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #15,717
10/30/01 11:08:02 AM
|
Sorry about that.
I'm not mad at you; I'm mad at the people doing this. I'm taking it out on you. Sorry.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #15,722
10/30/01 11:12:07 AM
|
No, it's not happening to me.
WTC disaster did not happen to me either.
It's just our friends in Brooklyn... Their daughter was going to school with a girl whose parent both worked on 103rd floor. September 11 was the girl's birthday, so the parents took her to their office. The whole family is still missing.
|
Post #15,720
10/30/01 11:10:52 AM
|
What was the penalty for being gay in the military?
I am pretty sure it wasnt dont ask dont tell.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #15,724
10/30/01 11:13:56 AM
|
Huh?
|
Post #15,728
10/30/01 11:35:50 AM
|
I remember during the Breznev? era OT I know
a Very well spoken TV host from Russia was sharing a show with Phil Donahue when good old Phil brought the subject up by saying that in America you would get a dishonerable discharge for being gay in the military, the russian fellow mentioned the penalty as being rather harsh in the Soviet forces.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
|
Post #15,723
10/30/01 11:12:33 AM
|
Re: I'm going to disagree for the block.
Still, it's much better than what we did in WW2. We were doing the above to people because of national origin. At least now we are doing it to people because of investigation going on. I wish the targeting were more precise, but spending a few weeks in jail, even in solitary, may not be a huge price for security during war.
So, since we did something bad before, we can do something bad now? Bad logic.
And we don't know *how* long that people - not accused of *any* crime sit in jail.
You're saying a couple weeks. Its already been almost 2 months for some.
Are *you* willing to pay that price? And more importantly, are you going to pay the price of giving the police THAT MUCH *COMPLETELY UNCONTROLLED* POWER?
That's the problem - we've got a system of checks and balances, right? *Where are they?* These people are being held - without *ANY* outside authority being able to ascertain if the reasons are valid!
As long as there are people who keep trying to get them out, as long as the attitude is not "grabbed - must be guilty" - we are OK.
So if you spend the rest of you life in jail - WITHOUT A TRIAL - that's OK? That's what "Habeas Corpus" is all about. You *must* show cause to hold someone, you can't just delay court cases, etc JUST to keep them in jail. Its in the system at some of the lowest levels *so that it can't be abused*. Which is *exactly* what's happening.
They are not prisoners. They are suspected spies and saboteurs. If suspicions prove well-founded, such people are hanged.
Not that clear, if its a *war*. And hell, right now we're apparently arresting people who had the misfortune to know them.
Do you want to be arrested and held without arraignment for the next few years, because somebody happened to ask you for change one day?
Or - more likely - because the cop down the road wants to diddle your wife?
"Ah, he's dangerous, we'll toss him in here, trust me, he's a danger". That's what the entire system is set up - that's why rapists and murderers and child molesters sometimes go free - because *you can't break the law to catch and keep them*.
If you don't set that up as ironclad as you can, the cops start breaking the law - then you've got a "Police state", witch hunts.....
Sure you've never pissed off a cop? How about a good buddy of a cop?
I think the country is more watchful than you give it credit for. The issue is on people's mind. It's just not viewed as a very urgent one for now.
When people are willing to throw away the rule of law, its a problem.
People don't realise that whoever gets to do what they want, outside of the law, won't give that up, easily, if at all. That's why the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution is *so explicit* on these things. That's why you *must* show cause, why cops can't search your place just 'cause, why you're *guaranteed* a trial by jury, in as swift a manner as can be done.
Addison
|
Post #15,730
10/30/01 11:42:18 AM
|
So far, FBI seems to have
... a measure of trust. I _am_ willing to assume that they are professionals, that they are after the truth, not just some scapegoats. 2 weeks, 2 months, even half a year - reasonable time. Anything beyond that, and investigation turns into unjust punishement. Somewhere between 2 and 6 months the public's attitude will change.
Btw, here are rules with regard to material witnesses from Washington State Court (could not find federal rules).
