Slashdot Mirror

protecting the perpetrators of a serious violent crime.

No. He is protecting the identities of the nonviolent protestors who are also pictured on the video, whom the feds would like to have identified. And he is being jailed by a federal judge over a matter that should not involve the feds. This protest is apparently being called "terrorism," and that is the reason the federal prosecutor is involved. That sounds to me like a load of nonsense. The violence should be solely a matter of California law, not federal law. Considering what the US does to suspected terrorists, even its own citizens, I cannot blame Wolf for wanting to protect those he filmed from such horrors. I think Wolf is standing up for justice.

At the same time I hope California is successful in investigating this clash with the police, and I hope they bring the guilty to justice.

A crime against the state of California happened right in front of him, on camera...

the federal judge gave him such a sentence [sic] because of his flippant attitude.

There, got the other one. Now do you see the disconnect?
Q. Why is a federal judge concerned with Cali law?
A. He isn't.
Q. So what federal crime occurred here?
A. It seems someone wants to call it terrorism.

I think that is pretty chilling. Are they not asking him to identify these protestors in order to charge them with terrorism? That is what Wolf says, and objects to. I think he has a good point. Consider what the USA did to citizen Jose Padilla -- detained him without counsel and supposedly drove him insane.

Let California investigate and uphold its laws -- obviously this protest turned into something ugly. But this crime does not involve the G-men, and Wolf is I think doing the right thing resisting their attempts to intrude.

I'm just commenting on imprisoned citizens here, but the US has done that. One name comes to mind, Jose Padilla, the supposed "dirty bomber".

BTW- is it actually legal for them to send US citizens to as prisoners to Guantanamo? I thought 'enemy combatants' were strictly non-citizens from outside the US - anyone nabbed within the US got a trial like Moussaoui did.

You mean like Jose Padilla, the "Dirty Bomber"? As a US citizen, he was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. Then he was declared an "enemy combatant" and moved to a military brigg. After being held for years, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales finally charged him with "with providing - and conspiring to provide - material support to terrorists, and conspiring to murder individuals who are overseas". This is a totally different charge than what he was originally arrested for. The only reason he was charged was because they arrested and were holding him unconstitutionally.

1) The US can request extradition, but US residents are protected by the constitution

Not entirely. As far as the (some innocent, some not) people from Afghanistan, Iraq, wherever... well, I feel bad for them, but I also feel bad for all the kids starving in China, or dying of AIDS in Africa, or... well, you get the picture.

But criminal though he may be, and terrorist, probably... Jose Padilla is an American citizen. The fact that it took three years of legal wrangling to force the government to charge him with a crime is everything the constitution was written to prevent.

Such detention is not allowed in the US.

In case you're not being sarcastic, you might be shocked to read about Jose Padilla.

Didn't the USA do away with that little rag?

As a foreigner commenting on American politics, I assume you're addressing foreign policy. Do you realize how much shit would have to go down for a revolution to occur over foreign policy?

Secondly, these people are not innocent.

In the USA, it takes a trial in court to prove that allegation. These people are not given one. How, then, are they "not innocent?" Are you saying that they're guilty until proven innocent? That's certainly not the American Way... in fact, it's strikingly unamerican!

They were captured fighting for a terrorist cause on a battlefield.

For many of them, this is NOT true (2). You've fallen victim to the assumption that they want us all to make, that anyone at Guantanamo is a "terrorist", and all "terrorists" have committed at least one act of violence against the USA. But, I'm afraid, the USA's criteria for labeling someone a "terrorist" is much looser than that:

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State`

Jaywalking is now a terrorist act, as it is dangerous to the life of the jaywalker and is a violation of law.

I'm certain that the USA is not concentrating on filling Guantanamo up with jaywalkers, but according to USAPATRIOT, the act doesn't have to be carried out to be a terrorist. So now, even thinking about it is an act of terrorism. So, no, those inmates are NOT all guys caught red-handed fighting as terrorists on a battlefield.

