Slashdot Mirror


Former Intel Employee 'Disappeared' by U.S.

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.

1,115 comments

  1. Cheap Joke by The_Rippa · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder where the goverment got their "Intel" from.

    No seriously folks, I'm here all week

    1. Re:Cheap Joke by Smidge204 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe that the floating point errors in those Pentium chips was really a plot to undermine the government's computer systems!
      =Smidge=

    2. Re:Cheap Joke by sporty · · Score: 1, Funny

      I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.

      [/kidding]

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

  2. It's... by Aliencow · · Score: 1

    a trap :( I hope this will stop in a few years, when paranoia goes away a bit..

    1. Re:It's... by kableh · · Score: 1

      Yea, great....

      Who's an alarmist now?

    2. Re:It's... by Grax · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The damn thing about it is that it is illegal based on the fifth amendment. Unfortunately there are some judges out there incapable of comprehending plain english. "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

      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.

    3. Re:It's... by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Due process of law was suspended shortly after the constitution was written. It gets in the way of things ranging from an innocent police questioning marathon all the way to holding terrorists in Cuba. Human rights are being eroded because it is inconvienent to keep them in place, and this is justified as the 'Greater Good'.
      Solemnly, their 'Greater Good' has become protection of the State and its allies. Allies not like Great Britan, but like Enron. The 'Greater Good' has allowed society to become what it has feared most: A Stalinistic state. You'll cry that you still have freedom, but it is only perceived freedom. You are allowed to do whatever you're doing now, not because it is your right, but because it does not get in the way of the government's 'Greater Good'.
      A sad day indeed.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    4. Re:It's... by EllisDees · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it's illegal based upon the fifth amendment, it's completely, mind-bogglingly illegal based upon the sixth:

      "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."

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    5. Re:It's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As rights are removed... it is very painful to get them restored. Note that Mitnick's case had NOTHING to do with terrorism.

      The first time you do _anything_ (cheat, steal, revoke rights) is the hardest... each time after that becomes easier ad nauseum.

    6. Re:It's... by nametaken · · Score: 0

      It seems this now qualifies as "due process of law". Kindof a logical loop there. All it says is that you can't hold someone illegally. :)

    7. Re:It's... by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 1
      Germany had a constitution before WWII, granting all kinds of rights and protection, much like the U.S. constitution, and what happened? Someone burned the Reichstag down, and Hitler passed some "emergency laws", suspending the constitution and disbanding the parliament.

      The constitution is just a piece of paper. If nobody really stands up for these rights, they'll be taken away, one by one.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    8. Re:It's... by SkOink · · Score: 1

      The damn thing about it is that it is illegal based on the fifth amendment. Unfortunately there are some judges out there incapable of comprehending plain english. "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

      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.


      This could be my potential inexperience speaking, but I don't know who you would bring to trial, and who the defendant would be. How can Hawash testify, co-ordinate with a laywer, or submit writs when he's being held in undisclosed solitary? And I don't know if one can hold a trial against something as broad as the FBI, either.

      --
      ---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
    9. Re:It's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a violation of the 8th amendment:

      "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

      It is also a violation of the 9th amendment:

      "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

      There's probably a case that could also be made with the 13th amendment:

      "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

      The 14th amendment would also apply:

      "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priveleges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

  3. Speaking as a Canadian by TerryAtWork · · Score: 3, Troll

    I notice the USA takes every excuse to remove civil liberties.

    I sincerely believe that the USA will become what it wants to be in it's belly - a xenophobic police state.

    --
    It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
    1. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Fly · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It must be nice to the spokesperson for "the USA." Go home, troll.

      --
      end of line
    2. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by siliconshock.com · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lucky for you, you live in Canada or I would have you arrested on making Anti-american (terrorist) statements!!

    3. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yikes! Soon the USA will be just like Canada!!!

      Yes this reply is a troll - or is a troll reply to a troll a counter-troll?

    4. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by jkujawa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The USA doesn't want to be a xenophobic police state. The morons in power want us to be a xenophobic police state.

      King George was not elected. Don't forget that.

    5. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Uhm. Not wanting to be picky, but Americans voted the current administration in power, which means they represent the people. That what a democracy is all about.
      At least that is what they told me at school...

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    6. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Zugot · · Score: 1

      I'll just assume for one second, you are not an American. And if I assumed wrong, maybe you should know this this.

      --
      -- Bryan
    7. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by will592 · · Score: 1

      If you look at the numbers, Americans are statistically undecided about who they want to be president. Just about half of the people voted one way and the other half another. There is no clear majority in the US when it comes to deciding who should be president.

      Chris

    8. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by heXXXen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      America is not a democracy. It is a republic, we elect officials to think for us. Bush did not win the popular vote, but he did win the electoral vote, which is all that matters in this nation. One of the reasons for the creation of the electoral college was to prevent against "mass insanity". What happens when the guy that gets voted in to office is insane?

    9. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by bcboy · · Score: 3, Informative

      > Uhm. Not wanting to be picky, but Americans voted the current administration in power

      This is false. Even if the votes had favored Bush (they didn't), the SC decision was to ignore the vote based on the fact that the press had already declared Bush the winner. Doing otherwise, they argued in an incredible example of NewSpeak, would cast doubt on the election results. Doubt is certainty!

    10. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I imagine that the next election will break down 50/50 along party lines, just as the 2000 elections did. I've noticed that many, many polls on CNN lately have been doing that, which (perhaps irrationally) leads me to believe that the trend will affect the next election as well. It's worrisome enough to make a libertarian like me want to vote democrat the next time around.

    11. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you look at the numbers, Americans are statistically undecided about who they want to be president. Just about half of the people voted one way and the other half another.

      Don't blame ME, I voted for KODOS.
    12. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by MSBob · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Lest we forget Adolf Hitler also couldn't win elections so he strongarmed himself into power and subsequently worked the media machine to rally people in his support. Oh, and he used the Reichstag fire to instill collective paranoia and push through his "Peace and Prosperity Restoration Act".

      "Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
      -- F.D.Roosevelt

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    13. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

      You get George W Bush in office

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
    14. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by mrtroy · · Score: 1

      It must be nice to criticize a good point with a "troll" comment. Great arguement against the fact that the US government violates its people's rights when it suits them.
      Provide evidence to the contrary, or you "Go home, troll". My evidence, the article. Go read it. Find something which disproves that the government is violating his rights.

      --
      [I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
    15. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bringing out the stylish new "Bush is Hitler" comments, eh?

      The intelligence of your argument speaks volumes about yourself as a person, ie, no sense of scale.

    16. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by b!arg · · Score: 1

      What would I do if he were re-elected? Curl up in the fetal position in the corner of my studio apartment muttering incomprehensible things to no one...either that or living out the movie Leaving Las Vegas

      --

      Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
    17. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Telastyn · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "shit."

    18. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Considered Grandaddy Senator Bush helped fund the actual Nazi's, and had a business SIEZED for funding them during war (a bank in which he was a partner), AND the fact that the Bush family at the time was into eugenics (aka Nazi Bullshit)... of course the comment is old.

      But as you stay, still stylish.

    19. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      I am indeed not American. Thanks for the link, I'll read it.
      However, as I always say: you guys at least got to vote, the rest of the world just has to suffer of your choices (or well, in this case apparently "non-choice")

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    20. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that in the last election the Supreme Court appointed the current president. That does not sound like winning the election to me.

    21. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by jawtheshark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realise that what you are saying is extremely scary? I mean, essentially it was the "media" that chose your president? Ouch!

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    22. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by chill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, you would have favored simply recounting and recounting until the vote turned out how you like it?

      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/ for an alternative to the 2-party bullshit.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    23. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by TopShelf · · Score: 1
      Even if the votes had favored Bush (they didn't), the SC decision was to ignore the vote based on the fact that the press had already declared Bush the winner.

      That got modded as informative??? Yeesh!

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    24. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'll just assume for one second, you are not an American.

      He said he's Canadian, so that makes him American. Along with every citizen of every country in America, which is a continent, not a single nation. Really, look it up in any world map. You'll find no country called America... just one called the United States OF America. And to really confuse things I'll point out that the official name of our neighbor to the South is "Mexican United States".

      Such a shame the Founding Fathers counldn't come up with a real name for this country. We got stuck with that jumbled mess left over from the Articles of Confederation.

    25. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by mgs1000 · · Score: 1

      Wow, the supreme court decided to defer their decision to the press?? That is an interesting interpretation of the ruling. What are your sources?

    26. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

      Just to explain myself a bit further, the CNN.com polls that seem to be exhibiting this 50/50 split behavior are ones that involve Bush. Obviously other polls sway back and forth, but Bush-related polls tend to fall very closely along party lines.

    27. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont blame me! I've voted with the majority!

    28. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by RoLi · · Score: 1
      Doing otherwise, they argued in an incredible example of NewSpeak, would cast doubt on the election results. Doubt is certainty!

      I think now I finally understand the slogan "land of the free, home of the brave".

    29. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by secolactico · · Score: 1

      living out the movie Leaving Las Vegas

      Elizabeth Shue *and* booze... my favorite cause of death.

      --
      No sig
    30. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by feed_me_cereal · · Score: 1

      It must be nice to criticize a good point with a "troll" comment.

      So, what was so good about the first comment? Let's take a look:

      I notice the USA takes every excuse to remove civil liberties.

      A broad and baseless accusation.

      I sincerely believe that the USA will become what it wants to be in it's belly - a xenophobic police state.

      Speculation.

      Notice that the anti-fascists are the first to cave when it comes to fighting a real Fascist?

      this is probably the only "point" in the whole comment, but it's still very broad and lacks any sort of corroboration.

      So, perhaps you didn't understand the grandparent's post (perhaps because of the grammar errors). He was criticizing the legitamcy of the "good" post by pointing out that the average canadian citizen doesn't know nearly as much about civil liberties in america as an american citizen, and also has a clearly biased viewpoint. That's basically what was incoded in their derisive comment.

      Great arguement against the fact that the US government violates its people's rights when it suits them.

      They weren't making this argument. They were questioning the legitimacy of the person making the claim. You don't need evidence to cast doubt on an assertion that someone else doesn't prove. The burden of proof is on the person making the original assertion.

      Provide evidence to the contrary, or you "Go home, troll". My evidence, the article. Go read it. Find something which disproves that the government is violating his rights.

      The article doesn't say what the original poster said. The person who replied wasn't arguing against the article, but rather that the "U.S. takes every oppertunity it can to remove civil liberties". This article discusses AN INSTANCE of the government eroding A CIVIL LIBERTY (habeas corpus). Disgusting though it may be, the only way to be taken seriously when challenging such agression is to retain rationality. Making false, overly broad, or baseless claims robs you of all legitimacy in your argument.

      --
      "Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
    31. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when the guy that gets voted in to office is insane?

      You will have the average Canadian Prime Minister

    32. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by 91degrees · · Score: 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.

      Nevertheless - It still confused a lot of voters. This confusion biased the result toward Bush. Republican voters who were confused had their vote counted because they wouldn't have selected the second hole. Democrat voters did make the mistake. the fact that the person who chose the design happened to be a democrat is not relevent. The result was biased towards Bush because of a single person'e mistake. Should this single person have the power to affect the results in this way through negligence?

      The rest of the post, I agree with, especially this line:

      GET OVER IT! Both major political parties (Democrats & Republicans) are lying, sniviling, cheating, vote-whoring, ballot-stuffing scum.

    33. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by pmz · · Score: 1

      I imagine that the next election will break down 50/50 along party lines, just as the 2000 elections did.

      This will happen, because the canidates have become so homogenous or, at least, equally dislikable, that the election results are truly left to chance. In other words, each voter flipping a coin would have reach the same outcome.

      I find this very sad.

    34. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      So you voted for Al. Hope you're happy with the way things turned out.

    35. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >It's worrisome enough to make a libertarian like me want to vote democrat the next time around.

      DingDingDing!

      That is exactly what has happened to me too. I never thought I would vote Democrat out of fear of the Republican candidate, but this president has already done more to destroy our constitutional rights in 2 years than anyone I can remember. I *will* be voting Democrat next time (unless they nominate that wonk Lieberman).

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    36. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, bush is more or less a leader pushing for his(nations, or just his) values abroad and giving the f* to treaties that don't please him(it beats me why iraq should have even wanted to do as un wanted when bush said they'll get the shaft anyways) and preaching about striking before it's too late and how his nations values should be upheld and using popular things to back him up('god is with us in this').

      of course you can't really compare the two since hitler had the ww1 experiences to blame for freaking out.

      and to stay a bit on topic: what the f* is happening in the 'land of the free' now? did you miss watching starship troopers or didn't read history or are just plain as brainwashed as north koreans? don't you give a flying f for the right to express your thoughts without worrying about big bro coming down on you and locking you up for good(if you can't say that bush oughta be bombed )?

    37. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm having the opposite reaction. I've always voted Democrat because I felt that voting 3rd party was "a waste of time." Now, thanks to seeing how well the Democrats have rolled over to the Bush administration coupled with the realization that in the last election Bush got over 75% of the vote in my state, I've come to realize that voting for the Democrats is a waste of time. I'm voting 3rd party.

      Oh, I'd probably still vote Democrat if I was in a borderline state, but here in deeply Republican-controlled territory, I'm better off supporting a 3rd party getting enough votes to get federal election funding.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    38. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by mfrank · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Before you do so, you may want to ask yourself whether the Democrats would have better for your constitutional rights in the last 3 years.

      It's likely they wouldn't have been so, uh, agressive against the Taliban and Al-Queda, and may have compensated by being more aggressive on the home front.

      After all, isn't the senator from Disney a Democrat? And the last time a couple of thousand Americans died in a sneak attack, a whole bunch of Americans spent the next few years in internment camps. And they were put there by a Democrat.

    39. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by banzai51 · · Score: 1

      This paranoid garbage got modded to insightful? Hello Newman, Osamma isn't exactly denying the charges and working through the media to clear his name. And if assholes like yourself would have actually followed the elections when the real, counted results came in you know that Bush won the popular vote along with the electoral college. But sheep like you are easily swayed a media mistake.

    40. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about that same thing just today. I'm pretty strongly Libertarian, and have voted as such since I turned 18. I considered today if maybe it would be better to vote democratic then help another facist regime like Bush/Ashcroft get into power.

      I doubt I will vote Democratic, but it was something that I considered today for the first time.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    41. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by nomadic · · Score: 1

      But what are you (in the larger sense as well) going to say if Bush DOES get (re-)elected? Lots of and lots of people are pissed that he is in office - aka "King George" comments. But if he does in fact manage to win re-election - let's say that the Democrats really can't get thier stuff together and fail to put up a good fight - then what will you say?

      It depends if he wins legitimately or not. Our comments are predicated on the fact that the Florida election was a travesty. If he wins in a similar matter the "King George" comments will continue. If he wins fairly they'll stop.

    42. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by aminorex · · Score: 2

      Oh that's no protection. Look at Manuel Noriega. We killed
      a couple thousand panamanians in order to put him in club fed.
      Heck, we can designate him an enemy combatant and blow him away
      with a sidewinder, just like we do to Americans and Yemeni
      nationals in Yemen, another ally in our global terror campaign.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    43. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, insane people can still be rather functional and make intelligent, though odd decisions.

      Bush on the other hand is just a moron, so I'd take the insane person over him any day . .

    44. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Which treaty? The ones we haven't signed (Kyoto, which didn't come *close* to passing in Congress), or the ones we signed with countries that don't exist anymore?

      They're throwing people in prison in the US for speaking out against the war? Wow, I really need to catch up on current events. Either that, or you need to go back on your medication.

    45. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by p4ul13 · · Score: 1

      The Bush / Nazi connection is weak at best:
      StraightDope.com

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    46. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1
      Oh, I'd probably still vote Democrat if I was in a borderline state
      Aye, there's the rub... I live in Florida. :^)
    47. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "the Bush family at the time was into eugenics (aka Nazi Bullshit)...

      That's news to me. How about a reference? (No, seriously!)

      Too bad George H and Barabra weren't more serious about eugenics. We wouldn't be in the mess we are in now!

    48. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll let you decide which is crap and which is believable.

      Google For "Bush.family eugenics"

      Eugenics was quite popular in the World at the time, and was the sort of thing that made people sympathize with the Nazi approach, even if it turned out that most people into it didn't intend to support the kind of actual genocide the Nazi's practiced. But it's a slippery slope from human breeding to inhuman behavior.

    49. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of ole Manuel. It was the United States military that trained him in a little place called The School of the Americas. It's a school that trains Latin American soldiers in the arts of assasination, torture, and interogation among other things. Manuel Noriega actually received high honors and had his name and picture up on a wall of fame until recently.

    50. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by autopr0n · · Score: 1

      Osamma isn't exactly denying the charges and working through the media to clear his name.

      Well, he was before he whent into hiding. What's your point? Also the Reichstag fire was started by real-live communist, it doesn't change the fact that Hitler used it to gain power.

      Bush won the popular vote along with the electoral college.

      Bush lost the popular vote by about 100,000 votes across the country. He did win the EC, but the Florida thing was totally fubared.

      --
      autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    51. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      This is false. Even if the votes had favored Bush (they didn't), the SC decision was to ignore the vote based on the fact that the press had already declared Bush the winner.

      Where on earth did you come up with that? The Supreme Court decision merely agreed that the Florida court was attempting to rig the election by a selective recount, also after the deadline, which was against Florida's laws.

      When the media did their own recount in Florida, they decided that Bush still won, although it didn't make a lot of headlines (big surprise).

      I'm no Bush fan, but don't rag on the Supreme Court because they're doing their job - as opposed to a bunch of judges in Florida who have to stand for retention elections.

    52. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "More People Voted For Gore". Actually, I think the majority of Americans DIDN'T VOTE AT ALL!

      Both statements are true. Most people didn't vote. But more voted for Gore than for Bush.

    53. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, you do know that republic simply means that you are without a monarch, right? China is also a republic, along with the USA, Russia, France and many others. Some of these are democracies and some aren't. Non-Republics are countries like those of the common-wealth (Canada, England, Australia, Zimbabwae) and again, some are democratic, and some aren't.

    54. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Does the fax from DNC headquarters say 'claim to be a libertarian' this week?

    55. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you please do some research. It has been proven that Bush won the vote in FL. Why do you think the media quietly stopped talking about the recounts? Because no matter how they counted Bush won, not by a lot, but Bush won.

      I for one am glad we don't have Gore in office. Bush scared me, but Gore absolutely terrified me.

    56. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Maniakes · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless - It still confused a lot of voters. This confusion biased the result toward Bush. Republican voters who were confused had their vote counted because they wouldn't have selected the second hole. Democrat voters did make the mistake. the fact that the person who chose the design happened to be a democrat is not relevent. The result was biased towards Bush because of a single person'e mistake. Should this single person have the power to affect the results in this way through negligence?

      It wasn't just the election offical who designed the ballot who was negligent. The officals from all parties who reviewed and accepted the ballot - they were negligent too. For that matter, so were the voters who couldn't be bothered to read the instructions carefully.

      In any case, once the election is held, it's too late to change the procedures. This is part of federal election law, and it comes from basic experimental principles. In order for experimental results to be valid, the measurement process and objective criteria for evaluating the results must be fixed in advance.

      Now that we know that butterfly ballots cause problems, we will probably never use them again in any juristiction.

      --
      A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
    57. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      There is No Such Thing as a 'popular vote' for President of the United States. We are a country composed of 50 seperate states, each of which tabulates a total. There is no 'official' Popular Vote total taken. All that amounts to is a bunch of journalists running around tabulating the popular vote totals for each state.

      Not that it matters. You types would be smug and gleeful if the near 50/50 election had gone your way. And we'd be stuck with an algore in the White House. Remember when that survellience plane got shot down by the Chinese? Gore probably would have surrended the whole fleet to China with remorse.

    58. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by dodgyville · · Score: 1

      > There are RULES to an election -- including deadlines and not trying to have the counters use ESP to guess what people intended.

      I would rather take an extra week or an extra month to try to find out what the people wanted and what the truth was (regardless of whether it was Bush or Gore), rather than just using some magic number cut-off date to stop counting.

      I guess that's why I was also happy to wait a month for the UN weapon's inspectors to finish their expert jobs (the time they said it would take), rather than to bow to some arbitrary deadline set by Bush (as much as I trust his expert scientific opinion).

      Woohoo! The War and the botched 2000 Election, all in one post! Mod me down, baby!

      --
      apt-get install deathstar && deathstar alderaan && echo "You're far too trusting"
    59. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by twofidyKidd · · Score: 1

      We aren't undecided, were divided. There's a big difference between not knowing who to vote for, and voting for someone that the other half of the people know they are voting for.

      And in fact, had the presidency been decided upon the majority vote of the people, Al Gore would have become president. Its the ass-backwards electoral college system that voted Dickhead, sorry, George Bush in as president.

      The unclarity you speak of comes not from the indecision of either the people or the ass-backwards electoral college, but from the fact that you can't distinguish the two from each other. Educate yourself before you make claims.

      --


      Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
    60. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Jardine · · Score: 1

      Silly americans. What kind of a madman decided that a ballot punching machine was needed along with such weird ballots?

      The federal ballot in Canada is very simple. Each name (along with party affiliation) is listed on their own line. Next to the name is a sizeable circle. To vote for that person, you mark an X in the circle with a pencil. Ballots are counted by hand. Hanging chads do not exist. Recounts are simple.

    61. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by shepd · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in a democracy the leader (among other things) is directly elected by the people.

      It isn't so in the US, therefore it cannot be labelled a democracy. Not that their system isn't similar, but the electoral college simply makes using the term democracy wrong. But it's close! I don't think anyone has made a term for the US electoral college situation yet, but "republic" best describes them, using words available, but still isn't exact.

      Is there a term for the US? I'd love to hear it!

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    62. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by citabjockey · · Score: 1

      That would be too smart for us Americans. Heck we are so dumb we put Bush in office (somehow).

    63. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      There are RULES to an election -- including deadlines and not trying to have the counters use ESP to guess what people intended.

      But isn't that exactly what they did? I remember them declaring a victor. Since the recounts were stopped, how did they know except through ESP? Or is it ESP when you look at a single ballot but not when you decide for an entire state?

      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.

      Nevertheless, it was still a problem. The Corsair was once considered road-worthy. The butterfly ballot was a bad implementation, and will hopefully go away.

      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.

      So thus we stop trying? That's not exactly a great answer. I guess I'd like my "representative" democracy to actually bother to figure out what I wanted. If that means delaying the results until they figure it out, so be it.

      "More People Voted For Gore". Actually, I think the majority of Americans DIDN'T VOTE AT ALL!

      Actually, those sentences are not in contradiction.

      For those that DID vote, this ISN'T A PURE DEMOCRACY aka MOB RULE.

      No, instead it's a Republic aka RULE BY ELITE CLASS.

      This is a Republic, and the electoral system is much harder to manipulate than pure majority vote.

      Theoretically and practically false. Theoretically, it takes fewer votes to turn a state than the entire country. Turning a single state can turn the entire election, greatly amplifying the effect of the small number of stuffed votes. Practically, Florida was much closer than the nation as a whole (in terms of absolute ballots), but Florida still decided the nation. If Oregon and New Mexico had been landslides, Florida still would have decided the nation.

      GET OVER IT! Both major political parties (Democrats & Republicans) are lying, sniviling, cheating, vote-whoring, ballot-stuffing scum.

      You're right, but what's your point? That we shouldn't care that our President was "elected" under highly suspicious and quite broken circumstances? The whole situation was a complete cluster-fuck regardless of who won, and our election process was turned into a farce. The fact that the cluster-fucking was in favor of the brother of the governor of the state in question, whose appointed (yay Elites!) judges were the ones who decided when the cluster-fucking was over and the winner decided may raise my hackles even more, but it's not like I'd think everything was cool if Gore (or Nader!) won.

      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...

      Thus you tacitly recognize another major failing of the electoral college, also implicitly acknowledged by the candidates: Only the swing states matter.

      maybe you live in one of those places, but I don't feel like traveling 2500 miles just to encourage someone else to cast a meaningful vote.

      Check out http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org] for an alternative to the 2-party bullshit.

      Try coming to Texas and being a Libertarian, if you want to feel what banging your head against a wall is like. You say being a republic prevents mob rule, but the fact is that not a single one of the minority votes in Texas (or any of the non-swing states) mattered at all. The electoral college takes a minority and turns it into nothing. And thus the 2-party system locks itself in.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    64. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by radish · · Score: 1

      Yeah we use a super high tech device called a "Pencil". The last US election was at first funny, as the rest of the world watched them trying to figure out a result, then scary as we saw who the media decided should win.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    65. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by coldguy · · Score: 1
      Immigrating to Canada as a Skilled Worker

      still a few points short yet, but i should have enough school to put me over the top come december 2004...

    66. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Our presidential elections are a joke. The Electoral College claims to be there to prevent "mob rule", while in fact their purpose is to prevent democratic rule.

    67. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Aexia · · Score: 1

      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.

      Incidently, the "Democrat" in question has since returned to her original party affiliation: Republican. She switched parties so she could be in that position.

      So, you would have favored simply recounting and recounting until the vote turned out how you like it?

      There are RULES to an election -- including deadlines and not trying to have the counters use ESP to guess what people intended.


      The USSC's decision was contradictory. It ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's standards for recount were unconstitutional... and then accepted results counted under standard even more unconstitutional than the FSC's.

      The deadline was always a red herring. I suggest you read up on what happened with Hawaii's electoral votes in the Kennedy-Nixon election. They still hadn't determined who Hawaii's votes should go to when the electors were voting. They didn't get a final vote count until January. And guess what? Our democracy didn't fall apart.

    68. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would be the point? People who vote libertarian make up such a small part of the electorate, it's doubtful they'd swing the election to the Dems even if they all moved to Florida.

    69. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Nope. In a democracy, the legislature is elected by the people, and the government is accountable to the legislature.

      Now, many people confuse this, read the Federalist Papers, and assume that this means the US isn't a democracy because the system set up 200 odd years ago was most definitely not guaranteed to be a democracy. For a start, the executive wasn't merely bound by the laws of the legislature, of which only one house was designed to be directly elected, but the executive also was answerable to a bill of rights that was written into the constitution, a bill of rights that overrode the elected (and unelected) legislature, and the constitution wasn't answerable to the people, it was answerable to the states.

      However, all this is bunk. The reason is that every state has done two things: First, every state in the US is democratic. That is, every aspect of government is directly or indirectly accountable to the people, with varying degrees of accessability. Legislatures are elected, Governors are directly elected, and usually even fairly minor officials are elected. Poor old Theresa LaPore, of West Palm Beach, was elected to organize Palm Beach's elections. etc. This means, because the constitution is accountable to the states, and the states are accountable to the people, that the constitution is, indirectly, accountable to the people.

      The second thing all the states have done, without fail, is have their senators and electors - despite no requirement to do so - be elected by the people. Therefore, the body picking the President (and hence the executive) is choosen by the people, if via a convoluted arrangement that arguably is outdated and badly designed. The legislature is also completely elected.

      America is a democracy. It's a flawed democracy, it wasn't designed to work as one, but until 26 states (well, ok, states with 51% of the electors and senators) club together to abolish elected electors and senators, as constitutionally is their perogative, America will remain a democracy.

      America is not a constitutional democracy, it's a defacto and legal democracy. Be very careful not to confuse the structure of a constitution with a accountability concept - a republic is an example of the former, democracy is very much the latter.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    70. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Therefore, the body picking the President (and hence the executive) is choosen by the people, if via a convoluted arrangement that arguably is outdated and badly designed.

      And if the person who is supposed to vote your way for you has cold feet and changes their minds?

      I asked a PolSci student, he says this has happened 5 times in the US. 1 time is too many.

      I guess it depends on how liberal you want to be with the word "democracy". If you're true to the definition there aren't a lot of democracies out there.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    71. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Bullshit.

      The Press stopped talking about the after-the-fact recount because of 9/11. When they finally published the results, of the ten different types of recount, Gore won in eight. This included the critical "Count every vote" recount.

      Bush "won" in two scenarios - the one that happened (ie no recounts), and, rather ironically, the scenario where only the counties requested by Gore were recounted. The latter is the source of a rather unfortunate NYT headline that Wingnuts use to claim means Gore "would have lost anyway".

      It's all academic I suppose. The election happened three years ago. We have to hope nothing like this ever happens again. Who'd have thought that hanging chads would have resulted in 3000 deaths on US soil and Lord knows how many overseas in what appears to be the start of a series of neoconservative ideologically motivated wars?

      Never again. Never, never, again.

    72. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "somehow" is the Constitution.

      Therefore who you call "so dumb" are the Founding Fathers.

      You're such an idiot.

    73. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the majority of Americans DIDN'T VOTE AT ALL!

      Technically, no. According to my history book, 51.2% of the population voted, which is just barely a majority.

    74. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      And if the Supreme Court decides to ignore the bill of rights, what then?

      The point is that you elect people - that is, a group of people are chosen by you and are at your mercy (so to speak) - to go off and choose a President on your behalf.

      It's not direct, but it doesn't need to be. You had input, input which definitely affected the final result. The Executive is answerable to you.

      Incidentally, it'd still be a democracy if the legislature choose the executive instead, which is fairly common outside of America.

      If you're true to the definition there aren't a lot of democracies out there.
      I defined the most common definition of democracy, the one most would consider reasonable. There are going to be extremists who insist on rule by plebicite, but at a minimum America, as its laws are currently structured, conforms to the common definition.

      That's not to imply it can't be improved. I don't know of a democracy that can't. As Winston Churchill supposedly said "Democracy is absolutely the worst form of government ever invented... except for all the others."

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    75. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by geekee · · Score: 1

      There was something like an 80% approval rating in Panama for the US removal of drug lord Noriega from Panama. Just keep pretending that everyone is on equal moral ground no matter what their actions and no one has the right to enforce a moral code in the world. You're basically arguing for anarchy.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    76. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by geekee · · Score: 1

      No, the supreme court enforced the laws on the books in FL regarding elections, which the FL court was disregarding in favor of new laws they were making up on the spot. Bush won according to FL law at the time.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    77. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that link more or less supported the point.

      Sig Comment: here is a nice variation (yours is fine, but I like this as well)

      >My systems never have bugs, they just develop random features.

      "My systems never have bugs, they exhibit emergent behavior."

      Sort of a little AI/Heinlein flavor for it.

    78. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by shepd · · Score: 1

      >And if the Supreme Court decides to ignore the bill of rights, what then?

      America becomes Canada! :)

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    79. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      If all of the Florida libertarians had voted for Gore in the last election, their 16,415 votes would have meant you'd be calling Mr. Gore president right now. Hell, if we'd all switched our voted to Democrat, several of the close states would have gone the other way.

      And that's not even considering the Nader votes...

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    80. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      And what's your evidence that the Republicans are anti-Disney?

      And we shouldn't vote against Bush now, because Congress passed a law, which FDR signed?

      Meanwhile, it's ok that Bush is taking away civil liberties, becasue you think Democrats are wimps.

      A severely impared eggplant could have led the country to victory in Afghanistan, and would have seen it as the obvious thing to do. Clinton and company reportedly had a plan to invade Afghanistan, but lacked justification.

    81. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      I don't think Gore would be all for holding suspects indefinetly without due process. Or be fighting for about 2 trillion in cumaltive tax cuts.

    82. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by crucini · · Score: 1
      They'll find something else to complain about. Between now and then, Bush can be counted on to:
      1. Mispronounce a foreign name.
      2. Offend the Arab world with some innocent piece of insensitivity.
      3. Visibly hand rebuilding contracts to friends.
      Maybe the left will get lucky and he'll buy an anatomically correct doll. Popping one "grievance" off the stack merely makes room for the next.

      In fact, isn't "W" much like Quayle?

      Back to your question: I wondered the same thing during the Monica scandal - all these Clinton supporters swore angrily that Clinton had not had sex with "that woman." I wondered how they could be so sure, and how they would apologize if they turned out wrong.
    83. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by chill · · Score: 1
      But isn't that exactly what they did? I remember them declaring a victor. Since the recounts were stopped, how did they know except through ESP? Or is it ESP when you look at a single ballot but not when you decide for an entire state?



      No, it isn't what they did. They used the data from the recounts that had already taken place. The votes were counted numerous times.



      Several States were very close. Yes, Oregon and New Mexico were outweighed by Florida, but add Iowa or one of the other close, small States and it would have been a different story.



      The Governor of Florida was doing his job. All those items you mention were his responsibility as Gov. What would you have him do? At least he didn't shirk his duty. What would I have people do? Its more like what I would have them NOT do -- whine and preted G.W. Bush isn't President. It is the whining and sour grapes that gets to me.



      The system needs reformed -- not the Electoral College, but rather the campaign funding and campaigning laws in general. Also, the press needs to act better. STOP CALLING ELECTIONS ad just report the returns! Many States have multiple time zones, and people are still voting. Stop exit polling!



      I've spent a lot of time in Texas and have Libertarian friends there. I'm aware of the headaches. The only thing I can say is start local and work up.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    84. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by chill · · Score: 1

      Well, the whole inspection thing was botched from the start. It wasn't one extra month that was the problem, it was the 10+ YEARS. Hell, CLINTON told the Iraqi gov't several times "this is your last chance" and look where "just wait one more month" got them.

      Keep in mind, Iraq was a conquered nation after 1991. The terms of surrender included disarming and inspections. There should have been no kicking out of inspectors, nor asking about where and when to go. Inspectors go where and when they want, backed by a few platoons of troops if necessary. Do that and this would have been over back in 1992 or so.

      It would have stretched on forever -- as it was doing. The UN has no spine, or they would have done it that way.

      Enough was enough. Crazies has shown the world on 9/11/2001 that they were willing to kill thousands of non-combatants to make a point. They were/are willing to hide themselves among innocent civilians and use those people, their schools and hospitals as shields from reprisals. Those same crazies have not only expressed the willingness to use WMD on civilian populations, but have attempted to acquire WMDs.

      WMDs are usually only available to governments, due to the resources required. Iraq was pursuing WMD -- and had proven to have and USE them in the past. The gov't of Iraq was believed to be the most likely source for WMDs to get into the hands of the crazies. Iraq had given refuge to major terrorists in the past (Abu Nidal was one). Afghanistan was the biggest nest.

      If Iraq refused to live up to the terms of surrender by playing hide-and-seek with inspectors, etc. then it is time to force the issue.

      As far as potential civilian deaths due to the war -- there will be far fewer Iraqi civilians killed by the Coalition forces than have been by Saddam Hussein's forces over the years. The Coalition will allow the Red Cross to visit POWs, not torture then execute them.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    85. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by thirdrock · · Score: 1

      There was something like an 80% approval rating in Panama for the US removal of drug lord Noriega from Panama. Just keep pretending that everyone is on equal moral ground no matter what their actions and no one has the right to enforce a moral code in the world. You're basically arguing for anarchy.

      And you are basically arguing for 'might is right regardless', which, if true, is a completely redundant argument.

      --
      >>
      I am the director, and this is my movie ...
    86. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by antibryce · · Score: 1
      This is false. Even if the votes had favored Bush (they didn't), the SC decision was to ignore the vote based on the fact that the press had already declared Bush the winner. Doing otherwise, they argued in an incredible example of NewSpeak, would cast doubt on the election results.


      Did you even read the SC's decision? They ruled (rightfully so!) that the Democrat's recounting of select areas of Florida (the poor and mostly democratic counties, oddly enough) gave those votes more weight, thus lessening the value of all the other votes of the state. Basically if the Dems had been crying for a complete statewide recount (which btw the bush camp was doing) they would have been fine. Instead they tried to skew the results in their favor and it fucked them in the end.


      Before you even try to argue with me, imagine if every state was forced under pressure from the republicans to recount the ballets from white upper-class neighborhoods.

    87. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Fly · · Score: 1

      What was the point? All I saw was a claim against "the USA" for which I can provide contradicting evidence. That evidence is that I gave money to the ACLU today to fight such awful practices, and that the ACLU *exists*. In itself it is evidence that "the USA" does not want to become the xenophobic state as was claimed by TerryAtWork. TerryAtWork was merely trolling, and his post happened to be the top post when I read the article. False claims against my country as a whole, and thus against me as a citizen of that country should be fought, so I responded by calling out the nature of the post.

      --
      end of line
    88. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by unitron · · Score: 1
      "The Corsair was once considered road-worthy."

      However since it was an airplane they decided to make sure that it was airworthy as well.

      Or perhaps you were referring to the Chevrolet Corvair of Unsafe At Any Speed fame.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    89. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by unitron · · Score: 1
      "Who'd have thought that hanging chads would have resulted in 3000 deaths on US soil..."

      Osama: "Never mind, guys, Gore won. Just come on back to the Middle East and help us stone non-believing Afghanis."

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    90. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by unitron · · Score: 1

      Well, all the Republican whining at the time was about how Gore had conceeded, as though that had legal standing.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    91. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by mfrank · · Score: 1

      >And what's your evidence that the Republicans are anti-Disney?

      When I referred to "the senator from Disney", you knew who I was talking about.

      >And we shouldn't vote against Bush now, because Congress passed a law, which FDR signed?

      Evidence to support the concept that Democrats may also take away civil liberties. Lincoln suspending habeus corpus during the Civil War. Didn't seem to do much damage in the long run.

      >Meanwhile, it's ok that Bush is taking away civil liberties, becasue you think Democrats are wimps.

      I'm sure that Gore would have taken military action. I wish he had been able to get Clinton to do it years ago. As for justification, last I heard, embassies are considered American soil. Attacking them are acts of war

      And I'd like to hear the reasons you think that, if Gore were president, he wouldn't be doing pretty much the same thing? You think that the dirty bomb guy would be walking the streets?

    92. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're not a warlike people, but we fight when we have to. What do you think? Should we burn the whitehouse down AGAIN (war of 1812) to maybe straighten our disillusioned southern brothers (and sisters) out?

    93. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      I'm hoping for Howard Dean myself. And really, I'm getting more and more desperate for this guy as time goes on. He's not my ideal candidate, but he's at least liberal, which puts him a good lap ahead of everybody else. If we end up with Leiberman v. Bush, I'll hate myself no matter who I vote for.

    94. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      None of that matters. All that was the bullshit that the media covered. The real problem with the election was the involvement of the Supreme Court.

      "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors..."

      There wasn't and isn't any constitutional reason AT ALL for the Supreme Court, or any federal entity to have any say in an election. All the feds should care about is the envelope congress gets in the mail. The final authority was the Florida supreme court, but the SCOTUS stepped in and suspended the state of Florida's right to direct it's own electoral process in the interest of preserving Bush's credibility. The election wan't clean and pretty, but it also wasn't conducted legally, as laid out by the constitution.

      I'd think a libertarian would be more constitutionally-minded.

    95. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by chill · · Score: 1

      You seem to be ignoring the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, along with several Federal Elections Laws. State Laws and the rulings of State Supreme Courts are NOT allowed to over rule or trump the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the SCOTUS is the final authority, above SCOF.

      I was all a mess, though. Rather pathetic, actually.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    96. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by matrix29 · · Score: 1

      So, you would have favored simply recounting and recounting until the vote turned out how you like it?

      How about getting the votes HAND COUNTED at least ONCE!

      Sorry you little GOP-KGB WHORE but you LOSE.
      Sending the ballots through a machine is not counting the votes. It is repeating the same damn errors that fucked up the system in the first place. The machines are a quicker way to tabulate the votes, but they are NOT THE VOTERS and they are not perfect. Since there was ample proof of outright FRAUD and BALLOT TAMPERING by Katherine "The Distraction KKK-Clown" Harris the ballot process was corrupted and in violation of the Florida "Sunshine Law" which requires the intent of the voter to be served.

      Having SUPERFRAUD Bush lie and lie about his goals yet SUE CONSTANTLY further invalidates your lies you little "Axis of Weasel" GOP-KGB WHORE. The final corrupt Supreme WHORE Court decision to deny a full statewide hand count of the ballots (which until that time had been denied and delayed CONSTANTLY by SUPERFRAUD Bush's Criminal Traitor Cronies) and hand the election to SUPERFRAUD Bush simply proves (along with the constant treason by the Criminal Traitor Republican Traitor Criminal Party) that we American citizens can no longer trust the ballots to be machine counted ever again. I would rather have accuracy over speed when the stakes are as dire as the constant assault on America's freedoms by the Criminal Traitor Republican Traitor Criminal Party crooks.

      The point is that the GOP-KGB WHORES are many and our freedoms are ever diminishing under the OUTRAGEOUS TREASON that the GOP-KGB WHORES have unleashed under their Anti-American Anti-Human Anti-Christ agenda. I warned the Slashdot readers about this a few times already and it seems to have taken quite long for them to wake up and smell the TERROR that comes from Criminal Traitor Republican Traitor Criminal rule. The Satanic Child of Moloch is 67% out of the womb and the GOP-KGB WHORES are the gleeful nursemaids to the birth. The DEATHCAMPS are already gearing up to run at full capacity and only us Americans can stop this NOW if we wake up and smell the stench of the charred human flesh from the GOP-KGB WHORE-operated DEATHCAMPS.

      --
      "Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
    97. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by matrix29 · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the SC's decision? They ruled (rightfully so!) that the Democrat's recounting of select areas of Florida (the poor and mostly democratic counties, oddly enough) gave those votes more weight, thus lessening the value of all the other votes of the state. Basically if the Dems had been crying for a complete statewide recount (which btw the bush camp was doing) they would have been fine. Instead they tried to skew the results in their favor and it fucked them in the end.

      Before you even try to argue with me, imagine if every state was forced under pressure from the republicans to recount the ballets from white upper-class neighborhoods.


      Try this... the Florida Supreme Court DID decide to do a FULL STATEWIDE RECOUNT until the Supreme WHORE Court stepped in and decided that a FULL STATEWIDE RECOUNT would "Irreparably Harm" SUPERFRAUD Bush.

      You lose again GOP-KGB WHORE.
      Florida Supreme Court recount ruling

      On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast.


      Bush Rejects Gore Offer of Statewide Hand Recount
      NewsMax.com Wires - Wednesday, Nov. 15, 2000 (From a GOP-KGB WHOREBOY page)
      George W. Bush tonight called for the Florida vote recounting to end and for the acceptance of the vote totals Friday, when overseas ballots are due.

      He rejected Vice President Al Gore's two plans for settling the Florida vote recount. Earlier in the evening Gore promised:

      * If Republicans allowed manual recounts to continue in Democrat-dominated Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties, he would accept the final tally of those results added to the certified results from 64 other counties and overseas absentee ballots, due by midnight Friday.

      * Or, "I am also prepared, if Gov. Bush prefers, to include in this recount all the counties in the entire state of Florida,'' Gore said.
      "I would also be willing to abide by that result and agree not to take any legal action to challenge that result.''

      "We need a resolution that will be both fair and just," Gore, appearing with running mate Joe Lieberman, told reporters from the vice presidential residence at the U.S. Naval Observatory. in Washington.

      Democrat Gore offered to meet with Texas Republican Gov. Bush.

      "I propose that Gov. Bush and I meet personally, one on one, as soon as possible, before the vote count is finished, not to negotiate but to improve the tone of our dialogue in America.''

      "I am willing to go to his house or meet him wherever he wants to meet, not to negotiate but to improve the tone of our dialogue in America," Gore said.

      Gore said that, in addition to an immediate meeting, he and Bush should meet again once the election is settled "to reaffirm our national unity.''

      "If I turn out to be successful, I'll be ready to travel to Governor Bush's home. If I am not, I'll be ready to meet him wherever he wishes,'' Gore said.

      Gore said he was trying to honor the Constitution.

      "This is the time to respect every voter and every vote,'' he said.

      "This is the time to honor the true will of the people. So our goal must be what is right for America.''

      (I can also list the text where Katherine "The Distraction KKK-Clown" Harris had her paid Criminal Traitor Republican Traitor Criminal cronies correct incorrect military ballots for the GOP side and discard the Democrat military ballots. Then there is the matter of the fickle deadline and the GOP-KGB WHORE CHOICEPOINT scam with a 97% INCORRECT voter disqualification list which was paid for with $2 million in taxpayer dollars).

      --
      "Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
    98. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by dodgyville · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your reasoned response to my post, both sides of the war debate have been getting pretty worked up the last few weeks :)

      I would like to raise two points that you may want to consider.

      1. Why didn't we bomb South Africa to end Apartheid? They tortured and killed Africans for forty-fifty years (as part of Apartheid) and for longer before that. Sanctions took 15+ years to work there but no-one now suggests that bombing them would have helped.

      2. On the subject of hide and seek, contrary to what some media has reported, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Saddam's arsenal. Perhaps, and I wish to be proved wrong, Iraq did disarm. The only way to objectively tell was for the UN inspectors to report. Sadly, we can now never independently verify this.

      Anyway, I want to be convinced this war was the only way, but I just can't help but think that the chance for peace wasn't exhausted.

      --
      apt-get install deathstar && deathstar alderaan && echo "You're far too trusting"
    99. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by chill · · Score: 1

      1. We didn't bomb S. Africa because while Apartheid was atrocious, it was NOT a threat to the U.S. The Iraqi regeim was. In fact, S. Africa is the only "member" of the nuclear club to have been verified as disposing of and halting pursuit of nuclear weapons. They DID have the bomb, but got rid of it. [http://web.mit.edu/ssp/spring01/albright.htm]

      Looking at history, America has violent responses in two major causes: mass attacks on civilians/non-combatants, and threats to national security.

      Blow up a plane over Lockerbie -- we bomb Libya. Blow up the U.S.S. Cole, a couple of Embassies and nothing. (Okay, one factory in Sudan and one cruise missile into Afghanistan.) Blow up the Twin Towers, we invade Afghanistan and Iraq. We aren't perfect (Guatamala is a good example of how the CIA went overboard).

      As far as hide-and-seek, and Iraqi disarmarment -- we'll conduct a thorough search once things are in firm control. They HAVE found instructions for protection against chemical weapons; missles that are capable of longer ranges than allowed [though many were suqsequently destroyed]; unaccounted for chemical warheads [empty, but not reported].

      Personally, I believe Iraq *does* have chemical weapons. However, I also believe that they are meant for exclusive use on the Kurds and possibly Iranians. Sadly, that is a very paranoid part of the world.

      Thanks for the good discussion.

      -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    100. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Its more like what I would have them NOT do -- whine and preted G.W. Bush isn't President. It is the whining and sour grapes that gets to me.

      True. But what gets to me is people acting like everything in the election was on the up-and-up. It stunk, and all the "The President elect's brother did what he was supposed to" doesn't change that.

      The system needs reformed -- not the Electoral College, but rather the campaign funding and campaigning laws in general. Also, the press needs to act better. STOP CALLING ELECTIONS ad just report the returns! Many States have multiple time zones, and people are still voting. Stop exit polling!

      I disagree that the Electoral College doesn't need reform, but I disklike it when minorities are silenced. But that's such a far cry, I don't really worry about it too much. Your other comments I agree with. It's ridiculous how by the time Oregon goes to vote the news stations are telling them it doesn't matter because it's been decided. Must do wonders for voter turn out!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    101. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps you were referring to the Chevrolet Corvair of Unsafe At Any Speed fame.

      Perhaps. :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    102. Re:Speaking as a Canadian by alexo · · Score: 1

      > Looking at history, America has violent responses in two major causes: mass attacks on civilians/non-combatants, and threats to national security.

      Not true.

      > Personally, I believe Iraq *does* have chemical weapons.

      Of course they do.

  4. Depressingly, I predict that by Savatte · · Score: 5, Insightful

    he will not receive the massive support and protest that mitnick received, simply because of his name. Kevin = American, where as Maher = sounds like something from one of those countries we are at war with. Kinda sad, really.

    1. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Gannoc · · Score: 5, Insightful
      he will not receive the massive support and protest that mitnick received, simply because of his name. Kevin = American, where as Maher = sounds like something from one of those countries we are at war with. Kinda sad, really.

      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.

    2. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did you have to mention Kevin Mitnik, now we can't claim racism.. good job now this suspected terrorist probably wont go free!

    3. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by jandrese · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, Keven was part of the "Hacker Community." Maher was a suit at Intel. Still, I'd hope more civil liberties groups would take notice, as this is obviously yet another violation of human rights. I'd rather if governments didn't get away with this sort of thing on a regular basis. Either charge him with something and give him his normal legal rights, or stop lying to the people and change the name to the Tyrannical States of America.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't see the problem. He gave a huge amount of money to a terrorist organization. Am I the only one that still remembers 9/11, or have the whiny liberals washed it of everyone's heads already?

    5. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      news flash, the guy gave $5000 to an orginization suspected of funding terrorism. Sorry if I think they should hold him till they find out what's going on. (provided he's not held over a year with nothing to go on.)

    6. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

      His story is already getting major media coverage on local (Portland) news stations. I think this might do better than you predict.

    7. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by ajs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think any of us were behind Kevin because he was an American per se. I was behind Kevin because he was being treated unfairly in a way that I could see myself being treated one day.

      This guy is even easier to identify with because there isn't even any presented evidence of his (lack of) guilt. He might well be Bin Laden's mole inside Intel, making 387 co-processors for embedded systems that round wrong to thwart US technology, but we'd never know, because we're not allowed to know.

      This idea that authorities can throw you in lockup forever, simply on the basis of a suspicion (with no evidence) of guilt is so blatently unconstitutional that I would be stunned if the ACLU does not sue on his behalf.

      This is exactly the kind of case that they have been waiting for since the PATRIOT act was passed.

    8. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I really don't see the problem. He gave a huge amount of money to a terrorist organization. Am I the only one that still remembers 9/11, or have the whiny liberals washed it of everyone's heads already?

      Part of the problem is most of the people that agree with you will only say so as AC.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    9. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Saddam on TV, Cites Recent Events, Greets Crowds"

      Thats the first link I saw so we know the site is 'funny'. seeing as some of those buildings he was walking by were destoryed a week ago. If you were Saddam would you go walking around a city where you're the most hunted man? well.. he IS crazy...

    10. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Ravenscall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He gave a large amount of money to a legiteamite charity that is fighting its listing as a terrorist organization. The vevidence used to freeze its assets is shaky at best, and would never survive a judicial review, so the DOJ has been dragging its feet, anbd trying to force through legislation that totally suspends any rights to Habeus Corpus that we have left.

      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.

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
    11. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      His story is already getting major media coverage on local (Portland) news stations. I think this might do better than you predict.

      What about the 5 guys who "got disappeared" by the government last year. They weren't wealthy, and had a little local clamor by their friends and relatives. Then you don't hear anything about them.

      The whole reason why anybody is rallying is because he has friends with money to spare. It's just like OJ!

      Granted, I have no opinion on this what so ever. I think that people need to wait and look at the facts. He's a material witness, being held as such, by the government. The facts aren't being released, because the government most likely feels that those facts will jeopardize the connection they are trying to break.

      I would be more surprised if this guy didn't know something was up. I think he knew the charity he donated to did have terrorist ties and just voluntarily turned the other way.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    12. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      And I on the alien third hand, think that a guy with good connections with a giant "All-American" corperation is going to recieve more influence than some guy with no friends.

    13. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by moonbender · · Score: 1

      news flash, the guy gave $5000 to an orginization suspected of funding terrorism Are you an American resident paying taxes? Well, then so do you. SCNR.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    14. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As for 9-11, you are obviously of the "Oh my God! Heathen Muslims are trying to kill America because they hate Freedom" clique."

      well... YES they ARE trying to kill us cause they DID kill us...Are you okay?
      as for posting as AC of course we have to do this, because we will all get modded down to 0 anyway for not trying to justify terrorists and actually *gasp* like the idea of preventing it.

    15. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by t0ny · · Score: 1
      he will not receive the massive support and protest that mitnick received, simply because of his name. Kevin = American, where as Maher = sounds like something from one of those countries we are at war with. Kinda sad, really.

      I knew Bill Maher's pro-terrorist comments on "Politically Incorrect" would come back to haunt him...

      --

      Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    16. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Upright+Joe · · Score: 1

      Granted, I have no opinion on this what so ever. I think that people need to wait and look at the facts.

      And how long should everybody wait for these facts? A year? 5 years? 10 years? What is a year of your life worth to you? Hell, what is a month of your life worth to you? At what point is it fair that he's either prosecuted or released?

    17. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This isnt about "justifying" terrorists. This is about a legal process that we have established in this country, and people that are trying to undo that process.

    18. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Cyno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Kinda reminds me of Bill Maher.. I like that guy.

      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?

    19. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by pyrrho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Am I the only one that still remembers 9/11

      no, but perhaps you are the only one that remembers nothing else.

      --

      -pyrrho

    20. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he will not receive the massive support and protest that mitnick received

      Damn right, I for one won't be supporting any suspected terrorists. 3,000+ people got it a lot worse than being held in jail with out a charge 2 years ago.

    21. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by sander · · Score: 2, Informative

      Huh? the 'start ww3' was just a complete and total fabrication by fbi. there is no and has been no evidence that us missile control systems have ever been accesible from teh civilian side of this planet, much less that you can get to them via network or modem. He didn't even ever get anywhere near classified, never mind actual secret documnets, and actual command systems are sure to be much more protected.

    22. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This guy is even easier to identify with because there isn't even any presented evidence of his (lack of) guilt. He might well be Bin Laden's mole inside Intel, making 387 co-processors for embedded systems that round wrong to thwart US technology, but we'd never know, because we're not allowed to know.