[link|http://www.courts.wa.gov/rules/list.cfm?group=sup|http://www.courts.w...fm?group=sup]&set=CrR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RULE 4.10
MATERIAL WITNESS
(a) Warrant. On motion of the prosecuting attorney or the defendant,
the court may issue a warrant, subject to reasonable bail, for the arrest
of a material witness. The warrant shall issue only on a showing, by
affidavit or on the record in open court, that the testimony of the witness
is material and that
(1) The witness has refused to submit to a deposition ordered by the
court pursuant to rule 4.6; or
(2) The witness has refused to obey a lawfully issued subpoena; or
(3) It may become impracticable to secure the presence of the witness
by subpoena.
Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the warrant shall be executed
and returned as in rule 2.2.
(b) Hearing. After the arrest of the witness, the court shall hold a
hearing no later than the next judicial day after the witness is present in
the county from which the warrant issued. The witness shall be entitled to
be represented by a lawyer. The court shall appoint a lawyer for an
indigent witness if it is required to protect the rights of the witness.
(c) Release/Detention. Upon a determination that the testimony of the
witness is material and that one of the conditions set forth in section (a)
exists, the court shall set conditions for release of the witness pursuant
to rule 3.2. A material witness shall be released unless the court
determines that the testimony of such witness cannot be secured adequately
by deposition and that further detention is necessary to prevent a failure
of justice. Release of a material witness may be delayed for a reasonable
period of time until the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to
rule 4.6.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Looks like there are some checks and balances here.
But I digress... I'll have to repeat myself. Any due process you get in cases such as that is a pleasant surprise. When the country is at war, you rely on Army's professionalism to avoid civilian casualties, and you rely on law enforcement professionalism to avoid unjustly convicted. You monitor both using free press, but that's about the best you can do. If we have bad generals and bad cops, the country is, basically, screwed. I am yet to see any evidence that they are particularly bad.
|
Post #15,740
10/30/01 12:09:02 PM
|
Re: So far, FBI seems to have
So far, FBI seems to have... a measure of trust. I _am_ willing to assume that they are professionals, that they are after the truth, not just some scapegoats.
You may extend that trust to them. I will not, their past performance has shown that they will break the law at whim. It usually takes 20 or so years to find out about it, so people don't care - neverminding what the FBI or other DoJ departments are doing *now*.
However, in the last 10 years, the FBI has lied about events at Waco, withheld evidence from the McVeigh and McNighols defense team, for starters. They've been penetrated at very high levels by paid spies, and they attempted to cover up when that began to come out. Shall we go into the Los Alamos scientist accused of spying, what the FBI said and did, tossing him into solitary, and then... releasing him with a minor infraction of Top Secret information?
No, the FBI hasn't *proven* they can be trusted, quite the opposite. If you want to give up your liberties, well, that's your business.
I'm not saying they don't have the exact right people in jail right now, either. But that they *are* breaking the law holding them there, incommunicado, and THAT HAS TO STOP.
(b) Hearing. After the arrest of the witness, the court shall hold a
hearing no later than the next judicial day after the witness is present in
the county from which the warrant issued. The witness shall be entitled to
be represented by a lawyer. The court shall appoint a lawyer for an
indigent witness if it is required to protect the rights of the witness.
(c) Release/Detention. Upon a determination that the testimony of the
witness is material and that one of the conditions set forth in section (a)
exists, the court shall set conditions for release of the witness pursuant
to rule 3.2. A material witness shall be released unless the court
determines that the testimony of such witness cannot be secured adequately
by deposition and that further detention is necessary to prevent a failure
of justice. Release of a material witness may be delayed for a reasonable
period of time until the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to
rule 4.6.
Thank you.
Notice the quoted text. That's *not* what has happened.
The people being held have NOT had a hearing in many cases - and in others, the defense lawyer was not given the case against his/her client, so it was a kangaroo court, trusting ONLY the government.
