Former Intel Employee 'Disappeared' by U.S. 1541
pmodern writes "Wired has this story about Maher "Mike" Hawash a former Intel programmer who is being held by the DOJ for suspected terrorism. Anyone familiar with the Kevin Mitnick saga will not be surprised that he hasn't been charged and has been locked away in solitary. 'For nearly two weeks, he has been held as a so-called "material witness" in solitary confinement in a federal lockup in Sheridan, Oregon. The designation allows authorities to hold him indefinitely without charging him with a crime.'" See also a NYT article and the Free Mike Hawash website.
Depressingly, I predict that (Score:5, Insightful)
quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Media (Score:3, Insightful)
I think one should seriously consider the option of moving to Russia...
Not a suspected terrorist (Score:4, Insightful)
Three years ago he did donate $5K to an organization that is now being investigated for links to funding terrorist organizations, but that is not the same as being held as a suspected terrorist.
One must wonder if he didn't have rich friends if his case would even be noticed by anybody.
Re:Depressingly, I predict that (Score:5, Insightful)
Whereas I, on the other hand, think that a guy with a wife and children is going to receive more support than a creepy dork who may or may not have been able to start WWIII.
Re:Speaking as a Canadian (Score:1, Insightful)
Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
This resulted in "arrested by FBI agents at about 7 a.m. March 20 as he arrived for work at the Intel plant in Hillsboro, Oregon. During his arrest, a squad of armed agents in bulletproof vests stormed his home, seizing computers and files. His wife, Lisa, and their three children were asleep at the time"
The charity was "Global Relief Foundation, a Muslim charity that purported to fund mosques and schools in the United States, as well as West Bank medical facilities. "
And now he can be held indefinitely without charging him with a crime?
Err.. Wow. All I can say is I really hope there's something we don't know here. If this is actually what happened, then anyone can be arrested, at any time, without reason. They'll FIND something to do it for, no matter if it makes any sense or not.
Re:Speaking as a Canadian (Score:5, Insightful)
King George was not elected. Don't forget that.
Re:Media (Score:2, Insightful)
The American public are sheep. As long as wholesale roundups of middle class whites aren't done and it remains a few people with dark skin, the public won't give a damn.
Re:Not a suspected terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
--G
Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
With tools like that, who needs dictatorships? Just lockup anyone likely to compete about power of state. No chance of getting caught since everything is stamped "top secret". You simply cannot lay power like that in the hands of people. No matter what it WILL be abused!
The US is imploding far faster than anyone would imagine. Remember how Rome fell and why for a cluebat.
With Bush in power, what do you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just remember what it was like 3 years ago: Economy was good, we had jobs, the President was brokering peace between Israel and Palestine, and our biggest worry was that the President had consentual sex with his adult intern. Oh my.
Today: Economy is crashing, > 6% unemployment rate is common in urban areas across the country, we're in a questionable and bloody war for oil, the same people [washingtonpost.com] who bolstered Saddam [captionthis.com] into power are in control today, Israel and Palestine aren't even on the map, the Bush administration is silencing political critics, and the government wants to investigate your private life to make sure you are not a terrorist [darpa.mil], headed by Big Brother [nytimes.com] himself.
So much has been lost in just 3 years.
Nice title. Really objective. (Score:5, Insightful)
They know where he is. A lawyer has contact with him. They're not going to burn his body and later deny he was ever taken into custody.
Is it a good situation? No, I think it should be ruled unconstitutional, its following the letter instead of the spirit of the material witness law.
When you use terms like "disappeared" to describe it, though, not only do you sound like a wacky radical, but you also insult the people in oppressive countries who actually have been killed/locked away for life without trials or explainations.
Re:Speaking as a Canadian (Score:5, Insightful)
I even heard a story about an older couple that got into trouble because while their house is in Canada, the only road leading to it crosses into US territory by a few inches. INCHES. So they've got special permission to use the road, but if they need a plumber, he needs to go to a border crossing before he can drive down that road, then he has to go back to the border crossing to get 'back' into Canada. Xenophobic? I think they're already there, too.
(By 'they', I in no way mean 'American People'. The people patrolling your borders and making your laws are starting to go a little crazy, and I don't think that's anything that you expected.)
*Everyone* saw this coming... (Score:5, Insightful)
...and worse, but no one did anything about it.
The loophole that the framers of the statutes knew about fully, and no one else paid attention to is that supposedly rigorous limitation of powers are based solely on a definition that is set by the authorities.
Law enforcement is limited in what they can do with or to you *until* they define you as a terrorist. Then they have broad leeway.
This same creep happened in the RICO statues. They were passed specifically to go after a very traditional definition of "organized crime." The problem became law enforcement's increasing willingness to broaden the definition of "organized crime" to what used to be called merely conspiracy.
So it's not necessarily the powers that are given to law enforcement, but the flimsy, overly broad cicumstances under which they can use them that we build into the statues.
------
When is enough enough? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not saying that I am strictly opposed to "ethnic profiling" - the fact is that a certain subset of people are more likely to commit large scale terrorist acts on US soil, and if there is suspicion, we should certainly act on that suspicion. But suspicion alone should never give the government the right to detain somebody who is a legal resident or citizen in violation of due process protections. We should speak out loudly, clearly, and rationally against this to our representatives. I don't want to speak specifically about this case, because we just don't know enough about the details, but the general principles of justice and basic civil rights must be upheld.
Closer Still (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice title. Really objective. (Score:2, Insightful)
The golden rule... (Score:2, Insightful)
What kind of a government claims to lead the world in human rights thought, but can hold individuals in such a way that the rule-of-law cannot be applied to them?