      This idea that authorities can throw you in lockup forever, simply on the basis of a suspicion (with no evidence) of guilt is so blatently unconstitutional that I would be stunned if the ACLU does not sue on his behalf.

      This is exactly the kind of case that they have been waiting for since the PATRIOT act was passed"

      If this person does infact have some relation to terrorists somewhere, which the Wired article implied, you can't expect the government to just publicly display all their evidence (while other possible guilty parties could be covering up evidence after seeing this). They do supposedly have evidence of some "large donations" that Mike made to a supposed-terrorist organization. Now whether that is actually true remains to be seen, but he has had access to a lawyer. He has also been locked up for 2 weeks now. Funny how 2 weeks suddenly becomes "forever". Although it can "feel" like that, someone may argue, I'm sure there are other people in jail that have been waiting longer.

    23. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Well imagine you live in an Arab country where your religion (I'm assuming Christianity) isn't so popular and the people there view christians with distrust. Maybe the few christians there set-up an organization so they can get together, practice their religion, and inform others that their religion isn't a religion of evil. If you were a good religious person, wouldn't you donate a few dollars for their cause if you could?

      It's scary to think that some people (using the parent poster as an example) find it acceptable that some people are arrested without cause. Living in the USA would be just as scary as in Saddam's Iraq. The one difference is the US only arrests people of Arab-descent, at least at the moment.

      What if geek-using computers who say their opinion about music downloading will be the next terrorists. Maybe they'll bust you for posting something on slashdot.

      Americans, it's time you do something about the thieves running the current Administration! They do not represent the will of the people of the United States of America.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    24. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

      If the Administration was truly interested in preventing terrorism, they had more than ample opportunity to arrest/assasinate Bin Laden when he was in Qatar (our current command operations base interestingly enough) for Kidney Dialysis on 2000

      Or maybe we would not have sent the Taliban a few hundred million dollars in March of 2001

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
    25. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      And how long should everybody wait for these facts? A year? 5 years? 10 years? What is a year of your life worth to you? Hell, what is a month of your life worth to you? At what point is it fair that he's either prosecuted or released?

      There is a definite reason why he is detained. This much is certain. I have a few friends that are Arab, in Portland, and haven't been detained. So far 44 people have been detained, for a reason. Granted, somet times the reason is wrong, but there is always a reason.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    26. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Upright+Joe · · Score: 1

      There is a definite reason why he is detained. This much is certain. I have a few friends that are Arab, in Portland, and haven't been detained. So far 44 people have been detained, for a reason. Granted, somet times the reason is wrong, but there is always a reason.

      Where did I say there wasn't a reason for his detainment? I'm saying cough up the reason and press charges or let him go. The government can't legally hold you indefinitely without telling you what you've done wrong and what you're being charged with. Check the bill of rights, I think it's the sixth amendment if I'm not mistaken...

    27. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Xerithane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where did I say there wasn't a reason for his detainment? I'm saying cough up the reason and press charges or let him go. The government can't legally hold you indefinitely without telling you what you've done wrong and what you're being charged with. Check the bill of rights, I think it's the sixth amendment if I'm not mistaken...

      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.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    28. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...a creepy dork who may or may not have been able to start WWIII."

      You wouldn't be trying to slander this man with vague, untestable accusations would you?

      Pick yourself up out of the dirt. Make an effort to understand the issues at hand.

      It's your freedom, too, you know.

    29. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by pluther · · Score: 1

      I agree, and I wonder what exactly the motivation is for the press to continue to call him Maher, instead of Mike. Mike is the name he goes by, that he chose TWENTY YEARS AGO when he first moved to the US.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    30. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you associate with America and the flag today after all we've been through?

      Same thing I did 20 years ago when hearing 'freedom and justice for all' every morning in school -- "bullshit."

      Kind of hard to base a nation on freedom and justice when the individuals who founded the country killed its original inhabitants and enslaved millions -- all while writing the constitution. US is free for rich white males, and then slightly less free depending on A) race, or B) economics.

      Apparently after 9/11 Americans have a new 'nigger;' he's just a few shades lighter and in another country now.

      You didn't honestly think the good ol' boys would take losing the civil rights movement lying down, did you?

      America is so last year . . .

    31. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creepy?? Starting WWIII?!

      Why don't you give the rest of us some of what you've been smoking!

    32. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Cyno · · Score: 1

      I give more than $5000 a year to the United Terrorists of America. Does that make me a bad person?

      Sure, I'm willing to support a government that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people every decade, if it makes me money. I just don't want to be told about those innocent casualties, m'kay?

    33. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Cyno · · Score: 1

      To play devil's advocate, what if our current administration truely is keeping us safe by this preemptive strike. I know, I know, it is awefully ironic that Halburton gets the clean-up contracts and all the funding to put out all the oil fires Sadam was polite enough to set before leaving those oil fields to our troops. But at least we won't have to worry about the threat of Iraq for at least another 5 years.

    34. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      " I really don't see the problem. He gave a huge amount of money to a terrorist organization."

      The American Government gave millions of dollars to the Taliban in May 2001, this guy just gave money to a charity which LATER was ACCUSED of having ties to terrorism.

      I mean let's say one day someone accuses MENSA of having ties to some neo-nazi group who are thinking of murdering anyone with an IQ less than 100. Do you then round up everyone who ever gave money to MENSA and detain them without charges?

      The American Government is dangerous, immoral and hypocritical.

      graspee

    35. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Upright+Joe · · Score: 1

      You say this:

      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.

      The article says this:

      Relatives and friends of Mr. Hawash, who works for the Intel Corporation and is married to a native Oregonian, say he has no idea why he was arrested by a federal terrorism task force when he arrived for work at the Intel parking lot in Hillsboro, a Portland suburb.

      Mr. Hawash, who is known as Mike, has yet to be interrogated and is being kept in solitary confinement, his supporters say.

      Federal officials will not comment on Mr. Hawash, though they have been pressed by Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and by a group of supporters led by a former Intel vice president, for basic information about why he is being detained.

      Explain to me again how the government is within their rights? First off, if they are detaining him because they feel he is guilty of something, they don't have a right to do it under hostile witness clauses. They need to do it as a criminal prosecution. If they are honestly holding him as a hostile witness, (which I doubt) why wouldn't they tell him what he is expected to testify about?

    36. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Explain to me again how the government is within their rights? First off, if they are detaining him because they feel he is guilty of something, they don't have a right to do it under hostile witness clauses.

      No. They do not feel he is guilty of something. Well, they may, but they don't need to tell us. He is being held as a material witness. Not as an accused criminal.

      They need to do it as a criminal prosecution. If they are honestly holding him as a hostile witness, (which I doubt) why wouldn't they tell him what he is expected to testify about?

      Learn the difference between a criminal and a material witness, and we'll talk. K?

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    37. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no Iraq, who wasn't even a threat before. Now you just have to worry about the threat of angry new terrorists who just became more convinced that the USA wants to kill their religion. If Bush could spread propaganda to convince a lot of (supposedly educated) Americans that Saddam was involved in 9/11, how easy would it be for an Islamic cleric to spread his anti-US propaganda and make his pupils believe that the way to please Allah is if they blew themselves up in a crowded New York bus. Yes, that's not the teaching of the real Islam, but hey, which religion haven't exploited other people's fear of the afterlive?

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    38. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also, Keven was part of the "Hacker Community." Maher was a suit at Intel.

      If only Maher had worked for AMD...

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    39. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Steven+Blanchley · · Score: 1
      Huh? the 'start ww3' was just a complete and total fabrication by fbi.

      Yes, that's true, and maybe he wasn't creepy either; the grandparent post is referring to how the average person thought of him in the case.

    40. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever chances we had to kill him pre 2001 mean a big fat zero, we didn't go apeshit till he attacked thousands of innocents. Be sure to let the US know if you see him in Qatar now we'll be sure to send our greetings. As for our government giving them hundreds of thousands in 2001 you're not of course insuaiting we paid him to murder thousands, cripple the economy are you? That's a brilliant plan don't get me wrong, now Bush can finally take all the tremendous wealth from Afghanistan! Also the added bonus of handing out 1 million $ to all the familys in the WTC buildings.

    41. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by arkanes · · Score: 1
      How does this somehow make it okay? Hostile witness legislation should be obviously non-Constitutional to anyone with half an ounce of sense anyway. I don't care what he's done or what he knows. The government, as much for our benefit as the accused, has an obligation to be open about who it's prosecuting and why.

      You're basically saying that you feel the government should have the right to hold anyone for any reason - all they need to do is declare him a material witness. It doesn't matter if he actually is or not.

      I think we've all been shown the difference - due process of law doesn't apply if you aren't a criminal. It frightens me that you can think even for a second that this is somehow legitimate.

    42. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Better yet how easy would it have been for us to spread propoganda to the Iraqis people and have them overthrow Saddam? Or offer them free transportation and citizenship in the US to take the wind of Saddam's sails.

      But instead we blow our wad before the UN could even give the go ahead.

      The only image that comes to mind is Bush raping Saddam, but I'd probably get off on something like that.

    43. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by SurfsUp · · Score: 1

      Learn the difference between a criminal and a material witness, and we'll talk. K?

      First, you much learn the meaning of "due process of law." Then learn what "loophole" means. Finally, study the notion of "above the law".

      --
      Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
    44. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      I think you're using that other definition of hacker again. The one that people like ESR wish you wouldn't.

      Mitnick was a deceitful little smarm. One of those credit card hustlers, just with a little more intelligence than the average deceptive creep.

      He was never a part of the classic 'hackers community' that did things like, oh, bring up the BSDs, etc.

    45. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      do tehy have proof that he knowingly supported them becasue of terrorism? many people give money to the Ford foundation (Ford motor company is not involved any more) and they give money to palistinian organisations and other front groups for terrorism. should those donars be arrested?

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    46. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by ces · · Score: 1

      News flash, April 1, 2004. The Attorney General has determined the ACLU, EFF, People for the American Way, Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and PETA are terrorist funding or supporting organizations. US residents who are suspected of providing support to these groups or their members will be detained until their status can be determined.

      Yep, that's all it takes, a decaration of the Attorney General or President and your favorite club or organization can be suspected of funding terrorism too!

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    47. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by FsG · · Score: 1

      I would expect him to get due process if he walked up to bin laden himself and handed him a check. Why? Let's connect the dots.. If some people will get due process, while others are simply thrown in the dungeon, then there must be a person in the position of deciding who goes where, right? And that person is probably to rich and powerful to be trustworthy.

      --
      I made a PHP/MySQL library that prevents SQL injection & makes coding easier!
    48. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Muslim. Knock it off, don't generalize. It was extremist terrorists. Did I blame ALL christians when a couple bombed abortion clinics?

    49. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Maher was not a suit at Intel. He was the lead engineer for projects like the MMX extensions and Intel multimedia architectures. He does hardcore asm optimizations for video/audio codecs and such.

      (and like many of those who had worked with him and happened to be reading Slashdot, we're too afraid of our own so-called democratic government to post with our real names)

    50. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by beeblebrox87 · · Score: 1


      Americans, it's time you do something about the thieves running the current Administration! They do not represent the will of the people of the United States of America.


      The disturbing thing is, increasingly it seems that the do represent the "will of the people". Judging from the polls, large number of people are war-loving "my country right or wrong" rednecks. Even more people that the administration's policies would suggest seem to hate all people of islamic descent. And even more people seem to think that anybody who dissents is un-American.

      *sigh* What a sad country I used to live in...

    51. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 1
      These are valid reasons for detainment, and a federal judge was convinced he fell into one of those three categories.
      Where does it say that? AFAIK, he has NOT appeared before a federal judge. The cops can hold you as a "material witness" without bothering to get a judge's OK, that's what's so scary about this law.
      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    52. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by ajs · · Score: 1

      If this person does infact have some relation to terrorists somewhere, which the Wired article implied, you can't expect the government to just publicly display all their evidence (while other possible guilty parties could be covering up evidence after seeing this)

      Why yes, yes I can, and so should you.

      The double-edged sword of the spy-game is that you can't always act on the information you have without showing your hand. That hurts, and it can be a painful decision to make (Winston Churchill once made a descision to let a town be bombed instead of letting the Germans know that we had broken their code... that must have been terribly painful, but he HAD to make that call). What you're asking for is, given that reality of espionage, we should make an exception to our Constitution.

      Problem is, that that's the keystone of this particular little document. Without due process, the rule of law is the rule of whoever locks up their opponents fast enough.

      This is not just one man. This is PRECIDENT. How would you like to set it, given that one day, YOU might have to deal with the result?

    53. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that none has yet rounded up all those Irish peope up in New England that has donated to IRA.

      Heck, the US were never even interested in handing over known IRA operatives that for obvious reasons never ever can go to europe again.

    54. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by rickwood · · Score: 1
      I will note that my Grandfather, who taught me this poem, served in WWII and was a patriotic man. I wonder sometimes if he would feel as I do, that the deeds done lately don't exactly stir a man's soul? Or might he castigate me as a un-patriotic, un-american thought criminal?


      Just a moth-eaten rag
      On a worm-eaten pole
      It doesn't seem likely
      To stir a man's soul
      'Twas the deeds that were done
      'Neith that moth-eaten rag
      When the pole was a staff
      And the rag was a flag
    55. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      First, you much learn the meaning of "due process of law." Then learn what "loophole" means. Finally, study the notion of "above the law".


      I bet your favorite color is clear, isn't it? It must be nice to have an opinion without any knowledge of the facts, I wish I could do shit like that.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    56. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      The cops can hold you as a "material witness" without bothering to get a judge's OK, that's what's so scary about this law.

      No, they can't. Go look up a rule book. In order for an individual to be labeled a material witness there must be a federal judge who signs off on the mandate, otherwise it doesn't happen.

      The FBI is controlling this, not the "cops". The FBI answers to federal judges.

      It's just more convenient for you to have a knee-jerk reaction, instead of looking at the facts.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    57. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 1
      The FBI is controlling this, not the "cops".
      The FBI are cops! Federal cops.
      The FBI answers to federal judges.
      No, the FBI answers to the Attorney General, John Ashcroft.
      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    58. Re:Depressingly, I predict that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Did I blame ALL christians when a couple bombed abortion clinics?

      How should WE know? Did you???

  5. Damn.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...where've you been? I read this story at least two days ago.

  6. quote by geckosan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Internal security, the age-cry of the oppressor.

    --
    Hi
  7. In other news. . . by Limburgher · · Score: 1

    A fire at the Capital's web hosting facility building prompts Reichschancellor Ashcroft to arrest hundreds of citizens without charges. Some are being deported, while others are being relocated to "Ghettos" without internet connections or access to compilers or interpreters. . .

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:In other news. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some are being deported, while others are being relocated to "Ghettos" without internet connections or access to compilers or interpreters. . .

      Not CANADA!!! Noooooooo......

  8. Yeah for Oregon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you go Oregon with your Intel and maximum security jail in Sheridan!

  9. do mike a favour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    could someone call mike's parents and tell them he said goodbye.

    thanks.

  10. Yay for America by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

    Times like this, I'm glad I'm Canadian ...

    1. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, we'll get ours..

      He resisted arrest, so we shot him... yes no evidence to support that.. but he's dead now..

    2. Re:Yay for America by Stephen+VanDahm · · Score: 1

      "Times like this, I'm glad I'm Canadian ..."

      Times like this, I wish I were Canadian....

    3. Re:Yay for America by zulux · · Score: 1, Troll

      Times like this, I'm glad I'm Canadian ...

      Time like this, we're glad you're Canadian too.

      I love Canada! The 51'st State Where Your Doller Goes Further(TM)!

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    4. Re:Yay for America by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunaltey it's a spreading disease. If it can happen here why couldn't it happen somewhere else?

      America is supposed to be the Home of the Free and Land of the Brave. At least it was until the last few years.

      Makes you wonder why we are allowing our politicians to destroy what so many have worked to build.

      Don't worry... some politician is probably reading this and getting ready to mod me down :-)

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    5. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aye. The Bush administration has really made me glad to not be an American trapped in a masked Nazi nation (not a troll, there are endless valid comparisons between the United States and Nazi Germany, even comparisons between speeches and propaganda tactics used are almost dead-on every time).

    6. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you're Canadian too. We don't want people like you here.

      What?! someone in america was given a ticket for traveling 59 in a 50? Boo america, yay! canada.

    7. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time like this, we're glad you're Canadian too.

      I love Canada! The 51'st State Where Your Doller Goes Further(TM)!


      (regarding the general intelligence of Americans as demonstrated above) Times like this, I'm REALLY glad I'm Canadian ...

    8. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are an idiot.

    9. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American makes statement that rags on another country: "Americans are stupid!!!"

      Someone in other country rags on America: "He's speaking the truth! Down with America!"

      Be careful not to fall off the anti-America bandwagon if it hits a bump in the road now.

    10. Re:Yay for America by hndrcks · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry - once the Reich has completely suppressed all opposition here, they will come to Canada looking for Lebensraum.

      --
      Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
    11. Re:Yay for America by swtaarrs · · Score: 1

      One big difference between America and other countries is that we know about this and are allowed to discuss it. In some other countries, anyone who expressed disagreement would be taken in. Just because you hear about more things our government does doesn't mean they actually do more bad things than other governments. In America, things like this get out, and if needed, the government changes. That's why we have the oldest and longest-lived government of the powerful countries, it is able to adapt and fix itself. In many other countries, when there's a scandal, the government is overthrown and the country gets thrown back a few years relative to the rest of the world. Here in America, the truth (eventually) comes out, changes are made (if necessary) and the government goes on.

    12. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how you summarize all criticism as "anti-American" because you can't face some facts. I don't hate the nation, I have enjoyed being there many times before. I just wouldn't ever go back as long as the GOP runs the government and further attempts to convert the nation into neo-Nazi Germany.

    13. Re:Yay for America by andy1307 · · Score: 1
      Times like this,I'm glad I'm Canadian

      Comments like this, we're glad you are Canadian and not American.

    14. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how you summarize all criticism as "anti-American" because you can't face some facts.

      Would you care to lay out some of these "facts" I'm not facing that the parent outlined in his post?

      I just wouldn't ever go back as long as the GOP runs the government and further attempts to convert the nation into neo-Nazi Germany.

      And where, might I ask is there a direct comparision to Nazi Germany? You do realize how fucking paranoid you sound when you say that right?

    15. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're the motherfucking idiot. You can't address the facts here and at least give a well-informed response. Hell, I don't care if you support the Bush administration and their fascism as long as you can back up your opinion with evidence. Non-constructive comments like yours are just helping to prove our points about what I will now call "Amerika" *chuckle* in the Nazi spirit!

    16. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Iraq is poised to become the 51st state. Canada will now be relegated to "temporary 52nd" statehood. You should bone up on your history.

    17. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad you are too...we have far too many gutless appeasers in this country right now, we don't need cowards like you.

    18. Re:Yay for America by Beowabbit · · Score: 1
      America is supposed to be the Home of the Free and Land of the Brave. At least it was until the last few years.

      To be fair, the "home of the free" had legal slavery until the mid-19th century, had systematic government (never mind private) discrimination on the basis of race well into the 20th, and did not allow women to vote until the 20th century. Yes, things are bad now and it's pretty scary, but things were bad in the 50s, too. I'm not saying we shouldn't speak out against these sorts of apalling abuses of power, but it's not accurate to say that the US was a bastion of civil liberties until the last few years, and now everything is going downhill. Overall, over the history of the US, civil liberties seem to have improved over time on average. (I'm sure Thomas Jefferson would have been shocked if somebody told him he couldn't smoke opium if he wanted to, but I'm talking about general overall trends. I imagine he'd also have been shocked at the notion that women should be able to vote. Since he considered slavery a "necessary evil", he probably wouldn't have been shocked at the freeing of the slaves.)

      I'm as incensed as anybody about what's being done to my country and its constitution by its current rulers, so it feels a bit weird to be saying "things aren't so bad", but if you think about the lives and rights of all but white male landowners whose ancestors came from the right European countries for much of US history, well, things aren't so bad.

      (The "spreading disease" thing is definitely a concern, though, and the huge and growing ability of the US to dictate policy outside its borders is part of why I wonder at the wisdom of Québec considering secession. The real enemies of la société distincte are not Ottawa and Edmonton, but Wall Street and Washington and Hollywood.)

    19. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is that? Wouldn't want to let any freedom and liberty slip into your nation, would you?

    20. Re:Yay for America by hndrcks · · Score: 1

      The only reason we know about this (and are discussing it) is because we have a nosy press and a wired society (and thank God for that.)

      The current administration has routinely refused to even issue lists of who they are holding - without charge - on grounds of 'national security'. There are certainly people held with less visible profiles than Mr. Hawash; who are, for all intents and purposes, now 'disappeared.' Where is the transparency for them? What are you going to think when Ashcroft tells us 2 years from now, "oh, sorry, we miscounted and there were actually 2 less people held than we thought?" South American dictatorships may have operated in that manner, but it is unallowable here.

      Making the claim that the US is somehow more transparent than other countries - and that makes it all OK - is ludicrous. This administration is operating outside its legally appointed bounds - and it will pay for it,eventually. The citizens and Constituion are certainly paying for it now.

      --
      Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
    21. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for the love of God, stay in your own fucking nation. We don't need more Nazi-rights running around their world installing the rule of "Amerika" *grin* in nations they see fit or find to be a threat to their fascist way.

    22. Re:Yay for America by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      Very true. My concern comes from what we're seeing with some of the goofy laws we're creating. Laws which haven't been repealed (and they should be). DMCA, Patriot Act and so on. Very slowly like a frog in water we're seeing the temperature rise. If it continues then we like the frog will not be distinguised from other countries.

      50 years ago our Grantparents would be appalled at what we have become. You mentioned we are allowed to discuss it and for today that is true. Then of course we have other's who are telling us to "shut up" and let the Government do what it wants.

      This is not an improvement but a step back :-(

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    23. Re:Yay for America by sebi · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I really wish Slashdot had a +1 depressing option for moderators.

    24. Re:Yay for America by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      America is supposed to be the Home of the Free and Land of the Brave.

      Just for accuracy, the lyric is "Oh, say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave / Over the land of the free, and the home of the brave?"

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    25. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that whenever you elect a dumbass gov't into power, you guys come crying to Canada for protection from the very gov't you elected?

      In the '60s, we got all sorts of draft dodging refugees and now with Lord Bush having snapped under the stress of these last few years, a whole mess of Americans are setting up "summer cottages" up here. Only they aren't staying for just the summer. They're illegally staying during the winter months too. Never was like this before, and it sure as hell isn't for the weather.

    26. Re:Yay for America by pizpot · · Score: 1

      The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (National) can search without warrent, imprisson without charges for a while now.

    27. Re:Yay for America by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's because your dollar bills, when rolled up, make for inexpensive tampons :).

    28. Re:Yay for America by aminorex · · Score: 2, Informative

      Being a Canadian does very little to protect you from
      the abuses of the American government. In as much as the
      U.S. has assumed the power and authority to kill any person
      on earth at the unchecked command of the President, your
      life is safe only as long as you do not offend him. The
      nation of Canada and the Canadian way of life is secure only
      so long as it is not offensive to the purposes and plans of
      his power base, which is not the American electorate, by the
      way.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    29. Re:Yay for America by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      "Just for accuracy, the lyric is "Oh, say does that Star Spangled Banner yet wave / Over the land of the free, and the home of the brave?""

      ROFL!

      I knew as soon as I hit submit this was going to come back at me ;-)

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    30. Re:Yay for America by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      So can the SPCA. It sucks. But whatever ... at least we don't have a monkey in charge.

      And soon! Soon we will have a Manley leader!

      (John Manley, that is)

    31. Re:Yay for America by AC5398 · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah. There's nothing like living in the land of the "da proof is da proof when it's proven it's the proof and then it's proven."

      And American's think THEIR leader can't speak straight???? GWB has NOTHING on the old PM.

    32. Re:Yay for America by AC5398 · · Score: 1

      Y'all tried that once already. Let's not do that a second time.

    33. Re:Yay for America by AC5398 · · Score: 1

      Come north! Spend money! Bring Tivo with you ...

    34. Re:Yay for America by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

      "Don't worry... some politician is probably reading this and getting ready to mod me down :-)"

      Yeah, probably a drive-by down-modding.

      graspee

    35. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're dollar bills were that old, they would be quite soft and absorbant too. Though it might not be terribly sanitary to use them in that fashion. We haven't minted a dollar bill in over a decade -- unless you count the one on the loon.

      The coins aren't terribly absorbant, but you're welcome to try if you wish.

    36. Re:Yay for America by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      Being from Texas, I'm a little hazy on geography north of the Red River. But I've heard of Canadians. They're from Canadia, I think. Isn't that somewhere in northern Oklahoma?

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    37. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Planning something with North Korea that the rest of us should know about....?

    38. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erhm. They've already tried it twice. Georgie's traitors tried to "liberate" Canada after the rebellion, and again with that incident in 1812.

    39. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stunned cunt we don't have dollar bills !!

    40. Re:Yay for America by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      America is supposed to be the Home of the Free and Land of the Brave. At least it was until the last few years.

      What's really frightening is that with maroons like you running around saying things like that, you make it easy for people to get used to the idea of our freedom diminishing.

      Then another election will come, Democrats will come to power, and the bureaucrats in the Federal government will be emboldened to actually do all those things again, like last time they were in power, that will amount to a decline in freedom.

      Want freedom? You want less government. It's really that simple.

    41. Re:Yay for America by Stephen+VanDahm · · Score: 1

      "Why is it that whenever you elect a dumbass gov't into power, you guys come crying to Canada for protection from the very gov't you elected?"

      The people that move to Canada didn't vote for Bush, and therefore aren't personally responsible for what he's done in office. So, as annoying as it is for your country to be invaded by American "vacationers," they really aren't hypocrites. They go to Canada because it's very similar to the US in most respects, so they don't have to learn a new language or adapt to a radically different culture.

      I wouldn't leave the USA to move to Canada unless things over here got really bad, and I wouldn't violate Canadian immigration laws to do it. But there are some really nice areas in Canada, especially in Quebec....

    42. Re:Yay for America by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Man, fuck /funny/...you should have gotten /insightfull/. 9/11 was Bush's Reichstag.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    43. Re:Yay for America by unitron · · Score: 1
      "50 years ago our Grantparents would be appalled at what we have become."Maybe, if they stopped applauding Joe McCarthy and the blacklisting long enough to notice.

      Come to think of it wasn't it about 59 years ago that they shoehorned religion into the textile worship, I mean, Pledge of Allegience?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    44. Re:Yay for America by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      "What's really frightening is that with maroons like you running around saying things like that, you make it easy for people to get used to the idea of our freedom diminishing."

      Is that the best you can do? Innuendo?

      I've already mentioned in other posts what I've been seeing and many other's have echo'd those concerns. Democrats or Republicans. My father always said that every election year we try to elect the guy who isn't as big of a crook. I'm starting to agree.

      Provide more substance and less fizz in your next update. Thx

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    45. Re:Yay for America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you're a frigging crackhead. What've they been feedin' ya, crack?

  11. THAT'S NOTHING!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just compare it to my disappearing radioactive poop! Gwahahah"!

  12. NYT article by macshune · · Score: 4, Informative

    PORTLAND, Ore., April 3 -- For the last two weeks, Maher Hawash, a 38-year-old software engineer and American citizen who was from the West Bank and grew up in Kuwait, has been held in a federal prison here, though he has not been charged with a crime or brought before a judge.

    Relatives and friends of Mr. Hawash, who works for the Intel Corporation and is married to a native Oregonian, say he has no idea why he was arrested by a federal terrorism task force when he arrived for work at the Intel parking lot in Hillsboro, a Portland suburb. The family home was raided at dawn on the same day by nearly a dozen armed police officers, who woke Mrs. Hawash and the family's three children, friends said.

    Mr. Hawash, who is known as Mike, has yet to be interrogated and is being kept in solitary confinement, his supporters say.

    Federal officials will not comment on Mr. Hawash, though they have been pressed by Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and by a group of supporters led by a former Intel vice president, for basic information about why he is being detained.

    In a statement after his arrest, the F.B.I. said he was being held as a material witness in an "ongoing investigation" by the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Federal search warrants in the case are sealed.

    The case has drawn the attention of civil liberties groups nationwide, who say Mr. Hawash's case is an example of how the Bush administration is holding a handful of American citizens without offering them normal legal protection.

    Although at least two American citizens are being held without normal legal rights as "enemy combatants," Mr. Hawash has not been categorized as such. As a material witness, he is being held to compel testimony. But supporters say he has not been told anything about what the government may want from him.

    "Our friend has fallen into some kind of `Alice in Wonderland' meets Franz Kafka," said Steven McGeady, the former Intel executive, who started a legal defense fund and a Web site for Mr. Hawash.

    "You hear about this happening in other countries and to immigrants and then to American citizens," Mr. McGeady went on. "And finally you hear about it happening to someone you know. It's scary."

    Mr. Hawash's family thought at first that his arrest was connected to two donations he made three years ago to an Islamic charity, Global Relief Foundation, whose assets were frozen last year when federal authorities said it was linked to terrorism. But now relatives say the contributions may not be related to his arrest, and he may be asked to testify about six people charged here last year with aiding terrorism.

    Asked about the charitable donations -- which totaled a little more than $10,000 -- Mr. Hawash told the local newspaper, The Oregonian, in November: "We believed that they are doing good work. It's a well-known organization."

    Civil liberties groups say material witness statutes are being abused by the Bush administration to hold people like Mr. Hawash indefinitely. "The government doesn't have and should not have the power to arrest and detain someone without charging them," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants Rights Project. "If this kind of thing is permitted, then any United States citizen can be swept off the street and locked up without being charged."

    Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the courts have made conflicting rulings on the legality of holding material witnesses without charging them. A federal judge in Manhattan, Shira A. Scheindlin, said such detentions were "an illegitimate use of the statute," but another ruling in the same court, by Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey, said detaining witnesses to compel testimony was a legitimate investigative tool.

    Attorney General John Ashcroft has defended the tactic, saying it is "vital to preventing, disrupting or delaying new attacks."

    The Justice Department has not said how many Americans have been held without charges in terro

    1. Re:NYT article by symbolic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The case has drawn the attention of civil liberties groups nationwide, who say Mr. Hawash's case is an example of how the Bush administration is holding a handful of American citizens without offering them normal legal protection.

      The fact that this can happen at all is a frightening commentary on the current state of the U.S. federal government.

    2. Re:NYT article by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There has been no proof that the organization he donated to is or supports a terrorist organization, however. The government is just saying so and hasn't actually proven it. Certainly the organization involved is denying it -- what if they're right?

      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?

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    3. Re:NYT article by pmz · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and graduated from the University of Texas.

      This alone should put him Pres. George's "good guy" list. He'll be just fine.

    4. Re:NYT article by eht · · Score: 1

      What does this have to do with the current administration? This has always been able to happen, under any administration, ever. Authorities have always been able to hold you for questioning at any time, and can effectively been able to refuse to release you to protect you from yourself.

    5. Re:NYT article by Black_Logic · · Score: 1

      thought at first that his arrest was connected to two donations he made three years ago to an Islamic charity, Global Relief Foundation

      The moral of this story may end up being..
      Don't help people. :)

      --
      Ansi's and stupid tricks!
    6. Re:NYT article by eXtro · · Score: 1
      In addition, even if the group does have terrorist ties, did he know about it? Most people make donations without doing a lot of research into the organizations. A lot of the people I work with are devout Christians. They tithe 10% of their earnings to the church. If their church happens to take some of that money and fund radical anti-abortionists does that mean that my co-workers are terrorists?


      The group's stated purpose was to provide aid to people in Palestein. There's a possibility that some of this money was, unknown to most donors, funelled into terrorist acts.

    7. Re:NYT article by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      What could the guy have possibly done that is so horrible but so secret that the reason he is being held can't be said? Really that is just bullshit. That's not just hiding the details but hiding the whole damn case.

      As bad as the terrorist are I have trouble defending a country that uses what amounts to secret police that raid your home and steal you away without proper representation or trial. I certainly won't be voting for Bush come election day. To bad I can't vote against the FBI and the so called Homeland Security shit.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    8. Re:NYT article by zipwow · · Score: 1

      No kidding! Am I right in reading that his "sizeable sum" was $5000?

      $5k doesn't seem like a sizeable sum for an Intel contractor.

      -Zipwow

      --
      I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    9. Re:NYT article by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      "No, there's been some horrible mistake, my name is Harry Buttle!"

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    10. Re:NYT article by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      $5k doesn't seem like a sizeable sum for an Intel contractor.

      It does these days :-(.

      --
      That is all.
    11. Re:NYT article by SeanAhern · · Score: 1

      $10,000

    12. Re:NYT article by zipwow · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the correction. Different figure, same story, right? He probably sold some stock and donated some of the money. Good for him.

      This kind of action combined with all the raging patriotism makes my stomach hurt.

      -Zipwow

      --
      I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    13. Re:NYT article by SlickMickTrick · · Score: 1

      I remember a time when we were innocent until proven guilty.

    14. Re:NYT article by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      To bad I can't vote against the FBI and the so called Homeland Security shit.

      You can't vote against it directly, but you can prepare a petition and/or contact your senator. If your senator realises that his consituants feel enough about this, then he will will represent your view in either the state or federal senate.

      BTW When I see what is going on in the USA at the moment, I feel like Star Wars ep. 1 has some fightening parallels to the current reality.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    15. Re:NYT article by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      Maybe you have a point: Any COULD have tried this, and some did (Japanese Americans in WWII, anyone?). Thats not a reason to apologize for it.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    16. Re:NYT article by vena · · Score: 1

      The fact that this can happen at all is a frightening commentary on the current state of the U.S. federal government.

      we can still read about it and act, so they're not quite scary yet. more just generally unnerving. now, trying to get people to actually get off their asses and doing something... that's probably in the realm of scary.

    17. Re:NYT article by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Yes, SWPM wasn't a great movie (but better than Clones) but the political goings on are all to possible. That's why I still suspect factions of our own government of sponsoring the 9/11 attacks. At the least there have certainly been many factions taking advantage of the attacks for their own gains. A lot of damage has been done to our liberty since 9/11 in the name of safety and protection.

      In our case the government is slowly being brought under the control of the trade federation with certain high-level individuals pulling strings behind the scenes to remove the rights from the average citizens. This amounts to the upper class making the middle and lower class into slaves - without ever bothering to tell them they're slave. How long before they make it difficult for the average guy to leave or enter the country? They've mentioned making it difficult to move between states as part of their plan for security. Will it be an act of terrorism to quit your job without permission from your employer? They're already doing a good job at destroying the education system. Add anti-terrorism bullshit to education and we will no longer be teaching religion, science or advanced mathematics because it's possible that one of those kids could learn to do something dangerous. Pretty frigtening - especially since we've already seen the government making such moves.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    18. Re:NYT article by symbolic · · Score: 1


      Agreed...since politicians are generally not people of conscience, and will bend which ever way the wind blows hardest, all it would really take is the threat of losing the next election. But that's just part of the problem...the real, long-term issues come into play when it's time to clean up the mess.

  13. Scenic Bypass by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can bypass the NYTimes registration and read the article here...

  14. Media by elgrinner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What will be interesting is the media coverage. I mean, most people in the US are probably not aware that such a thing is possible and might, just *might* be a bit angered about this kind of StaSi-type of behaviour. Or maybe they'll just think "wow, great! Got another one of those terrorist bastards!"
    I think one should seriously consider the option of moving to Russia...

    --
    But my Mom says I'm cool! -Milhouse
    1. Re:Media by Lysander+Luddite · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sure they know. Remember Jose Padila? His case was in the media for what, 2-3 days?

      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.

    2. Re:Media by GoodFun!!!!!!!! · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ur so gey bush is the gratest evar y dontu go 2 kannda with all the other gey fagots

    3. Re:Media by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1
      While I wish the world wasn't like this, compare and contrast the following:

      1. Padilla has a fairly nasty criminal history, little personal achievement to speak of, and no connections. Surprisingly enough, his name still pops up in major newspapers.

      2. Hawash has a white, American-born wife, three painfully photogenic kids, was a loved, productive member of society, and (oh yeah) has a friggin' Intel ex-exec running a "Free Mike Hawash" website.

      The American public may be sheep, but the American media knows a heartstring-puller when they see one, and if they're the shepards...

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    4. Re:Media by Lysander+Luddite · · Score: 1

      The Free Mike Hawash web site is not run by him, but rather from friends of his that work/ed at Intel.

      Your second point is valid, but only goes to prove my point - white = sympathy; dark = must be a criminal.

      Regardless of Padilla's past actions being held as he is is not justified. Charge him with a crime, given him legal counsel or let him go. If you have proof of a crime start legal proceedings. There is no need to suspend habeus corpus in that case and Ashcroft knows it.

    5. Re:Media by Keith+Russell · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Remember Jose Padila? His case was in the media for what, 2-3 days?

      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?"

      --
      This sig intentionally left blank.
    6. Re:Media by rsax · · Score: 1
      I think one should seriously consider the option of moving to Russia...

      Here in Soviet Russia we frown upon people who don't say Soviet Russia.

    7. Re:Media by RLiegh · · Score: 1
      Or maybe they'll just think "wow, great! Got another one of those terrorist bastards!"

      My initial reaction was to post this article to a few music boards I've frequented. I stopped, however, and changed my mind -deciding not to- because they would have just that exact reaction.
  15. Not a suspected terrorist by Lysander+Luddite · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Note he is not being held for suspected terrorism, but as a material witness. AFAIK none of the stories I have read have seen any charges against him.

    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.

    1. Re:Not a suspected terrorist by The+G · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ashcroft is one of the big proponents of using "material witness" detentions as a way of avoiding habeus corpus. It's not being mentioned in the press because the press would rather not digify that sort of procedural bullshit. They've called it what it is: Detention without due process or habeus corpus. The press have a duty to try to be objective, but that doesn't mean they have to be gullible.
      --G

    2. Re:Not a suspected terrorist by buzzdecafe · · Score: 1, Funny

      This is a problem for me. I have also sent money to an organization that has funded countless terrorist connections, and conducted assassinations and bombings all over the globe:

      I paid my federal income taxes.

    3. Re:Not a suspected terrorist by jmv · · Score: 1

      ...but that is not the same as being held as a suspected terrorist.

      How comforting. How would you like spending 10 years in jail as a witness? It doesn't matter, you're just not suspected.

    4. Re:Not a suspected terrorist by Audity · · Score: 1
      One must wonder if he didn't have rich friends if his case would even be noticed by anybody.
      According to the article there are 43 other cases like this. None of them were profiled by major news sites; I think its reasonable to assume that these were the people without any rich friends.
    5. Re:Not a suspected terrorist by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Well gosh, if I get arrested (oops, I mean accosted by Federal agents with assault rifles and body armor) as a material witness, I'm going to be just thrilled that I'm not being held as a suspected terrorist, I'll be held because I might know a suspected terrorist. That will make me sleep oh so much better on my cot in solitary confinement.

      You, and the Attorney General, are splitting hairs.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  16. It's not the administration's fault! by ajuda · · Score: 0, Troll

    The Bush administration is not at fault. Republicans want to GIVE you back your rights. That's what they always say -- big government is bad government. It's those damn democrats who are curtailing your liberties... I mean Ashcroft was hired only thanks to a strong effort by the democrats, right? Man, this is getting confusing!

    1. Re:It's not the administration's fault! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      frighteningly enough, a lot of this stuff came into being during the Carter administration. The secret court did anyway.

    2. Re:It's not the administration's fault! by rbgrn · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse economic liberties with civil rights and social liberties...

  17. Warblogging by Forager · · Score: 5, Informative

    Warblogging.com has been covering Hawash's story, as well as the Total Information Awareness story for a good while now. "George Paine" is a well-informed writer and his links are usually pretty good.

    --
    student of animation and the fine arts
  18. Who to fear? by dfiguero · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Americans are more afraid of terrorism or of government actions... Scary stuff.

    --
    My penguin ate my sig
    1. Re:Who to fear? by gasgesgos · · Score: 1

      I'm much more afraid of the government than any terrorists...

      The government ruins innocent people's lives daily, terrorists only kill a few thousand every decade...

      I'm more afraid of being hit by a car while I'm sitting in my 3rd floor apartment than "those evil terrorists"...

      But the government seems to think it has every right to destroy a person's life... just for the hell of it.

      They must have some random number generator that picks social security numbers twice a day so they know who to throw in jail for the day...

    2. Re:Who to fear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an American, I can confidently say that I fear my government's actions and current trends much much more than I fear terrorism. We haven't gone "too far to return" yet, but I don't know how close we are to doing so...

    3. Re:Who to fear? by Alric · · Score: 1

      Heh. Your post is funny and indicative that you don't have much contact with Americans.

      The average citizen of the United States is afraid of neither terrorism nor the government.

      We are afraid that gas prices might go up more and that the economy might not rebound immediately. We are afraid that our children might be kidnapped. We are afraid that a minority group might erode our beautiful puritan culture. We are afraid of ourselves and our neighbors.

      The culture of fear in the US is bizarrely ubiquitous and yet selective.

    4. Re:Who to fear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget the government... It's the multinational corporations I'm scared of...

    5. Re:Who to fear? by Shalome · · Score: 1

      The Americans who believe what they are spoonfed from the mainstream media's constant barrage are more afraid of terrorism.

      The Americans who read, think, evaluate information, and know the Constitution and Bill of Rights are more afraid of the current government's actions.

      Ignorance breeds fear. Fear breeds easy compliance.

      I am afraid of the people who are afraid of terrorism.

      --
      Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
    6. Re:Who to fear? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " I wonder if Americans are more afraid of terrorism or of government actions."

      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.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    7. Re:Who to fear? by AssaultMonkey · · Score: 1

      I fear any group with an interrest in me and having access to greater resources than i do. This includes, but is not limited to, organized governments. The list of fear factor goes as follows: 1.US govt-for pissing on international law and our own bill of rights, for operating the largest military in the world with the most destructive weapons, and for pursuing technology and resources to monitor every member of every nation. 2.US citizens-on the whole, they are a dumb, mindless sheep herd. they supply the govt with its power and operate outside their laws when they feel like it-just like our govt! 3.my ex girlfried-she knows my weaknesses and, given a reason and chance, will exploit them. 4.fanatical groups-this includes religious zealots (militaristic or not), hicks, those that support those in power because they hold power. 5.all other governments/agencies/groups of people who would put their own agenda over other's lives and refuse to use diplomacy instead of murder. thats about it-i dont really fear the 'terrorists' our country is 'at war' with. i'm going to die sometime, if its in a show of defiance to those listed above then i'll accept that. better, although less likely, than getting killed in a car wreck.

      --
      Until our children are no longer molded into castrated sheep democracy remains a fake and a danger. -A. S. Neill
    8. Re:Who to fear? by valkraider · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Americans are more afraid of terrorism or of government actions... Scary stuff.

      What's the difference?

    9. Re:Who to fear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We fear the government more of course.

      What really bothers me is that most Americans were afraid of their government BEFORE 9/11, but suddenly became mindless drones spouting the "the government knows what's best and we shouldn't have a right to know what they do" mantra.

    10. Re:Who to fear? by elefantstn · · Score: 1

      As an American citizen, John Ashcroft provokes more apprehension in me than Osama Bin Laden. What does that tell you?


      That risk assessment is not one of your strengths.
      --
      If it ain't broke, you need more software.
    11. Re:Who to fear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. The real terrorists aren't hiding in the desert. There right here, in America, in office.

    12. Re:Who to fear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an optimist and only half right. There is no evidence against Saddam.

    13. Re:Who to fear? by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "That risk assessment is not one of your strengths."

      You tell me: one attacked my country overtly while the other erodes rights and freedoms surreptitiously, bypassing both the congress and the courts, and locks up American citizens indefinitely without charges.

      At least bin Laden declares that he wants to destroy America before he acts; Ashcroft just does it.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  19. Just In Case... by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Funny

    this story breaks the surface of the mainstream media to become a potential source of embarrassment about how the Land of the Free and the Home of Brave is treating detainess, then Plan B will be put into effect.
    mumble, mumble, protecting citizens from terrorists, mumble, mumble, Arab descent, mumble, mumble, hacker, mumble, mumble.
    and it will be time for a commercial break on CNN.
    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
    1. Re:Just In Case... by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      "mumble, mumble, protecting citizens from terrorists, mumble, mumble, Arab descent, mumble, mumble, hacker, mumble, mumble. "

      You forgot to add "mumble, mumble, P2P user, mumble, mumble, DECSS Linux user...."" ::grinz::

      Hey wait! Have a sense of humor will yah ;-)

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    2. Re:Just In Case... by Nightpaw · · Score: 4, Funny

      and it will be time for a commercial break on CNN.

      No, that's when Fox News cuts to the Operation Iraqi Freedom interstitial. Have you seen this thing? A fighter jet zooms towards you and turns into a fucking eagle. And then it screams.

      I get so fired up when I see that, I just want to strangle some dirty foreigner with an American flag. USA RULES!!!!!1

    3. Re:Just In Case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox should change it so that the eagle clutches an income statement from Halliburton and craps gold coins into the outstretched arms of defense contractors that run behind it.

    4. Re:Just In Case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. That's cool.

    5. Re:Just In Case... by arkanes · · Score: 1

      The Daily Show (better news than Fox. How fucked up is that?) played this the other day and I almost had a heart attack. I thought they faked it. I wish I was right :(

    6. Re:Just In Case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gotta tell you, I watch Fox almost exclusively. Not because it's better than CNN/MSNBC so much as I just love knowing how upset people get watching it. It cracks me the hell up to think of all the uptight "counterculturalists" having heart attacks while watching it.

    7. Re:Just In Case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, you DO know that CNN has had an article on this for at least the past three or four days, right?

    8. Re:Just In Case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All your enjoyment comes from the upset of others? You are one sad, empty individual!

    9. Re:Just In Case... by dr00g911 · · Score: 1

      I moved last month.

      The first thing I did when we got our new dish installed was to make Absolutely Goddamn Certain that Fox News didn't come up by accident while flipping channels. Bias is bad enough -- being a fucking cheerleader is a little more than one toke over the line, so to speak.

      Of course, two weeks later, I came to the conclusion that I can't watch American news coverage of the war at all without wanting to hurl heavy objects at the TV set.

      YMMV.

  20. Wow by ratajik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So, basically, three years ago he donated 10k to a charity.

    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.

    1. Re:Wow by dr_eaerth · · Score: 1

      So, basically, three years ago he donated 10k to a charity. ... And now he can be held indefinitely without charging him with a crime?

      The moral of the story? In America, don't give money to charities. It's not just a good idea, it's the (unwritten, secret) law. Really, though, while half of the US government has been busy trying to make every American into a criminal by default, while the other half realized that arresting only criminals is inefficient.

      Since the government doesn't need a reason to arrest you, the only way to stay out of solitary is to hope they don't notice you. Don't do anything to stand out and be like everyone else, and maybe you can stay out of prison.

      Funnily enough, that's the same lesson I was taught as I was growing up, but now it has some teeth. Thank you Mr. Ashmodai.

    2. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really hope there *isn't* something we don't know here. A democratic government that imprisons its own citizens for no reason I can handle. Public outcry will fix things. But a tolitarian government that imprisons its own citizens for secret reasons is very evil indeed.

    3. Re:Wow by aminorex · · Score: 1

      The Israelis often claim that Palestinian medical facilities
      are used as cover for terrorist operations. That's why they
      feel free to fire on ambulances. By administration logic,
      anyone who funds medical care for Palestinians is a financier
      of terrorism.

      Mosques, of course, are notorious as the organizational cover
      for Islamic fundamentalist terror operations.

      As for schools, well, the Taliban emerged from the Islamic
      schools of Balochistan. The only way to prevent the emergence
      of an empowered class of intelligent and educated Islamic
      fundamentalist terrorists is to eliminate the schools that
      produce them.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    4. Re:Wow by kill+-9+$$ · · Score: 2, Funny

      Its actually all to help the economy.

      1) Make example of guy who donates to charity
      2) Scare people into holding onto income
      3) Tax people on said income
      4) Profit.

      --

      -- A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard
    5. Re:Wow by unitron · · Score: 1
      "Since the government doesn't need a reason to arrest you, the only way to stay out of solitary is to hope they don't notice you. Don't do anything to stand out and be like everyone else, and maybe you can stay out of prison."

      I guess we were wrong about that whole "we won the cold war and the Soviet Union lost" thing.

      Or did Mrs. Mao and them just export the Cultural Revolution over here?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  21. Land of the free..... by DJ+Mc+Hugh · · Score: 0

    The land of the free and home of the brave......

    1. Re:Land of the free..... by wheany · · Score: 1

      One Nation Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty And Justice For All!

    2. Re:Land of the free..... by DJ+Mc+Hugh · · Score: 0

      My friend the revolution is coming :) (if I say that too load I'll be sent away)

  22. Not a good trend by West+Palm+Beach · · Score: 1

    Even though he's an important witness, he still has rights. They're treating him like a criminal though he is not. If they do not want him to flee, at least put him under strict house arrest where he'd at least be comfortable though still locked up.

    Seems to me he hasn't even committed a crime at all.

    1. Re:Not a good trend by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      Witness to what? He gave money to a charity. What did he witness? The cashing of his check?

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  23. Now you've done it... by karamellkungen · · Score: 0

    I'm sure "The Terrorists" are even more envious of your lifestyle right now. In Iran they at least get a fixed trial.

  24. Amerika by da'+WINS+pimp · · Score: 1

    But wait! Didn't we just read something almost like the earlier:

    If you don't want the government to do what it must to protect you from terrorists, you should butt out, said Heather MacDonald, a lawyer at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. She made her remarks Wednesday at the 13th annual Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference.

    This is what happens when you let hysteria determine the future of laws and the interpretation of laws. What happens when America is not America anymore? Well I guess we are about to find out.

    --

    "I'm just here to regulate funkyness." - James Gandolfini, as Winston in The Mexican
    1. Re:Amerika by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I love about that quote is that I *don't* want the government to do what it must to protect me from terrorists. Where do I sign up?

      Oh, I get it now, she dosen't care what I want.

      America, love it or leave it... guess it's time to leave.

    2. Re:Amerika by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, Heather MacDonald. She's a piece of work. "...Frequent commentator on Fox and CNN", no doubt.
      The egregious mistake of conservatism is the requirement of its lock-step, top-down mentality.

      The powers that be have decided what needs to be done, do not dare question us or we will destroy you.

      The irony of this home-grown fascism has not been missed by the rest of the world. Not dissimilar to the Taliban it found so offensive..and uncooperative (ask Unocal how that pipeline is working out now).

      Stand up to these venal idealogues while you still can. Time is running out.

  25. hmmmm by Triv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sound familiar to anyone else? Oh yeah, there was the case of Jose Padilla, an american citizen who was being held as a 'material witness' to some unknown crime, prevented from seeing his lawyer (violating the write of habeas corpus)transferred to a military brig outside Charleston, SC as an 'enemy combatant' and has yet to be charged with a crime.

    Ain't it great when the government starts repeating itself?



    Triv
    1. Re:hmmmm by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

      Abdullah al-Muhajir is being held in relation to having possibly planned a bombing attack. Glad i could help you.

      --
      If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    2. Re:hmmmm by Triv · · Score: 2, Informative

      Possibly planning a bomb attack, yes. But one witness to it has repeatedly fooled the authorities and the other has recanted his testimony. Ari Fleischer said it wasn't a plot, more like "loose talk."

      Regardless, Padilla is being held without charges in a military brig. His case started the same way - being held as a material witness for some unnamed crime. I don't care if he planned to blow up the entire country, he's got rights, and being held without the ability to see a lawyer and without being charged is a violation of those rights.

      And finally, Padilla was supposedly in on a plan to plant a "Dirty Bomb" somewhere in the 'states. That's not much of an explosive, it's a radiation hazard. Just to get your facts straight.

      Triv

    3. Re:hmmmm by Pop+n'+Fresh · · Score: 1

      Not 'was being held', IS being held. He's still there. At least, we assume he is. After all, with a government like this, he could have been executed already and we wouldn't know.

      --
      *This page intentionally left pointless*
    4. Re:hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And finally, Padilla was supposedly in on a plan to plant a "Dirty Bomb" somewhere in the 'states. That's not much of an explosive, it's a radiation hazard. Just to get your facts straight. "

      Yeah I doubt you would be calling it "not much of an explosive" if it went off in your city. If they got enough radioactive crap and a decent sized explosion, just the dust settling would cause some massive problems.

    5. Re:hmmmm by Craig+Davison · · Score: 1

      He still has rights. You know, those rights that provide him A) decent treatment, B) thorough examination of the facts and C) a way out if he's actually not guilty.

    6. Re:hmmmm by Triv · · Score: 1

      nono, read it again. He WAS being held as a material witness, he's NOW being held as an enemy combatant.

    7. Re:hmmmm by larien · · Score: 1
      Try this for size.

      Last I checked (November), he was still being held in solitary and had been denied access to a lawyer.

      It stinks, just like camp X-Ray. This "enemy combatent" crap is just an excuse to lock up anyone they don't like the look of.

    8. Re:hmmmm by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Informative

      " Abdullah al-Muhajir is being held in relation to having possibly planned a bombing attack. Glad i could help you."

      His name is Padilla; read the court documents. Using his Islamic aka doesn't make him any more guilty, nor any less deserving of his rights as an American citizen. I suspect that the reason you like using his aka is because it makes you feel better about the government's ridiculously illegal attitude about the whole thing.

