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.
I wonder where the goverment got their "Intel" from.
No seriously folks, I'm here all week
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.
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
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
You can bypass the NYTimes registration and read the article here...
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
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.
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
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. and it will be time for a commercial break on CNN.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
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
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.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
"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
"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.
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.
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/
Never never never smoke crack before geometry class!
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*
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.
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.
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.
*Some restrictions apply. Void where prohibited
I had a
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?'"---
[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!)
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!
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.
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.
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!
"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
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
" 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."
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.
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.
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..."
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"?
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.
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!
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!
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
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
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.
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
"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.
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
Start spelling better or I'll beat the crap out of you.