If you pay any attention at all to the news, you should have heard of Jose Padilla. He is an American citizen, arrested at O'Hare airport in Chicago, held for an alleged dirty bomb plot which even the Justice Department now admits was a sham. Now, they hold him under the pretense that he is a material witness. He has not had access to a lawyer, and has not been charged with any crime since he was arrested in 2002, and yet he languishes in prison. See Charge Padilla, which I found with a quick Google search.

Sorry. I knew that was confusing when I wrote it. I was referring to other things. I did not intend to imply that GPS is a right.

I think we are far safer than we were 3-4 years ago

I disagree. There have been some changes. I think most of the positive changes are in personal attitudes. There is no way that a terrorist is going to take over an airliner now. The pilots won't allow it, and neither will the passengers. Public opinion is (rightfully) such that I'd almost feel sorry for a terrorist who tried. People accepting responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others is a good thing. But the government has spent a lot of money with dubious improvements to real security while major security issues remain. One big example that has shocked me since way before 9/11 is the way air cargo is almost completely uninspected. There are so many ways this is dangerous.

But there is a much bigger reason we're less safe. I think invading and occupying Iraq without legitimate cause (WMD, supporting terrorists, etc.) has led to massive resentment in the Arab world and has provided a recruitment poster for al Qaeda. The US has ignored it's own laws and international treaties by capturing US citizens and citizens of other countries, declaring them "enemy combatants" and insisting that they have no legal protection, either under the US Constitution or the Geneva Convention. Countless examples of graphic prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib and similar Red Cross and Amnesty International reports from Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay add to anti-US sentiments. So do the dead Iraqi civilians, currently numbering about 16,000 and counting. Then a US soldier is found guilty of the premeditated murder of an Iraqi teenager. All of this creates hatred for the US, and that is used to enlist terrorists. I'm all for killing terrorists, but this is creating three for every one that's eliminated, and that's moving in the wrong direction.

Many people I've spoken to believe "It's better to fight 'em over there than fight 'em over here." The obvious flaw in that argument is the assumption that there is a constant number of anti-US terrorists. We need to understand that our actions are creating terrorism by drastically increasing anti-US sentiment around the world.

I voted for the person who I believed would do the best job handling my top concern of security

Security was a big issue for most people in the 2004 US election. It all boils down to what each person thought was most likely to provide security. I think it could be best summarized by the choice between "fight harder" or "fight smarter". I wish we had better candidates than those trotted out by the two party system.

I just hope we can put the nastiness of the election behind us

Me too. It was very divisive. I also hope we can regain some international respect in the process. Some people apparently don't think so, but we really do need allies to fight international terrorism.

• On June 9, 2002 Jose Padilla--a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir--was transferred from control of the U.S. Department of Justice to military control. Since that time, Padilla has been held in a navy brig in South Carolina.

• Padilla has not been charged with a crime, and does not have access to a lawyer in his detention.

Source

11/3/04 - 6/9/02 = 2 years, 4 months, and 3 weeks.

No charges, no trial, no lawyer. Nothing. Welcome to your new home citizen. Enjoy your stay here at the Ministry of Love.

I demand your blood in the soil from birth to know where your loyalties are rooted.

Good idea, because where you are born determines your loyalty so accurately.

Anyone can walk around freely and voice opinions in a police state, just as anyone can commit crimes in a law-abiding society. The real question is: what rights can you fall back on when the police take exception to your activities? If the law and the courts can protect you against the police, then you live in a reasonably free society. If not, then you live in a police state, even if it's a comfy, prosperous police state where few people ever find themselves in that position.

You want facts? If the police arrest you without cause, hold you without trial or even charges, deny you access to counsel, conduct secret proceedings, and contradict the courts, then citizens are fundamentally defenseless.

I have traveled in the Middle East, eastern Europe, and Cuba, all of which have a much higher police presence and authority than the U.S., and I traveled freely, spoke freely, and spent freely in all of those places. Of course, I was never arrested, so I never had the opportunity to experience the police state apparatus directly. And so my experience of those countries was universally that they were warm, beautiful places full of nice people. A lot like America.

