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

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.

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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!