Oh, yes, its the same government that can judge you by what you read, not what you do (eg, the USA Patriot act).
Hasn't anyone in US politics ever heard of the golden rule? Do unto others as they would do unto you...
Would any American (let alone a politician) ever want to be reborn as an innocent Iraqi civilian undergoing "collateral damage"? As an American Indian? As a black slave?
Current US politics of dividing the world into "Good" and "Evil" is not benign. It is a philosophy which ultimately threatens us all.
Re:Speaking as a Canadian (Score:2, Insightful)
What scares me most... (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have a warrant for your arrest. Give yourself up, you're surrounded and outgunned."
"I want to see the warrant."
"Sorry, it's sealed. I can vouch for its legitimacy."
*shudder*
Re:Yeah. It's all a trap. 9/11 was faked. (Score:2, Insightful)
Furthermore, the little phrase "innocent until proven guilty" should still mean something. Even if Mr. Hawash is complicit in assisting a group that assisted in funding terrorists, it must be proven first. The fact that the government is using these tactics suggests that their evidence is weak and/or non-existant. Considering the federal actions against the organization that Mr. Hawash donated money to, it's hardly likely that if any terrorist connection existed that those terrorists would not have already done whatever they needed to be done to hide any links on their end.
Kierthos
Re:Depressingly, I predict that (Score:5, Insightful)
As for 9-11, you are obviously of the "Oh my God! Heathen Muslims are trying to kill America because they hate Freedom" clique.
Get informed, then make assertions.
Re:Speaking as a Canadian (Score:2, Insightful)
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
-- F.D.Roosevelt
Re:It's... (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't had the time or excuse to investigate how judges became confused on this issue but the material witness statute plainly and obviously violates the fifth amendment and must be overturned.
Judges also seem to be blind when it comes to the "property" clause above as they allow property to be seized (by the DEA, IRS, etc) without due process and the owner must sue to have any hope of getting their property back.
Of course the lawmakers are also to blame. They did swear to protect and uphold the constitution, yet they insist on trying to break it whenever they don't find it convenient.
Let's not forget... (Score:5, Insightful)
Our own government is locking people up without due process or just killing them [mit.edu] to save the hassle. Something really has to be done. Write your congressmen, join the ACLU [aclu.org](I did yesterday), participate in protests even if it feels stupid at first. The only way we're going to keep our rights is to actively work to defend them, especially with facists like Bush, Ashcroft, and Rumsfield at the helm.
Torn on this one... (Score:5, Insightful)
Scratch that. I am DISGUSTED by the CLAIM that they can hold people uncharged. They may be doing it but I totally question their right to do this.
The sad thing is that many of the people they are holding LIKELY could be charged, but there is such a burden of proof now (There wasn't enough evidence to convict O.J.?!?!) that I believe prosecutors are using this as a hold'em until we can charge them card. It's a tough call if they really are dangerous, but I don't think it is right to hold them if you aren't charging them.
HOWEVER, I have serious doubts that NO ONE has questioned Mr. Hawash??? What sense does that make?
MAYBE, MAYBE this is true. Or maybe it is deeper than that.
Maybe the government has questioned him on things he doesn't want to tell his workers and family about. And the government is stuck because they can't jump out and tell the nation while at the same time claiming they have right to hold him secretly (their fault).
If Mr. Hawash is innocent, I will be the first to say this is miserable and disgusting treatment.
But suppose he is guilty of something...It is wrong to hold him without charging him. Period.
Re:NYT article (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that this can happen at all is a frightening commentary on the current state of the U.S. federal government.
Re:Nice title. Really objective. (Score:3, Insightful)
It is sad that people say "yea, but its almost the same" with some self rightous attitude.
Ask the Human Shields that are coming out of Iraq. They are freaked out at how the people were abused. They learned they don't know shit about Iraq, and that their own misconceptions were 100% wrong. They SAW what was going on, and it blew their mind that some leaders really DO oppress people that way. Some people just don't understand what "evil" means. The civil liberties violations in the US do not even compare, except by idiots.
People who equate this matter with the brutal oppression that occurs regularly in the Middle East are completely ignorant of what is going on. This IS unconstitutional, but he hasn't had his teeth bashed out, his wife raped or his children killed. It should be fought here in US, but to say he "disappeared" is insulting. Not to the US, but to those in Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia among others, that know what the hell "disappeared" really means.
More FUD about our "nasty govt" from editors whose real goal is to protest a man, not a war.
2 sides (Score:2, Insightful)
(NYT is no more than an editorial rag and Wired and Slashdot always have been)
I mean, perhaps he truly IS a material witness. Maybe the guy knows something.
You dont get picked up by the feds just for wearing a turban, no matter what michael or some columnist in the NYT tells you.
Re:He's a terrorist (Score:5, Insightful)
Up until the Patriot Act, saying that would have first involved something called the burden of proof.
What good is America if what makes America free is destroyed in the process of making America safe?
By committing these sorts of actions, we show disrespect towards the lives of all those who have died to keep this country free. Are we not as well willing to sacrifice out lives for this great nation? Or are we such pitiful weaklings that the nary is the threat of 'terrorist actions' waved against us that we all surrender our rights, our liberties, and our very heritage, for a sleep free of worries of death?
Stop Talking Out Of Your Ass (Score:2, Insightful)
1) If you aren't from the US, does your country fair better on civil liberties? Prove it?
2) Do you have any facts in this case? Have any idea why he's being held? If not, why should the US government give YOU all the evidence available in an ongoing investigation?
Please stop whining about things you don't have a clue about.
Re:Speaking as a Canadian (Score:1, Insightful)
But as you stay, still stylish.