"There is no consistency as to what is acceptable in one region for the ATF that won't be acceptable somewhere else," said Wickman. "The ATF people seem, as a rule, to feel this whole idea of hobby rocketry being regulated by the (government is) a mistake and a waste of time. There's a disconnect between the ATF in Washington and the regional field offices."

What's worse, even though not much has changed about the regulations, they are subject to arbitrary interpretation in the field, said Bundick, of the National Association of Rocketry. "It's a never-ending treadmill to try to pacify the local inspector."

The Justice Department's Nowacki didn't respond to questions about the ATF's perceived inconsistency.

• (1st) free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion;
  
• (4th) unreasonable searches and seizures;
  
• (5th) freedom from self-incrimination;
  
• (6th) rights to counsel and to a speedy trial
  
• (8th) freedom from cruel and unusual punishments
  
• (9th) rights retained by the people
  
• (10th ) or rights reserved by the States

Right to a trial by jury, to be protected from double-jeopardy, to not be forced to testify against yourself? Still there.

I think this guy (ya know an American citizen) would disagree with that statement.

Maher Arar is an intersting case. While a citizen of Canada, he had dual citizenship in Syria as well. The *Canadians* provided the information that he was connected to terrorist organizations in Canada. Once he was deported, they said "well, gee, we didn't think that was going to happen!". What did they think was going to happen? Well why didn't they arrest him in Canada then?

As for his alleged torture, I am reticent to believe him becase of Syria's extreme dislike for the US. It makes no sense that they would torture him just because he had alleged ties to terrorist organizations. Instead, I would think they would have treated him royally. If the torture was true, they only reason they did was to make the US look bad by 'martyring' him.

As for Jose Padilla, his due process is working. He has a lawyer now, and the Supreme Court is going to hear his case to move him to civilian authority which I am quite confident will happen. While slow, the system of checks and balances is working to keep justice on the right track.

Remember, these institutions are composed of humans, and while some may have good intentions, sometimes they're ultimately at odds with the founding principles, rules, and checks. The US system may be slow at times, but I'd much rather have a few mistakes that get corrected than totalitarian control and rapid resolutions and I think that by-and-large the system works well.

None of which addresses William's statement that we'd all be better off if only the aristocracy got to vote. His final sentence is nothing more than an attempt to distract from his central premise which is that only rich people should get to vote. I mentioned misc tax problems as a side note. My main point was that voter requirements have historically been a very bad idea.

Williams used to be one of the conservative columnists I frequently agreed with, lately he seems to have gone off the deep end. Proposing that only the aristocracy get to vote is positively anti-American, as well as being a historically proven bad idea.

On the various sideshow issues you bring up, I will mention that there is nothing in the preamble to the US Constitution which states that the clause "promote the general welfare" is specifically intended to mean the general welfare of the federal government. Other clauses in the same sentence are quite obviously refering to individuals.

More importantly, this is not 1776 anymore. Things have changed in the past 228 years. At the time the constitution was written we had, essentially, 13 separate nations which were mutually distrustful and only united under threat from an outside power. As you may have noticed today things are quite different and we have need of a different type of government. This is reflected in the various ammendments made to the constitution. It is also reflected in the interpretation of constitutional law by the Supreme Court, which has not found any constitutional reasons to object to things like the federal highway system (not specified in the constitution), rural electrification, etc. Our founding fathers were damn smart, but they designed that document in different times to meet different needs.

I just think that calling it a dictatorship is a little strong. Yes, there is one party, and it is becoming very corrupt, but when I see the outcome of our system with theirs...the outcome of decisions is about the same. Better in the US, but I think there is a better word than dictatorship...

I'm not sure what you mean by "outcome of decision", actions have consiquences no matter what your political system is. There are some very simple facts about the Chinese government that your fiancee may be uncomfortable about and want to deny, but facts are facts.