      Secondly, all suspects are being held in relation to having possibly commited or attempting to commit a crime; hence the title "suspect", from the word: suspected. Being suspected of a crime is in no way an indication of guilt; in fact, it is just the opposite. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers.

      Thirdly, Senators on the Senate Intelligence Commitee who have seen the sealed report detailed the "evidence" against Mr Padilla have commented publicly that the evidence is very weak. As one put it, (paraphrasing) 'I'm all for locking up the bad guys, but you've got to have evidence.'

      Fouthly, unlike John Ashcroft's doomsday-sounding press counference, which talked of stopping a terrorist plot in progress, the Bush administration, through the deputy secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, said that there was no bomb, there was no target, there was no plan outside of some "loose talk". Jose Padilla is accused of travelling to foreign countries (oh no, not that), possibly meeting with some Al Qaeda opperatives (good Lord, not that freedom of association thing again), and possibly doing some research online about so-called "dirty bombs". Hell, I looked online for information about dirty bombs after seeing this horrifying announcement mentioning radiation, mass death, and mass destruction. What did I find? That probably every death caused by a "dirty bomb" would be caused by the explosion; not radiation exposure. Experts commenting on the prospect of a dirty bomb's radiological effects said basically that those exposed to the radiation of a dirty bomb would have more to fear from smoking than they would from the radiation. In other words, the radiation would be at such low doses as to cause little more than minor radiation poisoning.

      Glad I could help you

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    9. Re:hmmmm by grmoc · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.
      There are many areas of law, IP in particular where you can be guilty until proven innocent, which is the straightforward way of saying: "The burden of proof rests on the defendant."

      In any case, the way society (i.e. the media, which is most of what -makes- society today :/) acts towards suspects is that they are guilty. None of this innocent stuff, they're just plain guilty all of their life.

      Being suspected IS an indication of guilt. If they didn't suspect you were guilty (of something, who knows what or why), they wouldn't make the effort to do something to or about you.

      Innocent until proven guilty is a beautiful concept that most americans have thrown out the window because it harder to wrap their minds around imho.

    10. Re:hmmmm by Squelch+Oil · · Score: 0

      Many of us looked up online info on dirty bombs. However, I think it is safe to say that none of us that were simply curious followed up on that research by going overseas to meet with Al Qaeda operatives. I believe that would be considered a significant difference by most people. When someone starts investing money into a venture, that is a pretty sound indication that things have moved beyond the just curious stage.

    11. Re:hmmmm by rhizome · · Score: 1

      There are many areas of law where the burden of proof rests on the accused, but criminal law isn't one of them. Thanks for playing. Nice justification of blind vengeance, tho.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    12. Re:hmmmm by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Let me rephrase:

      You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Those Americans who are too lazy or complacent to understand the concept ignore it. A presumption of guilt turns a judicial system into a rubber stamp sham. God help us if we ever reach that point.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    13. Re:hmmmm by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "When someone starts investing money into a venture, that is a pretty sound indication that things have moved beyond the just curious stage."

      You assume he went overseas to meet with Al Qaeda operatives.
      You assume he met with Al Qaeda operatives.
      You assume he looked up information on dirty bombs.

      Even the US government hasn't publicly gone so far as to claim those assumptions. What they have done is said that he travelled oversease. The reason? Who knows; he went to a lot of places, many of them sacred Islamic holy places. Islam != terrorism. Travel is not illegal so far as I know. Nor is chatting with friends, even if they're accused of crimes. Otherwise, all of Tim McVeigh's friends and family would be in a navy brig as we speak. Nor is it illegal to look up information that is publicly available. Otherwise, myself and 200 million other Americans would be in a navy brig right now.

      If they truly had evidence against this man, he would be in a courtroom, not a brig. He sits incommunicado because the administration knows it has insufficient evidence to convict him in any court; even a military tribunal.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    14. Re:hmmmm by grmoc · · Score: 1

      Now -that- I agree with.

    15. Re:hmmmm by Squelch+Oil · · Score: 0

      When he was arrested the statement was made that he had gone overseas to meet with Al Queda operatives. Since a passport, visa and airline tickets are relatively easily tracked, I believe that it would be easy for the government to determine where he went. Obviously not as easy to determine who he met with. The only assumption I am making is that the government did not lie about that. I would posit that you are making assumptions as well. In the end it may turn out that the government did lie, I hope not, but I am not foolish enough to believe that the government is always honest. I need look no further than Ruby Ridge or Waco to see glaring examples of government duplicity.

    16. Re:hmmmm by radish · · Score: 1

      IP law is civil, not criminal. Innocent until proven guilty is the basis of the criminal judicial system in most countries of the world, including the USA, Europe, Oceania and most of Asia.

      As for the burden of proof, well there I have to bow to other's knowledge of the US system. If it's how you say (i.e. burden rests on the defendant), well that sucks. In the UK the difference is merely one of degree. In a criminal case the defendant must be judged guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt", whereas in a civil case he must be guilty "on the balance of probabilities". You can equate this to "must be 100% certain" and "more than 50% certain". It may be different, but the US system is based on the UK one, so if they have changed it then it sounds like that one was for the worse.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    17. Re:hmmmm by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "In the end it may turn out that the government did lie, I hope not, but I am not foolish enough to believe that the government is always honest. I need look no further than Ruby Ridge or Waco to see glaring examples of government duplicity."

      Hence my ranting and raving about Padilla's right to a trial in which evidence obtained can be examined, and charges of crimes may be put to the test. If he's guilty, lock him up; if he's innocent, set him free; but locking him up with no trial whatsoever shows, to me, a complete and utter lack of confidence in the case against him.

      In other words: he needs a trial. Agreed?

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    18. Re:hmmmm by grmoc · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll gve you an example then--

      If someone who has a patent sues someone indicating "patent infringement," then, as far as I know, the burden of proof of innocense rests on the shoulders of the accused.

    19. Re:hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a Civil case NOT a criminal one.

    20. Re:hmmmm by grmoc · · Score: 1

      Yup, but it can still ruin your life.

    21. Re:hmmmm by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      Actually this is not true. He hasn't been charged with anything. He is being held just because the president called him a terrorist.

      The irony is that Ashcroft admitted on TV that even he does not know where this guy is. My guess is that he is in "hotel california" which is a concentration camp outside the US borders.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    22. Re:hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before joining the Clinton administration, Janet Reno was State Attorney General for Dade County during the Satanic Panic days. In a case involving alleged ritual child abuse she had the wife of the accused - an innocent material witness - in solitary for months to coherce a testimony more supportive of the prosecution. The woman finally broke down and did as asked, leaving the country permanently afterwards. What we're talking about here isn't new and has become part of the standard judicial toolkit. Clinton grotesquely expanded its powers during his War on Drugs but people were too distracted and charmed to pay any attention. I'll give Ashcroft this over the previous administration, he embodies an evil worthy of a Reich Information Minister but at least he's up front and unapologetic about his bullshit.

    23. Re:hmmmm by CentrX · · Score: 1

      Ironically, tobacco smoke is full of radiation that gets into your lungs.

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
  26. Too bad... by Eric+P.+Henus · · Score: 1

    There are quite a few people in that situation... If I was of middle-eastern decent, I would be really nervous.

    And at the rate that laws are changing, all citizens will be really nervous (think Patriot Act).

    Personally, I think that Bush and crew are really taking advantage of the situation.. but I cannot figure out why. Why would they need to be so paranoid?

    1. Re:Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at http://newamericancentury.com. Pay close attention to the names on various pages.

    2. Re:Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mistake:

      http://newamericancentury.org

    3. Re:Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are of Middle Eastern descent, go home.
      Hint: that isn't here.

    4. Re:Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only citizens. I am not going to travel to the US of A until you people have gone back to a free, democratic society.

  27. New bumper sticker by jvmatthe · · Score: 1, Funny

    Free Kevin^H^H^H^H^HMike!

    This extra long bumper sticker will go well on all those huge SUVs Americans enjoy so much.

  28. We're fighting terrorism, right? by cperciva · · Score: 5, Funny

    After 9/11, Bush made two statements:
    1. "Terrorists hate America because America is a land of freedom and opportunity."
    2. "We intend to attack the root causes of terrorism."

    Sounds like everything is going according to plan.

    1. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it also follows that once we "free" Iraq the terrorists will hate them too...

    2. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by Nightpaw · · Score: 1

      And what are we going to do with our crusty old freedom and opportunity? Give it to Iraq!

    3. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by unborracho · · Score: 1

      Ehh... people hate America for all sorts of reasons. I'm not much of a political person myself, but if you ask me, the primary reason why middle easterns and all other people that kill americans in the name of Allah is our foreign policy.

      Yes, this is a weak argument, but let's face it. We get involved in many situations where we'd be best staying the hell out of (Vietnam, Kosovo situation, "The Holy Land" comes to mind).

      I'm sure though, however, that the list of reasons why people hate America extends for endless miles, but personally I see this as the biggest issue out there.

      --
      "You had this look that of an angel, it was such a bad disguise" --Dishwalla
    4. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by Surak · · Score: 1

      I'd like to mod you as both funny AND insightful, but the system won't let me. :)

    5. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by TulioSerpio · · Score: 1

      Extraordinay post!
      But I'm sorry the plan include clear some countries.

      --

      I'm from Argentina: Tango, Asado, Mate, Gaucho, Maradona, YPF

    6. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Don't forget

      3. "Profit"

      $80 billion is a lot of business for the bomb makers/ fuel suppliers/ oil well construction companies

    7. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      no, they attack because there religouse leaders tell them to. the relegouse leaders are using there power over these people to attempt and dictate policy. Whether its american policy or not.

      I would not say nots the best to stay out of when this petty warlord dictator is torturing and murdering people. Unfortunatly, this dictator has religous friends, so when he asked them to have there followers blow themselves up, they do so whith out thinking.

      No, this is not an anti-muslim post. This can happen in any sect of a religeon when the leaders become more important then the text in which the claim to believe.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by larien · · Score: 1
      I can't remember where I heard it, but comment was made that the war on Iraq would create "100 Osama bin Ladens". That may be an exaggeration, but Iraq in a few months' time will be a fairly good recruitment arena for Al Qaeda as they'll talk up the civilian bombings and killings and find plenty people who have reason to hate America.

      Why do so many hate America? Because America is far too keen on pushing it's views down everyone else's throats and bombing/threatening anyone who doesn't agree with them. Essentially you're right; it is your foreign policy.

    9. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you have a picture of Saddam on your wall, eh hippie?

      Keeping NO foreign policy is worse, which is what you suggest. And keeping ONLY passive foreign policies would be redundant... we have the UN for that.

      Read about Iraq's athletes. That should clue you in.

      Sometimes, a person has to be inhuman to be human, in the cases you mention, it is our HUMAN duty to protect HUMANITY!

    10. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by RebelWithoutAClue · · Score: 1

      Mind if I use those lines ?

      --
      "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
    11. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by cperciva · · Score: 1

      Ask Bush, not me; I was only quoting him. ;)

    12. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by Sevn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      America is far too keen on pushing it's views down everyone else's throats and bombing/threatening anyone who doesn't agree with them.

      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.

      --
      For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
    13. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by axxackall · · Score: 1
      Soviet Union was very successful in same plans (using same methods), until Soviet Union "disappeared" itself, as a country.

      Wait a bit, it won't take too long until such "country disappearance" will happen to US. At most 70 years.

      --

      Less is more !
    14. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      In Soviet Russia, Soviet Russia is disappeared by you!

    15. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
      This can happen in any sect of a religeon when the leaders become more important then the text in which the claim to believe.

      Like with Robertson, Falwell, and the yahoos who run the Family Research Council over here? Thanks for validating the point of the original article.

      --
      That is all.
    16. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by Dissonant · · Score: 1

      US foreign policy infuriates the masses in the middle east, and makes them infinitely more inclined to listen to these extremist leaders. If most of the people didn't already hate the States, groups like Al-Qaeda would have an impossible time finding recruits.

    17. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Just as a point of fact, most Moslem leaders (the equivilent of the Council of Cardinals in Catholicism, but with more authority) resisted urging to declare jihad against the US until the actual invasion of Iraq - not just the threats, but the actual armed invasion. Thats seems pretty reasonable to me.

    18. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by Saeger · · Score: 1
      But the U.S. is imposing righteous FREEDOM, not hate, so what's the problem with our bombing mission (a pun)? I mean, c'mon, don't the Iraqi's Deserve A Break Today(tm) too?

      Everyone knows that Good and Evil is black and white, and that might makes right.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    19. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by mr100percent · · Score: 1
      Your idea is good in theory, but you don't really understand the power structure in Islam. There really aren't religious leaders like that, not at the moment anyway.

      The ones who support terrorism were and always will be, the fringe. On the edge and a minority.

      Look at Sheikh Qaradawi, he's watched by millions on Arab TV. He's a modern and I think Western scholar, and respected by LOTS of people.

      Al Azhar, the top scholars in Islam, condemned Bin Laden's call for war. Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi said September 11 was wrong and against Islam, and showed everyone that Bin Laden had no credentials and wasn't a scholar.

      However, 18 months later, the US declares war on Iraq. They've alienated the Islamic community (assuming they hadn't already by Bush's unconditional pro-Israeli stance that makes Clinton a saint in comparison), which was its best hope. The same sheikh now says it's a "binding Islamic duty" to resist an American attack. Religious leaders are realigning to echo that.

      Islam commands people to never fight except in self defense. Well, people say fighting in Iraq is self defense against invasion.

    20. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by killing humans with different opinions?

    21. Re:We're fighting terrorism, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it also follows that once we "free" Iraq the terrorists will hate them too...

      Already happened. Not heard about the bombings there?

  29. Read sig by fussman · · Score: 0


    Look

    --
    Support Israeli punk bands. Man Alive.
  30. Democracy? by miffo.swe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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."

    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.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
    1. Re:Democracy? by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

      For the love of... not another reference to the fall of Rome!!!

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
    2. Re:Democracy? by NewWazoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh my GOD!

      The USA is going to be invaded by the Ostogoths? I'd better move to Constantinople quick, then!

      (rolls eyes)

      Brandon

    3. Re:Democracy? by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      Rome had infact declined long before that and was a puny fraction of its former greatness.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    4. Re:Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll even bet if he is found to be innocent that the Gov't won't even tell him they're sorry. I wonder who will pay for his lost wages. Kind of a terrible way to use up your vacation time, if you ask me.

    5. Re:Democracy? by Fratz · · Score: 1
      I'm already afraid of the changes I'm seeing in our government's treatment of us. If it gets too bad, citizens do have the right to revolt, and thanks to our gun laws, we may have the means to do it.

      Of course if the Republicans announce that they're suddenly all in favor of gun control, I'm moving to Canada immediately.

      --
      -- Fratz, human
    6. Re:Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: Rome fell because generations of Romans had been poisoned by the lead in all the aqueducts.

      "Lead can harm virtually every system in the human body. Lead is particularly harmful to the developing brain and nervous system of fetuses and young children. In many cases there are no visible symptoms of elevated blood-lead levels or lead poisoning."

      Rome fell because everyone became developmentally disabled. All the problems leading to the Fall can be linked to this one fact.

    7. Re:Democracy? by pgrote · · Score: 1

      Is there a good book that describes how and why Rome fell?

    8. Re:Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is imploding far faster than anyone would imagine.

      "Far faster" and "anyone" and "imagine". Nice wording. Could you spread the exaggerations and panic a little faster?!

      And consider that you may not be privy to the extent of everyone's imagination. But nice try.

    9. Re:Democracy? by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      Unfortunatly there arent since it is debated still in this very moment. It was a number of factors like economic downfall, currency dropping, military weakening and managment issues (imagine what would happen to the dollar if all of a sudden everyone whould start trading in euro instead). What is debated is how large part the various reasons had in the downfall. My own view is that when a country starts alienating itself from its own citizens is when it is going down the tubes.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    10. Re:Democracy? by Watcher · · 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.

    11. Re:Democracy? by pgrote · · Score: 1

      What about expansion? Didn't they expand their land holding too far to support and defend?

      That's a bummer on the book. I've always thought world super powers last about 300 years and then it's someone else's turn.

    12. Re:Democracy? by binarybits · · Score: 1

      Do you even have any idea how and why the Roman empire fell? Here's a hint: the process took nearly 400 years from the fall of the republic to the collapse of the Roman empire. So if we consider the last 50 or 100 years as the rise of the American empire, that means we can count on at least another 300 years of Pax Americana before the barbarians start breaching our gates. Even if we assume that America has been an empire since 1776, that still gives us 150 more years.

    13. Re:Democracy? by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      If you havent noticed, things move alot quicker today than a couple of hundred years ago. Things move alot quicker today. And i think this is the BEGINNING of a downwards spiral with ups and downs on the way if nothing is done about it. A country that is built upon expansion cannot stand tall forever. Either it adjusts its intake to its outlet or it implodes by nature.

      You know, the world isnt endless like space.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    14. Re:Democracy? by ENOENT · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I would really like to read about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, too. Any book suggestions?

      --
      That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
    15. Re:Democracy? by gughunter · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard, "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" has some information on the subject.

    16. Re:Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! Mod parent up.

    17. Re:Democracy? by jwilloug · · Score: 1

      If it gets too bad, citizens do have the right to revolt, and thanks to our gun laws, we may have the means to do it.

      Flip on CNN, you can watch the US military take apart Iraqi militias who are much better armed and trained than all but the nuttiest American civilians. A civil war, maybe, but there will never be another revolution.

    18. Re:Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You claims that citizens have the right to revolt. Most of the 1st 10 admenments to the Constitution guarantee many rights that are helpful to those wishing to revolt. Those rights were added because the British were so good at removing thouse same rights in the 1770s. The only catch is you have to win or else you have to deal with that treason issue. Of course there is the interesting question of bringing treason charges to members of the goverment that directly violate the consitution as well but right now, there is no procedure to do that at the high levels.

    19. Re:Democracy? by MKalus · · Score: 1

      There is a slight mistake in your calculation.

      Well not really the calculation but the basis you operate from.

      Rome didn't rise to power in 50 years, it took rome a couple of hundred years until it reached it's vastest expanse.

      As such if you take the same measurement on the American Empire your downfall could happen a lot faster, and I am pretty sure it will. The world is "smaller" these days and the speed is a lot faster. What allowed the US to grap power in mere 50 years can also topple it in as much time, if not faster.

      Usually getting up takes a lot longer than falling down. So I wouldn't count on just another 150, or 300 years. It could happen in our lifetime.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    20. Re:Democracy? by Ozan · · Score: 1

      I'm already afraid of the changes I'm seeing in our government's treatment of us. If it gets too bad, citizens do have the right to revolt,

      Don't forget that it's only called revolution afterwards if the citizens actualy succeed with their effort. If not you're in deep shit as the government can call and prosecute you as terrorists as well.

      and thanks to our gun laws, we may have the means to do it.

      You don't think that a few pumpguns and .44s can impress the national guard, do you? No, the next revolution will have to use other weapons than those toys for grown-ups.

    21. Re:Democracy? by pgrote · · Score: 1

      I checked that out and from what I understand it's a narrative and uses the moral decline of society for the breakdown. I'm looking for something that examines all the issues and provides analysis; not just narrative. Thanks, though for the suggestion.

    22. Re:Democracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ran out of land to conquer and loot, causing economy to go to hell?

      Seems unlikely here.

  31. Disappeared? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Disappeared" would imply that no one knew where he was.

    There are regimes in the world that actually do this, like Iraq and Iran. Some of the South American governments were infamous for this.

    So, the issue might be that he is being detained without due process or habeas corpus rights, but please don't confuse the issue and say the US government "disappeared" him.

    1. Re:Disappeared? Really? by aminorex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree that the use of the term 'disappeared' as a verb
      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.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    2. Re:Disappeared? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any proof that Iraq and Iran do this? Please post it.

    3. Re:Disappeared? Really? by Flamerule · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Your objection is noted. But let's be clear: it's a trivial difference between seizing someone and placing them in an unknown facility, and seizing someone and holding them incommunicado in a known facility.
      Some of the South American governments were infamous for this.
      Heh. South American governments like Chile, under Pinochet? Whose disgusting coup, subsequent tyrannical dictatorship, and years of oppression and murder by his secret police were conducted with the support and aid of the CIA, NSA, and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger?
      So, the issue might be that he is being detained without due process or habeas corpus rights
      It rolls off the tongue so smoothly, doesn't it? No due process, habeas corpus... no big deal.
      please don't confuse the issue and say the US government "disappeared" him.
      It's not confusing at all; the difference is trivial. At this point, all the U.S. has going for it is that Mr. Hawash will not be killed by his captors. Give it 5 more years, though, and maybe we'll be rapidly closing in on 1984's Oceania.
    4. Re:Disappeared? Really? by TulioSerpio · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm shame of this, but I beleave Argentina "invent" the word. Here we have 30000 desaparecidos. The US goverment know this, and did nothing. Don't know if Saddam is worse than Videla (our dictator in the 70s), but Videla couldn't did what he did without the OK of the US goverment.
      I do think the US can made it worse. The US made bad bad things in other countries, and imagine a dirty war IN the US.

      --

      I'm from Argentina: Tango, Asado, Mate, Gaucho, Maradona, YPF

    5. Re:Disappeared? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are people disappearing. He would have been one of them, but he was lucky that the people he knew outside were able to make a lot of noise.

      He has had only "limited" contact with his lawyer and family, how much do you think he would have had if no one said anything?

    6. Re:Disappeared? Really? by irn_bru · · Score: 1

      The quote marks around disappeared are not there to state that he has actually 'disappeared'. They are there to indicate that the process of his incarceration by the US government is similar to a banana-republic style disappearance.

      It can be confusing that quote marks are used to indicate both direct quotes - statements of fact but also to denote the use of a metaphorical concept. This would be more of a problem for those who do not have a knowledge of the modus operandi of various Latin American countries in the 1970s. Since you do, however, I wonder why you are so confused. As English may not be your first language, you get the benefit of the doubt.

    7. Re:Disappeared? Really? by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that Videla had to seek the approval of the United States for his crimes against humanity? The generals running Argentina in the 1980's didn't ask President Reagan for permission to invade the Malvina/Falkland islands. And what could the United States have done about the situation other than to do what we are doing to Iraq right now?

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    8. Re:Disappeared? Really? by goon+america · · Score: 1
      Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

      -- Reich-Marshall Herman Goering.

      A friend in Germany sent me that.

    9. Re:Disappeared? Really? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      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.

      Believed by whom? By crackpots on a conspiracy theory newsgroup, and some leftist organization that needed bullet points on a fundraising brochure to scare the liberals into donating??

      Amazingly so, in the countries where this 'disappear' stuff does happen, there aren't big forums like slashdot and 'alternative' news organizations allowed to spread the alarm. So we really don't have to worry until all the ranting goes silent.

    10. Re:Disappeared? Really? by thirdrock · · Score: 1

      Amazingly so, in the countries where this 'disappear' stuff does happen, there aren't big forums like slashdot and 'alternative' news organizations allowed to spread the alarm. So we really don't have to worry until all the ranting goes silent.

      Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and WRONG. When the ranting starts is EXACTLY the time to start worrying. When it goes silent, it is too late, you are already living in a Police State, and it is illegal to complain about it.

      --
      >>
      I am the director, and this is my movie ...
    11. Re:Disappeared? Really? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Naw. When the ranting starts is time to start sending in the donations in envelopes.

      Quicklike now! The copier in the main office doesn't have all the features we'd like it to, and we need new rubber tree plants in the ACLU lobby!

    12. Re:Disappeared? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on! To the barricades, Brother!

    13. Re:Disappeared? Really? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of people don't care, or simply
      trust the goverment so much that they discount
      any reports of wrongdoing as 'crackpot' 'conspiracy
      theory'. That, in conjunction with a very effective
      control over the mass media by 5 corporations with
      an intimate revolving-door relationship with the
      administration, creates the conditions for what
      Mussolini called 'corporatism', or 'fascism' --
      our current system of governance.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  32. YRO? by truthsearch · · Score: 1

    Your Rights Online?

    It seems to relate more to offline, doesn't it?

    1. Re:YRO? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      Ah, but due to the wonderful ambiguity of the english language, "Your Rights Online" can be taken as "Your rights when you are online" or, "Your rights, described online in great detail." The "or lack thereof" applies to both, however.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    2. Re:YRO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever. It's still YRO, isn't it?

    3. Re:YRO? by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Online activism is a legitimate topic for YRO, and the more so
      when it is in defense of the rights of geeks.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    4. Re:YRO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since the guy was kidnaped (what other term is there?) because of a charitable donations, I guess the moral of the story is to watch who you send money to through PayPal.

  33. Direct Link To Article by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 1

    Just subsitute "archive" for "www" in the server name - works for all the NYT articles. here's the link.

  34. boohooo poor kevin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You slashdotters crack me up. You use Kevin Mitnick as an example, as if he was locked up for doing nothing wrong. Show me someone who has been imprisoned even though they were innocent and I will give a crap. Personally I wouldn't give a crap if Kevin was locked up for life. He was so guilty it wasn't funny. He was knowingly breaking the law not just once, but thousands of times. I am sure that Intel employee is not an innocent bystander either.

    1. Re:boohooo poor kevin by etymxris · · Score: 1
      Show me someone who has been imprisoned even though they were innocent and I will give a crap.

      Happens all the time. That's why even the accused have rights. If things like this can happen even when all procedures of law are followed, imagine what can happen when all the procedures are bypassed in the name of "security".
  35. Old news, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here's my links (other than the ones already mentioned in the article):

    Oregonian

    The Register

    Dan Gillmor

    DirectX, RDX RSX and MMX Technology

    (I didn't bother submitting it 5 days ago when I first found out about it, because of /.'s 99% rejection rate.)

  36. Is this news for nerds? by robbo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems to me that the only reason why slashdot would post this story is the fact that he's an Intel employee. If he weren't an engineer and worked at Wal-Mart, the story would be ignored. Makes you wonder just how many 'detainees' there are in the states, not counting Guantanamo, of course. ;-)

    --
    So long, and thanks for all the Phish
    1. Re:Is this news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he ... worked at Wal-Mart, the story would be ignored.

      Actually, if he worked at wal-mart, the story would be something like "Wal mart employee saves $5000 over 19 years."

    2. Re:Is this news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is the "Stuff that matters" part

    3. Re:Is this news for nerds? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Well, some would say that pretty much anybody trapped in a dead end WalMart job is a 'detainee' of sorts.

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. Very Very dangerous by st0rmcold · · Score: 1


    Welcome to the beginning of the end, this is where it all starts.

    Guilty until proven innocent will reign the USA.

    Sad thing is, no one is seeing it :(

    --
    Posting useless rant since 2003.
    1. Re:Very Very dangerous by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. You start by turning 'citizens' into 'criminal that hasn't been caught yet'. And that stage has been underway for years, though they've recently picked up the pace. You would probably be shocked to know how many felonies you'd be found guilty of if law enforcement felt they wanted to enforce them.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  39. Office Space 2...i can see it now. by macshune · · Score: 1
    Samir Nayeenanajar gets disappeared by the Feds and Peter, Michael Bolton, and Lawrence try to get him out with clever programming tricks & ugly sticks.

    Yeah, I rhymed.

  40. With Bush in power, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bush, the closest thing to fascist we've ever had.

    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 who bolstered Saddam 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, headed by Big Brother himself.

    So much has been lost in just 3 years.

    1. Re:With Bush in power, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well lets see here.

      "Economy was good" Seams to me that this is when the ecconomy was being dominated by companies with names like ENRON, WORDLCOM, etc. the FAKE economy was great but it was not REAL

      "President was brokering peace between Israel and Palestine" Yep, and giveing them deadlines that were basicly "end of my term, I want the credit"

    2. Re:With Bush in power, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though your ideas have merit... there are still some real things to consider.

      There were jobs then and there isn't now (not near as many out there). I am not defending a past or present President mind you... just the proof supporst the parent. You are obviously a devout Republican. More jobs == better economy (rule of thumb?).

      Note that ANY brokering of peace is always on the terms of the warring parties. The broker must be in good standing with both or it won't work (as it didn't work and won't work with Palestine and the US brokering it). Sure, the moderator will take more credit than the other 2... but so does a conductor to an orchestra. Note, if they didn't need a moderator, they wouldn't be warring.

    3. Re:With Bush in power, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, and giveing them deadlines that were basicly "end of my term, I want the credit"

      "end of my term, because I won't be in the same position to help you any more"

      And many of the negioations ended well before Clintons term was over. Remember how well they were going? ANd then things started to collapse, and our idiot of a president made almost no effort to hold the fragile treaty together.

    4. Re:With Bush in power, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The finer points of economics and foreign diplomacy can be debated at length and gold stars awarded to whomever you like. But you can't honestly suggest that Bush's influence on either has been anything but astoundingly negative.

    5. Re:With Bush in power, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Lincoln and Roosevelt were the closest to fascism we have ever been. GW Bush is probably in third place on the fascism scale.

    6. Re:With Bush in power, what do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can thank Regean fior the good economy. Clinton destroyed it along with Enron and Worldcom. The dot bust didn't help either. This shitty economy was in the making since 1996. Clinton was NOT bringing peace to Palestine and Israeal. THey still haite and giht each other. It was jsut a series of phot ops and something to build his legacy on. THe other problem wasn't that he had sex with an intern. It was tyhe fact he lied under oath and squirmed his way out of it by doing things like asking what the defintion of the word "is" is.

    7. Re:With Bush in power, what do you expect? by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      Economy crashing: Why? Because of Enron, Global Crossing, and the dotcom crash - none of which were caused by Bush.

      Questionable and bloody war for oil - you are correct on this at least. We certainly wouldn't be in Iraq if it were not for Bush. But it hasn't been that bloody, yet.

      Same people who bolstered Saddam? So what. Does this mean we should have supported Saddam in 1990-1991 because he was somehow the product of our will? If so, then why didn't he follow orders?

      Bush administration silencing political critics? Who? Name one. Name one person who has been prevented from voicing his opinion. Sure, there's Martin Sheen, but he duct-taped his own mouth shut. Sure, Bush and the administration has been criticizing as unpatriotic people opposed to their policies. But they have the same First Amendment right of free speech as you do.

      And as for Palestine, remember last year when a shipload of arms was discovered - arms that the Palestinian authority agreed not to have? I suppose, it's Bush's fault that they were cheating, and it's Bush's fault that the Israelis overreact.

      And finally, what on earth makes you think that Bush is a fascist? There were two honestly fascist nations - Germany and Italy. When Bush orders dissenters executed, and opens up concentration camps for Arabs, I'll believe he's a fascist. What Bush is is a person who is doing things you don't like. But labeling him as a fascist is denegrating the suffering of the people who were victims of real-life fascism.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    8. Re:With Bush in power, what do you expect? by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      Economy is crashing, > 6% unemployment rate is common in urban areas across the country

      Due to the dot com crash. You remember the dot com market, don't you? Where sites like Yahoo, who had little to no revenue, were selling stock for $160 a share? The market was total bullshit and investors finally realized it. THAT is the problem with our economy right now.

      The current president has little to do with the economy. These things are built up over time. Gore could be in office right now and the economy would still be shit. Deal with it.

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    9. Re:With Bush in power, what do you expect? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      It was jsut a series of phot ops and something to build his legacy on

      And yet, the bombs and tanks stopped for a short while. Each side quit killing each other for a bit while their leaders talked it out. It was the best step towards peace in almost 20 years.

      There was some success, and it was quickly lost when our current president decided to not capitalize on the sucess of the previous administrations.

      It was tyhe fact he lied under oath

      True, but his tactics were no less honorable then those of his enemies. Why the hell were the Republicans questioning him about his sex life in the first place? It was none of their business. What did that have to do with ANYTHING??

      Christ, it all started out as a fairly legitimate investigation into Clinton's real-estate buisness, and ended up as a sex scandal. What the hell happened?

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  41. Nice title. Really objective. by Gannoc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Not that I think that ./ is an objective news site, but since this has absolutely nothing to do with technology or online rights, he did not "disappear".

    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.

  42. police state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah folks when a techno turd gets nabed /. pays attention.

    This county is turning into a freak show.

    For some unpleasant truths see..

    Here,
    Here,
    Here,
    Here,

    For the solution go Here,

    1. Re:police state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should be http://www.aljazeerah.info/

    2. Re:police state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah regime change!
      Here,

    3. Re:police state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For some more unpleasant truths, see...

      This,

      This,

      This,

      This,

      This,

      This

      For the solution, wait for the Second American Revolution.

    4. Re:police state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Revolution, yeah the two of us!
      Peoples minds are so closed and filled with illusions of "freedom". They can not see what is in front of their face.

      The info is there but the ability to think is gone..

  43. hot damn by EZmagz · · Score: 1
    From the Wired article:

    Though he's guessing, McGeady said it was possible Hawash was targeted because of charitable donations he made in 2000 to the Global Relief Foundation, a Muslim charity that purported to fund mosques and schools in the United States, as well as West Bank medical facilities.

    If this IS the reason Hawash was detained, and it turns out he had absolutely no reason to be held against his will for so long, I hope there's hell to pay. Seriously, the organization was found to be legit, so wtf is the issue? That he donated $10K? Shit, if I HAD the money, I'd donate that much to the American Diabetes Associated right now. And being that he's a contractor for Intel, I'm sure he had a little bank saved up.

    Regardless, this is getting absolutely scary. And for all those "If you have nothing to hide..." folks out there, save your breath. Come and tell me that when your mother's detained for being the 10th degree of seperation between her and some kid who sold groceries to a SUSPECTED terrorist.

    --

    "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."

    1. Re:hot damn by BrynM · · Score: 1
      (INAL)In order to sue for wrongful arrest, he would have had to have been charged with a crime. Unfortunately, he was not and will probably be released (who knows when) with a mere "sorry about that". I've known a couple of people that were actually charged (falsly) for a crime that got similar results (OK, 1 got the exra perk of missing jury duty being forgiven - they were in jail).

      Sorry but law enforcement has a lot of tools to use in this country and very few real reprocussions.

      --
      US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    2. Re:hot damn by JJahn · · Score: 1

      And the best part is that while in jail for doing nothing, you can lose your job, lose your house, and not see your family for as long as they feel "necessary". And of course at the end, they let you out with that sorry and not do anything to help rebuild your life.

  44. First they came for the Jews by Ian+Peon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left
    to speak out for me.

    Pastor Martin Niemöller

    2003: s/Jews/Terrorists/

    1. Re:First they came for the Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Umm, no. He's saying that to incarcerate citizens without charges and without any information whatsoever by simply labelling them a "terrorist" is quickly becoming the equivalent of the methods used to incarcerate and destroy the Jews in Nazi Germany. Of course, you are shit scared of "terrorists" so you buy into the whole deal. The Bush administration is going very far riding the wave of fear that the terrorists have imposed on Americans. Tragic really.

    2. Re:First they came for the Jews by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      uh huh. two people padilla and this guy. in how many months? and you are going to equate that to the nazi oppression. its really amazing how some people think. go get a history book and read it. i think you will find the so called 'unbearable oppression' we are experiencing to be trivial compared to nazi germany.

    3. Re:First they came for the Jews by Sebastopol · · Score: 2, 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?

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    4. Re:First they came for the Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're absolutely right.

      Murderers shouldnt be punished.

      Neither should rapists, or child molestors.

      Because GEE FUCKING WHIZ, it's a "slippery slope". First they crack down on people molesting children, next thing you know they're coming for YOU (Ok well they came for you during the molestation crackdown, but I'm using metaphor).

      Terrorism isnt some made-up excuse. It's real. It was real before 9/11.

      I'd rather take my chances with Bush than with bin Laden, thanks. Because bin Laden just wants everyone whos not a muslim to die. Thats it. Thats the point of 'jihad'. Everyone but them has to die. There's no diplomatic middle ground. Theres nothing to negotiate.

      So go ahead and believe everything you read in your 'counter-culture' newsletters or protesting pamphlets. Real people in the real world dont like the status quo, and want it dealt with.

    5. Re:First they came for the Jews by einstein · · Score: 3, Insightful

      um. that's the point. you have to raise a stink when it's only 2, or next it will be 4, then 8, then 16...

      and your .sig.. subscribe and your wish shall be granted.

    6. Re:First they came for the Jews by NecrosisLabs · · Score: 1

      The reason we know about this guy is the high profile of some of his advocates. From the A.C.L.U- "According to a November 2002 Washington Post story on the use of material witness warrants, more than 40 people have been detained by the Justice Department since September 11, 2001. As of that time, seven of those were U.S. citizens."

    7. Re:First they came for the Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evil can only live when the few good men hold their peace.

      Author unknown...

    8. Re:First they came for the Jews by Palarran · · Score: 1

      In America...

      They already came for the Japanese.
      They already came for the Communists.

      Now, they're coming for the terrorists and/or Arabs.

      We're further down the list than you might think.

    9. Re:First they came for the Jews by Ian+Peon · · Score: 1

      Posted the original a bit hastily...

      2. No, did NOT intend to compare Jews to terrorists. Nor would I compare Arabs to terrorists. I've known too many wonderful persons from both persuasions to hold any such base stereotype. Anyway, Timothy proved that anybody can be a terrorist.

      The intent of the grandparent was to show that the fear of someone possibly being a terrorist.

      s/Jew/Arab/g

      is significantly more fitting.

    10. Re:First they came for the Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First they came on the titties
      then they came on the ass
      then they came on the face
      then they came on the pussy
      when they came on me I
      kicked them in the ding ding!

    11. Re:First they came for the Jews by kableh · · Score: 1

      RTFA, d00d. He is one of 44 people to be held under the same statute, most of whom have never been charged with anything nor called before a grand jury.

      It is amazing how many people insist on nitpicking how relatively "bad" this is compared to oppresion in other countries. Does it matter? Isn't America supposed to be the bastion of freedom in this world? And just because this isn't North Korea, we're supposed to put up with this shit?

      You must have voted for Bush.

    12. Re:First they came for the Jews by Imperator · · Score: 1
      2003: s/Jews/Terrorists/
      There are some differences here:
      1. We're detaining plenty of people that aren't terrorists and have no ties to them so far as they know.
      2. We're not (yet?) rounding up Arabs and Muslims, sending them to forced labor camps, and murdering them en masse. No matter how bad Ashcroft is (very), he's not quite Hitler.
      3. We still have some form of a democratic system left in which to fight these laws.
      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    13. Re:First they came for the Jews by gughunter · · Score: 1

      The actual quote is "Evil can only live when the few good men spell it backwards."

      Kidding aside, you're probably thinking of "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." It's attributed to Burke... at least by the random Google blurb I grabbed it from.

    14. Re:First they came for the Jews by nivedita · · Score: 1

      You should remember that Hitler started small: the first thing that he did was to make Jews carry ID papers, then wear little thingummies that identified them as Jews and so on down the line till he was shovelling them into gas chambers.

      The Bush admin has already started making Muslims (well, it's based on country of origin, but look at the countries on the list...) register and show up for interviews and stuff - if Rumsfeld gets his way and escalates the war to Syria/Iran etc, how long do you think it will be before Muslims start carrying ID, or being put in camps? And if you think Americans will never stand for this, you haven't seen `Das Experiment'.

    15. Re:First they came for the Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahoy ahoy. Right you are.

    16. Re:First they came for the Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if this site is right, theres a reason for him to invade a small resort in Syria.

    17. Re:First they came for the Jews by Malcontent · · Score: 1

      "We're not (yet?) rounding up Arabs and Muslims, sending them to forced labor camps, and murdering them en masse. No matter how bad Ashcroft is (very), he's not quite Hitler."

      We have already set up concentration camps in cuba and afghanistan. They are filled with muslims and arabs. Neither you nor I know what is actually going on in them though because we do not live in a country with free press. The ones in afghanistan sound especially gruesome because they were built to shed the shackles of the US constitution. One official joked that they call it "Hotel California" because "you can never leave".

      DO you think one day some army is going to liberate those camps and find the same thing we found when we liberated aushwitz?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    18. Re:First they came for the Jews by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      It's pretty offensive that you're equating Jews with terrorists.

      I suppose the saying could be redone with 'burglar' instead of Jew, too.

    19. Re:First they came for the Jews by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Why is the ACLU quiting the Washington Post as hard evidence. The Washington Post should be citing ACLU figures, not the reverse.

      Or is this again one of those cases where they cite each other?

    20. Re:First they came for the Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Because bin Laden just wants everyone whos not a muslim to die. Thats it."

      No. No No No.

      Bin Laden, aside from violating dozens of commandments of Islam with 9/11, is not out to kill every non-Muslim. He did a lousy job so far. His official 1996 declaration of war said that he is doing it for political reasons ie. freedom of Palestine and holy lands.

      You really have no concept of Jihad. It does NOT mean holy war. The whole idea you showed me is a myth that perpetuates from the middle ages and hollywood films. Sheesh. Go ask a real muslim for info about this stuff.

    21. Re:First they came for the Jews by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1
      He is one of 44 people
      oh okay your right, d00d. 44 people = the oppression suffered under nazi germany. thanks for opening my eyed, d00d
    22. Re:First they came for the Jews by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      This is OT; I couldn't find a way to post a private message (you have no journal entries for me to add to, and apparently I can't create a journal entry in your journal).

      What did I do or say to cause you to make me a foe? And when did you do it?

      I really want to know. Thanks.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  45. I'll say... by mosch · · Score: 2, Funny

    Helllooooo New Zealand!!

    1. Re:I'll say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idontgetit

    2. Re:I'll say... by Wumpus · · Score: 1

      He's moving.

    3. Re:I'll say... by CrazyDuke · · Score: 1

      Bzzzt...wrong answer! Don't you read /.? The fat cats there got an internet censorship law passed. I don't know about you but I like my catgirl hentai!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
  46. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Beebos · · Score: 1

    Your right, but it is pretty damn close to being disappeared. Too damn close for my liking.

  47. Closer Still by Ian+Peon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    2003: s/Jews/Arabs/

    1. Re:Closer Still by rpg25 · · Score: 1

      I like this a lot better, because it also makes it clear that Jews were not terrorists. And, for that matter, emphasizes that Arabs are not all terrorists, something we must all be careful to remember in these trying times.

    2. Re:Closer Still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also have to reorder it. They tried going after the comunists a while ago. It's still not prudent to call yourself a comunist.

    3. Re:Closer Still by bugnuts · · Score: 1
      Arabs are not all terrorists, something we must all be careful to remember in these trying times.

      Wow, if only they COULD get a trial!

  48. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by sogoodsofarsowhat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    CAll it what you want. It is not RIGHT and it doesnt sit worth a damn with THIS RED BLOODED AMERICAN. If we allow this then we are NO BETTER than the 'evil doers' in the world. Im all for getting the bad guys, but not if it means trampling on the basic principles of this country. If hes guilty of a crime charge him, if not cut him free. Holding someone indefinetly is SIMPLY NOT ACCEPTABLE. And yes I am a REPUBLICAN, AND YES I THINK ASHCROFT IS A NAZI!

    --
    . I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
  49. From the article by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

    "The most salient explanation for the arrest seems to be a link between the programmer, Maher "Mike" Hawash, and a charitable organization to which he donated a fairly large sum three years ago. The U.S. government has subsequently tagged the charity as having ties to terrorism. "

    What hogwash. Since the government hasn't given out any of the classified information they have about this guy, these guys are assuming it is because of a donation to a charity. Did the government arrest everyone that donated to that charity? I doubt it. Maybe the feds have a real link between this guy and terrorist cells. Especially since recently several other Arabs actually confessed that they were planning terrorist training camps in that part of the country.

    And enough about whether he is a US citizen or not. The Constitution applies to every person in the US. Civil rights are not conditional based on if you are a citizen or not. But the Supreme Court long ago agreed that civil rights can be based on if someone is a foreign infiltrator. If you forget, nineteen foreign infiltrators brought down the World Trade Center towers. Do you really think those were the only ones in this country?

    And for those who think I am in support of a police state, no I am not. I would fight the government if they were coming after me for excercising my constitutional rights. But see, I don't make donations to terrorist organizations, so I know they aren't going to come after me. If I did do that, they would have every right to pick me up. I also don't have dinner with the local mafioso, I don't order large packages from Columbia, and I don't hang out at school grounds with bags of candy in my car. Certain actions, while perfectly legal, are also grounds for investigating people. In this case, with the threat of terrorism very high, maybe this guy is getting what he deserves for whatever activities he is involved in that you and I don't know about.

    1. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't make donations to terrorist organizations

      Really now? How do you determine that?

      You: "I'd like to donate to your charitiable cause. But first, are you a terrorist front?"
      Them: "No sir, we have no ties to any terrorist organizations."
      You: "Works for me!"

    2. Re:From the article by vidarh · · Score: 2, Insightful
      He as not been arrested, he is being held as a witness.

      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.

    3. Re:From the article by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      Me: I don't make donations to terrorist organizations

      You: Really now? How do you determine that?

      Me: I don't give money to PETA.

    4. Re:From the article by JJahn · · Score: 1

      He has not been arrested? So when they come to your job with assault rifles and body armor and throw you in the back of a cop car and put you in prison thats NOT being arrested? Perhaps he is a terroist, but honestly its irrelevant. Evil criminal or innocent man doesn't matter, he should be charged and given his civil rights or let go.

    5. Re:From the article by Steven+Blanchley · · Score: 1
      But see, I don't make donations to terrorist organizations, so I know they aren't going to come after me.

      Mike Hawash didn't make any donations to terrorist organisations either... as far as he knew. In fact, GRF hasn't even been proven to be a terrorist organisation at this point; it is only suspected of being one.

      I think you need to read a certain quote by Martin Niemoller.

    6. Re:From the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, sir, are an idiot.

  50. Floating point error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He didn't disappear. He was rounded down.

  51. What scares me most... by HeelToe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What scares me most about this whole ordeal is no one has any mechanism through the legal system to get him out. Not only is the government tight-lipped about why they have him, when they showed up in force to take him, they claim they have a warrant, which is sealed. There's not even any attempt at demonstrating legitimacy. This means that without some identified party legitimately responsible for the warrant, there can be no satisfaction it is even valid.

    "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*

  52. Often Times... by galego · · Score: 1
    ...people who up and cry about these sorts of incidents and call the government oppressive are also the ones that cry about why couldn't we stop 9/11 and why couldn't they have had the necessary info available etc. They are, in general, always looking to blame someone for something.

    On a personal level, I sincerely hope Mike is treated fairly and due-process is followed. I don't know Mike/Maher, nor do I know why he was detained. I don't know who is running the freemikehawash.com site. I have no more reason to trust those people/that person more than I do the FBI folk that nabbed Maher/Mike. What reason should I have to trust one more than the other?

    The freemike site describes him as a family man with an investment in is community. Well, we also hear all the time about people who were "quiet", "good neighbors", etc. that go postal or turn out to be serial murderers, etc. I'll contribute money, time, support, etc. when I have good reason to...not just cuz someone shouts for Civil Liberties! Civil Liberties! and the person is not from Male-Caucasia, USA.

    Would it suck if Mike is innocent and is not being held with reason? Hell Yeah! Would it suck if Maher/Mike were a terrorist pilfering my credit card to fund some terrorist organizations? Hell Yeah!

    --

    Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas

    [May God give you double that which you wish for me]

    1. Re:Often Times... by platypus · · Score: 1

      Hell Yeah! Would it suck if Maher/Mike were a terrorist pilfering my credit card to fund some terrorist organizations?

      But wouldn't it also suck if he had knowingly supported a terrorist organization with his donations (very, very unlikely, because that would be very dumb) and the american government was too afraid to just say that openly?
      The point is, there are certain rights which the state should never be allowed to take away from people, terrorists or not. Because the state - any state - will not restrict this to "real" terrorists.

    2. Re:Often Times... by vidarh · · Score: 4, Insightful
      He is being held as a material witness. He has not been charged with a crime. He has not been named a suspect of a crime. Still he is being held under a law that allow him to be kept with close to no contact with the outside world for an indefinite amount of time without due process.

      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>

    3. Re:Often Times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you are saying is that if the U.S. before 9/11 was more like Iran/Iraq in treating it citizens we would be better off.

    4. Re:Often Times... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      What reason should I have to trust one more than the other?

      Dude. We're talking about the government of the United States of America. The people who brought you COINTELPRO, MK-ULTRA, the War on (some) Drugs, the "police action" in Vietnam, Operation "Just Cause", Camp X-ray, RICO, Waco...the list goes on.

      The available evidence suggests that any person with a lick of sense should trust a randomly choosen loon from the local mental hospital more than trusting agents of the federal government.

      Well, we also hear all the time about people who were "quiet", "good neighbors", etc. that go postal or turn out to be serial murderers, etc. I'll contribute money, time, support, etc. when I have good reason to...

      The good reason is due process. Something which even serial killers and real terrorists are entitled to.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    5. Re:Often Times... by galego · · Score: 1
      First of all, thanks for not flipping off into ./ knee-jerk reaction mode...even while in rant-mode.

      You have some very valid points, but leave some questions as well...

      My first reaction was "that's what you get for pissing off an entire people".

      What 'people' is that? A fanatical bunch of wacko people as far as I can tell...but then again, I don't know Ousama personally either. Still, no way to justify an atrocity like that!

      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.

      (What was considered a success for the US/Kuwait in '91 was also considered a victory by Saddam...go figure) And are they seeking freedom from the US...freedom from what?

      <synnicism & rant> If you don't afford terrorists their rights (whatever that is), you're wrong. If you do... 3,000 people die in a flaming building. Mossaoui openly spit on the US practically in court, but we had to afford him his 'rights'. We want our rights and liberties, but we don't want any accountability attached to that. </ synnicism & rant >

      I speak Arabic and have even spent some time in the Middle East. Wonderful people in general! I agree that US policy sucks towards the Middle East...specifically Palestine/Israel. The Egyptian family I was hanging out with agreed that suicide bombings are just as terrible as bull-dozing people's homes. Assumptions were made of me cuz I was american and it goes on and on.

      I guess our laws do need to be looked at, but I'm not going to fund someone's defense or whatever needs to be done for Maher Hawash cuz someone put up a website.

      --

      Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas

      [May God give you double that which you wish for me]

    6. Re:Often Times... by JJahn · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine solitary confinement either, IMO that qualifies as torture, except maybe for prisoners who are violent in prison and can't be controlled any other way.

    7. Re:Often Times... by goon+america · · Score: 1
      Instead the present US government seems to keep doing everything it can to whirl up more hatred.

      Here's the thing. I don't think that Rumsfeld et al. really want that to happen. I think they don't believe that will happen because they are completely out of touch with reality.

      For instance, Paul Wolfowitz said before the war that "An explosion of joy will greet our soldiers" and the Iraqi regime will tumble "like a house of cards". These assertations were based on absolutely nothing. Based on that, they believed that the war would actually be "self-legitimizing" because it would actually make a lot of Arabs very happy, bloodlessly, and the Arab world would see that, become more favorable to the United States, and it would lead to "waves of democratization across the Middle East".

      In other words, they believed things because they wanted to believe them, adamantly smacked down contrary evidence because they didn't like the way it made them feel, and based a superstructure of arguments on that imaginary foundation.

      In other words, it's simple, terrible judgment.

    8. Re:Often Times... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Making enemies all over the world is just begging for thousands of people to start thinking about ways to hit back.

      If I'm not mistaken, the CIA put both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in power.

      It is completely a "foreign policy" issue. We need to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries. We are not "the world's policemen."

      It won't stop though. Next on our agenda is North Korea, and I have no doubt that we'll invade.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    9. Re:Often Times... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Actually, Arafat released a statement on 9/11 condemning the tragedy. He publicly distanced himself and his struggle from Al Qaeda.

      He said that everything Bin Laden did "for Palestine" was 100% counterproductive. Bin Laden might as well have gotten a gun and done drive-by shootings in Palestine, it would have been an improvement to the people.

    10. Re:Often Times... by galego · · Score: 1
      Dude. We're talking about the government of the United States of America. The people who brought you COINTELPRO, MK-ULTRA, the War on (some) Drugs, the "police action" in Vietnam, Operation "Just Cause", Camp X-ray, RICO, Waco...the list goes on. Well..Dude, I have no idea what half the things you're talking (COINTELPRO, RICO) about are (But just because I"m not paranoid doesn't mean the gov's not out to get me right?). There are both very trustworthy and very untrustworthy people in and out of the government. My bro-in-law works for the state dept. and is a very good, trustworthy person. You have no more or less reason to trust him than I do Mr. Maher Hawash, no?

      And pray tell...what rights did the victims of real terrorists and serial killers have? What happened to their rights?

      Apparently, the law allows for what's going on. If you don't like that or have some astounding evidence that shows Mr. Hawash should not be held (other than shouting 'Civil Liberties' and 'Due Process' as loud as you can), use the appropriate process and talk to your legislators or find a way to have the FBI brought up on the appropriate charges.

      --

      Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas

      [May God give you double that which you wish for me]

    11. Re:Often Times... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Well..Dude, I have no idea what half the things you're talking (COINTELPRO, RICO) about are.

      Vigilance, eternal, liberty, price of. Your ignorance will not protect you.

      These are all well-documented activities of the federal government, and every American should be aware of them. A half-hour with Google would be very educational.

      COINTELPRO was the FBI's covert program of spying on anyone to the left of J. Edgar Hoover. This included tapes of Martin Luther King's sex life. The Senate later found that

      ...The acts taken interfered with the First Amendment rights of citizens. They were explicitly intended to deter citizens from joining groups, "neutralize" those who were already members, and prevent or inhibit the expression of ideas.

