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.
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.
Internal security, the age-cry of the oppressor.
Hi
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
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.
It must be nice to the spokesperson for "the USA." Go home, troll.
end of line
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.
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.
"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
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.
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.
2003: s/Jews/Arabs/
Never never never smoke crack before geometry class!
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....
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?
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*
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.
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
-- F.D.Roosevelt
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
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.
Coding Blog
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.
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?'"---
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.
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!
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!!!!
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?
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
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
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.
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.
Da Blog
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.
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)
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.
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?
Wow! This must be a PERSONAL letter, just for me!
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.
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
"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...
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.
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
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-
More or less what I was going to post, but you beat me to it
I'm not terribly comfortable with the way the government is handling this, but I think we need to acknowledge that we are fighting a new type of war (with a group of violent extremists rather than a readily identifiable nation-state) and that some new rules will be necessary. There's no way in hell that putting all of the "enemy combatants" (Padilla) and the "material witnesses" (like the gentleman mentioned in this article - and I think that holding people like this as "material witnesses" is an egregious perversion of the intent of that rule) through the criminal justice system will work. My initial thoughts (and IANAL) regarding American citizens that are caught up in these situations are as follows:
The government must provide sufficient evidence to hold the suspect. If the information cannot be made public (and I absolutely believe there will be many situations where this will legitimately be the case), then there should be a special grand jury that is cleared to view the secret information and decide if the government has sufficient evidence to hold the suspect. The whole "we're the government and we think this person is bad and you'll just have to trust us" is absolutely unacceptable. A federal grand jury comprised of citizens with Top Secret clearance would not be the easiest thing to convene, but far from impossible and a small price to pay for helping to uphold our nation's ideas of justice.
The government must be liable and accountable for any damages caused by false arrests and detentions. They must publicly acknowledge the mistake and clear the person's name, and should be penalized in a manner that creates a significant disincentive for them to arrest people without being very, very sure of what they are doing.
I'm sure that people with far more legal wisdom than I possess can refine these ideas further, but they're a start.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
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!
" 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."
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...
.sig.. subscribe and your wish shall be granted.
and your
I post links to stuff here
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>
Better hope you've never donated to Greenpeace.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Francis Smit
---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.
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".
moto411.com
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
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
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!"