Jail Some Irish Americans - They Fund UK Terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, we could stamp out a lot of terrorism in Britain and Ireland by bombing the shit out of Boston, Chicago, and New York, oh yes. And arresting the hundreds of thousands of Irish-Americans that fund terrorist organizations.
As a native Irish-born person, what really bugs me about this current "War on Terror" is that it's really a "War on Wog Terror". Various Irish-American charities [google.com]s have funded a sustained, vicious, crippling terror campaign within Ireland and Britain for decades, yet even in the current paranoid climate the Irish-American lobby is so large that the Bush Gang didn't proscribe these "charities" even as it curtailed the activities of many Muslim charities (some legitimate, some terrorist funding fronts).
If there were as many Arab-Americans and there are "Irish"-Americans, bet your arse this War On Terror would be targeted differently.
This was printed in a UK paper a year or so ago, but seems to be no longer available online.
Possibly true... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, this whole holding without disclosure thing is what makes me uneasy. If they do have credibly accusations, they should be disclosed, or at the very least make the fact that he is being held a matter of public record. If they can just come in the middle of the night and take someone from their home with no accusation, or warrant, or justification, what makes them better than any other totalitarian regime?
I know the American way of life is something valuable to protect, but you cant protect it by violating the very rights and freedoms it stands for. IMO, Bush's vision for America is as bad as Saddam's vision of Iraq.
Im all for John Kerry's "Regime Change".
Re:Depressingly, I predict that (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Speaking as a Canadian (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:NYT article (Score:5, Insightful)
And besides which, we don't know that that is why the government just grabbed him. They aren't saying anything about that either.
So yeah -- I'd say that it is kafkaesque. The government is basically kidnapping people without alleging any reason for doing so, and even if they did allege such a reason, without proving it.
If you think that's just, then what's to stop them from kidnapping you? They might claim that you gave money to terrorists. Even if it isn't true, if you have no opportunity to challenge that aren't you still up shit creek without a paddle?
Re:slashdot.aljazeera,net? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Depressingly, I predict that (Score:4, Insightful)
American or not. Native or not. He's human and I accept him as a fellow citizen.
Solidarity, tolerance, freedom, justice and peace... these are the things I want to have associated with America in the hearts and minds of all people.
But that's not easy when half of us want homeland security, revenge and money. Those desires paint a very different picture of America than what most of us think of when we see that red, white and blue flag blowing in the wind.
What do you associate with America and the flag today after all we've been through?
Re:Speaking as a Canadian (Score:4, Insightful)
There are RULES to an election -- including deadlines and not trying to have the counters use ESP to guess what people intended.
As a Florida resident (at that time), and Libertarian who voted for neither Gore nor Bush, I've had enough of ignorant people bitching about the election.
1. The "Butterfly Ballot" was chosen by an experienced DEMOCRAT; used successfully, without incident, in several other areas of the country; was published beforehand in the local newspaper; passed a review of BOTH parties without challenge.
2. "Hanging Chads" were the best. Finally, Florida counties will get rid of the antiquated systems and get something a bit less prone to human error and manipulation. Voting is't tough, and there were people there to assist. Multiple rehandlings of paper punch ballots damage the ballots, skewing the actual vote. More recounts would have meat more UNCOUNTED votes as the ballots would have been damaged beyond proper use.
3. "More People Voted For Gore". Actually, I think the majority of Americans DIDN'T VOTE AT ALL! For those that DID vote, this ISN'T A PURE DEMOCRACY aka MOB RULE. This is a Republic, and the electoral system is much harder to manipulate than pure majority vote. It isn't the first time it happened, and it won't be the last time that a President was elected with less than a majority.
GET OVER IT! Both major political parties (Democrats & Republicans) are lying, sniviling, cheating, vote-whoring, ballot-stuffing scum.
Don't like it? Look at the maps where the votes were close (Oregon, Iowa, Florida, etc.) and organize voter education, registration and participation there. There IS another election coming up...
Check out http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org] for an alternative to the 2-party bullshit.
Re:Depressingly, I predict that (Score:4, Insightful)
no, but perhaps you are the only one that remembers nothing else.
Re:First they came for the Jews (Score:3, Insightful)
1. regexp error:
forgot global mod...
s/Jew/Arab/g
2. you mean Arab, not Terrorist, I don't think you intended to compare jews and terrosists, right?
Re:Intelligence (Score:1, Insightful)
Scary quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the next step is that they will come for you. Food for thought for those people who think that the end justifies the means when it comes to fighting terrorism.
Re:Speaking as an American (Score:3, Insightful)
Another such example is the right to free exercise to religion, where sometimes one's right to free exercise is circumscribed by a generally applying law. This law is infringing my right, but according to current interpretations of the Establishment Clause, to allow me an exception to the law would also be a violation of the first amendment. See U.S. Supreme Court case Sherbert v. Verner (374 U.S. 398), pay special attention to the Opinion of Justice Stewart in how the two clauses of the first amemdment come into conflict.
But that's why we have judges. They are not puppets - they make judgement calls based on evidence they have, which you may not. I'm not trying to say that the government is acting correctly in this situation, but I would advocate examining a few possibilities before attacking one side or the other.
Re:Possibly true... (Score:5, Insightful)
Articles V and VI (Score:5, Insightful)
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Ashcroft has done more damage to our country and our constituion than the terrorists could ever have dreamed of doing. The terrorists have won, and the current administration has done nothing but help them. I believe a regime change is needed indeed--vote against the regime in 2004.
Re:Disappeared? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
is no longer appropriate in the Hawass case. However, there
are roughly 1200 people who have in fact 'disappeared' from
the U.S. who are believed to have been removed by INS or DOJ
in the past year and a half.
