Re: I'm going to disagree for the block.

Post #15,723 by addison 10/30/01 11:12:33 AM Reply	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 by Arkadiy 10/30/01 11:42:18 AM Reply	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 by addison 10/30/01 12:09:02 PM Reply	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 by Arkadiy 10/30/01 1:53:37 PM Reply	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 by cwbrenn 10/30/01 9:34:08 PM Reply	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 by Arkadiy 10/31/01 10:09:16 AM Reply	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 by marlowe 11/1/01 8:24:38 PM Reply	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 by jb4 11/1/01 9:52:12 AM Reply	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...)

Welcome to IWETHEY!