• There is no freedom of speech in China
• There is no freedom of religion in China
• There is no freedom of assembly in China
• There is no guarantee of a trial of any sort, much less a public trial by a jury of your peers
• There *are* harsh penalties for openly disagreeing with government decisions
• There *are* harsh penalties for being a member of an unapproved religion

I'm not by any means claiming that the US is an earthly paradise where everything is just perfect, but I will say that the average US citizen enjoys much greater freedom than the average Chinese citizen. What worries me is that the "public trials by a jury of your peers" right here in the US seems to be slowly eroding. Other rights are also under attack. But, still and all, I'd much rather live here.

Well I can say with complete confidence that no, unlike yourself, I don't know of any plots being foiled that are ignored by the mass media while they love throwing around failure. A large amount of current terrorist suspects such as Jose Padilla are being held unconstitutionally for long periods of time w/out any charges being filed and access to a lawyer refused. Jose Padilla himself has been in a navy brig in South Carolina under military control since June 9, 2002.

Does anyone honestly think there's any sanity to holding people as terrorist suspects for indefinite amounts of time w/out any charges filed? It's a ludicrous abuse of power and, thankfully, the courts have ruled that any President of the United States of America cannot make such tyrannical decisions. I'm not calling Bush a tryrant here, I'm just observing the obvious, that this is wrong.

P.S. -- The PATRIOT Act didn't allow evedropping and wiretaps to take place, it simply made it so that law enforcement doesn't need warrants a lot of the time anymore. How do you think intelligence was gathered before the PATRIOT Act came storming through congress with little to no consideration and debate? There's a whole host of concerns regarding the PATRIOT Act, and for an in-depth overview, check the EFF's analysis page.

And it's not like everyone hasn't heard about the USA being warned ahead of time and something fishy was going on, even countries like Saudi Arabia were suspicious. Lot of good intelligence does when nobody pays attention.

How long have we been on the yellow/orange alert?

How long has the administration invaded our privacy on the grounds of "fighting the terrorists"?

How many American citizens are going to be deprived of their constitutional rights?

How many people in general are going to be subjected to delayed justice ("justice delayed is justice denied").

Fuck the war on terror! War is not Freedom! Vote out the warmongering moron-in-chief in 2004!

Does anyone care to guess how many violations or abuses that have been uncovered where a private citizens rights have been violated?

Did anyone guess Zero? Because thats exactly how many violations there have been. Zero. Period.

The powers granted by the Patriot Act have helped to uncover and break up Al Queda cells and even prevent the detonation of a dirty bomb in New York by Jose Padilla.

Did you read the parent I was replying to?

terrorism n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Are you defending the detaining of the Japanese? History has almost universally condemed it.

A week or two? Are you familiar with Jose Padilla? He has been held since May 8, 2002 in violation of the 5th amendment: 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.

Note is says people, not citizens in the country at the time of their arrest. Ashcroft has argued that it only applies to citizens, only applies domesticly, that is why Jose is the test case. He is a citizen who was arrested in this country.

Lincoln was fighting an armed insurection in his own country. I see no comparison.

Jose Padilla disagrees with you.

So does The Bill of Rights.

"References please. The two US citizens at Guantanamo Bay were released, and the Taliban have been granted POW status there. "

Ok you started out your post by lying so I probably shouldn't even respond but what the hell.

Fist of all nobody in Guantanamo bay is granted POW status. Rumsfeld argued vehemently not to let that happen because it would grant the prisoners rights under the geneva convention. See Human rights watch for a reference. While you are there also read up on how some have been transfered to other countries so that they could be tortured. There have also been reporting of beating and medical experimentation done on prisoners under the control of the US govt.

Also Jose Padilla who is an American citizen has been held without charges since June 9, 2002. No charges, no lawyers. John Ashcroft told Diane Sawyer on an interview broadcast on TV that he did not know the whereabouts of Jose Padilla and that he was in the hands of the military. Imagine that. Nobody knows where this guy is or what happened to him, not even the attorney general of the united states.

"The other "detainees" are a different story, they are not citizens and have in large measure been deported."