The U.S. has reserved and excercised the assumed right to
designate any individual, whether a citizen or non-citizen,
as a terrorist, and to kill them. The U.S. has also reserved
the right to designate any person, citizen or non-citizen,
domestically or abroad, as an enemy combatant, regardless
of whether or not they were engaged in active combat, and
to detain them indefinitely without access to legal
counsel.
These powers are reserved to the office of an unelected
official who has repeatedly expressed a preference for
dictatorship over democracy, and has waged war against
non-beligerent nations on false pretexts, without a
declaration of war by the Congress, as required by the
founding laws of the United States. This act is defined
as a Crime against Peace, by the Principles of the Nuremberg
Tribunal, VI(a)i. When the Nazi government of Germany did
this, those responsible were hung by the neck until dead.
Re:Nice title. Really objective. (Score:4, Insightful)
More or less what I was going to post, but you beat me to it
I'm not terribly comfortable with the way the government is handling this, but I think we need to acknowledge that we are fighting a new type of war (with a group of violent extremists rather than a readily identifiable nation-state) and that some new rules will be necessary. There's no way in hell that putting all of the "enemy combatants" (Padilla) and the "material witnesses" (like the gentleman mentioned in this article - and I think that holding people like this as "material witnesses" is an egregious perversion of the intent of that rule) through the criminal justice system will work. My initial thoughts (and IANAL) regarding American citizens that are caught up in these situations are as follows:
The government must provide sufficient evidence to hold the suspect. If the information cannot be made public (and I absolutely believe there will be many situations where this will legitimately be the case), then there should be a special grand jury that is cleared to view the secret information and decide if the government has sufficient evidence to hold the suspect. The whole "we're the government and we think this person is bad and you'll just have to trust us" is absolutely unacceptable. A federal grand jury comprised of citizens with Top Secret clearance would not be the easiest thing to convene, but far from impossible and a small price to pay for helping to uphold our nation's ideas of justice.
The government must be liable and accountable for any damages caused by false arrests and detentions. They must publicly acknowledge the mistake and clear the person's name, and should be penalized in a manner that creates a significant disincentive for them to arrest people without being very, very sure of what they are doing.
I'm sure that people with far more legal wisdom than I possess can refine these ideas further, but they're a start.
Re:Possibly true... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice title. Really objective. (Score:3, Insightful)
Like I said, I agree its a problem. I agree people should speak out. But if you act as if this problem is as bad as Saddam's treatment of his citizens, no one will take it serious. You have to put it in perspective. I mean, the author lost my respect by OVERREACTING in the description. It tells me he has another agenda, so I am not as likely to listen to him.
As to other posters: You can NOT just run and scream, calling John Ashcroft a nazi and expect to get taken serious. I think Ashcroft is very wrong on MOST issues regarding liberties. I also believe he is a good man with the best of intentions, but the wrong ideas.
Anyone who just goes into a name calling frenzy HAS OTHER MOTIVES. They obviously don't care about the truth, they care about pushing an agenda, and LIKE IT when something like this happens, because it appears to substanciate their narrow view of the world. Just like the fools who WANT American casualties so they can say "told you so". Thats a pretty fucking expensive told you so, and frankly, you would have to be a sick person to want that. Same here.
Its about trying to convince everyone that Conservatives\Bush Team are bad, so they dig up any story that appears to support their theory, with no regard to fact or perspective as to the real problem. These efforts are entirely too transpearant.
Re:Who to fear? (Score:5, Insightful)
As an American citizen, John Ashcroft provokes more apprehension in me than Osama Bin Laden. What does that tell you?
Why, you ask? Simple. Both are actively trying to strike at the heart of this nation's greatness; one is succeeding.
Re:First they came for the Jews (Score:4, Insightful)
and your
Re:Possibly true... (Score:1, Insightful)
You're right. Bush didn't make the loophole, he's just the one exploiting it.
Re:Disappeared? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Often Times... (Score:5, Insightful)
THAT is the issue, not whether or not he is a "good guy". Even if he turns out to be a criminal, he is still treated in a way that violates fundamental principles of justice, and that is quite reminiscent of tactics used by dictators to silence anyone they don't like.
Why kill and be brutal when holding someone in an unknown location without any requirement for a court hearing is just as effective?
THAT is the issue - that the US government is now step by step emulating more and more of the tactics of the very people they claim they are trying to protect Americans and the world against.
<rant-mode>
And of course it's always nice to try to pretend it's the same people who complain about two seemingly mutually exclusive things. But I think you'll find that quite a lot of the people who are now crying out about human rights abuses in the US weren't that surprised when 9/11 happened. My first reaction was "that's what you get for pissing off an entire people".
Making enemies all over the world is just begging for thousands of people to start thinking about ways to hit back. Becoming more oppressive and more agressive (as with the Iraq war) may stop a few threats now, but it also make thousands more angry enough and desperate enough to start thinking about how it would be to copy the 9/11 terrorists.
I keep hearing "appeasement never work with terrorists", but what you need to realise is that what is terrorism to you and me is considered freedom fighting by the people doing it. Every strike against them validate their beliefs. Every death makes it easier for them to recruit.
You can splinter a terorist group, but unless you remove the root cause, there will only be more. Until the US government sees that the way they keep angering hundreds of millions of people is what is feeding the terrorist threat in the first place, and start taking a gentler tone - not to the terrorists, but to the groups of people from which the terrorist recruit, you will always have the terror threat hanging over you. Appeasement not towards the terrorists, but towards the countries and peoples that are weary, suspicious and downright angry at the US government because of decades of US foreign policy.
A more even handed approach towards the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, for instance, would do a great deal to make it harder for fundamentalist muslim terrorist groups to recruit. Similarly, a more patient approach against Iraq would have done the same.
