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.

7 of 1,115 comments (clear)

  1. 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
  2. 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/

  3. 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!)

  4. 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."
  5. 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
  6. 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!
  7. 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