Which is exactly my point. Those checks and balances that you're citing - are NOT IN EFFECT.
That's the problem.
Any due process you get in cases such as that is a pleasant surprise.
No. It cannot be such.
Otherwise, in cases of horribly rape/murders, then people will say "Oh, we don't NEED to protect those scum, let the cops do what they will". Etc. Etc. Or whatever case you'd like to use. There can be only one system. This is not a war - if it is, than our hands are tied more than ever.
I am yet to see any evidence that they are particularly bad.
Other than they aren't obeying the law (similar to what you quoted)? They aren't allowing people legal representation? They're interrogating people - not accused of a crime, even, with no regard to their civil liberties?
That's *VERY BAD*.
The whole point of this is the American Way versus "those scum" who want to destroy it.
If we destroy it, they win.
And you and I lose. Simple as that. You set the stage for corruption and lawlessness among the very people who are supposed to keep that from happening.
Addison
|
Post #15,756
10/30/01 1:53:37 PM
|
That is the fear of mine.
I am afraid that this is the war that civilized people will lose. Either we become as ruthless as the enemy, or we disappear. In either case, civilization loses.
|
Post #15,808
10/30/01 9:34:08 PM
|
If that's the choice we should disappear
it's not worth winning.
Ergo, it's possible to win and be civilized.
Wearing the white hat comes with a price. I don't care how fucking expensive it is, if you're not willing to pay the price, then DON'T WEAR THE GODDAMN HAT.
The thing is, the US has already put it on.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #15,856
10/31/01 10:09:16 AM
|
End of nation
If your sentiment is a prevalent one, this nation is done for. What's coming to replace it is hideous beyond imagination.
You know, suicide might be a sin for nations as well as people. I still have some hope that we can dpull back from the abiss of becoming a copy of fundamentalists _after_ defeating them. I have no hope of them becoming similar to us after their victory. Not in next 500 years.
|
Post #16,123
11/1/01 8:24:38 PM
|
About pulling back from the abyss
That's what checks and balances are for. Both legal and cultural.
That's why our judicial branch is independent of the executive and legislative branches. And if they sell us down the river, there's civil disobdience, and something about the right of the peopel to overthrow the government.
And if that doesn't work, well, at least our culture went down fighting. And may rise again. But right now, we need to fight terrorists. We don't have a choice about that. We fight them, or they kill us, and our way of life goes away, its memory disgraced, so that it cannot rise again.
We've pulled back from abysses before. Slavery. The Great Depression. HUAC. The LBJ administration. We can probably do it again.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
|
Post #16,030
11/1/01 9:52:12 AM
|
How old are you?
Either you're rather young, or have a very selective memory.
Can you say "J. Edger Crossdresser's Red Squad"? I knew you could...
Imagine the fun J. Edger would have with the "USA Act".
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #15,715
10/30/01 11:02:14 AM
|
Exactly.
Addison said it better than I did, so consider this a big "me too" AOL style.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #15,721
10/30/01 11:11:57 AM
|
POWs
Second, this is war. It was not legally declared as such by our side, which is regrettable, but it is war nonetheless.
In that case, "prisoners" must be put in a POW camp, and fed and clothed. We can't kill them, and we must turn them over at the cessation of hostilities.
And (iirc) we can't torture them for information -- which we're currently considering.
|
Post #15,725
10/30/01 11:14:14 AM
|
Well...
We can't do that in any event.
I really think that's just a warning, though.. to get throught that if they don't want to talk to *us*, well, we'll extradict them to Israel. :)
Addison
|
Post #15,732
10/30/01 11:43:34 AM
|
I good mullah might be a better approach
If we can find a sane and learned one, he should be able to explain just where they will end up after death.
|
Post #15,736
10/30/01 11:58:49 AM
|
Somehow I don't think that will make a difference.
After all, hasn't this whole thing been caused by selective listening? We'll have "our" Mullahs, the Taliban will have "their" Mullahs, and somebody will draw a parallel to the whole Dali Lama situation.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