Instead the present US government seems to keep doing everything it can to whirl up more hatred.
</rant-mode>
Think this kind of thing will never affect you? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Media (Score:3, Insightful)
Padilla was illegally detained for suspicion of building a dirty bomb. How many people do you know who combine hazardous radioactive materials and explosives in their basement? His civil liberties are being violated. He can't have access to counsel (the fight over which has been in the news lately, BTW). But a potential bomber won't get much public sympathy.
Hawash, OTOH, was illegally detained for contributing to a charitable organization, because that organization was later accused of "having links" to terrorists. Here's an educated family man and naturalized US citizen being incarcerated for doing something millions of Americans do, and are encouraged to do, each year. That's a cause the public can get behind.
Here's a far-fetched scenario for you. Comrade Ashcroft is cozy with RIAA and MPAA. What if he decides that the EFF is "aiding and abetting" theft of intellectual property? Have you given to the EFF? OK, that's a lot farther down the slippery slope than ties to Al Qaida. But religion and politics are the low-hanging fruit for oppressors.
"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of a group we don't like?"
Re:Mohammad Atta and the other 18 innocents (Score:5, Insightful)
Some past experience. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is no different to what the US goverment is doing now.
The one thing that came out of internment in Northern Ireland was that it actually promoted support for the very terrorist organisation it was designed to crush.
Re:From the article (Score:3, Insightful)
And your assumption that they won't come after you because you don't make donations to terrorist organizations is extremely weak. The US government now have the power to hold you as a material witness regardless. The question is whether you do something that someone with the power to carry it off dislike enough or not.
The current government may not be extreme enough to be willing to go much further than they currently do, but now the law is there. It will still be there if someone crazy enough gets into power.
That is the very reason for your constitutional protections in the first place. They're not there to protect you against a government that is reasonable and just, they're there as a safeguard in case of a government that is willing to take shortcuts and abuse their power.
Maybe he is getting what he deserves - however, the point is that nobody gets to verify whether or not he is getting what he deserves, or whether he is being held because somebody think he might be involved in something without a shred of evidence, or simply because someone don't like him, because the law they are using to hold him allow them to hold him without without giving him any chance at due process whatsoever.
I used to laugh... (Score:3, Insightful)
at the scene in the recent The Count of Monte Christo movie, where the police of Napoleonic France come to arrest the hero.
"I place you under arrest."
"For what crime?"
"That information is secret." *clink*
When the crappy movie was first released, I remember one of my more airheaded friends crowing about how glad she was that "nonsense like that can't happen here, cuz this is AMERICA." (Moron.)
Re:Possibly true... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yaknow, I'm not a big fan of Bush, but there's a world of difference here. Bush's vision for America doesn't include purges, torture, gassing of civilians who oppose his rule, widespread suppression of dissent.
Bush sucks, but let's have a sense of perspective, eh?
Re:AS A JEW (Score:1, Insightful)
The quote was written well before this current situation, and it shows how people's hatred of a general group can lead to severe problems.
Screw the fact that you are a jew, I am a Slavik, yiptedoo. It means fuck all. What he is getting at is the fact that people are being arrested because people like you insist on keeping these artificial divisions between us in society.
"He's arab, so he's likely to be a terrorist"
is just as bad as
"He's Jew, so he's likely to be a communist"
The point that the quote gets to is the fact that we need to protect all of these groups from this discrimination.
So... in reality... you are the "fucking racist moron" ironically. Because you insist on dividing us based on race, and not looking deeper into the quote.
Re:Depressingly, I predict that (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you are wrong. The government can hold you indefinitely, but they will tell you and your lawyer why they are holding you, which the article does state. Everybody else is under a gag order so it can't get out. Keep in mind he is not being accused of committing a crime, but he is being held as a material witness. This means he is in danger of either being harmed, taking off, or disrupting the investigation.
These are valid reasons for detainment, and a federal judge was convinced he fell into one of those three categories. I personally have faith that it was done with a good, sound reason, and it will most likely turn out there was a good reason.
5 guys in Portland also got "disappeared" by the government, much to the dismay of their neighbors and families. They said that they took a trip to the middle east to visit their family. Instead, after looking at the flight information, they flew to Afghanistan and helped the Taliban setup defenses (I'm not sure exactly what they did, the newspapers didn't report that. It was a very brief write-up saying that they flew to the middle east, travelled to Afghanistan, and helped with preperation) prior to the US attack.
Suddenly the public outcry stopped, and everybody went about their business. If this guy does turn up to be involved with financially backing a terrorist group, unbeknownst to his family and friends, what will they say? Will they apologize for all the slanderous comments they made? Doubtful.
All I am saying is that the government is well within their rights, and this has nothing to do with the new bills being placed in the War on Terrorism. This happened to mafia members long before terrorism was a thought in the American mind.
Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, they can do some preliminary checks to see if the tip might hold promise, then take the guy, search his things and do a thorough investigation while they have him, making sure he doesn't fulfill any nefarious schemes during the investigation.
If it turns out the guy is clean, they'll let him go when they know for sure. He could lose a few weeks or months of his life, very bad to be sure. Or, if it turns out he was on the verge of blowing up the entire intel plant he was working at the next day, it's a dang good thing they took him when they did. And when working against terrorists, you don't want the terrorists to know how much you know, or how you came to know information. So logically, much of it must be kept secret.
Does it suck? Yes. Is there a better way? Maybe, but it's a tough choice where the primary goal is to thwart as many attackes and save as many people as possible.
Re:Possibly true... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, my perspective is that we have a chance to stop a police state from forming, but only if people stop saying crap like "well, it could be worse, look at those guys." Those guys got that bad because nobody stopped it up front.