      ...The tactics used against Americans often risked and sometimes caused serious emotional, economic, or physical damage. Actions were taken which were designed to break up marriages, terminate funding or employment, and encourage gang warfare between violent rival groups. Due process of law forbids the use of such covert tactics, whether the victims are innocent law-abiding citizens or members of groups suspected of involvement in violence.

      ...The sustained use of such tactics by the FBI in an attempt to destroy Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., violated the law and fundamental human decency.

      RICO (the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), a law supposedly targeted at the Mafia that has been used instead to unconstitutionally seize assests without a trail, and turn minor crimes into federal felonies.

      There are both very trustworthy and very untrustworthy people in and out of the government. My bro-in-law works for the state dept. and is a very good, trustworthy person. You have no more or less reason to trust him than I do Mr. Maher Hawash, no?

      There is a world of difference between trusting a person, and trusting an organization.

      And pray tell...what rights did the victims of real terrorists and serial killers have? What happened to their rights?

      While rhetorically arousing, your question is a complete non sequitor. We're talking about the legal rights of people accused by the state of crimes. If you were accused of shooting me, would you think it was ok if you were deprived of your legal right to trial by jury to prove your innocence, because I was deprived of my moral right to life?

      Apparently, the law allows for what's going on.

      No, it doesn't. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It demands due processs, a speady and public trial, and all the other rights and liberties that we're (or at least used to be) proud of.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    12. Re:Often Times... by galego · · Score: 1
      You make some good points. Not enough to convince me to reach into my pocket on Maher's behalf...but all the same, I can appreciate what you're saying.

      Sorry....I don't have time or interest for an education via Google on everything. And I also don't necessarily believe everything on the internet is true. Yes that's a big sarcastic generalization...but my point is, that I'm overloaded. I'm really beginning to cease caring about anything except my family and my personal interests. I also don't believe/assume everything in life is part of the government conspiracy to screw me and my fellow citizens over.

      <extreme sarcasm>Besides, I figure since I'm white, male and conservative I should be safe. Unless of course, I get nixed by some affirmative action quota.</extreme sarcasm>

      There is a world of difference between trusting a person, and trusting an organization.

      True...but last I checked, there are no people-less organizations. And I generally believe people are good. Abstracting that out, I give people, and yes...even organizations the benefit of the doubt. So...you ask "Why not give Mike the benefit of the doubt?" right!?!? Well, if I knew Mike, I probably would. If I knew the people in the FBI, I probably would too. So...when it comes down to it, what can I do for Maher? Just about nothing at the moment, since I"m not gonna throw money at his cause. You want to write me a canned letter to send to a legislator that I can send as mine? Have at it! And since you say...

      No, it doesn't. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It demands due processs, a speady and public trial, and all the other rights and liberties that we're (or at least used to be) proud of.

      I guess you better stop wasting your time with me and get busy with someone who can help make more of a difference, cause I'm done screwing with ./-er's for the day...I've got work to do, a house to fix up and a family to take care of.

      Cheers

      --

      Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas

      [May God give you double that which you wish for me]

  53. To quote an AC from an earlier thread... by VitrosChemistryAnaly · · Score: 1

    " BOO! TERRORISTS! Ahhhh, booga booga booga! The terrorist are coming and they'll eat your babies! Ahhhh! Terrorists!
    Won't sombody think of the children! "


    I mean, seriously, this is one of the most insiteful, interesting and underrated statements that I've heard in a long time.

    --
    "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
  54. Arabs come to this country for money and thats it. by zymano · · Score: 1
    Most are good but some have sympathies to extremist Mullahs and the palestine problem. These people have problems with all other religions and are violent tribal people.

    I'm not white,Turkish,so i know a little bit how these people think.

    They are obsessed and should monitored.

    We should not be letting Arabs into this country any more until their RELIGOUS LEADERS quit talking "DEATH TO USA" .

    Why are we so fucking stupid to not monitor these people?

    9/11 was our mistake because we didn't monitor.

    It was the SECOND attempt at WTC.

  55. UPSA by spoonist · · Score: 3, Funny

    A sign I recently saw at JFK airport after returning from a trip abroad:

    Welcome to the United Police States of Amerika

    All fruits, vegetables, meat products, and inalienable rights must be declared to the Customers officer. In order to gain adminttance to the United Police States of Amerika, these products must be surrendered. Failure to comply will result in civil or criminal action.

    1. Re:UPSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... if it was on a printed piece of paper, it MUST be true!

    2. Re:UPSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there is a joke among many people outside the us. It goes, USSA = United Socialist States of America

    3. Re:UPSA by G27+Radio · · Score: 1

      Here's real sign I saw two weekends ago in Jacksonville Beach, FL at the annual seafood festival. This was in a public park:

      This area is exempt from First Ammendment rights.

      These were official signs located at the entrances right next to the "No alcoholic beverages beyond this point" signs. I'm not sure if they put them up to make sure no one protested the war, or to stop people from handing out medical MJ pamphlets. Both reasons possibly.

      Whatever the reasoning, I found it disturbing. It was bad enough last year when the cops were caught on tape threatening a guy with physical abuse for handing out pamphlets. OK, maybe he was pushing it handing out medical MJ pamphlets at a DARE pep-rally, but still, I thought it would be a protected right.

      This year they simply put up signs saying your first ammendment rights are suspended in the park when they have an event. Can they just do that?

    4. Re:UPSA by starkistTuna · · Score: 1

      no, they can't do that, but they do. i protested a Jewish United Fund fundraiser for Israel with a friend of mine two years ago and we were nearly arrested because we were carrying signs in a public park. All the people who were participating in the fundraiser also had signs, but ours were illegal because they contradicted the mission of the group who had the permit for the park. People were also recreating in the park at the time, and wearing shirts which advertised products like Pepsi and Nike, but if the message were political and contradicted the JUF's message, it was somehow illegal and cause for arrest.

  56. Re:Yeah. It's all a trap. 9/11 was faked. by Kierthos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thing is, how do we know this guy has a legit tie to terrorists? He donated a large whack of cash to a charitable organization. I would like to suggest that even if the organization in question does have terrorist ties, it's hardly likely that they would advertise the fact. Even before 9/11, the Feds would not ignore someone who said "Donate money to my organization, because we fund terrorist assholes!"

    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

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  57. The one freedom the U.S. will always lack... by ashitaka · · Score: 1

    Freedom from fear.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    1. Re:The one freedom the U.S. will always lack... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Can't agree more. America will lack this freedom for a long time and at the same time it prohibits other nations and people from attaining freedom, all for the sake of American interests and politics.

      The reason for this is that the American Government (not necessarily the majority of the American people) feel that they're the most powerful nation in the world and thus they must impose their idealities upon the rest of the world. You see prime examples right now.. Afghanistan and Iraq are only two of the many, many other examples. Bush might go "WILD" (which is not expected of such a retard!) and attack the other axis of evil nations, Korea and Iran. Which will be a major catastrophy all around the world.

      Hold on...there is more to come from the Bush Administration...This is only the beginning, sadly.

  58. Communism State..... by Manip · · Score: 1

    Yeah the USA is definitly going down hill. I personally wouldn't want to live there right now, it just is way too dangerous. I find this shocking but a more shocking store was one I read a few months back -



    Someone wrote on their web-site 'Personally I think we should overthrow the goverment and replace it with one that isn't Microsoft's bitch' (Meaning a goverment that doesn't do what Microsoft asks, like a dog to its owner)



    On this the US Gov decided to go around this guys house, brake the door down and interigate him about this! They held this guy as 'A suspected terrorist'



    You see nobody is safe!



    Has anyone seen the series 'Babylon 5' if they have they might remember a group of people that worked for the goverment that got paied to listen out for 'UnPatriotic' things and tell the boss. As you can imagine things didn't turn out well for this goverment.....Does this organization sound like some organization that the Current US administration has created.


    Just to see what happens I have this to say -


    I would love to see the US goverment overthrown and am happy to take part in any capasity other than being violent or having to lift a finger :p

    (Sorry for page formatting, can't write HTML)

    1. Re:Communism State..... by Cliffy03 · · Score: 1

      What...this type of activity leading to something like NightWatch?

      Scary thought. It would be nice if cooler heads had prevailed, but good luck getting this genie back in the bottle.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Nigel makes plans for you!
    2. Re:Communism State..... by Manip · · Score: 1

      I think it already has, only we don't see it because of all the electronic systems (spy on us via Phone, computer etc)

    3. Re:Communism State..... by Cliffy03 · · Score: 1

      It is easy to forget about the "electronic snooping". But when we hear people talking about watching our neighbours and co-workers, it sounds like something that would happen years ago in a far off land.

      Where is the line drawn on what is given up to protect this "freedom"?

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Nigel makes plans for you!
  59. well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    these things are allowed in time of war. it's part of some law. and more than just one man has been kept as a suspected terrorist, tons of people have already been snatched away by whatever section of our government to be tortured. you act surprised.

    1. Re:well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trouble is, this isn't a real war. This is like the war on drugs, that you can't really win, and there's no easily definable victory conditions. So what is really being said is - this is how it will be from now on.

  60. Ironic by st0rmcold · · Score: 1


    Here's an article on CNN, talks about the countries that are not supporting human rights, the editor forget USA in the title.

    --
    Posting useless rant since 2003.
  61. should we really feel bad about him? by skydude_20 · · Score: 1

    or ourselves? I mean from the articles I've read, he's legally being held, thanks to all of you who didn't stop the passage of the patriot act. I mean I've seen it mentioned quite a few times in the articles that the patriot act has made this type of holding legal.

    Oh boy the excitement when Patriot Act II is passed.

    --
    Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
    1. Re:should we really feel bad about him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >thanks to all of you who didn't stop the passage of the patriot act.

      i don't remember the patriot act being put to a referendum. i can write my congress critter all i want, they are under no obligation to listen to me. maybe in another 2 years i will have a chance to vote them out, but while they are in office they can do whatever the hell they want. does anyone know of any way citizens can unseat a government official outside of a general election?

    2. Re:should we really feel bad about him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well if you and everyone of your district said you didnt want it, thus making it a threat to your rep, that if he votes for the bill, he pretty much guarenties the loss of his seat, thats how he listens.

  62. nice comment by zymano · · Score: 1
    mr pmodern tries to make this country out to be IRAQ .

    I am sure this guy was helping extremists in some way or they wouldn't have arrested him.

    Look at how many Arabs are walking free in this GREAT country.

    1. Re:nice comment by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Uh....

      He wasn't arrested.

    2. Re:nice comment by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah. He was arr...uh, accosted by federal agents in body armor toting assault rifles.

      I'm pretty sure the distinction was lost on him.

      "Don't mind the handcuffs and the guns, sir, you're not being arrested. Now you WILL come with us."

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  63. Another 1984 Similarity by miketang16 · · Score: 1

    "People simply disappeared, always during the night. Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annhilated: vaporized was the usual word."

    --
    -------
    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
    -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Another 1984 Similarity by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      Shockingly, none of that appears to have happened in this instance.

      Unless this discussion topic, the rant site in his honor, and the news articles are a figment of my imagaination....

  64. Dont like it? Then change the law by UselessTrivia · · Score: 1

    Is it that much of a stretch to the imagination to consider that maybe there is a legitimate reason for holding this guy? Not that he himself is to be charged with a crime, but that he knows someone who can be?

    Nope, its so much easier to label the US a Fascist nation. To easy to assume were plannng on locking up all arabs. You all enjoy picturing Rumsfeld in jackboots (maybe some leather fetish you have?)

    The Material Witness rules have been on the books for almost 20 years. They have survived 4 presidents, including the golden age of Clinton. In this situation again, the law has been used and appears to have been used (proceduraly) correctly.

    1. Re:Dont like it? Then change the law by Compenguin · · Score: 1

      The Material Witness rules have been on the books for almost 20 years. They have survived 4 presidents, including the golden age of Clinton. In this situation again, the law has been used and appears to have been used (proceduraly) correctly.

      But why solitary?

    2. Re:Dont like it? Then change the law by sander · · Score: 1

      it still doesn't change the fact that both the better and implementation of the law are against human rights, which (unlike some other treaties) the US has signed. Its also a law that is in teh very interest of US citizens to get removed, even if it can be shown to have actually saved lives (which it hasn't. If you don't understand why, you should read up on say Argentina or Spain under Franco.

      As for US being fascist - thats more or less said by people who have no idea what fascist nations look like.

    3. Re:Dont like it? Then change the law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that he himself is to be charged with a crime, but that he knows someone who can be?

      Yes, because the law doesn't actually guarantee freedom of association, right?

      Oh, wait - it does.

      its so much easier to label the US a Fascist nation

      Well, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck... (In other words - if it didn't have fascist laws, it probably wouldn't be labeled Fascist.)

  65. Let's not forget... by Upright+Joe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  66. Try again. by twitter · · Score: 1

    His name is Mike, not that that matters. If he's lucky he'll get better "support" than the kind that left Kevin locked up for five years. All the good will to Kevin will be funneled this way. It took five years for people to even learn about Mitnick, this time it's not going to happen.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Try again. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      If he's lucky he'll get better "support" than the kind that left Kevin locked up for five years.

      You mean maybe he'll hire a qualified attorney and listen to him, unlike Kevin, who played legal fuck-around and got his own trial date pushed back, in effect imprisioning himself for an extra year or so before his trial through his own legal idiocy?

  67. quick update to the old refrain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the land of the incarcerated and the home of the whiners too scared to speak up about it.

    you'd think those 2nd-amendment survivalist gun nuts who used to be so hot about resisting governmental tyranny and whatnot would be breaking people like this out of jail to further their cause. goddess knows there are enough conspiracy-theorist anarchists in this country who've been talking tough that way for - well, basically since it's been a country. but have you seen any of them actually *do* anything to further their beliefs lately...?

  68. See Jane Run. by dewboy · · Score: 1

    See Jane disappear Spot.

    Since when did "disappear" become a transitive verb?

    1. Re:See Jane Run. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Well, the 2000 edition of American Heritage dictionary, fourth edition, explicity lists it as a transitive verb.

      It's been used since the sixties, or so, I think.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:See Jane Run. by randyest · · Score: 1

      right, but remember: verbing wierds language.

      --
      everything in moderation
  69. What's one more or less? by Morth · · Score: 1

    The US government already hold over 400 people (IIRC) prisoners on Cuba without charging them with a crime. Common sense would say they are war prisoners and should be released, but USA says they're not.

    It seems to me that USA is going downhill fast, and yes, to an outsider, the government is pretty much the whole country. We very seldom hear the opinions of anyone else then the government.

    I'm having a hard time finding a single one decision of the Bush government that I agree with. It started with backing out of various international agreements, and just keeps getting worse. I've been boycotting products from USA for a while now and will not stop anytime soon. Of course my influence if miniscule at most.

  70. Politicans scheming by gobbligook · · Score: 1

    Perhaps these individuals are innocent. I truly believe there are flaws in our laws. Usually the most flawed laws are those that are a direct result of a immediate need. Look at the many other stupid things the government is doing. Here in canada we have a gun control registry that is costing billions. It will not help protect people from illegal or any weapons period. But yet it gives the government a way to keep control over those who are law abiding. Same with this case. If this individual wanted to contribute to terrorists, don't you think he/she would have tried in a less apparent way? Besides the context of "ties to terrorist groups" could mean anything. A brother of a son's friend, could constitute ties to terrorism.

    Come on guys, get those real terrorists.

    PS: I offer my support for the families and the soldiers fighting abroad.

  71. The Free Mike site is bullshit. by Xerithane · · Score: 1

    They say over and over that they do not know of the ties, yet it is already public knowledge (I read it on the free newspaper this morning) that the primary reason why he was originally under investigation is that he made a very large donation to a charity that has known connections to terrorist groups.

    If you are going to make a Free Mike website, at least read the newspapers. They obviously aren't that close of friends to not know what people who don't know the guy know.

    And yes, that sentence was fun to type.

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    1. Re:The Free Mike site is bullshit. by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      We know that he gave money to a charaty that claims to be acting in a positive role. A charity that is contesting the government's accusation that it supports terrorsim. But so what if they were helping terrorists. Did Mike know that? Did he knowingly give money to a group aiding terrorists or was he acting in good faith and giving money to a charity he honestly belived was doing good things?

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    2. Re:The Free Mike site is bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is already public knowledge (I read it on the free newspaper this morning) that the primary reason why he was originally under investigation is that he made a very large donation to a charity

      No, this is not the reason, it's the suspected reason - the people who really do know the reason won't tell anyone!

      that has known connections to terrorist groups

      Nope. They were suspected of having connections to a terrorist group... they also claim that it's bogus, and the justice department is dragging it's feet with regards to providing evidence..

      If you are going to make a Free Mike website, at least read the newspapers.

      And if you're going to read the newspapers, try to get something with less of a kiss-george's-ass slant for comparison.

  72. Terrorism by Pres.+Ronald+Reagan · · Score: 0

    What if this man's background and his current dealings are investigated, and it turns out that he is indeed a terrorist or has ties to terrorists?

    What if, by doing this, hundreds or thousands of lives have been saved? Will you still condemn the actions of the US government?

    --

    Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.
    --Ronald Reagan
    1. Re:Terrorism by sander · · Score: 1

      The actions would still be something for which strictly speaking those who carried them out could be charged with human rights violations.

  73. Consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This event could have drastic consequences on this industry and the world as a whole. I have to say that I had a chance to work with said individual and despite all these accusations, I must say that he is a real team player and a valuable asset to the organization. Moving forward, I would say its about time that we promote team building and work to a greater synergy.

    -Management

  74. Funny... by Stonan · · Score: 1

    I posted a reply a few days ago about how the US is becoming more facist and that a person could be held in custody without any rights at all under the guise of terrorist activities. Someone here (who shall remain nameless) replied to me and basically 'slapped' me down saying this doesn't happen, no one is held in the US without due proccess. To that person I say "you see this? Maybe the rocket's red glare and the stars & stripes are blocking your view.'

    Saddam doesn't have to win and Bin Laden doesn't have show his face again - the damage is already done. The US is no longer the 'land of the free' and the 'home of the brave' is now the the 'home of the paranoid'.

    --
    The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
  75. Thanks Michael and Slashdot by Sludge · · Score: 1

    Thanks for reporting this. This is one of the more important stories to have come along in a while. I would be happy to see updates to this on the main page as things progress. (Yes, I do follow up on stories myself from time to time.)

  76. Not original, but worth repeating nevertheless... by davebooth · · Score: 5, Funny
    Land of the Free*

    *Some restrictions apply. Void where prohibited

    --
    I had a .sig once. It got boring.
  77. I hope that you have figured out... by ajuda · · Score: 1

    That the parent comment was written AS A SARCASTIC comment. What the hell is wrong with you people?

  78. Torn on this one... by somethingwicked · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am disgusted by the ability of the government to hold people uncharged.

    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.

    --

    ---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---

    1. Re:Torn on this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About OJ:

      good lawyers for the defense

      bad lawyers for the state

      racist cops

      LA

      trial was too long

    2. Re:Torn on this one... by Cyno · · Score: 1

      I find it ironic that every American has read the book The Boy Who Cried Wolf at one time in their life. But now that our government and George W. cries wolf every other week they blindly accept it as truth.

      Trust is earned, not given away..

    3. Re:Torn on this one... by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      If Mr. Hawash is innocent, I will be the first to say this is miserable and disgusting treatment.

      Given that US criminal prosecutions are founded on the principle that defendants are innocent until proven guilty, it logically follow that we should presume that this "is miserable and disgusting treatment" of a US citizen until proven otherwise.

      Here's some further reading for you:

      Amendment IV.

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      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.


      Does it look familiar?

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    4. Re:Torn on this one... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd say this: there is bound to be somewhere, sometime a conflict between freedom and security. That means you have to be prepared to choose: you cannot pursue security as an absolute goal; at some point there will have to be a limit on what you can do without due process.

      However -- I don't think that the current situation has risen to that point -- at least with respect to American citizens. The number of American citizens held this way is small. One could easily imagine the security apparatus effectively tailing their every move without recourse to jailing them without trial.

      So -- what can we infer from this? In this case the problem is not that the pursuit of freedom is dangerous. In this case the problem is that the pursuit of freedom is too expensive.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  79. It's disgusting by Munra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    [Note, this is more of a general rant rather than specifically about Mike Hawash but my point still stands.]

    It's disgusting how America and Great Britain can be allowed to go against so many international conventions and strip people of any rights.

    There are specific conventions on how to treat suspected criminals, or terrorists, which should be adhered to. Rather than follow conventions, America decided to put people suspected of terrorism in a deliberate state of limbo where they can do anything they want.

    These people are not given any legal representation, they do not even need to be accused of any crime (and given than some were released without charge it's probably fair to say not all are guilty of any crime at all), there are no standards for their conditions, they do not need to be treated humanely, they do not need to be allowed visitation from independent organisations (such as Amnesty, Red Cross, etc) and they do not have to be put to trial. They can be held in this state of limbo for as long as they administration want them to be.

    For a country (or countries if you include Great Britain - but they contravene human rights to a far lesser extent, and not as written above) that prides itself on its freedom of speech and human rights, it's disgusting that they treat anyone in this way. And it's even more disgusting that they are one of the premier countries to point out international breaches by other countries - particularly when it favours the situation they're in.

    My view on the problem with American society is that although everyone pretends to be friendly and respectful of each other and their views, it's very much each person for themself. People don't think that they'll ever be in a situation when they'll need help, so don't support actions to benefit those who do.

    For example, the death penalty. It's all very well saying "Fry them!" or whatever, but when you're accused and found guilty of a crime you didn't commit, or you get found guilty because you're black, poor and can't afford proper legal representation, it's a whole new story. Abortions: it's all well and good to say no to abortions but when it's your daughter, your sister or you who's pregnant and shouldn'tt to give birth for whatever reason, it's different. When your family member/friend is dying from Parkinson's or some other degenerate disease, you'll be wishing the government would allow stem cell research, or at least sooner. I've forgotten who it was but when one president got some degenerative disease which could be potentially eradicated with enough research into stem cells (which don't use any fertilised eggs), although he had been staunchly against the research his whole life, the first thing the first lady did was speak directly to President Bush to try get it allowed.

    The shear selfishness - while not always apparent/transparent - of many American's is shocking. What if you were accused of some terrorist charge which you didn't commit? Put away on an island with no contact to anyone - even a lawyer, for a simple misunderstanding.

    "Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph."

    Manta

    (Karma bonus abused!)

    1. Re:It's disgusting by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      There are specific conventions on how to treat suspected criminals, or terrorists, which should be adhered to. Rather than follow conventions, America decided to put people suspected of terrorism in a deliberate state of limbo where they can do anything they want.

      Criminal law is a matter of national, not international, interest. The US may deal with their citizens as the US would like; so too for any other nation.

      For example, the death penalty. It's all very well saying "Fry them!" or whatever, but when you're accused and found guilty of a crime you didn't commit, or you get found guilty because you're black, poor and can't afford proper legal representation, it's a whole new story.

      The same may be said of someone who spends his life--or even a few years--in jail, as well. Our legal system does its absolute best to ensure that those who are convicted are actually guilty. Having done the most possible to free the innocent, it then metes out punishment as appropriate to the crime. Yes, there are mistakes, but they are few and far between. One can no more give a man back a lost year of his life than give him back his life--why is it any better to imprison him than kill him?

      Abortions: it's all well and good to say no to abortions but when it's your daughter, your sister or you who's pregnant and shouldn'tt to give birth for whatever reason, it's different.

      Abortion is murder: it is the killing of another human being. Your argument is akin to `theft: it's all well and good to say no to theft, but when it's your stomach that empty, it's different.' Guess what--it's not. Murder is rightly illegal; abortion is murder; therefor abortion is rightly illegal.

      Note I'm not arguing the moral case against abortion. Morality is not something to be legislated. Laws should exist to punish those who violate the rights of others; thus they should ban rape, theft, murder, fraud and the like. Whether abortion is moral or not is immaterial to whether it should be legal or not.

      When your family member/friend is dying from Parkinson's or some other degenerate disease, you'll be wishing the government would allow stem cell research, or at least sooner.

      Convenience doesn't make it any more right. That a man might testify against me in court gives me no right to kill him. That his money may pay for my hospital bills gives me no right to steal from him.

      The National Socialists conducted medical tests on Jews--murdering embryos to harvest their cells is no more justified.

    2. Re:It's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, the death penalty. It's all very well saying "Fry them!" or whatever, but when you're accused and found guilty of a crime you didn't commit, or you get found guilty because you're black, poor and can't afford proper legal representation, it's a whole new story.

      Yes, personal bias has a strong influence. For instance, seeing a black man near the crime scene where your wife was killed could make you say "fry the black man", even if the murder was undertaken by a white guy, just because you are rabid for revenge.

      Bottom line: personal bias may cause people to choose the correct course of action, but it's entirely coincidental.

    3. Re:It's disgusting by Munra · · Score: 1
      Finally, I get a response - thank you :)

      Criminal law is a matter of national, not international, interest. The US may deal with their citizens as the US would like; so too for any other nation.

      According to the Geneva convention, anyone taken captive during a war should be treated as a POW, with no exceptions. The US did not comply as many of the prisoners in Guantanamo bay were captured during the "War on terror" in Afghanistan.

      The same may be said of someone who spends his life--or even a few years--in jail, as well. Our legal system does its absolute best to ensure that those who are convicted are actually guilty. Having done the most possible to free the innocent, it then metes out punishment as appropriate to the crime. Yes, there are mistakes, but they are few and far between. One can no more give a man back a lost year of his life than give him back his life--why is it any better to imprison him than kill him?

      Why is it better to imprison someone than kill them? Is that really a serious question? How many people do you know who are in prison who can appeal? How many dead people do you see appealing?

      I would rather see 10 guilty people set free than 1 innocent man put to death. I know I will not be one of the guilty 10 set free, but I do know I could be the 1 innocent. That is my problem with the death penalty.

      Not that I want to see someone put in prison but the point is there is no means to fix an innocent mean put to death, but there are ways to free an innocent man from imprisonment.

      Abortion is murder: it is the killing of another human being. Your argument is akin to `theft: it's all well and good to say no to theft, but when it's your stomach that empty, it's different.' Guess what--it's not. Murder is rightly illegal; abortion is murder; therefor abortion is rightly illegal.

      OK, you're a 13 year old girl from a broken home, with abusive parents, who gets assaulted, beaten up, and raped. You fall pregnant. Let's look at your choices. You can have the child. You can have the child and put it up for adoption. You can have an abortion. As a human being I would not like to see any life brought in to this world where it has no chance of receiving the quality of life it deserves. If you think so, that's tantamount to saying "Let's raise a kid inhumanely!". Murder is not as black and white as you make out -- I'd consider abortion to more akin to euthenasia -- sparing someone from an unnecessary low quality of life.

      Although I accept that it may not be legally right, or right in any non-moral way, my point is that it's not fair for someone to judge the situation without having been in it. I'm sure if it was your daughter, or you, you wouldn't feel that it was illegal -- or at least that it should be illegal.

      Whether abortion is moral or not is NOT immaterial to whether or not it should be legal. Legality is not independent of morals. This isn't from a religious point of view but just from common sense. Legality does not supercede any form of sensible logic, and if something is not moral, it should not be legal.

      Convenience doesn't make it any more right. That a man might testify against me in court gives me no right to kill him. That his money may pay for my hospital bills gives me no right to steal from him.

      It's got nothing to do with convenience. It's about narrow mindedness. It's not convenient that you see how other's feel when you're forced to look at the same problem through their eyes, it's open mindedness and apathy. I'll try to make my point more clear for you:

      If you were put in the situation that one of those people find themselves in (as I tried to give examples of), and you would be perfectly happy with what they would have to face/put up with, then that is fine. If this is not the case, then there is no justification for you supporting it.

      If you were innocent of a murder crime and were going to be put to your death, are you se

    4. Re:It's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673 ,921411,00.html

    5. Re:It's disgusting by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      According to the Geneva convention, anyone taken captive during a war should be treated as a POW, with no exceptions.

      That is not my reading thereof. As I understand it, only lawful combatants are accorded the full protection of the Conventions (yes, there are several). If one does not abide by their terms, one is not protected thereby. In fact, unless I'm mistaken one can still execute unlawful combatants (e.g. those not in uniform, or who use hollow-point rounds or other inhumane munitions) out of hand.

      Why is it better to imprison someone than kill them? Is that really a serious question?

      Yes, of course. You can no more give a man a dozen years of his life back than you can give him the rest of his life back. Given that prison is an utterly vile place, it may very well be that it is better to die after a year of it than after forty years of it.

      I would rather see 10 guilty people set free than 1 innocent man put to death.

      Yes, of course; I'd go further yet: I'd rather see a dozen guilty men go free than a single man wrongfully imprisoned, fined, censured or humiliated. That's why our system has so many safeguards built into it: the presumption of innocence; the rules of evidence; the right to appeal; trial by jury &c. We do out absolute best to ensure that every man convicted is guilty. Obviously some fraction will be innocent, as no human process is faultless--we live in an imperfect world.

      OK, you're a 13 year old girl from a broken home, with abusive parents, who gets assaulted, beaten up, and raped. You fall pregnant. Let's look at your choices. You can have the child. You can have the child and put it up for adoption. You can have an abortion.

      Has the child done anything wrong? No--why then must it be put to death? The rapist did the wrong, and compounded it by forcing the poor girl to carry a child to term; he should be punished accordingly. Why should the innocent child suffer the death penalty for a crime it did not commit?

      As a human being I would not like to see any life brought in to this world where it has no chance of receiving the quality of life it deserves.

      That's not the case for anyone. Dave Thomas was adopted--and he did pretty well. If parents cannot or will not provide for their children, they should give them up to others, not slay them. Where, then, would you draw the line? If the mother bears her child, then loses her job and cannot afford two mouths to feed, should she strangle it? If she finds a wonderful man who wants only two children when she has three, may she euthanise one so that the other two have a better life?

      Murder is not as black and white as you make out--I'd consider abortion to more akin to euthenasia--sparing someone from an unnecessary low quality of life.

      How big of one, to kill another because one thinks his life is of unnecessarily low quality.

      I'm sure if it was your daughter, or you, you wouldn't feel that it was illegal--or at least that it should be illegal.

      I hope that I am never a hypocrite.

      Legality does not supercede any form of sensible logic, and if something is not moral, it should not be legal.

      There are a lot of things I believe are or may be immoral: polygamy; drug use; extramarital sex. I also firmly believe that they should be legal. Who decides what is or is not moral? The law is a powerful weapon, and should only be used when one man harms another: it should punish rape, theft, murder, fraud and not a whole lot else. I don't want you telling me that I cannot live according to the precepts of my religion; nor do I want to tell you that you cannot live according to the precepts of your philosophy.

      If you were put in the situation that one of those people find themselves in (as I tried to give examples of), and you would be perfectly happy with what they would have to face/put up with, then that is fine.

      I wo

    6. Re:It's disgusting by Munra · · Score: 1
      That is not my reading thereof. As I understand it, only lawful combatants are accorded the full protection of the Conventions (yes, there are several). If one does not abide by their terms, one is not protected thereby. In fact, unless I'm mistaken one can still execute unlawful combatants (e.g. those not in uniform, or who use hollow-point rounds or other inhumane munitions) out of hand.

      I suggest you read http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673 ,921411,00.html as someone else points out.

      Yes, of course. You can no more give a man a dozen years of his life back than you can give him the rest of his life back. Given that prison is an utterly vile place, it may very well be that it is better to die after a year of it than after forty years of it.

      I can't actually believe you can think that. Obviously you can't give someone years of their life back but the step of giving them years of freedom somewhat makes ammends. Even so, taking away someone's life is barely comparable to imprisoning them.

      That's why our system has so many safeguards built into it: the presumption of innocence; the rules of evidence; the right to appeal; trial by jury &c.

      I feel you're contradicting yourself by saying your system lets a fraction through but you would prefer dozens of guilty to go free. How can you even be willing to accept this tiny fraction? Until there is a foolproof system (which, I suggest will never be the case), it is grossly unfair to accept even the smallest fraction of innocent men being executed.

      Why should the innocent child suffer the death penalty for a crime it did not commit?

      Why should the child be forced to live a life of cruelty, poverty and misery? I'm not saying children shouldn't be put up for adoption or that abortion should be some common-place thing when mothers can't perfectly support their children. I just don't believe there should be a blanket one rule for all. What is the baby will be born with a permanent, possibly terminal, disability? Is it euthenasia then?

      There are a lot of things I believe are or may be immoral: polygamy; drug use; extramarital sex. I also firmly believe that they should be legal. Who decides what is or is not moral? The law is a powerful weapon, and should only be used when one man harms another: it should punish rape, theft, murder, fraud and not a whole lot else. I don't want you telling me that I cannot live according to the precepts of my religion; nor do I want to tell you that you cannot live according to the precepts of your philosophy.

      I take your point that laws should not be determined by morals.

      Of course not--I never said I would be, or that anyone should be. But I would also be quite annoyed if I lost twenty years of my life, or if I died an innocent in prison. In any case, I would fight for my innocence as strongly as possible, even after every avenue was exhausted. But a guilty man would do the same, and society can hardly be expected to exempt from punishment everyone who might be innocent--because every guilty man might be innocent.

      I expect, if it were possible to decide, you would be less annoyed at being imprisoned before being exonerated and cleared and set free than at being killed and later found to be innocent and cleared. Society can be expected to give everyone an indefinite chance to be exonerated, which execution prevents.

      I'm afraid that you have an erroneous idea of what a stem cell is. A stem cell is taken from an embryo (every embryo is fertilised: were it not, it be a seperate egg and sperm), which is a human being with a genetic makeup independent of either parent (well, except for clones...). Experimenting with and killing sperm or eggs must not be illegal (it may be immoral or not, but that is irrelevant); experimenting with or killing human beings must be.

      Actually, there are devised techniques to create stemm and somatic cells from unfertilized embryos. But, even if this were not the case, this comes down to our different views on abortion, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

      Manta

    7. Re:It's disgusting by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      I suggest you read http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673 ,921411,00.html as someone else points out.

      The Guardian's bias is well known, and its legal opinions ludicrous (note that it calls our invasion of Iraq illegal, when--for all its faults--it is patently not). I should mistrust it did it state the sky blue, grass green or clouds white and fluffy.

      Even so, taking away someone's life is barely comparable to imprisoning them.

      You're right: one is a few seconds of pain preceded by some minutes of terror; the other is weeks, months, years, decades of agony and misery. I believe that imprisonment is a far worse punishment than death. Were I imprisoned, I would be sorely tempted to take my own life. Even death by slow strangling would be preferable to life without freedom.

      And you're wrong that being released is in any way fair compensation for being unjustly imprisoned. I would posit that it's as impossible to pay a man back for those lost years as it is to raise a corpse from the dead. Not even a million dollars for every day in prison would bring back the lost opportunities, the lost joys, the lost freedom. Although it'd certainly be nice:-)

      I feel you're contradicting yourself by saying your system lets a fraction through but you would prefer dozens of guilty to go free.

      You should take a statistics course, as in it you would learn that it is impossible to be 100% confident about anything. One cannot guarantee that every freed man was innocent or that every punished man was guilty, or vice-versa. You would also learn that it is possible to construct a system wherein you are exceedingly certain (say, 99.995%) that those punished are guilty--this same system would at once let many guilty men walk, and punish a few innocent men. That is to say, there is nothing contradictory in what I say; what seems so is the natural outgrowth of statistical methods.

      Why should the child be forced to live a life of cruelty, poverty and misery?

      Who determines what lives are worth living? May we execute the homeless, or cripples, or mental defectives, simply because you and I find their lives horrors? Of course not. Why should a mother be permitted to slay her child to prevent a horrible life, particularly when there is an easy way to both let the kid live and improve his chances (i.e. adoption).

      Note that this all hinges on acceptance that conception marks the start of life, and thus that abortion is murder. Were this not the case, then there would be no legal grounds to even argue the point, as it would then be a moral issue (and hence, one I'd not legislate against--note that while I am against voluntary euthanasia, I believe it should be legal). However, there are good scientific and areligious reasons to believe that life begins at conception.

      I find it macabre that you are not willing to slay a confessed and witnessed child rapist-murderer, but are willing to kill innumerable children willy-nilly. Do you realise that more have died due to abortion than due to the Holocaust? I am not certain, but very soon more will have been slain than the Communists ever killed.

      Actually, there are devised techniques to create stemm and somatic cells from unfertilized embryos.

      There is no such thing as an unfertilised embryo. There are unfertilised eggs, and sperm; these are called gametes. When one sperm penetrates the egg's surface, it instantly hardens to prevent any other sperm entering, and the union of the two is called a zygote. When he has multiplied enough to become a kind of ball of many undifferentiated cells, he is a blastula. When certain physical structures (e.g. the mouth and anus) have formed, he is now called an embryo. When all organs have been formed--not necessarily perfected, but begun--he is

    8. Re:It's disgusting by Munra · · Score: 1
      The Guardian's bias is well known, and its legal opinions ludicrous (note that it calls our invasion of Iraq illegal, when--for all its faults--it is patently not). I should mistrust it did it state the sky blue, grass green or clouds white and fluffy.

      It is? And secondly, that opinion is not ludicrous. In fact it's so un-ludicrous that the general secretary of the United Nations happened to agree. So your use of the word patently is, well, patently lacking in clarity at least.

      I believe that imprisonment is a far worse punishment than death.

      How many times have you died? How can anyone be in a position to make that claim?

      You should take a statistics course, as in it you would learn that it is impossible to be 100% confident about anything.

      I do take a statistics course but thank you for arguing my point, even so. It is impossible to be 100% certain so in my opinion, the risk of innocent men being executed is still far too high.

      Note that this all hinges on acceptance that conception marks the start of life, and thus that abortion is murder. Were this not the case, then there would be no legal grounds to even argue the point, as it would then be a moral issue (and hence, one I'd not legislate against--note that while I am against voluntary euthanasia, I believe it should be legal). However, there are good scientific and areligious reasons to believe that life begins at conception.

      Yes, this is where we basically differ. Rather than conception, though, I think it matters largely on when pain is first felt, and remembered -- the latter being important. I'm not going to change your opinion so I'm going to save my fingers.

      There is no such thing as an unfertilised embryo.

      Do correct me if I'm wrong but surely an unfertilised embryo is an egg (as you point out). In which case, there is such a thing. Unfortunately there is no such thing as an unfertilised egg, since by definition an egg is unfertilised, so it's a tautology.
      Research has allowed eggs to evolve as though they were embryonic -- so they can be used for testing -- but without fertilisation. So I think it's pretty fair to call them unfertilised embryos. Although technically eggs, that is what an unfertilised embryo is.

      Manta

  80. Nice soapbox. by liposuction · · Score: 0

    And while you're up there, don't forget that Bush is an illegal president, the CIA forced crack cocain on the minorities, and Jews are trying to take over the world!

    Quick! Vegans and Greenpeace members unite! World socialism must move forward!

    Moron.

    --
    "Thoughts are more powerful than any weapon, and I don't even let my people own guns." --Joseph Stalin
    1. Re:Nice soapbox. by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      Heh, pretty funny you mentioned that.

      Bush is right now breaking international laws as he invades a country without support from the security council. That is illegal and the US has condemned such actions before when done by others.

      The CIA have in fact helped several guerillas in their cocain/drugs business. You can look it up by yourself since it is an official fact ran numerous times in american tv and press.

      The jews are nothing nere taking over the world and i dont view jews as a bad people or jewism as a bad religion. Zionists on the other hand is as bad as the naziz and should be dealt with by the jews for the sake of the jews. The zionists are giving the legit jews a bad reputation around the world. Same goes to the fucked up israeli racist government who tries to build a new South Africa.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    2. Re:Nice soapbox. by thogard · · Score: 1

      This could be consider just another drug war. Uday Hussein is involved with US tobacco smuggling It turns that Uday has figured out he can grow his own and doesn't need to pay US compaines for the stuff and he started draining swams to grow it. Tobacco is how the US keeps the tradbalacnes from getting too bad with oil compaines and now Uday seems to be getting serious. Ever since Gulf War I, the Arabs have been more concerned about how they buy their tobbaco from and prefer to buy Uday's imported and reboxed brands. Some figures connect him to nearly 25% of US tobacco sales. The real story isn't showing up but it appears that some of Bush's best supporters are deeply tied up with the thugs of Iraq. Throw in considerations of Bush's CIA connections (via daddy) combined with the CIA's love of illegal trade makes and you've got one heck of a conspiracy.

  81. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BS see police state post below.

    You have no idea what is happening.

    Just because Dan Rather does not tell you about it does not mean it does not exist.

    How much of a police state do you need before you wake up?

  82. How much to you trust the current fed government? by challlen · · Score: 1

    I have a relative who worked at Intel, and I actually respect Intel quite a bit.

    I have trouble imagining a person who worked at Intel being locked up without charges, no explanations and NO ACCOUNTABILITY!

    Has anyone actually heard back from any of their representatives on this matter?

    This pisses me off really. The government asks for people's trust to handle terrorism investigations, and then you hear something like this.

    There better be a damn good explanation coming from the federal government soon.

  83. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    Well upon *reading the article* the term "disappeared" was used by the family as a description of what happened to him.. hence the quotes in the title.

  84. Sun, Oracle, HP supported terrorism! by dirtfirst · · Score: 1

    The Register covered this a bit ago. The main point of the article, and this post, is that stepping on the rights of 'terrorists' (nearly indistinguishable from 'material witnesses' in this case) really does diminish the rights of everyone, just like we learned in 5th grade civics, along with the importance of hygiene and proper manners.


    Miss Wormwood wasn't just bullshitting us afterall.

  85. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    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.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  86. 2 sides by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Any facts about this case from unbiased sources?

    (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.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:2 sides by tjrw · · Score: 1

      Really ?

      A british grandfather was arrested and held in appalling conditions in South Africa recently because the feds claimed that he was a wanted criminal. Turned out they'd picked the wrong guy. He had the same name. They left him there for three weeks, and it was only because an anonymous tip-off caused them to catch the real guy that they did anything. His name is Derek Bond. Take a look here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/283487 7.stm) for the details.

      I'm afraid you place way too much faith in the FBI etc. This is *precisely* why there were checks and balances in place which Ashcroft seems bent on systematically destroying in the name of "protecting us". Here's the thing... the FBI, CIA, government etc. are composed of human beings with all the same flaws as the rest of the human race. They make mistakes, some of them are criminals etc. That's why it's so important to have the oversight, to have these things be public, etc.

  87. Re:He's a terrorist by Com2Kid · · Score: 4, Insightful
    • Come on, people. He's a member of a terrorist sleeper cell.


    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?
  88. Civil Liberty by BigBir3d · · Score: 0, Troll

    In short, aint none here (USA).

    Consider the current skirmish in Iraq (the word war requires some sort of 2 sided conflict). If we, the public population, were to have voted on whether to use military force or not, there would have been no military action. Now that it has started, a journalist has already been fired for speaking his opinion.

    We are at a state where the differences to, and the similarities to, those we deem to be 'evil' are striking. We can't be the savior and the opressor at the same time. One or the other man, not both.

    On a side note, is anyone else thinking the BlackHawk should not be in service?

    1. Re:Civil Liberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      troll = truth

      gotta love /.

      --
      |
      mod this bitch _||||_

  89. Re:Yeah. It's all a trap. 9/11 was faked. by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Let's see, fire up PROMIS and hack into the camp X-Ray node from the Iraq secret police.
    tick tic tickity type tic tick....
    Here we go, he's being held in holding cell 44a, sub-level 4 on an "abandoned" oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico.

    He's ok for now, but they're not letting him have any smokes. He hasn't even been given his entry processing interrogation yet.

    So quit whining, or you're next!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  90. Stop Talking Out Of Your Ass by N8F8 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I see most of the comments here are just a bunch of USA bashing crap. If you are one of these guys, here are some questions:

    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.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:Stop Talking Out Of Your Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that they'll post links to articles from the ridiculously anti-Bush NYT, but noone else is picking up on this.

      I wonder if all the bleating sheep donating to his legal fund thinking he's some sort of poor misfortunate soul will feel different if it comes out that the guys been harboring an Al Qaeda cell in his basement for 20 years.

      Nah of course not, they'll just run an article on how it was all a big frame-up by the feds to cover their tracks.

      Remember when the lefties were jumping up and down about how poorly Sami Al Aryan was being treated? Now that he's been formally charged with fundraising directly for Hezbollah and other groups, where are they?

      Bah.

      Bunch of tools. People are so stupid and willing to swallow any biased lump of crap they read in the paper, it's no wonder the world's gone to hell in a handbag.

    2. Re:Stop Talking Out Of Your Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbass.. It's not whether or not he's guilty. It's that he's being held indefinitely WITHOUT BEING CHARGED. If they'd charge him for something, then Ok. Charge his ass and get on with the trial. If they're not charging him with anything, then they must only suspect something and not have any real evidence. This is totally against the constitution. Go read it and educate yourself before bashing the only -balanced- newspaper in the country.

      Likely you'll just go back to listening to your AM radio blowhards.

    3. Re:Stop Talking Out Of Your Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go read the constitution, especially the part about denying a citizen the right to a speedy and fair trial.

      If you can read.

    4. Re:Stop Talking Out Of Your Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, balanced..

      Sure..

      Just like they "balanced" that photo we were discussing yesterday.

      He's being held as a material witness. So are 44 others. Hardly the sweeping opression you and the other armchair historians would make it out to be.

    5. Re:Stop Talking Out Of Your Ass by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      Do you have any facts in this case?

      No. That's precisely what we're complaining about, dumbass.

      Have any idea why he's being held?

      No. Neither do you. Neither do his friends. Neither does his family. Neither does he. That's the fucking problem.

      Note that I'm not saying the guy is innocent. How can I say that, when nobody even knows why he's in jail? Maybe he did something horrible, maybe not. Either way, tossing him in solitary to rot without ever telling anybody why is not the way to handle it.

      If not, why should the US government give YOU all the evidence available in an ongoing investigation?

      Nobody's asking for "all the evidence". Something as simple as "you are under arrest for..." and scheduling a court date would do just fine, thank you. Or are you forgetting the Bill of Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair and speedy trial to all US citizens? It is very, very unconstitutional to hold someone in solitary confinement indefinitely without charging them for a crime.

      I bet you'd be singing a different tune if it was you or one of your loved ones in jail, and nobody would give you even the flimsiest reason why.

      Oh, but he's a dirty Arab, so it's okay. Silly me. The bastard probably planned to blow up the Statue of Liberty. I hear the brown-skinned folks are like that.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
  91. Where is the judicial branch? by BillFarber · · Score: 1
    IANAL, so I don't really know how this works, but I thought that if his rights were being violated then he (or an entity like the ACLU on his behalf) could petition a judge. Am I wrong? If so, please enlighten me. If I am correct, then why hasn't this happened?

    I don't like the idea of the executive branch taking powers it doesn't have, but isn't that why we have government authority split 3 ways. If he is truly innocent (which we don't know for sure since we can't see the sealed document), then who is not doing their job here?

  92. Re:Speaking as an American by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1
    It must be nice to criticize a good point with a "troll" comment. Great arguement against the fact that the US government violates its people's rights when it suits them.

    I might point out that there has yet to exist a government that does not violate its people's rights when it suits them. The term is called 'soveriegnty', which one of my political science professors likes to call "The legal right to kill its citizens". It is easy to pick on the US because it is the most prosperous, visible and free of any state in the world. And it does suck when it chooses to violate the very freedoms it stands for.

    For the record, I agree with the 5th ammendment and think the material witness law is unconstitutional. However, if the will to challenge the law does not exist, it will remain in force, regardless of what the Constitution says.

    --
    ASCII tastes bad dude.
    Binary it is then.
  93. Jail Some Irish Americans - They Fund UK Terrorism by meehawl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He made a very large donation to a charity that has known connections to terrorist groups.

    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 charitiess 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.

    To prevent terrorism by dropping bombs on Iraq is such an obvious idea that I can't think why no one has thought of it before. It's so simple. If only the UK had done something similar in Northern Ireland, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. The moment the IRA blew up the Horseguards' bandstand, the Government should have declared its own War on Terrorism. It should have immediately demanded that the Irish government hand over Gerry Adams. If they refused to do so -- or quibbled about needing proof of his guilt -- we could have told them that this was no time for prevarication and that they must hand over not only Adams but all IRA terrorists in the Republic. If they tried to stall by claiming that it was hard to tell who were IRA terrorists and who weren't, because they don't go around wearing identity badges, we would have been free to send in the bombers. It is well known that the best way of picking out terrorists is to fly 30,000ft above the capital city of any state that harbours them and drop bombs -- preferably cluster bombs. It is conceivable that the bombing of Dublin might have provoked some sort of protest, even if just from James Joyce fans, and there is at least some likelihood of increased anti-British sentiment in what remained of the city and thus a rise in the numbers of potential terrorists. But this, in itself, would have justified the tactic of bombing them in the first place. We would have nipped them in the bud, so to speak. I hope you follow the argument. Having bombed Dublin and, perhaps, a few IRA training bogs in Tipperary, we could not have afforded to be complacent. We would have had to turn our attention to those states which had supported and funded the IRA terrorists through all these years. The main provider of funds was, of course, the USA, and this would have posed us with a bit of a problem. Where to bomb in America? It's a big place and it's by no means certain that a small country like the UK could afford enough bombs to do the whole job. It's going to cost the US billions to bomb Iraq and a lot of that is empty countryside. America, on the other hand, provides a bewildering number of targets. Should we have bombed Washington, where the policies were formed? Or should we have concentrated on places where Irishmen are known to lurk, like New York, Boston and Philadelphia? We could have bombed any police station and fire station in most major urban centres, secure in the knowledge that we would be taking out significant numbers of IRA sympathisers. On St Patrick's Day, we could have bombed Fifth Avenue and scored a bull's-eye. In those American cities we couldn't afford to bomb, we could have rounded up American citizens with Irish names, put bags over their heads and flown them in chains to Guernsey

    --

    Da Blog
  94. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    >

    All bad things have small beginnings.. and even though it may be somewhat reactionary it is the duty of the people to point out the wrongs and just as importantly *what they can lead to* .. and sometimes the only way to show that is an end result...

    hence comparing this to oppressive regimes.

  95. Loss of Freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One white man is imprisoned and everyone gets up in arms. What about the fact
    that African Americans faced decades and generations of false imprisonment in
    the form of slavery. And even today, African Americans are in slavery through
    joblessness, imprisonment, and racism. African Americans deserve reparations for
    all the wrongs done to them. Lost wages and loss of freedom is a heavy debt that
    America Land of the Free must return to the African American
    community.


    http://www.ncobra.com/


  96. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by liposuction · · Score: 0

    Besides the fact that no one seems to be able to anser the question of WHAT HE MAY HAVE DONE.

    It's so easy for all the babies here to jump up and whine about this, maybe they should find out why they locked him up.

    And in other news, all the whiners here were dismayed when the U.S. found chemical weapons in Iraq.

    oops.

    --
    "Thoughts are more powerful than any weapon, and I don't even let my people own guns." --Joseph Stalin
  97. Possibly true... by t0ny · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Now, since we dont really know any facts in the case, its quite possible their accusations could be true.

    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".

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    1. Re:Possibly true... by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, secret arrest are counter to everything a free and open society stands for. Secret arrests and detention without charge both erode seriously at the basic foundations of what makes this country work.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Possibly true... by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They haven't made any accusations. That's the trouble.

    3. Re:Possibly true... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Right. You think Bush somehow enacted the legal loopholes that allow the government to keep someone like this. News for ya: Bush doens't make the laws. He signs them but your representatives make them. And probably the laws that allow them to do it were around long before bush. People like you make me laugh. Anything any government agency does is somehow blamed on Bush. Feh.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:Possibly true... by Shagg · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You think Bush somehow enacted the legal loopholes that allow the government to keep someone like this.

      You're right. Bush didn't make the loophole, he's just the one exploiting it.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    5. Re:Possibly true... by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, he's head of the government, and he isn't fighting any of this stuff. It may not be his fault, but it's his responsibility.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    6. Re:Possibly true... by Ravenscall · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, John Ashcroft was the primary author of the USA PATRIOT act, it passed congress, most representatives not bothering to read it (And I will be thankful to Dennis Kucinich to my dying day to making a stand against it), and then Bush signed off on Ashcrofts approval.

      Oh, BTW, this is the same Ashcroft that lost an election to a dead man and Bush appointed.

      So yes, Bush ahd a LOT to do with this particularly foul piece of legislation.

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
    7. Re:Possibly true... by citabjockey · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Anything Bush does or directs or his agents do can be blamed on Bush.

      Bush thrashed our alliances long before Sept 11 or the attack on Iraq - now we are the ones left holding the Iraq bag when it could have been a UN operation.

      Running the justice dept like the Gestapo is quite predictable with this "president".

      Oh yes, another loophole in the constitution made this windbag our chief executive. More people voted for Gore. Gawd.

    8. Re:Possibly true... by SecretMethod70 · · Score: 1

      And thank God that loophole is there. With 85% of voters voting along party lines, I don't want the popular vote voting in my president. Whether or not I agree with the results is no matter, direct democracy doesn't work and that's been known since the time of Socrates. That said, I do find these kinds of things disturbing. Free Maher! ;)

    9. Re:Possibly true... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      The government agencies all report to Bush, whose constitutional mandate is the enforcement and implementation of legislation. And believe me, there have been times when the executive branch has failed to enforce or implement laws that they felt were unconstitutional pending court review. Because the Executive branch *can* do something like this, does not mean it *has to* do something like this. Mind you, the guy could be as crooked as a 3 dollar bill, but holding without charging is usually a sign of prosecutorial incompetence.