Lying again. There are currently over 600 prisoners in guantanamo bay alone. Who knows how many there are overseas and in the mainland us.

"Are you an immigrant violating your conditions for stay? Yes then you can be worried about detention. Otherwise relax."

As I said I am a citizen. The time to round up people like me is not here yet. You know the old saying. First, they came for the political opposition, but I was not political, and I did not object. Then, they came for the gypsies and homosexuals, but I was neither of these, and I did not object. Then, they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, and I did not object. One day, they came for me, and there was no one left to object..

"did Ann say "all swarthy people should be locked up?" Where?"

Here is the actual quote

"Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave....We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males." Notice that zeroes in on skin color exclusively.

"Even simple things like accusing me of saying I don't know who David Horowitz is."

You said you didn't know who he was not me. I simply believed you when you told me that.

"You need a real break and re-evaluation before you turn into one of those monsters (if it hasn't happened already)."

You keep bringing up hitler as if that absolves the right wing of anything. It's a straw man and I am not going to fall for it. As I said before I will not simply lay down and die. I don't believe in turning the other cheek (after all I am not a christian). I believe that it's a dog eat dog and right now the republicans are eating the democrats. You are either a predator, a prey, or a pet; those are the only three options. I will not become prey or a pet. Sorry.

"Like I said I won't join in your crusade becuase I don't have faith in you, or your reasons."

I never asked you to. I never expected you to.

"It seems inconsevable to you that another rational, well versed intelligent person does not see the forming police state around you."

Why do you think I am the only person who thinks the US is turning into a police state? I assure you that there are millions of people who share my belief just

What about this guy Have you seen him aroudn recently?

It's new to me, I use google.

The fact that they think they will be able to take users away from google by (or while) tracking their browsing habits is a bit far fetched to me.
And It's not anonymous if you are logged in to yahoo. Unless you log out, disable cookies, reboot your ISP connection until you have a new IP, then perform your search.
The funny thing is I wasn't a Tin Foil Hat wearing privacy nut until my government decided they wanted to Track everyone's online habits And Hold them completely waiving Habeus Corpus

And Buffy will marry me, don't mock my love.

Padilla was originally detained the same way Hawash was, on a material witness warrant. It's one of those things where I must admit I was originally willing to look the other way, "Hey, they're stretching the purpose of a material witness warant, but these are extreme circumstances."

But the Bush government has demonstrated with the Padilla case that they're unwlling to just stretch the rules a little in extreme circumstances. They want to ignore the rules entirely. So, in another couple weeks, perhaps Maher Hawash will be whisked away to a military base in some federal judicial district friendly to the administration, never to be heard from again.

At least in Hawash's case he so far: (a) has access to a lawyer, and (b) is being detained with a judge's consent. That's a tiny bit of accountability. For Padilla, the government is refusing any accountability.

Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla have been locked up now for around a year(Over a year in Hamdi's case I think). Both have been refused access to a lawyer and neither have had charges filed against them. These are american citizens. This could happen to you. This could happen to somebody you know.

Our own government is locking people up without due process or just killing them to save the hassle. Something really has to be done. Write your congressmen, join the ACLU(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.

Here's a link for Padilla. Padilla is an enemy combatant and loses certain rights. Here's an explanation of how it applies to Padilla.

Yaser Esam Hamdi's citizenship is in limbo. His argument is based off the fact that he was born on US soil. His citizenship status is pretty much undecided until the 14th Amendment is clarified.

-Lucas

These rights are only extended to citizens of the United States. Non-citizens are basically at the government's pleasure. There are no guarantees in the Constitution that apply to non-citizens.


Maybe you should explain that to Jose Padilla and why he is being held in violation of the 5th amendment. I'm not saying that's he's not a traitor or a terrorist, but he still is US citizen. For those of you who don't know who Jose Padilla is, you should see this blurb at the BBC or chargepadilla.org for more information.


Open your eyes a bit and take a look around before engaging in discourse, you'll find it most enlightening.


Oh the sweet irony...