Fowl Diminutive (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Democracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course if the Republicans announce that they're suddenly all in favor of gun control, I'm moving to Canada immediately.
Great idea. Run to a country where the gun control folks already have more control than the worst US states.
The day I see a republican administration embrace the gun control lobby, I will get very scared. I think we all will, because that means things are rapidly falling on a slippery slope, Hollywood anti-gun proselytizing notwithstanding.
Re:Possibly true... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, he's the head of the executive branch of the government.
he isn't fighting any of this stuff. It may not be his fault, but it's his responsibility
And as head of the aforementioned executive branch it is exactly his job to enforce/operate within those laws enacted by the legislative branch and not contested by the judicial branch. So any problems with the laws really lie with the legislature. If there are bad loopholes then the legislature needs to amend them. It is not up to the executive branch to do that kind of thing at all. That's why the police arrest bums for digging in dumpsters for cans on the charge of collecting garbage without a license and why the judge throws out the case.
Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
This reminds me of a quote from a few years ago
before our current repressive republican regime.
"The US is the jehovah's witness of the world, but
we have bombs instead of bicycles."
I want to credit Carville with that, but I'm not
100 percent sure he said it.
Re:Possibly true... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, lets see. For one thing, thousands of Arab-Americans and people from other Islamic countries have been locked up without charges
Torturing the camp X-ray people has been brought up, and they already doing things to 'compel' people to testify without causing pain (like keeping them awake, spraying them with water)
Rumsfeild is trying to rewrite the rules of engagement to allow the use of riot-control gasses in battle, violating the same chemical weapons ban that we're supposedly in Iraq to prevent. Certainly some civilians will be hit. Also, such chemicals are widely used against civilians during protests.
And widespread suppression of dissent? That seems to be happening on it's own.
Bush isn't at the same level as saddam, but most of the things you mentioned are happening to some extent.
Logical fallacy (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a perfect example of what I call "one equals a million" reasoning. For every example of a number between zero and a million that you can give me, I can give you a number between zero and one. Therefore one is really no different from a million.
Saddam has been in power for decades. He has brutally tortured tens of thousands of people for the crime of not wanting him to be dictator for life. His prisons ring with the screams of little children being viciously tortured in front of their parents. He doesn't stand for an election against political opponents. He wins his election by 100% to 0% and has his opponents and their entire families tortured and murdered.
I see no evidence that this is Bush's vision for America. I'm not one of those who thinks that the secret arrest of someone suspected of plotting mass murder of civilians is "just as bad" as the murder of the entire familiy of someone suspected of wanting a different president.
I oppose many of the Bush administration's policies and decisions, and I think it's quite appropriate to seriously question such things as secret arrests. But in doing so, it seems to me that the debate should be about the issue itself (dangers from government vs. dangers from terrorism, etc.)
But I have little patience for people who short-circuit reasoned debate by resorting to foolish comparisons of Bush and Saddam that could just as easily prove that a surgeon is just as bad as Jack the Ripper, or being exposed to secondhand smoke is essentially what Hitler did to the Jews, or that one equals a million.
Re:Speaking as a Canadian (Score:3, Insightful)
And who did give the vote for such morons? The people deserves the goverment it elects.
Re:Possibly true... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yaknow, I'm not a big fan of Bush, but there's a world of difference here. Bush's vision for America doesn't include purges, torture, gassing of civilians who oppose his rule, widespread suppression of dissent.
Bush sucks, but let's have a sense of perspective, eh?
Now I realize that, at the moment, things are as bad as all that. However, being a longtime politician, Bush realized the legal issue refered to as a "Slippery Slope": its a situation in which things can get steadily, legally, worse, by justifying the decline on a previous (and poorly considered) precident.
Today they come for the supposed terrorists. Tomorrow they come for the foreigners. Then they come for the political dissidents. Then, they come for you.
Re:Fowl Diminutive (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the point with bringing this out in the open.
Systematically, the current US government is removing these safeguards. This isn't speculative paranoia, the PATRIOT act (and other related legislation, with more coming) is reality.
Yes, it does need to be dealt with. Amazing how "We're at war" is suddenly supposed to make existing laws inadequate or not applicable. No discourse, no dissent. Rally 'round the flag boys!
What a wonderfully convenient concept. No wonder that we are now told that we've always
been at war (since 9/11) and will always be at war for the foreseeable
future (with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Eastasia, Eurasia, whatever, wherever, forever).
The US fabricates this war and then hey, we're supposed to just deal with it.
The thing that is difficult to deal with is the unprecedented
shock and awe of the tremendous bullshit storm blowing in from DC.
We're at war...coming soon to the county detention center near you.
Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation (Score:1, Insightful)
This is very true. When the FBI does this, it's called an "arrest". But the FBI says they aren't arresting him, thus this guy doesn't have the rights arrestees get.
Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation (Score:1, Insightful)
Nevermind.
Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation (Score:2, Insightful)
It is illegal to conspire to murder or cause terror. In these cases, however, the govt. must still present an accusation and evidence that you have actually done something (i.e., conspired). This still accepts the notion that freedom demands that there be evidence of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. Someone accused of conspiracy is entitled to the same due process.
If there were evidence that this guy has done something knowingly wrong, they wouldn't have to hold him under the material witness rule. No judge in the country is going to grant bail to a suspected terrorist with significant evidence weighing against him. The fact that he is being held the way he is indicts the govt.
We need someone to help us understand that as scared as we are, we can't trade freedom for security. Pre-emptive arrests, pre-emptive war -- they are a bad, bad road.
Re:Speaking as an American (Score:3, Insightful)
Having a nice bill of rights doesn't mean squat if they aren't respected.