    10. Re:Possibly true... by citabjockey · · Score: 1

      Known by who?
      All our electoral system does is add noise to the will of the people. Last election was separated by a few percent (even in popular votes). That being the case the 15% who DONT vote on party lines can easily tilt the tide. Why one person's vote should count more than any others in an election is a mystery to me. Maybe we should also go back to only having white mail landowners vote...

    11. Re:Possibly true... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Zzt. Bush certainly can make laws. He just can't introduce them in congress. But he can (and has) certainly made laws for other people to introduce.

    12. Re:Possibly true... by egoff · · Score: 4, Informative

      They didn't only not bother reading the Patriot Act before passing it, they weren't even allowed to discuss before voting on it!

    13. Re:Possibly true... by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, he's head of the government

      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.

    14. Re:Possibly true... by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I forgot about that part

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
    15. Re:Possibly true... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Oh, BTW, this is the same Ashcroft that lost an election to a dead man and Bush appointed."

      Indeed, he was appointed at the behest of the ACU (American Conservative Union), which later issued a statement following the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act (since when is it patriotic to shred the US Constitution?) stating that many of their constituents regretted its support for his appointment. Aside from that, all reports indicate that even the rest of the Bush Administration doesn't like Ashcroft. A part of me thinks that he might not be part of the package if Bush wins re-election.

      Oddly enough though, John Ashcroft has managed to unite the left and the right. Groups such as the ACLU and the ACU (at completely different ends of the political spectrum) are actually issuing joint press releases stating their belief that he is the single greatest threat to American liberty right now.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    16. Re:Possibly true... by Rasputin · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Actually, John Ashcroft was the primary author of the USA PATRIOT act, it passed congress, most representatives not bothering to read it...

      According to Peter DeFazio (Representative from Oregon), the vast majority of the Congress wasn't even allowed to read it prior to the vote. DeFazio had to demand a copy in so he would know what was in it before the "debate".

      I don't have a reference for the interview in which he said this - it was on the radio. However, here's a link to an article describing his stance on the bill.

      --
      "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
    17. Re:Possibly true... by HeghmoH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, he's the head of the executive branch of the government.

      That means he's in charge of the Justice Department, which is doing bad things both in acting on existing laws in bad ways (Padilla and others) and in proposing bad laws (Patriot Act and sequel).

      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.

      The President has a very large role in making and passing laws. Congress very often acts on recommendation from the President or from the Executive Branch (like the Justice Department) when deciding what to make into law. And failing that, the President has veto powers, but you didn't see Bush vetoing the steaming pile known as Patriot.

      Your statements about the responsibilities of the executive branch are right except when it comes to the President. He has a unique role in that branch that involves his heavily in lawmaking as well.

      It's absolutely true that we should be after Congress for this stuff too, but Bush is certainly a legitimate target.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    18. Re:Possibly true... by elkto · · Score: 0

      "Have you read Antiwar.com" Have you? And I quote: "as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism. " Quick, tell Germany and Japan! Show some proof of these acusations. This is becoming VERY old.

    19. Re:Possibly true... by broter · · Score: 1

      ...another loophole in the constitution made this windbag our chief executive. More people voted for Gore. Gawd.

      Just for clairification, it wan't a loophole but rather, a balancing of state vs. population power that was put in to calm the protests of the smaller states during the creation of the constitution. I pin the idiot's success on the lame voting technology that is in place. However, the crap that goes on when we're stupid enough to go to a paperless voting system will make that small potatoes, I'm guessing.

      That said, I agree that Bush is responsible for all the violations of his subordinates. Hopefully, we'll find a court with an intact set of balls to arrest the rediculous abuses that are going on these days. In order to get the political body going on it, people would need to *want* to reform law enforcement.

      Remember: if they haven't detained you yet, then they're on your side!

      --
      "One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
      - Mick Travis, "If..."
    20. Re:Possibly true... by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      So yes, Bush ahd a LOT to do with this particularly foul piece of legislation.
      Fact: PATRIOT enjoyed nearly unanimous support in congress. The Senate had only one vote against PATRIOT (roll call here). The House had four votes against PATRIOT.(roll call here). Incidentally, one Democrat and four Republicans voted against PATRIOT.

      In other words: the left have as much to be ashamed of on this one as the center and right. Stop being a political shill and start thinking for yourself. Bush-hating and liberal-bashing are two sides of the exact same coin: substituting soundbites for substance. Don't accept the "party line" because 9 of 10 times it's horse poo-poo.

      $G

      --
      -- $G
    21. Re:Possibly true... by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Anyone with a brain can see that Congress was an accomplice to this atrocity, but it's silly to claim that they're as much at fault when 1) they weren't allowed to debate it significantly (thanks to the leaders, so I guess the leaders still have more fault than the rank and file) and 2) they didn't write it.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    22. Re:Possibly true... by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

      Anybody with a brain can see that this is the WRONG PATRIOT ACT

      H R 659 YEA-AND-NAY 22-JUN-1999 5:36 PM

      This act is for the Preservation of national historic sites. Try the USA PATRIOT act

      IIRC, there were 49 against, and almost all dems

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
    23. Re:Possibly true... by GMontag · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Mind you, the guy could be as crooked as a 3 dollar bill, but holding without charging is usually a sign of prosecutorial incompetence.

      As I probably detest the practice as much as you, I have to say that the story above says he is being held as a "material witness". This procedure is quite ancient in US law.

      I *think* The comparison, in the /. story to Kevin is misleading too, at least I do not remember him being heald at any time as a material witness.

    24. Re:Possibly true... by knobmaker · · Score: 1

      Bush doens't make the laws.

      So your theory is that Bush had nothing to do with the Patriot Act and other misguided, anti-American legislation? Didn't ask Congress for these measures? Didn't label anyone who dissented a left-wing supporter of terrorism? Or as the Daily Show put it last night: "Hitler-loving queers."

      Anything any government agency does is somehow blamed on Bush. Feh.

      Gee, do you think maybe that could have anything to do with the fact that he's in charge of the government? Commander-in-Chief... that ring any bells? Ever hear the phrase, "the buck stops here?"

      People like you make me laugh.

      People like you make me pessimistic.

    25. Re: Possibly true... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > Exactly, secret arrest are counter to everything a free and open society stands for. Secret arrests and detention without charge both erode seriously at the basic foundations of what makes this country work.

      Don't forget the secret trials.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    26. Re:Possibly true... by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2, Informative
      This procedure is quite ancient in US law.
      1776 is quite ancient in US law. Read the article. This law dates from 1984 (ironic, ain't it?). Not what I'd call ancient.
      --
      If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
    27. Re:Possibly true... by GMontag · · Score: 1

      Well, I was not refrencing the underlying article, but thanks for pointing out yet another false bit in the /. front page story.

      Taking you at your word, I will re-phrase and declair ~2 decades "pretty old".

    28. Re:Possibly true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Oddly enough though, John Ashcroft has managed to unite the left and the right. Groups such as the ACLU and the ACU (at completely different ends of the political spectrum) are actually issuing joint press releases stating their belief that he is the single greatest threat to American liberty right now."

      Keep in mind that Ashcroft is the water boy for the administration on these matters. If Shrub was not behind him, he would be gone. Never forget that anything that comes out of Ashcroft's mouth has been approved at the highest level - and by that I mean Cheney.

    29. Re:Possibly true... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Actually, he's the head of the executive branch of the government."

      Which is what "head of government" means. The US president is also "chief of state" (ie. chief diplomat), the US being one of the countries that combines the two in one office (in name as well as in fact). The British (Canada, Australia, etc.) technically split those two between prime minister and monarch, and the French split it between prime minister and president.

      We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

    30. Re:Possibly true... by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Congress, you may recall, was panicked by envelopes of anthrax and facing threats of political reprisal, passed the PATRIOT Act overwhelmingly over a year ago, with two copies of the 342-page act printed for the perusal of 535 members. Most who voted for it had no idea the extent of the new, extra-judicial wiretap powers granted to law-enforcement in the bill, secret searches of homes and businesses, or the virtually all-encompassing definition of "terrorism, or the amount of data-sharing license given to federal, and even state and local agencies.

      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?

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
    31. Re:Possibly true... by mbogosian · · Score: 1

      News for ya: Bush doens't make the laws. He signs them but your representatives make them.

      This was alluded to in an earlier post, but I'll spell it out:

      The Senate version of the Patriot Act, which closely resembled the legislation requested by Attorney General John Ashcroft, was sent straight to the floor with no discussion, debate, or hearings. Many Senators complained that they had little chance to read it, much less analyze it, before having to vote. In the House, hearings were held, and a carefully constructed compromise bill emerged from the Judiciary Committee. But then, with no debate or consultation with rank-and-file members, the House leadership threw out the compromise bill and replaced it with legislation that mirrored the Senate version. Neither discussion nor amendments were permitted, and once again members barely had time to read the thick bill before they were forced to cast an up-or-down vote on it. The Bush Administration implied that members who voted against it would be blamed for any further attacks - a powerful threat at a time when the nation was expecting a second attack to come any moment and when reports of new anthrax letters were appearing daily.

      Here's the source.

      So yes, I think Bush is directly responsible for the passing of bad laws by way of manipulating "representatvies". They certainly weren't conducting the Will of the Public when they weren't given time to read the legislation and were threatened to vote for it by other members of the government.

    32. Re:Possibly true... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      A part of me thinks that he might not be part of the package if Bush wins re-election.

      I think not. If Bush had a problem with Ashcroft, he can fire him at any time. Note that he's already done this with his Treasury Secretary (yes, they will rarely admit they are fired and will resign). He doesn't need to wait for an election cycle to change cabinet members.

    33. Re:Possibly true... by vena · · Score: 1

      That means he's in charge of the Justice Department

      no it doesn't, the Justice Department is the judicial branch.

      Congress very often acts on recommendation from the President or from the Executive Branch (like the Justice Department)

      see above.

      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.

    34. Re:Possibly true... by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      no it doesn't, the Justice Department is the judicial branch.

      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.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    35. Re:Possibly true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong-o. Look again, dickweed.

    36. Re:Possibly true... by Herz · · Score: 1

      The Anthrax strains involved originated from the US.

      --
      In vino vici
    37. Re:Possibly true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did they determine that anthrax came from anyway?

      Conspiracy theory: Ashcroft had the anthrax sent to congress (and the public) to scare the legislature into passing fascist "anti-terrorism" laws.

      I don't buy into that theory at all, but I will tell you that I've had a very difficult time dealing with the distinguished gentleman from Missouri wiping his ass with the Constitution of the United State of America for the past ?? years. Even the people of Missouri elected a dead man ahead of him.

    38. Re:Possibly true... by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      I did get the right Senate bill. The error doesn't change the point I was making, though. There was wide bipartisan support for the bill. Unfortunately.

      --
      -- $G
    39. Re:Possibly true... by kalidasa · · Score: 1

      As I probably detest the practice as much as you, I have to say that the story above says he is being held as a "material witness". This procedure is quite ancient in US law.

      Yes, but don't you agree that holding someone as a material witness whom you intend to charge when you get enough evidence on him violates the spirit of the common law practice and the constitution? If I understand it correctly, a material witness is someone whom you do not intend to charge with a crime, but whose participation is required for your prosecution of another's crime.

      Of course, IANAL.

    40. Re:Possibly true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If there are bad loopholes then the legislature needs to amend them.

      If the 'loopholes' are unconstitutional, the president has an obligation not to enforce them. From the U.S. Constitution:

      Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

      If the President deliberately infringes people's fourth and fifth amendment rights, he is violating his oath and ought to be thrown out of office.

      Note that all other government officials (both state and federal) are also required to support the constitution:

      The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

      So FBI agents who infringe on people's constitutional rights are also violating their oath of office.

      Also, any congressperson who voted for the PATRIOT act violated their oath of office as well.

    41. Re:Possibly true... by GMontag · · Score: 1

      Yes, but don't you agree that holding someone as a material witness whom you intend to charge when you get enough evidence on him violates the spirit of the common law practice and the constitution?

      I agree to the extent that it is wrong, I do not know that it is illegal even if the material witness may be suspected to be culpable in another crime.

      Unfortunately, my taste does no make the law. When I am King all will be different.

    42. Re:Possibly true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, actually, since 1933 the President has had "emergency" powers and can just write laws. They're called Executive Orders.

  98. Did anyone ever consider.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that MAYBE this guy is guilty?

    1. Re:Did anyone ever consider.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well them charge him for that crime, whatever it is.

    2. Re:Did anyone ever consider.... by dajt · · Score: 1

      Guilty of what? He hasn't been so much as charged with anything.

      Even if he his guilty of a crime, he deserves a fair and speedy trial, with evidence and a jury and all, as set out in the constitution.

      --
      Geez. Fifteen years and we still haven't taken over the world.
    3. Re:Did anyone ever consider.... by sander · · Score: 1

      see, the problem is that it does not matter one bit if he is guilty of anything or not. If he was guilty and suspected to be, and being held as material vitness, there should be charges brought against whoever did this for flasely holding him and knowingly bringing false charges.

      Its really hard to assume he might be guilty if he is being held as a material witness and not a suspect.

    4. Re:Did anyone ever consider.... by Jennifer+Ever · · Score: 1

      At such a time as he's accused of a particular crime, we can perhaps consider that.

  99. Communists are NOT GUILTY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, communists are all atheists, no DIRTY Muslim religion for them!

    Way to go, commies, you are not MUSLIM!

  100. Half the story. by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I noticed in that entire article that there was not one comment from he or his wife or anyone closer than a coworker (who may or may not be a good friend).

    A few things though. He is being held in solitairy confinement as a "material witness". Perhaps they want him to testify against the charity. If he were to claim that he had no idea they were sending money to terrorists then it could make a great case for fraud against the charity.

    It may be that the people who run this charity with ties to terrorism want him dead. So perhaps he is somewhat willingly hanging out in solitairy. Note that he's not in general population, perhaps that is why. Normally people don't START in solitairy confinement.

    In any case, I don't know. The article is rather sensationalistic. There's a lot of information we simply do not have and cannot speak of. I certainly hope that he makes it through this ordeal. If it becomes clear that he is in fact being held entirely against his will for doing nothing wrong, then I will champion his cause. Until then I refuse to take a position either way.

    And yes, what the government did to Mitnick was horribly, horribly wrong. But don't start acting like we don't have the power to change any of this. We do. Tell your friends and neighbors Kevin's story. Tell them how he did not intend to cause any damage and that any damage he did cause was indirect. Tell them how he was held without being charged for years. Tell them how he was held without a trial for years after that. But by god do NOT start championing the cause of someone that nobody really knows anything about (hell, for all we know he actually COULD be a terrorist) because then it really weakens your argument against the wrongs that were committed against Mr. Mitnick.

    1. Re:Half the story. by Ath · · Score: 1
      The problem with your analysis is that you think whether or not someone is a terrorist or "guilty" should be a criteria whether the government can hold them without charge or give them a trial.

      First, guilt is decided through a trial. Without one, guilt or innocence cannot be determined. It's a legal result from a legal proceeding. And the process is handled through the judicial branch.

      Second, it should be completely irrelevant what the allegations are against an individual. We have a judicial process. It's called due process, and it is based on some notions about justice and fairness. Even the most conservative position usually agrees the notion of "fairness" includes due process. So to say it would ok to withhold due process from an individual (something guaranteed in the US Constition) because they are labeled as a terrorist by the executive branch is rather specious and blatantly unconstitional on its face.

      You should champion the cause of anyone who is denied their basic constitional rights, regardless of not only the allegations against them but also whatever they may have actually done. If everyone cannot exercise those rights, then it's completely possible no one can.

    2. Re:Half the story. by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Ok, let's say the feds actually have a case. And they want this guy to be a witness for this case. Maybe he's even legitimately connected, like with this charity thing. So they want to have him on the stand when they go to trial.

      What exactly in that situation justifies holding him in solitary confinement for weeks?

      Are they afraid that he's going to punt and leave the country before the trial so he doesn't have to testify? Do they think he's going to warn somebody? I mean, what the hell? What, exactly, is wrong with the normal, non-imprisoning method of getting witnesses?

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    3. Re:Half the story. by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1

      Dude.. next time, try READING my comment before posting a rebuttal.

      No one (except the parties directly involved) can say what the real story is here. I made no suggestion whatsoever that holding people without bail and without reason is acceptable.

      What I am saying is that the article had hardly any facts and was mostly a sensationalist piece. That's bullshit. A bunch of loons commenting on Slashdot every time some reporter writes a sensationalist story does nothing to help anyone except big media. Get a clue.

      To clarify my point. I find it really hard to believe that they have no reason whatsoever for holding this guy. They say they've sealed all of the court documents. Perhaps he was charged with something. Perhaps he's in witness protection and this is all a ruse. WHO FUCKING KNOWS. Certainly the author of the article didn't know shit, yet he decided to take the opportunity to post some sensationalist bullshit on the weakening of our rights to further his journalistic and political career. If you think that article was written to help that man out, then you'd be SORELY mistaken. If he is indeed in witness protection then trumping up the discussion about "his rights" is not a good idea.

      Like it or not, there are times when the police do need to hold people for reasons they cannot disclose to the public at large. The best thing to do in these situation is to keep an eye on the situation while it exists. It's like the "continuing war coverage" going on now. The best thing to do is to sit back, keep an eye on it, and take in information. When it's all said and done, then you take action. When this passes he'll be able to speak out. And if he was wronged, then the people who wronged him should be brought to justice. In the mean time, let it be and have just a little faith in the people working for our governments to do the right thing. It's the lack of respect for authority and media sensationalism that is really killing this country. My guess.. Slashdot won't even give a shit after this guy has been released or been to trial. That's really a shame because that is the appropriate time to make the decision to take action.

    4. Re:Half the story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There's a lot of information we simply do not have and cannot speak of."

      That is exactly the problem. (i dont think you meant it in this way though... but think about it)

    5. Re:Half the story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I've known the man for almost ten years, as a neighbor, close friend, and coworker. He is without doubt the least likely person I know to have ever been involved in ANY activity of this nature.

      Wish I could say more, but even this is probably a bad idea. I just wanted to let you know that while you may not know Maher, a LOT of people who do are reading this right now.

      Sorry I have to do this anonymously, but none of us feel particularly safe right now...

    6. Re:Half the story. by TekPolitik · · Score: 1

      He is being held in solitairy confinement as a "material witness". Perhaps they want him to testify against the charity. If he were to claim that he had no idea they were sending money to terrorists then it could make a great case for fraud against the charity.

      Yes, (assuming they are funding terrorists) - that's what terrorists are most afraid of, a civil suit for fraud.

      Normally people don't START in solitairy confinement.

      "Material witnesses" of this kind do because the information is taken to be of military significance and thus secrecy to be required.

    7. Re:Half the story. by justins · · Score: 1
      I noticed in that entire article that there was not one comment from he or his wife or anyone closer than a coworker (who may or may not be a good friend).

      His family is probably dealing with the emotional and economic aftermath of having the FBI raiding their home, seizing their property and the head of their household with little or no explanation. That sort of thing sometimes throws people off a bit.

      It might also be that the family has been threatened with some sort of legal action if they speak up. Which would of course be unconstitutional, so forget I mentioned it, it's just outrageous speculation...

      The article is rather sensationalistic. There's a lot of information we simply do not have and cannot speak of.

      Ironically, people would agree with you more about the "sensationalism" if the article had bothered discuss the impact on the poor guy's family at all, which it didn't.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    8. Re:Half the story. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      """
      He is being held ... as a "material witness". Perhaps ... to testify against the charity.... It may be that the people ... want him dead. So perhaps he is somewhat willingly hanging out in solitairy.
      """

      No, witnesses who are targets of terrorist/silencing attacks *usually* "start" in a Witness Protection Program such that their Constitutional Rights aren't horribly infringed upon in the process of brining criminals to justice.

      Note to everybody making half-assed imbicilic excuses for why it's okay for the government to be unaccountable when violating constitutional rights: Please do not attempt to use your contitutiona rights in the future. The rest of us will elect officials who are content to do a good-enough job of protecting us without giving us the screaming heebie-jeebies by paying more attention to lobbyists than they do the constitution.

      Thank you, and have a very secure day.

    9. Re:Half the story. by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1
      Normally people don't START in solitairy confinement.
      "Material witnesses" of this kind do because the information is taken to be of military significance and thus secrecy to be required.

      Yes, exactly my point.

    10. Re:Half the story. by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1
      Ironically, people would agree with you more about the "sensationalism" if the article had bothered discuss the impact on the poor guy's family at all, which it didn't.

      But that would only trigger people to immediately notice that it's sensationalistic. The way it is now most people will be fooled.

      ;-)

    11. Re:Half the story. by justins · · Score: 1
      To clarify my point. I find it really hard to believe that they have no reason whatsoever for holding this guy. They say they've sealed all of the court documents. Perhaps he was charged with something. Perhaps he's in witness protection and this is all a ruse. WHO FUCKING KNOWS. Certainly the author of the article didn't know shit, yet he decided to take the opportunity to post some sensationalist bullshit on the weakening of our rights to further his journalistic and political career. If you think that article was written to help that man out, then you'd be SORELY mistaken. If he is indeed in witness protection then trumping up the discussion about "his rights" is not a good idea.

      Instead of simply labeling the article (either one, I guess) which you dislike "sensationalist," point out what was in it which was not true. No, really. Which part of the story was false?

      If the best you can come up with was "they didn't interview his wife," well, what the fuck? The two obvious reasons for that are that she might very well be in fear of her or her children's safety, or the FBI compelled her silence in any number of ways.

      But if you're the sort of braindead "patriot" who views this sort of news as "sensationalist" the possibility that this might be the case would probably make your mind explode.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    12. Re:Half the story. by metachimp · · Score: 1
      If the best you can come up with was "they didn't interview his wife," well, what the fuck? The two obvious reasons for that are that she might very well be in fear of her or her children's safety, or the FBI compelled her silence in any number of ways.


      As part of the PATRIOT Act, when the FBI secretly examines your library and book store habits, among other things, the people who supply them with the records are required to keep quiet about it.


      The Feds told her to shut the fuck up if she knows what's good for her, else they find themselves stateless.

      --
      The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
    13. Re:Half the story. by TekPolitik · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly my point.

      Strange - I thought your point was that he must have done something to deserve to be put in solitary confinement.

    14. Re:Half the story. by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1

      Err no.. NOT AT ALL!

      I'm the one saying I don't have all the facts and you think I'd assume something like that? That would be far, far worse than the assumptions made by the sensationalist Wired reporter.

      I decided to take the logical approach which tells me that he is probably in solitairy for protection. I'm not certain of that, but that's my guess. My main concern is that he is being treated well and has ample access to his lawyer.

      You can say all you want about due process being violated by holding someone. Personally I feel that that is a murky issue, especially in times like these. However, what's definitely NOT a murky issue is being treated properly and having access to a lawyer. If he doesn't have those things then I will certainly concede the point that our justice system is going to hell. Case in point: wasn't Mitnik actually denied the right to call his lawyer because they were scared he'd detonate a nuclear weapon through the telephone!? Now THAT is fucking nutso. But holding someone with ample access to their lawyer is, in my mind, a fairly reasonable thing to do under special circumstances.

  101. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish to God that there were more republicans with as much sense as you... Honestly...

  102. slashdot.aljazeera,net? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    Jesus, the whole premise of this is FUD.

    There are a few hundred people being held without charges right now, many for over a year, and this guys has been held a short time, and NOW you give a damn? Im guessing only since hes in the tech industry.

    Total propeganda by the editors here. You can present the story, but to make the Govt. sound like the gestapo over a 14 hold says more about YOUR attitude about the Govt. than it does the Govt. attitude toward its citizens. I agree that its wrong to be held like this, but no one "disappeared" anywhere. Total FUD by the editors. FUD FUD FUD.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    1. Re:slashdot.aljazeera,net? by tfurrows · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amen. Might I add that the "Kevin" reference/comparision is ridiculous. This guy represents nothing that Kevin did, and his "material witness" status isn't even IT related. What in the WORLD is this story doing on Slashdot?

    2. Re:slashdot.aljazeera,net? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I mean who cares, he's just another fucking rag head who steals our jobs, fuck let's start sending the fuckers to ovens and wipe the world clean.
      Rah, Rah America.

  103. Russian Mafia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if the communists are not Muslim, they must be good Americans.

    What about Russian Mafia?

  104. U FLAMER by GoodFun!!!!!!!! · · Score: 1, Funny

    dont u no the economi is not bushs falt its the terrorits they crashed the WTC and recked all tha money bush only helped saddam befor cos he wsa good then now hes evil just like u and ur livberl commy frends u commy only BUSH and GOD can help us now becos BUSH is GODS CHOSEN LEADER when ur bruning in hel ul be sori

  105. That's just normal business, so it seems by RoLi · · Score: 1
    That all sheds new light on the Iraq conflict.

    On the one side, you have a political leader who has come to power through undemocratic means[1], who unilaterally breaks treaties[2], who doesn't care about UN-resolutions[3], doesn't care about basic human rights[4] and has weapons of mass destruction[5]. And on the other side you have Saddam Hussein.

    Tough to pick a side.

    1: Ballot-fraud in Florida,
    2: Kyoto-agreement,
    3: Invasion of Iraq, keeping prisoners in Cuba without lawsuit
    4: This story plus keeping prisoners in Cuba without lawsuit
    5: Obvious - about 20000 nuclear heads plus a lot more chemical and biological weapons.

    1. Re:That's just normal business, so it seems by Grax · · Score: 1

      1. George Bush did not commit ballot fraud in Florida. There was some ballot confusion that resulted in making the close count controversial. The only action I consider unjust was the US Supreme Court's meddling. In election law cases the state's Supreme Court should be the ultimate authority.

      2. The Kyoto agreement was never ratified by the United States. Can't break a treaty that was never made.

      5. I am not aware of a United States chemical or biological weapons program. Perhaps you could post more information.

    2. Re:That's just normal business, so it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. What about the illegal tactics used to keep people from voting - like saying that people with parking tickets were'nt allowed to vote, or closing polls early, or countless others? 5. They said "weapons of mass destruction" which doesn't have to be chemical or biological. But I bet we have those as well... Can you prove we don't?

    3. Re:That's just normal business, so it seems by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

      1) It has been shown that over 57,000 Florida voters were wrongly removed from the voting roles in Florida by a company that has close ties to both George W and Jeb Bush. The main reason it came to light is because the head of a local Democratic office was suspended for having a felony record, which in fact did not exist. It was later found that 97% of the people removed had no felony record. Guess what party they all belonged to?

      2) The Kyoto agreement was signed by President Clinton. That legally makes the treaty agreement. Congress must then vote on it, if they approve, it goes into effect, if not, we withdraw. There was never a congressional vote on it, GW just "Unsigned" (his word) it.

      5)The United States develops and produces Chemical and Biological weapons, for purpouses of "Defense", despite the facvt that we already have massive stockpiles of these weapons.

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
    4. Re:That's just normal business, so it seems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) You are correct about the Kyoto treaty. However, Bush *did* break the ABM treaty. That treaty had a notify for 6 month to escape clause, but Bush decided to unilaterally break it. There was no pressing need since anti-missile defense was and still is a couple of years away (at its most optimistic). While it's hard to read another person's mind, I think he did that just prove the point.

      5) Nuclear weapons are generally considered to be weapons of mass destruction. The USA acknowledges possession of these.

    5. Re:That's just normal business, so it seems by RoLi · · Score: 1
      1: There are lots of comments about this on this very thread. But there were just too many things "weird". People denied to vote, recounts prevented on purpose, irregularities on voting machines, etc.

      The only democratic thing to do would be to do a partial (where people have been wrongly denied their right to vote) or complete second vote.

      2: So you mean to tell me that when a president signs something it is meaningless and the next president can pretend it never happened?

      5: OK, I don't have proof, but I think nuclear weapons clearly classify as weapons of mass destruction.

    6. Re:That's just normal business, so it seems by Grax · · Score: 1

      1. How come only one reporter came across this evidence? (Greg Palast's story is the only one I could find)

      2. If it is not in effect then it cannot be broken. Clinton had 3 years to get it ratified and he did not.

    7. Re:That's just normal business, so it seems by Grax · · Score: 1

      1. I need to see more evidence before I'm convinced the weirdness goes beyond simple incompetence.
      2. It isn't in effect until ratified by congress and Clinton never got that done so I don't see why George can't give up on getting it ratified if he wants.
      5. Yes. I have no question nuclear weapons are considered mass destruction.

    8. Re:That's just normal business, so it seems by citabjockey · · Score: 1

      Vote fraud is covered in other posts. This was adminstered by jeb and his pet, Katherine Harris by purging voter rolls of folks with names "similar" to those of convicts.

      Another item, Lets not forget that Bush also doesn't want to be judged -- he vetoed US participation in the world court.

    9. Re:That's just normal business, so it seems by RoLi · · Score: 1
      I need to see more evidence before I'm convinced the weirdness goes beyond simple incompetence.

      Does that really matter?

      If a vote is screwed up you only can do a second vote, no matter if the screw-up was intentional or not. Otherwise we could just roll dice.

    10. Re:That's just normal business, so it seems by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

      1) Mike Moore (as much as I loathe him) also unearthed stuff, and frankly, it is because nobody who works in the propoganda industry cares to look

      2) It is Illegal for Bush to unsign it. He could have left it launguishing, but was afraid it would pass.

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
    11. Re:That's just normal business, so it seems by Grax · · Score: 1

      You mean the guy who thinks there was a conspiracy at the Oscar's to make boos against him louder?

      http://www.wcfcourier.com/lifestyles/030331moore.h tml

      or the one who makes a manipulative piece of film and calls it a documentary?

      http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pag ename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1 035780073241&call_pageid=968867495754&col=96948319 1630

      Michael Moore is interesting and thought provoking but his work is definitely more one-sided and manipulative than the general media. (either that or he just isn't as good at being manipulative)

    12. Re:That's just normal business, so it seems by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Any vote, anywhere, where the margin of victory is less than the margin of error in counting, should result in a run-off election, any other irregularities notwithstanding.

    13. Re:That's just normal business, so it seems by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      Why don't you have proof? It's not like Iraq invented whole new classes of weaponry off the tops of their heads in a decade. The first thing I found on Google. It's not like we kept it a secret or anything. I guess it's just that nobody wants to bring it up right now.

  106. My name is Maher... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I Kiss you!

  107. Police State by The+AtomicPunk · · Score: 1

    This kind of crap is why I'm far more afraid of our own government than Iraq's.

    I'm sure most people out there disagree, it's a lot easier going through life rationalizing or sticking your head in the sand.

  108. OFFFTOPICC!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    what the hell are you moderators smoking? what does this wildly offtopic rant have anything to dow this story? Oh, I see, it's because its another bush-bashing comment, automatically its worth modding up.

    please mod me and the parent down for being shamelessly offtopic.

    1. Re:OFFFTOPICC!!! by Munra · · Score: 1

      Well, I concur it is not complete on-topic but I am talking about people being detained for terrorism acts, which the topic talks about. I also talk about allowing authorities to hold him indefinitely without charging him with a crime, which is in the topic.

      Manta

    2. Re:OFFFTOPICC!!! by radish · · Score: 1

      "Bush-Bashing" huh? Is that what the young ladies call it these days? ;)

      You'd be amazed the number of girls over here wearing tshirts saying "The only Bush I trust is my own"...tres amusant! Hmmm, I may just pop to McDonalds for some freed^H^Hnch fries!

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  109. One Wonders by Stargoat · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If you don't like it, go here

    Here.

    Or here.

    Regardless though, one one should be surprised. This is from an administration that employees criminals like Poindexter. The US is also in a war, and has regarded itself as being in one since the September 11 massacre. To win wars, civil liberties are infringed upon.

    You can be upset, but don't pretend to be surprised.

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
  110. Apply Occum's Razor Here Folks, by SplendidIsolatn · · Score: 1

    He's most likely not had charges brought against him since doing so might jeopardize an ongoing investigation.

    Anyone have a simpler explination that doesn't involve putting on your tin foil hats to keep the gub'ment info rays out of your mind?

    --
    sig--we don't need no goddamn sig
    1. Re:Apply Occum's Razor Here Folks, by Captain+Pooh · · Score: 1

      uhhh..This guy is a U.S. Citizen living in America and should be affored the rights of a American citizen.

    2. Re:Apply Occum's Razor Here Folks, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's most likely not had charges brought against him since doing so might jeopardize an ongoing investigation.

      Not quite - the government can press charges, and still keep them secret.

      If you apply Occam's Razor, there are no charges brought against him because he hasn't done anything illegal.

    3. Re:Apply Occum's Razor Here Folks, by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      It is quite possible to let him know what he's charged with without jeoparidzing an ongoing investigation.

      "You're under arrest for fraud".

      Ta-da!

      Any co-conspirators will know he's been caught, and thus know there's an investigation. There's no point in not telling him what he's to be charged with.

      And since he's a material witness, the plen would be to hold him until they feel like releasing him.

  111. If he's been "disappeared" then how come... by technoCon · · Score: 1

    the slashdot summary of this case said this guy is being held in a federal lockup.

    Heh. I thought when you are "disappeared" they don't know where you're being held or where you're buried.

    Maybe I don't understand the term "disappeared," have they rendered him invisible?

    Oh well, I'd better get back to work on my bioweapon (potato cannon) project.

    1. Re:If he's been "disappeared" then how come... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. He's not 'disappeared,' he's just locked up without being charged or convicted of anything illegal. Disappeared is like when they push you out of a helicopter over the ocean or something.

  112. the alien third ha by pyrrho · · Score: 1

    ... also known as the "gripping hand".

    --

    -pyrrho

    1. Re:the alien third ha by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      There's a Niven reader if I ever saw one.

  113. So here's a solution... by JoeShmoe · · Score: 1

    What if he commits a crime while in lockup? Let's say he kills a guard. He would have to be charged with a crime at some point. The family of the guard would demand justice. It would be alot harder to explain why they weren't charging someone with a crime when they had dead on proof he did it. If he was charged, then all the necessary rights and regulations would apply. His defense would be he had to do it to get his constitutional rights, etc. If not him, members of his family, etc.

    I'm not saying it's the right thing, but at this point, being a polite and cooperative citizen has gotten him nowhere, he has nothing to lose by being the criminal they already are punishing him for being.

    Would make an interesting Law & Order episode, in any case...

    - JoeShmoe
    .

    --
    -- I wonder which will go down in history as the bigger failure: the War on Drugs or the War on Filesharing
  114. I suspect ... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    that Mike will be allowed out soon due to public outcry. The real crime will continue though. We will keep locking up many innocent ppl in the name of security which is based on inuendo and lies.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  115. oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aaaahh! the Free Mike Hawash site has been hit with a terrorist DOS attack instigated by that evil slashdot site! =P

  116. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right, guilty until proven innocent..

  117. This is why... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

    This is why I've been screaming about Jose Padilla since his announced arrest as a "material witness" back in May of last year. The real question is, how many other American citizens are being secretly held by either the DOJ or the DOD.

    This is just plain sick.

    --
    -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
  118. Consitution by dpete4552 · · Score: 1

    How is this not in direct violation of the consitution? What the hell good is it if the government can outright ignore it for whatever reason? Who the fuck is suppose to enforce it? Whomever, or whatever entity, that is should be removed from power as they are not protecting the very foundation this country was founded upon, that being our constitution, specifcally the Bill of Rights.

    --
    http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
  119. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's so easy for all the babies here to jump up and whine about this, maybe they should find out why they locked him up."

    And we will find this out how? Hell we can't even find out where he is. Sorry bud but your argument is flawed because the constitution has been run over roughshod.

  120. AS A JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find the fact that you compare what happened to my grandparents in Hitlers Germany to the hunt for terrorists absolutely repugnant.

    Terrorists arent being punished for a religious belief, color of skin, or heritage. They're being hunted and punished because they desire nothing more than to kill innocents.

    You are a fucking racist moron. And whoever modded you up are fucking racist morons as well.

    1. Re:AS A JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Obviously you like to jump the gun on these things...

      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.

    2. Re:AS A JEW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats this "terrorist desire nothing more than to kill innocents?" crap all about?

      Every terrorist is tring to convice the other side that its not worth their trouble to maintain the status quo. They are all fighting for something aginst insurmountable odds. They tend to belive that their fight must be won at all costs. When you have so many people so angry that you have tens or even thousands of terrorist, you need to step back and look at why these people are willing to die for their cause. Sometimes their are real reasons, sometimes its just religious lunacy.

  121. Lock up H1B's instead dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know it is "mean" and all, but I am really pissed about the H1B thing.

    1. Re:Lock up H1B's instead dammit by ddriver · · Score: 1

      Dude, He's not H1b, he is a __CITIZEN__

      --
      I found my inner child, then I got caught abusing it...
  122. nevertheless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's really nice of USA to bring freedom to other countries. If there's one country who knows about that stuff, it's USA.

  123. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Some people just don't understand what "evil" means. The civil liberties violations in the US do not even compare, except by idiots.

    So I guess that makes it okay, then.

  124. The fourth balance of power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What allows me to sleep at night is the fact there are a lot of milita's with guns in the midwest. If the constitution erodes too far these guys will start the 2nd revolution.
    With Judges legistating from the bench and Ashcrost's DOJ have not judical oversight we are loosing the checks and balances the founders created.
    That is also why they created the 2nd amendment.
    Remember governments are a man made creation. Don't get paranoid. Take action yourself. Educate your family and become self sufficent. The more we feed the beast (via taxes) and be feed by the beast (via social programs) the more power it tries to take.

    BTW.... Vote Libertarian

    1. Re:The fourth balance of power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      BTW.... Vote Libertarian

      ..except in the presidential election. Any vote not for the democratic candidate is a vote for Bush. Do the math.

  125. More about U.S. government corruption: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    More about U.S. government corruption: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories

    The principles for which the U.S. was known are being increasingly abandoned.

    1. Re:More about U.S. government corruption: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting link. I happen to agree that the U.S. has been guilty of unjustly using force in the past.

      However, I must disagree that all of the instances cited in this article were unjust. I happen to support President Bush and the decision to act upon Saddam's violations of the terms of the 1991 ceace fire. I believe the current war to be one of the most humane wars ever fought (and yes, there is no such thing as a truly humane war, so this is a deliberate oxymoron of sorts), more humane than permitting Saddam to continue to brutalize his own citizens and pose a threat with his aid, training, and potential use or sharing of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists or other violent anti-U.S. groups or individuals. It was the right thing to do, as awful as it is. All war is hell. Sadly, some are necessary for the long term good of humanity. I believe this to be one of those. So I will, contrary to the article's admonition, use "we" when referring to the U.S.'s military actions in Iraq.

      That said, I must say that I am gravely concerned about the loss of rights here in the U.S. due to fear of terrorism. I hope the courts and congress will overturn and remove some of the laws and powers our government has acquired and is using in this war on terrorism.

      As for past actions by the U.S. or U.S. agencies, I hope that we as citizens become more and more aware of problems so we can elect honest people to represent us on Congress, to pass just laws, and elect just men and women to the executive branch to enforce such laws.

      No government can ever be free or deal justly when the populace is not, in general, honest and caring. Period. It is a law of nature that a democratic republic like the U.S. will reflect the character of its citizens. There is a two-way feedback system whereby a corrupt leader will encourage corruption in the populace, and likewise a corrupt populace will tend to choose/elect corrupt representatives. Likewise, an honest, decent leader can influence the populace for good, and a citizenry that cares about human rights, justice, and honesty, will tend to choose/elect leaders like themselves. It's almost impossible to determine if one causes the other, or if it's a mutual feedback cycle with an impossible to determine origin.

      So let us, as citizens, behave ourselves in a manner like we would have our government govern us. Let's be polite in conversation, concerned for others, honest in our dealings, and willing to do something to make changes when we see something wrong. No, we won't all agree about everything, but we can agree to disagree agreeably.

  126. Kill him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and any supected terrorist. It'll save a lot of headaches later.

    Fuck justice, and fuck the sand niggers. He obiously 'aint white, and the Wired article clains he's a US citizen. Oh yeah? Lemme see his birth cert. and paperwork. I want discovery on the camel jockey.

    -=Labia

  127. Scary quote by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "You hear about this happening in other countries and to immigrants and then to American citizens," Mr. McGeady went on. "And finally you hear about it happening to someone you know. It's scary."

    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.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    1. Re:Scary quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "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"

      The scariest thing is: What is "the end"? What does it look like? How feasible is it?

      Define the "end" and let's hope it is slightly better than what we have now.

    2. Re:Scary quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why not

      find -name '*base*' -and -user your -exec chown us \{\} \;

      ?

  128. Re:Speaking as an American by ChemicalSpider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would also have to point out that sometimes our 'inalienable' rights come into conflict with each other. I have the right as an American citizen to ask my government to protect me from terrorists. However, the gentleman in question has the right to due process. What happens, though, when the government things that allowing due process will infringe on my right to safety?

    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.

  129. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by GrenDel+Fuego · · Score: 1

    Of course no one knows what he did. They won't even tell him why he's being detained.

    No matter what he has or hasn't done, it is wrong to detain someone without due process.

  130. Articles V and VI by Johnny+Mnemonic · · 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.

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    1. Re:Articles V and VI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ashcroft doesn't care; why should I? ;)

      Seriously, get rid of your current regime. After all it has been doing, you owe the world this.

    2. Re:Articles V and VI by ShieldWolf · · Score: 1

      As much as I agree with you please notice:

      "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime"

      He isn't being charged.

      "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"

      He isn't being prosecuted.

      Those are some pretty nasty loopholes.

      --
      just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
    3. Re:Articles V and VI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That presumes, of course, that there will BE an election in 2004.

    4. Re:Articles V and VI by TekPolitik · · Score: 1

      No person shall be held .. for ... 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...

      The lesson here is that assuming freedom ever gets restored in the USA, if you want to join the armed forces, join the air force.

    5. Re:Articles V and VI by bugnuts · · Score: 1
      Those amendments contain more than what you put. Perhaps the relevant part is: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

      But remember, I am not anal. Er... IANAL

    6. Re:Articles V and VI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are missing something - he hasn't been accused of a crime. He is being held as a "material witness", so neither of those amendments apply.

  131. It's like Alice in Wonderland meets Franz Kafka. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, its more like Bush Jr. and a bunch of rightwing jews meeting Sadam Hussain.

  132. So, uh... by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

    Intel has a job opening now?

    Seriously, this sucks, though. What was that about exchanging liberty for security? :: sighs ::

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  133. They don't burn corpses anymore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They use some powerfull acid, then they reduce the teeth into power.
    Well at least Saddam would have done that.

  134. Maybe it's stuff that matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this matters, whether or not it's nerd-related.

  135. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, they put "disappeared" in quotes. You know, like the difference between "SERIAL RAPIST WHO EATS BABIES" and "*ALLEGED* SERIAL RAPIST WHO EATS BABIES". Both will perk people's ears, but the second one is somehow "okay" because of an extra word.

    Whatever you want to call it, I personally have a REAL FEAR of something like this happening to me or someone I know. On purpose, or by mistake. I DON'T KNOW what the criteria are for this. Do you have to be of foreign descent and have a beard? That's me. Do you have to have non-mainstream views? I do. What's the cutoff? I know generally if I don't break any laws (even the stupid ones that are hard to avoid), I should be okay. But this guy seems to have NOT broken any laws.

    Sure, it's not what happens in Iraq, but I don't recall the constitution saying "just be more free than the other countries and then stop"...

  136. Freedom by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    I hate to say and see it, but homeland security takes away all the freedoms Americans have.
    Like this example: if they claim you're a terrorist, you're put away and loose (almost) all your rights.

    extreme situations, like terrorism ask for extreme measures, but this is absurd.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  137. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by ErikTheRed · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Perspective disclosure regarding my comments: I'm a conservative non-republican who grudgingly voted for Bush.

    More or less what I was going to post, but you beat me to it :). What happened to this individual, while unfortunate and in my opinion indefensible, is nowhere near what happens to those "disappeared" under totalitarian regimes. Say what you want, but I seriously doubt he's going to be tortured, killed, and buried in an unmarked mass grave. When people with extreme political views (and this applies to the right, the left, and everyone in between) exaggerate their claims in this manner they completely destroy their credibility, at least with those of us who have an IQ higher than our shoe size and are actually capable of some critical thought.

    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.

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
  138. Re:Jail Some Irish Americans - They Fund UK Terror by Xerithane · · Score: 1

    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.


    I wouldn't say hundreds of thousands, but you are probably right. I have a strong feeling that unless you are donating to Sinn Fein, you should be. When this "War on Terrorism" bit started, I was actually concerned as being an Irish-American, and also speaking out in support of Sinn Fein.

    Thankfully enough, the Smoked Irish methodology isn't as strong as it was decades ago.

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  139. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All bad things have small beginnings.. and even though it may be somewhat reactionary it is the duty of the people to point out the wrongs and just as importantly *what they can lead to* .. and sometimes the only way to show that is an end result...

    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.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  140. If they have material evidence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..that he is more than he appears, possibly a "sleeper" or knowingly supported terrorist acts and their evidence is enough to legitimately convince a judge then he *should* be detained in jail.

    P.S. I'm *glad* Jose Padilla is in a Navy brig.

    1. Re:If they have material evidence... by metachimp · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't normally respond to an AC post, but don't you think that if they had any evidence they would have actually arrested him and charged him with something instead of this material witness BS?

      If he's a sleeper, busting him now will cause the rest of his cell to "go to ground", using spookspeak, will it not? If they're trying to stop a terrorist cell, they're choosing an odd way to go about it, ensuring that they won't catch anybody.

      You can't just throw people in jail, hoping that some evidence will pop up or that they'll incriminate themselves...

      --
      The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
  141. Hmm, lets see, donations requested.... by ray-auch · · Score: 1

    So, they've locked up this guy indefinetly without charge, because he's got suspected links to terrorism, and that is because he donateded some money to an organisation supporting people with suspected links to terrorism.

    So what does someone(?) do - set up a support site where sympathetic people can donate (paper check mind you - sign here please...) to an organisation to support the guy. Remember this is the guy with suspected links to terrorism, so you'd be donating to an organisation supporting people with suspected links to terrorism.

    I bet it took McCarthy a lot more effort to get his list together - ain't the internet wonderful.

  142. Mod points.. by dentar · · Score: 1

    Mod points!
    Mod points!
    My kingdom for some mod points!

    You would have earned mine!

    --
    -- I am. Therefore, I think!
  143. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

    I am pro-Freedom, which means that I am glad that the madman Saddam is finally getting his just desserts. This also means that I get pissed when I hear about someone being denined their legal right to due process.

    I certainly agree that this doesn't make President Bush the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein, but it isn't right all the same. Locking people up without charging them with a crime is wrong, and if they do charge Mike with a crime he should have the right to a speedy trial by his peers.

    This is not the same as what has been done by other tyrants around the world, but it is still tyranny.

  144. Sadly... by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

    The key difference here is that what they did to Mitnick was illegal at the time. What they are doing to this guy is totally legal now thanks to the USA PATRIOT act.

    You say we are headed towards a fascist police state

    I say we have been here for a while now

    --
    You say you want a revolution....
  145. When will the American People wake up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder why the American are not standing up against a law which takes away their constitunal rights which they are so proude of. Don't you realize that the goverment is bullshitting on you. It just rembers me of the 30 in Germany. I'm not that old but was listing to my teacher at school. Taking away the basic rights of citizens will not make your country any bit safer. I would rather tell your goverment and 'leader' to search for reason why 9/11 happend. What the US goverment is doing now will just make it worse and this is my deep belive.
    When I saw the first pictures of 9/11 I thought to myself this will lead to war. On the other hand I was praying that they will act with reason and not with stupid arrguments like 'eye by eye,...'. If you don't stop your goverment you will get into deep problems. Don't you think that the reason for 9/11 was exactly what happens right now. The person who planned the whole thing must be a chess master or maybe the Bush Administration a week one which predictable 5 steps ahead.

  146. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    Whatever you want to call it, I personally have a REAL FEAR of something like this happening to me or someone I know. On purpose, or by mistake. I DON'T KNOW what the criteria are for this. Do you have to be of foreign descent and have a beard? That's me. Do you have to have non-mainstream views? I do. What's the cutoff? I know generally if I don't break any laws (even the stupid ones that are hard to avoid), I should be okay. But this guy seems to have NOT broken any laws.

    Like I said, its wrong, we should speak out against it. My problem is a matter of perspective. As wrong as it is, it is still not like what is going on elsewhere. These are problems that can be dealt with. He is not going to die in prison, be beaten, etc. He does need representation, we do need to complain, however, if you 'overreact', then no one will pay you any attention. You will be seen as a kook. For good reason.

    Welcome to America: if you want us to take you serious, you have to present your arguement reasonably, backed up with facts. If you dish out FUD, we assume you are full of shit, and anything you say is meaningless.

    My point: By overreacting and exaggerating these types of stories, you end up screwing the guys in jail because no one will take you serious. Its not enough to be right, you also have to be fair.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  147. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by stubear · · Score: 1

    "'For nearly two weeks, he has been held as a so-called "material witness" in solitary confinement in a federal lockup in Sheridan, Oregon."

    Jesus, you didn't even have to RTFA to figure this out.

    Also, the Constitution is only a part of opur legal system, it is not the end all be all of laws our local, state and federal governments have at their disposal.

  148. "Human Rights" by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    This merely enforce the notion that most citizens of "totalitarian" states knew for some time; rights is what the government lets its citizens have when it is "convenient," and the United States isn't any different.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  149. huh, i wonder by Cheapoboy · · Score: 1

    I guess Bush and his buddies saw how popular Battlefield 1942 and Wolfenstein were and decided we all want to live in Nazi Germany. and he says he dosnt follow polls.

  150. Our government only wants to protect us, and would by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 1

    This news following a serious debate on the subject 'Do Privacy Fears Allow Terrorism?'

    Technology & the law both give power. There is no reason to believe that a government that abuses one will not abuse the other.

  151. Land of free, indeed. by adilsonoliveira · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I really feel sorry for you guys. On the seventies, early eighties, we (I'm Brazilian) lived had a military government, really a dictatorship with fragrant violations of civil rights on daily basis. Thank God, we're free and live a full democracy. Lots to do on the social side yet, but I believe we can make it. You take care or you'll go the same path we took. Adilson.

    --
    Faith can move mountains. I prefer dynamite.
    1. Re:Land of free, indeed. by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Go Lula! Didn't the US try to interfere with his election somewhat? We were scared of his leftist tendencies; at one time Lula advocated defaulting on all foreign loans to save money on interest payments. This made the US nervous, and subtly implied bad things would happen to the US Brasilian relationship if he was elected. Even so, Lula was elected with the second largest majority in the western hemisphere, 2nd only to Reagan. If you think populations, Brasil is so big that the real competition is still just US/Brasil, but maybe Bush should think of that before he forces the "will of his people" on another people when he didn't even get the popular vote. He won't, but maybe he should.

      The thing to realize is, the US has shown many times it is not an advocate of democracy as much as it is for stability in general, and stability of its own interests in particular. The major reason for the Iraq war is not oil, or stopping torture (there are worse regimes, and we turned a blind eye when Iraq was our ally). There was already an Iraqi uprising, we didn't support it, and it got crushed. The war is about projecting American strength to have the world fall in line, and about removing an unstable element in the middle east. Unfortunately, though wanting stability is a good thing, the way the US is going about it is probably a text on how NOT to accomplish this.

      The scary thing is, could Mike Hawash be me? I've thought of donating to charities, specifically Islamic ones. I have a decent amount of muslim friends, and I think it's important for the American people to show goodwill to the middle east. Have them have an image of Americans as generous and caring, not the only image be an M16 muzzle flash. I think this is the true future of America in the (hopefully shortlived) diplomacy mess that is the (also hopefully shortlived, PLEASE let there be a strong candidate in 2004) Bush administration.

      Will anyone have the cojones to impeach Bush? The man who said his job is upholding the Constitution took the Constitutional power to declare war away from Congress. Don't give me crap about the congressional Resolution. There's congressional resolutions on Elmer Dinkley day and renaming Belgian frites to freedom fries. None mean anything. Congress has the power. Bush took it. Nothing will happen though.

      Written by a proud American who feels that the Bush admin is the worst administration in recent memory. Can people seperate loving America and loving the current caretaker? A lot of people, including Bush, can't seem to.

    2. Re:Land of free, indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The man who said his job is upholding the Constitution took the Constitutional power to declare war away from Congress

      Nonsense. Congress abdicated that power a long time ago. Look up the War Powers Act.

      Bunch of cowards, really. They just want to have their politicial cake and eat it, too. This way, Congresscritters dodge all the responsibility that is their duty. They can blame anything that goes badly (which is to say unpopular) on the President, and if it goes well, why, they'll just line right up and cheer.

      The War Powers Act recognizes the actual problem that a modern Commander-in-Chief often may need to act with more speed than can be achieved from Congress. But, that shouldn't allow Congress to escape from declaring war as expeditiously as possible, or else _not_ declaring war and thus force a settlement of whatever the President started. One of those two actions should be required by the Act. But of course Congress wouldn't tie its own hands and saddle themselves with a potential political liability.

      In this particular case, the "rush to war" took months and months on end, far more than enough time for Congress to pass a declaration either of War or No War. It's not like they didn't know it was coming. But of course they didn't. Easier to let Bush take all the heat.