The sooner US citizens as a group realize that their country isn't the best in the world, the sooner they can do something about improving it. This patriotic blindness is bad for the US, and it's bad for the rest of the world too.
Re:Logical fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
And Bush rigged an election in ONE state. Big things start small. Rig a national election by changing it in one state, next election you can rig two states, then four, and within twenty years you have control of the entire political apparatus.
I see no evidence that this is Bush's vision for America.
So you think that Bush's approval of taking anyone, even US citizens (like Joseph Padilla of Cicero, IL), without a formal disclosure of charges (or even an acknowledgement that he is being held), is any different? Personally, the only difference between what Saddam and Bush are doing is how the detainee is treated; but both are losing their liberty, and any of their protections (and even STATUS) under our laws.
Institutionalize this bastardization of our liberties, and see how fast we descend into torturing and mistreating captives. Hell, we already have abuses with legitimate criminals being abused. Just think what would happen to people who are legal non-entities....
I'm not one of those who thinks that the secret arrest of someone suspected of plotting mass murder of civilians is "just as bad" as the murder of the entire familiy of someone suspected of wanting a different president.
But its just a shade of difference. Who decides if a person will be taken? What balances on this power are in place? What discression is being used? How do we know people are being taken legitimately?
Even if it isnt being abused right now, it can (and likely will) eventually be abused by somebody, for some reason, and it will only get worse. Q uis custodiet ipsos custodes [antville.org]? Read the article and tell me, given human nature, if you think people can be trusted with that kind of power will never abuse it.
For this very reason I have always thought it more appropriate that people abusing positions of power should be dealt with MORE harshly, rather than less (as we do in this country). For example, a politician taking a bribe is not only accepting a bribe, but betraying the public trust. A policeman murdering a person is not just commiting murder, but betraying the public trust.
But I have little patience for people who short-circuit reasoned debate by resorting to foolish comparisons of Bush and Saddam that could just as easily prove that a surgeon is just as bad as Jack the Ripper, or being exposed to secondhand smoke is essentially what Hitler did to the Jews, or that one equals a million.
So tell me, what is the difference between wronging one person, and wronging hundreds? If I murder one person, and that carries a life sentence, does that mean anything over and above that is the "bonus round"? And remember, Hitler started small. It began with an unsuccessful coupe (or in Saddam and Bush's case, a successful one). The there was the conquest of a small country (the Rhineland for Hitler, Kuwait for Saddam). If Saddam went unchecked, he would have swept thru the Middle East just like Hitler swept thru Europe.
Their regimes were based on intollerance, Hitler's of Pro-Arayan, Saddam's supposed pro-Muslim (but meanwhile very intollerant of anything but Sunni), and Bush's of rabidly Pro-NeoConservative. To tell you the truth, I dont think any of them really bought into the rhetoric they were spouting, but only using it as their vehicle to power: the important thing was that others were buying into their rhetoric, and were willing to blindly support them. Were any of them directly responsible for all of the abuses done under their regime? No, IMO, but that hardly excuses them. If you nudge a boulder down a hill, that hardly excuses you when it runs through a house and kills a family eating dinner. If you cant calculate the possible effects of your actions, you should be at the helm. Frank Herbert wrote that abolute power doesnt corrupt, it attracts corruptable people: this is my point, and this is the danger.
Yes, they HAVE made accusations (Score:5, Insightful)
They have made accusations, that is why the person was taken. The difference is they have not made publicly disclosed accusations.
Thats the problem: if they have a reason for taking this person, is it valid? Is it justified? Just taking somebody because they went to high school with a suspected terrorist is hardly justified. But if you went on 'vacation' to Afghanistan three years ago with this person, that could be justified.
But since they are giving out no information, or even saying if this person is being held, that becomes a serious issue.
Re:Transmission from Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if he's not, I don't care how much proof or evidence they have, secret evidence and secret tribunals are an abomination of the justice system and have no place in a free society. There is NO justification whatsoever. That's not liberal bias, that's basic democratic thinking.
Furthermore, denying non-citizens the rights of citizens is the height of hypocrisy - it shows that we don't really believe in the rights espoused in our Constitution, but simply obey them.
One more time, just to be clear - it doesnn't matter what information they do or do not have. I don't presume to guess. The step they took is unjustifiable in and of itself.
Re:Democracy? (Score:1, Insightful)
A Prayer to Afflict the Comfortable (Score:2, Insightful)
This could be the only way to effect any real change in this country. If those in power are immune to the suffering of their constituency, how can we expect them to care, much less do anything about it?
See here: A Prayer to Afflict the Comfortable with as Many Afflictions as Possible [everything2.com]
Re:Logical fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The terrorist have won (Score:2, Insightful)
They want us to get our bases out of Saudi, and allow them to have their pan-Islamic 'caliphate'. They don't care whether we convert to Islam or not, they want us to stop meddling in their affairs. Al-Queda is not a missionary group out to make converts to Islam at the point of a bayonet.
Why did we wait for an Intel employee to speak? (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, this isn't a troll. This simply should have dawned on people a year or two ago.
To PROTECT MYSELF from the TYRANNY of the US, (Score:2, Insightful)
I was once Mike's intern at Intel. I cannot tell you how FUCKING SHOCKED I am to hear this. I sit here, and shake my head in disbelief.
This is the man responsible for architecting the MMX architecture, and is responsible for the beginnings of gaming on the PC architecture. He has contributed many great things to modern consumer computing.
To say that he contributed to terrorist groups is utter bullshit. I can't remember how many times we had pleasant lunches with Israeli Jews. (Shit, he used to work in Haifa, Israel). He was also learning Hebrew at the time I worked with him, because he "wanted a greater appreciation of the Jewish language and culture."