  152. Martin Niemoeller by spoonist · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Rev. Martin Niemoeller on the Holocaust:

    First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.

  153. Human Rights? by rf0 · · Score: 1

    They've dissapeared as well

    rus

  154. In Soviet Russia by aelfwyne · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In Soviet Russia...

    You'll be glad you don't live in the U.S.

    --
    -- If it ain't broke - overclock it more.
    1. Re:In Soviet Russia by archeopterix · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      In Soviet Russia... You'll be glad you don't live in the U.S.
      Hm... I remember the eighties in Poland (part of the Soviet block then). The law forbidding detention longer than 48 hours without presenting charges was obeyed. The police circumvented it by letting people out after 47 hours and locking them back after a short time, but I haven't heard of anyone detained for two weeks straight!
  155. Think this kind of thing will never affect you? by Lendrick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Better hope you've never donated to Greenpeace.

    1. Re:Think this kind of thing will never affect you? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      I think it's safe to say that those of us who are unconcerned about Mr. Hawash's predicament have not, nor will ever, donate to Greenpeace.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  156. Another thoughtcriminal... by Rai · · Score: 1


    Today, Maher "Mike" Hawash, an agent of Goldstein, was captured while attempting to sabotage several of Oceania's critical systems. Be advised, brothers and sisters, that neither this thoughtcriminal nor any other will prevail against our great society.

    bb doubleplusgood.

  157. quote: by ZenPirate · · Score: 1

    "Of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Adolf Hitler's Deputy Chief and Luftwaffe Commander, at the Nuremberg trials, 1946

    1. Re:quote: by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      Ahh, how history repeats itself and how fast we humans forget. History is by far the most important thing to learn and what helps is humans evolve the fastest. DONT REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKES OVER AND OVER!!

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
  158. Atheism is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am from A Central European country. Although I hated the communists for ruining the economy, being dictatords and all that but I LOVED the Atheism. I absolutely HATE all religions.

  159. Re:Arabs come to this country for money and thats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are we so fucking stupid to not monitor these people?

    Yes, we should take the example of Turkey of how they "monitor" the Kurdish population. That is an inspiration to us all.

  160. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    I certainly agree that this doesn't make President Bush the moral equivalent of Saddam Hussein, but it isn't right all the same. Locking people up without charging them with a crime is wrong, and if they do charge Mike with a crime he should have the right to a speedy trial by his peers.

    This is not the same as what has been done by other tyrants around the world, but it is still tyranny.


    I agree. And you seem to be able to put it in intellegent words, and you will get listened to. Keep in mind our history in America is riddled with the suspension of Civil Rights during War time. This war has seen LESS suspension than other. Still a problem, but 1) it IS getting better and 2) we can fix it.

    You gotta remember, a large minority (if not a small majority) of American's HAVE NO PROBLEM with these people being locked up. Does NOT make it right, but right isn't enough. You have to be reasonable and address their conserns as well, or they won't care what you think (and thus, it stays as is or gets worse). This is just the practical reality of where we live. Yes yes yes, we can all get on our soapboxes, but that alone does NOTHING except make YOU feel better. I am more concerned with actual results instead of this political masturbation where everyone pats themselves on the back for "standing up for freedom". Takes a lot of guts.

    Yes, it is tyranny in many ways. But its the LEAST amount of tyranny the world has ever experienced during war time, and its getting better. Put it in PERSPECTIVE. The light at the end of the tunnel is not always a train.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  161. Some past experience. by CormacJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I grew up in Northern Ireland. In 1971 the UK governement decided that it could defeat terrorist by using internment. What happened was that the goverment identified who they thought would be likely IRA terrorists. There was no actual evidence involved, just people that the government didn't like. Snatch squads were sent out and people were taken and imprisoned without trial.

    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.

    1. Re:Some past experience. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another lesson we learned was that military 'solutions' are largely ineffective against terrorism.

      It was a long and painful lesson, of course.

    2. Re:Some past experience. by radish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The US could do well to learn some lessons from our (the UK's) failures (and occasional successes) in dealing with the IRA and associated terriorists. Interment was an awful thing, but even that was more open than this, which sounds more like something out of South America (or for that matter, Minority Report) than the supposed "Land of the Free".

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    3. Re:Some past experience. by metachimp · · Score: 1

      Ironically enough, Bush and Blair are going to meet next week in N. Ireland to discuss the war. My guess is that it's convienient for Bush, because massive protests that would accompany a visit by Bush anywhere in Europe can be easily stopped there. They can't guarantee him the standing ovations Bush usually requires, but at least the entire country won't turn out to give him the finger.

      --
      The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
    4. Re:Some past experience. by radish · · Score: 1

      Heh - it's not just Bush. Blair has been notably absent from any public appearances recently, I reckon he's probably more popular abroad than at home :)

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    5. Re:Some past experience. by metachimp · · Score: 1

      Now that is funny. A British PM escaping to Belfast to avoid the heat at home.

      --
      The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
  162. Blame Canada! by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 1

    That's right!
    That Nazi^H^H^H^HCommie^H^H^H^H^H^HTerrorist-infested country is an insidious source of dissent in our great nation! Let's tell them we won't stand for any more of their shenanigans, with lethal force!

    It seems that everything's gone wrong
    Since Canada came along
    They're not even a real country anyway.

    --
    You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
    1. Re:Blame Canada! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada has been populated for longer than the united states...and we know how to count! ;-)

  163. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by pfankus · · Score: 1

    don't take this as flaimbait, but if you read the article, the title is taken from an actual quote:

    "People say this doesn't happen in this country," McGeady said, "but one of my neighbors has been disappeared. It's not what he might have done that matters to me -- they disappeared him. They need to question him and let him go, or charge him. It's like Alice in Wonderland meets Franz Kafka."

    /. nor the poster of the artile didn't come up with the phrase. maybe a little sensational, but it still didn't get you to read the artcle...

  164. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by locust · · Score: 1
    For people who come here from other countries fleeing persecution, the requests by the INS that they register (and the way they were treated in LA), the holding of people in guauntanamo (sp?) bay without charge or trial, the stripping of the rights of US citizens and treating them as enemy combatants, and the abduction of foreign nationals (the us government swears they are terrorists) and deportation to third countries where they may be interogated without the protections afforded them by US laws (read tortured) sound a lot like the places they came from. For them, its not a big hypothetical jump to what can happen, or what the worst case is.


    Further, if it can happen to one person it can happen to anybody. All it takes is that someone with influence decides that they don't like you. In todays climate, as evidenced by the original parent post all it takes is that they call you a terrorist.


    Finally, it amazes me that in a country with the history of the United States, where WWII (anyone remeber how Nazi Germany worked) and McCarthyism (Ronald Regan was investigated by the FBI to see if he was a Communist) are still in the living memory of people, this would tollerated at all. Maybe when considering the implications of the behavior of the Government vis-a-vis people who are identified as terrorists one should replace the work 'terrorist' with 'jew' or 'black' and see how palatable the action still is.


    --locust

  165. Ok, you won me over by Saint+Mitchell · · Score: 1

    I tell everyone I'm Canadian when I've overseas anyway. So I might as well live there. I can lean to like that pisswater molson golden. I so "eh" already, so I should fit right in. How's the IT job market? If I can afford a house, car and fast interweb then I'm there. Screw getting held for two years. I'm out of here.

    hmmmm....then again...I could just run for congress and fight the stupid laws. Ok, that's what I'll do. Everyone who lives in Indianapolis vote for me ok. I'll try to get Carson's district when she retires.

    1. Re:Ok, you won me over by AC5398 · · Score: 1

      Oh God dude, never ever drink Molson Golden!

      No one here drinks that stuff ... if we want soda, we drink Coors Lite, and if we want beer, we drink Creemore, or Rickards Red, or a number of other excellent brews. Only the old ladies drink MG.

    2. Re:Ok, you won me over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't like Molson Golden, why do you drink it? It's certainly not to fit in over here. The only people who seem to drink Molson Golden and Old Vienna are Americans and old geezers. The real Canadians drink Blue or Canadian. Pass the bacon and mayo.

      For the record, we don't say "eh" that much. It's only used under very specific circumstances and it's not unique to Canada. I understand some American states use an equivalent phrase: "Doncha Know..."

  166. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by MisterFancypants · · Score: 1
    What happened to this individual, while unfortunate and in my opinion indefensible, is nowhere near what happens to those "disappeared" under totalitarian regimes. Say what you want, but I seriously doubt he's going to be tortured, killed, and buried in an unmarked mass grave.

    Yeah but the problem is one of a slippery slope. Maybe the current administration won't torture and kill him, but they are setting an insanely bad precedent that may be used by someone else, in the future, who will.

    It isn't enough not to be an 'evil government', you also have to do everything in your power to make it harder for administrations who come after you to LEGALLY be an 'evil government'. The Bush Administration isn't doing this at all..they are passing all sorts of knee-jerk laws that might not be *COMPLETELY* abused by them, but now they are on the books forever.

  167. Re:He's a terrorist by Lil'wombat · · Score: 1

    Thought Crime!
    Thought Crime!!
    Thought Crime!!!

    Now I have to report you to the authorites lest I be made an accessory.

    --

    Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another

  168. BUSH's Liberticide by alexborges · · Score: 1

    -1, repetitive

    Welcome to america......the land of the free, the home of the brave....

    How much longer will you americans tolerate the assesination of the liberties you, yourselves gave birth to?

    Bush has brought the future non-society portrayed in Snowcrash to the scariest reality. Its 1984 all over again, but off the book and into my life.

    --
    NO SIG
  169. The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1, Offtopic


    After reading Antiwar.com, here are a few other links I've pulled together: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories

    The U.S. government is becoming increasingly corrupt.

    1. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by broter · · Score: 3, Funny

      The U.S. government is becoming increasingly corrupt.

      Are you suggesting that it ever had a negative slope?

      </joke>

      --
      "One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
      - Mick Travis, "If..."
    2. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by TekPolitik · · Score: 5, Funny

      Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause". The link is to a U.S. military web site

      I think they misspelled this. Shouldn't it be "Operation Just 'Cause"?

    3. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. government is becoming increasingly corrupt.

      And Futurepower(R) is becoming increasinly retarded.

    4. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes a progressivly retarded 'tard to recognize that Futurepower(R) is not as retarded as one's self.

      You are beyond a retard. You are *drum role* FUCK-TARD!

    5. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hate to tell you guys, but your country has become a police state, not a real real bad people disapeared left right and centre one, not yet but if due proccess can be subverted then a police state it is. I'm an Aussie I could Just say only in America, and assume that it doesn't affect me, but if one western nation can go this way how safe are the rest of us. This has to be stopped guys, for the sake of the people of the US, and for the sake of us all.

      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
    6. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled "increasingly."

    7. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by Alien+Being · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "your country has become a police state"

      Elections don't work anymore. Mass media and education are controlled largely by the party. The private militia, which is the basis for our country's internal security is nonexistant. Law enforcement at all levels tends to be pro-gov and anti-citizen. The UN is a joke. We're on a runaway freight train and people think it's an amusement park ride.

      It's time for the people of this country to wake up and demand that the U.S. administration reconcile their actions with what is written in the constitution. These bastards are traitors.

      I don't know how it will all turn out. The only thing I can say for sure is that dubya has made an anti-republican out of me.

    8. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by unitron · · Score: 1

      Lots of us who remembered how Noriega was 'our guy' not so long before were calling it "Operation Just Because" at the time.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    9. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by wwwillem · · Score: 1

      The UN is a joke.

      Well, which country is the most blatent ignorer of UN ruling .... you know the answer: the US. You don't need any history knowledge for that. Just read the papers from a month ago, that are still stacked in the garage. Second question, which country was the worst payer of their UN contributions? Same answer.

      OK, I'm definitely not a fan of the UN organisation. But that's the same as that I'm often also not a fan of the decisions by my own country's parlement. That's democracy unfortunately.

      So, yes, the UN is often horrible. But the US is worse, they normally ignore the UN so badly that they should be clear and just step out of the UN. That would make its position clear to the rest of the world. Just another one of those ......

      --
      Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
    10. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Actually, that distinction probably belongs to Israel. But I think you misunderstood. What I was trying to say is that dubya considers the UN to be a joke.

      Before the war actually started, most people in the US were opposed to going in without the UN's blessing. Of course, after the action started, everyone started waving the flag.

      I don't understand or agree with France's and Germany's reluctance to take action against Saddam, but that's their choice. Bush should have shown some respect for their decision and for the UN, especially since the US is largely responsible for creating the monster.

      But try not to judge Americans too harshly. We became a superpower out of necessity. Some judicious preemption of Hitler might have prevented that.

    11. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by ragefan · · Score: 1
      But the US is worse, they normally ignore the UN so badly that they should be clear and just step out of the UN. That would make its position clear to the rest of the world.

      It's rather difficult to follow the decisions of an organization that would put Libya in charge of the Human Rights Council. After the war is over the UN will probably want Saddam for Secretary-General.

    12. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by Degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I used to be a conservative, but then went to work for local government (county). About a year later, I became a Libertarian.

      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.

      --
      "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
    13. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by snilloc · · Score: 1
      Second question, which country was the worst payer of their UN contributions?

      True, but when the american public found out about this there was some popular support for paying our dues... and iirc we did pay a big chunk of them then.

      Just be sure to subtract unpaid parking tickets and other minor crimes committed by "diplomats" in NYC ;-)

    14. Re:The U.S. government is increasingly corrupt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on! All power to the people!

  170. Welcome home y'all! by moominpapa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's ironic in a very unfunny way that the soldiers who are risking their lives in Iraq to supposedly bring the gift of American values to the oppressed Iraqis are going to come home to find their veteran's benefits cut and the very civil liberties that they are supposed to be promoting stolen from them by the Bush administration. I appreciate that when Shrub visits a service base to give a speech the men and women there want to show their patriotism and loyalty by cheering, saluting, etc., but surely they can see the contradictions between what the President and his cronies say and do? Makes me wonder how most of them feel about him privately.

    1. Re:Welcome home y'all! by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget, part of our rebuilding of Iraq is universal health care. Remember that when your HMO denies treatment.

  171. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by kableh · · Score: 1

    The "Disappeared" phrase came from a quote by another Intel ex-VP, not just michael taking editorial liberties.

  172. Re:He's a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so because he's a "member of a sleeper cell" (evidence please), he should not be allowed to chat with a lawyer?

    that doesnt provide JUSTICE.

    i dont care if he killed a hundred people live on CNN, he has the same rights as anyone else, which includes a LAWYER.

    not to mention, how do you know he is an agent of a sleeper cell, oh right the people holding him said that, because they NEVER make mistakes.

  173. Re:Yeah. It's all a trap. 9/11 was faked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Islam is Jihadism is terrorism.
    They are parts of a seamless entity that is engaged in Kulturkampf against the US.
    He had no business donating to the charity, because even if the charity were legitimate every dollar the Jihadist don't have to spend on food is freed for the armed struggle.

  174. I used to laugh... by devphil · · Score: 2, 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.)

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  175. what? Three Party Bullshit? by asscroft · · Score: 1

    Check out http://www.lp.org/ [lp.org] for an alternative to the 2-party bullshit.

    what? Three Party Bullshit?

    hahahahahaha. They all suck ass.

    --
    because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
  176. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Also, the Constitution is only a part of [our] legal system, it is not the end all be all of laws our local, state and federal governments have at their disposal.

    Perhaps not, but it is what the president swore under oath to protect. One can only wonder if he's read it...

  177. Re:Arabs come to this country for money and thats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Turks are bad. They kill Kurds. Why are we so fucking stupid to not monitor these people?

    And so on and so on... "These people" my dick.

  178. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by kableh · · Score: 1

    Like it matters? My republican buddy hates the fact that Ashcroft busted all the retailers selling glassware, but doesn't seem to care that Bush appointed him. And knowing the attention span of most Americans, I'm sure he'll forget about it come election time.

    You reap what you sow.

  179. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by DWIM · · Score: 1

    Maybe you're actually a Libertarian? I see no reason to believe that Republican or Democrat politicians consistently support our basic Constitutional rights.

  180. Re:He's a terrorist by orkysoft · · Score: 1

    So if someone accuses you of being the same, you don't need the authorities to produce proof, or the opportunity to prove your innocence?

    Oh, wait, I get it: they'll tie you to a bomb, and let it explode. If you die in the explosion, you were innocent, and if you don't die, you're a terrorist!!

    The concept of justice is built on the foundation that everyone has certain rights when suspected of a crime. Else, where will the line be drawn? What if you were suspected?

    --

    I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
  181. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was an inflamitory quote and /. decided to take the most inflamitory stance and quote the inflamitory qoute. I frankly don't see the difference.

  182. This is nothing new in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    We have had similar episodes in US history. Roosevelt sent the Japanese to internment camps in 1942. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War, enabling the jailing of hundreds of persons, maybe over a thousand, without any charges filed.

    The Patriot Act has at least 2 precedents in US history: 1798 and 1916 Sedition Acts. You should google them sometime. Definite eye openers.

    The trend is that during times of war or other crisis, civil liberties get short shrift. After the crisis is over, things tend to go back to normal. We'll see how it goes this time.

    1. Re:This is nothing new in the US by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

      The trend is that during times of war or other crisis, civil liberties get short shrift. After the crisis is over, things tend to go back to normal. We'll see how it goes this time.

      That's the beauty of a "war on terrorism". The crisis never ends!

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    2. Re:This is nothing new in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "After the crisis is over, things tend to go back to normal."

      Yep, things should get back to normal after Bush loses the next election to the popular (re-run) slogan "It's the Economy, Stupid!" Assuming, of course, that he doesn't suspend the next presidential election due to the continuing state of crisis...

    3. Re:This is nothing new in the US by KlausBreuer · · Score: 1

      >After the crisis is over...

      This is a War On Terrorism. It'll probably last a lot longer than its highly successful cousin, the War On Drugs.

      Bah. Read '1984', especially the part about the never-ending war.

      --
      Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
  183. Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by yorgasor · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If this guy were a terrorist planning on planting a bomb somewhere and the FBI got a tip (but no proof), what should they do? They can do some research, try to find out what he's doing, who he's working with, etc... and while they're trying to figure it all out, he goes and blows up a building or a bridge killing hundreds of people. Then you have an outcry from the people when it comes to light that the FBI was told he was dangerous but didn't act on the tip.

    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.

    --
    Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
    1. Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      Your logic has a flaw since it is applicable to every crime possible as theft, murder, forgery, fraud and economic criminality. That makes it possible to detain ANYONE at a whim wich is bound to be abused by people in power. Never ever forget that history repeats itself, power really do corrupt. If there was a timelimit it wouldnt be that bad but the notion of keeping somebody indefinitly is just to close to Kafka to be comfortable.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    2. Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, 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.


      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.
    3. Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'll remember that when the brownshirts come for you. Oh wait, you're probably white.
      Nevermind.

    4. Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by pwtrash · · Score: 2, Insightful
      One problem is that the 9/11 nightmare has made us accept a pre-emptive society. As Americans, we have always recognized that there is a trade-off between security and freedom. We have consistently made the choice for freedom. That's why you can't be arrested for looking like you're about to rob someone. You can only be arrested after you rob someone. It sucks for the robbed, but it prevents this kind of power abuse.

      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.

    5. Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by yorgasor · · Score: 1

      I never said holding someone indefinitely is ok. They held a lot of people after the 9/11 attacks for a long time, primarily because it took a long time to investigate all of the people and decide whether or not they were safe to be let go. However, it's difficult to be bound to release someone by a certain date when you never know how long it's going to take to investigate.

      Obviously, there should be some checks and balances involved. If someone is going to be held beyond a certain time, they'd better start showing some good reason. Unfortunately, there aren't laws in place designed to allow longer holding of suspected criminals, so the US is using a hack to get around it. It's not well designed, but we didn't have well designed provisions when this situation occured.

      And there is one big difference between holding terrorists like this and other criminals, and that is the scale of damage. Theft, murder, fraud, etc... are all bad. But nothing the forefathers didn't foresee and plan appropriate balances between rights & safety. But when you're dealing with terrorists who are trying to set off dirty bombs or poisons or diseases that could kill hundreds, or thousands, or millions, the rights of a few people seem like a pretty fair trade for the lives of many.

      --
      Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
    6. Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your catch 22 states that absolute security must be valued over absolute freedom. And in excercising such an option, we lose both security (as we do not feel safe from the government) and thereby freedom.

      You're a recluse who knows how to get information from the Internet. You wrote a message involving the words "bomb" and "blowing up" and "killing"... and now you're a future suspect, logged in the Total Information Awareness database. Don't you feel secure?

    7. Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the rights of a few people seem like a pretty fair trade for the lives of many.
      I bet it doesn't seem like a fair trade to those whose rights have been trampled. The whole point here is that giving up your freedom in order to ensure security is, ultimately, a futile effort, because you end up with neither freedom NOR security. A better solution is to remove the desire or need to give up those freedoms in the first place. Why don't we instead work on making the terrorists not want to attack us, rather than patching a bleeding wound by throwing American lives at it?
    8. Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by Dissonant · · Score: 1

      If it turns out the guy is clean, they'll let him go when they know for sure.

      That's quite trusting of you.

    9. Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. He's entitled to a lawyer.

      Let's see what you say when they come for YOU!

    10. Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by Commutative+Monoid · · Score: 1

      Why don't we instead work on making the terrorists not want to attack us

      While you're fixing humanity, you can work on making rapists not want to rape, pedophiles not sexually attracted to children, thieves not compelled to take from others, adulterers not be unfaithful to their significant others, liars not lie, gluttons not hopelessly addicted to food, and so on and so forth. When you're done fixing all of the flaws in man that makes your desire to stick your head in the sand and pretend the world fits into a Hallmark card, any less retarded, you let me know.

      --
      You have exactly 314 seconds to come up with a less retarded plot.
    11. Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by dpete4552 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I say we lock you up. Just have, what is essentially the 'secret police' come and hold you indefinitely. Oh, what's that? That law is meant for those 'other' guys?

      If we want to stop terrorism we need to get it at the source. When we get attacked instead of concluding that it must be because they are jealous of our suburbs, or that they 'hate our freedom', or the classic claim that they are just inertly "evil", and therefore randomly decided to fly planes into our buildings; we need to look the real reasons why such a thing took place. And then do our best to correct the mistakes made, or at the very least don't repeat them again.

      Let me give you a little timeline of events:

      1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran - U.S. installs Shah as dictator.
      1954: U.S. overthrows democratically elected President Aroenz of Guatemala - 200,000 civilians killed in the process (the equivalent of 50 September 11th attacks)
      1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem
      1963-1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia. (the equivalent of 1,000 September 11th attacks)
      1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile - Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende assassinated - Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed - 5,000 Chileans murdered under his rule
      1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador - 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed by the U.S. backed military rulers (the equivalent of 17 September 11th attacks)
      1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets - CIA gives them $3 billion
      1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras" - 30,000 Nicaraguans are killed by the U.S. backed contras (the equivalent of 7 September 11th attacks)
      1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians (he later uses these weapons to kill his own people, sheesh, If you can't trust an "evil," war criminal, homicidal, dictator, who can you trust?)
      1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis
      1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington - U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega - 3,000 Panamin civilians die in the process
      1990: Iraq invades Kuwait using weapons provided by the United States.
      1991: U.S. enters Iraq - Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait
      2000-2001: U.S. gives Taliban ruled Afghanistan $450 million in 'aid'
      September 11th, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses expert CIA training to kill 3,000 Americans.

      Yeah, it was because they 'hate our freedoms' *sigh*

      What we need to do is stop this imperialistic shit, not start turning on our own people with 1984 style acts (e.g. the 'Patriot' Act). If the terrorists goal was to take away our freedom they supposedly hate so much, then, sadly enough, they have already won on many fronts.

      --
      http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
    12. Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by yorgasor · · Score: 1
      I say we lock you up. Just have, what is essentially the 'secret police' come and hold you indefinitely. Oh, what's that? That law is meant for those 'other' guys?

      And what if the terrorist's target happens to be where you're at? Or your friends, or family? Oh yeah, that's right. Only the 'other' guys get attacked by terrorists.

      What if the FBI got a tip about a guy a few days before his attack killed or maimed the people you love. But they didn't have any solid proof against the guy, they may not even know for sure what he'going to do. So they wait and watch while they try to find enough information. Oh yeah, we know how well that works. Several of the 9/11 terrorists were under surveillance for suspected terrorist activity, that sure stopped them from completing their plans.

      But I'm sure, as you're holding your dying mother in your arms and looking at your slaughtered friends all around you, you'll be thinking, "Well, at least the terrorist's rights weren't infringed upon. That would've really sucked if he was held for 2 months before they finally found the evidence that he was planning this attack."

      --
      Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
    13. Re:Unfortunately, we have a catch 22 situation by dpete4552 · · Score: 1

      And what if the terrorist's target happens to be where you're at? Or your friends, or family? Oh yeah, that's right. Only the 'other' guys get attacked by terrorists.

      No, however the government should not have this kind of control. You're basically asking me if I'd rather be secretly detained by the government indefinitely, or attacked by a terrorist. Either way it is likely that I will not be seen again (be that I am dead, or secretly held). And being that I am a firm believing in the idea that 'it is better to die standing than live kneeling', I would choose the latter. Although either way I'm kinda fucked.

      What if the FBI got a tip about a guy a few days before his attack killed or maimed the people you love.

      What if they 'got a tip' about someone I loved and they were 'disappeared by' the government. To be secretly held, for reasons that are to remain unknown to the public, and for an indefinite amount of time.

      Several of the 9/11 terrorists were under surveillance for suspected terrorist activity, that sure stopped them from completing their plans.

      If our FBI and CIA did their god damn jobs that would not happen. Detaining people for an indefinite amount of time, and giving them secret trials is not included in the process. The simple act of paying attention is. The Israeli intelligence agency contacted our CIA months before the 9/11 attacks to inform us that they tracked suspected terrorists entering our country. Because the CIA never communicated that to the FBI, nothing was done about it. They didn't do their god damn jobs, and we all know how well that works out.

      But I'm sure, as you're holding your dying mother in your arms and looking at your slaughtered friends all around you, you'll be thinking, "Well, at least the terrorist's rights weren't infringed upon. That would've really sucked if he was held for 2 months before they finally found the evidence that he was planning this attack."

      You are working under the assumption that if someone was taken, then they were a terrorist. If a true terrorist was taken and held, of course I wouldn't shed a tear over that. However, how do you know what classifies one as a potential terrorist? When one can be secretly taken, held indefinitely, given a secret military tribunal, and sentenced from there; how are you, or anyone else to know what the reasons why? The information wasn't public. For all we know they could have simply been removed out of political convenience. After all the shit we've done in the past half-century, 'take my word for it' is not very reassuring to me.

      --
      http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
  184. who fucken modded that up? Check URL 1st! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's damn nasty!

  185. Elementary logic: Sounds like everything is going by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    1) All terrorists are people.
    2) Detaining and strictly controlling a terrorist stops terrorism.

    Therefore

    3) Detaining and strictly controlling all people stops terrorism.

    So yes, things are going on according to plan.

    Who says politicians fail logic?

  186. You are ready to be liberated by us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, don't be afraid, you're gonna love it.

    Free education, a real democracy, real social services, real equality, a gun-free, crime low society and better work-conditions to boot.

    Here come the Swedes and the Dutch.

    Resistance is futile...

    Oh, and first we're gonna bomb the sh*t out of you, but you'll love us for it, really.

  187. Dont Know. Do You? by UselessTrivia · · Score: 1

    Maybe the dumbass in the next cel over was looking at him 'funny'?

    Point is, we dont know. But if we dont know then why the presumption that the evil government has him and will surely be mistreating him?

    Theres a segment of the population that does not and will not trust the government to act decently. There is another segment that does, but will also hold that government accountable for any abuses of that trust. The first segment tends to bitch and whine about every potential abuse, but never actually do anything. The second is the one to act when it actually occurs. Based on a sampling of posts, ./'ers tend to fall in to the first group.

  188. Re:Not original, but worth repeating nevertheless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now *this* deserves a +6

  189. Yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because taking someone's words out of context to make them sound like what you'd like them to be is truely objective (*COUGH*) and demonstrates how the liberal mind works clearly!

  190. IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The KGB trains YOUR secret service!

  191. So I guess there's a job opening at Intel now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    W00t!

  192. ha! by exhilaration · · Score: 1

    notice how Kuwait isn't on the list, though they're just as bad as the Saudis

  193. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by nomadic · · Score: 1

    I don't really give a damn. This is my freaking country, and I'm going to oppose this sort of junior dictator garbage, DESPITE the fact that someone somewhere else is doing worse. Good grief, since when is "well they're doing it worse than me" an excuse?

  194. Transmission from Reality by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1, Informative

    Huh? The "representatives" are Republicrats themselves(!), who take their marching orders from the party leadership. Simple... they do not 'invent' priority - they dance the jig the piper (GWB) plays. Do you *listen* to these people spew their Newspeak? its very obviously from the Ministry of Truth(TM)... they get their Talking Points up-to-the-minute im sure. How exactly do you think your "Democracy" in the US works...(????)

    FURTHER, government agencies are a DIRECT result of presidential policy - from the directors and appointments to new high-profile hires to the lowliest of bureaucrat - they ALL enact the wishes of The GWB Regime. Feh? Feh is right pal.

    FURTHER YET, even though the laws may have been around prior, it is EXCEEDINGLY obvious that loose interpretation of law is something that can be used to reach a goal. Case in Point: The fictional "non-combatant" never-never-land that GWB has invented to end-run Geneva conventions (care to debate this? its the opinion of 99% of non-americans worldwide, red cross, amnesty int., many american law professors etc etc etc). Case in Point: The interpretation of UNSC Res.1441, GWB says it is a sanction for war, but again, everyone outside of the GWB camp says "nope - try again." (this says nothing of sanction from EARLIER resolutions, none of which permit the magic "any necessary means"). This says nothing of a weak justice system to make things right wrt his lawbreaking.

    Defending GWB as a 'cog' is just a little naive (though he is too stupid/ignorant to defend himself from the influence of the neocons around him...)

    1. Re:Transmission from Reality by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are 30,000 middle eastern men in the
      US who have had their Visa's expire .

      Some have been rounded up, most have not .

      Out of 30,000 how many do think might be
      of questionable association ???

      1% ???

      If so that would be 300 people, not just one .

      I tend to think that ALOT more than 1% have
      hate for america but work here to send money
      back to their country of origin .

      Some support terrorists, some do not, I have
      no idea how many, and guess what neither do you ?

      This visa worker may or may not be guilty,
      but they are not going to give a non-citizen
      the rights of a citizen .

      They came across a piece of information that
      made them want to take this step, they may
      be wrong, they may be right .

      You have zero proof in either direction .

      You are just showing your liberal bias .

      Bush does spew rhetoric, and Ashcroft is a loon .

      I still support their desire to round up the
      scab labor here that is funding hate in the
      middle east .

      I am willing to bet we do not even catch
      half of them .

      Peace...
      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    2. Re:Transmission from Reality by MaxwellStreet · · Score: 1

      This visa worker may or may not be guilty,
      but they are not going to give a non-citizen
      the rights of a citizen .


      Umm... he -is- a citizen. Just like you (and me).

    3. Re:Transmission from Reality by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well, he IS a citizen, so that's bullshit.

      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.

    4. Re:Transmission from Reality by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Another point:

      The bill of rights applies to everyone in the United States. Citizen, Green Card holder, visa holder, or even illegal immigrant. The bill of rights does not limit any of the ammendments to US citizens.

      Now, illegal immigrants are breaking the law, so they'll be immediately arrested and deported if they're found, but if they're a suspect in a murder the cops still have to follow the same rules as if they were arresting a citizen (miranda warning, right to council, etc.)

    5. Re:Transmission from Reality by kubrick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This visa worker may or may not be guilty,
      but they are not going to give a non-citizen
      the rights of a citizen.


      Detention without charge or trial is not only against the Constitution, it violates the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (articles 5, 9, 10 & 11, among others)

      Yes, that same document the US was waving around as justification a few days ago when they released their annual global human rights report.

      Hypocritical? You be the judge.

      (Two of my country's citizens are currently locked up in Guantanamo Bay "until the end of the war on terror", which could mean a life sentence, despite the fact that at least one of them has been assessed to have had no links or contact with Al-Qaeda. No, he hasn't been charged. (I haven't heard *anything* about the other one, he could be dead for all I know... a couple of Afghani captives have already died in US captivity after heavy beatings.)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
    6. Re:Transmission from Reality by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      I worked on the base there in Cuba for a
      year, and they are NOT beating the prisoners .

      This is more rhetoric, and disinformation .

      Believe what you want, I was doing tech
      support there for a year .

      The phone # is 011-5399-4616 to the office
      I worked in, call and ask if Duane is
      still working there .

      I quit back 12 Feb 2003 to come back here
      and study for more certifications .

      I did not know the person from Intel was
      a US citizen, but maybe that law they just
      passed to allow them to revoke citizenship
      is about to come into play .

      I do agree we have done hypocritcal things ,
      and we are the ONLY country in the world
      to do hypocritcal things, yeah right ...

      hypocrisy abounds, in myself, and I am willing
      to bet in yourself at some point in your
      life . Fear makes hypocrisy a little
      easier to swallow unfortunately .

      Right now ppl are looking at any weakness
      to take advantage of to use to against us .

      We need to be careful to not let the GOV
      go to far, but we also need to give them
      some leeway if they can present some cursory
      evidence to allow the case to be pursued
      as VALID threat to national security .

      MP3's are not a valid threat, and some of the
      other coat tail add ons to all of this
      in the GOV .

      If your friend at Intel is innocent he will
      be let go, as for the ppl in Cuba they are
      using other methods than physical violence
      to get the information .

      In cuba over a dozen have attempted suicide
      for various reasons, one was that the method
      they use IS working so well there .

      Peace...
      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    7. Re:Transmission from Reality by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      Did not know he was a citizen, thanks for
      clearing that up for me .

      Secret tribunals I do support, and the reason
      is that the media and other sources leak
      the info and this alerts the others that
      are associates of this person that one
      of theirs has been caught and they need to
      adjust accordingly .

      Do I like this ??? No, most definitely not .

      Do I feel it MAY be necessary to completely
      wipe out Al-qaeda and their affiliate
      organizations .

      I am afraid so .

      To beat the Mafia down to a certain degree,
      the US had to use some underhanded tactics .

      To beat Al-qaeda, and the other similar
      organizations world wide , much the same
      is MOST likely going to be needed .

      What special insight do I have to this ???

      I was working on the base in Cuba for a
      year, and have talked to numerous ppl there,
      and elsewhere .

      I left 12feb2003 to come back to the states
      and finish several certifications .

      If you want to call ph # 011-5399-4616
      and ask if Duane is there, they will tell
      you much the same .

      The step they took is definitely undesirable,
      but they feel the training Al-qaeda has been
      given is to specifically manipulate what
      we have in our freedoms .

      I do NOT agree with all of the rhetoric
      that comes out of Ashcroft's mouth, and
      I do not like the man .

      I like what Al-qaeda could do alot less .

      You have no idea what goes on everyday
      they you hear nothing about, be it the US
      or overseas .

      I wish there was a better way to deal with
      this problem, but with them targetting to
      manipulate it specifically we are hard
      pressed .

      Peace...
      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    8. Re:Transmission from Reality by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      Do I feel it MAY be necessary to completely
      wipe out Al-qaeda and their affiliate
      organizations .

      I am afraid so .


      have you ever read 1984? please do... then listen to mp3 linked in my .sig

    9. Re:Transmission from Reality by mink · · Score: 1

      You claim beatings are not taking place, but at the same time we have newspapers saying prisoners have died while being "questioned". Now I suppose if we have been feeding them McDonalds food while they have been in the "concentration camp" (or whatever the proper term for it is since they are not POW) I dont see them suffereing death by natural causes during questioning. I'm quite sure we killed them.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  195. Fowl Diminutive by BubbleMage · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Ahh... the sky is falling! Get a grip. Geez, the regular posters here the very epitome of Pavlovian predictability. A few points: 1) A news article or sound-bite is NOT the full story. You do not have all the information. 2) You can't generate an informed opinion on fragmentary information and anecdotes from "friends", especially about legal cases. 3) There are very specific and effective safeguards in the system--one of them being a free press, no matter how biased or asinine they may sometimes appear--to prevent the Brownshirts from marching outward into the countryside and beating randomly selected citizens with big sticks. Fear not; your illegal .mp3 collection is quite safe. 4) WE ARE AT WAR. Deal with it. Fin.

    1. Re:Fowl Diminutive by presearch · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...There are very specific and effective safeguards...to prevent the Brownshirts from marching outward into the countryside and beating randomly selected citizens with big sticks....

      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.

      ...WE ARE AT WAR. Deal with it...

      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.

  196. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to say he "disappeared" is insulting. Not to the US, but to those in Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia among others

    ... such as Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Columbia. School of the Americas mean anything to you? The fine art of "Disappearing" has been taught to plenty of friendly death squads operating much closer to home.. and you're paying for it.

    What you don't know about all the standard Axis Of Evil countries you've mentioned could fill the Grand Canyon.

  197. Re:Speaking as an American by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1
    I would also have to point out that sometimes our 'inalienable' rights come into conflict with each other.

    Applying this to the current case makes a specious argument. He has not been charged with a crime. Where exists a threat to my inalienable right to life or any other right?

    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.

    Correct, a good example of this is the Smith Act as deemed constitutional in Dennis v. US. However, there exists the case of the US District Court v. the United States in which the Court ruled that Judicial warrants were still required despite the need for national security. In the Hawash case, warrants were issued, but the 5th (and 14th) Ammendment was bypassed for reasons of national security. I think the SCOTUS would strike this law down if it had a chance to review it.

    --
    ASCII tastes bad dude.
    Binary it is then.
  198. More than 1.1 billion Muslims are killed each year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    More than 1.1 billion Muslims are killed worldwide each year. For no reason.

    Muslims are an unhealthy food source. Most people who eat Muslims also have access to other, non-meat foods.

    Muslims are some of the most intelligent beings on our planet. Why do we kill them by the billions? Just to enjoy the transient pleasure of tasting their flesh?

  199. What was it they told us as kids in church? by Glonoinha · · Score: 1

    "Every dollar you give will come back to you many-fold."

    Except this guy was giving cash to a group that happened to be funding Terrorism.

    Lets see, he gave $10,000, times a many-fold, carry the one, add some zeros, knock down two towers, add a few more zeros, lean back, scratch head ... yea, he is pretty well fukt.

    Reminds me of the KGB under Communism. You know, in a good way. I spent a few months in Moscow right after the fall of Communism and the natives didn't even throw candy wrappers on the ground - now THAT was scary.

    --
    Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
  200. Islamic "charity" system by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Islamic law requires one donate at least 2.5% of their income to charity. This is pretty widely followed, compared to the the 10% number used in some Xtian sects. So all kinds of organizations have arisen to "handle" this money- most legitimate and some sleazy. Religious education and widows are the most popular causes.
    Some US companies also came under investigation for donations to fake Islamic charities. However, this was for the most part automatic matching funds companies make for employee donations.

  201. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Gannoc · · Score: 1

    Well upon *reading the article* the term "disappeared" was used by the family as a description of what happened to him.. hence the quotes in the title.


    I normally don't respond to my own threads, but I did read the article. Taking the quote of one side and using it as the article topic IS being unobjective.

  202. Re:Not original, but worth repeating nevertheless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Land of the freak*
    and the home of the naive**

    * If King George isn't a freek, I don't know what is.
    ** ditto for that naive Rumsfield

  203. Nice troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone except the Red Indians, please leave the country now ...

  204. Unfortunately this isn't surprising by Trevor+Meursault · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With states considering passing certain laws that would potentially allow for disruptive protesters to be jailed for a mandatory 25 years, events like this aren't entirely surprising.

    The only surprising thing is how willing people are to overlook events like these. While they can say that they don't have the facts, they should really be worrying that they don't have any legal channels to obtain them.

    Hopefully the majority's attitude will change sooner rather than later.

  205. Terrorist Winning by trp0 · · Score: 1

    If we don't start monitoring every person in the US 24/7/365, eradicate the constitution, and stop questioning authority, the terrorists will have already won.

  206. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by shakah · · Score: 1
    "A lawyer has contact with him."

    Where was that mentioned in the article? From what's happened in recent similar situations, I'd suspect that there's no access to a lawyer.

  207. Bush EXICUTES the laws by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    He signs them but your representatives make them.

    Well, if we are talking about the PATRIOT act then Bush and the people who work for him did write the law, and then submitted it to congress. So Bush and Ashcroft did make the law.

    Secondly, Bush is the one executing the law, and Aschroft (who reports to Bush) is the one directly responsible for seeing this crap through. If a law is unconstitutional, it's not supposed to be enforced.

    So bush wrote the law, and is causing these things to happen of his own volition.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Bush EXICUTES the laws by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Just because a criminal has accomplices (in this case, the Congress) doesn't lessen his crime. In most cases, it brings on RICO and harsher penalties.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
  208. /. editors aren't real journalists or editors by fonnix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree. Slashdot editors only care about sensationalist stories to make money (or maybe to push some other agenda). Who else thinks we need new editors with brains, who can spell, and who try to be objective?

    I submitted this article but it got rejected. Here is what I submitted:

    2003-04-04 17:10:55 Arab-American Software Engineer Held as Material Witness (articles,doj) (rejected)

    In the description I said something to the effect of "Unlike most /.ers I will not editorialize." I then linked to the article.

    --
    "I am a student. Please do not fold, spindle, or mutilate me." -Slogan of the Free Speech Movement, 1964.
    1. Re:/. editors aren't real journalists or editors by Steven+Blanchley · · Score: 1
      I submitted this article but it got rejected. ... In the description I said something to the effect of Unlike most /.ers I will not editorialize. I then linked to the article.

      Gosh, how unfair those editors are not to add a story to the front page of /. that includes a completely unrelated remark disparaging /.'s users!

      Maybe what we really need is some moderators with brains who won't mod up sensationalist comments like yours. By the way, given the facts of this case, I think the phrase 'material witness' requires quote marks at least as much as the word 'disappeared.'

  209. The White Man Agrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are so totally 100% correct - we need to pack em back up on boats and send them all back. Drop em off on the same docks we picked em up at ... pat em on the back of the head, say sorry, and then sail the ship back for another load. I figure two, three years tops and the lands will be completely cleansed and all reparations will once and for all be done.

    -siskbc

  210. Padilla by gizmo_mathboy · · Score: 1

    He was originally detained for suspicion that he might make a dirty bomb. When the government could no long hold him under criminal charges the government decided to list him as an "enemy combatant" and a material witness. So he left a civilian jail and was put into a mility brig in South Carolina.

    Basically, the government couldn't find enough evidence to hold him for criminal charges and reclassified him to they can hold him indefinitely. Just recently a judge ruled that he can see a lawyer. Of course, the government is fighting this vigorously. Ironically, this is the same judge that ruled he could be reclassified an enemy combatant.

    1. Re:Padilla by cretog8 · · Score: 1

      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.

  211. Re:Yeah. It's all a trap. 9/11 was faked. by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1

    That's the whole point... they should be forthright with the information they have. Under the kind of rules we are operating now, I should be able to start my own little dictatorship and declare that all the fools who choose to use Windows should be collected and held in concentration camps. Our government is no better than that apparently.

  212. The terrorist have won by mysterious_mark · · Score: 1

    They have achieved there goals: - US no longer a free country. - US and Arab world at war. Seems they have the same goals as George W. We really do need regime change, the regime at home is much more of threat to us than 2 - bit Arab dictators. MM

    1. Re:The terrorist have won by BitHerder · · Score: 1

      Actually, the terrorists goals are that we either 1) convert to Islam, or 2) die. Few thinks smell worse than the stench of stale rhetoric, Mr. Kucinich.

    2. Re:The terrorist have won by metachimp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are wrong, sir.

      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.

      --
      The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
    3. Re:The terrorist have won by MudDude · · Score: 1

      You are right.

      The original poster was probably confused with the Crusades of Christianity against Islam in the Middle Ages.

      --
      You don't need to see my .sig. This isn't the .sig you're looking for...
    4. Re:The terrorist have won by BitHerder · · Score: 1

      You are half-right, sir.

      They want us out of Islamic land, and they want to have their pan-Islamic caliphate. That much is true. But here's the thing: They want the caliphate to be pan-global. All land is to be under sharia. Listen to what they say, and understand that it is not rhetoric.

      Look at the response in Baghdad: Thank you, thank you, now get out immediately. Why? Because no ground under the banner of Islam must be lost. Look at how the Arabs use the "palestinians" to try to destroy Israel. Because it is land that is considered to be taken, not from the pallys, but from Islam. The Bali bombings were a result of East Timor being freed from the tyranny of Islam.

      Watch France. Watch Denmark. The pattern has played out across many states across Africa, and is now growing in Europe. Develop a large community, breed out the indigenous peoples, and call for a separatist state.

      Don't think that the muslims will be content with the status quo. And it's not just al Qaeda. It's *all* of them.

    5. Re:The terrorist have won by metachimp · · Score: 1
      Uhhhh... So let me get this straight: Muslims are infiltrating European countries as part of a concerted global effort to convert the entire world to Islam? Wow. I hear the comyanists are putting fluoride in our water supply to sap us of our precious bodily fluids.

      Honestly, where do you come up with this?

      --
      The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
  213. 1984 by molekyl · · Score: 1

    According to the Wired article, the material witness statute is from 1984. Imagine that..

    1. Re:1984 by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Welcome to 1984, Mr. Anderson.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  214. Re:Not original, but worth repeating nevertheless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America stands for freedom but if you think you're free, try going into a deli...

  215. Having Read the Patriot Act.... by Gareman · · Score: 1

    I bought a copy from the Government Printing Office and you CAN'T actually read it unless you're a hardcore legislator. It's basically a bunch of nips and tucks on existing law, with little new content of its own.... Which is probably why it passed. They must have had this abomination sitting on the shelf waiting for this. Check it out at: http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html and the EFF analysis: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_ militias/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.html

  216. Where's My T-Shirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My old orange Free Mitnick t-shirt has been looking for a replacement. Sign me up!

  217. Just curious by nametaken · · Score: 0


    Is there another nation's flag anywhere in the slashdot topics icon library?

  218. What about non terrorist people? by valkraider · · Score: 1

    This is really disturbing - but not exactly new stuff. While it takes a slightly different tone, and the process has been different - there are many people in this country who's rights get violated without just cause. Free the West Memphis Three!

  219. Mitnick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm tired of this crap.
    Mitnick pleaded guilty.
    He was not "held without charges"

    Any questions?

  220. Don't be labeled a GNU/terrorist by Luckster7 · · Score: 1

    The moral of the story is if you're going to donate money to an organisation that could possibly be considered a terrorist group (ie EFF, FSF) at anytime in the future, donate anonymously and don't inform the government by deducting it on your taxes.

    --
    Deuteronomy 13:06-9
  221. bing-boo-ba-bee by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 1

    "Islam Inside"

    BOOOM!

  222. The other half is in isolation... by zipwow · · Score: 1

    You'll notice they didn't interview him, either. And unless I've misread it, its not because he declined to comment, its because he's in isolation and not *allowed* to comment.

    That's the crime.

    And as for changing what was done with Kevin Mitnick, I don't seem to remember him going free for violation of his civil rights. I seem to remember him finally getting to trial, and being sentenced all the same.

    Not until these practices are made ineffective for getting results (results here defined as convictions, etc) will they stop. That's why evedence without a warrant, etc is inadmissable.

    -Zipwow

    --
    I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    1. Re:The other half is in isolation... by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1

      Perhaps his wife could have said something. But she didn't. The reporter didn't even mention attempting to contact her.

      It's sensationalist bullshit. Don't be fooled just because you agree with part of it.

      As for Mitnick, well, I don't know what to say. Most of the reason he was held for so long was because of an ignorant justice system as well as an ignorant public, and (worst of all) a sensationalist media.

      I would normally say, go ahead, fall right into that trap. But in this case, it affects me; what if I were to get arrested and the only people willing to come to my "defense" were mob-thinkers such as yourself to whom nobody in the real world listens anyway. Whether the author is (supposedly) championing the rights of those being held (more like fattening his wallet) or deriding Mitnick for "stealing" or "damaging" or "vandalizing" computer systems it's all the same. Instead of practicing mob-think on Slashdot, why don't you get in touch with the rest of the world?

      Back when Mitnick was in prison, if I'd actually KNOWN his story, I'd have championed his cause. But I didn't know his story. And if you don't know the story (or at least most of it) then you just sound like a fool. That's why mitnick was able to be held-- because nobody in the real world gave enough of a shit. No one realized that the extent of his crime was rather small. Everyone thought that he was some big time hacker. Even the computer people I talked with at the time were always praising him for his (clearly criminal) actions. Had someone actually come out and said: Sure, what he did was wrong, but is it right to hold him without a trial in front of an inept (when it comes to computers) judge? Perhaps if more people outside of the "slippery slope" category had noticed that this wasn't just another "slippery slope" case but was the real deal, Kevin would have been better off.

      THAT is what I'm talking about when I tell you not to jump to conclusions so quickly, it only weakens past, present, and future arguments.

  223. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    Using quotes is being *factual*. They denote that the term should be taken in context.

    i.e. When the Iraqi's today said that they would launch a "non-conventional" attack...

    If the news had just used non-conventional without quotes many would read it as a WMD attack.. since they used it in quotes it's taken with a larger grain of salt.

    Quotes are used to prevent the exact kind of accusations you are making.

  224. Evil is still evil. by RatBastard · · Score: 1

    I don't give a rat's festering, cancer-ridden gonads if this is less evil than what is going on in Iraq. It's still evil.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  225. He is obviously guilty.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    until he proves otherwise. Throw away the key.

  226. Re:Not original, but worth repeating nevertheless. by Cyno · · Score: 1

    home of the venal

  227. resisting secret courts goes back to magna carta by rawdirt · · Score: 1

    The brits wouldn't let kings have secret courts.

    The American revolution continued the tradition protecting individual rights.

    A Fascist State prefers the rights of the state, business and oligarchs, to those of the individual and protects them with secret courts.

    Resist Fascist States in the tradition of the American Revolution!

  228. A note to the moderators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Of course the next step is that they will come for you."

    Moderators, if ever there was a discussion that justified setting your threshold really low and reading through the AC postings, this would be it. Don't bother moding me up. Go looking for people with real facts.

  229. La Historia Official.... by N1XIM · · Score: 1

    The Argentine film La Historia Official should become required viewing the the USA.....

  230. Now remind me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... just why "America" (ehr, well, except Canada, Mexico, etc.etc.) is the land of the free, of the brave and yadda-yadda-yadda, I kinda forgot it.

    Oh, this wasn't the first "incident"... see how they welcome visitors:
    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3e 779252%240% 2449098%24e4fe514c%40news.xs4all.nl&output=gpl ain

    Proud of _not_ being from the U.S.A.

  231. Come on, guys by xihr · · Score: 1

    If you're going to use spook terminology, use it right. "Disappeared" doesn't mean held without trail. "Disappeared" means murdered and the body disposed of in a way that no one will ever find it. The given headline is extremely misleading and caters to shock value alone.

    1. Re:Come on, guys by dpete4552 · · Score: 1

      disappear
      transitive senses : to cause the disappearance of
      © 2003 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

      --
      http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
  232. U.S. government chemical and biological weapons by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    "5. I am not aware of a United States chemical or biological weapons program. Perhaps you could post more information."

    I've been reading books about U.S. government activities since I was serving in the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam war. At that time, the government was lying to U.S. citizens about what we were doing at the base at which I was stationed in Thailand. I was shocked that the U.S. government would so easily lie, and I began to be interested in knowing more.

    I've put together two articles that collect links about mostly hidden violent U.S. government activities. I've been amazed at one of the responses I've gotten: Most people have very little knowledge of U.S. government violence, even though the U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 since the Second World War.

    The U.S. government is a world leader in biological weapons, although you don't hear about that much any more. Try visiting the U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command. The site says, "The operational capabilities of the command include the safe, secure, storage of chemical weapons at the eight United States stockpile sites at Anniston Ala., Blue Grass, Ky., Edgewood, Md., Newport, Ind., Pine Bluff, Ark., Pueblo, Colo., Tooele, Utah and Umatillla, Ore." Most of the site is not accessible to people like you and me who pay taxes to support this. The site is written to show only the mostly defensive activities.

    However, the U.S. government is heavily involved in EVERY kind of weapons manufacture. For example, see the October 29, 2002 article in The Guardian US weapons secrets exposed.

    The U.S. government has a long history of encouraging and perpetrating violence. For example, see US sent biological weapons to Iraq in 1980s.

    I've pulled together some links in two articles: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories and What should be the Response to Violence?

    The response to violence should be to study why it occurs to make sure that you are not contributing it, and to fix the underlying problems, rather than engage in more violence. Peace cannot happen overnight. If there have been years of trouble-making, it will take years to correct. Since the present violence in Iraq began more than 50 years ago, it may be necessary to have 50 years of attempts at peace to correct it.

  233. Now they disappeared the support website! by Kevin+Burtch · · Score: 1, Funny


    $ host www.freemikehawash.org
    www.freemikehawash.org has address 0.0.0.0

    What's next? The articles on Wired and NYT?

    --
    - Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
  234. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1
    And yes I am a REPUBLICAN, AND YES I THINK ASHCROFT IS A NAZI!

    Yeah, but are you still going to vote for and support the IDIOT WHO APPOINTED HIM?

    --
    That is all.
  235. They hate our freedom? What freedom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  236. Just a quick comment... by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1

    But by god do NOT start championing the cause of someone that nobody really knows anything about (hell, for all we know he actually COULD be a terrorist) because then it really weakens your argument against the wrongs that were committed against Mr. Mitnick.

    I just wanted to point out that if you are an American citizen, you still have rights, before and after proof of guilt is established -- especially before. Due process applies to the guilty and the innocent alike.

    1. Re:Just a quick comment... by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1
      I just wanted to point out that if you are an American citizen, you still have rights, before and after proof of guilt is established -- especially before. Due process applies to the guilty and the innocent alike.

      Yes, I am. And even people who aren't citizens have rights in this country. However, in times of war the rules need to be bent a little bit to accommodate. Historically this has been true and should continue to be true. There's a very fine balance to be acheived here.

      What bothers me are polarized opinions. Those that state people cannot be held for even a few days are missing the point of due process. Even worse, those who think we should lock 'em all up and figure out if they're guilty or not later are definitely missing the point.

      That's all ancillary to my main point though. The point was that the article is all sensationalism and speculation and little fact. It pains me to see rational discussion about tough issues like this killed by polarized opinions.

    2. Re:Just a quick comment... by justins · · Score: 1
      That's all ancillary to my main point though. The point was that the article is all sensationalism and speculation and little fact. It pains me to see rational discussion about tough issues like this killed by polarized opinions.

      While you're obviously trying to be thoughtful, this is a silly statement. There's so much speculation because the government is not saying why these people are being held.

      This vacuum of information (whether it violates our constitution or not) is a legitimate news item in and of itself, even though the stories regarding the item will not necessary convey a lot of information (for reasons that ought to be obvious).

      If that's anyone's idea of sensationalism, fine, but it sure beats the shit out of the alternative, which is people being picked up off the street and held in secret without so much as a peep from anyone.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    3. Re:Just a quick comment... by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      However, in times of war the rules need to be bent a little bit to accommodate.

      Baloney. IMO, it's in time of war (what war? Congress never declared war) that we need to adhere most strongly to the rules, because that's when they're most likely to be subverted.

    4. Re:Just a quick comment... by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1

      Whoops. I missed the NYT article which was a lot more informative, as well as the Free Mike website (that while certainly biased, at least layed down some facts).

      Therefore I was commenting entirely on the Wired article, and in that respect my point still stands. THAT article was a sensationalistic piece of shit.

    5. Re:Just a quick comment... by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1
      However, in times of war the rules need to be bent a little bit to accommodate.
      Baloney. IMO, it's in time of war (what war? Congress never declared war) that we need to adhere most strongly to the rules, because that's when they're most likely to be subverted.

      That's your opinion. I have mine. One difference is that yours is based on the "slippery slope" theory, while mine is based on historical facts.

      During every time of war the rules have been bent, and they have always gone back to normal, or often times have rebounded to the point of lunacy-- where everyone starts making up rights that they don't have but think they somehow deserve.

  237. Mike Hawash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a material witness in a grand jury trial, he went before a Federal judge and has been determined to be a flight risk. Under Federal statutes, he can be held until he testifies. You could be too if you know anything about it.

  238. Local coverage by zbik · · Score: 2, Informative

    See also this article in the local paper.

  239. Have the terrorists won? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When American citizens are detained without charges like this, it makes me think that the 9/11 terrorists have won. When our fear of terror is strong enough that the general populace is willing to give up the freedoms that make America great, then the terrorists have won.

    In sincerely hope this is a temporary problem, that we the American people will express our voices in government to overturn laws that make injustice possible.

  240. Re:Speaking as an American by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's a difficult fact that our rights don't have priority ratings... Like first and foremost, the right to be free... Interestingly enough, most people refer to the Declaration of Independence as the Ur-foundation for our rights. Despite the fact that the Declaration has no legally binding power, people throughout the civil rights movement have referred to it as providing justification for their struggle. In some ways it goes back to the struggle at the heart of any modern state between justice and freedom. Europeans tend to think they err on the side of justice and Americans err on the side of freedom, but I think this case shows Americans can err on the side of "justice" and the war in Iraq shows Europeans can err on the side of "freedom"...

  241. Find a new poster boy please. by Restil · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm certain that the outrage over this case is well justified. And based on my 5 minutes of exposure to this case, I'm sure that he's not intentionally guilty of anything. Things like this happen, sad though it might seem. Innocent people have been unfairly locked up before, and if he IS cleared and the reasons for doing this to him were found to be unreasonable, then he should be well compensated for the intrusion into his life.

    But please stop comparing innocent people with Kevin Mitnick. Yes, I'll agree, there were issues regarding his 5+ years of confinement, but he really brough it upon himself. Here's a few hints for people trying to avoid the Kevin Mitnick treatment:

    1. Obey the law.
    2. If you neglect to follow rule #1, revisit it after you get caught.
    3. If you again neglect to follow rule #1, and don't choose to pay attention to rule #2, REALLY pay attention to it the next time you get caught.
    4. If you once again neglect to follow rule #1, and rules #2 and #3 didn't sink in, now would be a good time for a serious attitude change.
    5. If you continue to break the law, despite many instances in your life that would imply that this is a bad idea, and a warrant is issued for your arrest, turn yourself in.
    6. If you're being pursued by the police, STOP RUNNING.
    7. If you continue to run and a place you're living at gets raided, that's a clue that they're on to you.
    8. When the police knock on your door with a warrant, ANSWER IT.

    Mitnick presented himself as a flight risk. He dug himself a deep hole by constantly attacking 3 letter corporations with deep pockets. They didn't accumulate 10's of thousands of pages of evidence on him because he was a habitual jaywalker. In the end he got a token restitution. Even if the assessed damages weren't accurate, he probably DID cause damage far in excess of what the court required him to pay, considering time spent by system administrators cleaning up after him.

    Federal cases also take a long time to prepare. He waived his own right to a speedy trial. That was a mistake. The FBI was kinda busy at the time what with this little incident in OKC. Spare them years of effort and force them to come up with something quickly, they'd probably offer a plea deal that would have been much better than what he ended up with.

    Please don't use Kevin Mitnick as a comparison, there IS no comparison. There are plenty of perfectly innocent posterboys you can pick up as a reference. Don't sully Mr. Hawash's name further by comparing him to a criminal.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
  242. Islam charities and USF professor caught doing it. by zymano · · Score: 1
    Islam says you must donate to charities. I would hope there are new rules put in place about these islamic charities that funnel money to HAMAS or other organizations that want everyone dead . I want the gov to ban this stuff.

    Also a Univ. South Florida professor was caught doing the same thing that the Intel programmer did. USF professor's charities

  243. MOD PARENT UP (SUBTLE INSIGHTFUL) by shr3k · · Score: 0

    n/t

  244. Wake up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The barbarians have already breached our gates. Look at the Mexican border.

  245. What do you need to know? by zipwow · · Score: 1

    Everyone seems to be missing this point:

    It doesn't matter if he's guilty or not.

    I don't care if he's a mass murderer. Our constitution is supposed to guarantee that we cannot be held without being charged for a crime.

    The fact that he's not allowed to speak for himself is just another damage on top of that one.

    I wasn't saying that Mitnick was innocent (he wasn't), I was saying that he was deprived of his right to a speedy trial. You can see this sentiment in my original post.

    You'll notice that I, in fact, did not defend Mitnick's actions. Instead of painting everyone who knows the definition of our rights under the constitution as a "mob-thinker and a wacko", maybe you should get in touch with the current state of the rest of the world?

    The only conclusions I've jumped to were clearly:

    He's being held without a charge,
    He's being held in isolation (which was reported).

    Is the reason you can't see the rational people because you assume that anyone with this opinion is irrational?

    -Zipwow

    --
    I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    1. Re:What do you need to know? by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1

      Unless more information is released, we won't know until he is allowed to and/or desires to comment. I repeat again: why didn't his wife make a statement? That really bothered me. She's not in prison, and presumably she will do what is best for her husband. If it was truly best for her husband that there was public outcry against this, then I would have to assume she'd say something.

      But instead we have a sensationalist story with a clearly political agenda telling us that all of our rights are going in to the toilet. Just because a few people are held doesn't mean that due process isn't being followed.

      The cops already have a hard enough time keeping criminals in jail. We've already had a terrorist attack on our nation because we led them right through the door. I don't disagree with you that due process should be followed, but could you at least think of the benefits of holding people? He's not in general population with Big Jim. He's in isolation. He's got a cell to himself, he's presumably getting three squares a day, he's allowed contact with his family and his lawyer, and when the case blows over he will return to his life.

      I fail to see any gross violations of his rights. Sure, it sucks being in prison at all, but it could be a lot worse for him.

      You purport to know a lot about the constitution, but let me quote the relevant ammendment (the fifth):

      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 offense 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.

      Clearly, it does not state what "due process" exactly is. That is the beauty of the constitution. Defining "due process" is the job of the legislature-- just like defining everything else is. If they fuck it up badly, then and only then is it in the hands of a judge.

      So, even taking into account the facts that we do know, can you honestly state that he has been deprived of due process? Remember, this story was posted to Slashdot by someone opposed to the anti-terrorism legislation. But that's just the thing, that's now the law. That law effectively states that this guy /is/ getting due process. If you don't like it, then talk with your congressman. Don't rape the justice system with public outcry and judicial oversight. Judicial oversight is reserved for times when the congress is way out of line (and I don't believe that is the case here).

    2. Re:What do you need to know? by zipwow · · Score: 1

      He is not allowed to comment, at least according to the Wired article:

      "For nearly two weeks, he has been held as a so-called 'material witness' in solitary confinement in a federal lockup in Sheridan, Oregon."

      You couldn't be more wrong when you say, "Just because a few people are held doesn't mean that due process isn't being followed." This is exactly what's happening.

      You're right when you say that the constitution doesn't spell out what "due process" is, but completely wrong when you say that defining it is the legislature's job. In the US political system, defining (aka interpreting) the law is the court system.

      As for your constiutional quote and comment on "due process" (which is interpreted by the Judicial branch, not the legislative)... there are some things we know about this case, things that are facts rather than opinions:

      This man has been held for two weeks.
      This man has not been charged with a crime.
      The amount of time he can remain in this state is indefinite.

      Knowing only this, I can honestly state that he has been deprived of due process.

      I don't see how any rational person can disagree.

      -Zipwow

      --
      I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
    3. Re:What do you need to know? by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1

      Yes. I was mainly pissed off at the Wired article. The NYT article was a lot better. I also had a look at the free Mike site.

      Since I'm just hearing about the subject and I can clearly say I don't have all the facts, I can't say exactly what should or should not be done. What I can say is that in a week I wonder if anybody on Slashdot will remember Mike? I will certainly try. I hope there's a slashback about this, even if only to say he's still being held with no details available.

      The NYT article was a lot better at explaining the details. I now see that the REAL issue seems to be that they don't even have the intention of charging him with a crime, but they need his testimony.

      As another poster pointed out, if they are merely using him as a witness, then why isn't he at a hotel with his family and an armed guard? I'm going to play a wait and see approach on this one. There's a good chance the government knows something we don't here. I'm not so much concerned with him being held as I am with his well being. A few points:

      • Is he safe?
      • Is he in good health?
      • Is his family safe?
      • Has he been given ample access to his lawyer?

      In fact, the thing that concerns me more than anything is that he have ample access to his lawyer. Lawyers (like them or not) serve a definite purpose, and one of those is to be the outside contact for a man in prison. Presumably, if he's being treated badly then his lawyer will know and take action.

      Having a good lawyer is definitely the biggest part of due process. Fortunately, this guy sounds like he's fairly well off, and his friends are already helping him out with the defense fund. I want to see the outcome in a week. I suppose if I don't see a slashback on it, or you don't then maybe we can try to remind each other about it.

  246. Freudian Law? by Ryan+C. · · Score: 1

    From the article:

    The 1984 material witness statute was...

    -Ryan C.

    --
    -Ryan C.
  247. both are true, but by sirshannon · · Score: 1

    neither matter. What matters is the electoral college's votes. We have a system that prevents, for example, the entire states of NY, TX, and CA from voting for one candidate and and winning due to the popular vote even though the other 47 states (with lower turn-out) voted mostly for the other candidate.

    unfortunately, this causes a lot of people in a lot of states to not even bother voting because they already know the outcome in their state (for example, not a single one of my presidental votes has ever mattered in the slightest), which makes the popular vote mean nothing at all but doesn't prevent idiot chicken littles from running around acting like the popular vote in Gore's favor means anything.

  248. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

    The civil liberties violations in the US do not even compare, except by idiots.

    Double amputees shouldn't complain about their situation! They've still got half their limbs, and they should be DAMNED THANKFUL for that!! At least they're not quadruple amputees, right?

    In fact, we should be GRATEFUL to Bush and Ashcroft that they're only chopping ONE of our limbs off by using 'material witness' procedures to lock some of us up without due process.

    There's an idiot here, and it's you. Regardless how bad things are in any other country, we need to fight tooth and nail at ANY attempt to make things worse here in OUR country, no matter how comparitively small they may seem.

  249. Re:The pathetic thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops, I'm talking about the wild accusation about the evil corporate US government "disappearing" (as if that were ever a verb) people, just like Augusto Pinochet. As always, this post has nothing to do with the actual parent that I happened to "reply" to. I'm just placing it up near the start of the article thread so that Eurosocialists will read it and wet their pink undies.

  250. Correction by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    Michael you got it wrong again!

    Whiole Mitnick was charged before doidn a single hour in jail..read the arrest transcript sometime you might be surprised how much Mitnick says that is not quite matching with his sayings before a judge..

    This guy is being held without any charges being stated to him before the judge..ie the hearing you get before they hold you in jail..

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
  251. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Sanction · · Score: 1

    Well, it depends on if they decide to classify him as an "enemy combatant" like Padilla. Remember, two prisoners in Camp X-Ray have died in interrogation. What's that about not being beaten and killed in jail?

    --
    Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
  252. Re:Speaking as an American by HalfFlat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is easy to pick on the US because it is the most prosperous, visible and free of any state in the world.
    But it's not! That's the whole point of articles like these ... they demonstrate that the US is not an island utopia of freedom in a sea of despots. The US is certainly visible, and on average is certainly propserous. But you'll find more freedom in most other Western democracies than you will in the US, I'll wager. Certainly you'll get more in (for example) Australia, and as far as I know, in Germany and Canada too.

    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.

  253. Dubya Re-elected in '04? by citabjockey · · Score: 1

    Now that is a real possibility. For some reason, the masses in the good 'ol USA seem to like this windbag. If he winds again its because we deserve him. I will be heartbroken that education in this country is far worse than is acknowledged by anyone. Maybe it is time to move...

    I just hope that when all the terrorst attacks start that folks recognize the huge red targets Bush painted on all our backs.

  254. Mother of All Democracies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not anti-American, despite being an "Old European". I have never been to the USA but I have always wanted to.

    However the USA is - since Guantanamo Bay, similar incidents like this and all the other stuff that is going on - right off my list of places to go. Because I don't want to run the risk - however negligible - of disappearing from the legal system in a way that reminds me of practices in just the kinds of country the current US government has on its list of places to invade.

    Your loss, George W.

  255. Get online donations set up! by fname · · Score: 1

    I'll PayPal $10 to the person who sets up an online donation site for Mike Wahash's advocate.

  256. Re:Speaking as an American by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

    What happens, though, when the government things that allowing due process will infringe on my right to safety?

    Can you elaborate on this? I find it highly unprobable, if not impossible to conceive that denying someone's right to a trial can make you less secure. Tell me where I'm wrong, if you can.

    --
    I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
  257. When Democracy Failed - Thom Hartmann by anadem · · Score: 1

    One of Hitler's earliest actions was the building of a detention center for "terrorists", in March 1933 at Oranianberg. Suspension of constitutional guarantees was his principal plank in reaching for absolute power. Hartmann's essay is an essential backgrounder on how Hitler used the same tactics as Rummy's Bush: When Democracy Failed alan

    1. Re:When Democracy Failed - Thom Hartmann by mar1boro · · Score: 1

      When Democracy Failed:
      The Warnings of History
      by Thom Hartmann
      CommonDreams.org, March 16, 2003

      The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
      It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)
      But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
      Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
      "You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
      Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
      Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
      To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.
      Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding th

      --
      -- "It was as if the paint factories had decided to deal direct with the art galleries." - Thursday Next
  258. What about the others? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    An an Australian, I have to mention the two Australian citizens held without trial or access to legal counsel, in Gauntanamo Bay. One was taken captive in Afghanistan, and the other seized in Pakistan (and most likely is a case of mistaken identity).

    These people have actually been disappeared. They have no rights, no laws can help them, their government has forsaken them and they are being held in a US military prison camp which has no laws governing it. They've been held for over a year now, I think, and still no charges have been laid. Surely by now the US have tortured these guys enough to get the info and confessions they want?

    People are disputing the difference between the US and Iraqi regimes. This is fair enough - they were once poles apart. Now, the treatment of US citizens and especially foreign nationals, makes me wonder how far the US regime has moved towards the Iraqi one. Rights are being thrown out the window, the US constitution is ignored by the powerful, the presidential election is widely considered a farce, stories of war crimes against Afghani Taliban POWs are appearing...

  259. And another thing... by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/893950.asp?0cv=CB20

    Now it seems that the government can lock you up for looking like you might have a bit of a temperature:

    "apprehension, detention or conditional release of individuals to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of suspected communicable diseases."

    This is in connection with SARS, which has been added to the list of diseases. It is good that they can force quarantine on people who have deadly diseases, but think about the potential for abuse, especially with regard to ethnicity- claiming that anyone who looks vagually oriental must have recently been to Hong Kong or Singapore and therefore MAY have SARS.

    graspee

  260. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by mrseth · · Score: 1

    I second that. If there were, we'd probably have McCain for president instead of plant life.

    I *really* hope he is a one term President. I swear his middle name should've been Orwell.

  261. "If, as You Say..." by Euphonious+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm reminded of a brilliant cartoon in the New Yorker some years back. It showed a couple of pandas in a cage, and one says, "If, as you say, it's no crime to be a panda, how do you explain the fact that we were arrested?"

    1. Re:"If, as You Say..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do you explain the fact that we were arrested?

      i'd explain it by FuCKING YoUR FaT FuCKING MoTHER ViCIOUSLY

  262. Whaaa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say F- you all, what have you done for the USA lately. Dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

    Semper Fi :)

  263. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    I don't really give a damn. This is my freaking country, and I'm going to oppose this sort of junior dictator garbage, DESPITE the fact that someone somewhere else is doing worse. Good grief, since when is "well they're doing it worse than me" an excuse?

    Its the fact that you consider this a "junior dictator" demonstrates my point. Completely out of preportion to what is going on. Its the proverbial Chicken Little. Its as if you are ready to move to Montana and start a movement.

    I don't agree with what they are doing either. But I get tired of reminding people that IF you insist on personal attacks, then no one is going to take you serious. Sorry, but it makes you look like an idiot. Argue your point (which I happen to agree with) but to keep calling GW and crew evil is just stupid. They are wrong about alot of this, but if you don't even consider the fact that they are acting of conscience, and NOT out of some desire to take over the world, then don't bother telling anyone of any consequence, because they are not going to listen.

    Once again: when you use terms like "junior dictator" it doesnt make you cool. It makes you look like a paranoid idiot, and it TAKES AWAY from our ability to get the govt. to stop this shit. Let me repeat this: If you act like a paranoid freak in how you protest, you will not create change. If your goals is to create change (rather than look important) then learn to not act like a kook.

    They are wrong about plenty, and right about more. But GW and the administration is not trying to take over the world, they are trying to make it a safer place. Sometimes they do it the wrong way, but that is the motivation. Not everyone in the administation has the best intentions, but on the whole, it appears obvious that is the motivation.

    If you DO think GW and crew simply want to 'take over the world' then you ARE a nut, or a liar with a different agenda.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  264. Re:Speaking as an American by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1
    But it's not! That's the whole point of articles like these ... they demonstrate that the US is not an island utopia of freedom in a sea of despots.

    It may have demonstrated this for you, but it has not for me. While the U.S. is certainly not the only free nation in the world, no other country has the same set of liberties.

    Having a nice bill of rights doesn't mean squat if they aren't respected.

    True, but I would argue that the Supreme Court has not sufficiently degraded the rights found therein (or any part of the Constitution) to justify armed revolution. The system may be broken, but it is not beyond repair (yet). I still believe the US is the best in the world, Australia, Germany and Canada included. The US is the only industrialized country that does not exercise socialist economics. We are the only one without nationalized health care for the whole population (only senior citizens on MediCare and poor people on MediCaid). Socialism is government mandated equality of outcome, or in other words an increase of equality at the expense of freedom. By this test, the US is more free than any other (for good or ill I won't opine).

    --
    ASCII tastes bad dude.
    Binary it is then.
  265. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least we can do advertisement for C&C Generals in the US, unlike in fascist germany!

    Don't care for a criminal detained to protect my family and me. Throw them out!

  266. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by radish · · Score: 1

    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.


    I'd be really interested in reading anything you have to back this statement up. I've been in contact with several people who've been over there recently, and read many articles written by others, and they all say the complete opposite. Been watching Fox News lately?

    --

    ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  267. "So let us, as citizens, behave ourselves..." by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    "So let us, as citizens, behave ourselves in a manner like we would have our government govern us. Let's be polite in conversation, concerned for others, honest in our dealings, and willing to do something to make changes when we see something wrong. No, we won't all agree about everything, but we can agree to disagree agreeably."

    I agree thoroughly. Send me an email message, and let's talk.

  268. For the real Orwell nerds out there by donscarletti · · Score: 1

    slashdot 4.4.03 reporting minitruth report undoubleplusgood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefilling

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  269. I wrote my senators. by Deal-a-Neil · · Score: 1

    Carl Levin and Debbie Stabnenow should be receiving my letters shortly. Hopefully, they, or someone on their staff with any concern for civil liberties, will read them. Seriously, if you've taken the time to go to the site and read about it and you want to do something, don't be a pud -- write your senator, send some money.. this has to be a nightmare for that family and I know that any type of support is what I'd be looking for.

    1. Re:I wrote my senators. by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

      Great idea, I'm doing the same!!! I also work for a judge and I'm going to bug him until he writes some letters too.

      --
      If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  270. Yes, they HAVE made accusations by t0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful
    They haven't made any accusations. That's the trouble.

    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.

    --

    Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.

    1. Re:Yes, they HAVE made accusations by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      Yes, he's the head of the executive branch. He should be held personally responsible for the steps out-of-bounds by all the "police" agencies of the govt--that is his job to control them!

      He also has great leway in intrepreting the enforcement of the laws. He does not have to autuorize the FBI, CIA to tap phones, spy on people, etc. or any other extreme action passed! Congress gives him permission, but he is still responsible for ordering the carrying out of actions and the methods! If he is morally opposed to a particluar action being taken that congress has granted, he is responsible to the people to oppose it! [If Congress ordered him to kill 20% of the people--should he just do it?] His moral judgement is the reason for his position of power. In this case, Congress has "granted" considerible power to his branch. They did not order him to presue the use of that power--he ordered that himself! That is why you should be scared!

    2. Re:Yes, they HAVE made accusations by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      They havent made any criminal accusations. Thats what material witness detention is about, they can just tell a judge that he might know something about someone who knows something about a crime and get him locked up for months with no trial or charges.

    3. Re:Yes, they HAVE made accusations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that'll get them to 'fess up. Good plan.

    4. Re:Yes, they HAVE made accusations by fenix+down · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the important part there is that he hasn't been questioned by anybody, either.

      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.

    5. Re:Yes, they HAVE made accusations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But if you went on 'vacation' to Afghanistan three years ago with this person, that could be justified.

      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.

    6. Re:Yes, they HAVE made accusations by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      They have made accusations, that is why the person was taken. The difference is they have not made publicly disclosed accusations.

      Hmm...if you don't actually state what the accusations are, then how can you prove you've made them? Saying they have undisclosed accusations doesn't actually prove they exist. Kinda like the government's accusations that Saddam Hussein had undisclosed weapons and that he was just so good at hiding them, we should attack him, anyway. Sounds like we're on a roll. Thank God I'm living in Japan right now.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    7. Re:Yes, they HAVE made accusations by rsborg · · Score: 1

      Please mod up parent. This is a very interesting read.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  271. Or even worse.... by NoData · · Score: 1

    ...someone could exploit this hair-trigger paranoia to frame YOU. Taking advantage of the State's draconian tactics was a common way to turn undesirables, competitors, or rivals into "political dissidents" in the Eastern Bloc days. A few well-planted pieces of evidence and allegations, and it was off to Siberia with you. Why take chances?

    What with identity theft being the fastest growing crime ever, how hard is it to make some one look suspicious enough to suddenly earn a "disappearing?"

    For those of you who take the sheep-like "I trust my govn't, they must have good reasons" stance....what if the good reasons are contrived? What if it's the govn't that's being duped? What if there's just a mix-up that makes some unfortunate links between you and some shady others?

    When the transparency of your judicial system starts getting this cloudy, you're open to all kinds of corruption and manipulation....whether or not the original impetus was well-intentioned.

  272. ammendment by donscarletti · · Score: 1

    Oh, heck! That was ment to be miniluv, not minitruth. Man my newspeak isn't up to par!

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  273. Stop talking out your own ass... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Being from the US, I'm disappointed that we claim to be "leaders of the free world" when we have such glaring internal issues. It's what one might refer to as a "cognitive dissonance" -- or maybe just "hypocrisy." When we're dropping weapons of mass destruction on another country without global backing on the claim that they have weapons of mass destruction and need a friendly governmental system like ours, any blemishes on our rhetoric's credibility are unacceptable. And that's exactly what this is.

    2) The government has a burden of proof that it must fulfill to the people because it is (supposed to be) a government of, by and for the people. If the government cannot make a compelling case to justify its behavior to the people, then it has failed as the government of the United States of America. In this case in particular, the government appears to not even be attempting to justify its specific actions.

    Then consider Halliburton. Wonder why our great evidence that Saddam has WoMD hasn't yielded any WoMD. Wonder why the UN didn't accept it as proof. Wonder why we continue to support Israel when they commit acts of state-ordered terrorism against Palestinians.* Wonder who our current government is answering to. If you can't start naming people you know -- play "6 degrees," if you want -- then the government of the United States of America has failed.

    If I weren't currently so proud of my senators (I'm from Oregon -- in the past couple of weeks, Wyden's [D] has introduced a pro-fair-use bill and Smith [R] broke party ranks to vote against drilling in the ANWR) at the moment, I'd be utterly ashamed to be a citizen in the purported "land of the free and home of the brave."

    JM

    * -- Quite frankly, I think the only acceptable policy is to withdraw !!all!! support from both Israel and Palestine until they agree to play nicely together. I hope Lieberman uses that as a platform in his election campaign -- he's probably the only candidate that can get away with such a claim without people calling him racist.

  274. Yes, he volunteered to be hauled away at gunpoint! by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 1

    It may be that the people who run this charity with ties to terrorism want him dead. So perhaps he is somewhat willingly hanging out in solitairy.

    This is the single dumbest thing posted on Slashdot so far this year, and that's saying something.

    Would it have killed you to read the fucking article, or the Free Mike website?

    Mr. Hawash was arrested at gunpoint in his company's parking lot, while armed agents invaded and searched his house.

    A free clue: this is not how the Feds protect cooperating witnesses who they think might be in danger from the people they plan to testify against. (When that happens, they check you into a hotel with an armed guard.)

    Another free hint: if they thought his life might be in danger, why are they letting his family continue to twist in the wind? You don't think Al Qaeda would think to hurt the wife and kids of someone they thought was an informant?

    Last but not least: if he was "hanging out" in solitary confinement (and that phrase right there is a strong contender for "dumbest thing said on Slashdot ever") voluntarily, don't you think his wife or lawyer could have somehow communicated this to the Intel Vice President who is running the 'free Mike' campaign?

    --

    News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

  275. It Is Great That The Government Disappeared Hawash by jonathansamuel · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why did he give $10K to a terrorist organization? What kind of programmer can support three kids and still give that much money to a terrorist organization?

    I hope that Hawash will repent and testify against the other terrorists.

    In the mean time, I no longer wish to purchase computers with Intel inside, since Intel hires terrorists.

    --

    Marjo Wycam, Master of the Programming Arts
  276. Dollar drop... by Goonie · · Score: 1
    (imagine what would happen to the dollar if all of a sudden everyone whould start trading in euro instead)

    Imports would get dearer. Exports would be more competitive. The ridiculous imbalance in the US economy would start to level out. If I were you, I'd be hitting my knees every night praying for a devalued US currency.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  277. A Man for All Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm reminded of the excellent play "A Man for All Seasons" by Robert Bolt

    Wife: Arrest him!
    More: For what?
    Wife: He's dangerous!
    Roper: For all we know he's a spy!
    Daughter: Father, that man's bad!
    More: There's no law against that!
    Roper: There is, God's law!
    More: Then let God arrest him!
    Wife: While you talk he's gone!
    More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
    Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
    More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
    More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

    This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
    Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

  278. ATTENTION by Mikeytsi · · Score: 2, Funny

    It has come to our attention that you have used "Bush" and "legitimate target" in the same sentence. You are quite obviously a terrorist, and we would appreciate it if you would report to the nearest detention center, so that we don't have to go through the trouble of tracking you down and shooting you to death for "resisting arrest".

    Have a nice day,...

    --
    I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
    1. Re:ATTENTION by HeghmoH · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well shit. I might as well toss some more gas on the fire, then.

      President bomb nuclear chemical anthrax assassination gun Iraq Taliban hacker encryption FBI plutonium reactor.

      Whee....

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    2. Re:ATTENTION by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Dear Sir,

      It has come to our attention that you think you are funny. You seem to believe that posting a string of suggestive words on the Internet forum known as "Slashdot" will trigger some sort of secretive, government-sponsored "disappearing" response.

      Congratulations, you are correct. In approximately thirty seconds you will never have existed.

      Love and hugs,

      The guys in suits outside your door, who are not paid to have a sense of humour

      But seriously... The problem with looking at the funny side of this is that the other guys are always going to have the last laugh. It's easy to forget that while making a joke, but please remember it again afterwards.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  279. Fu-turd power had a nice article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For me to poop on!

    Seriously, Mr. Mike Jennings had what I call a 50% correct and 50% almost-almost correct relation in his journalism at the stated URL. Although violence is an evil deed, it is also a response to tort (ie war). Violence didn't grow vegetables, it grows hamburgers! Violence didn't put a house together, it gave men a choice to either have a job or not have a job. Violence...egad stop saying violence is not justified. You're confusing violence with retaliation. If someone took my Linux CD-ROM and broke it, and then said "HAHA here's your $1.00 for your labor in downloading and burning your crummy Linux", I'm going to get down and dirty on his crummy 50-cent Windows 2000 CD-ROM that he payed biatch-$300-overflated for it!

    Violance can prevent things, it is often a deterrant. Blackmail and general evil is what you're angry at; the hatefulness in people, those are the people that are not willing to be charitable. I've helped many people I honestly don't agree with, but I do it with kindness and that's what keeps the world turning.

    The United States is a disgusting, monopolistic Corporation owned and controlled by the Internation Monetary Fund and the United Nations. And the reason all the "citizens of the United States" are such bad people is because they've been enslaved and treated as cattle; what does the world expect, thankfulness for involuntary slavery and its slave-owners' selective use and censorship of education and news broadcasting?

    Ossama should've kept sending those planes, there are still some Bankers here that he forgot about; I'll finish them off for 'im...using the Uniform Commercial Code! :-)

    1. Re:Fu-turd power had a nice article. by DimitryP · · Score: 1

      i think that it's been fairly well proven in these past weeks that the united nations does not, in fact, control the US. for further evidence, try the various news agencies.

      --
      Guns are like umbrellas and condoms. Better to have one and not need it, than need it and not have one.
    2. Re:Fu-turd power had a nice article. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 3, Funny
      Violance can prevent things, it is often a deterrant.

      Start spelling better or I'll beat the crap out of you.

  280. Re:Yes, he volunteered to be hauled away at gunpoi by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1
    It may be that the people who run this charity with ties to terrorism want him dead. So perhaps he is somewhat willingly hanging out in solitairy.
    This is the single dumbest thing posted on Slashdot so far this year, and that's saying something.

    Okay. You got me there. That portion of my argument was poorly thought out and weak. The rest of it wasn't too bad though IMHO.

    Would it have killed you to read the fucking article, or the Free Mike website?

    As a matter of fact I did read the entire (fucking) article. I thought it was rather lacking in information. Perhaps I will post again after checking out the Free Mike website.

  281. I don't know what's worse... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    I don't know what's worse: The fact that shit like this is happening or that so many people in this forum actually support it.

    It's getting to the point that I'm embarassed to be an American. At one time I could at least say, we as citizens have freedoms. Now with this story, that isn't even true anymore.

    Does Canada need any lawyers? I'd be willing to work cheap?

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:I don't know what's worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your not the only one....
      Im embarrassed that your an American too!

  282. Re:It Is Great That The Government Disappeared Haw by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    Man, I sure hope you're kidding. Because if you and others in this forum are not, then our country is heading for the crapper.

    If you think it's OK that American citizens can be held forever without being charged, that he is guilty BEFORE being proved as such, then what freedom does any of us really have? We now only have the appearance of freedom.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  283. Re:Yes, he volunteered to be hauled away at gunpoi by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1
    Would it have killed you to read the fucking article, or the Free Mike website?

    Somehow I managed to miss the (well written) NYT article. I still am hesitant to make a determination on this.

    I do feel the government should release some basic facts about the case-- nothing that jeopardizes the investigation, but perhaps they could give a clue as to why they are holding this guy.

    Most of the terrorists didn't have high paying technology jobs that required a lot of their time, so in that respect Mike doesn't fit the profile. It would be helpful for the government to at least release a little information here. It's been two weeks since he was arrested, so I think that some basic information is a little past due at this point.

  284. Because America is the strongest... by joggle · · Score: 1
    The reason most people in countries such as Argentina blame the US for their dictatorships is because the US has the power to destroy those governments, as they have done in other areas (and is going on in Iraq). In the case of the Middle East in particular, it is obvious that many of the governments there depend (or have in the past depended) directly on the aid of the US to keep them in power (such as Saudi Arabia, ironically Iraq, etc). I'm not sure how much better off those governments would have been if the US hadn't "medled" given their histories, but they would certainly be different.

    I'm not saying it's fair to blame the US for all of the world's corrupt governments, but that's just the way it is when one nation is so much more powerful than any other single nation.

    1. Re:Because America is the strongest... by FedeTXF · · Score: 1

      The reality is that US gov subcontracted the comunist fight in latin american countries where there already was a reactionary and fascist group willing to "eliminate" comunists/socialists/students/nuns/anybody in the address book of a suspect, etc.
      In Argentina since Perón arrived those groups within and without the military forces existed, and took training in the School of the Americas (a CIA project) but also in France (they know many things about torture thanks to their action in Argelia).

      So the 30,000 dissapeared in Argentina are part of the cold war, and the US had a lot of interest in the outcome of that struggle.

    2. Re:Because America is the strongest... by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      I understand what you are saying. It's pretty ironic. The US is being blamed for intervening in Iraq and is also being blamed for not for intervening in Argentina. The US has been regularly criticized for its "paternalistic" attidude towards Centeral and South America and yet is also criticized for failing to act in a paternalistic manner. We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. We should have removed the military government of Argentina but God forbid the US take on Fidel Castro (who has recently instigated yet another massive crackdown on dissent).

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
  285. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by ryanwright · · Score: 1

    Dude, you just made my friends list. That was one of the best comments I've read in a long time.

    --
    -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
  286. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Dirtside · · Score: 1

    I doubt Ashcroft has "the best of intentions," unless it's "best" that he wants everyone in the U.S. to worship Christ, give up all civil liberties, and basically do whatever he says. His heart may be in the right place (he wants to do good), but what he thinks is "good" curdles my blood.

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  287. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by cicho · · Score: 1

    Um, it's the opposite. When you quote a term you indicate it's not yours, but comes from a source. Standard and correct practice, where by using the quote the reporters distance themselves from the particular terms used. See this BBC news story for an example.

    --
    "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
  288. Re:Jail Some Irish Americans - They Fund UK Terror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you mean "no longer available online"?

    http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4357761,0 0. html

    It's all over the place. Ever heard of google?

  289. He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it by multipartmixed · · Score: 1
    Hey!

    I've got a great idea!

    How about we push a bill through congress, and call it "The Alien Registration Act"? This act would make it illegal for anyone in the United States to advocate, abet, or teach the desirability of overthrowing the government. The law would also require all alien residents in the United States over 14 years of age to file a comprehensive statement of their personal and occupational status and a record of their political beliefs.

    That would be a big step toward combatting terrorism.

    Then we could get the House of Un-American Activies Committee to investigate, well, gee, just about everybody on that list. Maybe they could even start with members of the MPAA, since we all hate them, anyhow. We could follow them around, search their houses (without warrants), and ruin their lives. We could demand that they tell us who their associates are, ignore their pleas for respecting their first amendment rights, and imprison them if they give us answers we don't like. If they "name names", that should be good enough to do the same to those they name.

    We could get the FBI to start maintaining a huge blacklist of people who we suspect maybe might be terrorists, and make sure that if anybody hires those people (even unknowingly), they get blacklisted, too. We could even get the FBI to spy on random citizens, and if they had even an inkling they maybe might be terrorists or something, we could ruin their lives too (hey, it's for the greater good, right?). We could especially target people who sound like the people we're at war with -- wouldn't that be great for the IT industry? No more Iraqis to steal our jobs! Hell, we could get them to arrest all the dark-skinned people who talk funny, too -- so we could get rid of all the Indians, Afghans, and Pakistanis who are stealing our jobs. That would be wonderful! (Who cares if they are immigrants or citizens or on H1 visas -- they're not the same as us, they don't deserve the same rights!)

    We could also go after people with the same religion as those we're at war with, because they'd almost certainly have the same political beliefs.. and particularly go after those in the military. Hey, we already had one guy with a funny last name lob some grenades at our guys in Kuwait! So, we could use that incident as an excuse to lock up all the Muslims. Now we're talkin'!

    Now, here's the tough question.... what kind of a person could we trust to start such a witch hunt? Maybe a senator from Wisconsin.... who are the senators from Wisconsin right now? I can't remember... but I remember that fifty years ago, it was a fellow named Joseph McCarthy .

    Thank God for men like Eisenhower and Nixon. If it wasn't for them, half the country would probably be rotting in jail by now.

    You, sir, deserve neither liberty, nor security.

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  290. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

    Welcome to America: if you want us to take you serious, you have to present your arguement reasonably, backed up with facts. If you dish out FUD, we assume you are full of shit, and anything you say is meaningless.

    ...unless you're a high-ranking member of the US Government.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  291. Re:It Is Great That The Government Disappeared Haw by metachimp · · Score: 1

    "Rights are merely priviledges extended unless enjoyed by one and all."

    --
    The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
  292. Want bumper stickers? by JKConsult · · Score: 1

    Custom bumper stickers can be found here. Simply make a graphic (either .jpg, .bmp, .tif, or .gif) and upload the design to them. Want just one? 5 bucks (and believe me, when I was looking to get a bumper sticker made a few months ago, this is the only site I could find where there's no minimum order.) Want 10? $2.60 apiece. Free shipping, and you'll get your order within a week or less, depending on how many you order. An absolutely boffo service, and it's one of a kind. Make 10 and give them out to people (or slap them on random bumpers.)

  293. Mental Illness Alert!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Anger problem.

  294. We treat criminals better than this citizen. by Haacked · · Score: 1

    We treat criminals better than this citizen. It's called "Due Process".

  295. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by isorox · · Score: 1

    I was a Fool to be a Human Shield for Saddam

    Of course, you'll claim "right wing nonsense, all made up", while sitting there reading common drams like its a man page, however, feel free to Take your pick of news stories.

  296. USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, but this will be the end of you. This is a war(doesn't matter who started it) that can't be won(by anyone, including the bad guys).

    It's not like "you will all die", in fact, not even close. But the world will change.

    How long did the roman empire last? and why did it colapse?

  297. Yeah, Baby! by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

    Or they'll be calling it "The Blackhouse" again. ;)

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  298. Boil Freedom Like a Frog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What no one seemed to notice was the ever widening gap between the government and the people...And it became always wider...

    "The whole process of this disconnect coming into being was built around diversion...

    "Nazism gave us some other dreadful, fundamental things to think about ...or, rather, provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway...

    "Nazism kept us so busy with continuous changes, accusations and 'crises' and so fascinated ... by the machinations of the 'national enemies' without and within) and the government's 'responses' to them, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us...

    "Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted', that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures' must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing...

    "Each act curtailing freedom... is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow...

    "You don't want to act, or even talk, alone... you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble' or be 'unpatriotic'...But the one great shocking
    occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes...

    "That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring: the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit (which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms) is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. ...

    "You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father... could never have imagined."

    Source: They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University
    of Chicago Press, 1955)
    __________________________________

    "We will not wait as our enemies gather strength against us. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action, and this nation will act." G.W.Bush, West Point, June 2002

    "In this new world, declarations of war serve no purpose. Our enemies must be defeated before they can harm us. I will never declare war, but will take action!" Adolph Hitler, June 1940

    "Not too many people will be crying in their beer if there are more detentions, more stops and more profiling. There will be a groundswell of public opinion to banish civil rights," Peter Kirsanow, Bush's controversial appointee the U.S.
    Commission on Civil Rights

    "I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
    Osama bin Laden, October, 2001

  299. Christian sects? by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 1

    The 10% rule comes from Judaism - it's quite a bit older than Christianity.

  300. I declare! by lobotomy · · Score: 2, Informative
    With a little bit of editing, the following text can be brought up to date. Any good editors out there?

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
    He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
    He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
    He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
    He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
    He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
    He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
    He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
    He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
    He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standi

  301. Another appropriate quote by a great American by enkidu · · Score: 1
    In the closing paragraph of Thomas Paine's "Dissertation On First Principles Of Government", he wrote:

    An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

    I fear that many in our current cabinet would consider such statements "unpatriotic" and Mr. Paine a danger to the security of the state. Note that my sig is apropos also.

    --

    There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
    -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
  302. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by arkanes · · Score: 1
    It's worse that Saddams because we're supposed to have a process and a government that prevents this. Bush is not a military dictator, and letting him act like one is our failing as much as his.

    And I'd take issue with the idea that Ashcroft is a "good man". It would be very difficult to convince me that he honestly has democratic principles and the upholding of the Constitution (something he swore to in his oath of office, btw) at heart.

  303. Niemoller didn't make it out alive. by chaosmind · · Score: 1

    "First, they came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I was not a communist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
    Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
    Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."
    -Rev. Niemoller (who didn't survive Nazi Germany)

    'nuff said.

  304. To PROTECT MYSELF from the TYRANNY of the US, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have to post as AC.

    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.

  305. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by arkanes · · Score: 1

    How the heck did you pass high school social studies? That's exactly what the Constitution is, by definition. It defines the powers available to Federal and State goverments.

  306. Secret arrests by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suppose the main differences between the US and Iraq at this point are:

    1: No torture (yet) is officially sanctioned in the US.

    2: Far fewer informants (20% of the Iraqi population is estimated to be a paid informant for a secret police agency).

    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.

    We still have much to be grateful for. But this is still scary anyway.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:Secret arrests by junkgrep · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ---1: No torture (yet) is officially sanctioned in the US.---

      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.

    2. Re:Secret arrests by mbogosian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1: No torture (yet) is officially sanctioned in the US.

      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".

    3. Re:Secret arrests by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      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.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    4. Re:Secret arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If we have to have sub-Americans do our dirty work for us, then it's just fine."

      No, that's illegal too. The US was involved in - would you believe it - helping overthrow democratically elected leaders in South America via a campaign of...ah, forget it. You won't believe me anyway.

    5. Re:Secret arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1: No torture (yet) is officially sanctioned in the US.

      Actually, didn't the US recently admit (with a highly nonchalant attitude) to torturing the "key" Al Qaeda captives for information? It was in an article on CNN several months back, I'm certain of it because it was also a poll on their website.

      I'm sorry, but: Fuck that. NO ONE deserves to have their rights stripped of them.

    6. Re:Secret arrests by crucini · · Score: 1
      1: No torture (yet) is officially sanctioned in the US.

      Google for "torture lite". While it doesn't compare to the actions of truly repressive regimes, I think the US has taken one more step down a slippery slope.
    7. Re:Secret arrests by bigmattana · · Score: 1
      If these are the main differeneces then we are in trouble. The most important differences are:


      1) We have a bill of rights, though it seem it is being reduced from the original 10.

      We can say whatever we want against the government (a right it seems many slashdotters are very well aware of) and we and are families will not get killed/tortured for it. We don't even have to look farther than across our northern border to find a country that doesn't have freedom of speech. Canadianfreespeech.com
      Or in freedom loving Germany: Gotta Love Freedom
      What scares me more than incidents like this in which someone is being held illegaly is what becomes legal for the police and government once the thought police have full power.


      2) If we don't like our leaders, we can elect them out in 4 years or less.

      Without these, we would have something similar to most of the dictatorships in the world, and Iraq is what happens when a dictatorship goes bad -- really bad.

      So yes, things like this should be fought, but hating our country and the good things about it is only going to make things worse. We need to remember those things to remind ourselves what we are fighting for. We must remember that in this case the law is on our side. Why not try to file a lawsuit against the people who are illegally holding this guy? Or would we rather try to see how far we can stretch reality by bad comparisons and speculation in an effort to make the US look bad?

    8. Re:Secret arrests by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yes, we have some forms of "torture":
      1. We ship them to a torture-friendly country like Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, or Pakistan.
      2. We conduct our own "Stress and Duress" techniques.

      The Washington Post released a shocking report, but nobody really paid attention during Christmas season.

      Now we have the death of 2 afghan prisoners in US custody, ruled a Homicide from "blunt force trauma"[Beating] by the Army investigators. This is the first kind of fatality in US custody, since the US government officially states it does not "torture" people.

      Now that Sheikh Muhammad has been captured, the newspapers are debating the ethics over whether it should be legal to torture him for information. Israel's and our official policy is to not torture anyone, even if there's a hidden ticking bomb somewhere. However, this doesn't stop them from getting shipped-- I mean "rendered" to the custody of Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, and Pakistan, who do perform that.

      Such efforts were successful in the past; in 1995 an Al Qaeda agent was arrested in the Phillipenes. They knew he was in on a major operation, but they didn't know what. So they tortured him the old fashioned way, breaking his ribs and burning his testicles. After two weeks he broke, and revealed the plan to hijack 11 planes. Of course, a poll on AOL's front page voted 70% Yes to using some form of torture. Editorials aren't so rosy either, one says we should kill terrorists and smear them with pig fat so they won't get into heaven somehow.

      I seem to remember the philosopher Nietzche who said "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster." That means we shouldn't sink to their level or worse. Who would be the barbarian then? We seem to be ignoring the "innocent until proven guilty" law, even though it's better to let ten guilty men walk free than let one innocent one suffer. The US will never officially condone any cruel or unusual punishment, but Israel taught them that sleep deprivation, chaining in uncomfortable positions, harsh lights, and interrogation by women will usually yield results.

      May I remind you that Saddam tortures children in front of their fathers to make them confess. That's horrible. However, I'm a bit worried about Sheikh Muhammad's two young sons, 9 and 7, being arrested by the CIA and flown to America to help pressure their father to confess. Of course, the US won't deny that the man himself is being subject to "Stress and duress" right now. "Let's just say we are not averse to a little smacky face. After all, if you don't violate a prisoner's human rights some of the time then you aren't doing your job?" said a CIA officer, admitting they honed their interrogation techniques since Vietnam.

    9. Re: Secret arrests by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > (20% of the Iraqi population is estimated to be a paid informant for a secret police agency)

      The job security can't be so great: the average informant would be out of a job after four reports!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    10. Re:Secret arrests by moz25 · · Score: 1

      We don't even have to look farther than across our northern border to find a country that doesn't have freedom of speech. Canadianfreespeech.com [canadianfreespeech.com]

      Bwah, what rubbish! Go read that site - it's full of religious fanatism and discrimination. There's a banner there showing little kids and the text "immigration hurts her future!". Somehow, I can't feel any outrage about action taken against extreme right-wing folks. I guess that people who target minorities based on their own 'moral high ground' find it highly annoying that they themselves are a targeted minority based on other people's 'moral high ground'. Isn't it ironic?
      Besides, Canada is a democratic country - if full free speech (i.e. trolling) were something the democratic majority of the population wanted, then it'd be there by now.

      As for elections - how much choice is there really? Every four years, there's a choice between two equally incompetent people. There are disturbing trends going on nowadays and people rightly speak up against it. It has nothing to do with hating their country. It has to do with a government that doesn't accurately represent what they believe their country stands for.

    11. Re:Secret arrests by mraymer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This information has put me in shock and awe, so to speak. I had no idea we had already stooped so low.

      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*

      --

      "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    12. Re:Secret arrests by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      not to mention that bush didn't even win the election
      they may be stupid, but not THAT stupid

    13. Re:Secret arrests by swillden · · Score: 2

      Now we have the death of 2 afghan prisoners in US custody, ruled a Homicide [washingtonpost.com] from "blunt force trauma"[Beating] by the Army investigators.

      Actually, this is good news, not bad. It's bad that the prisoners were killed, of course, but it's good that it is being investigated and being treated as a crime, rather than being hushed up.

      No organization is a monolithic entity with a single point of view, so it's to be expected that individuals will act contrary to the desires of the organization's leadership. The test of whether or not the leadership approves of these actions is in how they react to them. The reaction here is to view these deaths as a crime, which it is.

      Of course it's possible that the whole thing was directed from the top, and that they're just picking a couple of scapegoats to take the fall because something leaked to the press (and that said scapegoats are willing to take the fall to protect their superiors), but it seems much simpler to believe that some investigators got overzealous, figuring they could help the war on terrorism by being more "aggressive" than is normally allowed. Then, since they're not trained to torture, they screwed up and killed the guys, tried to hide it, failed and are now sweating bullets.

      FYI, US Army interrogators are not allowed to engage in torture of any kind, not even allowed to make threats of torture or other violence. The sleep deprivation torture that they have used isn't specifically excluded AFAIK, but that's an oversight. The Red Cross has complained, the situation is being investigated and it's reasonable to expect that regulations will be changed to exclude it. Which doesn't mean it won't happen -- laws get broken -- but it does mean that anyone who does it is risking a stay in Leavenworth.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Secret arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget, they can spill their guts when under extreme pain, but they could just name any names (especially false ones) just to stop the torture. Lots of prominent military personnel say it's just unreliable.

    15. Re:Secret arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm too cynical to believe that. All we heard was that there was a death and it will be investigated. I doubt any charges will come for it.

      After all, the people who died were bad guys, right? So who cares if they were murdered? I get the feeling this will just be glossed over.

      Look at Israel. 2,000 civillian deaths in Palestine, 70 investigations into them, and only 2 convictions.

    16. Re:Secret arrests by Cokelee · · Score: 1
      death of 2 afghan prisoners in US custody, ruled a Homicides

      I believe that says it all right there. Read the article again, the US is performing a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION about this situation. They want to prosecute who did this.

      The governmnent doesn't torture people. People torture people - that will always be true, EVERYWHERE - it's just what government will do something about it to keep it from happening again.

    17. Re: Secret arrests by sirinek · · Score: 1


      Tried your phone number in Google [google.com] lately?
      (in USA use format nnn-nnn-nnnn)


      Yes. And about 20 other phone numbers, and nothing. ?

      siri

    18. Re:Secret arrests by bigmattana · · Score: 1
      Go read that site - it's full of religious fanatism and discrimination.

      This is a typical response from people of the Left to people who don't have the same beliefs that they do. They are doo-doo heads!! Whaa!! Name calling does not help anything. This is a typical fear tactic to keep people from speaking their mind by for fear that they will be accused of being someone they are not. Seriously, whether they are right wing or left wing has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they deserve to have their free speech taken away. This kind of thinking is leading us down the most slippery slope of them all.

      I think the fact that there it is mainly right-wing sites that are worried about this (I have heard about Canada's speech codes from several mainstream news sources, though) is perhaps the most disturbing of all. What I mean is that there are so many people like you who want to take away the freedoms of those who disagree with you, that the only people now who care about people who get their rights taken away are the ones who have the same beliefs/skin color/etc as those being oppressed. This is absolutely sick and pathetic . These people simply have opinions. There is nothing wrong with that. Quite frankly, Canada's immigrations policies are somewhat screwed up. Ever notice how many terrorist make it into the US? The idea of wanting to limit immigration is not limited to "religious fanatists" as you so eloquently put it. Have you ever been to Boulder, CO? Not exaclty what you would call a right-wing city.

      I guess that people who target minorities based on their own 'moral high ground' find it highly annoying that they themselves are a targeted minority based on other people's 'moral high ground'. Isn't it ironic? Besides, Canada is a democratic country - if full free speech (i.e. trolling) were something the democratic majority of the population wanted, then it'd be there by now.