Vote out this fucking administration. I'm so serious.
Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Secret arrests (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean... within our national borders. If we have to have sub-Americans do our dirty work for us, then it's just fine.
---3: A more credible and much more independent judicial system where if you are disappeared, at least your lawyer can still file paperwork for you and try to get access to you.---
Maybe: but it was pretty up in the air for awhile there, and the governments case WAS that we shouldn't allow lawyers to muck up the executive's perogative.
Anyway, I don't think any sane person can possible compare Iraq to America. That doesn't mean we don't have some major things to worry about. It's not like the very basis of our society defends itself.
Re:Secret arrests (Score:3, Insightful)
No torture that the public is aware of. There's no oversight to say, "no one's being tortured". We wouldn't know.
2: Far fewer informants (20% of the Iraqi population is estimated to be a paid informant for a secret police agency).
Does ratting out a fellow citizen to the IRS for a reward count? I'm sure our numbers would go way up if we included that. Granted, it probably wouldn't be 20%, but give it time....
3: A more credible and much more independent judicial system where if you are disappeared, at least your lawyer can still file paperwork for you and try to get access to you.
So long as your last name isn't Mitnick or you aren't labelled as a "computer terrorist".
Re:Possibly true... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention that this major piece of legislation was somehow drafted in only 33 days from the instigating incident (9/11) and passing in congress (10/25). Good thing all those congress critters were running so scared from the anthrax. Someone might have had an independent thought otherwise.
Where did they determine that anthrax came from anyway?
Re:Secret arrests (Score:4, Insightful)
My point was that we could be in a situation much like that of Iraq were it not for the check-and-ballance system that we have. Of course, the executive branch seems be attacking some of these ballances, but this is why that is so important.
The Framers understood that the dominant threat would come from within. That a nation is strong against external threats so long as its government is fully endorsed by its people. That an opressive regime would mean either civil war or occupation by a foreign power. Indeed every government rules with the permission of its people. Just with some of them that permission is more tentative than others.
If we had a runaway executive branch, it would be a small matter of time before we would have a Stalin, a Hitler, or a Saddam as our leader. What keeps this from happening is the tripartite balance that the Constitution sets out. If this happened, however, it would mean problems for US econimically, as well as militarily.
So maybe I was a bit too.... sarcastic in how I made my point, but I think that it is important to realize that an erosion of our judicial system is *the* threat that we face today.
Re:Possibly true... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, Justice is executive. The judicial branch handles the actual deciding of whether somebody has broken the law or not. That means courts, judges, and all that fun stuff. The function of Justice is to serve as prosecutors for cases which the government wishes to prosecute. This is not a judicial function; the courts do not bring people into court on their own. This function of prosecuting people falls under enforcing the legislative branch's wishes, which is the executive branch's job.
the US government system is based on repetative checks and balances. a law is introduced, passed or killed by congress, signed or vetoed by the president, the veto can be reversed by congress, the signed law can be contested and removed by the justice department, congress can repeal the law.
Yes, I know all that, I'm not a complete moron. However, a law that's been vetoed is much harder to pass than a law that hasn't. Getting 67% support to override a veto in congress is probably an order of magnitude more difficult than getting 51% support to simply pass a law the first time. The Justice Department has no function in removing existing laws, except perhaps to challenge a law in court so that the court would remove it. (I don't even think they do that, does anybody know?)
The reason Bush gets so much blame is because of the amount of power he has. Congress is made up of hundreds of people, with no single strong figure leaping out. Likewise, the judicial branch has no central figure, and their role is also quite passive. (E.g. the Supreme Court can't simply remove an unconstitutional law on their own, someone else must challenge that law first.) However, in the executive branch, all power (plus a considerable amount of legislative power, given the President's veto power and that the President is often something of a de facto leader for the majority party in Congress) is concentrated in a single man. That man is currently George Bush.
Does Bush deserve all the blame for the current sorry state of these laws? No. Does he deserve a lot of it? You bet! Being a central, highly-visible power means that he has responsibility for these things, even if his power is not 100%. They may not even have been his idea at all, but he has the power to stop these kinds of laws and the responsibility to use that power.
Re:Yes, they HAVE made accusations (Score:5, Insightful)
All this bull is just the FBI and the CIA shitting their pants over the possibility that somebody will figure out how incompetent they are, so they go nuts and arrest everybody wearing pants because Osama sometimes wears pants.
Re:Yes, they HAVE made accusations (Score:1, Insightful)
Is that supposed to be a serious suggestion? Holding someone without charge might be justified provided they went on vaction witha friend who's suspected of something? If they suspect the man himself of something then they can charge him and bring him to trial, if not they have no business holding him against his will.
Re:Secret arrests (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't the US government realize that any form of torture is ultimately self-defeating?
Doesn't the US government realize that positive reinforcement (i.e. Tell us what we want and you can have a nice meal, anything you want... ) is far more effective than "Tell us what we want or we're going to beat the shit out of you."
I keep feeling like I've watched far too much Star Trek, and when I look at the way things really are here in the US, I'm shocked that we brag about being "Land of the Free" and so on.
*sigh*
Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans want to spend your money helping business people. Jobs=good.
Democrats want to spend your money helping poor people. Less poor=good.
Libertarians don't want professional 'do-gooders' blowing our tax money on their political friends. Its my money, I'll decide which cause to help out, thank you very much.
In the USA, you pay about 40% to the government (tax).... what's no longer in your wallet?
Way back when, if the government didn't have so much money, we would not have been able to afford sticking our nose in other people's business. It was our using the Afghans to hurt the USSR that got us into the 9/11 terrorism mess.