      What's so ironic about it? People from both sides have always abused their power when they can. However, for probably the last 40 years the Left has had much more of a cultural influence than the Right, and have been pushing to silence anyone who disagrees with the most extreme left-wing ideas for about 20 years. The whole situation reminds me of "Animal Farm" by George Orwell. The bad part about this is that the Left has traditionally stood for freedom and civil liberties. Now they just fight for power. Don't believe it? Read the book "The New Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce. She is a lesbian liberal who was the former president of NOW, and became so disturbed by oppressive tactics they and other left-wing organizations were using that she quit and wrote a book about it. The whole idea of having a republic is that you have certain basic rights that the majority cannot take away. Yes, many right wingers have tried to oppress dissenters in the past, but this is much less common now since they do not have enough cultural influence. You cannot say that just because two people have the same beliefs that they are guilty of each other's crimes. I don't blame all the people in other countries who don't like the US with the murders that only a few of them carry out or support. Would I say they should all have their rights taken away simply because they share beliefs with those have done wrong?

      Every four years, there's a choice between two equally incompetent people.

      That may be true, but there are other leaders than just the president who play a role in government, and many of these choices tend to have at least one competent person when compared to a presidential race, because special interest groups do not have enough money to buy puppets for the smaller races. You cant always get what you want, but you can get what a large percentage of the people want and as long as people care about the rights of the

    19. Re:Secret arrests by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      No, that's illegal too. The US was involved in - would you believe it - helping overthrow democratically elected leaders in South America via a campaign of...ah, forget it. You won't believe me anyway.

      Yep. The first September 11 (1973). The result was a brutal dictatorship sponsored by the US, which killed 20,000 Chileans.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    20. Re:Secret arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's naive. The two cases where prisoners were tortured so badly that they died are being investigated. Who exactly is investigating those cases where they were tortured but didn't die? I think it's quite safe to assume that the torturers did not intend for their victims to die, and that most of their victims did not.

      The government doesn't torture people, people torture people

      I never thought that NRA slogan could actually be made dumber, but you've succeeded. When the government policy says "Get information out of these people" and then looks the other way while you have your way with them, that's endorsing torture. So the government has a policy against killing prisoners. Good for them. But that's very different than a policy against torture.

    21. Re:Secret arrests by jfx32 · · Score: 1

      You either have free speech or you don't. If the goverment can ban certain types of speech they don't like then you don't have free speech. Free speech is just that, whether you find the content objectionable or not.

    22. Re:Secret arrests by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Israel's and our official policy is to not torture anyone, even if there's a hidden ticking bomb somewhere.

      This is the only bit that I would disagree with. It is the OFFICAL policy of the Israel that the security forces may use "moderate torture", which includes beating, electric shock, etc. Assassination and certain forms of collective punishment are also official Israeli policy. Isreal also legally holds people for indefinite periods without charge. It also should be noted that there aren're really any age limits on those arrested either. As I type, there are 10 year old boys being legally tortured in adult prisons in Isreal.

      UNofficially, the Israelis do pretty much everything you could think of. Torture, murder, rape, etc. It is not unknown for Isreali security to threaten or abduct the families of prisoners. Isreali security also assassinates peace advocates, humans rights workers, etc.

      IOW, I think it's somewhat inappropriate to compare US and Israeli actions because, in general, what the Israelis is doing is much worse.

    23. Re:Secret arrests by lptport1 · · Score: 1

      It's nice to see you passed general psychology.

      What you're not getting is that they're still using conditioning. You describe it as punishment, but it's not.

      Punishment, the adding of a negative stimulus to a situation (or the removal of a positive stimulus from a situation), is different from conditioning / reinforcement.

      From what I've read, it sounds like they're using operant conditioning--where positive reinforcement is adding a positive stimulus to a particular response, and what you mistake for punishment: negative reinforcement. Negative reinforcement is the removal of a negative stimulus to a particular response.

      It's more like: It will stop when you tell us what we want to know. What's stopping? Lack of sleep, pain, hunger. You pick the lever.

      While it's likely that they're going to try and give out false information for the sake of relief, there's a probable chance that they have other individuals who may or may not be able to corroborate this information. They don't seek honesty, they seek agreement between sources.

      Anyway, as far as the entire situation goes, it is a rather sad state of affairs. And in all honesty, I don't think we've been the "land of the free" in a long time. Depending on how you want to slice the word free, that is.

      My honest opinion is that it's going to get worse before it gets better. And even when it does get better, the people that take the fall won't be likely to be the ones responsible for this.

    24. Re:Secret arrests by moz25 · · Score: 1

      Hello bigmattana, thanks for your reply. I will give my own response below:

      This is a typical response from people of the Left to people who don't have the same beliefs
      that they do.


      Interesting. You're jumping to a lot of instant conclusions about me based on my post. I will make a few clarifications:

      1) I'm actually right-wing - at least, I've always voted for a rightist party. By categorizing me with leftists (eww) kind of goes against your whole point, since you yourself are accusing me of something I'm not ;-)

      2) I'm against extreme right-wing. In fact, I'm against extreme-anything. Although I do not respect their views, they do exist and they do form the outer margins of the complete spectrum.

      3) As for spreading fear. The site you mentioned tried to do plenty of that. Mentioning "terrorists" is pointless - the INS itself granted visa extensions to two of the sept. 11 hijackers.

      4) I'm strongly in favour of free speech, regardless of how idiotic it is. However, I do not consider extreme ends of the spectrum as the vanguards of a just cause. This is something else than being in favour of "suppression". It just means that *I* will not be fighting for their rights.

      This is absolutely sick and pathetic .

      As you yourself put it: "name calling does not help anything".

      It seems to me that you kind of missed the underlying point in my post and it triggered a standard response using a cut&paste reply. I repeat: I'm not in favour of any limitations on free speech, but extremers (left OR right) will never get MY support.

      is that you have certain basic rights that the majority cannot take away

      You're exactly right there - democracy is about majority rule and individual protection.

    25. Re:Secret arrests by bigmattana · · Score: 1

      moz25,

      You make some very good points, but:

      Cut and paste reply? I worked on that thing longer than any post I have submitted even though I knew you would probably be the only one reading it, but yes, I do have a tendency to go off on tangents on things I feel strongly about. Although now that I have it, it will be good material for... :)

      Also, I tend to address not just the post I am replying to, but beliefs and actions that I think are dangerous. Its not always easy separate the person from the issue. I certainly wasn't saying that you are sick and pathetic, but the idea of taking peoples rights away just because they do not have mainstream beliefs (which probably have been or may be minority beliefs at some point in time) is sick and pathetic in my opinion. I just see too many posts that are nothing but personal attacks and name-calling.

      A few other points:
      1) Your points about the site are true, but my point was that we cannot be willing to take away free speech for some people without setting a very dangerous precedence. Note: I take "speech" very literally and think that it is acceptable to ban other things that typically hide behind the freedom of speech. But free speech itself is VERY important because without it we can't oppose the government, which is actually what that site is about.

      2) You seem to be against "extreme" things. I would be interested in knowing what your definition of extreme is. I seems that to most people it means beliefs and opinions that are VERY different than what most people have. I think it can also mean people who feel so strongly about something that they are willing to resort to violence or hatred against their "opponents". If that were the case, I would very much be against extremists. (This is why the aforementioned website does not bother me that much. They don't seem do be advocating oppression or violence, but their opponents make death threats and throw rocks at them.) However, it doesn't make much sense to me that there is anything inherently wrong with extremists who have very different beliefs, as long as they respect their fellow man and do not want to harm or oppress anyone. To me, a person who believes that we should form one huge commune, destroy our cars, live with nature, and give all our possessions to the government and a person who is very serious about his/her religion and takes the Bible or another holy book very literally both have perfectly valid opinions and don't deserve punishment more than anyone else.

      I don't have a clear definition of what extreme really means, and I don't think that most really people do either, but I think a person's definition of extreme makes a huge difference in whether that person is in favor of controlling borderline terror groups or is actually in favor of oppressing the minority opinion. I wish the accepted definition were not what it is now. (Then again, I wish that the definition of left wing and right wing was not based on what it is now, which I think boils down to differences of moral convictions. It is way too divisive and has nothing to do with properties of government.)

      3) I can see your points about not supporting people who are basically just being trolls, and not caring too much about their freedom to troll. I pretty much felt exactly the same as you did until I read "The New Thought Police". Maybe the laws they have in Canada are fine; I suppose we will see how bad it gets. I am just very suspicions of people's intentions who favor banning speech/thought/opinions. The more I see the cause and effect of people having their basic rights taken away, the more I love the Bill of Rights (well except for the $20 part) and the more I want to read and do something about peoples rights being oppressed in general, which is why I was looking it this article. That can't be a bad thing, can it?

    26. Re:Secret arrests by pstemari · · Score: 1
      2: Far fewer informants

      How many Neighborhood Watch participants in your neighborhood? How many DARE programs asking children to report their parents for smoking pot?

    27. Re:Secret arrests by Bush+Pig · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, you Americans have a disturbing impulse towards fascism (which was defined on slashdot the other day as - roughly - an alliance of big business with a repressive government). Your media today are saying much the same things about people who are against your government's latest military adventure ("Traitors!" etc) as they did 30-odd years ago during the last one. Admittedly ours in Australia aren't much better, but at least Australians are generally too lazy, apathetic and cynical to be completely taken in.

      --
      What a long, strange trip it's been.
    28. Re:Secret arrests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US investigated, arrested and jailed the perpetrators of My Lai massacre too. They were quietly released when the press clamor died down.

      Bush Sr. was guilty as sin in Iran Contra, he had a hearing, not a prosecution. Nobody actually pays for anything they do in our government.

      So yea, there's an investigation, there may even be an arrest and a prosecution. That doesn't mean they're ever going to actually PAY for it though.

    29. Re:Secret arrests by markwusinich · · Score: 1

      mraymer (516227) wrote:
      >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."

      What is your source for this?

  307. Re:Arabs come to this country for money and thats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the first intial comment by the Turk....

    You're full of crap. In fact, Arabs don't only come to North America for money. They come here to have their opinions heard and to utilize their education. In fact, if you survey universities across North America, you will find a large number of highly educated Arab professors whose skills and services are needed. And on the other hand, you will barely find Turks in such fields that demand skills!!!

    And if you're talking about money, a large number of arabs are extremely wealthy. Some of the wealthiest people in the world are Arabs. In addition, the American economy relies heavily on the Arab world. I mean, this unjust war that is going on right now in Iraq is meant so that the US takes control over the Iraqi oil. Fyi, Iraq is the second largest oil producing country in the world... Saudi Arabia is the first, but its oil reserves are degrading. The first thing that the US armies had done since the war started is secure the Iraqi oil fields so that oil production starts to roll. Shell is going to be the leading company in this operation. Their plan is to start pumping 2 million gallons a day from the Northern oil fields instead of 1 million.

    So, in conclusion, I think that the FBI should monitor people like yourself whose ignorance and lack of education are very much harmful to the environment and the well-being of the human kind.

    PS. I suggest you read a history book and while you're at it pick an economics book as well.

  308. Re:Speaking as an American by ChemicalSpider · · Score: 1

    Merely as a hypothetical situation (this isn't meant to imply that Hawash is in this situation, although it may be a possibility): Suppose a suspect is apprehended by the FBI because of tips from an undercover agent or informant. There is sufficient evidence to hold this person - however to reveal this evidence would blow the cover of the agent or informant. If due process were granted and this suspect convicted or even charged, then perhaps the larger operation is put in jeopardy. Again, this is just a hypothetical situation. I'm not trying to claim it is the case for Hawash or it is likely. National Security is a sticky issue.

  309. Thats the whole point by arf_barf · · Score: 1

    Do you think the current administration would be doing so good if it wouldn't be for 9/11 and now the war? Do you think the defense budget would be where it is with out it? All am saying that the current political and world situation 'does' helps the current administration in acomplishing their goals. ---- I WANT A REGIME CHANGE!!!!!

  310. No, they haven't. by DevNull+Ogre · · Score: 1

    They have NOT made accusations. They are holding him as a "material witness". Which, ultimately, is a legal a tool they are abusing in order to keep secret the accusations that, presumably, will be made. Technically, however, there have not been any accusations

  311. Re:Arabs come to this country for money and thats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that why you came here for? You said it.. You're not white, you're only a Turkish immigrant. You shouldn't generalize about the reasons that make people immigrate to the states. I mean, if you came to America for money and for your family to be financially supported by the US government, then you shouldn't say that about other people. People come for different reasons =P

  312. I used to think this was funny.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    http://www.theonion.com/onion3847/bill_of_rights.h tml

  313. What's the difference between.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..this and Stalin's USSR at its best? Can't see any.

  314. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Moofie · · Score: 1

    Uh, as a matter of fact, the Constitution IS the end all be all of our legal system. Otherwise, what's it for?

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  315. ok, I don't have a problem with..... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

    picking up people who are shooting at you and are not affiliated with any nation on a battle feild and lcoking them up until you figure out what to do or what have you, but they have actualy picked up a US citizen and placed him in prison with out any charges being filed.....this is bad and I think the ACLU and the Supreme COurt needs to smack ASScroft around for doing this.

    --



    I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
  316. Think before you contribute by archnerd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If PATRIOT II passes, and you contribute to his legal defense fund and then he is found to be a part of a terrorist organization, you can lose your citizenship! Scary.

  317. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    I doubt Ashcroft has "the best of intentions," unless it's "best" that he wants everyone in the U.S. to worship Christ, give up all civil liberties, and basically do whatever he says. His heart may be in the right place (he wants to do good), but what he thinks is "good" curdles my blood.

    Do you really think that is what he wants? I am asking in ernest. I am NOT a christian personally (nor muslim or jew, so i dont have a dog in this hunt ;) and I do NOT feel that he is trying to shove his religion down my throat. GW is very religious, too, but I don't really have a problem with people who are religious, any brand. Even tho I am not religious, I am not intimidated my persons who are.

    I agree that Ashcroft has a distorted view of what is the right thing to do, but i just don't see him trying to force anyone into christianity (no reference at all for that one) or to 'give up all civil liberties'. I see him trying to pare back some liberties and freedoms that are important (a bit fringe in some areas, but important none the less) and yes, that MUST stop. But I see him as simply wrong, not sinister. I don't think he is rubbing his hands about taking away freedom, he is just narrow minded on how it affects others.

    This is a pain, granted, but this does NOT make him an evil guy. It just makes him INCORRECT. I personally believe that in order to influence, you have to understand and give credit where its due. I just don't buy that he is sinister in any way, this is NOT the MO for sinister acts. Its a bit paranoid, over reactive and maybe a bit self righteous. Not I just don't see the evil, even tho I disagree with him on most everything. I do see alot of people (not you in particular) over reacting to him, calling him names, etc. Rule 1: once you start calling names, you lose. its no longer about the issues. This is part of what bugs me. Its hard to effect change if everyone on your side sounds like a paranoid nut.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  318. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    this is exactly the fud i am talking about. short little "look at me, im clever" comments that mean nothing. Just karma whoring.

    If you want to ACCUSE someone, use a name, name an event, give a source. If not, then you are just spewing the same FUD you are accusing others of. Its just words.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  319. Re:First they came for the COMMUNISTS, not Jews) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Niemoeller's quote has been mangled by pretty much everybody who has used it.

    the real, original order is:
    communists
    Social democrats
    trade unionists
    jews
    me

    (The Holocaust in American Life, by Peter Novick. p221. ISBN#0-618-08232-8)

    get it right, misquotes pervert the original intent of the speech.

  320. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

    No. I say again: no!

    Do not compare this to anything...comparison is irrelevant.

    What is relevant is that this has happened. Something has happened which is against the rules you purpose to live by. Camp x-ray violates the geneva convention. This guy has been treated in a way that pre-9/11 would have digusted you.

    The fact that 9/11 happened should not change that one iota; something like 9/11 is the price you pay for freedom. The rules should not change; changing the rules means you lose your freedom.

    All the 'must''s and 'should''s you mention are fine...but they are not in effect! And that means that what has happened is wrong. THAT is what you must protest if you even consider yourself worthy of the freedom you say you live in.

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  321. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

    I recommend you try some dry lubricant on that shift key, bucko. It's sticking for entire words and phrases. You might also want to look at the screen while you're typing, and remember to review your comments before submitting.

    And: you're not a Republican. Did the DNC fax say this is the week to claim you're a Republican and claim Ashcroft is a Nazi??

  322. I know one thing by theolein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am never ever going to visit the USA as long as these laws and that government is in place. I have no wish to go to jail.

    1. Re:I know one thing by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Funny

      Me too, im sure me and allot of other people are already criminals in the USA - personally, ive already "threatened" the president and burnt the flag, so im for the chair if i ever set foot there.

      Here are the comments that slashdot removed because i suggested that a laser gun could be used to kill bush, (you might have to take the %20's out if it wraps to a new line):

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28127&thresh ol d=-1&commentsort=1&tid=126&mode=nested&cid=3023341

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  323. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    It's worse that Saddams because we're supposed to have a process and a government that prevents this. Bush is not a military dictator, and letting him act like one is our failing as much as his.
    And I'd take issue with the idea that Ashcroft is a "good man". It would be very difficult to convince me that he honestly has democratic principles and the upholding of the Constitution (something he swore to in his oath of office, btw) at heart.


    Your first point is pure FUD. Bush is not acting like a dictator, he has the SIGNATURE of a majority of persons in the Senate and House of Representatives, even the ones who are talking trash of their own now. For you to call him a dictator demonstrates a lack of understanding about what is necessary to go to war. Also, he has NO money. If the congress didn't want the war, they could not fund it. instead they just signed off on 5 billion MORE than they were asked for. Also, 70% of the people agree with the war, with no duress. The congress can take any action they want, as can the courts. And they have. Your analogy is very flawed on that point. Instead, its just a personal attack (see my other posts on this point)

    You and he may disagree as to what is free speech and what is inciting a riot (for instance) but you don't back up your concern with a specific instance of an act by him that can be taken outside of simple disagreement. I haven't seen, and you haven't cited, an example that backup up this conclusion.

    Its ok to not like him or his policies, but to try to make him out as EVIL because you disagree doesnt hurt him but instead it hurts YOUR arguement, because it is obvious you are biased against him.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  324. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by finkployd · · Score: 1

    You are the most rational thinker I have seen on Slashdot for a long time. Please keep posting :)

    Finkployd

  325. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get off your high-horse shithead.

    Who said anything about war?

  326. EFF by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Does the EFF count as a charity affiliated with terrorists? Dimitry Skylarov was arrested and held unfairly too - he was obviously antiamerican so anyone who donated to the EFF is too and should be arrested. While they are at it, the FBI might also want to look into all those politicians who have sold weapons to terrorists or saddam or have shares in companies that have been affiliated with terrorists.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  327. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

    Okay... I'll bite.

    Our entire argument to the UN for attacking Iraq was a resounding "we know they have WMD, but unfortunately, we can't give you our evidence," and the public PR machine has been spewing a nonstop "Saddam supports terrorists and has WMD," all with zero hard proof given. Given his history, I hardly doubt that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons... but I would have rather seen a more compelling argument than a "Iraq has them... trust us." The US populace seems to disagree with me, dashing your assertion that the American people require more than FUD to take people seriously. We used FUD to start a war.

    If perhaps I've missed something, I'd be quite happily corrected, should you choose to provide links. I'd love to see the proof we had before attacking that Iraq has/had chemical/biological weapons. Thus far, the best evidence I've seen is, as one comedian put it "we know they have WMD... we have the receipts," as seen in greater detail here, indicating that we ourselves supplied WMD to Iraq.

    Don't get me wrong... I shed no tears for Saddam, and I fully support the guys stuck fighting right now. I just wish we had more to go on than "trust us."

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  328. Cant blame anyone but themselves by meatpopcicle · · Score: 1

    Whose fault is it. They needed something to be done and this bill conveniently shows up promising to cure all their woes.

    Most people dont read legal documents, why should our representatives? If that is the case then the country is going down the crapper. They should read these bills. Now that we have lost these freedomw will we ever get them back?

    Will people come and take me away in the middle of the night and hold me indefinitly on some charges that I may have done? Is this how the system supposed to work.

    Honestly I dont see the difference between our system and some other less popular ones.

    -if you dont fight for your rights someone will come and take them away.

    --
    "You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
  329. Guilty or not... by codefungus · · Score: 1

    ...I sure as shit aint gonna donate to ANY charities...I used to feel comfortable with this government...but I don't know why we have laws when they clearly don't mean anything... ...I used to like our govmnt.

    --
    -- A cat is no trade for integrity!
  330. Who else they got in that Navy brig? by psydeshow · · Score: 1

    I think this is what happened to Elvis!!!

    It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Griffin Bell locked him away as a material witness during the Carter Administration... you know, for giving money to CREEP and supporting the Watergate break-in.

  331. Many people 'Disappeared' in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are actually a lot of people who have gone
    missing in the US these days. People getting
    questioned by the INS and their families never
    hear from them again.

    This is really getting out of hand.

  332. You're an ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton's War on Drugs did at least as much damage to civil rights as Bush's War on Terror but you were too busy rooting for the "Taste's Great" guy and booing "Less Filling" to notice his hands in your pocket. Bush is the agent, people like you are the cause. The only way out of this mire is renouncing the self-satisfied dualism that has your country snake charmed and thinking like individuals again.

    1. Re:You're an ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      modpoints! modpoints! my kingdom for modpoints!

    2. Re:You're an ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clinton's War on Drugs did at least as much damage to civil rights as Bush's War on Terror

      Um, the "War on Drugs" is still going on. Today, we have the War on Drugs, AND the War on Terror... both eroding your rights away daily...

  333. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by profeti · · Score: 1
    4th para:
    The Department of Justice has required a federal court to seal Hawash's case. He has only limited access to his family and lawyer.


    I'd suspect you need to RTFA and maybe go back to reexamine recent similar situations
  334. Re:Arabs come to this country for money and thats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree. Arabs are Islamic and therefore Jihadists, though the naive Leftist geeks on /. cannot conceive that we are faced with a religious enemy. I admire Ataturks goal of a secular Turkey, and have no quibble with his methods.

  335. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by usr122122121 · · Score: 1
    well, i have only one thing to say in response to your post:

    COULD YOU PLEASE STOP YELLING IN MY EAR??? :-)

    --

    -braxton
  336. Watch it spread... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Hawash

  337. Re:Correction to (1.) by lysium · · Score: 1
    1: No torture (yet) is officially sanctioned in the US. The United States delegates its torture to nations with less strigent civil rights laws. In the present war on islam, eygpt is a popular choice, both for it's muslim base and it's savage interrogations.

    This is New Totolitarianism, after all.
    ----------

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
  338. If you find this outrageous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then contact your representative! I already did.

  339. I didn't elect this guy. by blair1q · · Score: 1

    I didn't elect this guy
    Did you elect this guy?
    You over there, did you--
    So then who elected this guy?

  340. No, not quite by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    No, the burden is on both parties to present their case, and it's judge on the "preponderence of evidence" standard (like the parent poster's 50% rule)

    "Beyond a resonable doubt" is reserved for criminal cases, and in all criminal cases there is a greater burden on the state than the defendant (defendants often attempt to prove their innocence, but the state _has_ to prove their guilt).

  341. When History Repeats..... Do We Notice? by gestapo4you · · Score: 3, Informative

    When Democracy Failed:

    The Warnings of History

    by Thom Hartmann
    March 17, 2003

    The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.

    It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)

    But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.

    Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.

    You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history, he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. This fire, he said, his voice trembling with emotion, is the beginning. He used the occasion - a sign from God, he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.

    Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.

    Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.

    To get his patriotic Decree on the Protection of People and State passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.

    Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies steppe

  342. uh huh by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    . And we'd be stuck with an algore in the White House. Remember when that survellience plane got shot down by the Chinese? Gore probably would have surrended the whole fleet to China with remorse.

    You mean as opposed to how the bush admin asked china to send them a bill for the "repair work", got one for over a million dolars, and then paid it without complaint? I'd hardly call that showing a backbone with the Chinese.

    On the other hand, we wouldn't have broken the back of NATO and the UN, we wouldn't be in a constly and pointless war, have alienated 90% of the rest of the world, etc, etc, etc.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:uh huh by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      We really wouldn't. The only reason we're at war with Iraq right now is because Bush basically pulled Reagan's old cabinet out of the closet in it's entirety. Without Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz where they are, this wouldn't have happened.

  343. Tyranical Intelligence Pays. Sweet! by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1
    2: Far fewer informants (20% of the Iraqi population is estimated to be a paid informant for a secret police agency).
    Umm, you're a little late.

    Please report to the nearest reeducation center within 24 hours. You do not need to bring anything.

    --
    Yeah, right.
  344. Re:Is there a problem? by zipwow · · Score: 1

    I see your points, its not like he's being tortured (posts saying this is as bad as Saddam are going too far), but even if the gov't "knows something we don't", I think its still the wrong thing to do.

    When I say this, I'm reading "knows something we don't" as "believes he's guilty of something". This kind of indefinite incarceration can definitely be used as harassment in order to get him to testify against someone else. This coerced testimony shouldn't be admissiable, as its entirely possible that its a lie in order to get out of jail. Coercion is like that.

    Also, I'm sure that even if they haven't said it, and even if they don't intend it, he's got to be thinking that they could do the same thing to his family. Again, strong coercion.

    If there were some kind of limitations on this, that would change everything. Like having to disclose what criminal proceeding he's being held for, or if there were a maximum amount of time he could be held. Of course, I'd say the maximum amount of time is something non life-interrupting like two days, otherwise a week in the clink is still a steep punishment for 'suspicion' without an actual trial. And, of course, all this would have to be subject to a judge's approval.

    -Zipwow

    --
    I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
  345. Re:Islam charities and USF professor caught doing by fmayhar · · Score: 1

    Well, Mike Hawash contributed to Global Relief, which before 9/11 was a charity with a good reputation. This is hardly the "same thing." Also, how do you know that Mike is Muslim? Do you have any personal knowledge? As far as I can tell, there's no mention of his religion on the "Free Mike Hawash" site.

    Finally, would you ban all Islamic charities, or just the ones of which you don't approve? I have an idea! I don't like Christian charities, let's ban them, too!

    Or are you just a troll?

  346. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would just like to comment on that as someone who left an oppressive country for a free one.

    1- Most Earth is under oppressive regimes. (3rd world countries)
    2- All of those had allegiance to US or USSR, directly or indirectly.
    3- Those who are part of any axis of evil today are oppressive regimes that were following the USSR.
    4- All other oppressive regimes are nice ones though.

    Thanks and may God really bless americans with the truth.

    Ciao

  347. y'all ain't seen nothing - rebuilding is coming by lukme · · Score: 1

    You think that this is corrupt - just wait until they start doling out the money for the rebuilding of Iraq. I think that there will be a great revelation then.

    1. Re:y'all ain't seen nothing - rebuilding is coming by fenix+down · · Score: 2, Informative

      You missed that boat. Those checks were cut before we even hit the ground over there. Who the hell put USAID in charge of that stuff anyway? Weren't they the CIA front that let them get into places by posing as aid workers? They're just not trying anymore. They put the Scientologists in charge of the oil well fires, for fuck's sake. That's just sad.

    2. Re:y'all ain't seen nothing - rebuilding is coming by Jack+Auf · · Score: 0

      What a fucking troll. Read your own damn links. Reed Slatkin is an individual and does not represent the mass or body of his religion. Nor does he control it, it's actions, or it's policies.

      It's like saying that the Protestants are trying to take over the world simply because the highest levels of the US gov't are 99% Protestant. Or the fact that the only US President in the 20th century that *wasn't* a Freemason was JFK, so the Freemasons must have some fiendish plot to control the world.

      Ok, well maybe that last one is true.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
    3. Re:y'all ain't seen nothing - rebuilding is coming by Jack+Auf · · Score: 1

      If you disagree reply, don't just mod down. /. seems to be rife with "We demand the freemod of speech, the freedom to write code, the freedom to choose. Except when it comes to religion"

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
    4. Re:y'all ain't seen nothing - rebuilding is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Scientology is a scam, not a religion.

      And yeah, I know it can be argued that there's a fine line there, but it's there anyway -- Scientology is a heap of stinking dung.

    5. Re:y'all ain't seen nothing - rebuilding is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats an insult to dung piles anywhere. Dung has use a fertalizer in fields.
      Scientology and scientologists are not that useful. They dont even biodegrade AFAIk.

  348. Being Held by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    He's being held as a material witness. As far as has been released to the press he isn't under arrest.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  349. Diasppeared by LittleLebowskiUrbanA · · Score: 1

    OK, I searched for Dunbar... Who here on Slashdot knows where the disappeared reference comes from? (Hint) Joseph H.. Seroiusly, I've been in the military 60 years after that novel was written and it still sounds earily like reality.

  350. Osama is winning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like Osama is winning. America is sliding further and further away from the ideal of being free.

  351. considering carnivore, you must be lucky. by lukme · · Score: 1

    Jose Padilla ... and possibly doing some research online about so-called "dirty bombs". Hell, I looked online for information about dirty bombs ...

    Since all carnivore could be doing is simple text matches (I think that is all it has time for), you are just plain lucky you're not a "material witness".

    Actually, kidding aside, I think all the talk about dirty bombs was just to try to plant the idea. Which would you rather clean up, a small pox infection or a dirty bomb. If you make it sound like the dirty bomb, then maybe they will forget the biological route.

  352. Re:who fucken modded that up? Check URL 1st! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're not funny... the link is ok.

  353. To compel testimony? Huh?!? by TheMidget · · Score: 1
    Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey, said detaining witnesses to compel testimony was a legitimate investigative tool.

    What's next? Applying hot irons to witnesses to compel testimony? Looks like these detentions are just a form of "slow torture", which is a very questionable action for a country which wants to be labeled as democratic.

  354. Rousseau on the Origin of Inequality by wattersa · · Score: 1

    "We would see the multitude oppressed from within as a consequence of the very precautions it had taken against what menaced it from without. We would see oppression continually increase, without the oppressed ever being able to know where it would end or what legitimate means would be left for them to stop it. We would see the rights of citizens and national liberties gradually die out, and the protests of the weak treated like seditious murmurs. We would see politics restrict the honor of defending the common cause to a mercenary portion of the people. We would see arising from this the necessity for taxes, the discouraged farmer leaving his field, even during peacetime, and leaving his plow in order to gird himself with a sword. We would see the rise of fatal and bizarre rules in the code of honor. We would see the defenders of the homeland sooner or later become its enemies, constantly holding a dagger over their fellow citizens."

    Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Discourse on the Origin of Inequality.

  355. From evidence to suspecion by rkayakr · · Score: 1

    Recently our national behavior has radically changed from action based on fact to action based on suspicion. Domestically the government now holds people incognito without charge and benefit of legal consul, based on mere suspicion. Internationally we have just attacked a nation at peace because Bush pronounced that he suspects that they may be a threat in the future. Lacking evidence for a legal UN action, Bush jumped to a unilateral, suspicion based first strike policy followed by an immediate invasion without time for citizens to react.

    This is not a small change. While experience has show that there are relatively few real criminals and real threats to our nation, there is no bound on the number of suspicions an imaginative mind can have. The check on domestic power of the courts, and the check on unbounded aggression by the consent of the governed have been declared irrelevant by Bush.

  356. Welcome to Your New Home in Cyberspace! by bafu · · Score: 1

    I wonder why the http://www.freemikehawash.org/ link listed leads (at least at the moment) to that page so familiar to anyone who has installed the Apache package in Debian. Surely it hasn't been doing that the whole time. IM, I know not many people read the article, but really...

  357. I can see it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sad thing is, no one is seeing it :(

    No, lots of people can see it. Just not enough of them are American.

    And what are us non-Americans gonna do about it? Take on the US Govt ourselves? That's kinda what this is all about anyway...

  358. I don't know about you guys, by MoOsEb0y · · Score: 1

    but I have already written my representative (Greg Walden) and explained what has happened here and explained my fears about PATRIOT II. I think if enough people took the 15 minutes they spend posting on slashdot, and wrote their representatives, it would accomplish a lot more good.

  359. Add another one...to the list. Imagine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine what your life would be like if you were removed from it for a significant period of time. Would you be able to pay the bills? Support your family? I think the U.S. went from being a sleepy somewhat lazy rule to complete fanaticism. We are now Land of the Policed and Home of the Timid. See also: LATIMES article

  360. That list by stud9920 · · Score: 1

    credit where due ?

    AND YES, SLASHDOT, SHORT COMMENT TAKE LESS THAN 20 SECONDS TO TYPE, WHICH NOT NECESSARILY MEANS THEY'RE LAME.

  361. Re:Correction to (1.) by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

    No, not a War on Islam, a war on Wahabi exremists who have already made very,very,very clear that they consider themselves at war with you, me, and every other American citizen and to a lesser extent all non-wahabis. Read "The Two Faces of Islam: Saudi Fundamentalism and Its Role in Terrorism" by Stephen Schwartz

    --
    Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
  362. I did my part by Zilfondel2 · · Score: 1

    Well, I'm from Oregon, and I just emailed Ron Wyden (democrat senator) my opinions regarding this...anyone else taking action, or just trolling about?

    It's all fine and dandy to discuss subjects with your peers, but it unfortunately doesn't make much difference until you take that argument to the people who hold the golden keys.

  363. Re:He's a terrorist by unitron · · Score: 1
    "Come on, people. He's a member of a terrorist sleeper cell."

    No, no, you misunderstood, he's sleeping in a cell.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  364. See also ... by otmar · · Score: 1
    Jack M. Balkin covers this issue in his blog as well. Includes good links.

    /ol

  365. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by radish · · Score: 1

    Interesting links - thanks. The first is certainly the most lucid, and interesting, but I have to have some suspicions of it's integrity given the heavily politicised nature of the site it's published on. Like it or not, I find it very hard to consider Isrealis impartial in this particular situation!

    As for the google news stories, they're a mixed bunch. A couple refer to another "mystery taxi driver" who told them to support the war, several others just said the shields either became disillusioned (as they realised they weren't making a difference, or were being manipulated by the Iraqi government) or plain scared (a very natural reaction!). I admit to only skim reading most of them, but on balance I'm still thinking the "we decided war is actually good" group are a pretty tiny minority.

    --

    ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

  366. Hold without charges laws being pushed in Aust. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Australian government tried to push through laws that would allow persons to be held without charges, legal representation or notification to family. Initially, this even included children (it was pushed up to age 15 or something, later). It just required the arrester to think the person _might_ know something about a terrorist act (Heard of 9-11? Yep? Great, you can be disappeared). A whole bunch of other similarly police state type things as well.
    Got kept out by the Democrats (not the same as the US Democrats BTW) and Greens, and maybe Labor. Unfortunately Little Johnny has brought it up again.
    Google for details, I can't remember them at the moment. Just be aware the future may be closer than you think. There's no guarantee of Free Speech in the Australian constitution.

  367. Dark Angel off TV for being too close 2 the truth? by Quizo69 · · Score: 1

    This may be slightly off-topic, but I have often wondered if the reason the TV show Dark Angel was axed after its second season was because it was a little too close to portraying a possible future of America as a totalitarian state at a time when the government was trying to push pro-American sentiment post 9/11. I don't mean the more scifi storylines of genetic mutations and secret organisations, but the images of Seattle after the "pulse" with police shock troops, informants, citizens being taken away for speaking out, etc.

    In classic Orwellian tradition, it is hard to show your children what a totalitarian state looks like if there is nothing to point to as an example, even if it is fictitious in nature. (Has the movie 1984 been released on DVD yet?)

    With the media already acting as a surrogate education in the Western world, I hope there continues to be provocative TV shows which challenge you to think of the consequences of today's events on the future, and not just regurgitate the government's line that "everything is OK as long as you do as we say, not as we do". Have people already forgotten the post 9/11 story of the US government openly asking Hollywood to make pro-American movies and TV shows? What other shows may have been axed on the quiet for being "anti-American" at such a time?

    Oh, and finally this point - Mike Hawash isn't an Arab-American, he's an AMERICAN.

    A citizen, like any other in that country, with equal rights under the law (supposedly). The stereotyping of African-American, Native-American, Arab-American etc has no place in a country that gives all citizens EQUALITY. As others have pointed out, it's a slippery slope from saying nothing when they come to take away the "terrorist", to when they come to take away YOU because you didn't speak out when you still had a chance to.

  368. Dark Angel axed for being too close 2 the truth? by Quizo69 · · Score: 1

    This may be slightly off-topic, but I have often wondered if the reason the TV show Dark Angel was axed after its second season was because it was a little too close to portraying a possible future of America as a totalitarian state at a time when the government was trying to push pro-American sentiment post 9/11. I don't mean the more scifi storylines of genetic mutations and secret organisations, but the images of Seattle after the "pulse" with police shock troops, informants, citizens being taken away for speaking out, etc.

    In classic Orwellian tradition, it is hard to show your children what a totalitarian state looks like if there is nothing to point to as an example, even if it is fictitious in nature. (Has the movie 1984 been released on DVD yet?)

    With the media already acting as a surrogate education in the Western world, I hope there continues to be provocative TV shows which challenge you to think of the consequences of today's events on the future, and not just regurgitate the government's line that "everything is OK as long as you do as we say, not as we do". Have people already forgotten the post 9/11 story of the US government openly asking Hollywood to make pro-American movies and TV shows? What other shows may have been axed on the quiet for being "anti-American" at such a time?

    Oh, and finally this point - Mike Hawash isn't an Arab-American, he's an AMERICAN.

    A citizen, like any other in that country, with equal rights under the law (supposedly). The stereotyping of African-American, Native-American, Arab-American etc has no place in a country that gives all citizens EQUALITY. As others have pointed out, it's a slippery slope from saying nothing when they come to take away the "terrorist", to when they come to take away YOU because you didn't speak out when you still had a chance to.

    (Reposted as new topic this time hopefully!)

  369. Re:Dark Angel axed for being too close 2 the truth by ProfanityHead · · Score: 0

    "Oh, and finally this point - Mike Hawash isn't an Arab-American, he's an AMERICAN."

    Exactly!

    Thank you!

  370. Yeah! Now lets get those terrorist NRA members! by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 1


    So lets see. Because of "Patriot" legislation, you can incarcerate an American citizen, and remove his legal rights as a citizen. And why? Because they MAY represent a threat to the safety of the average citizen (a lot of them).

    Well, it seems to me that if you own a gun, you may represent a threat to the safety of the average citizen. Guns have been used in all shootings of family members, children, and coworkers. Those gun owners have killed a lot more people each year than those 9/11 terrorists.

    Yay for John Ashcroft and the FBI for making us safe. Lets get all these terrorists off the street.

    (To the sarcasm-impaired, this is a sardonic post. But I am trying to make a point.)

    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  371. Mitnick != innocent kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Anyone familiar with the Kevin Mitnick saga will not be surprised that he hasn't been charged and has been locked away in solitary.

    WTF? Are people really this clueless about Mitnick. The guy was charged. He was a proven flight risk, so he didn't get any bail. He was also a repeat criminal. The government gave him two chances to reform and he kept commiting crimes. He got what he asked for.

    To compare him to the war on terrorism isn't fair to the suspected terrorist.

    1. Re:Mitnick != innocent kid by gestapo4you · · Score: 1

      "To compare him to the war on terrorism isn't fair to the suspected terrorist"

      Mike Hawash is NOT a "suspected terrorist", that is the whole deal!

      So far they havn't even disclosed on what grounds they have taken his life from him.

      For all we know they can have decided to round him up just because they "think" that picking people here and there will slowly make people accepting this kind of fascist crime from "the Homeland".

  372. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    but I would have rather seen a more compelling argument than a "Iraq has them... trust us." The US populace seems to disagree with me, dashing your assertion that the American people require more than FUD to take people seriously. We used FUD to start a war.

    I am not convinced that FUD was used to start a war. If they do not find any WMD, then you may be correct. At this point I would be hard pressed to agree, still too early. I DO expect that we will find them, or be asking a lot of questions otherwise.

    The MAIN justification for 'deciding' they have WMD is pretty simple but overlooked. Before 98, they said "yes, these are the WMD we have" and they have not accounted for THOSE. Its not conjecture, its based on THEIR words. They now say "we destroyed them". They may have, but they have a HUGE beauracracy that would have documentation. Since they can't produce paperwork, or wont (Abdul destroyed 15 tons of VX by pouring it in the desert at X location, on X date) we HAVE to assume they still have it. I understand that this is not the same as a photograph, but it IS compelling evidence. They ADMITTED having it, they won't say what they did with it. And yes, we did supply them, and others, with lots of armaments. Thats another story/arguement.

    We WILL see. I don't think you and I necessarily disagree. It just seems I am more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the US and less so to Saddam. Perhaps it is because I am a military vet, and son of a military vet. Vets do NOT like going to war unless there is a damn good reason. We are also at least as skeptical of our own Govt as anyone else.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  373. Re:Arabs come to this country for money and thats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I beg to differ. First of all, Arabs are not all Muslims. There is a huge number of Christians there. It seems like people like yourself are afraid of diversity. Why do we have to make every country in the world America? It's not like America is the ideal country (not by everyone's beliefs). America does not equal democracy, and the latest holding of Mike Hawash is the best example of how easily the American democracy can be violated. We should tolerate everyone's differences and shouldn't generalize. And it's not like Christians have been known to be civil. If you look at history, Christians have been extremely violent especially in the Arab world when there was no such thing called America. Furthermore, the continuous attacks on the Arab world by America for oil surely doesn't not make Arabs (including Christian Arabs)delighted about America (government and not people). America seems to get involved in wars against Arabs every 10 years, just to revive its economy and to gain further control over oil. The current war is not for Iraqi freedom...I mean Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, but America is not after them because their oil is given to the States for FREE. The same thing goes for Kuwait...

    I'm not trying to convey an image of anti-Americanism. All I'm trying to do is provide highlights from every aspect of the BIG picture so that people like yourself could have a better understanding. If everyone tries to tolerate one another, the world wouldn't have been like it is right now. On the short term, America wins. On the long run, if such acts continue, I sadly see major problems in America. Anger against America around the world, from Korea and Japan to Western Europe, will soon explode against America. And it's civilians who fall victims and not leaders! It doesn't take much for change to occur. If everyone learns to accept American Muslims into their lives and tries to understand the differences that make each and everyone unique, then America would live up to its goal, the American Dream.

  374. Re:Jail Some Irish Americans - They Fund UK Terror by sopuli · · Score: 1
    This was printed in a UK paper a year or so ago, but seems to be no longer available online.

    Interesting commentary. I googled for "IRA training bogs in Tipperary" and found lots of links.

  375. Irony is... by Oneflower · · Score: 1
    ...becoming more scared of your government than any terrorist.

    ...instead of taking American values to Iraq importing Saddam's values to the US.

  376. Confused... by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 1
    So perhaps he is somewhat willingly hanging out in solitairy. Note that he's not in general population, perhaps that is why.
    What you're suggesting is more akin to "protective custody" than solitary confinement. It seems pretty clear to me that he is no way under any kind of protective custody...
    --
    People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
  377. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK then.

    I may fuck small girls, but they are 15, and at least I don't kill them after sex, I just threaten them to keep them quiet.

    So I'm now OK, 'cos there are weird sick barstards who do 3 year olds and kill them?

    Or are BOTH of them wrong?

    Thinking now, are we?

  378. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I may fuck small girls, but they are 15

    you are an idiot. This should be modded down
  379. *Rally for Mike Hawash* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Rally for Mike Hawash" planned this Monday April 7 at 8:30 on the steps of the U.S. Courthouse.

    Check Portland Indymedia frontpage under "POLICE STATE | SOLIDARITY"

    Rally for Mike Hawash (Intel employee detained for two weeks without charge)
    http://portland.indymedia.org/

    Direct link to article

  380. US Becoming A Police State, 70% Approve Invasion by Vodka+Poet · · Score: 1

    This is what you want This is what you get (Repeat)

  381. Re:Dark Angel axed for being too close 2 the truth by mzo23 · · Score: 1

    Yes 1984 is out on dvd, we have it for sale at the local Hollywood Video.

    --
    I don't have a sig, can I borrow yours?
  382. Re:Arabs come to this country for money and thats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, I agree. Why are you so FUCKING stupid to even bring this issue up?

  383. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by stubear · · Score: 1

    Ummm, no shit sherlock. However it only defines the framework, it does not enumerate the actual legal landscape itself. In the US we have a First Amendment right to free speech. Does this mean that I can say whatever I want whenever I want to? If we adhered strictly to the US Constitution then yes, this would be true. However, as the US COnstitution is only a guide for the limits to our legal system, then no, one yould then have to rely on fedreal, state and/or local laws to enumerate the areas where the US COnstitution does not go into detail. Therefore I restaet my first comment that the US Constitution is not the end all be all (last word) in our legal system. As you have so wonderfully put it, [It merely] defines the powers available to Federal and State goverments.

  384. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And in other news, all the whiners here were dismayed when the U.S. found chemical weapons in Iraq.

    So far, the U.S. has not found any chemical weapons in Iraq. They found an old plant that may or may not have been used to manufacture chemical weapons back in the '80s. They found a bunch of white powder which turned out not to be a chemical weapon. Could you please back up your assertion that the U.S. has found chemical weapons in Iraq?

    Not that it will matter. It would not surprise me at all if Saddam had chemical weapons, and it would not change my opinion that a "preemptive strike" against another nation is just plain wrong. The President had a stronger case for attacking Iraq before he openned his big dumb mouth.

    Finally, Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, habeous corpus, due process, or other domestic issues inside the United States. Iraq has nothing to do with the apprehension of Mr. Hawash.

  385. Re:Nice title. Really objective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I think we need to acknowledge that we are fighting a new type of war

    If congress is not willing to declare war, we are not fighting a war. Terrorists threats are nothing new. There were previous terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. There was a terrorist attack on the federal building in Oklahoma. There were terrorist attacks at the Olympics in Atlanta. There were terrorist attacks during the civil rights movement. There were terrorist attacks back when the U.S. was founded.

    There's no way in hell that putting all of the "enemy combatants" (Padilla) and the "material witnesses"...through the criminal justice system will work.

    There are two million people locked up in the United States (there is no country in the world where you are more likely to be throw in jail than in the United States). If every single one of those 2,000,000 people served 100 years, the government would need to lock up 20,000 people per year to keep 2,000,000 people behind bars. The fact that no one servers a full 100 years means that we lock up a lot more than 20,000 people per year. If we were to end the ridiculous war on drugs, we could lock up 10,000 terrorists per year without devoting any more resources to our justice system. In the two years since the WTC attacks, the government has not apprehended anywhere close to 10,000 people. In short, our justice system can easily handle it. I think Bush just wants to throw 5,000 people at the justice system, all at the same time so he can use it as an excuse to appoint more judges.

    A federal grand jury comprised of citizens with Top Secret clearance would not be the easiest thing to convene, but far from impossible

    A grand jury in which the government decides who can or cannot be trusted with secret information is not a jury at all. Besides that, all grand jury proceedings are confidential anyway.

    ...and a small price to pay for helping to uphold our nation's ideas of justice.

    Our nation's ideas of justice involve the right to a public trial. We do not consider it justice when a defendent does not have the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him. And the public can not have confidence in the system if we can not see the system in action.

    The government must be liable and accountable for any damages caused by false arrests and detentions.

    This would be a good thing. We should do this today, but for some reason we don't. 25% of people charged with rape are probably innocent. From that study:

    ...the extent of factually incorrect convictions in our system must be much greater than anyone wants to believe.

    If our open system, with all kinds of safeguards to protect the innocent results in 25% of suspects being innocent, what sort of system will we have without accountability, due process, or other safeguards?

  386. Re:Speaking as a Floridan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't blame ME, I accidentally voted for BUCHANAN.

    (...stupid chads...)

  387. No by Lord_Sy · · Score: 1

    The United States of America USED TO BE a free and open society.
    Actually, your country works this way, and you still can't see it, because it works as the owners of your country intend.
    Yes, the same new owners of Irak.

    --
    --- "pero toda poesía es hostil al capitalismo"
  388. Re:no kidding by error0x100 · · Score: 1

    How the hell did this get modded down? Its COMPLETELY on-topic and relevant to the discussion. I guess some moderator has an agenda, or a stick up his

  389. Napoleonic!? by Submarine · · Score: 1

    Unless I'm greatly mistaken, the hero does *not* live in Napoleonic France, but in royalist, post-Napoleonic France, for allegedly being a supporter of Napoleon.

    As far as I know, the royalist regime following Napoleon's was a far worse one when it came to individual freedoms. The regime began by a "white terror", pursuing alleged revolutionaries and supporters of Napoleon.

  390. Re: Weapons of revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> You don't think that a few pumpguns and .44s can impress the national guard, do you?
    >> No, the next revolution will have to use other weapons than those toys for grown-ups.

    Think: nanotech

    Eventually everyone will have the ability to kill any individual, anywhere, anytime. Think about what kinds of changes our society will go through when we reach that point!

  391. Re:US Becoming A Police State, 70% Approve Invasio by valkraider · · Score: 1

    This sums it up nicely: Boondocks Comic

  392. Latest news by valkraider · · Score: 1

    The Oregonian has picked it up:

    Judge orders that detainee be questioned

  393. Better Read up on International Law by FreeUser · · Score: 1

    Bush is right now breaking international laws as he invades a country without support from the security council. That is illegal and the US has condemned such actions before when done by others.

    Um, no, thank you for playing. Time to retake that International Law 101 course.

    Iraq and the United States have been at war since 1991 (in a war authorized by the United Nations). Hostilities were suspended as the result of an armistice, NOT a treaty. Neither the United States, nor any of the other members of the coalition, were ever required to get additional permission from the UN.

    All that was required was for one side or the other to break the terms of the armistice for hostilities to be resumed, perfectly legally. Additional UN resolutions would have provided political cover, but, all political rhetoric aside, the actions in Iraq by the coalition are perfectly legal, within the tenents of international law, and require no additional UN support whatsoever.

    People keep referring to this as a "new" war, but technically, as the former war never officially ended and as Saddam's regime demonstrably DID violate the terms of the armistice on numerous occasions, this is, on paper at least, merely a resumption of the old war. All perfectly legal and legitimate, more's the pity.

    This is why (a) we should require a declaration of war from congress for these sorts of thing, and STOP CIRCUMVENTING THE CONSTITUTION simply because we feel it more convinient to do so than to adhere to the terms our founding fathers laid down, and (b) why armistices are such fragile things, and treaties a requirement before any hope of a lasting peace can be entertained. As one who opposed the war at one time (and who changed his mind and was on the fence as a result of the appalling behavior of Germany, Belgium, and France in delaying the deployment of Turkey's defense within NATO), I find this fiction of the war somehow being "illegal" to be one of the weakest of the anti-war arguments around. It simply, demonstrably, within the tenents of international law, is untrue. The war, while bad, is quite legal.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:Better Read up on International Law by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      Saddam did not one single time break the terms. The us got pissed when Iraq tossed out some of the US inspectors who was using their UN status to spy on iraq, something that the US had not demanded to be allowed to do. The US then forced the UN to withdraw ALL inspectors and they claimed that the inspectors was tossed out, a blatant lie and not some misschief from Iraq.

      They havent found any illegal weapons and not more weapons of mass destruction than in any other country. The Iraqis has also proved that they arent willing to use illegal weapons since they havent even used them onto an oppressing agressive force invading their country. A onetime mistake dont make a habit, or is the US going to use nuclear on civilians again as in ww2?

      This war is by definition illegal and the facts you lined up is lies and not proven facts. Just because the US lies the war dont in any way become legal. I saw a movie yesterday, where the terrorist said why he should blow up New Jersey with an A-bomb. I counldnt help myself but every word he said about the US sounded true in my ears. That was not the case before this war.

      The world is NOT a safer place to live in since Bush believe me. Take a look at your rights slowly being taken away while you are defending the US regime. Dont come complaining when your freedom of speech and constitutional rights is forever gone.

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    2. Re:Better Read up on International Law by FreeUser · · Score: 1

      Saddam did not one single time break the terms.

      Yes, he did. Everytime he shot a missile at a coalition plane patrolling the no-fly zones. Everytime he got caught in the past with weopons of mass destruction (throughout the mid 1990's until inspections were stopped). Everytime he, in the past, interfered with inspections.

      The legal justification and technicality were already in place, and technically those violations make a continuance of the war perfectly legal.

      The fact that weaponized chemicals may (or may not) have been found is immaterial (though of course finding such would provide political justification now lacking).

      I do not like Bush. I don't like the way he stole the election, I don't like the way his administration has accelerated the erosion of our civil rights and privacy that began with the War on Drugs, and has continued with the War on Pedophiles, now the War on Terrorism and soon the War on Piracy.

      I agree with you in disliking this war (though gratified that, once committed militarilly to the task, it has gone as well as it has), and in disliking Bush and most of what he represents.

      However, the technical facts as laid down are disputed by no informed person, on either side of the issue. Iraq has in the past been in violation of the armistice, and that makes a resumption of hostilities technically legal.

      And where the law is concerned (be it international, national, or what have you), technicalities are everything.

      The war may suck, may as Putin has said turn out to have been a political blunder, may even be unjust (though the footage I am seeing coming out of Iraq indicates otherwise ... and I do not limit myself to American, or even Western, news sources). It was not, however, in any sense illegal.

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  394. Yup. We will never know. And they will forget. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1

    He's foe happy. This system blows because you can't either leave a reason for your new 'friend' or 'foe' or one for yourself (to remember what it was for). I'm going to foe all my freaks and torture them. hahaha. ;)

  395. Re:Yup. We will never know. And they will forget. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    Just made u a friend. You said something cool on the RIAA thread.

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.